This is an archive of past discussions about User:Stefan2. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You've tagged File:Romantic Warriors cover.jpg for deletion because it is not being used on an article. However it is being used in a draft article - I was under the impression that we allowed such use. It seems a little unfair to blame the draft creator when it is our own AfC that is backlogged. Green Giant (talk)14:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Non-free files may only be used in the article namespace. The draft author should not upload non-free images until the image can be used in the article namespace. See WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, if you look at the "file usage" section on the file information page, it says that the image isn't used anywhere. However, this statement doesn't look correct... --Stefan2 (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Interesting, the same thing appears to be happening for another logo on the page that wasn't uploaded by me. I wonder if there's some sort of bug. In the meantime, do you know if there's a way to remove the deletion request, or at least ensure that the logos will not be removed as scheduled?--Bradlevinson (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Go to Special:ApiSandbox and select "purge" in the "Action" drop-down box. Tick the "forcelinkupdate" checkbox. In the field "titles", fill in the name(s) of all article(s) using the file, separated by |. After that, click on "Make request". The "file usage" section should now show the image as being used in the articles again. After that, you may remove the deletion tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Stefan2, please be careful you do not place comments on user pages but on user talk pages. You placed several comments on my user page which I was not happy about.4meter4 (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The page User talk:Singingdaisies is a redirect to the page User:4meter4. Most people who tag files for deletion use Twinkle, which places the notification on the redirect target if the user talk page is a redirect, and in this case the redirect target was a user page. There are currently five user talk pages which are redirects to your user page. You might wish to change those. I see that plenty of different users have left notices on your user page, presumably related to those five accounts whose talk pages redirect to your user page. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Stefan, how do I get to keep the 'File:Minister Mason signed by Catherine George.jpg' image I've upload and prevent it from being deleted? Thanks. --Bartallen2 (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Please don't comment out an image on a draft article on my sandbox page User:Mtsmallwood/sandbox. I received your notice that the image needed to be linked to an article, and I can assure you that I am taking it seriously. The article for fair use I specified in the upload was George R. Vosburg which although hasn't been formally published yet, soon will be, and within the seven day deadline. It's more difficult to complete an article if the images must be added later, rather than on the sandbox draft page. If necessary, I will include my sandbox in the upload fair use justification for this purpose. Otherwise I would suggest that the seven day notice is sufficient absent some sort of gross abuse, which this is not.Mtsmallwood (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Szeryng.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
REPLY:
YOU do all that, I just couldn't care less! (especially after noticing how falsely you're behaving, writing such 'polite' and lenghty warnings and admonitions AFTER having deleted the image I carefully retouched and uploaded) --Go away, leave me alone, go pester someone else.
I'm not sure what is unclear about "provided directly by Paxata". I sent their PR manager an email asking for a screenshot, she emailed me a file. Can you explain what additional information you would like me to add? I would prefer not to include the full real-life identity of the exact contact that provided the image for general privacy reasons. CorporateM (Talk) 14:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The wording "provided directly by Paxata" is unclear as there are multiple ways a picture can be provided by a company. The company could offer the picture on its website or it could send it out to people who contact the company. I think that you should clarify the source field with what you wrote above. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, this was an archive of an article that s currently being merged into another. If images were mistakenly copied over, then they should be removed, but why the entire thing? Zambelo; talk21:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Help
Hello,sir,I am new to this wikipedia.I have currently edit Newar caste system. I replaced 'included' with 'includes'.I have also given reason in my edit summary.But something went wrong with refferences.Please help me with that or maintain it by yourself.I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.Jojolpa (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Please put topics at the bottom of the page, not at the middle of it. Otherwise, the topic is likely to be overlooked. Which reference(s) do you think look different to how you wanted them to look? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Not sure why they were gone. Typing curl -d 'titles=Social bookmarking&action=purge&forcelinkupdate=1' http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php from the command-line made them appear there again. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, but, assuming you are a quality control volunteer who is genuinely committed to helping to improve the project, wouldn't you take a few seconds to check the article where the image was said to be in use, to make sure a sudden orphaning wasn't due to (1) careless editing or (2) vandalism? As an experienced editor you must be aware that it is orders of magnitude harder to restore a recklessly deleted fair use image than to revert a careless edit, or a vandal, who removed a valid fair use image without having had a good reason for doing.
Here is another example. You taggedFile:The_Last_Mimzy.jpg as an orphan, when if you had taken just a few seconds to look at the revision history of the article where it was used you would have recognized that it wasn't orphaned at all. Rather User:Coco9091had accidentally deleted the trailing braces on the article's infobox.
You are committed to improving the project, not wasting other volunteers time, correct? Then I encourage you, I strongly encourage you, I encourage you, in the strongest possible terms, to show respect for the efforts of other contributors, and take the brief amount of time required to verify that recently orphaned images weren't orphaned by accident, or through vandalism. Geo Swan (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#7 is very simple: if a non-free file isn't in use, it should be deleted. Also, the easiest way to find out if a file has been orphaned incorrectly is to tag it as orphaned as the uploader will immediately know that it is supposed to be in use if it is supposed to be in use. Also, by extending the tagging process by several hours, as you are proposing, would just have the result that orphaned non-free files never would be tagged by anyone, and articles missing files would never be discovered. Also, by adding the file to an article, I would be violating the copyright law and risking legal problems. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
User page image
Could you give me a more explicit explanation about why you commented out the logo on my user space draft User:Nyth83/History of Chevrolet to 1958? Was it #3 minimal use? I am just guessing, because you edit summary was not specific. Anyway, I switched the logo as the 1913 one appears to be listed as public domain and is more appropriate to subject. Nyth83 (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, missed that #9 which does not seem to link correctly. Odd policy that does not allow time to draft an article and review the appearance before moving to namespace without having to use a silly workaround like adding and removing comment tags. Moot point anyway as I changed the image. Nyth83 (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
You tagged this page as a copyvio. Is the problem now fixed?
Hello Stefan2. Please note your recent edit. You added a copyvio notice that did not supply a URL for what it was a copy of. Now that a histmerge has been done, it's my impression that there is no continuing problem. Either way, can you clarify if you still want the copyvio template there? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The template contains a link to a discussion where the reason is given: "The previous content of this page or section has been identified as posing a potential copyright issue, as a copy or modification of the text from the source(s) below, and is now listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems (listing):" --Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
That is usually decided by an admin some time after the end of the time period specified in the template. Also, the process is sometimes backlogged, so it may sometimes take some extra days before an admin makes a decision. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Two of the Hussein Saeed photos are deleted because of your (opinion). I explained it very well to you that these photos are not a free content but they're very useful but, you insisted on saying that they're not needed. An admin should make a wise choice of deleting the photos or not but, instead, the photos were deleted before you and we finished our discussion. This shouldn't have happened at all. These photos were completely harmless and they served as helpful photos for the article. Please, understand the situation and have a discussion with the uploader before putting the di-replaceable fair use template. If an admin doesn't decide whether the World Cup photo is staying or not, it will be deleted too, because of you. And if it was deleted by an admin, he deleted it before understanding the situation --Hashima20 (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
For the record: only administrators can delete files. Therefore, if a file is deleted, you will always know that it was an administrator who deleted it. In this case, I would assume that administrator Ronhjones (talk·contribs) agreed with me that the files indeed were replaceable. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
You have denied me of the right to express my team winning the first premiership in 43 years by removing the South Sydney image of my userpage. Please explain why (I want a proper explanation). Luxure (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@Luxure: I think I can answer for Stefan2 here. The problem was that the image you put on your userpage was a non-free image. (By "free" here, I mean free as in speech, not as in beer.) Wikipedia, by nature, tries to use only freely-licensed images; we try to only use images that have been released by their author as free to reuse and modify. This is so that the license of the images matches up with the free license that Wikipedia itself is written and released under (called CC-BY-SA, if you're curious). But it sometimes happens that a picture we need isn't freely licensed. Thus, we have some provisions that allow for the use of non-free images in our articles. But because those images aren't free for us to use, we're not allowed to just use them however we want; we can only use them in articles, and even then only in articles that have a specific need for them. There's actually an entire set of restrictions that we have to abide by when using such non-free images--the non-free content criteria.
