User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 1

This is an alternative account of ShakespeareFan00.

Cranfield

These are fair use images. I don't understand what the problem is

Thanks

I redid the images with the Fair Use Rationale for the images you tagged for deletion.I hope that is what you wanted. Worldatlas1989

What?

You posted me a share of messages, while most of the images are posters. Posters are always permitted. What's the matter? They don't have to be free. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll do! --Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book covers

Hi,

You tagged a couple of files I uploaded as not supplying a fair use rational, but in both cases I put the {{Non-free book cover}}, which I thought had covered the use of the images. What am I doing wrong? I had thought that book covers could be used only on their own pages without requiring the full GFDL release. Should I alter it, should the image be deleted?

Thanks,

WLU 15:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout if I paste the following onto each of the images?

Fair use in ARTICLE NAME

Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

It illustrates an educational article about the book from which the cover illustration was taken.
The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.
The use of the cover will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original. In particular, copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the book.
It is a low resolution image.
The image is only a small portion of the commercial product.
It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

WLU 15:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's fine, I'll just paste it onto the images. I'm a lazy, lazy editor sometimes. WLU 15:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, when you were adding the deletion tags to the infoboxes, it screwed up the formatting of the pictures - putting the deletion tag outside the square brackets works fine. I fixed it in the two you tagged today. Also, if my actions were adequate regarding the images, could you remove the deletion tags for Image:Deadhouse Gates.jpg and Image:Reaper's Gale.jpg? Thanks, WLU 15:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated all the book images I've uploaded and can remember, hopefully it's enough. Thanks! WLU 16:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair & Rational Use

I corrected the images with the Fair Use Rationale Use you tagged for deletion.Can you please take Speedy Deletion Off. Thanks Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 16:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nilt-Political Attitudes-NIRELAND-2006.svg

The website is (c) ARK, but the data is made freely available[1]. The only restriction on derived works is that they "should acknowledge it [NILT] using the appropriate bibliographic citation" -- as I have done. If you still think that "public domain" is an inappropriate licence then I'd be grateful if you would suggest one more appropriate. --Duncan Keith 10:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop!

Why is your bot trying to mark my images that have the GFDL-self tag on their description pages? I took the photos, and I added the appropriate template when uploading. What's the deal? It's highly annoying, and it's polluting my talk page. --Lyght 10:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a post on my talk page about Image:Infectious cover small.jpg because the image already had rationale. Now, you readded the post. Now what's wrong with the image? --Lyght 21:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indiaesecure

Well the website belongs to me and i have all the permission to use it so don't mind.Yourdeadin 13:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)yourdeadin[reply]

Indiaesecure

I'll have it done by tomorrow --Yourdeadin 13:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Yourdeadin[reply]

Response to image

It looks to me as if the image is free. ISD 16:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright. Thanks for asking. ISD 16:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sisters.jpg

Someone deleted the image that was there and put up the Pointer Sisters image instead, Grrr. Benjiboi 17:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Press Covers/ref Fair Use

Hi, i've added a rationale, which is as I understand it. On one level, this is preserving a record of an ongoing thing, on the other it is of no impact to the copyright holder. If I'm misunderstanding concepts can you let me know? 2yellowcards 22:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you assitance, were the changes I made this afternoon acceptable? 2yellowcards 17:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use question

If i have uploaded an image that already includes minimal fair use justification and is obviously an album cover, why do you slap a template for deletion on when you could just as easily slap on a template that provides additional fair use justification? Save us all some time and just add the info you feel it needs. Either that or go contribute something productive. --Entoaggie09 23:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Why did you do that even with logos with fair use rationale given already???????? Steelbeard1 23:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link showing the proper fair use box to use. I'm now using that box template for the logos in question.Steelbeard1 12:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... just re-read my original post. It was worded a little stronger than it probably should have been. I wasn't trying to start an argument. I was just frustrated. Thanks for the very civil reply. I'll do my best to add more detailed rationale from now on. Cheers. --Entoaggie09 20:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Australia LGA Maps up on Commons

Hi, i managed to get most of them up on the commons (after about half an hour) and into their category, but i went back and checked the full list; some of my older maps aren't there and i'll get to them eventually. But at the moment im sick of uploading maps so if you want you can upload any more that you find, or let me know which ones are missing. Anyway, from now on, i'll upload to the commons only. Cheers Kare Kare 06:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i did know, but i didn't really think any other wiki projects would be desperate for South Australia local government area maps so i didn't bother uploading them to the commons. Anyway, i'm not going to be bothered changing all the maps in the English wikipedia to link up to the commons files, i really can't be bothered. And if you find anymore of the maps i've missed, just let me know. Cheers Kare Kare 12:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:User_sikkim.png

Hi User_Sikkim.png is my original artwork, I created this for my website sikkimonline.info.. but i forgot to include copyright notice, I uploaded it in wiki to make User Tamplate called user Sikkim

This User lives with breathing the fresh air of Sikkim.

I've removed the deletion notice.. i hope there's nothing more to discuss about that image. thanks for letting me know. --Sikkimonline 13:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete NC images for deletion

Obsolete NC images without rationales such as Image:Captain norton.png, Image:Norton_commander.png and Image:Norton_Commander_5.0.png are not needed in article, because modern NC 5.51 for DOS image with rationale already added and modern NC 2.01 for Windows image with rationale already added are enough to illustrate Norton Commander in DOS and Windows versions. Wikinger 16:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot ignoring PD-Australia tag

An example is Image:Glen Osmond, around 1869.jpg

Public domain

This image was created in Australia and is now classified as being in the public domain because its term of copyright has now expired. According to the Information Sheet G023v17 (Duration of copyright) (Aug 2014), generally copyright has expired as follows: In 2015, 70-year copyrights under the AUSFTA start expiring.^{[needs update]}

Type of material		Copyright has expired in Australia if ...	As of URAA date material was PD in US if...
A1	Works published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown: (not photos)	published prior to 1 January 1955	Published prior to 1 January 1946
B1	Photographs (except B2 below):	taken prior to 1 January 1955	taken prior to 1 January 1946
B2	Photos published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown:	taken prior to 1 January 1955	Published prior to 1 January 1946
C	Artistic works (except A & B):	the creator died before 1 January 1955	the creator died before 1 January 1946
D	Published editions¹ (except A & B):	first published prior to 1980	first published prior to 1971
E1	Commonwealth or State government held² photographs or engravings:	first published more than 50 years ago, or if made before 1 May 1969, first made more than 50 years ago	Made before 1 January 1946 The government has declared that expiration of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide; use {{PD-AustraliaGov}}
E2	Commonwealth or State government artistic works (such as drawings)	first made more than 50 years ago	Made before 1 January 1946 The government has declared that expiration of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide; use {{PD-AustraliaGov}}

¹means the typographical arrangement and layout of a published work. eg. newsprint.
²held means where a government is the copyright holder as well as would have held copyright but reached some other agreement with the creator.

