User talk:Sherool/22 Apr 2007 - 10 Jan 2009

Fair use flag

You flagged this picture for lack of fair use rationale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FiretruckEngineWIlt.jpg

It did have an explanation, I have added to the explanation, I hope it now suits you. 9/11. Historical event. Fair use. Melted engine. Look at it. Strange. Not going to happen again soon.

Zarcon 00:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dilated_pupils_rev.JPG.jpg

i got that image from another image already on wikipedia, how do I give copyright info for it? Use the force ^{(Talk * Contribs)} 17:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Use the force. --Sherool (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My userpage

Thank you for updating my license tag for me! ZoFreX 03:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Badfinger image deletion

Sherool, I do not remember seeing a tag for deletion on the Badfinger image that was recently taken down. However, the image is that of a record album cover and CD cover from Apple Records. The album is called Straight Up. Licensing for this image shoudl be identical as any other album cover issued by Apple. I will be putting the image back up with the appropriate information. ZincOrbie 17:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:ZincOrbie. --Sherool (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sherool. I didn't check the dates on the deletion log. There must be some other problem occurring because the article is not linking to the image. In any case, sorry for the distraction. ZincOrbie 18:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Military-insignia

Template:Military-insignia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Megapixie 03:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Image:Nurburgring-1978-04-30-001.jpg

Since I can find no alternative, feel free to delete it anyway. Willirennen 13:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TFD of Pokemon image related templates

Hi! I wanted to personally let you know that I've requestied a DR of the descision made concerning the pokemon image templates you thought should be deleted. You can find it here. I also wanted to take the opportunity to let you know why I think the original nomination may have been misinformed. You first mentioned that the templates weren't used. Actually they were used and I'm happy to say that all the images that had been tagged with them were fixed :) (or deleted...) They were being retained for future use. The other point you made, which seemed to be the one you were most concerned about, was that these templates would have created "backlog forks". I wanted to talk this out with you, because I don't think that was happening. When I first made the templates (PokeImageNR and Poke-no source) I was not aware of the current cateogry scheme. Another person built upon my templates and incorporated nsd and nrd into them so that they not only would be in the Pokemon images subcategories, but also the ones maintained by admins. That way there would be no extra backlog, just more exposure. If the templates were restored i would delete the older versions after incorporating their code into Poke-nsd and Poke-nrd. Your last point, being redundant, I don't understand because I think that more exposure helps to get the images fixed. Additionally, people who know more about a specific subject (in this case, pokemon) are more likely to know where the uploader may have gotten their image, or be able to give it an accurate fair use rationale. The templates can create categories that can be promoted in a portal, or on a project's main page as Things To DO. you may still feel the way you did, but I hope that now you understand more about these templates uses. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment posted on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 29. --Sherool (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons "copyvio"

Just a heads up. I tagged Image:Wookipedia Logo.png as a copyvio on Commons per Commons:Derivative works. --Sherool (talk) 08:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC-5)

The image in question is listed at wikia:StarWars:Image:Wiki.png as GFDL. So why is there a problem? Is their image illegal? If so, where can I find a legal copy? Will (Talk - contribs) 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry if I was not clear enough. Yes the image is tagged as GFDL licensed on Wookipedia (so are a lot of other plainly non-free images, theyr admins seem to be having a hard time keeping it "clean"), but it also says it's based on a screenshot from Return of the Jedi. Unless the person who created the logo also own the copyright to Return of the Jedi then he does not have exclusive rights to the work and can not release it under the GFDL. They can probably make a fair use case for the logo, but Commons does not accept fair use. --Sherool (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC-5)

So what can I use instead? I am also asking at the Wookipedia Senate Hall. Will (Talk - contribs) 02:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: The Wookiepedia thread is Wikia:Starwars:Forum:Can't use Wookipedia logo in Wikipedia user box if you want to respond there.

Archive time

You might want to archive your talk page. I had problems loading the entire page. Will (Talk - contribs) 02:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible pink unicorn logo

In what manner of violation do you find my userbox usage of Image:Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo.svg? The image is under copyright and used with permission: "Redistribution and use, with or without modification, for commercial and non-commercial purposes alike, are permitted provided that the IPU logo is used to represent atheism." ~ Booya ^Bazooka 02:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Booyabazooka. --Sherool (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Tone

Do not post orders on other people's talk pages. This is not the military, and you are not an officer. This is not a business, and you are not the CEO. Adjust your attitude. Kwertii 22:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HELP: PREPARE FOR SPEEDY DELETION

I am the author of this page as you can see on the history... i am SHEPHERDS and i want this page to be deleted immediately. There is no such thing as Lord's Shepherds Academy. As you can see it has no reference or even a source. It is also an advertisement even so it is not true. I the creator of this page has just invented such thing like the hot fm and Lord's Shepherds Academy. Please prepare this page and also the one 91.1 Hot FM for speedy deletion. Thanks. Again I say I am the author of this page as I started it and edit all of its content and this page is just an imagination. thanks

--Shepherds 05:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)--Shepherds 05:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord's Shepherds Academy

Most of the work seems to have been done already, removed a few links to the articles and a couple of images. --Sherool (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That list...

