User talk:Ww2censor/Archive24

Talk page • Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 • Archive 4 • Archive 5 • Archive 6 • Archive 7 • Archive 8 • Archive 9 • Archive 10 • Archive 11 • Archive 12 • Archive 13 • Archive 14 • Archive 15 • Archive 16 • Archive 17 • Archive 18 • Archive 19 • Archive 20 • Archive 21 • Archive 22 • Archive 23 • Archive 24 • Archive 25

William Brown
Hi Ww2, it was classed as Start under the Military history project so i upgraded it in that respect. the commander in chief section has no inline citations Tom B (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Need advice, please
We have 2 files at backlog in publicity images I am dubious about.
 * First one is: File:Kirk Douglas and Michael Douglas 1947.jpg. AFAIK (and I checked the news before posting this), both Douglases are still living.  The FUR states it is from the senior Douglas' book.


 * Second one is File:Michael_Dougas_48.jpg. This is also from the book and according to the article, Joel Douglas is also still living. The file has been here since last September.

I think the "living, free use" rule applies here, but would like to have your thoughts on them. Thanks, We hope (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to give an opinion on these interesting questions. These are uploads of User:Wikiwatcher1 who, in my experience, will likely fight any deletion nomination, like this nomination and this post, and for the images you mention he will no doubt add the PD-Pre1978 or on the commons with commons:Template:PD-US-not renewed. In my mind there are too many claims of pre-1978 for images scanned from books. While I agree with your assertion that "living-free use" applies, I would really like to see the books from which all those images come to verify them. You will notice that the reasoning says: "Photo likely used for publicity purposes" yet the source quoted is a book. File:Michael Dougas 48.jpg certainly fails WP:NFCC in Michael Douglas and there is no critical commentary about the image, a failing of Wikiwatcher1 that I have noticed before. Likewise File:Kirk Douglas and Michael Douglas 1947.jpg fail NFCC#8 and adds nothing to the section it is used in nor is there any commentary about the image.


 * On the same April 18 2011 page I mention above you will see how many images he asserts should be kept from just one day's deletion nominations. I will not get involved with any nominations you make though I found File:Kirk Douglas Lust for Life.JPG without any licence, so have nominated it for deletion. Let's see what he does with that one. ww2censor (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's the book at Google for the first file: Leading Men, and The Ragman's Son at Amazon for the second. Google only has snippets, but you can view the book if you have an Amazon account and sign in there.  Did that, searched on "Michael", and eventually clicked my way to the photo: Ragman's Son. When viewing them, both books are marked as copyrighted material and neither image lists a source or photographer directly on its page.  Leading Men was published in 2006, and The Ragman's Son in 1989, so neither pre-1978 nor "not renewed" can apply here. Also went to the Life magazine link.  Copies of them don't seem to be here, nor in the Kirk Douglas gallery there.  Am going to tag them for bad fair use and see what comes of that. ;)  Thanks again! We hope (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well done finding the books. Some of the other images in Kirk Douglas also come from the same books and possibly have dubious dates attached with pre-1978 licences. Remember that publication and creation dates matter, as does WP:NFCC minimal use. BTW a tag was added to File:Kirk Douglas Lust for Life.JPG not long after I tagged it. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that both of the files that were at backlog are "no longer with us". ;). File:Kazan and Kirk Douglas.jpg This one is also a headache as it's drawn from the "Ragman" book with pre-1978 license.  Have tagged it as SD.  Is it just me or does it seem like this user's uploads might need to be examined for vios? We hope (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Kirk Douglas Wall.jpg Another with the same MO. :( Tagged it similarly. We hope (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well spotted. As I mentioned my path has crossed that of Wikiwatcher1 but not everything of his/hers appears to be a problems, however, some editors who find out about the US pre-1978/no copyright renewal appears to have abused it so we see that MO appear. I found out about it through Quadell quite a long time ago but have seldom applied it to any images. Have a looks at his page User:Quadell/copyright. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

question about advert comment
Hi, I am trying to find out what can be revised in order to have the Advert box at the top of the article removed? If this is not the right forum to address this, please let me know what the correct venue is. Thanks. The Chickenz (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about David Shalleck then perhaps you should ask User:Mean as custard (he appears to be active), the editor who added the tag, if he thinks the article has improved enough to remove it. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to do that.The Chickenz (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