Australia

This file is NOT necessarily in the public domain in the United States because a non-simple image can only be in the public domain in the U.S.:

if it entered the public domain in Australia prior to 1996, or
when, after that date, its copyright term expires in accordance with U.S. law.

Information about the creation date and creator should be provided.

If the image is not in the public domain in the United States, in addition to the license tag for its status in Australia an appropriate fair use license and rationale should be provided, or the image should be proposed for deletion.

If the media is in the public domain in both Australia and the United States, it may be transferred to the Wikimedia Commons.

Note: If this image is in the public domain in the U.S., modify the end of the copyright tag from }} to |commons}}.
This will replace the preceding U.S. copyright notification with a nomination for this image to be moved to the Wikimedia Commons.

Because Australia has long-standing copyright relations with the United States, some Australian works might have a subsisting U.S. copyright. In such a case, the works in question are not in the public domain in the U.S. even if they meet the above conditions.

This tag specifies public domain Australian images, yet the bot is still asking for fair use rationale for non-free content. Could you please look into this? Muzzamo 13:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo

Hi thr! Thanks for the warning message [:(]. I am not too sure if I had given the info needed for the Image:Jaya Group logo.jpg. Can you please let me know if what I'v done is enough to avoid deletion or should I go through the pain of recreating the logo? Would really appreciate the help. Thanks. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 14:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot and done the same with Image:Chennai Police logo.gif too. Cant be more thankful for introducing wikimedia commons. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 14:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV9 Logo

Hi, I have provided the fair use rationale in the Image:TV9.jpg and removed the tag. -- Naveen ^(talk) 17:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use templates on tagged images in some video-game articles

Hi Sfan. I've taken care of the fair-use templates for the following images:

Thanks, don't forget to de-tag once the rationale is added :) Sfan00 IMG 21:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tag formats

when tagging images for removal please ensure resultant img syntax is correct, your tags on karin (manga) were (a) invisible (so it wasn't evident they were up for removal) and (b) screwed up the page layout, changing the size or position of the images - I had to edit all of them to repair the page.

Yes, you had the same issue (coincidentally) on Karin (Street Fighter). The problem is that you put the deletable-image template inside of the square-brackets of the image tag; this makes the tag invisible and can mess up image formatting. You should put it immediately after the double-close-square-brackets, instead of inside them. The tag should be used like this: [[Image]]{{deletable image-caption|1=Wednesday, 1 August 2007}}, not like this: [[Image:Kevin-win.gif|{{deletable image-caption|1=Wednesday, 1 August 2007}}]] --Aquillion 07:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AntAttackCube.png

Okay, I've included a fair-use rationale. Have a look. -- Curt Woyte 08:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use for Image:NAMOR1cover-CMYKcrop.jpg

i gave it a F.U.R. Please review and remove tagging if appropriate, if not, please contact and explain, thanks. ThuranX 20:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging images

When you are tagging images in their captions (like [2]), can you make sure you do it so it doesn't mess up the page? --DrBat 21:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging images and loss of article content

When you tagged two of the images in Dark Phoenix Saga for deletion, you have accidentally removed a large portion of text from the page.

I've restored that, but please be a little more careful when editing. --The Fifth Horseman 13:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tag of photo "Neal Cassady" article

What on earth is the problem with this photo? It's been up for years with no objection whatsoever?

Seems overzealous to tag it. However, please inform how tag can be removed, as it would be a shame to lose it. Apostle12 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Mace

Please see fair-use rationale at Image:Patriot Mace.PNG. --Tenebrae 15:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dccountdown image

Not having provided a ratiuonale before, I guess I am not understanding what you are looking for. Let me know. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use Rationale for Image:Oozaruteam.jpg

Hello. Finally got around to creating a correct fair use rationale template for this image I uploaded and used. Please inspect it because this is the first time I have done such a template. Let me know of any mistakes and I will correct them. I hope it meets the requirements though. --Maphisto86 04:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anal M.F.'s

You are an anal M.F. if I ever saw one; it is people like you who are ruining Wikipedia. Apostle12 05:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page spamming

Do you really think that this is appropriate? How do you expect an editor to respond to one hundred rationale requests at once? Twinkle is an excellent tool, but it is not an instrument for marauding. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the list concerend (now deleted) was collapased, and in any case the uploader concerned had 7 days to work through it. It would of course been easier if they'd put the rationales in when they uploaded in the first place. :)

Sfan00 IMG 19:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to about a year ago rationales were unnecessary supplements to license tags, many of these users uploaded images in compliance with the policies. That these entries were collapsed does help, but the seven day grace period for adding a hundred rationales is a little unfair. I looked over some of the rationales added by users after your requests, and the ones who were able to comply often just added the same canned one to each image regardless of usage. It's great that you're going through the backlogs of untagged images, but there's a more courteous way of proceeding. Adding a few notices at a time would keep the uploader from feeling overwhelmed, it would lead to a higher retention of images and better rationales. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how those nearly hundred images were uploaded by me over a period of years, and long prior to the adoption of the "detailed fair use rationale" policy, your suggestion that the rationales should have been included in the first place is obviously misplaced. I happen to have been a rather prolific contributor (and uploader) in the past, all in compliance with policies then in place, for which I now am thanked in this manner. I don't spend as much time on here as I used to, but this weekend I wanted to make sure that work I had put into illustrating articles (all of which were about copyrighted works, obviously not replaceable with free images) would not have to be redone. It should have raised some kind of red flag to you when you posted so many notices to one user's page, or when you noticed the range of dates that the images were uploaded.

One compliment—I'm glad that you're tagging each article that uses the image. Not all image taggers do, which means that many images will be deleted effectively without notice. One can't assume that just because someone uploaded an image at any given time that they are still involved with the project, let alone that they still have the time or interest to take care of it. Uploaders don't own images, and they certainly aren't paid to maintain responsibility for them.

