User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 4

See also: User talk:ShakespeareFan00 See also: Archives - 1,2,3

AFGonesseMemorial.jpg

In France two licenses are recognized: One for the photographer, and one for the non-free object being photographed. The photographer license is a free one, but the object is non-free. The image is treated as a non-free picture. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Edward_Gierek_%26_Ceau%C5%9Fescu.jpg

VERY please - make a commons transfer yourself! many, many, MANY thanks! --Fredy.00 (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: this file too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Edward_Gierek_%28fototeca.ro%29.jpg many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredy.00 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed images

Hi - What is the accepted license set for an image that is original work but also contains a logo? -SCEhard T 03:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

God of War III Ultimate Trilogy Edition Image

I have added a Non-free promotional license to the image, much the same as the image I have replaced it with. I believe this should be adequate. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Interim Management + Logo

Thanks Sfan00 - I think I have it sorted out now with the new article Institute of Interim Management and the accompanying logo. Amazing how fast things are spotted and highlighted. Thanks Adrest4 (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Cannot be both free and unfree"

Yes it can. Part of the image is free, part is unfree. This is not a complicated concept. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, and please stop insisting it otherwise and tagging user talk pages and images with templates you just made up. In general read about Derivative works. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appy plate image

Hey Sfan, how low does the resolution have to be to get rid of that "non-free reduce" tag on File:AppyPlate.jpg? I have already decreased its quality considerably by poor use of image editing software (LOL) but is there a resolution or size threshold that is needed here? It is something that is nice to be able to keep in the article where it is used, Appaloosa (the plate honors the Appaloosa as the Idaho state horse), and I'd like to try and save its use there, so a few tips would be appreciated, thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Capades

File:IceCapades1945.png is NOT a poster. It's a single page from a multi-page theatrical program. Part of a single page, in fact -- the ads have been cut off. I think different rules may apply. Lou Sander (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Double Monopole KCI Airport.jpg

Why do you feel this photograph is too large (1200px x 898 px)? On a normal full-color offset press, which prints color images at 1200 dpi, this image is only one inch wide. No one could possibly sell or profit an image this small. As is obvious, the photo already has been greatly reduced from the original camera file image size. (Note: More to the point, I have submitted more than 800 photos to Commons, and French and English projects over many years and never received a demand like yours.) In your response, please direct me to the Wikipédia article about acceptable image sizes that led you or the Wiki Police to make this request. Respectfully, Charvex (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I read the text in the link, and the image completely complies with Wikipédia's rules. If you disagree, please let me know what the maximum pixel height and width you personally feel is acceptable for any image so it will conform to your idea of size limits. Respectfully, Charvex (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicted image licenses

Please join the discussion of the new 'conflicted license' template at Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags#.7B.7BConflicted-license.7D.7D -SCEhard T 18:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaliyah audio clips

Hi there Sfan00 IMG, it was noted that you tagged two audio clips—File:Aaliyah - If Your Girl Only Knew sample.ogg and File:Aaliyah - More Than a Woman sample.ogg—for reduce in the Aaliyah article. I uploaded both to comply with WP:SAMPLE, so the length for both should be about right. Could you specify what the concern is for these files? Regards. — ξ ^xplicit 21:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Topgraphic.gif

This file can be deleted. I uploaded it in error but can't find a way to delete it myself. User:Marlarkey ^{> Talk} 22:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Whipped cream.jpg

Why the deletion tag? This image's creator has explicitly stated that the image is free to be used in any way at all, he has done so repeatedly, and has provided an email address where you can contact him just in case he wasn't clear enough. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it a conflict for an image to be under two different licenses? The image's creator released the image into the public domain, and he gave me specific permission to use it on Wikipedia. I believe I did forward the info to the OTRS the last time somebody tried to delete it. In any case, both statements are right there on the image page, as is Mr. Gunderson's email address, so if I have made an error or been unlcear in designating it under this or that "license", then please contact him to clarify the issue. Sorry if I sound snippy, but I'm constantly surprised that editors who have the ability to fix a problem properly all too often jump to deletion as a quick fix. Since you seem to understand the copyright issue better than I do, couldn't you just fix it instead of threatening deletion? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:LordWeatherill.jpg

I updated the image file with additional information, hopefully it is the same data that you requested. --[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selena artwork covers

