Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 June 25



File:DhakaSkyline.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * File:DhakaSkyline.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Uploader clearly has no understanding of copyright; I have deleted nearly 30 uploads which were similarly tagged PD incorrectly. The source here is wikitravel, which ultimately points to an empty image description page over there. I'm not familiar with the image policies over there, but it doesn't seem to add up to a credible claim of public domain. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Also appears at http://www.behance.net/gallery/Dhaka-City-HDR-Photographs/133053 which appears to be from 2008 so seems to be a copyvio on Wikitravel. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Beyonce in Serbia.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete, agency photo - fails NFCC#2. Deleted by
 * File:Beyonce in Serbia.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Photo by Frank Micelotta/Invision for Parkwood Entertainment/AP Images - In Metadata - So this is an 'agency' image? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Achaseptriasa5.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as F9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  17:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Achaseptriasa5.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Claimed source is uploader's brother, but quick Google Image search shows that this image is widely published with copyright notices, e.g. here. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and burn with fire. This was likely taken by the same photographer at the same event. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Tommy Sugiarto.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Tommy Sugiarto.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Uploader has tons of copyvios, and this looks exactly like many which I have already found and deleted. This appears to be a crop of another image but I cannot find an original source. It's almost certainly not the uploader's own work. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:City-of-Gilroy-seal.svg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as F8 by AnomieBOT ⚡  17:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * File:City-of-Gilroy-seal.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Govt seal? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a government seal. It's an original work of art.  If you overlay this image on the original, assuming you could even find one, you'll find that they don't coincide.  You didn't read my comments in the image talk page where I explain how this image came about, did you, Sfan00 IMG? — QuicksilverT @ 19:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Noted, but surely your reconstruction would be a derivative work? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is based on a photo that is on Commons, released under the Creative Commons license, which permits adaptations. — QuicksilverT @ 21:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If it not the official seal there is no reason for it to be in the Wikipedia article, and should be replaced. You say that "This is an image of the Seal of the City of Gilroy, California". If it is a copy of the seal, no matter how reproduced, it is copyright. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Replaced by what? There is no "official" seal available anywhere, as far as I can determine, after searching the Web for close to two years. There are thousands of original graphics contributions in Wikipedia and in Commons showing flags, coats of arms, insignia, seals, etc. that one might argue aren't the "real thing", because of slight differences in color or geometry and errors introduced by the contributors, and should therefore be replaced.  According to your argument, the Seal of California, used in the California article, shouldn't be there: Even a casual inspection will reveal more than a dozen differences and errors from the "official" seal, therefore, it is not the official seal, even though the title of the image is "File:Seal of California.svg".  My images isn't "reproduced", any more than an artist might set up an easel and paint a landscape, adding his own impressions and interpretation, except that instead of an easel, paintbrushes and tubes of paint, I used a computer.  The photo on which my SVG image is based was taken in a public space in a public building. You claim that it is under copyright; where is your evidence of such? — QuicksilverT @ 21:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Seal of California you mention is claimed to be in the public domain due to its age. I have found an official version of the seal from their website. Should I therefore replace your incorrect version by a copy of that? Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Move to commons derivative of a Commons Image, found here File:Gilroy, California City Seal in Council Chamber 2013-06-06.jpg -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Quicksilver, the first order of business is to show the copyright status of the seal image itself. The SVG version is not an original piece of art. It is a slavish copy of the seal image... just as the Commons photo is a direct photo of the seal image. Do you have any knowledge of the age of the seal image? If it was first drawn before 1923 it would be in the public domain. – JBarta (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The SVG file contains a lot of computer code and is therefore copyrightable as a literary work. The contributions by are probably not copyrightable as an artistic work, but due to the literary aspects, we need the GFDL and CC licences, although the PNG "thumbnails" generated by Mediawiki should be PD. The seal itself is PD-CAGov. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It does look like PD-CAGov applies as it covers local governments as well. As far as the "literary work" aspect, I suppose one might claim copyright on the textual markup of the file itself. But the second that SVG file is rendered into an image, it is subject to image copyright considerations. – JBarta (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as long as we are distributing the SVG source code, we need the GFDL and CC licences. They are unneeded if you only distribute a rendered copy, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat confused. Can you point to an SVG image on our servers that is of a non-free copyrighted image yet is also licensed as a literary work as you suggest? Or even a PD image that is also licensed as a literary work. I realize that might be a needle-in-haystack proposition, so I'll understand if you can't readily point to anything. – JBarta (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * When someone uploads a non-free image, the uploader often forgets to add a free licence for his own contributions, so I'm not aware of any non-free logos with a licence for the SVG rendering. However, there have been a few cases at Commons (probably at Commons:COM:VPC and/or Commons:COM:VP) where people have suggested replacing a free licence with a PD-textlogo licence for certain logos but where people have protested due to the SVG source code being a literary work. If you use the SVG source code (as is the case if you for example click on the image on the file information page), then you need the free licences. If you only use a rendered PNG copy (as is the case when a PNG file is used in Wikipedia articles), then the free licences can be ignored. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:B&ML Station, Brooks, ME.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Diannaa (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * File:B& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Recently uploaded image. Appears in at least two other places on the internet with no copyright release (links on image talk page). EXIF data of web images shows no owner, EXIF data of WP image has been edited to show an owner. There is no way (besides OTRS or a change in the web page) that we can ensure that the uploader is the image owner. I did add a speedy, but it has been removed by others, therefore coming to PUF. When this image moves to commons, it will not last a day.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 23:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. In light of the uploader's other contributions here and to Commons (see Special:Contributions/Centpacrr and commons:Special:Contributions/Centpacrr), I am inclined to believe his claim to have taken the photograph in question. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My experience with this uploader causes me to question any of his assertions. Truthfulness is not one of his strong points. I suspect that some (many?) of his uploads attributed to his "Cooper Collection" are little more than media he has pilfered from the internet over the years. And I'd imagine, some of his uploads are genuinely his own work. Absent compelling proof, distinguishing between the two can be difficult. Regarding this image in particular, there is no compelling proof that the image was not taken by him, just as there is no compelling proof that it was. So where does that leave us? In my opinion we keep the image. Not because I believe Centpacrr, but because there's no convincing proof it's not his image... and other issues aside, he is a dedicated contributor overall. – JBarta (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * ==>*NOTE RE JBARTA'S UNSUPPORTED FALSE CHARGES ABOVE: As I noted over a day ago in my comment below, the unsupported and indeed libelous claim made above by the user JBarta while he/she commented on an image of mine in which this user has no direct interest that "I suspect that some (many?) of his uploads attributed to his "Cooper Collection" are little more than media he has pilfered from the internet over the years." is completely false and I counseled him/her to immediately withdraw it. As I suspected would be the case, however, when called upon to "put up or shut up", this anonymous user has failed to do so and instead remained completely silent.


