User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 11

File:PICT3905.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT3905.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT3905.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT3953.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT3953.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT3953.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT4026.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT4026.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT4026.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT4035.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT4035.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT4035.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT4049.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT4049.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT4049.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT4062.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT4062.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT4062.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT4063.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT4063.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT4063.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT4084.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT4084.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT4084.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT4086.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT4086.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT4086.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT4088.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT4088.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT4088.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT4089.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT4089.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT4089.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT4092.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT4092.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT4092.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT4097.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT4097.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT4097.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT4101.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT4101.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT4101.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

WHY?

Why are you talking to yourself? Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I use TWINKLE to refer stuff to RfD, The notifications above are a side-effect :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT4203.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT4203.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT4203.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT4206.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT4206.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT4206.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT4219.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT4219.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT4219.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT4317.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT4317.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT4317.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT4340.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT4340.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT4340.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT4364.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT4364.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT4364.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT4452.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT4452.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT4452.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File Moves

Hi, thanks for helping out with renaming files. When you are done could you please remember to remove the Rename File Template so that the file is romoved from the list of files needing renaming. Thanks, Jamietw (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Noted, I should be doing that!! :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT4469.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT4469.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT4469.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT4498.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT4498.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT4498.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Duncan McLaren Memorial.jpg listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:Duncan McLaren Memorial.jpg. Since you had some involvement with the File:Duncan McLaren Memorial.jpg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

File:The Ground.jpg listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:The Ground.jpg. Since you had some involvement with the File:The Ground.jpg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Manga cover fur

Template:Manga cover fur has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Listing file redirects at Redirects for discussion

Hello Sfan00 IMG, I noticed that you have listed a number of file redirects at redirects for discussion. After all instances of the file title have been corrected, file redirects meet CSD criteria G6 and R3. Therefore, they can safely be tagged for speedy deletion under either criteria. As opposed to going through the full 7 day RfD process, where they will undoubtedly be deleted anyway. By speedying the requests, it decreases the pressure on the commonly backlogged RfD process. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT4508.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT4508.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT4508.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Forbesisland.jpg

Hi, Just to let you know that I changed your edit on the license template - I thought {{PD-US}} didn't really fit that well - so I changed it to {{cc-zero}} - as the text (and remote web site) also quotes "CC0" - I think the template text fits better with the original.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

File:~tj2.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:~tj2.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:~tj2.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Zwicky.jpg listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:Zwicky.jpg. Since you had some involvement with the File:Zwicky.jpg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale of Image013.jpg

Sorry for not getting you this quicker, but unless I have the wrong copyright attachment (I have tried uncopyrighted, fair use, and copyrighted, explaining that there is no copyright on the image, since it is on my high school's website, and I have never been told that it has been copyrighted.) Unfortunately, regardless of what I state it as, it ends up deleted and I get a copyright notice. I have asked the other admins who have deleted it this same question, and they have never replied over the years. What exactly should I put it under so it is not deleted anymore? Thanks. Shanem201 (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

File namespace noticeboard idea

Hi there. As a file worker, I'd like your input on the idea of a noticeboard for file workers. The prototype is at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#File Namespace Noticeboard.

Please comment at the VPIL thread, or edit the page linked to there directly, as I can't keep track of this conversation if everyone I invite to comment on the matter responds on their own talk pages. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Perthshirefront.jpg

And 23 November, its possible deletion date, is four years to the day that it was uploaded. Classic. - Dudesleeper talk 00:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Jmabel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And again, following up:

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Jmabel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Non-free rationale for File:Osborneportrait.gif

I changed description Page for File:Osborneportrait.gif .Please verify that.Thank you. -- Raghith 11:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. -- Raghith 16:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Asserted free images with fair use rationale

I noticed that you have been tagging images as {{wrong license}} when they have both a text-only PD assertion and a fair use rationale. I presume that the other users' uploads (like File:1007thevibe logo v2 cropped.png, which I uploaded) have FUR out of an abundance of caution. I'm confused about what is wrong about the licenses: Do you believe the images are copyright-eligible, or is there some other reason? I'd hate for some combination of fixes to remove a FUR because something "doesn't need it", followed by a no-permission tag later because something doesn't have a FUR. --Closeapple (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that PD-tagged images do not need an NFUR. They are tagged as {{wrong license}} because they have incorrect information. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