About MaltaPost
Hi Ww2censor! Oh, fer cripsake, I'm at a loss here. What is the right logo for this article?--Shirt58 (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The current non-free logo appears to have been replaced by a new one but it was uploaded to the commons as commons:File:MaltaPost c 4cp 30mmwidth.jpg and is up for deletion as a copyvio. I've uploaded it here with a fully completed rationale but the black name did not display properly when i tried to add it to the article. ww2censor (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, understood. It all looks fine to me. Thanks for the clarification! --Shirt58 (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Would...
Would work? I am not very good with choosing copyright. (I forgot to choose one when I uploaded it) LikeLakers2 (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry but no. The image is copyright so it is termed as non-free, therefore must comply with all 10 non-free policy guidelines which requires such images may only be used in mainspace articles but that is not where you are using it. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, what would fit for a generic shoop da whoop firing his lazor image? Because I really want to have a userbox for it like I do. LikeLakers2 (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I now see an admin has already deleted the image for the reason I mention above. You might be able to draw an image based on the one you saw but has some of the same feel. You can't just copy a copyright image. WP:NFCC is a tricky subject and we are very strict about the use of copyright images. ww2censor (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that I think about it, I'll just remove the image from the ubx. LikeLakers2 (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. I would think its my fault. No need to be sorry. It happens. When it does, you just move on in live, as if it never happened. :D LikeLakers2 (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I need help
Hey, about the image, can you explain to me how to add copyright license tag because i'm new here. Regards AL3X TH3 GR8 (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * According to Commons:COM:L, only official texts from the legislative, executive or judicial spheres of the Government and official published translations of such texts are in the public domain, so this image is copyright as are most images you find on the internet unless they are specifically noted to be freely licenced. Generally if you believe an image to be free you would need to select the appropriate copyright tag from here, here or here and then edit the image file to add the template. However, you must only use a copyright tag that you know for sure applies to your image. If you are not sure which copyright tag to use, don't add it and someone will delete the image after adding a deletion notice, a copy of which you will likely also get. You should also read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies
Your tagging/templating inadvertently started

I'm sorry I didn't notify you of this previously, I forgot to do so - I'm doing so now as a courtesy.

It's no big thing, but I should have notified you, and didn't - so please accept my apologies.

Incidentally, your very bright and scary red rules/instructions box thing appears to always hide the last comment on this page (at least using both Google Chrome(14.0.835.35) and Internet Explorer (8.0.6001.18702)) - you might want to look at that, since by definition it affects the last person to post (everyone who adds a comment)- so it's a usability issue (I can't even see this bit of my comment on your page to check it after editing )... 121.223.214.122 (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It would probably have been more helpful of me to offer a possible solution - in both Chrome and IE it seems to help position the red div away from the comments if you change margin-bottom on the enclosing div from 3.25em to 7em, and also add margin-bottom: 2em to the red div itself - although you'd probably play with those in order to give it more or less white space above and below - hope that's helpful and not too intrusive of me. 121.223.214.122 (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at it in a 1440x900 screen and as you say it does only cover part of the category bar - not the last comment, at that larger size. It doesn't do either with those 2 bottom margins I mentioned set. You can obviously easily simulate a smaller screen just by resizing your browser window down - you'll see the position of the red box alter as you reduce the width of the browser window, and the text reflows. My suggested "fix" isn't perfect either, there's probably a better way to position the thing with floats - but, (just as a funny aside), Jimbo says people shouldn't be doing things like that anyway (I disagree with him to a great degree - fixing the wiki markup and tools so that less technical people can do more things easily and neatly is the better solution, and will have to be done at some point...) Anyway, as you rightly point out - I've retired - so I'll leave you to have fun with it if you like... 121.223.214.122 (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually someone did mention this quite some time ago and I modified the settings at that time. You are only the second person to mention a problem. Yesterday I checked it out with seven different browsers. Unfortunately I can't try Chrome as my Mac OS 10.4.11 does not support it and IE for Mac display is all screwed up probably due to it no having been updated since 2005, however, none of the browsers I checked out cause the red box to impinge on any of the bottom post's text though it does sit over the Category bar at the bottom of the page. I might try some of the settings you mention but obviously if I cannot see the problem, I also will not see the solution. I presume you are the retire Begoon, but can't be sure. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's who I am :) I made those comments after using the page with a 1024x768 screen. I was using an old-ish laptop at the time... (1024x768 is still used by about 15-20% of browsers visiting the dozen or so sites I host (I collect that statistic on my servers) - but that is falling rapidly from 35-40% 2 years ago). Not everyone using a larger monitor size always uses a full screen maximised browser window, though - many people will work with several smaller windows on screen - so pages working at smaller resolutions is still important, imho.