Hello, The artwork are mine I bought the cds myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonaboy1992 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ZekesPad Poster.jpg

Hi Sfan00 IMG, I've re-uploaded a smaller file for the poster. However, I do not know how to modify the file to include a fair use rationale. The file is from the production company of the show and I've been given authorization to use the file. Please advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkl524 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging of Template:Expmediasrc

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Template:Expmediasrc. I do not think that :Template:Expmediasrc fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because Redundant templates should be deleted via WP:TfD where the community can discuss whether they are actually redundant and the best way to handle them. This is not one of the speedy deletion criteria. I request that you consider not re-tagging :Template:Expmediasrc for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk) 17:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images for deletion

Are you out of your mind? Why are you nominating my photographs for deletion? So what that they depict artworks? Do I have to own the artwork to be able to photograph it? Remove the warnings now and stop littering my talk page.--Satt 2 (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nascar1996 images

Hey you can delete jimmie_johnson_rolex.jpg.It is not needed now.Nascar1996 (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Can you please help me with File:K&NSeries.gif?Thank you.Nascar1996 (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicted licensing on image File:Unoabjd.jpg

Even though the image itself is under a cc license, the doll depicted is copyrighted, which is why the image needs to be used under fair use, and I tagged it as such. I asked about this last year at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and got the reply to tag it both for the image itself, and the underlying copyrighted 3D object (see archive [1]). There was also a more recent question about the same type of images that received the same answer:[2]. Siawase (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I left a message at User talk:J Milburn. Siawase (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After hunting around, I found this thread [3] where J Milburn linked to this image File:Notre dame de la paix yamoussoukro by felix krohn retouched.jpg as an appropriately example on how to handle it. Following that example, I crammed the cc license tag info and everything in the flickr template into the source field of the Non-free use rationale template at File:Unoabjd.jpg. Is this sufficiently clear that the conflicted-license tag can be removed? Siawase (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image source details

Re: [4], do try and make sure you include all the info in the {{information}} template. Secretlondon's description of the image clearly stated who had taken the picture. I have amended the file accordingly. WJBscribe (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wondering about that sort of thing, it's probably best to email the user rask than ask on the wiki (in case they have any privacy concerns). I think there are now higher quality images on Commons of the bridge, so it's probably not worth transfering it over. WJBscribe (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rochester_Midtown_Plaza_-_Interior.jpg

How about starting a discussion instead of drive-by tagging? I don't know how to resolve the conflict you see; the copyright situation is accurate as described on the page. Powers ^T 18:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Criccieth Castle (Criccieth.castle.arp.750pix.jpg)

Your message on my Talk Page is:
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:Criccieth.castle.arp.750pix.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files]] because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the [[:File:Criccieth.castle.arp.750pix.jpg|file description page]]. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 January 12#File:Criccieth.castle.arp.750pix.jpg|the discussion]] if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

You have deleted that image without ever checking with me (the photographer) if the copyright statement with the photo is correct! I have no idea where the nonsense copyright message came from but be assured the pic is mine, I took it, and I released it to the Public Domain. It would have been polite to check with me BEFORE deleting it and I could have told you that it should not be deleted. By the time you posted the above message the picture had gone!! I did not know that a pic could be deleted BEFORE the photographer was informed! - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kevin white statue.jpg

Okay, I just don't get all this licensing crap for photos here. What do I need to do now to make all the lawyers happy? Just tell me and I'll do it. (Even though I know that another year from now somebody else will come along and say "Oh no no! This is all wrong!") Dismas|^(talk) 19:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orillia Transit banner

Could you explain what about the File:Orillia Transit banner.gif might possibly be unfree. There is no explanation anywhere except that you have tagged my talk page, and not signed it. It is only text, which cannot be copyrighted, created by me and released it into the public domain. What is your problem with this? Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:0100_R06_HON_JM01.jpg fair use description

sorry - an oversight, now resolved. I've removed the tags. please let me know if I did it correctly. --Ludwigs2 18:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tute Images

Tute deck twoplayergame.jpg
TuteFourKings.jpg
Tute 40inbastos play.jpg
Tute 20inespadas play.JPG
Player of Tute holding cards.jpg

The problems concerning on the description of the use were modified, from wikipedia-only to free use, stating that is possible it's total free use. The illustrations are essential for illustration and proper description of the article Tute, and were made by me only for that purpose, please review the deletion and remove tags or just give me proper instructions on how to correct the licence if necessary.