Unfortunately, one of the things this policy says is that non-free images cannot be used on userpages at all (since there's no encyclopedic need for userpages to have any images); see point #9. Since the image you put up on your userpage wasn't a freely-licensed image, I'm afraid it wasn't allowed to be there; that's why Stefan2 removed it. I'm sorry that you can't express yourself the way you'd like, but copyright policy is pretty strict, since it's rooted in legal issues that we as editors aren't really qualified to judge or overrule. I think I can safely say that Stefan2 didn't mean anything personal by it. Writ Keeper⚇♔00:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I just want to let you know that I am NOT opposing deletion on two of the images you notified me about on my talk page: [1], and [2]. It seems that these are no longer useful for the articles or for the Wikipedia project. However, you might notice that I commented on the third image [3] on my talk page - at the deletion discussion [4], [5]. If my post here, on your talk page, doesn't make sense - just let me know and I will try to clarify.
Thanks---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Question
Stefan, I know you do a lot of work with images and was wondering if you could help me with a licensing question... is this logo non-free or in the PD? I have seen them go both ways, as the previous logo is on the English Wikipedia as non-free and the Commons logo as free. I don't know much about the licensing so I figured I would ask someone who knows way more about than I do! Thanks, Corkythehornetfan(Talk)22:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The file on Commons clearly is above the threshold of originality and is therefore copyrightable. A Commons user claims that the image has been licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0, but has not provided any evidence of this. The file has therefore been tagged as missing evidence of permission.
Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Hello Stefan2, regarding the right in the file . I was the person who took that screenshot. According to Wikipedia guidelines there is a fairuse for this type of images.Nicoguaro (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
As you can see from the notification, the file was not in use. As the file wasn't in use, it didn't satisfy the non-free content criteria. However, I see that it is now in use again. Please do not use non-free files outside articles, such as my talk page. Such use violates WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Nagle image
The image File:Florence Nagle alt.jpg can be deleted right away - sorry I forgot to put a deletion notice on it when I managed to find a better quality replacement (also not free use but no free use are likely to be available). Apologies for causing you extra work. SagaciousPhil - Chat21:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Improper image tagging
I've seen you tag quite a few images for deletion after they were obviously improperly removed from the corresponding articles (as a result of editing up to and including vandalism). I ask that you stop doing this immediately as it is highly detrimental to the encyclopedia. You are responsible for each and every edit you make, and this includes verifying whether an image was properly removed from an article before tagging it for deletion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's not correct. Tagging with {{subst:orfud}} only requires verifying whether the image is in use, not checking why it isn't in use. See WP:NFCC#7. Besides, tagging it sooner rather than later speeds up the time it takes to have an image restored to an article, if it was incorrectly removed from the article, as the uploader receives a talk page notification and checks the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, but you don't do that, now do you? You just wait around until the image is deleted through inaction on the part of non-administrator editors. I suppose that's the real problem here, isn't it? (By the way, your assertion isn't supported by your link, since it doesn't explicitly waive your implicit responsibility for your edits in such instances.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
So what is your suggestion instead? That files which have been removed from articles never should be readded to them? That Wikipedia should host millions of unused non-free files? The uploader is more likely to know why a file has been removed from a page and can therefore much faster identify if the file should be restored there. Also, by restoring a non-free file in an article myself, I would be violating the copyright law and risk legal problems. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I suggest doing one of two things: either not tagging images that were obviously improperly removed, or tagging them but then actually working to resolve the relevant issues when it is trivial to do so. The bottom line here is that your actions in this regard cause the disappearance of images that should not be disappearing. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
So what you are suggesting is either 1) make sure that the files never are restored to Wikipedia articles and that Wikipedia hosts thousands of unused non-free files, or that 2) make sure that the files never are restored to Wikipedia articles and that Wikipedia hosts thousands of unused non-free files? Why would that be any better? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Reply to your message on my talk page...
You're welcome. The logo can always be archived on Logopedia, though. ~~LDEJRuff~~ 19:26, 29 October, 2014 (UTC)
Persib logo.png
Hi Stefan, I just want to say that the picture is the logo of the club. It is non-free but as I understand logos for football teams are exceptions as long as its only used in the club articles, am I right? Cheers!! MbahGondrong (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Stefan2, in the article Regnecentralen my logo was replaced by an image of much higher quality. therefore the "orphanization". The replacemant is a "manual" redrawing of the company logo and is declared "public domain" by the uploader. I doubt whether a high definition painting of a logo effectively bypasses a probably still existing copyright on this logo (today Fujitsu), on the other hand only a very few people of this company would remember even the name "Regnecentralen" today. Ergo: the file may be deleted without any harm. Best regards --Jkbw (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you removed an image from a draft that I'd reviewed. Unfortunately your tagging tool got a bit lost and left the warning message on my talk page, rather than that of the image uploader. I've moved your message to the right page, but you might get a notification about that. Rankersbo (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear user, Kindly refer to the JSE Limited page before claiming the logo is "Orphaned". The Description and use is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by unidentified user (talk • contribs)
Re: Regarding non-free image policy for File:나는남자다하단.jpg
Thanks for the usage of the Non-free image policy. I have upload new version of the image files from the official website, KBS I am a man (Korean). I also have add another Template, which is Template:Non-free use rationale. Before I use on my draft article, I need your help to confirm that the logo is non-free image before I use it on my draft article. You may view the image here: File:나는남자다하단.jpg
Once again, thanks for remind me about usage of Non-free image policy
Kingsho (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2014 (Malaysia Standard Time)
If that case, I handle the image to you. You can delete the image or keep it. Kingsho (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2014 (Malaysia Standard Time)
Re: Orphaned non-free image File:OrientdbLogo.png
Stefan2, thanks for the notification. I'm not sure what to do at this point. The File:OrientdbLogo.png was added as FairUse for the OrientDB article, but was recently replaced with an updated version of the logo. The user uploaded File:OrientDB Logo 2014 280x177.jpg, but it is missing licensing templates. I was going to add the Apache tag and remove the warning, as the user that uploaded specified "Apache 2.0" in text, but I'm not sure the image itself is Apache 2.0. The free version of the software is released under Apache 2.0, but I'm not sure that makes the logo of the company fall under that license. So my thought would be to change it to FreeUse again, but that's not allowed on WikiMedia. So, not sure what to do as both images might end up getting deleted. Morphh(talk)15:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I have converted the "no licence" tag into a deletion request on Commons as I am not sure if the Apache claim is correct. Feel free to comment there. File:OrientdbLogo.png will be deleted in one week if it is not in use before then. I note that the two logos are different. I don't know if this is correct. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
You claimed that the photographer has released the photograph to the public domain, but you didn't provide any evidence that the photographer has done so. There is no information about the copyright status on the linked page, which usually means that the photograph is fully copyrighted. Unless you can provide that the image is in the public domain (or freely licensed), then the request will be declined after a week. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
As the link does not work for me, I am not able to tell whether the file can be uploaded or not. I would suggest leaving the section for someone else who is regularly patrolling the WP:FFU page. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Why
WP:FFU#Sadichha Shrestha
You upset him.Why did you declined his request so fast?.yep,the name and photos are same but he provided it with different link and holder/copyright as you told him you didn't get much information from above section.now please ,please upload the photo.I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.Oi kt chakh farkana,chikna man lagyo. (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
There is absolutely no point in having multiple sections about the same image. That only causes confusion. As stated in the first section and at #NOT UNDERSTAND above, the user needs to provide evidence of permission before the file can be uploaded. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
HELLO
hello!I provided the photo with different link and holder.you said that there is not enough information in above request so I left it and began new request with same headline for same photo with different link and copywrite .Please read my new request before talking any quick action.Jojolpa (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems that you posted a duplicate section at WP:FFU#Sadichha Shrestha. Is this what you are talking about? As stated at #NOT UNDERSTAND above, you need to provide evidence that the file is freely licensed or in the public domain. None of the links you have provided in either section shows this. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the Facebook account holder has licensed the image under a free licence or that the Facebook account holder is the copyright holder in the first place. The image has appeared on numerous websites since at least 2010. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
It appears that another image is now used in the Nick Drake infobox, thus orphaning the earlier one I put up. I see no reason to place the earlier one elsewhere in the article, though perhaps someone might be inclined otherwise.