I never took real offence at the tagging - it was just a handy event to pin my rant on, if I'm honest - and I'm sorry to the extent that you were partially the brunt of that. I'd already decided that I wasn't very happy with the environment in general. However, the comments I made in that rant, and especially the comment I quote on my User Page do pretty much sum up why I'm not currently very happy devoting my time to a site that treats both IPs and established users so badly (in different ways), particularly this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Begoon/Archive_4#You.27re_back.21|''9 times out of 10 the action is taken with good intention, and the end result of protecting the project from copyright violations is noble. The problem comes with interaction, where all concerned are generally genuinely convinced that they are doing "the best thing" for the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is good at some things, but very bad in situations where well meaning contributors differ on the best way forward.''] From your last comment I infer that you'll be happy to know that if I do decide to return it will probably be a bit sooner rather than later, due in great part to the positive reactions from yourself and another editor to the aforementioned rant. How people react is often far more important than what they initially "did". Thanks for taking the time to discuss it. 16:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)(User:Begoon) 121.223.214.122 (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting comments. I mostly use a laptop at 1280x854, the native resolution for this PowerBook, but when I change the resolution down to 1024x768 most, but not all, browsers, have the bottom line of the post covered. I also host some website and out of interest looked at some of the stats; MSIE 60-50%, not as low as yours but interesting. Mozilla compatible browsers do seem to be rising. BTW, I was late to the tagging party. I usually check the contributions of an uploader and my criteria for regular or not is 1000 edits and I have to admit I apparently did not check your to see you were indeed a very regular, in which case I usually refactor the tag with something like: "you forgot to add a source and/or copyright tag to [file name] you recently uploaded, can you please fix it." Apologies, but despite what some others complained of, the burden of proof is on the uploader to provide the correct details needed. Either way the tagging effected a correction of the problem. Good luck in the retirement; maybe you will be back. ww2censor (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - browser statistics are often different, depending on demographics for the content of the sites in question (and I daresay are very different for the wikipedia server than our own servers) - and they can prove anything one wants, can't they... :)

When you said above that you thought part of the solution might be to make image uploading "harder", my first reaction was "God, no...", because it's already confusing for many people. However, on reflection, your second description "more rigorous" is more apt - because what the true solution is, is probably to use an uploading process that insists on the correct info, but "leads the user through it" in a much more friendly way - a much better "upload wizard" if you like. Of course, that can't stop uploaders "lying" - but it can make it easier for uploaders to provide all the info they need to. It would need to insulate the user from arcane copyright and licensing terminology, and "lead them by the hand" - I don't think it would be rocket science, but it would be a reasonably large undertaking to create the wizard(s), (and first you have to conquer the WP "inertia" to get the thing going at all.) 121.223.214.122 (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are certainly problems with the project especially in relation to copyright violations of different kinds, including FOP. I have some ideas but doubt them making any real difference. Firstly it might be better to make uploading more difficult and not allow people to bypass the errors of missing details but instead point out the problems during the upload process. Of course any tightening of the process won't catch everything and no doubt would have objections. Due to the quantity of "bad" images I think templating is a necessary evil because writing posts that suit individual image problem takes so much more time, however, the existing templates could be made to sound more friendly then they do now. Some editors suggest the person finding a problem image should fix it themselves, but they forget that the uploader or a person interested in that topic is the only one who can know what the proper missing details are, especially for many non-free images. Besides which the burden of proof lies with the uploader so making the upload process more rigorous might be a better way. I do fix some image issues where I am sure I know the solution details, but I can't write a fair-use rationale for a topic I don't know or for a use I don't know anything about. Sometimes we are frustrated by the stupid reasoning that editors use to defend their bad images, especially fair-use images, so I must admit I occasionally feel like ranting too, but try to stay calm. I wrote a copyright info page, that I link to at the top of my talk page and in my edit notice, to help uploaders come to grips with most of the issues they may encounter with their image. IMHO it is as friendly as possible some people have told me they found it useful. Thanks for the constructive comments. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your copyright info page is excellent - maybe you should try to get some more "prominence" for it. It is, in a way, though, indicative of one of the problems, because there's so much to absorb there that a new editor might not be able or willing to absorb that much info just to upload a picture. You've done a great job of making it user friendly, and I can understand and appreciate everything on that page, but I can also see how the number of things to consider and understand could all seem very daunting to someone encountering it for the first time. The sheer quantity of information can be overwhelming if you've no experience in the area.


 * I agree with most all your comments but because copyright is not a easily explained topic with lots of twists and turns, so any explanation will unfortunately never be short and sweet. A revised upload wizard should be possible but it would require support from both inclusionists and deletionists to take effect though it will still require that some images are reviewed manually. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Flickr
Did you ever find out why the flickr tag ends up being automatically put on (sometimes) during the upload wizard? I uploaded about 7 files to Commons yesterday, and only one escaped a tag. I immediately took them off. Bobdatty (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I never looked into the problem. You may find it better to use the old upload page at commons:Commons:Upload instead of the wizard; there is a link at the top of wizard page. You could also post a query on the commons "Village pump" or commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard‎. BTW you could have dropped a post to my commons talk page as I usually check both daily though I am over here more. If you get an answer please let me know. ww2censor (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Frenchman'sTower1910.jpg
Thanks for moving source URL to source field for me. Next time I will know the correct way. I am new and I learned something from you.Wikfr (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'm not certain but you may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Cheers. ww2censor (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did read your copyright information page. I can see that you have your hands full.


