Jump to content

User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:FGN as Padmavati.jpg

[edit]

The image was taken in the years before and upto the years of the first world war (1914-18).These are from the personal collections, of friends, followers, relatives, and people interested in the history of art in modern Tamilnadu and India.

So what is required, to upload this image in wikipedia? for possible use in the F.G._Natesa_Iyer?

There are a few more images also from those days (hundred years ago), which can be uploaded?

Regards

Anant (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to explain where it was obtained. (Typically the book or collection.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bennett Spector Ono Riviera and Lennon.jpg

[edit]

Sorry, but I have to list this at PUF. The uploader says it's from an ad in Billboard, but it's really from editorial content, which is under copyright. We hope (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry--File:The Beach Boys 1976.jpg this one wound up there too. We hope (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan II Mosque

[edit]

I don't not only how can a mosque financed by Moroccan people (see article) built by Moroccan government to be used by Muslim public for free to be copyrighted, but also can't understand that some users upload the mosque's photos to Commons and remained, while I upload it to Wikipedia and deleted?!! Do the heirs of the French engineer receive any copyright money like any copyright holder?!!!!!!!!!--Maher27777 (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, due to Freedom of Panorama not existing in Morocco the images shouldn't be on Commons either. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've already known!!!

William South Page File:William South Camera Patent 1904.jpg. (Permission Problem)

[edit]

I wrongly attributed the copyright holder of this image to Chester County Historical Society, who informs me that it is actually public domain. (see link below) It is a US Patent Office Drawing and a public record.

http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=755235&idkey=NONE&homeurl=http%3A%252F%252Fpatft.uspto.gov%252Fnetahtml%252FPTO%252Fpatimg.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jladrew (talk • contribs) 22:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William South Page .File:Early color photographic print using Solgram process.jpg. (Permission Problem)

[edit]

Chester County Historical Society, owner of this image emailed to permissions-en@wikimedia.org with its consent for use on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jladrew (talk • contribs) 23:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image tags

[edit]

I don't know how to make my image appropriate for Wikipedia, instead of continuously tagging it every 2 hours maybe you could try to help me fix the problem. Thanks. Cjsmith.us (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Cjsmith.us[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale

[edit]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Maurice Duplessis2.jpg -- Asclepias (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FOP images

[edit]
  • Please stop disruptively tagging images of architectural works as unfree as there is no FOP in the source country (except if we can't be sure the uploader is the copyright holder on the image). As I've stated several times today, images hosted by the English Wikipedia are not required to be free in their country of origin, but only in the US; see Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, particularly "Wikipedia ... accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries". This is supported by {{FoP-USonly}}, a fairly specific template that you can easily use to replace tags you consider lacking. This has been upheld at previous PUF discussions (example, though not FOP) If you don't believe me, you can ask another editor who is familiar with Wikipedia's image policies. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could ask you that you apologise for characterising such nominations as disruptive. The nominations were made because there was a reasonable concern, that the images might not be free. I always make such nominations in good faith.

However, thank you for mentioning the relevant template, which I will consider amending the relevant images to if you are prepared to close the PUF's on that basis. It would also be helpful if the wording of {{FoP-USonly}} was calrified to say specfically give the reasoning you state, (currently it doesn't say they are acceptable locally directly.) It's also noted that it refers ONLY to architectural works. It doesn't currently say that isolate works (such as statues, sculptures and gravemarkers) would be covered.(For example, A statue on a mauseloum would be, but an isolate grave marker's statue might not.) Although it's common sense that works with a physically ,(as well possibly thematic attachment) to architectural works would be, those isolate from the architectural work concerned. The issue here would be when there is a distinct disconnection between the individual isolate work and the larger architectural whole.)

I'm willing to have a wider disscusion about this. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm sorry that I called it "disruptive"; I was mistaken in not coming here earlier. Yes, you are right that US POV does not apply to statues / paintings / murals / etc.; perhaps the "architectural works" in my original post would have been better as "buildings" (avoiding the issue of bridges etc, as well as artistic parts of a work which become the focus of a photograph). I agree with your nominations of the French monument and statues, but the Italian building and the supermarket collapse are both free in the US (I'd argue that the supermarket collapse should be free in the source country owing to the destruction of the building, but that's not quite pertinent).
Anyways, thanks for the response. I'll edit the template. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is what would I think count as an 'architectural work' subject to an artistic/creative input beyond mere practicality and function. (this list isn't exhaustive)
  • Most buildings (inc. Car parks, transport hubs, bus shelters, kiosks, beach huts, pavilions, pumping stations. etc.. )
  • Bridges (except perhaps, temporary bridges of traditional construction)
  • Tunnel portals. (inc. for the sake of completeness, canals and sewers)
  • Fountains
  • Planned public spaces (but not necessarily isolate artworks located within them) with creative input beyond mere practicality.
  • Hard landscaping and earthworks (inc. Harbours, fortifcations, etc.)
  • Folly's and Fantasy works, in the above.