When approving a request at WP:FFU, make sure that you follow the instructions:
The user should be notified about the activity, but the only notification I find at User talk:82.35.30.54 is from another user, none from you.
When uploading a file, remember to add {{subst:WPAFCF}} to the talk page.
It says "Make sure you're familiar with Wikipedia's policies on non-free content (or simplified version)." It seems that you are not, since you failed to add a fair use rationale.
If there is a notification about the file (for example, a deletion notification), the notification will typically go to the person who uploaded the file, not to the person who requested the upload on the main WP:FFU page. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Cover of Bobby Broom Plays for Monk
This album should not be scheduled for deletion: This photo was made available by BobbyBroom.com and granted fair use status: "Bobby Broom’s photographs are rights cleared for use in all print, Internet, and video news, social, and informational media. Fair us shall be for non-commercial purposes: Informational, news, educational, and historic uses, in both high res (print) and med-res (web applications)." http://bobbybroom.com/newsmedia/ They were apparently granted clearance to use the two photos for the comparison, and to make them available to all media. It does not violate copyright therefore. Theclevertwit (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)theclevertwit
This is for a historic comparative relative to the artist and the story and still seems to be in compliance with your footnoted item. I can put the image on the discussion of the album, which has to be generated when I have time to write it up, as well. It is germane and should remain. Theclevertwit (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)theclevertwit
non free image removal
I see you dive-bombing the Graphics Workshop again removing non-free images leaving blank spots in your wake for others to fix or figure out. I would kindly ask that you don't be a dick and instead swap the offending image with {{GLNF|image.jpg}}. You might know the rules but often others don't. Being a dick about it isn't the most helpful way to go about fixing the problem. Of course one may say I'm trying to fix your problem by being a dick, but sometimes that's all someone being a dick understands. – JBarta (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. People look at them after they're done or resolved. People sometimes go back and refer to them after they're archived. When there's no image, people have to figure out what's going on. Experienced editors sometimes figure out that someone was being a dick and try to figure out what image was there, but newbies will have no clue. An easily avoidable annoyance. Just please, if you remove an image, replace it with the template. Problem solved and everyone is happy. – JBarta (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service Logo Removal
Hello, I do not understand why you keep commenting out the image I used on my draft article. If you are going to keep doing that, please just explain why you're doing that. I've attached information to the image file about why it is OK to be used, so I don't see why you keep removing it. I am a new editor, so perhaps I'm missing something, even though I've read through the fair use pages and feel certain that I've substantiated the claim.
KeepCoolDon'tFreeze (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
So, is the problem that the logo is uploaded as File:LIRS logo.gif or that the logo is in the LIRS page which is currently a draft page (and once it is a regular article it will be fine to have the logo image there)? --KeepCoolDon'tFreeze (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
That tag is usually processed by a bot some time after the file was tagged, so you should not need to do anything. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, this image was tagged for deletion for a couple of reasons... One being that it isn't currently being used, which I just read isn't allowed in one of your other sections. Fair enough...the article is almost ready for submission. However, I'm not quite sure what I should do about the other reasons, and any help would be greatly appreciated.
The image in question is a partial image taken from a family portrait that was given to me by the heirs of the Nelke estate which I scanned and cropped. I was told that because it is a partial image, it was ok to use. If this is not the case, please let me know what steps I will need to take to use the image properly in the future when the article is ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishRhino (talk • contribs) 22:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
As there currently is no article in which the image can be used, you should not have uploaded it in the first place. Family portraits usually do not satisfy WP:NFCC#4, so you will presumably have to ask the photographer to follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Since the photo was taken nearly 80 years ago by a photo studio which no longer exists, that would probably prove to be quite an undertaking. But I also have a copy of his Naturalization Papers which include his photo. Would this document fall into Public Domain? According to the National Archives Website, "all government records are in the public domain and may be freely used." Seems it would be easier to use this image if that is so. Would this be a good alternative?IrishRhino (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Who took the second photograph? Was it taken by a government official, or was it taken by someone else? If the photograph was taken by a government official, which country's government did the government official work for? Has the photograph been published somewhere? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The photo would have been taken by a US government official for a US government document (1945 Naturalization Records). From everything I've read from USA.gov and the (USA)archives.gov: "A United States government work is prepared by an officer or employee of the United States government as part of that person's official duties. It is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work". To me, this would indicate that this document would be classified as public domain. Pretty certain I'd be able to use the image... but I'm still looking into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishRhino (talk • contribs) 15:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
In that case, you should be able to upload the image using the copyright tag {{PD-USGov}}. Please remember to provide enough information so that it can be verified that the image comes from the U.S. government. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Great. Thanks for the help. I'll upload the new image with the proper tags once the article is ready. Also, I guess I'll just have to wait until the current image gets deleted by an admin as there is no way for the uploader to remove it manually. Thanks again.IrishRhino (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
EwanMcLennan.jpg
Hello there.
Thanks for taking a look at the article on Ewan McLennan. The photo that you tagged for deletion is taken straight from Ewan's web site, and is also part of the free publicity material that can be downloaded. Ewan himself has viewed the draft and has given it his approval. Could the photo be reinstated, and the article approved and published?
There is no evidence that the photograph is freely licensed, and it currently says that the photograph is unfree. If the photograph is freely licensed for some reason, then please ask the photographer to follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Although Ewan isn't the photographer, he is the "the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright" as per the WP:CONSENT guidelines. That apart, the album covers are in the public domain (see Amazon, iTunes etc.) so you could still use them. If the main picture is a problem can we go forward without it? Ewan says he has sent the email to you (Wikipedia) granting permission to use the images listed anyway.
I decide to use files from there, in terminology section of my wikipedia article.
But after upload i was noticed about file permission problem.If you dont agree to use this files as free content, i'll ask admins to delete them.
Thx for your time and btw - sory for my english.