 * ==>*As I stated below, I have never uploaded an image to WP that I have "pilfered from the internet" or from anywhere else and then falsely represented as my own. As I noted below, I have been building my collections of historical materials (the "Cooper Collections") for well more than half a century (since 1957 when I was 12), and during the over the almost seven years that I have been contributing to WP I have voluntarily chosen to share a great many images of materials from my Collections by uploading them to the Wikipedia Project to help illustrate it. These contributions consist of images that I have digitized (scanned or digitally photographed) of documents, engravings, lithographs, paintings, photographs, documents, maps, artifacts, and other items in my Collections.


 * ==>*It is hardly a "profile in courage", JBarta, to charge a fellow volunteer contributor of "pilfering" images from the internet and uploading them to WP as his or her own, and then when you are called upon to support and prove your reckless claim to instead run away and hide behind a veil of anonymity. All of the images I have uploaded to WP that others have not already moved to Commons can all be viewed here. If, JBarta, you think you can produce any evidence (remember your unsupported "speculations" don't count as that) that any of these images have been "pilfered" by me from the internet or elsewhere then it is incumbent on you to present that "evidence" here so that I can refute it. If you don't and/or instead remain silent, however, then you owe it to both the WP community and to me personally as the contributor that you have falsely accused to promptly withdraw your charges and apologize. Your continued silence in this matter, however, is not an acceptable option. Centpacrr (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, while you're on the subject of defending your good name, I was wondering if you might explain this image (larger version here) where you claim it's a photo of you with Gordie and Mark Howe, yet it seems to be little more than a poorly doctored image inserting Gordie Howe into the picture. Would you call that a doctored photo and what is the source of the Gordie Howe image? – JBarta (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I trust that this is not really intended to be your best attempt to "substantiate" your unsupported speculation about the origins of the images I contribute to Wikipedia. It in no way does so. This only image you have now specifically "questioned" (which is used only as part of a triptych on my userpage and nowhere in the WP "main space") is a composite of three sequential pictures (such as this one for example) taken with an iPhone of Gordie, Mark and myself within a period of no more than 30 seconds of each other in the pressbox at the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia between the second and third periods of a home game of the Philadelphia Flyers with the New Jersey Devils on Thursday, April 18, 2013, a game on which I was also working on the MSG Network telecast. Because of both very poor lighting and the inexperience of the person taking the pictures for me of the three of us, however, none of the original images turned out to be usable and thus it required a great deal of digital work on my part to composite them in order to make a single usable (although far from perfect) image. The resulting final userpage image does, however, accurately depict me standing with Gordie (sitting) and Mark Howe (standing) at the Wells Fargo Center that night which is its sole purpose.