Would you be able to search that 10MB list you made using AWB and WPBiography links to find all the people with "Fry" in their names? I'd like to compare the success of that method with other ones. If you could post the results of the search at the template talk page, that would be really great. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, well the actual results are at User:Sherool/Fry list to avoid cluttering that talk page. --Sherool (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That is really helpful. Carcharoth 00:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

div syntax

Sorry to bother you further with this: Could you point me to any pages related to div syntax, couldn't find anything useful. —Alde Baer 15:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:AldeBaer. --Sherool (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, many thanks! I combined it with a third div layer (I never understood that those are layers), to make it span the entire screen width. Take a look at my userpage. Thanks again. —Alde Baer 17:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one more reason to switch, although IE is somehow getting better and better with each shamelessly copied feature... Anyway, I'm not going to put that trick into any article, just my userpage. —Alde Baer 18:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Akirayamaoka.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Akirayamaoka.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sherool (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with me, I just optimised the image. Please notify the uploader, who may know the image's copyright. --Tene 16:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I've notified the original uploader now. --Sherool (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted images

Well, there go those images from the Forchtenberg page. Getting sick of the number of times I've BEGGED for help on how to flag an image so that some bean-counter somewhere finally allows me to use it. As stated many times already: the wikipedia instructions on images are a quagmire of confusing regulations. You go round and round in circles.

They SERIOUSLY need simplifying.

Anyway, you don't make the rules, so no hard feelings. But it would be nice to understand what the hell I'm doing wrong!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by BuzzWoof (talk • contribs) 16:04, 27 May 2007

Reply posted on User talk:BuzzWoof. --Sherool (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS for your reply. At last some feedback that made sense! I have tons of pictures of the place I took myself. Will post. Thank you for investing the time to sort this out. If only the rules made it that clear! They talk round and round in circles to cover off all eventualities, instead of doing what you did: say is as it is! BuzzWoof 10:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete Image:Vfp15.jpg whenever you see fit. I used to have it up on my user page but I've since taken it down. It was taken in Kamtchatka BTW. Cheers Vincent 17:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military insignia

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Brig.bmp, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Also nominated Image:Lieu_gen.bmp, Image:Col.bmp, Image:Lieu_col.bmp, Image:Gen.bmp, Image:Major.bmp, Image:Capt.bmp, Image:Lieu.bmp, Image:Warrant_c1.bmp, Image:Sergeant.bmp, Image:Corporal.bmp and Image:Lance_cor.bmp. --Sherool (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dainamo"

I do not understand as this image displays an insignia of a rank in the British Army. International law requires these for combatant identification which therefore makes copyrighting rank insignias in violation of international law. This means the image is in the public domain. This applies worldwide. Dainamo 11:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to apply the template at [1] and would be grateful to know how this is done as when I click on the template or go into edit the image page I do not know where the template comes from. This will really only be of use to me on other pages since there is another another image for this insignia in use use and fit for purpose, this file can be deleted Dainamo 11:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Dainamo. --Sherool (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Orphanded GFDL presumed images.

Hi. Thanks or the message yesterday. Sadly, I wasn't there to attend to the bot at that time or I would have stopped it. I now have a mess to clear up. I am thinking of the best way to approach it. Should I mark images with the tag uploaded after 1st Jan 2006 as speedy or should I send them to IfD? I will remove the orphan tags of-course.

Could you please comment here. I don't want to make any mistakes this time before I let my bot loose :) Template:GFDL presumed warning tells the users that their image would be deleted only after 7 days, whereas in sending tagging the images as CSD:I3 would not give them sufficient time. But tagging these images for IfD would create a huge backlog there. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. --Sherool (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles discography

Would you agree that the Beatles discography is a sufficiently detailed and encyclopedic piece of work that in this case the images should stay? -- it's far more than just a list of albums or a gallery of images. Jheald 16:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Jheald. --Sherool (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not saying there should be detailed commentary there. But I think the covers are appropriate and more than justified in such an encyclopedic presentation of the body of work. Jheald 17:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Concentracionchavista13deabrilde2007.jpg

The image personally takes it with my digital camera.Bye.--K4zem 10:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, I added this as the source infor for the image, please take care to add this on future uploads, thanks. --Sherool (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo5 6000

I have added a fair use rationale for this image. *** Crotalus *** 00:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Peaks' Giant

Thanks for the info on Image:Twin_Peaks_The_Giant.jpg, I had some troubles with the fair use but now I thinks it's good. Or is it? Is the tag now removable? Thanks, Insist 19:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Insist. --Sherool (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thanks. I will enhanche the information and style to meet the Wikipedia standards! Insist 19:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Work_of_Oscar_Niemeyer.jpg

Hi, this picture (more accurately, it's thumbnail version) was copied to nl: 2 years ago (nl:Afbeelding:180px-Work-of-Oscar-Niemeyer.jpg). A fellow Dutch wikipedian (nl:User:KameraadPjotr) obtained permission from the original author (was an sxc.hu picture). Could you please undelete it, so I can move it to Commons? Cheers, Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 16:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:NielsF. --Sherool (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do that. My post here seems to have been at about the same time as the uploading of a larger image by KameraadPjotr. Anyway, thanks for checking! Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 17:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry. I was just trying to help (with the stub template). But about the userpage, I don't understand why I can't use the screenshot if its also in another article.—GalacticExplorer 22:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Galactic Explorer. --Sherool (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marty Schottenheimer.jpg‎;

Had copyright information listed , it is clearly a head shot and is expressly released by the S.D. Chargers for publicity purposes. A fact that was noted and complies with free use guide lines in place please tell me why you don't agree. Thank you in advance. You site the fact that the source is listed Wireimage and the fact that they make money for taking photos is not a issue here. The N.F.L. pays them to take these photos for publicity purposes. The photos are listed as free on both the wireimagine web page in this size and quality and on the Charger web page. This is a official photo and all rights are expressly National football league and no free rights image exist that are official other than these listed to my knowledge. Turner/Schottenheimer are famous coach's /people and these photo's are germane to the Chargers and the article.