But I consider this process unacceptable. Using automated software to tell others to fix hundreds of images in a matter of days, which had been uploaded over years, is not constructive. It is wasteful and it encourages frustration and resentment with current policies (which are already of questionable utility). By doing this en masse, you've indiscriminately tagged images for speedy deletion regardless of whether the fair use is prima facie acceptable, simply because the formality of a detailed fair use rationale has not been added. If the problem is fixable, there shouldn't be such a mad rush to delete the image. We don't delete articles that are lacking sources or that have typos. We either fix it ourselves or just tag it for others to notice and fix, however long it takes.

And you obviously could more constructively contribute by taking the time to post such rationales yourself when you see that they are missing. If the use is a standard one (a book cover in an article on that book, a movie poster in an article on that movie), then you could even fill in the detailed fair use rationale automatically.

Compare the work involved: If you were to actually help, there's one step--1) you post a missing fair use rationale for an image. Instead, the steps are 1) you post an uploader talk page warning, 2) you post a speedy deletion warning in every article that uses the image, 3) the uploader posts the missing fair use rationale, 4) the uploader removes the speedy deletion warning from the article. Or, if it is not caught in time, 1) you post an uploader talk page warning, 2) you post a speedy deletion warning in every article that uses the image, 3) the image is deleted, 4) the tag for the image is removed from the article, 4) a copy of the image is again scanned or otherwise located, 5) the image is re-uploaded with a proper fair use rationale, 6) the image is replaced in the article. Which process is more constructive? Which is more wasteful? Postdlf 17:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that the uploader is responsible for his/her uploads, period. If someone sees one of my uploaded images floating around rationale-less, I expect them to notify me so that I can rectify my mistake. It'd be fundamentally wrong of me to expect others to do the work that I should have done right the first time around. --Agamemnon2 17:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really unfortunate and inappropriate view to have on this project. First, as noted above, the images were uploaded "right the first time around" because they were all uploaded prior to the change in policy that requires the longer rationales. So how exactly am I "responsible" for maintaining and modifying anything that I have ever done on Wikipedia to make sure that it continues to comply with subsequent changes to the project? Is someone paying me, that I have such an obligation? Do I get a personal benefit from the images being present in the articles? No, it's the project that benefits from having informatively illustrated articles. I wasn't aware that it was a more pressing goal to make people do what they're told, rather than to improve Wikipedia content.

Think of how little this project would have advanced if people really had the attitude you have. "I'm not going to correct the spelling in that article; someone else made those typos." Read WP:OWN, and really think about the fact that Wikipedia is a collaborative, volunteer-only project. Postdlf 17:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I don't necessarily correct other people's mistakes. It's bad form to digress, but I only edit what I feel like, and when I see someone's made a mistake, my first impulse is always to let them know so they can correct it themselves. ~~I know that makes me a Bad Wikipedian, but I'm pretty much an abject failure at everything else, so why would this project be any different?~~ --Agamemnon2 20:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore that. I'm feeling peeved for some other reason, I shouldn't let it affect what I write. --Agamemnon2 20:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignored. But anyway, we're not even talking about "mistakes" here, we're talking about updating something to comply with present standards because those standards have changed. And we're talking about a span of months, perhaps years, in between when the images were originally uploaded, and when the policy was changed and the deletion tagging done. There was no guarantee that I would still be involved with the project, let alone have the time to take care of it, and I certainly wasn't responsible for changing the policy so that those images would consequently need updating. If someone had uploaded them yesterday in violation of current policy, it would be another issue. Then it would make sense to ask them to fix it. Postdlf 22:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was brought up on WP:AN/I#Talk_page_spamming after Ryulong blocked Videmus Omnia for harassing users with dozens of rationale requests at once. The block was overturned, but there seems to be a clear consensus that using automated software to alert users of copious amounts of no-rationale images is not the way to go. I urge you, Sfan00, to carefully examine the AN/I thread and consider the consequences of your actions. Postdlf makes some very good points, and I assure you that your help in providing rationales would be much more appreciated than your current practice of indiscriminate automated tagging. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, because of some of the points raised, I won't be tagging images for a while, and owing to the views expressed by some contributors it's unlikely that I will start up again. It will however be their loss when Wikipedia has to pay out in copyvio suits. :( Sfan00 IMG 11:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That little Parthian shot is rather unbecoming of you. --Agamemnon2 11:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are quite aware of how copyright infringement claims work. It is necessary for the copyright holder to inform the publisher of any potential infringement, the offending party then has time to act to remove the offending scan/photo/etc.. Lawsuits don't magically manifest themselves at the sight of any potential copyright violation. Not to mention that plain-jane Wikipedia license tags assert fair use. Rationales are necessary to show that image use is consistent with Wikipedia policies. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that your efforts in tagging images are appreciated, it would be great if you continue to do so, provided that you modify your methods to address the above concerns. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your inappropriate use of Wikipedia

Wikipedia is not here for your personal crusade against non-descript, valid, fair use images. Users are encouraged to point out content that is not allowed, but your sole mission is to rid Wikipedia of images that clearly fall under fair use, while providing them with little time to add a description. Please provide worthwhile contribution to Wikipedia rather than running a bot that is of no use to anyone. - 76.110.238.95 22:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contary, fair use isn't valid without the rationales. I also do not see it as a personal crusade to get rid of images,

merely ensure they are properly sourced and justified. Sfan00 IMG 13:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Sfan00 is doing is not a personal crusade, but carrying out a much needed policy change. He is not the first to carry out such change and I can assure you he will not be the last to do it. He will take into consideration tagging methods, such as Twinkle, but everything else he is doing is legit and within policy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, WP:TWINKLE needs a batch mechanism, or at the very least some template tweaks. The 7 Day grace period also needs to be extended given the existence of mass screening.

Sfan00 IMG 14:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the grace period is fine, though I am not sure about what to do with the batch table. I might come up with something later. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By a natch mechanism , I mean it writes 1 message for a group of say 50 images rather than the rather verbose output it

writes for each 1, Checking over recent contribs you will notice something in summaries as 'message collapse'. Essentially what this is collapsing say 50 verbose messages saying the same thing, into a single message + list. Sfan00 IMG 14:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Culture of Canada and image size

Hi. You've tagged an image in Culture of Canada to announce that it is up for deletion, but in doing so you messed up the code for image size and made the image giant. Please double-check that your deletion warning are not messing up the page in the process. Thank you. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the Hell is That all About???