 * Both Gordie and Mark have been close personal friends of mine for almost thirty years. In fact after Gordie's wife Colleen passed away a few years ago, Mark hired me to restore about 130 family photographs from a collection of more then 800 faded Kodachrome slides going back to the 1950s he found among Colleen's effects. Mark scanned them and provided me the resulting digital files so that I could restore those he selected from among them for him to then use to create digitally printed photo albums for himself, his sister and two brothers, and Gordie, a project which I was honored to do for Mark and the Howe family. I know Gordie and Mark so well because I have worked in professional hockey for over forty years. Because I choose (unlike yourself and others) to not be an "anonymous" contributor to WP, you would have known my hockey background simply by looking at the hockey section of my user page here where I fully disclose it as both an aid and a courtesy to help both WP's contributors and its readers to judge any of my contributions to the project in that area. (I similarly disclose my background in railroad history and other areas in which I contribute to the project in my userpage for the same reason.)


 * As with all of my other contributions to WP, this image was not pilfered from anyone or from anywhere on the internet or elsewhere (which is what you have charged me with), but is only a digitally modified file made by me from original sequentially taken images that I own in order to produce a single useable image file for my userpage. The charge you have made is that the "uploads attributed to his "Cooper Collection" are little more than media he has pilfered from the internet" and that speculative claim of yours remains completely unsubstantiated. This image is neither identified as being from the "Cooper Collections" nor is it "pilfered" from anyone else. Thus you have yet to provide a single example of an image which you claim has been "pilfered", only your unsupported personal "speculation". Centpacrr (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Are there any other photos you've uploaded that are similarly doctored or less than what's represented? Or did I just happen to light on the only one? Rather than have me go through your stuff and make guesses that you would simply refute, it would be much easier if you simply came clean with any slightly less than truthful uploads. Only you know for sure what is as advertised and what is deceptive. That goes for similarly doctored photos or uploads from your "Cooper Collection" that might have been lifted from other internet sources. My suspicions are based on your pattern of being less than truthful in a myriad of ways. You can't run around being less than forthright and deceptive here and there, then get all pissy when people doubt what you claim. – JBarta (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, JBarta, it just doesn't work that way. This claim of "pilfering" was made by you, is "based" solely on your own personal speculation, and it is you and only you who has made this still totally unsupported charge. So far you are "0 for 2" in this go round. You can't weasel out of it by saying that it is I who now should "prosecute" myself because you can't come up with any evidence. The burden of proof when you make a charge like this is on you and you alone. So either meet it or apologize. The "ball" here is completely in your court, not mine or that of anybody else, just you. (And by the way are still claiming to be "an enforcer and occasional assassin for a well known crime syndicate" in order to try to drive me away from contributing to WP? If not, then why not fess up and let that bit of hyperbole go by the wayside. If you are, however, what are you doing in WP? Just wondering.) Centpacrr (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This apology thing has me curious. What precisely would you have me say in the way of an apology? Please give the exact wording of what you would find acceptable. – JBarta (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "I apologize for speculating and publicly accusing Centpacrr of uploading files to WP attributed to his "Cooper Collection" that I claimed were "little more than media pilfered from the internet" as I have no evidence that this is true" would be a perfectly acceptable apology to me. I would also appreciate if you would directly address the previous claim you made to me on my talk page on February 24, 2012 that you are a former crime syndicate enforcer and occasional assassin as being either true or false. Centpacrr (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What about changing my statement to this: I suspect that some of Centpacrr's uploads attributed to his "Cooper Collection" may be little more than media he has pilfered from the internet over the years, though I can't offer any conclusive proof of it. That allows me the suspicion, but adds that I can't prove it... which seems to be mostly what you're looking for. Is that fair enough? – JBarta (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No not really as this still leaves hanging in a public forum a blanket accusation -- which you now admit that you have no evidence to support beyond your personal speculation -- directed at me the constructive result of which is to denigrate and cast oprobrium