But they don't need to not have a FUR either. FUR is not incorrect information; in addition, FUR is not a license anyway and the textlogo assertion isn't wrong. As I said: Marking these as wrong license means someone can't give two reasons for a file to be valid even if both are legally legitimate. I haven't been able to find anything in Wikipedia policy that prohibits this. --Closeapple (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

File:John Desmond Bernal.jpg

I have changed the description on File:John Desmond Bernal.jpg , please verify that. Thank you. -- Raghith 04:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Retitled images

When listing these at RfD, please could you do those with the same rationale as group nominations rather than individually. This will make it easier for editors to comment and easier for those closing the discussions to determine consensus for them. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No objections to you combining RFD's :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll do that. You might also want to offer your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Retitled images - add to G6 or new R4 as you were the inspiration for it! If there is a noticeboard or talk page where you coordinate or discuss these sorts of moves, it'd be good if you could drop a note to the discussion there too. Cheers Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

File:One love.jpg listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:One love.jpg. Since you had some involvement with the File:One love.jpg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

File:One Life.jpg listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:One Life.jpg. Since you had some involvement with the File:One Life.jpg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

File:One Love.jpg listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:One Love.jpg. Since you had some involvement with the File:One Love.jpg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

File:ONE LIFE.jpg listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:ONE LIFE.jpg. Since you had some involvement with the File:ONE LIFE.jpg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Hopkins logo.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:Hopkins logo.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:Hopkins logo.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Aethelberhtobv.jpg and File:Aethelberhtrev.jpg

The reason they are non-free is because no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the images of the coins (3D objects) were ever in the public domain. Does that clarify? If so, could you remove the tags? - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry , I can't do that, based solely on what you claim.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. I have dealt with literally hundreds of copyright claims over images and firstly, I cannot understand on what grounds you are claiming those the copyright of those coin images is in doubt. Everything is copyrighted with all rights reserved until the owner says it is not. There is nothing to suggest that the owner has said these images are not. Therefore we must signal them as non-free, not dubious. [Edit: also [1]]

Secondly, and incredibly seriously (not to mention surprisingly given your established record), this suggests to me you do not understand the rules that govern usage on the English Wikipedia (ditto [2], [3]). We accept (as free) media that is free in the US but not in its country of origin. Therefore we accept these images as free.

I'd also like an explanation for [4]. All of these three passed FA image checks as carried out by Jappalang. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 21:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Also can I have an explanation for [5] and [6] / https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:SkinnersSchool.ogg&curid=11471351&diff=461996049&oldid=338344030. The latter one seems straightforwardly PD; with the latter two the complex licensing is explained fully in the description (the description acknowledges the file is not in the PD in the UK/EU for example, which seems to be your main concern). - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 21:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If you support the notion of an image being free in the US (but not in the EU), then you presumably support the notion that in the US an image of an 'old' work cannot of itself create a new copyright where the new image is a merely a mechanical reproduction.

That's why the coin images were queried. I'll take another look at the images you mention on the basis of your feedback. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In relation to, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Rememberscarborough.jpg&diff=461994272&oldid=309591606 - This is a work by a UK artist, and as such wouldn't expire here in the UK until 2028. If you can provide evidence of it being 'published' in the US prior to 1922, then I will consider restoring the previous situation. The concern here was that the work not being obviously published in the US might have a 'revived' copyright in the US. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In relation to, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_Good_Riddance_-_George_V_of_the_United_Kingdom_cartoon_in_Punch,_1917.png

- Punch is UK publication, and a such this wouldn't expire in the UK until the end of 2012. The concern was that because it wouldn't have expired here by 1996, that it might have had a 'revived' copyright in the US, unless there was a pre 1922 US publication (Punch being for reference a UK publication). However, I've done a rollback, so that you can make additional checks on the US status of the image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. With regard to the coin images, they are not merely mechnical reproductions: a coin is a 3D artwork. That's why PD-art doesn't apply.