I do struggle to comprehend deletes when every effort is made to comply with all policies. The very point of Wikipedia and our ability to capture history and supply factual information for generations to come is a serious issue and one that should not be taken lightly.

Pictures and images are part of the story please don't get carried away in your edit numbers thanks. RMANCIL 14:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes it could illustrate the subject and so on, but that's not relevant as to whether or not it's possible for a replacement to be created. So despite the unsubstanciated claims above it this seems entirely possible that a replacement could be created since it's just a generic photo of a living person

I think the fact that it is a photo that is expressly made for this purpose is what allows it to fall under fair use doctrine. The idea of someone hiding in the bushes and taking a photo and claiming it is Turner is a non realistic situation as well based on your idea of purpose of free use photos.

No free or public domain images are possible, as this is a unique image. Image is intended as publicity for the product ( Chargers). It is used for informational purposes only. Such images are distributed with implicit license for their use in discussing the subject that is being promoted. Image is of considerably lower resolution than the original. Copies made from it will be of very inferior quality. Its use does not detract from either the original image, or from the network itself. Image is used solely for the identification of the subject. The further use of this image on Wikipedia is not believed to disadvantage the copyright holder in any way. No free equivalent( Coach's are not allowed to pose with team jersey thus no free photos) is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. This image is of a low-enough resolution not to supplant any possible market role that may at some point in the future be created for the image. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used. This content has been published outside Wikipedia. Use meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic. Use meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. This content is used in at least one article. This content contributes significantly to at least one article Use significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot.

I think all of this explanation clearly defines the issue. If in fact these guide lines are not of importance then why have them?

I disagree with your claim " despite the unsubstanciated claims above it this seems entirely possible that a replacement could be created since it's just a generic photo of a living person, especially on photos of older coaches for example how in fact would you know that the image is in fact real? What would stop a photo being submitted as being of a famous person and in fact not be. Fact is that the photo shows a person wearing the team jersey and who's image can be verified based on only the fact it comes from official photos or a official source RMANCIL 17:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other point if it is so easy to find a free photo why can't we find any? RMANCIL 18:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"What are the limited conditions? In general, non-free content uploaded under the Exemption Doctrine should be used only when the specific image itself is significant to the article, not merely what it depicts. The image must be not replaceable by a free content alternative that depicts the same thing.

In other words, a screenshot from a movie is acceptable to use when talking about the movie itself — it is not acceptable to use it to talk about the actress who happens to be in the picture. (It is possible for a free content picture of the actress to be taken.)"

The only other photo of a coach would come from a game or practice and all who purchase tickets buy into the copyright of the N.F.L. use and terms ,conditions which expressly prohibit any distribution of photos films or images and as such would violate copyright law.

Official N.F.L. team photos can not be replaced. If you want to check with the N.F.L. or the Chargers I am sure they will verify if you doubt that. The fact that the Chargers changed coach's and that is the point of this article makes the picture extremely valuable to the article which clearly meets the limited conditions set forth. The image is that of a Charger Coach which is clear based on team colors which you may not be knowledgeable about.

Guide lines state

This page is considered a content guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's talk page.

I strongly feel that I have meet all the guidelines here can you say the same? RMANCIL 18:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks[reply]

Upon review all of the movie publicity shots which are in use now are all in violation due to the fact they were shot by professional photographers wirepress gettyimage ext. Whats up with that? Also all of those movie stars have a lot more phtos floating around and hey someone good maybe get a photo and ask for a release right?????

Reply posted on User talk:RMANCIL. --Sherool (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheraton, Abuja

I have fully updated the Image and named it accordingly, please if it doesn't meet up to your standard let me know. Lephilippe 18:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Lephilippe. --Sherool (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Permission is granted to reproduce or cite portions herein, if proper attribution is given to the Central Bank of Nigeria. ' This was on www.cenbank.org, thats whyi assumed it had a GFDL.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lephilippe (talk • contribs) 19:01, 2 July 2007

Reply posted on User talk:Lephilippe. --Sherool (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photo of the hotel is part of their press releases meaning that it has a free license as it enables anyone press or otherwise to use the information. As for the photo of Cen. Bank, CBN Nig. has given permission to redistribute material on their site to the press and third person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lephilippe (talk • contribs) 19:06, 3 July 2007

Reply posted on User talk:Lephilippe. --Sherool (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photo of the hotel if part of the Abuja CAmpaign which is a part of the Ngieran federal government. {{PD-NigerianGov}} This copyright allows me to post images released by the federal government and the Abuja Campaign is a branch of the government therefore I may access thriimages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lephilippe (talk • contribs) 8, 4 July 2007

Reply posted on User talk:Lephilippe. --Sherool (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million and I have added the same tag to the Central Bank of Nigeria photo Lephilippe 18:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Highwaycode speed built up area.gif

Hi. I've added a Fair Use Rationale for Image:Highwaycode speed built up area.gif. Let me know whether this suffices or not. Ta.