 * I liked the nice layout. It contains boxes with borders, which is exactly what I have been trying to do.  I made a copy of a box and put in my sandbox, so I can experiment.  Thanks.Wikfr (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to copy any formatting from there. Note the NOTOC & NOEDITSECTION code at the top that you may want to be aware of. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like I learned a few more things from you today. Thanks. Wikfr (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Back needing an opinion again :)
Have just finished uploading some free use publicity photos for the television show Rhoda. The image now on the page File:Rhoda-cast.jpg is quite similar to this one: File:Rhoda photo3.JPG. They're all dressed identically in both images. The image that's in the infobox now is tagged as being self-created and CC 3.0. The one I uploaded is a PD-pre 1978 and came from CBS. I have my doubts about the current page photo and would appreciate your thoughts about it. Thanks!! We hope (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking. File:Rhoda photo3.JPG appears to be an entirely valid pre-1978 image while File:Rhoda-cast.jpg is so obviously a fabricated montage, most likely assembled by the uploader who shows no evidence of having permission for the use of the individual images. I suggest nominating File:Rhoda-cast.jpg for deletion as it has been around for 4 years. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Will do with nominating it for deletion--again, Thanks!!!! We hope (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see a previous deletion nomination in the history, so why do you say "again". ww2censor (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I meant thanks to you again! :-) We hope (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the shiny stuff! ww2censor (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Back again...
There seems to be a problem regarding a file which was deleted. Since the first upload was non-free and deleted for, it looks like this is the identical file but now uploaded and sourced as a free image by a new user. File:MicahSchweinsbergteresa.jpg. The original non-free file did have a url link as a source.

User #1 uploaded the deleted file. User #2 is a new account that seems to have re-uploaded a copy of the deleted file. No idea if this is the same user with a new account or not. Something doesn't seem right here, but I'm at an end of being able to look into it further. Thanks! We hope (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A little tricky but let me analyse it for you as i see it. It appears that Sgmusicfan11 has uploaded the same image that was previously uploaded, then deleted, under the username Musicloversb17 making him a sockpuppet. Look at the edit history of each user and you see that one follows on from the other with no overlap and editing the same article Micah Schweinsberg. I see that User talk:NS2011 might also be another sockpuppet having edited the same article back in March this year but also on 20 August. Musicloversb17 starts editing at 11:23 until 12:23, NS2011 comes in at 13:39 until 13:57, at 14:51 Musicloversb17 uploads the image and adds it to the article Micah Schweinsberg. At 4:33 on 21 August Sgmusicfan11 now starts editing until 4:59 when he edits the image changing the source and description.


 * The image itself appear to have been previously uploaded as File:Micah Schweinsberg.jpg, but not being an admin I can't look at it.. The newer image is named File:MicahSchweinsbergteresa.jpg attributed to "Teresa Schweinsberg" but the editor does not appear to be the author. A much smaller version of the same image appears on the Southern Gospel History wiki but uploaded back in 2009 and that site claims all images are owned by the site author or its contributors but I can't find the copyright statement page right now.


 * If you are concerned you should start a sockpuppet investigation because it appear Musicloversb17 started to edit using the username Sgmusicfan11 to avoid appearing to be the same editor who was warned about his image. It smells like a WP:DUCK to me. I will tag the image a having no permission. Perhaps I am being too long winded about this! Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It takes a lot of notes to make a symphony. :-) I thought you were an admin and think you'd be a good one if you wanted to go for it. Will open a sockpuppet investigation and let's see.  Thanks again!! We hope (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Being verbose is sometimes a failing of mine! I've been asked but don't want to do admin. Let me know the page you start it at. 40 cups of coffee, it's no wonder you are up. 1:48 A.M.; I must go to bed right now. ww2censor (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The more I checked, the more of a can of worms it looked like to me. Took your advice and started fresh today. We hope (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Yaeger Edit
No complaints here. I just wanted to take a moment and appreciate your edit and direction on my cont. page. Thank you. --Lameattack (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. BTW, you should remove all the links to websites that you have in the text. Such links should be in the "External links" section per WP:ELPOINTS. Links in the article text should be to other Wikipedia article instead, called wikilinks, and there should usually only be one link to other articles. Also some of the prose sounds rather advertising-like for the organisations linked to and not neutral encyclopaedic information about Kurt. Good luck in refining it. ww2censor (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