Not Considered 'architecutral work':

  • Works whose design is solely on the basis on the practical function (i.e simple sheds/garages don't count)
  • Isolate works of 3D art, whose removal is not necessarily detrimental to the larger work in which they appear.
  • Isolate works of 2D art (excluding stained glass) whose removal is not detrimental to the larger work in which they appear, or are contained by.

We can disscuss further, if you want to open a suitable page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PD-India images

[edit]

I don't think there is anything I can say to stop the deletion of the PD-India images you tagged for deletion. So if you are an admin, please go ahead and just delete them. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please say something. I'd rather see the images get deleted so that their article gets clearer. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can add a rationale for Non-free use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Russia

[edit]

PD-Russia is fully compatible with US-law and does not fall under URAA effects until Jan. 1, 2016. Works with PD-Russia (if template was placed correctly) are in PD in US also. Alex Spade (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File:Choice-fm-logo.png

[edit]

Oh, is that what you meant? Well, I didn't know. Here is what I saw: [1].

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commonly mis-spelt template names :(

Can you run a check for other typos? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The author of the image File:Algonquin to Adirondacks region, by Ken Buchan (CPAWS-OV).jpeg would like to keep the file under copyright. I uploaded it -- Could you help me take the file down? Thanks for your help, Slsw9 (talk)Slsw9 — Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G7- Tagged :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}

[edit]

This should not have a "restored" parameter. All files with this tag entered the public domain in Japan before the law was changed in 1971. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Category:PD-Japan-oldphoto images with URAA-restored copyright, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Category:PD-Russia images with URAA-restored copyright, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Category:PD-Poland images with URAA-restored copyright, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stamps

[edit]

If you tag any postage stamps for questionable non-free licences of other licence issues or for deletion or review can you ping me so I can see if they might be rescued, as I just did with File:Pakistan Khyber Pass stamps.jpg, otherwise I may miss them. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noted :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
forgive my butting into this notice, but I wonder if the noble desire to keep these stamps from deletion, as it says with in the Tags as a record of the country concerned, could be aided by the uploader giving issue dates or at least an approx. year of use, in the FILE page rather than leaving it to the caption in an article? Rodolph (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted image moved to Wiki Commons

[edit]

Hello, a while back, an image [2] was uploaded by Josephsolomon92 under the claim that he produced it. It was subsequently shifted to Wiki Commons by you.

I have found out that the photo in question came from a Youtube screenshot link [3] and the original video was produced by the Land Transport Authority of Singapore. [4]. You can clearly see the same image on the right of the sidebar.

I highly doubt the user took the photo, or had the rights to release it even if he was involved in the production of the video (which I also doubt), considering it came from a Government agency. However, I am unsure how to explain the situation should I insert a speedy delete tag, which does not provide a space to explain clearly the circumstances.

I seek your assistance in this matter. Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and good catch :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dawley Court, Middlesex in 1929.jpg,

[edit]

Hi Sfan, you kindly oversaw this image and thought it ok. Someone over zealous having queried it reduced its size and approved it, but then the same person returned, in a rather sinister Hollywood film way, and thought it still not ok so deleted it (as you noticed on my Talk page). I was wondering if, as I found their approach rather depressing and the sort of thing that when it happened a few years ago made me seriously reduce my contributions to the encyclopedia, (which is unpaid and thus unappreciated, and thus a waste of ones life?), you could advise and perhaps help restore, or would it be easier to put it back up again, simply re-load it myself?Rodolph (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to see WP:UNDEL , and send in the permissions letter as was advised previously. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of e-mail sent, 7 July 2014:

Dear Wikipedia, I hereby affirm that I, Rodolph de Salis am representative of the estate/house associated with the anon. photo of 1929: File:Dawley Court, Middlesex in 1929.jpg Photograph is in a family album. I made a digital photograph copy of the 1929 image and gave it to Wikipedia. The house belonged to my great-grandfather. My father was the only son of his eldest surviving son.