Why are you going to delete Wendy's image? There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. I'll have you know that I personally think you're deliberately doing that to be anti-contributive the well-fare and prosperity of this encyclopedia. The nerve!!! Wilhelmina Will 19:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about Wendy Testaburger's image. (No offense, but I thought that was pretty obvious!) Wilhelmina Will 20:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image Rationales

It's not a matter of a set number of warnings per day, if you come across dozens of problem images, you have to actively communicate with each user to determine the best course of action. Check to see if they are active and ask them how long it would take for them to address all the rationale requests. If a user is no longer active, then notifications are nothing but a formality to deletion, so you might as well use scripted tools. If the user is active and willing to cooperate, then give them some leeway in adding rationales, add a list of all problem images and determine how many you should nominate each week. Many active and knowledgeable users may just say "bring it on", at which point you just tag the images and don't have to worry about it. Some may be pressed for time, they may say that 20 (arbitrary number) rationales per week is all they can handle. Respect that. If the user ignores your message completely, or if they are rude, then by all means just tag and forget.

This isn't so much of a strict guide as a sort of framework of suggestions to alter your methods. Please stay away from mass spammings and I promise not to give you any more grief about the issue :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be running any tags for while, IIRC I've got at least 2 months worth of back tags to check on :), BTW What do you recomend then re scanning back contributions? Something like a genericsed version of the Template Twinkle places?

Sfan00 IMG 20:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The twinkle template is informative enough to begin with. Since there's usually a clear trend to back contributions (e.g. cd covers or film posters), you might want to leave a brief message about your intent to nominate all past instances of a particular usage. It will help the uploader focus on the rationale if, for instance, you tell them "I found forty album covers with no fair use, ten works of twentieth century art, and seventeen videogame screenshots, which category would you like to start with?". With this collaborative effort, the uploader won't feel overwhelmed or singled out if they know that you're working on the problem with them. The end result is that there will be a greater amount of fulfilled rationale requests and less ill-will or factionalism between the "uploaders" and the "taggers". Of course if a user simply doesn't reciprocate, then you'll have to resort to cruder measures. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK will do that with any new tagging, the existing sweep will stay for now. Most of them seem to be being handled though :) Sfan00 IMG 22:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging suggestion

I have received a number of suggestions based on my tagging of images, not all of them anatomically pleasant. I hope you don't mind if I ask where your suggestion is coming from. Is there a new guideline or discussion somewhere, or is this just something you are recommending? ~ Bigr Tex 20:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have tended to have more positive responses than negative for some reason. I do try to clean up boilerplate when I notice that I'm tagging a lot of similar images for the same user in a short period, especially if they're still reasonably active - that's something that annoyed me about BJBot and BetacommandBot. It would be great if there were some way to automate it, since I use Howcheng's tool.

I would feel uncomfortable deleting the notices completely, since I see them as a learning tool if an inactive user returned and would leave it up to an active user to maintain their own talk page. Thanks for your prompt and polite response. ~ Bigr Tex 20:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bams

As with all previous 2000AD-related images, the fair use rationale is provided on the page I have previously pointed you to. Unfortunately, somebody decided to change the page link, which means that all old 2000AD-related images now do not have the proper fair use rationale. You and I have previously discussed this. Now, I don't care enough to bother finding all previous images and redoing the tags, nor to upload new images. Since you clearly do care about this sort of thing, and care a great deal, do please either reload the image, with the corrected fair use rationale, or at least clean up the article to which it was attached. Vizjim 19:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have checked the image linked above, Link is fine, Which Images are affected? Sfan00 IMG 19:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but like I said, I really can´t be bothered going through the whole process again. Legitimate image, lost to Wikipedia. Vizjim 08:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletion

Hi.

I thought we had some kind of understanding about the image AngelOfDarkness. Namely, that you removed your "deletion pending" tag to replace it by a "please find better" one. I am surprised to see you coming to my talk page to delete stuff there, which I found of the most profound uncivility, bordering on vandalism. And I would like to know why this image has been deleted while its tag wasn't there anymore.--SidiLemine 17:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I called it uncivil, I meant Rude. This wikitalk can creep on you sometimes. I am well capable of cleaning up my own talk page, thank you. About the image, please explain why you deleted it. --SidiLemine 17:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, forget about it, I need to get a life and some sleep in it. The image deleted was File:Angel of Darkness cover, and not File:Angel of Darkness Cover, which I uploaded. Please accept my sincere apologies for this outburst.--SidiLemine 17:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK Thanks... Sfan00 IMG 18:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freer Gallery of Art images

Since I took the photos myself, I was planning on moving them, or placing them in Wikimedia Commons in the first place. However, when I went to the Commons upload page to download the first of these images under the tab for "I created the image" or what not, there was a box to the right that specifically stated that photos of artwork and statues were forbidden from being loaded. I was somewhat perplexed by this, since I've seen tons of artwork and statues in Commons that were uploaded to Commons using the same license that I'm using. However, I did not want to take chances and did not want my work to be deleted, so I decided to load them on wikipedia instead, where this is not an issue.

Can you please tell me why Commons is so strict about downloading artwork and statues?--PericlesofAthens 19:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Suspect image

Template:Suspect image has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. cohesion 20:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note on Wikimedia Commons, but a few questions...

Hi Sfan,

Thanks for your note on my talk page about Wikimedia Commons. I've thought about uploading there, and already have a user name there, but I can't think of any reason why any other part of Wikimedia would want the pictures I take of local sites. That makes me think I'd just waste time linking there. Any thoughts? If I had a reason to think any other non-Wikipedia would be interested in pics of local schools or buildings, I'd want to upload at Commons. If I upload there, I'm also unsure about how to put the picture into a Wikipedia article. Can you tell me how to do that? Do I have to create a WikiPEDIA image page after I create the WikiCOMMONS image page before using it in an article?

Instead of putting that massive pic on my talk page, if you could put a colon in front of the name but within the brackets, like this: Image:SilvermineMarket08042007.JPG, you can give me the link to the image you're talking about without adding a huge amount to my talk page. Thanks! Noroton 21:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Converting to SVG??