on another WP contributor. Anyone is, of course, perfectly free to have his or her own personal negative suspicions, speculations, feelings, hunches, guesses, suppositions, etc (I have plenty myself) as to the practices, motives, "mental health", competence, personality traits and the like about their fellow volunteer contributors in WP which they keep to themselves. But publishing -- especially from behind a veil of anonymity -- them without providing reliable and verifiable proof (or even mere evidence) in support thereof is completely inappropriate. Doing this in the "real world" where you have to identify yourself and thus take personal responsibility for your actions is called slander and/or libel. If you or anyone else in WP (i.e. the "non-real world" of mostly anonymous actors) feels that they have a legitimate complaint again another user, WP has policies and plenty of administrative mechanisms to deal with that that provide both sides the ability to make their case and be judged by and with the consensus of the Community. But simply publicly spewing out such unsupported "suspicions" without offering even a shred of evidence or a the ability for them to be refuted is a clear violation of WP:AGF at the very least. I'm sure you would not appreciate being on the receiving end of such casually delivered unsupported accusations as I or any other target of them would be.
 * You have asked what would be an acceptable apology to me and I have provided that to you above, and your posting it exactly as written would close that issue for me. As stated above I also need you to directly address the previous claim you made to me on my talk page on February 24, 2012 which I interpreted (and still do) as attempt to intimidate me and drive me from WP that you are a "former crime syndicate enforcer and occasional assassin" as being either true or false so that I will know how interact with you in the future. This is something that really can't be left treated with silence. If it's true then it's true, if not it's not, but since you have made this remarkable claim on WP in writing, you owe it to the Community in general and me in particular (as you posted it on my talk page) to say whether it is true or false. Centpacrr (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Centpacrr, I'm afraid you're just going to have to live with my suspicions. I'm welcome to have them and voice them just as you're welcome to refute them. It's interesting that you view this situation as my shortcoming. That somehow I just picked you out of the blue to question your uploads and for no particular reason. That you're just unlucky that way. To that I say this is your own doing. When you play loose with the truth you leave a trail of others who doubt you. I've found in life that the most duplicitous people are the ones who react the most vociferously when their honesty is challenged. Maybe I'm wrong about your uploads. If I am, out of graciousness I'll apologize for the insult. By the same token, if I'm not wrong, I don't apologize. Only you know for sure which to choose. – JBarta (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The point here, JBarta, that you keep ignoring is that you have openly accused me in here of "pilfering" images from the internet that I did not own and posting them on WP as if I did. When I challenged you to provide a single example of this, you completely failed to do so and when pressed eventually admitted that you have no proof (or even evidence) that I have ever done such but instead conceded that your claim is based on nothing more than your own unsupported personal speculation. When you accuse someone of pilfering images -- especially from behind a veil of anonymity -- the burden of proof, sir or madam, is on you, not the "accused" even though that's what you keep trying to make it (i.e. "guilty until proven innocent"). I have explained in great detail where the images I post come from and provided you with a link to all of them so you can't claim that I am hiding what I have contributed from you. I also find it curious that you say above that you feel free to publicly voice your "suspicions" and that when you do I am free to refute them, but then add that if I do so "vociferously" I that proves that I am being "duplicitous". What kind of twisted logic is that?


 * You (or anyone) can have all the "suspicions" you want in private and I couldn't care less as that is your business. But when you make them public -- and then when challenged to support those claims admit you have absolutely nothing to back up your charges -- that both flies directly in the face of the collegiality you continually espouse in here as well as being an egregious violation of WP:AGF. Even though your "apology" here is at best "conditional", your admission that you can't provide evidence of a single example that I have ever "pilfered" any image from the internet or anywhere else and posted it on WP I consider to be complete vindication of my position that I have never done so. The only new images I post on WP are those that I have created myself or otherwise own the copyright, those that I chose to share from historic materials (usually Public Domain) in my own Collections, or far less often post from other sources (usually either PD or "non free") the origin of which I have clearly identified as not being mine.