Undeletion of images

Hey, I remember asking you to undelete my file ago. I was wondering if you could do the same for User:Tyomitch, his screenshots were deleted. The list of screenshots he wants undeleted are on his user page. Thanks in advance. — Alex^(U|C|E) 19:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actualy undelete them since he didn't mention wanting to use them anywhere particular on Wikipedia, and they where deleted months ago, but I e-mailed the files to him like he asked on his userpage. --Sherool (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for helping out. — Alex^(U|C|E) 23:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tony_Buckley.jpg

Hi. I've added a Fair Use Rationale for Image:Tony_Buckley.jpg. Let me know if I need to add more information. Thanks, AthTrasna 21:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Bold page moves

Hi, just a reminder to check for double redirects when you do a page move please, as you did recently with Wikipedia:Non-free media rationale guideline. I think that I've gotten it cleaned up now. --After Midnight ^{0001<;;/small>} 13:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I did fix all the obvious WP: shortcut ones and such, though I guess there where more redirects than I suspected, sorry about that. --Sherool (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how some were overlooked easily. I actually had to use AWB to wade through them all since there were so many image links cluttering up the "what links here" list. I should have written my original note in such a way to acknowledge that you may have just missed a couple rather than potentially implying that you ignored them. Sorry for that. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Srirasmi.JPG was not a copyright violation

Srirasmi.JPG was not a copyright violation. I should know - I took the photograph myself! MKPluto 04:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Bibb image removed

Hi. This image was provided by Eric's manager,Stuart Ongley. It was originally on Eric's home web site, but this site has recently been updated. What do I need to get from Stuart to allow this (or another) photo to be placed on the page. I'm afraid that copyright stuff like this is just so much gobbledey-gook when I start trying to make head and tail of all the information given. Can you please just tell me what I need to get in plain simple English? My talk page would be a good place to reply, if possible. Thanks in advance. Algrif 11:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Algrif. --Sherool (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sherool, for taking the time to help me understand this convoluted legal area. Eric Bibb's manager has just sent me a new photo stating "Eric owns the copyright as long as the photographer is credited." Can I use this? If so, what is the best way? I'll post a copy paste of this onto the general forum also, as you suggest. -- Algrif 11:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Algrif. --Sherool (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again. Uploaded ok and permission email sent etc etc. But I just don't seem to be able to size it correctly for the article. Can you advise please? Eric Bibb by Michel Verlinden 2006.jpg -- Algrif 13:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Algrif. --Sherool (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Codelyoko193

You can delete the picture. I was never very good at finding free images to use... Codelyoko193 _Talk 20:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean O'Haire

Since you recently made an edit to the completely protected Sean O'Haire article, I was wondering if you could add

to his infobox. Thanks. Mshake3 04:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Mshake3. --Sherool (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Yeah, most, if not all of the photos I posted were taken by me. I'll include it. Mshake3 14:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Image:Meena-7.jpg

Hi. Please be aware of the current discussion at Commons:Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Image:Meena-7.jpg. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musical theatre

FYI, your edit was reverted. I've had a similar problem with that article, I think that it will take an RfC to solve the fair use problems with that article. See also WP:FUR#Musical theatre. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using whatlinkshere rather than categories for maintenance lists

As someone who's previously commented, can you please add your thoughts to this thread? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help..about Kryah picture

Hey there, Im new to Wikipedia and have had a lot of trouble figuring out how it works.My latest problem is image tagging.All the photos were given to me by James and Tom Martin for use on their page but I dont think I have the tags right.The photos were taken by friends of James and Tom but belong in their personal photo collection.Which tags should I use so the photos dont get deleted and how do I re do them.If you could help id be very gratefull. thank you for bringing this matter to my attention --Purplepickledonions 17:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Purplepickledonions. --Sherool (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Ive asked James and Tom who owns the copyright to the photos and I now know it is me who has made the mistake regarding copyright. I misunderstood the tagging system and also I'm unsure about understanding what copyright means.I put "copyright by" and then I put the name of the person who actually took the photo as this is what I thought it meant, I also picked the tag I thought was the right one as I dont understand which tag is which and what tag means what.The pictures were taken using Tom and James own cameras by friends,or by friends using their own cameras for Tom and James to take pictures for them(if that makes sense)...anyone can use these photos as no one actually has copyright on them they are basically for use by Tom and James anywhere or by anyone else.Im still unsure how to tag them correctly as I made a mistake first time I dont want to make the same mistake twice.Sorry if this is long winded Im not very good at explaining what I mean or understanding written intstructions etc.....hence the mix up in the first place.Any more help you can give me ,or even the correct tag to use,and how to do it, now you know about these photos I would be very gratefful. Many thanks for your help so far....Wikipedia sure is complicated for a novice like me to understand. --Purplepickledonions 08:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Purplepickledonions. --Sherool (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JohnRPalmer.jpg

Please replace the image "Image:JohnRPalmer.jpg" ASAP. Bwilkins 18:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Bwilkins. --Sherool (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?