[Rodolph de Salis] (appointed representative of what was the Dawley estate/exors. of Cecil Fane de Salis, etc.)] [07 July 2014]

ok, thank you. I've sent it now to WP:UNDEL. Rodolph (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salle-Favart-1840.jpg

[edit]

You've looked in at this file just now. May I be a nuisance and ask if you'd run an expert eye over the bibliographic information I have put when uploading it? It dates from 1840, so I suppose theoretically if it was by a 20-year-old who lived to be 100 (unlikely, I admit) the PD-old tag may not be the right one. Your thoughts on this would be much appreciated. Regards, Tim riley talk 14:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it highly unlikely it's not going to be PD. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good. That's reassuring – thank you. I want the image for an article that will be going up to FAC in due course, so the images must be able to survive scrutiny there! Tim riley talk 16:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another unfree image being moved to Commons

[edit]

Please take more care when tagging files as being OK to copy to Commons. The one I've just seen is this edit where you tagged a file three minutes after another user uploaded it under a claim of own work. A simple Google search would have shown that this image has been around the internet. Green Giant (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find your comments unhelpful, I assume good faith. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CSD issue

[edit]

I rejected the CSD of File:ArandaBandPhoto2012.jpg which claimed it was the same as file:Disney Diva-Tara Sutaria.jpg. Maybe you meant File:ArandaPromo2012WindUp.jpg ? Which seemed to have a self-reference.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opps. :( 18:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

(No biggie, if I work on a 100 mindless items, I'll make mistakes as well; I'm mainly pointing out that I'm trying not to mindlessly delete without looking :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bob Hope Jo Stafford James Darren Jo Stafford Show.JPG

[edit]

This was closed as keep but still has a PUF tag on it. Since I uploaded it, I didn't want to remove the PUF tag. Thanks, We hope (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nagzira, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WWF. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About File:LongOfNaplesSquash.jpg

[edit]

Hi, I have noticed you just reinserted the "Copy to Commons" flag on this page. I took it off when I copied the file here on Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cucurbita_moschata_Long_of_Naples_Squash.jpg

Notice that there is a section on the bottom of the page where it says: "File usage. The following file is a duplicate of this file (more details): File:Cucurbita moschata Long of Naples Squash.jpg from Wikimedia Commons"

Since the flag starts with this sentence: "This is a candidate to be copied to Wikimedia Commons..." it probably should be taken off. Regards. --RoRo (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion?

[edit]

You left a speedy deletion notice on my user talk page, but there is no such tag on the file in question. The file contains an image of stamps, produced by the U.S. Gov, and is in the Public Domain. The source, author and license seem to be all in order. The 'Description' is straight forward. Is there some other issue? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's duplicated at Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of SoodenHostageVideo.png

[edit]

Hi there. I am not familiar with the rules around posting images and was wondering if there the following image is absolutely not permissible: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:SoodenHostageVideo.png&action=edit&redlink=1. I'd like to use a screenshot from the hostage video of a hostage in Iraq that was taken by the kidnappers (on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmeet_Singh_Sooden). However, it seems news media has taken over the copyright. Any suggestions you may have would be appreciated. Thank you, Wikimuntu (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cap and Skull may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *[[Charles Molnar]], Inventor of [[personal computer]]—LINC (acknowledged as the 1st personal computer by [[IEEE]]
  • a crucial role in launch of The Wall Street Journal Online.<ref>The Wall Street Journal Online] Accessed August 22, 2008.{{clarify}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lemurs Park.jpg

[edit]

It is a picture, taken by me (SurreyJohn (a new user)), of an advertising sign and its surround, taken from a public place (i.e. the road) so quite legal. It is not an exact copy of the sign, nor a work of art, so I dont see why FoP should apply. There is no suggestion that public signs are copyright. From what little I understand FoP does not apply to the UK. Also this an advertising board showing an entrance to the site, not an architectural structure. Unless stated otherwise pictures taken in public places are allowed. I did send an email as requested and thought this was clear now.

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andy LeMaster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page As Above So Below. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyre

[edit]

Thanks for correcting the conversion template at Tyre. I've added many of these to articles, but not lately, and last night I couldn't remember which type of bracket to use. I should have checked before saving. Thanks again. CorinneSD (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice about discussion

[edit]

Just to let you know that your file tagging for Commons transfer is being discussed on Commons. Green Giant (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why tag all my recent map icons with {{esoteric file}} ?

[edit]

The tag produces the following message :


Given the description that accompanies the icons, it is evident that there is nothing language-specific about the icons.
Unless you are under the delusion that only English speakers use maps.
The only reason they are not already in wp commons is that they are still being tested.

So why post tags without thinking first ? André437 (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They were tagged as esoteric precisely BECAUSE you said they were still under test in the image notes. No objections to removal of the tags if you think they could be moved once the testing is complete :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antonio Clay Profile.jpg

[edit]

Hi there. I see you reviewed this file and deemed it safe to move to the commons. Why? The photo is clearly "out of scope" due to poor image quality, and subject of the photo is unrecognizable. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 5 August

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00_IMG/Archive_20&oldid=1141404803"