 * That being said, I note as well that after my asking you directly several times now to address the previous claim you made to me on my talk page on February 24, 2012 that you are a "former crime syndicate enforcer and occasional assassin" which I interpreted (and still do) as an overt attempt to intimidate me and drive me away from WP, you have again failed to do so and have instead once more completely ignored this issue. This silence speaks volumes to me and frankly provides me with a great deal to be suspicious of you about, but unlike some others in here I will keep those suspicions to myself and instead leave your repeated silence in this matter to "speak for itself". Centpacrr (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll tell you this... if I am in the Witness Protection Program and I end up getting whacked, it will probably be because of YOU blabbing it all over Wikipedia! – JBarta (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one who posted that claim on WP, JBarta, that was you. I am certainly not trying to put you or anyone else in danger, but if you feel your participation in WP in any way jeopardizes you then maybe it would be wisest for you to find a safer, less public hobby. Centpacrr (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, everything was fine and dandy until YOU kept pressing me for personal information. When I finally relented and told you something in confidence, YOU started blabbing it all over Wikipedia. Four or five times on this page alone, probably 20 times thoughout Wikipedia! When I shared that with you, did I say it was Ok to repeat it all over the place? No. Did I expect you to repeat it all over the place? No. You're like a human bullhorn I tell you. I'm feeling quite put out. Personally, I think now you owe me an apology. – JBarta (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly if true I think this would be a foolish thing to publicly disclose in here or anywhere else. However the way you stated this claim (which I still don't know if it is true or not and I guess I never will) I perceived it not as a "confidential disclosure" about your identity or background, but as an attempt to intimidate and discourage me from continuing to contribute to the WP graphics lab. (Your posting also does not indicate anywhere that this was "confidential" information.) Curiously your friend Nagualdesign later opined that he thought this claim to be an hilarious send up and rollicking satire. I therefore don't see any point in my ever bringing it up again so I won't. In return, however, I would ask you to be less confrontational and hyper judgmental with me and in future keep your personal "suspicions" about me and others to yourself as opposed to posting them all over various public threads.

I am also truly puzzled by your view stated above that while you believe that you should be free to publicly voice your personal "suspicions" about me and other WP volunteer contributors even when you admit that you have no evidence to support them, but then if I (or any others) seek to refute them you will accuse me of engaging in "ceaseless argument" and, if I defend myself too "vociferously", claim that proves that I am being "duplicitous". I truly don't know how to deal with that sort of "logic" so maybe the best course of action would be for you to just ignore me, stop second guessing (and often reverting) my contributions to the project because they are not done exactly the way you would have done them, and just let me and anyone else you disagree with go their own way.

As I have said many times before, there are always more than one acceptable way to "improve", "fix" or otherwise adjust image files for use on WP, not just your preferred way. My main issue with your approach is that you seem to believe that in all instances you "know best" and thus are entitled to be the self appointed sole "final arbiter" of the work of every other graphic lab contributor and that's just not the way WP is supposed to work. In short the project has no "Editor-in-Chief".