From wiki:
"Thanks for uploading File:05112014172203ForwardKinematics.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA 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 take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.Cham (talk • contribs) 2014-11-11T00:08:59
The wording "They may be used freely" is not specific enough. What does "freely" mean? Used by whom? Is it permitted to modify the material? Please ask the copyright holder to follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT. Additionally, the message refers to File:05112014172203ForwardKinematics.gif, but you listed two other images further up. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Re: permissions for pics
Dude, I know Mr. Serv-On personally and he said I can use the pics he put up on datpiff, and the pic of him was sent to me FROM HIM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespon (talk • contribs) 00:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Please get the copyright holder to follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT. The copyright holder is normally the photographer. Since the pictures do not look like self-shots, "Mr. Serv-On" is unlikely the copyright holder. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure he owns the ones on Datpiff. I still don't completely understand how to "obtain copyright." I just feel like people wouldn't really care if I used album covers since there are tons here on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespon (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Copyright is automatically obtained when a work is created and usually belongs to the person who created the work. In some countries, there are exceptions for works created as part of an employment contract. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Try to get the person who created the image to follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT. If the image was created as part of an employment, it may, depending on in which country the person is employed, be necessary to get the person's employer to follow that procedure. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It was here in the US though..
I don't understand why there are all these issues with pics here on wikipedia, they don't care on other sites.
Hi Stefan
I used this picture from Sajed website and this website mentioned in the site that all information are free according to GNU Free Documentation License {{GFDL}}.
I requested from you until see this website and don't deleted this picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliAkar (talk • contribs) 2014-11-11T06:16:50
The link of this picture temporarily is interrupted and had problem to loading. Please wait and in the next few day this site load again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliAkar (talk • contribs) 2014-11-12T06:54:07
Map of the Energy Community Members.jpg: Revision history
Sorry, I do not understand how or where am I to reason the usage of the image? I do not know where to add this code. I assume that is not under License. I now accidentally deleted the text there. I was not able to undo. Sorry.
If my arguments are not good enough, what can I do as next? Can I re-upload and categorize the image in a different way? We just wanted to have it for the facts box. If you think it should not be protected, that's fine with me. I just see very little reason why/how could be used on any other page. Or, we star having some other modified version. But, if there is a reference to the Energy Community, that's naturally fine.
--Lesjak H (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Heli
Hello Stefan, I am not sure why this picture has been flagged for deletion. It is currently being used on the article for The Girl Who Loved Wild Horses, despite what your message said. In fact it was being used on that article since before that. It falls under free-use and is being used for an article. What exactly is the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.156.168 (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
In June 2014 you deleted File:Huygens landing site.jpg with the rationale "F4: File without a source for more than 7 days". However, looking at the deleted revisions, the image did have a source supplied, albeit not in the "Source" field of the template: "Other information = Source: ESA web site". That web page is still active and does match the image we have.
Based on this, I'd like to restore the image but I thought I'd check with you first. You might also want to check whether other images are/were similarly attributed. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The file has been deleted, so I can't see the file or the file information page and therefore do not know why I tagged the file as "no source". I do not see any reason to believe that images hosted on the "esa.int" website are freely licensed. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I saw it had been deleted for no source so didn't look at the copyright. The image page at esa.int says "Copyright: ESA/NASA/JPL/University of Arizona", my knowledge is that ESA images are generally not free but NASA and JPL ones normally are. Can you either advise whether this is free or not, or suggest where to ask someone who would be able to advise? Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
F4 doesn't seem to be a valid deletion reason if the link you mentioned is present on the file information page. I might have mean to tag the file for deletion as F11, or the link might have been added after I tagged the file (although I would probably have spotted this and removed an F4 tag in that case). It is strange that the deleting administrator didn't spot this either.
Works by NASA are generally {{PD-USGov-NASA}}, while works by ESA normally are unfree. Works by the University of Arizona are presumably also unfree. The article about JPL states that JPL is funded by NASA but managed by the California Institute of Technology. Employees of the California Institute of Technology do not seem to be employees of the United States federal government, so pictures created by such people are presumably unfree. This page states that anything on JPL's website may be copyrighted, but refers to this page which suggests that most of JPL's images are freely licensed as {{attribution}}, with the exception of non-JPL pictures and certain non-copyright restrictions. I don't know if that permission applies to JPL images not hosted on JPL's website.
If an image is credited to "ESA/NASA/JPL/University of Arizona", the copyright status would appear to depend on the employment status of those who created the image. If the creation of the image involved ESA and/or University of Arizona employees, the image is unfree. I don't know if all four organisations necessarily were involved in creating the image, or if that byline simply is used for a large number of images without bothering about details. It may be better to list the image at WP:PUF. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The photograph was taken by the unmanned Cassini orbiter rather than directly by an employee, so it seems this isn't going to be simple it seems! I'll take this to WP:PUF as you suggest, thanks for your input so far. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The file must be undeleted while it is discussed at WP:PUF (or a dummy image could be uploaded in its place). Otherwise, a bot will immediately close the discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The bot got there before I saw this message, but I've undeleted the file for the discussion and undone the bot's close (I hope correctly). Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:JessicaMarais.jpg
(talk page stalker) Based on the information at either of the URLs given. The source URL to the picture does not give any information about the copyright status of the image. The page you've linked to for the permission field says "Wallpoper collect free wallpaper ("Content") from the internet and provide the user to filter them by keyword, color or screen resolution. That mean We are not the author of these Content, so do not ask us about permission to use.", which means they just found it somewhere on the internet and do not hold the copyright and so are unable to license it appropriately for Wikipedia (in fact their hosting is almost certainly a copyright violation). Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright and File:Licensing tutorial en.svg are not bad places to start to understand this. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia does accept some copyrighted images under fair use provisions, but subject to strict conditions. These conditions mean that this image could never be used as fair use, specifically images of living people are always deemed to be replaceable with free images (criterion 1). The original photographer and source would also need to be identified. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Um... okay. Funny thing is, I have actually MET Jessica Marais, and I DID get my picture taken with her. However, the images predominantly features me, while Jessica's wearing sunglasses. Any other recommendations? PatTheMoron (talk) 05:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The easiest alternative solution is to wait until 70 years have passed since the death of the person who took some photograph of her (or in some cases until 95 years have passed since a photograph was first published). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok i just read your comment about the sculpture...so it is about the rights to publish photos of artwork? Did not know that. Can you send me a link to the relevant page, please? ThanksWikirictor (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
it seems as if you are not here to upload image in WP:FFU .you have been only declining and i don't see your any accept.stop this or i will report you.Jojolpa (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Stefan, I noticed that you changed the licensing on this file whereas this image, that came from the same source, is licensed differently. I am just curious about why - it's no big deal but it might help me get it right next time. Cheers, --Bye for now (PTT) 16:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
You added a copyright tag to the file claiming that the copyright has expired, but didn't specify why it has expired. I clarified this by changing the tag to a better one. I have added the other copyright tag to this file too. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
STEFAN2 , Carlotta Montanari 's images are my own work , I work for Carlotta Montanari, and all these images are legitimate which we own rights and copyrights. These Carlotta Montanari's photos do not require deletion. Same thing for the other that you for some reason are trying to have deleted:
1) File:Carlotta Montanari hosting "Note D'incanto", telethon TV show.jpg;
2) File:Carlotta Montanari attends Los Angeles Film Art And Fest.jpg
3) File:Carlotta Montanari, hosting "STELLE e NOTE di NATALE" TV event telethon Gaslini Children's Hospital, Italy, 2006.jpg
4) File:Carlotta Montanari interviews for Save The Children.jpg
I really would like to know what is your purpose of this? Please explain. Thank you! Nueva2014
Stefan2, I am the co-producer of that TV show and apparently from Italian TV Stelle e note di natale and same for note di incanto! yes, they gave me the OK to use them for those are the stills from the only TV version ever made, if you want give me your email address and I will give you details and contact of RAI TV to ask that in person yourself. Or please cancel your deletion request for there is NO infringement of COPYRIGHTS in this matter. Nueva2014
Hi, you tagged my a file uploaded by me ([[File:Latest version of Uplay.jpg]]) with {{non-free reduce}}, so I resized the image and re-uploaded a new version. After that I removed your tag as well. But you re-added it without providing a proper explanation. Do I have to reduce the resolution further?. Please point out what's need to be done. Thank you --Chamith(talk)04:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Photo you queried GLORIA is own work, over 50 years old therefore no copyright exists.08:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norwikian (talk • contribs)
Greetings, I am leaving you this notice because you participated in the discussion about non-free SVGs at WT:NFC. I have received a response from WMF on the matter, and they told me that this is a decision that has historically been left to the community. In order to get some clarification, I would like to run a widely-advertised RfC, but since I obviously have an opinion on the matter, I would prefer it if other editors could give me some feedback on the neutrality of my wording before I actually make the RfC. You can comment on the proposed statement here. Thanks! 0x0077BE(talk · contrib)17:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction; it's beenf orever since I nominated a file for deletion, so I didn't remember the procedure. Nyttend (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, why did you delete the poster from the topeka wikipedia meetup? Do you not support local wikipedia efforts?