In reference to the outside links. I read somewhere it was ok if there were no wikilink to refer to. Where would that come into play? --Lameattack (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

releasing fair use images
Question for you. Am I right to believe that files such as File:Reverence_2.jpg where copyright of the statue is owned by the artist, can't also be released as CC 2.0, 2.5, or 3.0 for just the photo taken? Doesn't the artist have copyright protection on all derivative works regardless of the wishes of those who took the picture? I am coming across a lot of fair use files where the photos are being "released" because an editor took the actual picture. What is your take? Calmer  Waters  04:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You are entirely correct, however, let me point out a few issues. 3D statues or other similar work of art, and sometimes even buildings, displayed in public are governed by the freedom of panorama exception which varies by country. Check this Commons page first. In the US a more complex issue arises whereby while modern statues, not buildings which are ok in the US but not in France, i.e., post-1978 have no FOP exception, but pre-1978 may be free if there is no copyright notice on the item and the copyright was not renewed. Making a determination of when the artwork was installed should be noted in the file details. If the copyright has been checked, which you can do at the Smithsonian Art Inventories Catalog will likey apply. While the photographer may release their image under a free licence, such derivative images requires an additional licence from the copyright holder (usually the artist) otherwise it must have a fair-use rationale such as most of the remaining images here which were all originally uploaded under free licence though they don't also have a free licence for the photo now. You may also find it beneficial to read Wikipedia:WSPA/IndianaStatehouse/Photo Copyright which I contributed a fairly detailed post to deal with such an issue which happened to be for the numerous images I linked to on with the link above. Hope that answers your question fully; if not just ask. Sorry for the delay in replying. ww2censor (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. I hope that there would rarely be a reason that an urgent reply would be in order here and your helpful advice is always worth the wait. Thank you for the links, which I will be reading up on and referring back to from now on. I remember the FOP first being brought to my attention after uploading what I had thought at the time were free images of Jim Sanborn's artwork from flicker. Later, an editor who knows the artist was nice enough to educate me on this :) It is the issue of two seemingly conflicting licensees on one file that are throwing me for a loop (ie. the work of art in the photo is labeled as copyrighted, but the photo of the copyrighted artwork is released into the public domain by the photographer). Wasn't aware of the SIRIS site till now, but now that I am, I will attempt to help update some of the file descriptions, like when the artwork was installed. Off to read the provided sites/ links and sub-links. Oh, the joy of copyright laws. So interesting; yet, somewhat complex for the novice ;) Thank you again very much. Kindly Calmer   Waters  05:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

how to indicate an image is not copyrighted
File:Buffelo tn.jpg is not copyrighted. The photographer is deceased, he provided the image prior to his death. How and where do I express that on the image description page? Page name is Terry "Buffalo" Ware Jeandware (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually all photos are copyright to someone unless they have been released it under a free licence. Generally a photo is copyright to the photographer unless it is a "work for hire" in which case the person or organisation paying for the photography owns the copyright. For deceased photographers, the heirs own the copyright and possession of a photo confers no rights to the person in who possesses a photo. So how does that help you? I have added an information template tot he image and you should fill it is as fully as possible but even so it sound like you cannot verify the copyright status of the image unless the heirs release the image by sending us their permission (see WP:PERMISSION). Let me know if I can assist any further. ww2censor (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I just took the image off the page Terry "Buffalo" ware. Do I also need to delete it from Wikipedia? If so, how do I do that?Jeandware (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you don't need to do anything though you can add the template db-author (include the curly brackets) if you want it deleted quickly. It will be deleted later, some time after Sept 13 according to the notice on the image file, unless you add the requested details. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Image for deletion
Hello,

Do you want to discuss the deletion of the image uploaded by User:DavidHenrickson on my talkpage? Thanks. Metricopolus (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help. I'm very new to this, and I'm learning.  In your example, you just said "see below" for the permission.  If I'd known that I could do that, it would have been done, so obviously I was ignorant of the how, not the why, because I totally agree with the "why."  I hope that makes sense to you.  Again thanks for your help.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHenrickson (talk • contribs) 15:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Happy to help but I am confused as I don't recall giving any example that said "see below". Where was that? If it is confusing I should clarify. Was it on my image copyright information page? BTW please sign your posts. ww2censor (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No it is in the template you made for me for the picture I took in the Prospect Gorge. What I want is to give full permission.  Is it still wrong?  David  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHenrickson (talk • contribs) 18:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Assuming you are talking about File:Aug 2011Prospect Gorge.JPG, the permission field automatically inserts the words "see below" if left blank, or I sometimes fill it in but it refers to the licencing section below where the copyright tags are located. BTW, a little constructive advise; you are still not signing your posts, and you really should provide an image link so we don't have to go searching for it. I tell you how to do both of these things in the edit header at the top of this page. It just makes life easier for editors whose help you are looking for. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about the 5 tilde's? 21:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHenrickson (talk • contribs)


 * I think I've got it, it's 4 tilde's. Thank you again! DavidHenrickson (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies
Thank you for drawing my attention to the issue regarding the Sinndar article. If you look closely at the revision history, I think you'll see what happened.

I was reassessing the article for the Thoroughbred racing project, but carelessly altered the wrong template, then I tried to change it back, forgetting that you had already assessed it.