There is no reason why we can't all peacefully co-exist in here, but it will be much easier if you avoid attempting to constantly micromanage how I and others contribute to the project. At least for me, you will find that I will not be intimidated by this and instead will always stand up for myself and state my position and reasons therefore in detail when I feel that I have been inappropriately "poked" or challenged to do so whether or not you "reject" this to be "endless argument". Centpacrr (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You didn't know it was confidential information? When someone tells you they are in the Witness Protection Program do you really need someone to tell you not to blab it all over the place? – JBarta (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * First I didn't know whether or not I was actually expected to believe such a statement (I didn't) because I did not think (and still don't) that anyone would ever so casually publicly disclose such information under any circumstances on the internet in general and in a WP thread in paricular. And secondly, as I have said before I interpreted this instead as far more likely (and still do) to be an attempt to intimidate me and drive me away from contributing to the graphics lab. However as it is clear to me now that I will never know whether or not it is true or false (and I don't think now that I really want to know either), I no longer see any point for me to ever raise this issue again and so I won't. I would also ask you, however, to also avoid putting me or any other WP contributor in such an awkward and uncomfortable position again and avoid posting anything in here that you consider to be "confidential information". Like your "suspicions" and "speculations", this type of thing does not belong here and should always remain private. As we have all learned from the recent public disclosures about the ongoing virtually universal government collection of electronically communicated information, the internet is probably the last place in the world anyone should ever post any type of confidential information irrespective of whether it is true or false. Centpacrr (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So why have you posted links to the statement all over Wikipedia trying to get anyone and everyone to see it? – JBarta (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * See the earlier discussion above. I have wanted and been seeking a clarification of this remarkable posting you made on my talk which has troubled me ever since it was made on February 24, 2012 because I had interpreted it as being posted as an attempt to intimidate me. Now that I see that I am not going to get such beyond what you have said above, I have decided that now not to pursue it any further and let it remain an uncertainty while also asking you to not put me other other users in the position again by making similar "confidential" postings in WP threads. Centpacrr (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So over the last year or so, you have brought up that statement, linked to it in bold lettering over and over and over in numerous discussions mentioning it to anyone who might listen.... simply because you were looking for clarification? That's your story? – JBarta (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This thread is now becoming circular. See the discussion above and the contexts in which the other citations were made. I felt that I had been threatened and that's not why I became a contributor to WP. Centpacrr (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you're full of it. I think at first you honestly didn't know what to make of the statement. But then pretty quickly you started pointing to it in a lame attempt to make me look bad. Something along the lines of Hey, look here what this guy said everybody... can you believe he'd make such an outlandish statement? Then, when nobody took the bait, you started wailing about how I was trying to intimidate you. Still no one took the bait other than another editor pointing out that it was rather amusing. Still... you were determined to make some use out of that statement. Now you've progressed to Hey everyone, this crazy guy over here is trying to intimidate me and drive me away from Wikipedia... look here people!... driving me away I tell you!... in an ever lamer attempt to get me into some sort of trouble around here. So far it hasn't worked. That's not to say it won't. This being Wikipedia it's always possible that some admin will swoop down into this discussion and give me a slap for trying to intimidate you and drive you away from Wikipedia. And don't say that wouldn't give you a warm little quiver. Alas, if that doesn't happen, I suppose you can continue bringing it up all the time in the hopes that maybe one day... one day... someone will serve me the slap you're hoping for. You can deny and wiggle and say it just isn't so Joe.... but I just wanted you to know that you're really not fooling anyone... – JBarta (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. First please note that three times above I have said that I do not intend to ever raise this issue again and gave my reasons way. If you think that means I am "full of it" well you entitled to your own opinion and there is nothing I can do about that for you. I invite you, however, to also look at the comments I made about the WP practice of "anonymous editing" as well as how I judged the validity of your statement in the February 24, 2012 thread (my response located here) which I posted there immediately after your comments on those issues when I said that: "I am perfectly aware that Wikipedia has "no obligation" for its contributors to "divulge private or identifying information on their userpages" nor have I ever claimed that I have ever contended that any WP editor has ever been required to so. What I am saying, however, is that I personally find it difficult to know for myself on what basis I should evaluate (as well as how to determine what credence I should ascribe to) comments in WP threads and discussions that are made by those who chose to remain anonymous."; and with respect to the comment itself that "...with respect I have absolutely no basis on which I can evaluate whether or not I should believe that is true or false. I am at a complete loss with that one."


 * In my final comment in the thread posted a short time later I also noted that with regard to your statement that "As a rule I assume that the things people say here are meant to be taken more or less literally (or at least not be obtuse) and that they are being offered in good faith. Your postings, however, are an increasing enigma to me if, for no other reason, they often do not seem to be responsive to what others (including myself) have posted. Therefore I don't really know what to make of your comments, or how I should be expected to take them. That is the conundrum I feel that I have been left with in this and other discussions with you." Frankly I still find that to be the case.