can you please explain your reasoning?
thanks
mike
12:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdupont (talk • contribs)
Since you uploaded the file twice under different names, the most recently uploaded copy was deleted. See the notification on your talk page. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Not F8-ready, as it's a different resolution and framed, so it can't be F8-speedied without a good IAR reason, and since someone might want a framed image, it mustn't be deleted without discussion. Nyttend (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Going to fill out the FFD nomination, I discovered that I was the uploader — how bizarre, since I don't remember ever seeing this image before. G7 is of course appropriate, so I used it; sorry for the hostile tone of a moment ago. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Was it tagged with {{NowCommons}} or with {{ShadowsCommons}}? I have added the latter tag to a lot of files recently, see CAT:SHADOW. The files in that category will have to be moved (without redirect) to unshadow the Commons files, unless you can find a reason to nominate either the Commons file or the Wikipedia file for deletion for some reason. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Before you F8-tagged it, the entire contents were as follows:
Extended content
{{oldpuffull|date=2014 July 16|result=keep}}
{{Information
|Description=Baroness Emma Orczy de Orczi (1865–1947), a British novelist, playwright and artist of Hungarian noble origin.
|Source=http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/person.asp?LinkID=mp61033
|Date=10 June 1920
|Author= Bassano Ltd.
|Permission=
|other_versions=
}}
{{PD-US-1923-abroad}}
Your edit was un-constructive and was easily remedied. In my opinion from what I have seen from your actions, you do not have the interests of the improvement of an encyclopedia at heart. Try to be more solution oriented instead of having some sort of vendetta against pictures from India in Indian articles. Consensus is always preferable to Unilateral action. Myopia123 (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Consensus is that non-free images can't be used in articles for which they do not have any fair use rationale, so I am not sure what you are talking about. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah sure. But your edits always end up sparking some sort of edit war. You are rude and disrespectful to the hardwork of other editors in the way you go about your thing. You routinely WP:BITE people who are unfamiliar and are simply trying to improve an article. That image had rationale for a different article and some editor added it their simply to try and improve it? Did you explore the possibility that may be the rationale might extend to this article as well? No, you just proceeded to shit on the hard work of others and delete it. -Myopia123 (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
And just so you know, four editors have already thanked me for my above message, so obviously there is consensus in the community towards you and your work. -Myopia123 (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, after attempting to state a separate fair use rationale for each article where the image is used (since the guideline apparently does not tolerate the conjunction "and"), I deleted the deletion template you added. If there is a substance-over-form issue you wish to discuss, what is it? Maybe we need to tune up the text. For that, it is unclear that use of this image is still the best approach, since it is rather dated (1990).... if we update the articles to IPCC AR5 (2014) the copyright challenge becomes moot (except for archived article versions). Anyway, please post any response to thee image's description or talk page for others who may be watching. If you want to repost this comment to that venue that's ok by me. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Stefan, I am fairly new and inexperienced in the editing and adding of wikipedia pages, and must admit I am a bit out of my league. I see you have marked the image I uploaded, File:Front Cover, B.B. King - The Blues.jpg to be deleted under the claims that it is not being used in an article. I would like to clarify that the image I uploaded is/was in use in a draft article I had created, that is currently waiting for publishing. I see from reading other conversations on your talk page below that non-free images should only be uploaded once the article is properly published, which I did not know at the time of uploading. My question is, should I simply wait until the page is published to re-upload my image? Clarification would be much appreciated, thanks. N.c.sullivan (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The file is tagged with {{PD-Japan-organization}}, which tells that the picture was published before 1964. However, from what I can tell, the picture was not published until 1977, so the public domain claim is incorrect. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
W H Beach Image
Stephan,
Thank you for your message. I found this image on line - checked with the copyright holder and obtained a free license for non-commercial use under the Creative Commons License. I put that in the various parts of the file upload page and put the information in the caption of the picture as they requested. I am not sure what I have missed - I read all the help files.
Thanks for deleting Replaceable fair use File:1974 4porte 800x600 1 G.jpg , now the article is very good, where do you think we find new picture? "if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia." not possible, would be better to think before deleting stuff -->Typ932T·C18:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The file has been deleted, so I do not know what it looked like or where it was used. Therefore, I am not able to answer your question. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
lol really good, you nominate pictures for deletion without knowing anything, better leave those alone then, if you are not intrest about those article at all, seems your hobby is just nominatin things without any knowledge? -->Typ932T·C19:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Have you ever considered UPLOADING a photo, instead of devoting all your WP time and energies DELETING those which others have contributed? To me, you belong in the same category as infamous user:Aspects. --AVM (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you have declined this twice now even after I added the missing information. Can you please explain what I need to do to get this uploaded? Thanks.
Jethro Grassie (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see, you were talking about sections at WP:FFU. You submitted the same request multiple times, so I declined the duplicate requests. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I did not intend ( and actually don't believe I did state) the picture was taken on 21 November 2014. 21 November 2014 is the date of the Newspaper from which the photo was taken. Help me out here...The picture is important...but I find the whole system impenetrable. Stacie Croquet (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
In that case, the fair use rationale should state that it was published on 21 November 2014, as opposed to taken that day. Currently, it says that the picture was taken on 21 November 2014 and published in that newspaper on an unspecified date. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The image doesn't seem to be needed in the article about the bombings. It should be enough to refer to the article about the person. See WP:NFC#UUI §6. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
File:Outfront Billboards Flint MI.jpg
Why did you tag the photo intended for the articles Outfront Media and McLaren Flint? They are billboards. Outfront Media is a billboard company. It is UNAVOIDABLE that it shows advertisements because THAT is what billboards are for. Because the ads are for McLaren Flint, the billboards are also in the McLaren Flint article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Kavikkuyilaudio.png, Eettyaudio85.png, RaajaRaajathanaudio.png, Yaadgaaraudio.png, Tahalkafilmaudio.png, UyireUnakkagaaudio.png, Sitaaraaudio.png and MeraLahoofilm.jpg has been nominated for deletion. They are all uploaded as audio cover which is the right licence. Please let me know what to do to undelete those files, which licence has to be added. Need help Stefen2..