Ok. Yours truly, Superior_(talk) 11:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy one!

Hey there! Should I do this with all my covers? // FrankB 23:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Fabartus. --Sherool (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes and no... The rationale seems fine except the image is not actualy used. It's only linked to from the larger version of the same image. We should have a minimum amount of non-free material per WP:NONFREE, two versions of the same cover is exessive and we should probably be using the smaller of the two in the article and delete the larger one, unless you need to show details on the cover in order to make parts of the article easier to understand (it wich case the need for this should also be explained in the rationale). Also the {{Not orphan}} template should only be used on free license images, if a non-free image is not important enough for the understanding of the article to be used inline in the article we should not be using it at all unless there are some exceptional sircumstances. --Sherool (talk) 06:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'll have to parse that a bit finer so I understand the wrinkles.~~ Done... I changed I think 3-4 of them to conform with one that had the justification tag last night, but it no rationale filled in. Most don't have the tag at all. So if I 'got it', you say I can add those with your blessings. Right? Check list for last night on this focused list of changes. Disagree on the 'which to keep' image resolution part, but that's nothing new, I disagree that released publicity images are copyrighted, or copyrighted problems, since they're pasted all over the web (e.g. search here for any recent title and author. Q.E.D., they're everywhere BUT wikipedia! Arrrrggghhhh!) The smaller of the two images IS WAS (Ooops!... Once upon a time... Ahem! <g>) being used on a related article, which details the 1632 Research Committee role in the series, and acts as a section redirect destination for some other terms (e.g. 1632 Slush, 1632 Comments, etc.), and someone had already hung no less than three non-orphan tags on THAT image (which I have no problem with switching to the larger or survivor, save it's unnecessary fussiness and time wasted! [semi-aside: note the top box here!, sigh.). If that's not fairuse, then it's another case of inconsistency in the guideline: On the one hand we are to ignore the legal state of they're published for reuse by the releasing source, and on the other getting overly legalistic because the same image is archived in two sizes. (Didn't recall uploading the larger, BTW. I can usually live with the 190-200px wide ones just dandy, but logically, see no good rationale to prefer a lower resolution version of the same something since both are tainted either way as being in opposition to your precious idealistic, pighead, stupid, NONFREE prejudices; I'm perfectly happy with the legal REALITY that en.wikipedias servers are in the USA, and conformance to USA copyright laws, and QUITE displeased with the idealistic "FREE CONTENT" given the EDITORS waste time (Squandered finite and precious free time) it has both personally, and worst, in the LARGE aggregate. Moreover, scratch an idealist, and you'll discover an unbalanced mind that tends to the fanatic... neither character traits I would foster in my kids, you betchya!) In any case, that's your call, I'm at your mercy on the size question.

It's no secret I disagree with "All free content" in the case of promotional materials officially released by any entity for promotional purposes. (It degrades our quality which is a self-inflicted wound! Also, JUST DISRESPECTFUL (by Jimbo and board) of our time as editors, so far as I'm concerned. Wastes a lot of manpower hours... but that's old stuff--I had it out with Jimbo on that on AN/I last winter in public, as you may recall. shrug. <g>) Thanks, I'll adjust the images of concern in line with a fair use rationale like this succession of changes (includes a delink and recatting). I'd prefer to delete the smaller of those two, but just say which, and I'll db-author it ASAP, and we can get on with life.

What is the 'legal status' of, or at least, "our policies view" of a Digital Photo of an actual book? If the cover art is copyrighted, then technically, the photo is illegal too, logically. But iirc, your precious inconsistent policy would think that's a free image if I uploaded such with a GNU license! Harummph! Like most idealism, that ignores the inconsistency of the ethics of the matter. As I told Jimbo on such publicity images (including press release photos, etc.), there ought to be all or none to eliminate all this time-wasteful dancing around. T'would simplify your edit tasking greatly I should think! <g> (For example, on resolution, my son has a news quality 'SLR' digital camera that can almost photograph a pimple on a bacteria... which by way of the magic of GNU idealism would be fine to the board! Ha!

In the meantime, my poking around on 1634: The Ram Rebellion, I found this edit and the image missing and in need of restoral. If you'd be so kind, to fix that up as soon as it's convenient, I'll get that Rationale template into it. Sigh. (The article needs loads of work anyway! At least I'm still inactive on Meta et. al. and can give some priority to this series for now!) IMHO, CSD 6 needs to account for covers as a 'no brainer' reason to NOT DELETE such images. Just because an uploader was notified, neither means she was active, or alive! If one has a real life, taking breaks from wiki-work is part of real life needs! (Hell, right now I'm on extended email break, and enjoying the heck out it! No worries mate! I may keep it up for a long while... it's peaceful, not having that daily "pull"!) Inclusion in an article for which it is a cover, seems not to include much need of brainpower that any kind of cover should be kept! Sigh³!!! "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish", and everything! (Oh, my Bad -- that title is copyright too! Naughty boy!) <BSEG> Cheers! // FrankB 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Fabartus. --Sherool (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick check