 * That being said I have never wanted (and do not now) to see you either "slapped down" or removed from Wikipedia -- far from it -- because you are clearly a dedicated and good contributor, obviously enjoy it, and have made many valuable additions to the project. I have also never filed or opened any complaint or sought formal redress of any kind against you with any WP administrator or disciplinary body. The only thing I am interested in with respect to your activities on WP is that you not micromanage my contributions and activities, desist from posting personal unsupported "suspicions" and "speculations" about my (and others') contributions, their origins and ownership, WP users' motives, "mental health", editing practices, and the like, and lastly that you not post comments in my talk page or any other WP threads which constitute what can be interpreted as threats and/or intimidation whether or not that is what you intended them to be. Centpacrr (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * On a related note about hockeyscoop.net above, maybe you can also explain the own work claim for File:Doc and Chico.jpg (http://wayback.archive.org/web/20070329015342/http://hockeyscoop.net/hockey/pictures/BCC_NJD_M&M_MediaGuide.html)? The full-size image suggests that you appear on the photo, which suggests that the photographer is someone else... --Stefan2 (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As are many thousands of other similar images posted on WP by people who also appear in the original photograph, this "point and shoot" image was taken for me at my request and under my direct instructions by somebody else who was in the room at the time (at this point I have no idea who that was as it was taken ten years ago 2003) using my camera which was then immediately returned to me with the clear understanding that I would have the copyright of the image. I set up the placement of the people in the picture as well as the person to whom I handed my camera, pointed the camera for him/her and checked the LCD viewfinder for framing, and when I returned to the scene told him/her when to "push the button" so constructively I am its real "photographer" in every aspect except for the ministerial function of releasing the shutter when instructed to do so by a person who had no expectation of ever controlling or seeing the image in the future. This individual had no "creative input" in to the making of the image, the file has been in my exclusive custody and control since it was created, and the image itself has no commercial value.
 * It is well settled on WP that this procedure constitutes legitimate automatic copyright "assignment" as I and many other contributors have previously been advised by various experienced picture admins regarding such images when going through similar earlier discussions about selfimages used mostly (but not exclusively) by their poster/copyright holders their own userpages. That I would later chose to crop myself out of this image for its use on the Emrick article page because I am not the subject of the article does not cause me to lose or relinquish my original copyright interest in the image (or status as its constructive true "photographer") simply because I do not appear in it in cropped image's posted form on WP as all rights had already been instantly "assigned" to me by the irrevocable relinquishment of the file and media on which it was stored when my camera was returned to me, its owner, immediately after the picture was taken. Centpacrr (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * KEEP:I am the uploader of File:B&ML Station, Brooks, ME.jpg, a digital photograph which I personally took of this late 19th century structure on July 16, 2004, and one of many dozens that I have taken of this particular station house (and thousands of this railroad) since the mid 1980s. I have been riding, photographing, and writing about the Belfast and Moosehead Lake Railroad, a 33-mile long, 143-year old shortline railroad running between Belfast and Burnham in Waldo County, Maine, for more than 25 years. In addition to WP and my own websites, I have also posted several hundred of my digital images of this line over the past decade on NERAIL, (the New England Railroad Photo Archive) which I take each summer when I return to Belfast where I have been vacationing almost every year since the late 1950's. (While I live in Pennsylvania, I have had family in this part of Maine continuously since 1759.) When the B&ML was a public company I was also one if its small number of private small stockholders when the majority of its shares were still held by the City of Belfast which owned about 80% of them from 1868 to 2001.


 * Among the B&ML images I added to NERAIL in 2004 is not only this "questioned" image but also several other photographs I took of the Brooks station house at the same time all of which I uploaded to that railroad photograph archive under my own name on July 16, 2004, the same day I took them.


 * The copy of the image which was originally made reference to that appears on the page "Scratchbuilder looking for structures to build - with dimensioned drawings !!!" (where it was apparently posted on March 17, 2007) was actually pirated from my online history of the B&ML which I first created in 2004 and which appears on our family's wholly owned and operated railroad history website, CPRR.org, which my brother-in-law and I co-created in February, 1999. While the B&ML history page containing this image is "hosted" on this site, I personally own the copyright to the image and the page's other content. As the sole creator and copyright holder of the subject 2004 image of the Brooks station house, I was therefore free to share it on WP which I did when I uploaded it under my username "Centpacrr" on June 6, 2013 under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. My sending an ORTS or other request seeking "permission" from either BMLRR.com or CPRR.org to use it on WP would be circular exercise as I would simply be asking permission from myself because that's who this request would go to at either one.


 * That being said, I must also respond to the inappropriate remark made above by the anonymous user JBarta who baselessly speculated above that my uploads from "The Cooper Collections" constitute "little more than media he has pilfered from the internet over the years". This claim is categorically (and even libelously) false, and I would seriously counsel JBarta to promptly withdraw this latest bit of ill-considered and reckless speculation on his/her part about me although the chances of this happening are probably false expectation. (Instead I expect that he/she will likely characterize this appeal as "endless argument" and ignore it.)


 * For over half a century I have been building my extensive personal collections of historical materials, antiquarian books, papers, documents, maps, photographs, engravings, artifacts, and many other similar materials. These collections relate to a wide variety of subjects including railroads (many of which materials I have made available for free public viewing on my family owned railroad history website, in my four books on North American railroad history published between 2005 and 2011, in WP, and elsewhere), aviation (I am also a pilot), postal history, coins and medallions, US history, opera, maritime history, professional ice hockey (in which I have worked for forty years), and other areas of study.


 * Please note (especially JBarta) that at the bottom of my B&ML history page hosted on CPRR.org appears the legend "Except as noted, all exhibits and illustrations courtesy Bruce  C. Cooper collection." which is my personal private collection from which I have contributed many other images. Just because a WP contributor licenses a copyrighted image of his or hers to appear on a copyrighted website does not mean that that contributor has in any way relinquished his or her rights to the image to use and license it differently on WP or any other site, publication, or elsewhere. For all of these reasons this image was properly uploaded and licensed.