Rajeshbieee (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you have nothing better to do with your life, be leaving the same messages repeated all the time in my discussion?. I'm tired of having to see your messages in my argument, to tell me the same thing all the time.--McVeigh / talk02:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Made in USA Brand Certification Mark logo.svg
Dear Stefan2, the creator of the Made in USA Brand Certification Mark logo.svg wants the image removed completely from Wikipedia. The sooner it's deleted the better (immediately versus 7 days). I am interested in confirmation of deletion of the image, please advise if getting that is possible. Thank you! AndreaAufden (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! Unfortunately, your request has been declined. The reason is shown on the main FFU page. The request will be archived shortly; if you cannot find it on that page, it will probably be at this month's archive. Regards, (t) Josve05a (c)00:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Josve05a: I have not requested any upload there. Maybe you accidentally sent a notification to me because I commented on someone else's request. Try to find out to whom the notification should be sent. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The (beta=old) script is broken, sending out notifications to everybody etc. (I think...) Thanks for notifying me. (t) Josve05a (c)00:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
There is some advice for you here, endorsed by another admin also, Kudpung. You dropped one of those templates on my talk page as well, a while ago, and I responded, but I don't think you were ever bothered to respond or follow up. You can come to ANI all you will and expect us to take care of problems, but in this case the problem was entirely your own doing: if you had bothered to explain it would have never happened. Acknowledge, please, that you read this, and the ANI thread. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
If you want to (delete / file for the deletion of) a redirect created when I renamed an image, I grant you blanket permission to do so without notifying me. DS (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Twinkle identified you as the person who made the initial revision to the local file information pages. I checked some of them before tagging them and noted that you indeed were the one who made the initial revision. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
It's OK to delete the file, File:Walters verson.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto221 (talk • contribs) 2014-12-12T01:43:54
RapidWeaver.png
Hi.
Please talk another look at revision 637532906 and tell me: What did you expect to happen when you inserted |replacement={{non-free reduce}}? Actually, please look at what happened next too.
Hi. I've seen your speedy del notices into my user page and, first of all, I thank you for your correctness to notice it to me. But I'd prefer that you not notify me, cause it's not necessary; for the reasons I will explain now:
as file mover, I've moved several files here (after request) and so their redirects seem (technically) created by me in the revision history. But they aren't, it is the move result. The only files I've uploaded (still now) on Wikimedia, are Commons' files.
Of course I agree with all your speedy deletions, the WP files that shadow a file on Commons are a complex problem (here and there), as the short/poor descriptive and ambiguous titles. So, also as Commons' user, I take this opportunity to thank you for this kind of work, which has often been a headache for me :-)
You created the redirect page, someone else uploaded the file. I agree that these files and redirects which shadow Commons are a big problem. If you want to help, consider renaming some files in CAT:SHADOW, or move the file to Commons. If a redirect ends up shadowing Commons, remember to request deletion of it at the end. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I will try to do this kind of work. The headache was due also to the fact that i'm a file mover on Commons too. Regards :-) --Dэя-Бøяg22:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Stefan2, I noticed that you marked these two files {{di-orphaned fair use}}. While I believe these two files fail WP:NFCC #1 at Moe Howard and Larry Fine respectively (as I've discussed on the uploader's talk page and in the edit history of those two pages), they aren't actually currently orphaned, as my attempts to remove them from those pages and replace them with the prior free photos (which, admittedly, are inferior to the non-free photos) were reverted by editors at those pages. —RP88(talk)00:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
. There was enough info on the page to avoid deletion. I said that I was the photographer and that I released it. We have had many discussions, Steffan, I feel that this was done behind my back. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
You cannot just say that you "are the photographer and you release it." You have to choose a specific license to release your photograph under. That wasn't done in the past 30 days, so the file was deleted. If you will tell me what license you intend to release the image under, I will happily restore the image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Will this do the trick?
This work is licensed under the Creative CommonsAttribution 4.0 License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/CC-BY-4.0Creative Commons Attribution 4.0truetrue
If not, where can I find my choices? And while we are at it, I am about to try and upload a lot lot of pictures of murals from the WPA. Do you have a suggestion as to what copyright work needs to be done? thanks, Carptrash (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
When I tagged the files, the article was not listed in the "file usage" section on the file information pages. However, the files are clearly currently in use. Either there was an error in the "file usage section", or the files were not in use at that point. As the files currently are in use, I have removed the tags. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The bollywoodhungama.com website does not work properly for me. In particular, I am not able to see the picture. Therefore, you will have to ask someone else about this. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The image doesn't qualify for fair use as someone else could make a freely licensed drawing of the same clothes. The clothes themselves are not copyrightable as all logos are below the threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
So do I just change the licencing on them then? I made them, and if the logos don't matter, I'll change it to "own work." Cmm3 (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to upload a compressed version of this file, but the compression turned the file into a jpeg file, which I cannot use in the file space. I then tried uploading the image to a different page, but that did not work either because I was not allowed to fill in certain fields. What should I do? Could you move the file to jpeg? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The image reduction software I use turned the original png image into a jpg file. I was not allowed to replace the png file with the reduced jpg file. Seeing that file was already reduced, this seems to be a moot point. Thank you for placing the template and getting the image fixed. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Stefan2
I have received just now the messaqge about the suggested deletion of some figures made/uploaded by me to the French version of 'Chimiotaxis'.
Would you so kind and inform me why? Is it a simple note as the format of the figure was changed or any problem appeared?
Thanks for your help in advance.
Kohlasz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.49.38 (talk • contribs) 2014-12-17T16:40:41
(by talk page stalker) The reason was given in the edit summary in the policy link. Non-free images can only be used in Main-article namespace and may not be used in any other namespace, to include User namespace. It was commented out so that you can remove the comment tags if and when the article is deployed to Mainspace. Joys! – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!19:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Le Crocodile (temporary poster of the film project).jpg
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Le Crocodile (temporary poster of the film project).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
So, if I post the article before the 24 december, the file will be conserved ? But, I have a bad level in English : can you help me to write this article ? - Groupir ! (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If you dislike my tagging, then why don't you take care of the tagging yourself? You should keep in mind that F5 tagging has been handled by bots at most times, and I do a lot more checking than the bots ever did. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
So your response to shoddy work is to claim you actually do good work (evidence suggests otherwise) and then suggest someone else do it instead? If you're so poor at it, and apparently care so little as to not do it properly, why do it at all?--211.215.156.184 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Just so you know
the Monster Hunter boxart that was uploaded was removed by an IP user and didn't enplane anything on why he removed the picture on Monster Hunter 4's template
Aozz101x (talk)
Seasonal Greets!
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!
Hello Stefan2, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015.
Happy editing, The Herald : here I am
Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
license for uploaded pictures for William Geissler and Alison Geissler
Thanks for your comments. I am only beginning to find my way around.
I may have chosen an unduly strict license level for all the files I uploaded.
My only condition is that other users should cite the artist's name with images that they download.
I now believe that the licence level should be 1 for the works of art, or, for the personal photos, level 0.
Must I resubmit the images again to change their status, or can it be done a posteriori?
I have copyright ownership of each of them. What type of formal documentation is required for me to prove this?