With regard to Remember Scarborough and the Punch Cartoon, see the text of {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. That is the rationale being used here, and it is a legally established one (the ninth circuit decision was mainly connected to translations, which is why we ignore it most of the time). - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 22:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... I'll make some rollback's then :) , In terms of the {{Wrong License}} tags for the coins, I'll let you remove the tags , so you can leave an appropriate note on the talk page, It seems that it's not just me that gets confused on coin images. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Photostore

I'm not sure why I received a message for File:Photostore.jpg. Looking the page the tags state there is a fair use message (look at the edit text) and several tags that specify terms. What tagged it for the bot in this case? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that when tagging it, I got confused by the 'with permission NC' tag. Tag and warning removed. It would be much appreicated if you could consider reformulating the reasoning behind inclusion of this image into a {{Non-free use rationale}}

format though :) . Thanks for the prompt response Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

NFUR added, please check and cleanup if needed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

;File:Emil.grubbe.jpg

Hey! you left a template on this image wondering whether fair use rationale was necessary as it was taken in 1896. I struggled with this choice for a while, but decided on that one because I don't know when the image was first published or when the photographer died. I'm no expert in any of this, so feel free to change it. Should I have done something differently?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No need to change anything at present, You went with the most cautious option :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

File:X.gif listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:X.gif. Since you had some involvement with the File:X.gif redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:X.gif listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:X.gif. Since you had some involvement with the File:X.gif redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:1w.png listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:1w.png. Since you had some involvement with the File:1w.png redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Portlogo.png listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:Portlogo.png. Since you had some involvement with the File:Portlogo.png redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Portlogo.png listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:Portlogo.png. Since you had some involvement with the File:Portlogo.png redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Victoriaprussia1892.jpg

Why did you add a completely blank template to that page, without filling in any fields? Such action is completely useless... AnonMoos (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had added some information, if noy then apologies Sfan00 IMG (talk)

inttypes.h Image goof up!

I am extremely sorry, but the image name has been wrongly tagged by me. It actually is a flowchart of inttypes.h but wrongly been tagged to be of tgmath.h. This image has been modified and new image has been uploaded on Wikicommons(as "Dependency Graph for inttypes.jpeg" for inttypes.h and the one for tgmath.h is "Dependency Graph for tgmath.h.png". Anyways, I have added the source and other relevant information. Please have a look: (File:Dependency Graph for tgmath.jpeg). If possible, please delete this image(File:Dependency Graph for tgmath.jpeg) from Wikipedia. Sorry for the goof up. Thanks for pointing out. Jobin (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Still working on files?

If you still work on "no license" / "no source" then files in Special:UncategorizedFiles should be checked. Sometimes some user removed a valid license (vandalism perhaps) and sometimes they just add a non excisting license tag. Sometimes a lot of files can be fixed with a single edit (Template talk:Picture of the day) :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: Non-free rationale for File:Pepper's Adventures in Time.jpg

Hi. I'd been busy and all, but I thoroughly read thru the note you posted. I think someone had managed to take care of the copyrights information required for this image. Thanks anyway. – Omar 180 (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

File:NOMA development Manchester England.jpg - needs deleting

I've uploaded a better image, which is also copyright free from the The Co-operative Group on Flickr. Therefore the File:NOMA development Manchester England.jpg needs to be deleted, but I'm too sure how? Stevo1000 (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

File:SRI International logo 2011.png

Because the image is trademarked, I still need to provide a fair use rationale despite its non-copyrightable status. That's my understanding, anyway. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope. That does give me an idea though. Sven Manguard Wha? 11:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Powles p.237 Nimrin Nelly.jpg

Can you please explain why you think the license for this photo is wrong?--Rskp (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You've tagged this as PD-US, where the source information suggests it's a work first published in New Zealand which uses a different set of rules based on when the author died. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I used PD-1923 not PD-US. --Rskp (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I may have stumbled on the correct tag now. --Rskp (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Plant of Doom.jpg

Hi Sfan00 IMG, I have added the rationale. I was wondering whether I am now allowed to remove the deletion box? Jcamts (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:The Brink's Company Logo.svg

Why is the license used wrong? what needs to be corrected so I can move it to commons?Grmike (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)grmike

The license is wrong because it's an NFUR style infromation block on a PD tag :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

could you be a little more clear:) I assume you mean the summary box used is wrong, what should be used in place of it?Grmike (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)grmike

You need to use {{information}} Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll do that thanks.Grmike (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)grmike

Casting call

You had mentioned on IRC a casting call for voice readers. Please notify me when you post that call Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Manishearth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Help with newer version of file

Please help me out with this... I tried to upload a newer version of Image:College of Engineering, Pune logo.jpg. It has uploaded successfully but the newer version does not appear on the linked page. What should be done here? Jobin (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems OK to me, might have been a cache issue. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hiii

File:Dam Site by Navarun.jpg, I have taken permission of the author Navarun of posting his pic to Wikipedia and he has given me the permission to upload his file so i have uploaded it and I cant catch you why you are saying for its speedy deletion?? If you don't believe me you can ask him by sending msg in flickr. Plss reply. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalinparikh003 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You'll need him to indicate on a Flikr that the file is freely licensed. Or he needs to contact the OTRS permissions queue.