I hope that makes sense. Sorry!Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

ps Now that you have raised this, I'll check back over the "crossover" articles I've looked at in case I've done anything else similarTigerboy1966 (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, I keep an eye on the Irish article assessments at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ireland articles by quality log and noticed the banner change so went to see what had been done. We all make an occasional unintentional edits and hopefully someone else will catch them even if we don't notice. Thanks for the note. ww2censor (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of tag
Hello there, I'm not an expert in editing pages on wikipedia but I'm learning. I was wondering if there's any way you can remove the neutrality tag at the beginning of Paul Polansky's page, I added two outside citations that were needed and I think everything's OK, I hope you can help me out in clearing this. I would be much appreciative. Puregoldxxxx (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You would be better off continuing the discussion with User:Moonriddengirl, a very experienced editor, that you started on her talk page User talk:Moonriddengirl as she has a far better grasp of conflict of interest and neutral point of view issues than I. Or you could also talk to User:Mtking who pointed out the same issue on your talk page. I only tagged the images for deletion as missing vital permission. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

List of climbers etc
Hi there, sorry about the Tenzing image, I didn't know about that lists ruling, but could you please take more care in future when deleting not to remove images that are legitimate, such as the Wilfrid Noyce one. I've had to reinstate it. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Would File:Tenzing Norgay.gif that's on Tenzing's page be OK to use? Ericoides (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The Wilf Noyce image is also non-free, so that is not permitted in the list article either though the rationale does allow it to be used in a biography of the subject. ww2censor (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, further apologies. I see that although you only contacted me about the Tenzing image, the Noyce one might be illicit too. In which case I'll revert my last edit to that page so they're both gone. I wrote this before I saw your last point... I've rv it now so all's well. Ericoides (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Whilst I'm here I had a notice on my talk page re the image of Bentley Beetham. I can't understand this as I copied the rationale from the Howard Somervell image on Somervell's page and that seems to be legit. Could you clarify? Ericoides (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I refined the details for File:BBeetham.jpg a bit and removed the notice. I would add an infobox for Beetham and state that is where the image is used. I prefer to use Non-free use rationale and it has a place to state the infobox use.
 * The use of non-free images is highly regulated by WP:NFCC and WP:NFC which is why the Tenzing and Noyce images cannot just be used anywhere one likes. For instance a book cover cannot generally be used in a biography of the author only in an article about the book. It is however generally allowed to use people images in the infobox of their biograpghy but other uses require its own fully filled out rational and must meet all 10 non-free content policy guidelines of which #8 is the hardest, and most subjective, to pass without critical commentary about the image itself to show its importance for the article use. Ask me if you have other such issues as I have been dealing with image copyright problems for years now. Cheers. ww2censor (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your detailed explanation. Ericoides (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Hazara Birar (Talk) 16:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Adachi
Picture on Jeff Adachi page is owned by Luke Thomas who has relinquished rights and granted use to upload.

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by LTWine (talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If what you claim is true, then we require the copyright holder provides their permission emailed directly to the OTRS Team by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. However I even doubt Jeff is the copyright holder of that image because of the attribution watermark in the image to "Luke Thomas of FogCity Journal.com" unless Jeff supplied them with the image and even then, unless it is a "work for hire", the photographer is most likely the copyright holder. The burden of proof is unfortunately on you to provide the proof of what you claim, so please don't remove the deletion notice on the image. That is the job of the closing admin when it is reviewed. If he provides appropriate verification then all will be well. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page to familiarise yourself with such copyright issues. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Racehorses for WikiProject Ireland
Dear W

I thought I would post this here rather that the Project board as I am not a member.

I have written quite a few articles on modern Irish-trained racehorses, which could be included in WikiProject Ireland. Some are already there, but the others are Vinnie Roe, Duke of Marmalade, Footstepsinthesand, New Approach, Azamour, Rite of Passage, Fasliyev and Rumplestiltskin. They are, in my biased opinion, C and B class, so they wouldn't be a quality drag.

Should I just add the Ireland template or wait for a member of the project? Tigerboy1966 (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hatton promotions boxers
In regards to picture for Hatton Promotions boxers, I am liasing with Brian Donnellan to send you the necessary permissions. Please can you ensure that the images remain until he comes back to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakey82 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That sound like the deal. Please make sure he sends the permission to the ORTS Team by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Even if the images are deleted, so long as he mentions the image names, the OTRS member dealing with the permission will restore them when they are satisfied with the copyright verification, so don't worry. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

John Cameron of Fassiefern
Thanks for the heads up. I must have saved John Cameron of Fassifern started to edit it again and the cut and pasted it to John Cameron of Fassiefern forgetting I had already saved it. Then when I checked back I assumed the duplicate was a redirect (teaches me to look more carefully next time). It is one of those cases where both spellings are used in the sources and AFAICT the modern spelling of the place different again: Fassfern. So I have redirected John Cameron of Fassifern to John Cameron of Fassiefern - PBS (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Stuff happens!. ww2censor (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Nraxit
Due to his repeated uploads and ignored warnings, I have blocked him for 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Rory Gallagher's Stratocaster
Hello,