You suggested that Image:MilfordCtOutnlineMap.png and Image:NewHavenCtOutlineMap.png would be better rendered as SVG's. They both are indeed derived from an SVG provided by Libre Map Project. I downloaded InkScape and tried to create an SVG from the Libre version that fills New Haven. I was unable to do so because the way the stroke-map is constructed, the individual towns do not appear to be separate objects. Any tips you can give me on this?? Karl Hahn (T) (C) 21:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Image:Harry Harrison Deathworld 2 copyright 1964 JPG format.JPG?

Hello, apparently you submitted Image:Harry Harrison Deathworld 2 copyright 1964 JPG format.JPG to WP:CSD. May I ask what your reason was?. I stated its purpose, for illustrating a book of a trilogy. And gave the proper rationale (I think). A response on my talk would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Nateland 04:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response given Sfan00 IMG 14:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highway Shields of Ontario

Hiya. I've uploaded the three Highway shields (Highway 129, 144, and 407), and they are in the pubic domain as it has been over 50 years since the shield type was first made (March 1, 1930). I've also made them in Photoshop myself, and i have no issues with anyone using them for whatever reason they see fit. I highly doubt they are a violation of copyright. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 17:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Tool - Undertow.ogg

I forgot the rationale. Thanks for the reminder. It's all been taken care of. Later. the_undertow ^talk 22:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use in Fire Dept

Thanks for the polite heads up - I'm new at working with images, and I'm not surprised that I missed a bit! I've added the requested info now.

Amanda Bynes

I wonder if you could explain how a link to an external website is a copyright violation. Nothing is being copied to Wikipedia, and YouTube is accessible to the public. Your wrote "Remove link to potential copyvio." It either is or is not a copyright violation (in this case, it is not). Please don't remove links unless you know for sure that there is a legal problem with the link. Thank you. Ward3001 01:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courts have ruled that knowingly hyperlinking to infringing material on another website can constitute contributory copyright infringement. See explanation (and link to case) here. You don't need to copy anything to this site for it to be an issue, nor does it matter that it is "accessible to the public" by means other than through the link you have posted. Postdlf 04:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And removing 'potential' allows for a precautionary approach. In some cases the link isn't removed entirly, only commented out pending further investigations. BTW Postdif, you will note I am not mass tagging to user pages this time. Sfan00 IMG 11:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Precautionary" is an understatement. "Obsessive" is a more accurate description. A key word in Postdlf's comment is "knowingly". If we use Sfan00 IMG's "precautionary approach" we probably need to delete about 90% of all external links in Wikipedia. Ward3001 13:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

youtube

eould you rather i just delete all the links? I didnt understand all that technical stuffBEATLES RULE!!! go fonz! 20:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi

they are already gone :,( cry cry. I just really didnt understand what you said. it was very technical!BEATLES RULE!!! go fonz! 20:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THE ELECTRICITY COUNCIL CONTRACT - ENFIELD 8000

I have the Electricity Council contract in PDF format and, I believe, you will find it usefull and revealing. How do I sent it to you? Constantine Adraktas 01:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to YouTube message

You're welcome, but it has been a month since I reverted the re-insertion of the YouTube links. NHRHS2010^Talk 19:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lorie Image

Dear whoever you are. The picture you are referring to was taken by me, using my camera, and I am thus the copyright owner. Should I choose to release on Wikipedia, it is my choice. My camera info can be found at the bottom of the page. Please remove your complaint.Happy Evil Dude 10:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You tube Links

Please DO NOT link to copyvios on You Tube from your user page, The links concerned are commented out currently, Should you wish to reinstate them, please confirm the (C) status of them before doing so. Sfan00 IMG 21:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, people were trying to get rid of youtube links from external links of articles, but linking to copyvio sites doesn't cause any problem. Could you point me to more information about how we put the (C) on links and the cases for doing so? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uri Geller

Hello. You recently tagged Uri Geller as {{POV}} - can you go into more detail about your concerns on it's talk page, so the issue can be fixed? Thanks --h2g2bob (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMSLP

Hi. Perhaps you don't realize this, but the IMSLP is only on temporary hold. There's no need to delete the links yet, especially the templated ones. Check out http://imslpforums.org/ and especially http://imslpforums.org/viewtopic.php?t=717, for more info on the status. It WILL be back, and it'd be easily to not have to reinsert all the links. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent misuse of minor edit flag

Your last 300 plus edits of the past few days have been marked as minor edits in contravention of Help:Minor edit. You state "(C) Status unclear)" which indicates no consensus. Please read the WP help page and correct your edits. The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes; logged-in users might even set their preferences to not display them. If you think there is any chance that another editor might dispute your change, please, do not mark it as minor. Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 13:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

help:Minor edit is not a policy or guideline so SFan can't really be contravening it, also please assume good faith and present your case calmly. As for the minor edit issue, I see no harm either way. There should be no problem in not marking the edits as minor in future, it is not an issue really. GDonato (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say it was a policy or a guideline ? It's a helpful and commonly used feature with a help page explaining how to use it. Assuming good faith doesn't alter the fact that editors who quite reasonably because of the volume from bots, choose not to view minor edits on watchlists, will miss these changes. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 22:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Have started flagging as major on removals subsequent to the heads-up. Older removals are being reviewed with talk page comments being left where appropriate. In some cases the process has been revert-> comment link -> Leave tlak page comment requesting policy/link clarifcation.. Perhaps you could assist in reviewing some of the older removals? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube links (again)

hi :) - it wasn't my intention to be harsh. about six months ago there was a major cull of youtube links on wikipedia. the reason for this is that the copyright status of youtube links is essentially in limbo - may be copyrighted, might not, essentially we don't know. this is not acceptable material to link to, as per WP:EL...