Sorry , but anyone claim they have permission, so it needs provision of evidence of that permission from the original creator of the photo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:DCwom

Users have the right to remove warnings: it's interpreted as "I read it." Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wait--I see it, you reverted an IP's removal of those warnings. Never mind! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

needs authorship information

Seriously? Can you read? Hyacinth (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Notified in error :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:KIIS logo.jpg

Not sure where to report it, but this logo is likely not free. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Dollar.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Dollar.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Retitlted image, that was retitled to resolve a name shadowing issue

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Plutonium plume from the 1957 fire at Rocky Flats, per Colorado state dept of public health.gif

Sorry to be a bother, and I certainly mean no offense, but in all honesty the discussion you've just added to my 'talk' page is just jargon/gibberish to me. Meaning: I truly don't grasp the issue or your point.

In plain English: the subject .gif file under discussion is from the Colorado Department of Health, and is therefore in the public domain. Everything else is just details to me, but obviously important -- and I'm not diminishing that in any way -- to you.

A little assistance would be appreciated as regarding appropriate Wiki-labeling. The bottom line is that the .gif should not be deleted due to some perceived technicality.

Kind regards,

--FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Your RefDesk question about rail tracks

Hello, ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

WillNess (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Curves P Slide Soloution.svg

A tag has been placed on File:Curves P Slide Soloution.svg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Uploader requests deletion due ti being based on an obvious howler :(

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:TrackCurve Slide and Bend.svg

A tag has been placed on File:TrackCurve Slide and Bend.svg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

User request for deletion of an incorrect diagram uploaded in respect of REFDESK thread

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Ankit Maity's talk page.
Message added 15:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 15:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

File:CNGoulimis.jpg

Hello, Regarding the File:CNGoulimis.jpg, I am puzzled as to what is the right thing to do. The picture (of my grandfather) belongs to me and I scanned it and uploaded it. I am quite happy for it to have a Creative Commons license or other free access. I put some more information on the Source section of the picture, but I would appreciate if you could check it, I am a novice at these things. Thanks in advance, Constantine Cngoulimis (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

tags

the sculpture is non free; the photo is a derivative work and cc, qed. please reverse all the tags you have added in error. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 14:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If the photo is 'derivative' then it can't be CC-BY. This is why they were tagged as {{wrong license}}. I won't be reverting the tags as they are NOT added in error.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I've had this conversation with you before a long time ago and you're still wrong on it, Sfan. For someone to reuse these derivative photographs, they must not only satisfy fair use (here, Wikipedia's NFC), but they must ALSO satisfy the photographer's licensing terms. That's what makes these derivatives instead of mere copies--there are layers of rights to be concerned with. Your tags are improperly ignoring or diminishing the photographer's rights, because merely having a fair use claim to use a depiction of a non-free sculpture does not entitle you to use someone else's particular photograph of it. So if you cannot create and apply tags that respect both the non-free content that is the subject of the photograph AND the photographer's chosen license, then you shouldn't be doing anything in this area. postdlf (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

A more gentle comment: Template:Photo of art can be fixed to reflect the concern I have just expressed. But its text is unacceptable at present. postdlf (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If the wording is unacceptable, then please feel free to suggest one that's is? {{Photo of art}} was created partly to filter out of a load of images that were showing up as having conflicting categorisation (making it harder to find image that genuinely DID have an incorrect license). It's my view that Wikipedia should have an explicit policy that a 'derivative' image can ONLY be uploaded under a SINGLE 'non-free' (i.e fair use license). This would be simpler for uploaders, contributors and admins alike.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm travelling right now (and so editing via mobile) but I'll try and work on something when I can. I think it's mostly a matter of proper emphasis. I don't particularly care about the categorization issue, but it seems the best solution to that would be to make derivative nonfree subcategories for each additional license. You are correct in viewing non-free as more restrictive, but not correct in treating the images as if non-free is the only issue or criteria that must be resolved. The creator if a derivative work should not be required to waive all rights he has, such as whether he wants his authorship attributed, just because it's a derivative rather than fully original work. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm satisfied with it in this form. It states upfront the important NFC issue for Wikipedia, but also clearly sets forth the derivative author's licensing requirements.