I've not added any fair use rationales since our last chat... but is this okay? (I just found we had an article on him, doing up, of all things, a citation template! (The pending {{Cite 1632}}, natch! <G>) // FrankB 21:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Fabartus. --Sherool (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well per my interpretation of the rules that's probably not ok. Neither the series, nor that particular cover is mentioned at all in the article (outside the image caption), so the content of the article would be no harder to understaind without that image (see the "significance" test in the non-free criteria). If there was a section about his artstyle or something like that a visual example might be called for though. --Sherool (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dats why I asked. Don't know enough about the gent to comment on his general style, etc. so I'll edit that into a see also link. I do want to see how many other covers he's done, but I was away from the series so long I've a lot of other things to do catching up before I get to such an item (save for a loose survey in passing). My wikitime is limited these days. Thanks. [Does strike me a tad strange that illustrating an artists article with an example of his work wouldn't be fair use. (Grumble, Damn Lawyers!) <g>] Cheers and Thanks! // FrankB 18:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Image copyright request

Howdy, I think this edit put the {{pp-template}} into the Template:Image copyright request itself, and should probably be moved to the noinclude section (to avoid adding the pp-template to every page with an image request). See also Template_talk:Image_copyright_request#Request_change. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 03:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, and reply posted on User talk:TeaDrinker. --Sherool (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal deleted jpg

I didn't get the detailed copyright information for Image:Ewagele.jpg in time before deletion (I've been ill). I looked in Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_October_15 and Wikimedia Commons, but couldn't find anything. This image is on the back book cover of "Finding the Birthday Cake" by Elizabeth Wagele (the subject), it's on the outside of the book published by New Horizon Press, Far Hills NJ 2007 Copyright Elizabeth Wagele. JoyceD 22:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Jdowling6. --Sherool (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your post posted on User talk:Jdowling6 JoyceD 23:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posted reply on User talk:Jdowling6. --Sherool (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Widgets BSD license

If you install Yahoo! Widgets and read the EULA, you can see quite clearly where the modified BSD license comes into play. Yonisyuumei 00:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

c. YOU MAY redistribute and use all openly accessible programming code contained within the Widgets (specifically excluding any images, sounds and their respective programming code) with or without modification, pursuant to the BSD copyright license , which is set forth as follows:
Copyright (c) 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
(i) redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer.
(ii) redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
(iii) neither the name of Yahoo! nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from the Widgets without specific prior written permission of Yahoo!.
DISCLAIMER TO BE INCLUDED: THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

d.  Except as otherwise explicitly stated in Section 1(c) above with respect to Widgets, YOU MAY NOT: 
 (i)	decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, rent, lease, loan, distribute, or create derivative works (as defined by the U.S. Copyright Act) or improvements (as defined by U.S. patent law) from the Software or any portion thereof. 
 (ii)	incorporate the Software into any computer chip or the firmware of any computing device. 
 (iii)	Use the Software in any unlawful manner, for any unlawful purpose, or in any manner inconsistent with the Terms of Service located at http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/  (the "TOS") or this License Agreement.
 (iv)	Use the Software to operate nuclear facilities, life support, or other mission critical application where human life or property may be at stake. You understand that the Software is not designed for such purposes and that its failure in such cases could lead to death, personal injury, or severe property or environmental damage for which Yahoo! is not responsible. 
 (v)	use or export the Software in violation of applicable U.S. laws or regulations.      
 (vi)	sell, lease, loan, distribute, transfer, or sublicense the Software or access thereto or derive income from the use or provision of the Software, whether for direct commercial or monetary gain or otherwise, without Yahoo!'s prior, express, written permission.

Reply posted on User talk:Yonisyuumei. --Sherool (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted to your reply on User talk:Yonisyuumei. Yonisyuumei 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Livonia and map

Hi

From the caption on this, t'was a 1740 map, so beyond copyright. Can you check, please. Two possible others 1 2 (commons) appear to be much earlier, so this would be a good find if can be cleared on the copyright.

Image:Estonia Livonia Courland 1740.JPG; I found as a commented out link in Livonia. Thanks! // FrankB 02:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Fabartus. --Sherool (talk) 07:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cali Lewis

Consider the tagged image for Cali Lewis a representation of her character, not the actress as fair use. I've linked it into the GeekBrief.TV article instead. This would be similar to Zoe Washburne, Kingpin, and Sarah Connor. The candid pic, though excellent for the actress, isn't really Cali Lewis, is it? --Knulclunk 14:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User user talk:Knulclunk. --Sherool (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your fine work answering intellectual property questions over at WP:MCQ Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Two categories are pending speedy deletion in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I have speedied them by db-author. Could you please delete them. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone else already took care of it. Items tagged for speedy deletion are usualy closely watched, so you generaly don't need to tell people that you tagged something unless it's extremely urgent. --Sherool (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Adam

I am artist Dave Adam I do not know how to use wikipedia nor do I have time to learn how to. If you are the one who removed my history here and the photos submitted with it, then you are the one that is ruining the internet for everyone. My art can be seen at myspace http://www.myspace.com/daveadam27 my legacy is seen in my art there google me

Dave Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Adam (talk • contribs) 13:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Dave Adam. --Sherool (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PiecesOfModesty.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:PiecesOfModesty.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Apollo_Perelini.JPG