In another topic, Irschenberg Wappen.jpg license was corrected and it's free since it's an image made by the German government. --Gduwen (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The design of the cards is traditional, therefore no copyright claims can be made and that's why most of deck manufacturers use it. In which threads most i response for the image copyright status? --Gduwen (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just corrected the source and added the copyright status of the card designs. Hope this fills all the proper needs of the description.

I corrected also the license of the Irschenberg coat of arms. --Gduwen (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biddle Image

I just updated 'File:John Biddle.jpg' by re-creating it to 'Biddle Location.jpg'. I hope this satisfies. If so, please delete 'File:John Biddle.jpg'. Thank you. Sputtnik (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Commons!

No! You put Rusty on commons! Arrgh! That's how it got deleted the first time- FunkMonk used its Commons status to delete it without any notification or discussion. If it is left in en.wikipedia he can't do that (his most recent deletion attempt was eventually foiled). I had planned to tag it "Keep Local" but you beat me there. Since you put it in commons, please keep an eye on it! Thanks, Bill Whittaker (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Film poster licenses

Good job going through and switching the film posters over to the template, many of them could use the improved formatting. Just a suggestion, I see that in your edit summaries, you state that "You can help!". It may be beneficial to create a subpage (or link to an existing one), about how to change the formatting, what template to use, etc. Linking to that in your edit summaries might help you get some assistance. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phymata

If you want to move [5] to Commons feel free. As it stands, I'm terrible at working with commons. -Craig Pemberton 06:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fianna Eireann ROH

WHy did you tag it as not being free?

It's a photograph of part of a mural on Beechmount Avenue in Belfast which I took

See: FoP-UK http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:FoP-UK

--Baldeadly (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Electra-teletext-vlow-res-copy.jpg Copyright Status

Please advise which copyright status you think is missing (ownership?) and which template should be used to include this, as the link in the boilerplate you supplied does not make this clear (and the template which should be used doesn't include an explicit ownership field?). Thank you.

File:Electra-teletext-vlow-res-copy.jpg

Ubcule (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prestel Comment "(Cite original article - NOT scans..)"

Thank you for your comment "(Cite original article - NOT scans..)" referring to some of the recent updates to the article on Prestel. The article does contain several references to online documents - some of which are themselves available elsewhere on the internet as scanned images. As the relevant editor and being new to the mysteries of Wikipedia I am keen to learn to get things presented in the best possible way and struggled to understand the merits of the various styles etc for notes and references.

I was guided in this case by the article WP:CITE which includes guidance on references including one to a PDF based source:

"Johnson, S. (2001). "The multifaceted and widespread pathology of magnesium deficiency" (PDF). Medical Hypotheses (Harcourt Publishers Ltd) 56 (2): 163-170. doi:10.1054/mehy.2000.1133 . PMID 11425281 http://www.george-eby-research.com/html/wide-mag-deficiency-path.pdf Retrieved 2008-02-23."

Is your point that the Prestel article contains an image of scan of a document - which happens to be a uploaded as a PDF file, whereas the reference I've cited above is linked to the actual text of the article - albeit converted into a PDF file?

My logic was that the source is question is now a very rare document and unlikely to be available in hardcopy form to buy or to borrow so that any link to any readable format online would be worthwhile including. Can you advise on the most appropriate way to achieve this end? Inspeximus (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I now see your point - regrettably from my perspective the copyright situation in this particular case seems very confused after the breakup of Acorn companies who must have owned it originally. Thus for now the link must remain broken and I'll probably remove it altogether and re-work the reference simply as a book at some point. Inspeximus (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Limer.jpg

You have queried copyright on this image. The file has been on my hd for some time, and I cannot remember the particular source. It is a scan, because the uncropped version shows a little of the opposite page of a book or magazine, with text (not enough to identify). Someone may have e-mailed it to me, because I don't have the source. It is clearly a photograph of a medieval two dimensional work of art, so should be public domain. If this criterion is not met, it will have to be deleted, because I have no more information. It would be a pity.--Cleanboot (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicted license tag

This edit by you seems to suggest that with images that are derivative of non-free images, the derivative author's contribution does not get a separate licensing tag; instead, only one non-free license tag is applied to the entire image. This is contrary to longstanding practice as I am familiar with it. Was there a centralized discussion at some point on this?