The license of the derivative can be important within Wikipedia as well, beyond the simple requirement that the license be free. If someone took a photograph of a copyrighted public sculpture in the U.S., it would be a non-free derivative because no FOP there. But if someone else cropped out the sculpture and just used a section of the surrounding cityscape, that cropped image would then be subject only to the original photographer's chosen license. If that license required attribution, for example, our hypothetical cropper would have infringed the derivative author's copyright if he uploaded the cropped image without giving that attribution. So it is just as important to state the derivative's licensing terms as it is non-free content restrictions. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the wording I had put in respect of 'media' vs photogrpah was mainly so I could also use it for things like various coin

images File:2007 Ice Hockey.jpg for example, I am also going to suggest a second new template might be needed for 'derived' artwork that isn't photographic (like people's SVG tracings of heraldic crests for example). I would also strongly suggest a rewording of {{derivative}} in line with the changes you made to {{photo of art}}. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Does your tag affect the use of ***.jpg in WP articles?

Can you explain why you have added {wrong license} to File:Shanghai tram, British section, 1920s, John Rossman's collection.jpg please?

And does it prevent its use in WP? --Greenmaven (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The tag was added because , the image which was seemingly licensed as PD, had a ' non-free use rationale' attached to it, If the image is genuinely PD it doesn't need a 'non-free use rationale'. I was sure I'd indicated as such in the edit summary.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding information templates

This isn't all that useful if you still have to go back and manually move the text around to the right fields, as with this one or this one, where you've left the author field blank even though that information is present. postdlf (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Noted. I was adding in the absolute bare minimum, because some people moaned in the past about adding 'dubious' authors and advised I should leave those fields blank if I wasn't sure. ( Thanks for letting me know about the two above where it WAS clear)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Tamazunchale seal

Since, as you correctly pointed out, this file is in Wikimedia Commons, why not simply remove it from English Wikipedia? (I put it in both places, and I'm still learning my way around Wikipedia copyright policies.) Prescottbush (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That's true, although if it's marked as un-free here, I don't have the confidence in proposing a deletion because of the views of certain people here Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:MoneyCardScan listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:MoneyCardScan. Since you had some involvement with the Template:MoneyCardScan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Ticket Scan listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Ticket Scan. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Ticket Scan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Official document listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Official document. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Official document redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Non-free data overlay

Template:Non-free data overlay has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Non-free geo image

Template:Non-free geo image has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Population and Environment Cover.jpg

Sfan00, the image is a journal cover. The rationale is filed with the image. Please help me understand your objection.  kgrr ^talk 12:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You know very well that the fair-use rationale was there in the initial creation of the image. Look at the history. Four years ago, there was no NFUR template. Perhaps rather than running around wikipedia deleting journal covers, why don't you write your bot to add the NFUR template?  kgrr ^talk 12:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I upload and use this photo in a WP article?

I have found a photo with an unexpired copyright, owned by a newspaper, and managed by a State Library (in Australia). Does it qualify for use under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria? Or is it completely off-limits? --Greenmaven (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you give a little more context? What was the intended use? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:House-of-Refuge-Biscayne-Bay.jpg

Could you enlighten me as to what you think is wrong with the licensing on that? As I explained on the page, the photographer (a U.S. citizen and resident) died more than 70 years ago, but the first publication of the photo that I know about was in 1977. I did not add the template about the image being in the public domain in countries using 70 years from the death of the creator, but I assumed that might apply in some countries, but not the U.S. -- Donald Albury 00:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, In this instance the 'wrong' license is because it might actually be PD, and so suitable for Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

template:freedoom of panorama

Hi,

I've relisted this redirect at RfD, which is presumably where you'd meant it to go. :) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Beguiling logo 610.jpg wrong license?