Hello! Quick question, as you seem knowledgeable about the non-free media policy and image uploading. There used to be a set of questions asked when you upload an image that tracked to fair use - what does this image illustrate, is it at as low a resolution as required, etc. Has the image upload tool just been changed so that this is no longer part of it? I'm wondering how someone new to Wikipedia would have any idea from the image upload tool what information is required, since I had to dig to even find the non-free media tag. Caseylf (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what I was wondering about. I guess I had used that in the past and didn't realize that it wasn't always the default. Depending on how people learn to include images, they might never see it. Oh well, thanks! Caseylf (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
THANK YOU
I want to say THANK YOU sir for doing the right thing concerning my image on my Cavewoman article. instead of just deleting it you made me aware of my error, and allowed me the chance to make corrections. I have seen several editors of late just swoop down and arbitrarily just revert whole articles to their original form, without giving the person the opportunity to make corrections themselves. Makes me picture a series of editors perched high on a tree like vultures, just waiting for somebody to make a mistake so they can swoop down. Again Thank you sir for being polite and well mannered and correct :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balin42632003 (talk • contribs) 2014-12-19T18:26:12
Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an AwesomeHoliday and a HappyNewYear, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys!Paine
subst:orfurrev
I'm sorry you had to follow behind me and tag all these files. I guess I sort of figured there was a bot that did that. In the future I'll add the tag myself. Sorry. – JBarta (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Stefan2, screen-shots usually show a pixel perfect copy of a computer program (video game screen-shots might be a different topic I'll not cover here). This is the optimum resolution for a screen-shot, as it shows a copy of what a potential user might actually see if he choses to use the program. When you scale it down, it will inevitably result in blurred areas, most notably e.g. fonts which will become unreadable. While you're right that the tiny thumb in the infobox mostly does not show the full resolution this is not a reason to scale down the source image for multiple reasons:
It might happen that thumbnail sizes are changed at some point in the future
It might happen that a screen-shot is moved from the infobox to another position in the article to better show the content
It might happen that a reader wants to have a closer look at the screen-shot he was presented with in the infobox to actually be able to evaluate all the details (personally I actually do that a lot since in the tiny thumbnails in the infobox the content is mostly not clear enough). In the end scaling down brings only disadvantages. The only reason why one would want to scale down the image is to conform with fair-use policy, but that's not an issue here anyway: The non-free content is only icons, most of the arae is freely licensed content. Furthermore fair-use explicitly asks for the smallest reasonable resolution that is needed to visualize the content – for a screen-shot this is in most cases the original resolution because of the unproportional loss of quality that would occur otherwise (e.g. ask yourself the question which software developer would want to see a low-res screen-shot to adequately visualize his GUI?) --Patrick87 (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
File:Lovin' Spoonful-Nice-1966.ogg
Dear Stefan2. I haven't looked into the entire history of this sample. I only saw that since I restored it that it was again removed so I restored it again. If there is any problem with my fair use rationale, then I trust you would have explained that already. The speedy template is for the file's orphaning. I trust that you won't delete this file. I would appreciate it if you would remove your deletion template. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Stefan2, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing, Tito☸Dutta13:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing the issues with this image. The image is actually part of an article that I was using as a citation. I was trying to cite the picture as reference as well. Can I do this, and if so how do I do it? Please note that no copyright infringement was intended. I was trying to figure out how to properly cite a picture.[[D-free]] (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
As the file is a copyright violation, you can't upload the file to Wikipedia. You will have to wait until the photographer has been dead for at least 70 years before you can do this. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Asami Sato Picture
I'm currently working on an article for the character on the Legend of Korra. It's currently in my sandbox and still needs some work. Hopefully, it will be completed next Wednesday. We'll eventually get to creating pages for Bolin, Lin, Mako and Tenzin...the other major characters on the show G. Capo (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
File source and copyright licensing problem with File:BrandyChocChipSnoBar.jpg
File Copyright problem
Thanks for uploading File:BrandyChocChipSnoBar.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.
If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.
Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
User:Eeekster: I didn't upload this file, someone else did. I only created the file information page because the old file information page was lost. As you can see from the log summaries, it is clear that this is an unfree file, which is why it is listed as an orphaned unfree file. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for noting that it had been deleted at Commons; I've deleted the page here as a result. I misunderstood and thought that it was a local tag for an image still at Commons, in which case I don't think it should have been deleted lest it affect the functionality of the bad-image system. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Reconsideration of Article:Gregor Collins
Hi, Stefan2 - this is a request for a second look ie a consideration in removing the "Some or all of this article's listed sources may not be reliable" note that has been on the Gregor Collins article since September of 2013. Reliable sources and additional, validated wiki links (including the recently approved article Goodbye Promise) have been provided in the interim, proving it a worthy candidate for no flags, and along the line of factual neutrality. If for some reason it's still considered flag-worthy I'd appreciate an updated explanation and what specifically needs to be secured to have it fully approved. Thanks for your time! Gregorcollins (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The tag seems to have been added by Kinu (talk·contribs) in Special:Diff/637443065, using the edit summary "Restore maintenance tags: still a lot of references such as YouTube, IMDb, etc."
I agree that Youtube often isn't a reliable source. There may be exceptions, but those need to be carefully checked. For example, one Youtube film appears to have been published by Gregor Collins himself. It is possible that it may be possible to use that film as source for some information in the article, but you need to be careful about what information you take from that film. Autobiographies, press releases and other information published by the person himself do not necessarily meet the WP:NPOV policy, and the information may be biased. See also WP:TWITTER.
According to the article about IMDb, "Actors and crew can post their own résumé and upload photos of themselves for a yearly fee." This suggests that information on IMDb may violate the WP:NPOV policy for the same reason as the self-published information above. The IMDb article also tells that "The site enables registered users to submit new material and request edits to existing entries. Although all data are checked before going live, the system has been open to abuse, and occasional errors are acknowledged." If users are able to submit potentially incorrect information, then it isn't possible to assume that the information currently presented on that website is accurate. A more reliable source is needed.
The edit summary also mentions that there are references to "et cetera". I see that some links go to Wordpress blogs. Blogs are typically not reliable sources (see WP:BLOGS), so "et cetera" probably refers to the Wordpress references. Some information provided by shops such as Amazon is biased (the shop wants to sell as many copies of the stuff as possible), and so Amazon is probably also included in "et cetera". On a quick glance, the tag {{unreliable sources}} seems accurate.
Reply to reconsideration of Article:Gregor Collins
Thanks, Stefan, and I acknowledge your acknowledgement of those sources that might be considered ambiguous, however there are also links to the LA Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, as well other sources that aren't blogs or YouTube links that clearly recognizes Gregor Collins. Would you suggest I write directly to KINU - the user who originally tagged it? I feel like it was tagged a while ago and no one has gone back to check that there has been reliable sources added since it was tagged. Thanks. Gregorcollins (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Stefan, since our last writing, reliable articles/citations from Publishers Weekly, The Guardian, Huffington Post, and The Austrian Embassy have been added to the page of Gregor Collins. The page is absolutely now a candidate for no flags. I understand the Wiki community has big fish to fry and often articles that deserve a "flag note" removed are overlooked simply because there aren't enough volunteers to catch them all. How should I again go about "applying" for reconsideration? Perhaps if you have a moment you personally can go to the page to see of its continued evolution and verification. Thanks for your time. Gregorcollins (talk) Preceding undated comment added 09:46, 1 July 2015
File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Try sample.ogg
File Copyright problem
Thanks for uploading File:Try sample.ogg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.
If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.
Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Undeleted page history (how did it get deleted, anyway? There's no log entry) and restored source and copyright information that was previously present on the description page. Nyttend (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello there,
Thank you for your message on 25 December 2014, so nicely out of the blue, and apparently not really related to anything that makes sense to me at the moment. My apologies for that. I am sure I will still figure it out (because I usually do, eventually). The artist gave permission around the end of 2012, first by providing me with a signed license which I uploaded and she later also e-mailed her permission to Wikipedia. I will do a search in a minute and see if I can find the info for you. (It is possible that correcting a typo in the title has created the false appearance of this being new material.)
Angelina Souren (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Irrelevant question. (Plus, do you still remember what you had for dinner on 12 December 2012? And where the ingredients for that meal came from?) The material was approved and included in Wikimedia. That someone has rolled back the procedure and reversed the status is what I am dealing with now. I have meanwhile found an archive number for the Dutch version, but I assume that that won't be of use to you. As I have the license, I will just have to e-mail it again. Would that take care of it?