I think that may improperly diminish the derivative author's contribution, to make it seem as if a claim to use the underlying work depicted is all that matters when the derivative author's license must also be complied with. We have enough resistance from people who think that they have total rights over their photographs of copyrighted sculptures and other material, without effectively treating their contribution as a nullity. Further, in images such as this one, it is quite possible to get a useful image out of a crop that excludes the copyrighted sculpture, so in such instances it is of great benefit to be able to easily find such freely licensed photographic elements. In my judgment and experience, all of these issues are solved and best handled by dual licensing tags clearly labeled as such.

Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're attempting? If you can show me an example of how you think it should be done, that might help too. But ultimately the best solution might be a single license tag tailored for derivative works that clearly explains and identifies the separate elements and how they are licensed, while clarifying that the image as a whole is bound by the most restrictive terms. Derivatives are a big area of confusion and ignorance for most people, on Commons as well as on here, so we could do a lot better at clearing up that confusion (see this recent FFD discussion, for example). Cheers, postdlf (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical structure drawings

Hi Sfan00 IMG. Please note that chemical structure drawings are acceptable either in PNG or SVG format as noted here, this has been discussed at wikiproject chemistry and there was no consensus that SVGs are the preferred format for this kind of image. I prefer to use PNGs, as SVGs sometimes have rendering errors and cannot be edited after completion if errors are found. Also all my images say they were drawn by me and have a date and time attached saying when they were uploaded (i.e. a couple minutes after I drew them), so I'm not sure what else you feel is lacking from the image description? Meodipt (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted images

How in the world is those images set up for deletion when I set up the proper info ,you need to read the templates on them Kreyg ^Talk 22:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Problem Uploader...

Some communication would have been good. I have gone through the user's uploads, adding rationales and tagging/retagging for deletion where appropriate. I have also left some stern warnings on the user's talk page. They've had enough chances now- let me know if there any more issues with them, and I will block. J Milburn (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My warnings seem to have hit home. They have stopped their edit warring. Do keep an eye on them, and let me know if there are any more problems. J Milburn (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A smidge more care

Please tread cautiously which you did not do here. The uploader specifically indicated that the image was likely to be deleted soon, and the title indicates it's a test. Templated warnings to regular users are an insult, and make the editor who adds the template look somewhat silly. I'd suggest you read the image uploads in full in future, before whacking on a templated moan to an established Wikipedian. Ta! Pedro : Chat 21:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right - the "will be deleted" was added post your request - my fault and appologies for that. I'd still stay well clear of adding templates per WP:DTTR but again sorry. Pedro : Chat 21:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:With colorwheel icon.jpg

Could you please look in on the edits that I've made and let me know if I've done it correctly. Thanks, hydnjo (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your posts

You have been dumping unsigned posts on my userpage. Please stop.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PT3 database.jpg

I understand your contentions with many of the images that you have noted on my talk page. However, File:PT3 database.jpg is a standard screenshot of software for the infobox. What is the issue with its fair use?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pokerstars 20051215 Check.jpg

I have attempted to resolve your concerns at File:Pokerstars 20051215 Check.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:TonyTheTigrr Real Money history.jpg

I have attempted to resolve your concerns with File:TonyTheTigrr Real Money history.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:20071029 Man Enters the Cosmos.JPG

I have undone your marking of this file as having conflicting copyrights. As a derivative work there is more than one copyright to assess: there are the rights of the sculptor and the rights of the photographer. —Jeremy (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM

please do not ever spam my talk page ever again IJA (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They all have descriptions regards IJA (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackstone Lobby

Can you explain the problems with File:20080409 Blackstone Hotel Lobby2.JPG and File:20080409 Blackstone Hotel Lobby.JPG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Bank Of England20.gif

re User talk:Wangi#Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Bank Of England20.gif

Well feel free to do something constructive about it. Slapping a boiler plate note on my talk page isn't. Hint: perhaps you could extend it... /wangi (talk) 09:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I am sure you have noticed that I am falling way behind you. If you want me to address these concerns, you might want to slow down your pace.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for removing

the "might be deleted" tag from my picture at Purdue State Bank. I fixed the copyright issue and now you've cleaned up. Life is good. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Co-op food logo.png

Hi, thanks for drawing my attention to the image. It did have a fair use rationale but this was blanked by Jovianeye when they changed the licensing tags. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]