"Links normally to be avoided" section 9 - Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required.
"Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites" - There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would be infrequent). See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate intellectual property rights.
And from the cull of youtube links a while back... This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. We must make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright.

as regards your other edits, i am indifferent (and in fact haven't even looked) - the only reason i caught this one was because the article is on my watchlist. hope this helps --Kaini (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have spent an awful lot of time changing direct YouTube links to specific videos to a mention and a simple link to the YouTube main page. I've noticed that you have been removing these as "non-specific". Is there a reason for this? It can't be copyvio! TINYMark (Talk) 15:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to post on my talk page at least try and spell properly Paul210 (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Northern_Heights_Map_Mockup.png

Hi, You added this image to the list of possible unfree images and added a note on my talk about it. Following my explanation of the background to the image, you struck-through your note on my talk page and added "See explanation given by author at WP:PUI, (and hopefully on image?)". I'm not sure if you're expecting me to do something else or if my explanation is acceptable to you. If it is could you remove the image from the WP:PUI list. --DavidCane (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re. YouTube Links

I can't recall exactly which links I removed, but could you please clarify how the copyright status is unclear, especially when the actual creator of the video is noted on the video description page on YouTube...? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 05:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your deletion of the link to YouTube on the John Batiste article. The link is not to a specific video, but rather to a YouTube search for the phrase "John Batiste" and as such should satisfy the WP:EL guidelines with regards to copyright. Writing "(C) status unclear" is not blanket justification for removing all YouTube links. If you're going to mark something as having an unclear copyright status, you should personally investigate the media in question and determine that the copyright status is in fact unclear. --Astarf (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE Image:Kirikoketa dolarean.jpg

I've found out your notice about copyright on the file. I've uploaded new versions and given more explanations. I just emailed to the source website and I got the permission right away to realease it on the wikipedia. I don't know what the problem is all about.Iñaki LL (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made some changes, but the sign remains the same (deleiton I don't know what). The problem remains, I don't know if things are right. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iñaki LL (talk • contribs) 21:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links in Zork I

In these edits to Zork I, you deleted several links with a summary of "Per disscussion at Wikiproject:Videogames - remove link". I'm assuming you're talking about Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, since there is no Wikiproject:Videogames. Checking the page in question and the associated talk page, I'm not seeing any discussion of the websites in question. Could you please direct me to the discussion, so that I could review the deletions in the appropriate context? At the moment, I'm prone to re-add them, as some were valuable links. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video_games#Underdogs links under attack Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC) (Reply copied from User talk:Alan De Smet by User:Alan De Smet)[reply]

What I'm seeing is a rambling discussion about linking into Home of the Underdogs that failed to reach consensus. None of the links you removed were to HotU. On the general topic: copyright infringement, only one of the links is obviously suspect (The link to the scans of the manual). If that was your reasoning, it would have been more helpful to cite Wikipedia:Copyright#Linking_to_copyrighted_works instead of a rambling discussion. The link DJ OldGames was redundant with the link to infocom-if, and should have been purged, but not for any reason discussed on the discussion you cited. The link to ifiction is similarly unrelated, but was important. Please take care in what you cite as your reasoning when deleting valuable links. — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History Line: 1914-1918

Since I am sure you are acting in good faith, let me explain my reverts. Despite whatever agreement might have been reached in the unliked to WikiProject Videogames discussion you referenced, the links are not used as external links but as references. I can understand why those sites would be inadvisable for elink section; however per WP:V and WP:CITE if they are used as references they should not be removed. Not unless you are willing to provide inlince citation to the entire article from alternate sources - than I will have no problem about removing the discussed sites. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might and Magic Book One: The Secret of the Inner Sanctum

I'd be interested to read the discussion you refer to in your recent edit of Might and Magic Book One: The Secret of the Inner Sanctum. Please would you put a link to it on either the article's talk page or mine? Many thanks. BreathingMeat (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually don't worry, I've figured it out... BreathingMeat (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Home of the Underdogs links

I support your removal of HOTU links in many cases, as they typically contribute nothing of value and are therefore just pointers to warez. The link you removed from Sorcerer (computer game), however, is an exception. As my edit summary indicated, there is a legitimate review of Sorcerer there. Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works says, "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." The link was certainly not to the infringing copy of the game. The policy doesn't say, "no external links to websites that violate copyright". A rule like that would eliminate a great many useful and legal links. I just think external links should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Ntsimp (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've had a discussion about this at the VG wikiproject, as Sfan here has been removing a hoard of HOTU links (amoung many other valid links all over the place, as you might be able to tell from his talk page). You may wanna chime in, though the discussion died down a couple day ago. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five Dollar Bill

I removed the {currency} tag you placed on the image (Media:FiveDollarBillInfrared.png) that I uploaded in favor of the {Money-US} tag. Feel free to revert my change if you believe it did not address the concerns you had with licensing. --Kbidd (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McCoy AFB Images

I would load them into commons. How do I do that? Bwmoll3 (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open Street Map project

I wasn't aware of this project. How can I help? Bwmoll3 (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cover page of Advances in Production Engineering & Management

I have a full permision of Editor-In-Chief of Advances in Production Engineering & Management journal for publishing of cover page of journal on Wikipedia. This can be verified by contacting Editor-In-Chief. Mail address is on the journals web page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimcyco (talk • contribs) 08:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

Yes I have. However I reached the conclusion after previous experiences with commons that it has a very user unfriendly interface, which discouraged me from trying to upload more images there.

I do eventually intend to (try to) upload most of my images to commons, but I'm planning to do it in a mass operation rather than doing them one at a time. Gatoclass (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Stan, this is just a quick word of thanks for the little kick in the bum you gave me over this issue. When I first started trying to upload images to Wikipedia, I had all sorts of problems and it was only after quite a struggle I figured out how to load them into Wikipedia. But as I had even more puzzles over Commons, I decided to put learning how to do that on the back burner.

As it happens, I've gotten pretty slick at uploading images to Wikipedia over time, I can do it in seconds now, but as I still had the memory of having all kinds of problems uploading to commons I've been reluctant to go back there. But I realized after your comment that it's really time I tried again, and I find now it's pretty much as easy as it is for the Wiki. I think what threw me the last time is that when I tried to edit a commons image I had uploaded, I just got a blank page, and I couldn't figure out why. But now I realize it's because when I click on a commons image in Wiki it takes me to a sort of wiki-duplicate page of the commons image, and the page is empty because, I guess, it's just transcluded from commons. Anyhow, now I realize what is happening, I figure uploading my images straight to commons will be pretty much as straightforward as uploading them to Wiki :)

My only problem now is what to do with all the images I've already uploaded to wikipedia that really should have been uploaded to commons. I've tried transferring them but I don't like the mess it leaves behind. Would it be possible to just upload the image anew to commons and delete the old wikipedia image? I think I'd prefer to do it that way, if that's possible. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, mark any that are duplicated on Wikipedia (i.e NOT trancluded) with {{subst:ncd}}, and an admin will eventually pick up the image for

deletion via CSD I8. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll do that then, thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Javad Khan to Tsitsianov.jpg

That's an image of Javad Khan's handwritten letter to Pavel Tsitsianov.The original letter is a historical document in Iranian archive of foreign office Bureau for Publication of Documents .The translation of the letter to English is available here in Javad Khan's page.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the tagging of images for no fair use template done?