Sought and gained permission for the Image:Apollo_Perelini.JPG. Will look to re-categorise it if there were an issue on it being mis-labelled.Londo 06 21:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Londo06. --Sherool (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no it's all uses license. Will look to sort it out over the coming days..Londo 06 21:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Baltimore Afro-American 03241964 p15.pdf

You need to study the history on this item Image:Baltimore Afro-American 03241964 p15.pdf before you go deleting it. This evidence settled an edit war. I don't think it's part of your job to re-open cans of worms and resume edit wars. Check out the history of this item and the endless issues we've had with the now-banned User:Ron liebman and then you'll see what trouble you'll cause by deleting this item. Check with User:Wknight94 for further details, as he has been involved with the Liebman case for quite awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my intention to open any worm can's but one distruptive user refusing to believe in offline sources is IMHO not a good enough reason to permanently host a copyrighted newspaper article. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 March 9#Image:Baltimore Afro-American 03241964 p15.pdf for a more detailed response. --Sherool (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said there, Liebman was a major pain, who created endless sockpuppets and would not be reasonable even through e-mails. If this somehow brings him out of the woodwork again, after he appears to have finally gone away after a year or so, you will share in the blame for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've talked with the original uploader, and we're good. You may delete the file. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC 8 revisited

You were involved in this discussion last year, so I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Criterion 8 objection. howcheng {chat} 20:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMAGE REMOVED Image:Victor heck in 1997.jpg

This image was previously flagged for lacking sources or licensing information, so I re-uploaded the image and included the licensing information including adding the tags at the top of the section that state "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts." Yet it is still deleted again. Could you please take a moment and explain to me in very simple terms how I can do this differently so the image doesn't keep getting deleted? Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ungoliant13 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Ungoliant13. --Sherool (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No content in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs by subject

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested photographs by subject, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Wikipedia requested photographs by subject has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Wikipedia requested photographs by subject, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Renamed during commons move?

Hey! How's life?

Need a Low, low priority favor... this 500px-Netherlands_map_large.png used to goto a map image. Can you poke around with your admin tools and see if you can figure out whether it just got renamed or whatever? I'm drawing blanks when I search the deletion log. Thanks, as always. (ref: 1632 institutions, still redlinked.)

...

P.S. Actually, it may have been a commons title. Don't know for sure. Thanks! // FrankB 18:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Fabartus. --Sherool (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Thanks! // 01:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do great work! Thanks 4here too! // FrankB 03:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion

Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.

DVD Thumbnail

Hi,

I uploaded the image a bot tagged it for deletion because it has no author. Could you help me sort it out? Thanks Bit Lordy (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Bit Lordy. --Sherool (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Graphics

I saw your post here and thought that you might be interested in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Graphics], which is to better coordinate with and "promote" existing projects and resourses like Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps, Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service, Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration and to cultivate new resources as needed. GregManninLB (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danged if I can remember

2 dups, I thin...

..."how" (the template, that is) and as usual, I've too many open edits and Zzzzzz time already overdue. Been knocking around Maps categories on the commons (again + still! <G>), and so just noticed that 2 of 3 images here are already there ("same cat name, same cat channel" <g> Oh! That's spelled with a "B"? Harumph! CURSES!).

Since i can't recall the tag, you wanna check me perception (the two left one's for me, the RHS one is very similar to the other ONE on the commons), and do whatever? Speedy?... And drop the template name onto me talk, if you would. Dahhhh gaaaah, Darn! Thanks, as always. Sucks to get old. "If you don't use it..." (An I be living proof!) // FrankB 07:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Fabartus. --Sherool (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping answer same bat-time and bat-station (Hey! I thought "Re:" wasn't something one capitalizes--you messed up me linking formulation! <g>) // FrankB 15:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Yeah give the commons helper thing a try, if you follow the instructions carefully it should in theory help preserve all the nessesary info when moving an image over. — See User_talk:Fuhghettaboutit#Via_Help_Desk for another laugh at my expense.
Say a prayer of thanks--if I hadn't checked to see you were "missing", that'd ended up on this page! <g> Have a good one. // FrankB 14:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete

I was just wondering if the file File:Image:CT shot.jpg can be undeleted. It is now trying to be used by File:CyberTown.--Ryancb06 (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Ryancb06. --Sherool (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2010 could be coming to Stockholm!

I'm leaving you a note as you may be interested in this opportunity.

People from all six Nordic Wiki-communities (sv, no, nn, fi, da and is) are coordinating a bid for Wikimania 2010 in Stockholm. I'm sending you a message to let you know that this is occurring, and over the next few months we're looking for community support to make sure this happens! See the bid page on meta and if you like such an idea, please sign the "supporters" list at the bottom. Tack (or takk), and have a wonderful day! Mike H. Fierce! 08:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Township tables

A month ago, you nominated Image:Township tables.pdf for deletion, saying that it was unusued and "just a huge chunk of wikicode" that was presumably "all available in previous revisions of the relevant article(s) anyway". However, many articles that could use this information haven't yet been created yet: for example, it includes data on hundreds of townships in South Dakota, of which only twenty-one have articles. It's unused, to be sure, but it could continue to be used helpfully. Would you be willing to reconsider and to support undeletion? Nyttend (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Nyttend. --Sherool (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture templates

Hi, following the discussion at the Village Pump about picture templates, I am just making sure that everybody there knows that there is a proposal to deprecate and remove images that say 'this is not an image please add one'. Feel free to vote. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McDonalds

Regarding this edit, why did you remove the photo? I clearly see a rationale. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Smooth0707. --Sherool (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rydel

Hi,

You posted a few image problems on User talk:Rydel. Sadly, Rydel is no longer with us (read his main user page).