File:Beguiling logo 610.jpg is a non-free image of the logo of a business. It's tagged with {{Non-free logo}}. I don't understand why you've tagged it with {{wrong license}}...? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 15:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This image has been tagged, because of a concern that it might not meet the requirements of being 'original' enough, In some jurisdictions some simple text based logos don't qualify for 'copyright' protection. They may of course still be subject to other things like trademark rights. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Nominating a template twice

Howdy. Unless I am mistaken, it appears you nominated {{PD-NYWT&S}} for deletion twice. I got two notifications about it, and it is listed under the 22nd and the 24th.--Rockfang (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoops! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

File:NikitaS2

Like some of the other promos I uploaded the poster was taken from a specific website in wich images can be freely uploaded and what's more is that since it is a poster its use is to promote the series wich is what I am doing. I don't mean to come of as a *itch but that's why I did it. It is kind of like the poster in the 90210 (season 4) image or One Tree Hill (season 9). --Left4Deadseries FAN (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Template:Photo of art

has no more transclusions :P I was about to nominate it at WP:TFD, but I thought I'd let you do the honors. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Happy new year!
	We wish you a Merry Christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 18:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Free? Non-Free? Hah?

Sfan00 IMG, I just saw that you added a {{NFUR not needed}} tag to the image page for Siddons_as_Lady_Macbeth.JPG. This has me confused. A few months ago, someone else (I assumed he was an admin) deleted the image from an article where I was using it, on the grounds that there was no non-free-use rationale for a non-free image. So I added the rationale, and I restored the image to the article. Now, I see that, according to you, this image should not have the non-free-use rationale.

In all the years I've been a Wikipedian, I don't think anything has confused me more than image licensing. I did not upload the image or add it to the article, though after that time I ended up doing more with that article than anyone else, so I've been paying attention and maintaining things. I knew nothing about this image other than whatever was originally recorded about it when it was uploaded, so I had no idea whether it really needed an NFUR, and I accepted in good faith what that editor who deleted it from the page (prematurely, in my opinion, without giving me a chance to fix matters first) wrote.

So, could you please help me understand what, if anything, I am now expected to do? The tag you added seems to suggest that now something should be done and the tag removed, but I am not quite sure what, since I didn't supply the image in the first place and know nothing about its origin. I certainly wouldn't want it removed from the article, as it seems to fill the bill nicely, and surely there is some legal rationale for using the image. Thanks, Alan W (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's public domain, then it's free and doesn't need a NFUR. Can you identify its original source? The uploader/scanner doesn't matter here because the uploader merely copied the image. In what book and when was this image originally published? postdlf (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't know the original source, that is one of the problems. It looks like it was taken from an old book, maybe by scanning it. But I really can't say, nor do I know what the book would have been. The uploader identified the source as "Self", probably meaning that he or she did the scanning. But I never had any communication with that editor. I just checked, and it looks like since that time he or she has been banned for, apparently, sockpuppetry, or something like that. So it's too late to ask about it now. What once seemed simple has now become more confusing than ever. I have no idea what to do now. --Alan W (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I found some info on it with a simple Google search and have fixed the image description page. Normally it isn't too hard to track down a public domain image online. postdlf (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Not too hard for you, anyway. I tried a "simple Google search" before I checked to see what you had done. I was quickly led off on a wild-goose chase by a website that named the artist "J.d. Cooper" (and several search results had that name, which gave the false appearance of confirming the "truth"), which I now see is clearly wrong. But clearly only with 20/20 hindsight. You must have been doing this sort of thing for a while and have acquired a good sense of what websites are reliable. A good piece of detective work in any case. Thank you very much, I appreciate the help. And all this, without Sfan00 IMG even having to respond on his own talk page! (But thanks, Sfan00 IMG, for letting us use it.) --Alan W (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

missed one

Hi Sfan00 IMG. Back in May, you seem to have missed one. As the template was removed I'm not sure how to do this manually. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed , Thanks.. LMK if you find anymore ;) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Kineticresolution.gif

Hi Sfan. What is the issue there? Do I have to protect the page? --Leyo 11:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought I tagged it for Commons transfer !! The only issue is that the image should ideally be at Commons :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It should not be transferred to Commons as is. Therefore is has {{Convert to SVG and copy to Wikimedia Commons}} on the page. --Leyo 11:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Noted , Thanks Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Re:File:The_Grand_Prix_Ball.jpg

Re:File:The_Grand_Prix_Ball.jpg

This type of work is not needed as bots generated category filled with more than 200 000 images Bulwersator (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I also added information to it, It makes sense to identify images for Commons at the same time Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)