Is the scan of all Wikipedia images now done, or will there be more tagging? If another run is necessary, when will it be done? --John Nagle (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your tagging

You tagged Image:050820 GrandPortageNationalMonument.jpg with {{Di-no source|date=17 March 2008}} even though the uploader put {{PD-self}} on the image. With that tag, the uploader is claiming to be the copyright holder and is releasing the image to the public domain. The metadata shows the date and type of camera used. Why are you tagging it?--Appraiser (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE Image:Film_Session_Chase_Daniels_Aug_2007.PNG

I have labeled the picture with the

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.

This template should only be used on file pages.

If this file is eligible for relicensing, it may also be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license.
The relicensing status of this image has not yet been reviewed. You can help.

now. There should be no copyright Issues it is self made. Can you please remove the tag and treat this as a fair image accordingly. Thank you.

(talk) 12:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Messages about images

I presume you're not a bot... You tagged an image I have just uploaded before I've even finished inserting it into an article. Rather annoying. Again, presuming you're not a bot... Richard001 (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawker Tempest image

Appreciate your help on this one. I'm hoping through contacting the RAF Museum that the copyright status of Charles E Brown images can be clarified. CheersMinorhistorian (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Nycducks.JPG

Eh? I made this picture. I said so in the original description. I said I released it to Public Domain. A minute ago I said so again in the image description. What more must I do? Jim.henderson (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:170rainirt.JPG

What's going on here? I also marked this one as Public Domain, and then you marked it for deletion. Everyone may use all my pictures for all purposes. I said so. What's going on? Jim.henderson (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying "YOu need to state you made the image in the summary as well as in the licensing boilerplate :)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)" :However, I am failing to find where this rule about "boilerplate" is written. What I did find is Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Insert_Picture_and_Copyright, which seems to address the issue but makes no such mention. Is this "boilerplate" rule a standing Wikipolicy, or was it recently invented for some immediate purpose? Jim.henderson (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that 170th Street (IRT Jerome Avenue Line) still has its picture marked for speedy deletion. Is there something I can do to slow down the deletion? Some place to appeal to have it cancelled? And is there some place I can find out more about this "boilerplate" requirement? Like, is it retroactive and I have to worry about all the pictures I uploaded this winter and didn't know about the need to boilerplate them to protect them from speedy deletion? Jim.henderson (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Circular Quay stn.jpg

I've reverted your addition of the {{no source}} template to this image. The extended data (Metadata) information on the image description page provides information to show the uploader quite possibly took the photograph themselves. -- Longhair\^talk 10:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murton, County Durham

Just to let you know that I have reverted you edit to this page, when you removed a YouTube link. The photos on the film the link points to are all copyright of the Sunderland Echo, as are the pics on the Murton, County Durham page - all licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.--seahamlass 21:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove link (C) Status unclear

Greetings,

What exactly does "Remove link (C) Status unclear" mean and which WP does it imply contravention of?

-Arb. (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the copyright status of the site linked to could not be clearly determined.

In order to avoid linking to copyvios, it's best practice not to link to pages or material with uncertain status. See Wikipedia :External Links. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiMapia issue

Start of a solution? Well, I'm not an expert, but something like this might work... If there was a bot that could get approved to start on this page and either replace all instances of http://wikimapia.org/#lat=X&lon=Y&z=13&l=9&m=h&v=2 (where X and Y are wildcards character of some sort) with http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/geo/geohack.php?pagename=PAGENAME&params=X_N/S_Y_W/E (where N or S are options contingent on whether "X" is a positive or negative number and W/E are options for "Y" and PAGENAME is replaced by the pagename itself) OR you could replace http://wikimapia.org/#lat=X&lon=Y&z=13&l=9&m=h&v=2 with {{coord|X|N/S|Y|W/E|display=title}} again, with N/S and W/E determined by the values in the URL. Does that make any sense? The bad news is, I cannot make those bots myself and I do not know what kind of issues might arise with this kind of replacement. Let me know if you think I can be of further assistance, and if you have a response, please post on my talk. -Justin (koavf)?T?C?M? 02:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Sfan00 IMG and Koavf. That's an interesting snippet of discussion. What exactly is the issue with direct links to WikiMapia? The fact that there are several thousand of them means that many authors find them useful and worth adding. The most likely reason for this is that they are qualitatively different to the generic geohack links in that they take the reader to a marked up version of Google maps (created using the official Google API) on which the feature being described can be clearly marked. Overall they seem a positive addition to Wikipedia (I certainly find them very useful). So the question remains, what exactly is the problem with them or, to put it another way, which WP do they contravene? -Arb. (talk) 11:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly related to WP:EL, There were concerns that the exact relationship between Wikimapia and Google (the imagery provider) isn't made explicit in Wikimapia's terms, and Google's terms for use of it's imagery seem to suggest that mass downloading of geo-locations and creation of derivative works is not allowed. A trace from an areial image may count as a derived work in

some jursidictions, and as I indicated could be a copyright grey area, something generally discouraged in respect of external links..

Secondly, Wikimapia has a non-commercial use clause, this of itself would not be an issue

by itself, but in my view becomes an issue, when it's used as a source for mass tagging(owing to database rights), non commercial use clauses are generally incompatible with 'free' licenses like Wikipedia.

Thirdly, and this may be controversial and may not be policy as such, where the same information is available from a number of independent competing providers, it is felt Wikipedia should ideally not favour any particular site, other than possibly giving preference to sites with obviously 'free' licenses.

Fourthly, again a controversial viewpoint, Wikimapia appears to be community driven, and so

in some circumstances may be borderline with respect to the policy on reliable sources.