I understand, of course, that image copyright policies must be properly enforced, but posting a template on a deceased user's talk page is rather problematic.

I don't have a clever solution, but you should be aware of the problem. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yeah I guess was not quite ideal... I sometimes go on image cleanup "sprees" and since it can get somewhat tedious and I don't have all the time in the world I use some semi automated tools such as the automatic notification of the uploader of the image. I guess the script I use doesn't care about the "warning you are editing a protected page" notice thingy. I'll look into that, try to take the time to skrim over userpages more often first to catch notices of that nature. --Sherool (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:East Perth.jpg

Hi there. Thanks for bringing this to light. I've had a good scrape around in my emails trying to find it and have had no luck. It might have come from my old email address I was using back then, but I had a poke around on OTRS too and couldn't find it there either. So I have no idea what happened to it. I'm sure I would have obtained permission from the owner, but without any proof it's irrelevant. I've located the file on Stock.xchng and sent a new private message to them asking for a fresh PD release. If I receive this, I'll take care of it on OTRS, otherwise I'll delete the file. - Mark 02:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Yeah this has been raised before. I actually got the photo site from the WP page on sources of free images but I think its since been removed! I removed the pictures from the article (which was going through FAC at the time) but I don't know how to delete the image pages. I think one may be floating around on another article. I'll look. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use photos of public buildings

I was surprised that these images were removed without any chance to justify them. A fair use of public buildings is one of the grounds given by Wikipedia to justify using a photo. One of those photos comes from the uncopyrighted web page of the Alabama Supreme Court and the other comes from the uncopyrighted web site for Decatur. What is the standard for uploading photos of public buildings?

Springfieldohio (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Springfieldohio. --Sherool (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you delete plz

Hi, I'm contacting you regarding your edit here. This image is on commons here, I think I may have had some confusion over using Twinkle. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok done. Just got a little confused since it didn't show up as an image duplicate and nothing with the same filename as indicated. --Sherool (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I tagged a load of others too, I don't suppose you'd mind taking a look at them too please? Ryan4314 (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:Ryan4314. --Sherool (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time do it mate, good call on the Bristol photo (I hadn't noticed lol!) Ryan4314 (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good

Hey, don't worry about it. Besides, I came off as a little too defensive anyway. Basically, it was a small-time gaming website and I was working with the creators to write the Wiki page. It was earlier in my tenure as an editor here so I overlooked things like Conflict of Interest and Notability guidelines to create it, but I still made sure to get the right permissions for images and whatnot. But you had every right to be suspicious nonetheless. Cheers! Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 17:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query to clarify the type of license granted in OTRS ticket

Hi, stumbled across 47 images that all refeer to ticket #1774518. Some images, like File:David Hancock in 2008.jpg say they are public domain, but most of them are actualy tagged as either GFDL or the "I made this" GFDL/Creatice Commons dual license tag (and at least one have no license tag at all). Would be good to get that clearified, if they are rely GFDL/CC-BY-CA we need add proper attribution, and if they are PD they should not be tagged with a more restricting license (I'd be happy to do the "heavy lifting" if you can just let me know what information needs to be on each image page). Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS ticket says that any images uploaded by Imparo relating to the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta are released under whichever license is indicated on them. As such, they're tagged correctly :) I suspect that any attribution should be to that association.

For your reference, OTRS tickets now have their own interwiki prefixes to reduce typing. For a ticket number with six or seven digits, use [[OTRS:#######]], and for a ticket ID with 16 digits, use [[Ticket:################]]. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Template

Sherool, you left this on my talk page:

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:AnoopChandola.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

   * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
   * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is my answer:

I have, as stated I think, permission from the subject to use this image. However, as requested, I have now asked subject to provide an email to send on to 'permissions-en'. No doubt I will have this email tomorrow. I would like to say that it is becoming increasingly irritating to have to 'prove' myself to editors who seem to take great delight in needlessly slapping various templates onto perfectly valid articles which have often taken days to create, and makes me disinclined to continue writing articles and editing others, for Wikipedia. It is, perhaps, an issue that the Powers That Be need to look into. If you wish to respond, please do so on my talk page. AndreaUKA (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on User talk:AndreaUKA. --Sherool (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sherool, that's okay, and I understand the above point and thanks for your own prompt reply! I just get annoyed sometimes at the (what I see as) finicky WIKI nit-picking sometimes :-) Anyway, Mr Chandola sent the following letter to 'permissions' so I hope that will suffice:

Dear Wikimedia,

I am pleased to inform you that my image in Wikipedia is authentic. I have my permission to my publisher Andrea Lowne, the president of UKA Press, to use this image for Wikipedia. Please feel free to contact me if you need additional information. Thank you very much.

Best regards,

Anoop Chandola, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of East Asian Studies University of Arizona chandola@email.arizona.edu

AndreaUKA (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New straw poll

You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]