 * While user JBarta and I may have differences in opinion about how to do digital image restoration (a topic which is fair for him/her to discuss with me on a case by case basis), the public making of rash and absolutely unsupported claims about the origin and/or provenance of images from my personal collections that I have voluntarily chosen to contribute to WP over the past almost seven years by speculating that I had "pilfered" them from others is absolutely unacceptable. (See examples of my image contributions here)


 * That such editors on WP as this one would feel free to casually post without any evidence whatsoever such speculative remarks in a public forum about another volunteer contributor exposes what I consider one of the major weaknesses of the project: the almost total anonymity of its contributors, and worse yet many of its administrators as well. Such anonymity seems to me to be a foolish and harmful policy for the creation of any encyclopedia and one which does not exist anywhere else in the publishing of reference works. It not only provides a means for such anonymous editors to eschew responsibility for what they do and post in here, but also far too often leads to the kind of reckless behavior that virtually none of us would ever engage in with others "face-to-face". For instance when I once asked this user to drop this veil of secrecy in communicating with me so that I knew who I was dealing with, he/she tried to intimidate me from further contributing to WP by claiming that "I am in the U.S. Witness Protection Program, currently residing in New Jersey. In the not too distant past I was an enforcer and occasional assassin for a well known crime syndicate. I'll stop there because (and trust me on this) you don't want me to go any further than that." (See here)


 * The best example of this kind of behavior outside of WP can be seen and experienced every day on every road and highway in the world. It manifests itself as road rage in which otherwise civilized people behave in ways toward each while locked safely in the anonymous steel cocoon of a motor vehicle that they would never think of doing in any other situation. This is why my WP user page fully identifies me, my background, interests, and the areas I feel competent to contribute to the project. I therefore urge JBarta to reconsider his/her remarks above about my collections and the sources of materials and images that I contribute to WP and avoid such reckless and unsupported speculation about the contributions, motives, mental health, character, intelligence, competence, and good faith myself and all of his/her other fellow volunteer WP contributors in the future. This is exactly the kind of troglodytic behavior that has soured so many otherwise enthusiastic and dedicated contributors and driven them away from the project. Centpacrr (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As you say all editors are anonymous. Therefore we have to be sure that no one's copyright is violated. If you don't want to send an e-mail to OTRS then it would take you 5 minutes to add "Images on this page are released under creative commons license CC-BY-SA-3.0" to the bottom of http://BMLRR.com and ensure their survival on Wikipedia/Wikimedia.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 19:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * While many editors chose to be anonymous you can see here that I am not one of those and have fully disclosed who I am, why I am here, what my background is, and what I contribute so saying that all editors are anonymous is not correct. The fact that I have permitted an image I own to appear on one or more copyrighted and/or un-copyrighted sites -- or even when others post an image of mine on a site such as here without either my knowledge or permission -- does not cause me to in any way relinquish any of my rights to the image. I still own and control them and am thus free to later share (or not share) them on WP or anywhere else as I may please to. Centpacrr (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't forget that a keep vote will allow ContinuityBot to tag it for a commons move (which it had already done on the 15th June!) - Are you really sure that without an OTRS ticket the image will remain on commons - I'm not - I've deleted plenty on commons with similar issues.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 18:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out elsewhere, I don't upload my own images to Commons for this very reason, and do not want this one moved there either as I have now marked on the file's host page. The reason is that I have had images of mine that I have uploaded to en:Wikipedia that others have later moved to Commons which have then been taken from there and used by others on their own websites such as here. At this point some WP image patroller who knows nothing of its history found them on one of those other sites and assumed that that is where it came from originally (as opposed to WP) and deleted my image from Commons as a copyvio which, of course, is was not. As you can see here, the first time I put this image on the net was on July 16, 2004 -- the day I took it -- and did so under my own name, so I trust now that can see that this image is my work and I am the sole owner of its copyright. That being the case it was properly uploaded to en:WP and is correctly licensed to be there. Centpacrr (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if the image is located on en-wiki or on commons - exactly the same license is used and people can use the image on their own web sites. Having an image only on en-wiki will not stop others using your images. If you don't want others to use them then don't upload them.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 18:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not that I don't want people to use them, my issue with Commons is that my experience has been that the editors and admins that patrol it seem to be far less careful about taking time to understand the true copyright and license status of files leading to their incorrectly assuming they are a copyvio and also much "quicker on the draw" about speedy deleting them without giving adequate notice to the images' uploaders. While this also happens in here (such as with this case), it seems to me to be a greater problem in Commons. Centpacrr (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.