BTW, I'm pleased you've decided to present a robust challange on this. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the GeoHack page includes WikiMapia, I don't think there's any ground for removing links based on possible copyright issues. It's certainly a good idea to replace them with templated links to GeoHack though. --NE2 14:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NE2 seems to have countered your first two points so, turning to your third, WikiMapia provides different information to the other sites listed in GeoHack in that it is possible to clearly mark on it the feature being referred to. This will often not matter as many features are self evident but there are bound to be cases where having the feature marked removes ambiguity.

As to your fourth point, and noting your careful use of the word "some", that is surely true of any community driven web site including Wikipedia itself despite all our best efforts to ensure otherwise.

Having said that, for many articles the "coordinate globe"/GeoHack approach is perfectly adequate (I have used it several times myself). However, there are other articles where direct links just seem to work better. In particular, articles that cover more than one place. An example of this is Lighthouses in Jamaica. In that article, the direct links seem very clear, the "coordinate globe" would not work at all and the third option of relegating them to a dozen lines in "External links" seems to somehow weaken the article. If you can suggest a better way of doing things in an article like that I'd be genuinely interested to hear it.

And as a by the way, for this author (and presumably others with an interest in place related articles), editing WikiMapia feels very similar to editing Wikipedia. Both are sites on which one can share ones knowledge of the world with the world. Have you tried it?

-Arb. (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Lighthouses in Jamaica, you can use "Morant Point (17°55′05″N 76°11′06″W / 17.918°N 76.185°W)" (note that you can and should round the figures unless you are sure about the higher precision). This allows the reader to decide which site to use. --NE2 23:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that method is that it gives an unsatisfactory zoom level. Compare the view provided by your "Morant Point (17°55′05″N 76°11′06″W / 17.918°N 76.185°W)" (selecting the WikiMapia Satellite option) with that provided by the article's current "Morant Point". The later goes directly to the lighthouse, the former provides a (very unhelpful) regional view of the entire eastern end of the island. -Arb. (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How's this: "Morant Point (17°55′05″N 76°11′06″W / 17.918°N 76.185°W)" --NE2 02:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hoagland

Would you mind explaining your edit today? If we remove the youchoob citation, that leaves it too open for some other editor to come along and question whether he ever claimed that "the face" was symmetrical. Please consider restoring the link. Thanks. --El Ingles (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vakarai_first_page.jpg

Why the image Vakarai was deleted? Could somebody explain this to me? This picture was taken by me of the first page of the newspaper I am editing.Monika Bonckute 17:53, 19 April 2008 (CT)

Don't deep Link Google Books PDF!!

Why not? I'm asking in reference to your recent edit to the Peterloo massacre. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find your answer on my talk page persuasive. Including a URL in a citation is neither distributing or publishing a PDF. Unless you can come up with a convincing rationale I will undo your edit. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to keep this conversation in one place, but I have asked you what wikipedia policy it is that you're trying to enforce, because I just can't see any sense in what you're doing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing Google Books links. Until a policy consensus makes it clear they are a copyvio (which is unlikely to happen) they are a perfectly valid referencing tool.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The community has so far accepted Google Books links as valid, you have to gain consensus for their removal before doing so. Removal of useful links is disruptive, and close to vandalism, as it deteriorates from articles being useful. Please stop such removal immediately and restore the links you have removed. If you continue, please consider this a formal warning from the administrator.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sfan00 IMG aka User:ShakespeareFan00, please self-revert your own hasty deletions of links to books.google.com especially in all Poland related articles. Your pretentious and misinformed idea of "provider-duality" sounds preposterous. Hence, your unilateral actions stemming from probable lack of understanding of what copyright is, can only be seen as disruptive. --Poeticbent talk 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What changed your mind so drastically? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(You wrote)
Reverting, but please provide a link to a page on Google Books explaining what permissions they have over say any other book store or library...Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All articles (bar one which was subsquently edited) should now have thier links to Google Books restored :). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate that. Please note that Piotrus has taken your concerns to a broader forum already (here), where you can follow our community feedback. --Poeticbent talk 01:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Image:Sheung Shui Station Platform 1 New.jpg missing description details

Sorry because I uploaded a lot of images at the same time, I do not have enough time to add the descriptions or define it's categories.TheBigGap (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

So you've deleted my entire page (I'm a bit of a novice at this so it took me over an hour) over the dispute over ONE photograph. This, quite frankly, is appallingly unfair. I have posession over that image because I'm in it and I am friends with the photographer in question (which, by the way, I said in the copyright information section). But thankyou, with very, VERY heavy sarcasm. --Alex. 14:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alex. It would sure be nice if you would fix your signature (and include links to your user or user talk page). Anyhow, if you are referring to Image:L_d736c8dd45725ce5fa17262535bf93d8.jpg, the image isn't being deleted. It has been proposed for move to Wikimedia Commons, and will still be used wherever it is used here, and on any other Wikimedia Wiki. Also, it should be renamed, because that name isn't appropriate. For more information about moving images to commons, see WP:MITC. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine.

Despite you being very unclear about how to actually obtain that considering he doesnt possess a wikipedia account, here: www.myspace.com/harrowdownbanduk That would a myspace that I, Alex Block, run myself, and this is clearly shown as my profile is on there, as is the photographers (Daniel Laskey). So please put my page back. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexjblock (talk • contribs) 15:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MULTICUBE_FP7_Project_logo.png

Elaborate: A logo, with given permission from owner for display, for a publicEuropean Union project, stated in the Source tag has what copyright status? Feel free to update as necessary. -Michael.Fercu (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template for the CoS/IRS documents

Hello. I used your suggestion and I have created a template for all future uploads out of the CoS/IRS archive: Template:CoS-IRS. Any comments or suggestions? Thanks. Geo1967 (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images/media in Porgy and Bess

I notice you've recently tagged a number of images in the Porgy and Bess article. I'm not the original uploader, and I can't quite get my head round what's missing from these particular cases. However, I would point out that since George Gershwin died in 1937, the music is presumably now out of copyright in any case, copyright could subsist in the typesetting of the extracts, and the uploader states that they were his own work - the uploader hasn't contributed since February. The libretto, largely by Ira Gershwin is presumably still in copyright, so I usppose there might be a problem with quoting that still, but the extracts given are a tiny part of the whole work. Again with recordings of short extrcts, the original uploader says these were auto-generated as midi from his typesetting. David Underdown (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PBS idents

You want to delete the PBS idents images. This isn't fair because it's an article about the idents for which images are very appropriate. Georgia guy (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]