I have noticed that you deleted the references I supplied for the article Rory Gallagher's Stratocaster [], in regards to Joe Bonamassa playing Rory's guitar at a recent concert. You give the reason for this deletion being that social networking sites are not reliable sources, however this is the official Joe Bonamassa account I was referencing, showing photographic proof of the guitar being used. The photo's themselves cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia as they are copyrighted and not eligible for free distribution, hence why links to the page were supplied.

I would request that the references I provided be re-instated.

Thanks. 212.44.19.206 (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to understand Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources; read WP:RS. Lots of people have accounts on Twitter and Facebook but that does not make them reliable because there is no oversight on the statements made. Find a newspaper or published book source and we can use that. Ask the copyright holder of the images to release one under a freely licenced copyright, even at a lower resolution so we can use that. Get them to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

James Nesbitt filmography
Hi. Thanks for your help and support in getting James Nesbitt filmography to FL status. Bradley0110 (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Stale RfC/U draft
You have an old draft RfC/U in your userspace. Can it be deleted? --Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ ww2censor (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

BAMMA 8 Poster
You may as well have the image deleted, it has not come out the way I'd like it to, as it is way too large for the BAMMA 8 Wikipedia page, and I'm even though there is no copyright to disallow Wikipedia from using any BAMMA related poster use on here, I find that it would be better for someone else to do it, as they will know how to modify the size of the image, gain the right to use it if it is copyrighted etc. My apologies for any confliction this may have caused (BigzMMA 19:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

User Papaursa
Do you think Papaursa should be reported to the ANI? He clearly shows no interest in working along side fellow Wikiepidians, refusing to listen to any open suggestions, clearly this user values his own opinion over to those who have fresh ideas from what he says. I was offering some very useful suggestions at the WP:MMANOT's discussion page, as with the criteria as it is right now only whatever is considered a 'top tier' promotion is safe, whereas any other promotion, such as BAMMA and EliteXC are put on shaky grounds. He refuses to even acknowledge what I'm saying, going as far as saying that it is me who isn't open for suggestion. Now I've always had the best interests of all pages on Wikipedia, and I am a team player so I cannot see how he came up with that theory, just because I questions the criteria on WP:MMANOT, a page I should point out that HE created. I noticed that many of the users who offer suggestions always ask him, as if he owns the page, which is a direct violation of WP:OWN. No-one should have to ask for permission from him to edit the page, especially as it seems that he is the one with the final say everytime. Here is the last comment he put on that page -

'Actually, the reason I haven't bothered to respond to all your statements is because it would be a waste of my time. It's clear you have a viewpoint (which you repeat/repost over and over) and that no facts will dissuade you from your beliefs. Since you've made it clear you value no opinions but your own, why should I bother? Answer--I shouldn't.'

Now again it is like I said I've never had a problem with taking in other people's opinions, so this is insulting for me to read. I will, however, try to reason with a bit, if he refuses to listen and take in what I say, I may go a head and report him to ANI. (BigzMMA 10:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)


 * Sorry but I am not getting in the middle of a content dispute on a topic I have no knowledge of. If you feel you have little consensus with other editors on article you have an interest in, ANI may be the best way to go. ww2censor (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the input, I have written this message for neutral users so I can get the best output on the situation, what I planned to do now is wait to see if he responds to my latest message and if he continues to ignore me or disregard my input then I will take this up with ANI, thanks again. BigzMMA 09:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

Mail
The etymology section goes to some length to explain where the term "mail" originated, but doesn't explain where "post" comes from. Or did I overlook it in a different section. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No but you referred to something rather different. For starters you could try #3 instead of #2 or the second defintion on this page. ww2censor (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "#3 instead of #2"... in which the EO author himself refers back to #2. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Fenit
Sorry, just saw the message you left about Fenit, should have left a reference source, it was because I lived in the village that I suggested the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Culloty82 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You can still add a reliable source. ww2censor (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In the Tralee Dynamos page, I have added relevant information to the topic from the print version of a newspaper, but the online edition doesn't contain the article, so how can I verify the reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Culloty82 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You can use the citation template cite news filling in all the appropriate fields. By clicking on the template link you can see the full template with instructions. BTW, please sign your post by adding four tildes, like this: ~ ww2censor (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Katsanevas.jpg
Hello! You have marked this image for deletion. I e-mailed the person for which I created the page (Professor Katsanevas) and he gave me a new photo for which he has the copyright. I added in the edit section PD-self Provided by Stavros Katsanevas. Is this correct? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inocinnamon83 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 13 December 2011‎


 * Unfortunatly this is not a good licence for the image because by using PD-self you are claiming the image was made by you and that you are providing a free licence for it but hat is false. What you need to do is get the copyright holder email us their permission directly by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. If he confirms the licence then the image can be kept but the image he provided looks like a professional portrait so he might not own the copyright himself; it may actually be owned by the photographer. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Hideki-Konno-007.jpg
Hi there, I have changed the description and copyright. I understand that Google is public and you are allowed to use the images freely. If something is still wrong with it, please let me know if it has to be deleted and I won't mind. Thanks   Matthew   Talk   19:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately Matthew you are completely misinformed. While you can use Google to search for images, that in no way means any of those images found are in the public domain or are under an acceptable free licence and therefore they are useable on Wikipedia. In fact if you do a Google image search and choose the image you did, like this one of Hideki Konno, on the right side you will clearly see that it states: Images may be subject to copyright. We only accept image that are specifically verified as being freely licenced. The vast majority of images found on the internet are copyright to someone, especially those used by newspapers are from their own staff and/or from photo agencies who are extremely protective of their copyright images. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page that explains many of the image copyright issued you will find when using images uploaded here. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-constructive edit
I don't remember making that edit at all, as I'm not awake at 5 in the morning. Sorry for any inconvenience. TrebleSeven (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Little Arthur Duncan
Many thanks for putting this article forward for DYK. I particularly liked the 'hook'. Cheers, Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. I usually do it for my own creations or for other new ones I happen upon like this one. So, are blues musicians one of your interests? They interest me too though I have not done any work on them here as I have few sources available. It surprises me there is no Blues WikiProject or at least a Blues task force of the WikiProject Music. If there was enough interest one could start it. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, blues musicians are a constant source of interest for me - not least because there is often quite a story behind their lives. Over my time here (almost six years) I must say that I have not really encountered anyone seriously and regularly contributing towards their articles. I therefore think a 'task force' is a non-starter. I sort of plough on alone, happy in my own little world.  Actually, although I reckon I must have created almost 200 new Wiki articles on blues men and women, it is something that only dates back about two years.  More info on my user page if you are interested - the 'Reds or blues' section is work ongoing. To be honest, and as you can see, I find most sources/references online.  Regards,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed and approved your article for DYK. I was puzzled by the use of "Little" in the title of an article that appears to be about someone named "Arthur Duncan". If "Little Arthur Duncan" was the performing name he used, perhaps you could mention that fact in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well his given name was Arthur Duncan, but he was commonly known and billed as Little Arthur Duncan - as the references show. Quite why he was so prefixed, the references do not make clear.  Presumably his size - although that is my conjecture, not something I specifically found in 'researching' the article.  The prefixing of 'Little' or 'Big' to blues musicians is quite common - Big Joe Turner, Big Maceo Merriweather, Little Sonny Jones, Little Buddy Doyle, Little Brother Montgomery, Little Willie Littlefield, Little Walter, et al.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps some general comment about the use of such prefix for many blues singers would be enough. ww2censor (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Extra wording duly added. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, ww2censor, for your assistance through to the main page. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Albany parks pictures
I am confused as to why the pictures you mention are up for deletion. apparently I am missing something and I am not too sure what I need to get. I also am wondering why only those 3 pictures are looked at for deletion and not the others. MathewDill (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I was not clear enough. I said the three local files were obviously not federal works, so I put them up for deletion immediately. The commons images, which I did look at, do not appear to be federal works either but because they were moved from here to the commons by a bot and there are no actual sources given they require more investigation before deletion nomination. I don't just do drive by deletion nominations without looking more closely and I don't have time to do that until maybe this evening. You are of course welcome to do it yourself over on the commons if you wish as I have explained the problem and, as I stated, they all look suspect to me. You might also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Another editor has nominated the balance of the images on the commons. Perhaps when you uploaded them here you were not familiar with the complexities surrounding image copyright and thought that city administrations fell under the same rules as federal works. Thanks for bringing this to our notice. If you live there maybe you will get time to go out and take some photos to enhance the article. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is far more complex then I would have imagined and I make the inaccurate assumtion it was within the same scope as federal. I do Live in the area and I guess I will need to go take some pictures as to replace the once that will be deleted. Thank you for not just blowing me off about it and giving me a bit of clarification about the issue. MathewDill (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't blow off cooperative editors, just destructive ones who don't want to learn as we all had to do at some time. Indeed copyright is a complex topic and basically the majority of images found on the internet are copyright to someone and those that are free need to be verified as being freely licenced. Hopefully you found my image copyright information page helpful. There is a link on that page to Quadell's US copyrights that you will also find useful for a better understanding of the topic. Good luck with getting some local photos but upload them to the commons and they will be available to all the language wikis. Just ask if you have any other related questions. ww2censor (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)