Angelina Souren (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I just e-mailed a copy of the signed license, as well as copies of (related) e-mails for verification purposes, with a cc to the owner of the materials, to the address permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
Angelina Souren (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Removal of template
Please explain why you removed the {{Easy border}} template from File:Flag of Terrace, British Columbia.svg. The link you gave to WP:NFCC#9 as a justification for the removal has absolutely nothing to do with it. The template is used on dozens, if not hundreds of images of flags on Wikipedia. Is there another reason why you would deliberately make use of Wikipedia and Wikimedia graphics difficult for users of this site? — QuicksilverT@04:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Your argument is completely irrational and nonsensical. Of course, a non-free image will be visible on its own page, which is in the Image or File namespace, not the article namespace. Adding or removing a template such as {{Easy border}} has absolutely nothing to do with it. What's the purpose of uploading an image, free or non-free, if it isn't visible? Are you sure you know what you are doing here, other than being disruptive for no good reason? — QuicksilverT@15:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The code {{Easy border|flag}} inserts the wikicode [[Image:Flag of Terrace, British Columbia.svg|border|100px]]. You can't insert that wikicode on pages outside the article namespace. See WP:NFCC#9. Additionally, the template appears to recommend users to add the wikicode [[File:Flag of Terrace, British Columbia.svg|border|100px]] to pages without warning the users to verify that this additional use satisfies the non-free content criteria, which an additional problem with the template's presence on the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
File:Seegene Logo White Background.png
Hello, hope you are enjoying your near end 2014. I noticed that you nominated File:Seegene Logo White Background.png for speedy deletion and listed File:Seegene's official logo.png for deletion because they are duplicates and are not being used in an article. I remember that I uploaded more than one images of similar contents with different descriptions. However, before uploading the one after the other, I couldn't find the way to delete my previously uploaded image contributions. It appears that you already deleted such image and I don't mind about it since the article doesn't seem to need those images anymore, except for the one that currently being used in infobox under my sandbox page, and I am glad that the image has not been deleted. One thing I am curious about is, by having the images duplicate and having something listed for deletion or nominated for speedy deletion, does the article which I have submitted for review gets deleted as well? Because since you mentioned about images but not about the contents in my sandbox, isn't it reasonable enough that the content itself is eligible for article after the problematic files having deleted? The article named "Seegene" is currently in Review waiting and as of today, its under Afc pending submissions by age/20 days ago. If you find any information that needs to be fixed or added, could you please explain so that I can minimize the waiting as much as possible? Thank you. {Seegene1 (talk) 06:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)}
Deletion of a file does not cause deletion of any articles. If you want further versions of the logo deleted speedily, then you can add {{db-g7}} to the files.
Thank you for your fast and kind response. Before I started editing the contents from the very beginning, I read more than enough about the rules and guides to write the article appropriately, and I tried to apply those as much as possible to avoid any possible violations. By just looking at the draft roughly, you may as well aware that the contents are mostly about biochemistry, newly developed technologies and the company's products, and I personally believe that such categories are hardly likely to cause problems with regard to mentioned WP:COI while these contents must be and are, based on officially published study papers and news articles which already had been written in neutral point of view in order to be published, and while having the products exist with real life photos available on website, and currently being sold on market. Company's history is mostly about business to business contracts and I referred them to news articles which I couldn't possibly think of any other medium to prove one's history other than such way (I cannot simply upload a copy image of contract paper with sign and I assume you wouldn't want me to do that). There is a long list of references and I hope it can support the WP:COI compatibility and the significance of the subject. Sorry for keeping you so long. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seegene1 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for answering so diligently. Perhaps if you were so willing to communicate from the beginning there would have been no need for you to remove it at all, I could have done it myself. Again, thank you for being so communicative.
Michael Q. Schmidttalkbackis wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS
Dear Stefan
I uploaded the former logo of Mobilink because of its popularity, and most importantly brand has a history. I have noticed some invalid source (now updated). Kindly do guide me what further I need to do to make sure this logo won't be removed. Omerahm (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The file is correctly being used on the necessary page, Boston Bruins. However, it seems they've gone through some recent vandalism, and the page's infobox formatting has gone completely sideways. I do not know how to fix such an issue, but there is no problem with the use of the image. It is still there, just not... in... image format. It'll likely get fixed soon, especially with the season ongoing. --The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Deletion of redundant Red Onions Jazz Band cover image
thank you Stefan for attending to this. I uploaded the wrong file first, then the smaller file under a different file name. Will have to learn how to delete files!
Best regards,
sinarau (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Replaced File:Irene Higginbotham.jpg back into the article
User:Widr: You created a lot of redirects which shadow files on Commons. You need to remember to request deletion of the redirects after moving a file in order to solve the {{ShadowsCommons}} problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Common sense also applies here, since I have now explicitly asked you not to notify me. But if that's not possible for you, then let it be. Widr (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I see. I assumed it was ok since it was in Wiki commons and used on an article. juanTamad 04:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtamad (talk • contribs)
Updated File:Conrad Gargett Riddel Ancher Mortlock Woolley logo for use in wikipedia page.jpg
Hi, thanks for notifying re orphaned file. The image had been removed in order to be replaced with an updated logo design. The updated file has now uploaded and reinstated to the article so I have removed your "Di-orphaned fair use" template. conradgargett (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Church Of The Creator® Logo Dove/Star Seal and Divine Right Order® Logo uploaded today.
Stefan2 - Found your message. Uploading of graphic image was requested for use with Wikipedia Page "Church of the Creator" to be coordinated, with user Doncram. The intent in providing the image was for use by Wikipedia, to be associated with the listing. If the "non-free" status needs to be changed to a category, that is a license for use by Wikipedia from the owner of the Trademarks/Logo, then I am authorized to change the category from "non-free" to a different category, but, not to void exclusive use by the owner, unless license for specific use is granted as the intent here. Let me know what I need to do, and I am ready to authorize or make changes. Please send a copy of this to Doncram and see other relevant information on Church of the Creator talk page. Thank you. Michael S. Legions (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Petco Park logo
It's OK to delete the file "File:PETCO Park logo.jpg" since someone else added the new logo
Hi there, the image was removed from the article due to "dubious fair use rationale". If that is correct, then I will leave it for speedy deletion. DestinationAlan (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, you marked "World_Bank_logo.png" for deletion because it was not being used. However, this logo should be on the World Bank page, and for some reason it was removed. I have reinserted it there, and have therefore removed the mark for deletion. Please let me know if there is something I'm missing. Thanks.
User:O-Jay (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Help with Images on Wiki
Stefan :3
I really need your help on how to upload images, because I've recently uploaded two of them and I believe they'll be taken down, but how exactly can I structure them in a way that Wikipedia will allow me to use them in an article? Many thanks ^_^ --Bartallen2 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Stefen :3 Regard the Boyd image, if the image hasn't come from Getty Images, albeit the person was still alive, could a picture uploaded still be used? Ad even though free pictures exist of that person, they are immensely old and small in resolution. But what of the other Boyd Shakespeare picture I uploaded? Can that be used? --Bartallen2 (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The person is still alive and freely licensed pictures still exist. A non-free picture can therefore not be used. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
About your recent WP:RFD nominations for pages in the "File talk:" namespace
Hello Stefan2,
I noticed that you have recently nominated a good number of redirects in the "File talk:" namespace for deletion due to them targeting the wrong file's talk page. I just wanted to let you know that the quickest way to resolve those redirects is to just blank the talk page redirect. All of the nominations you have posed so far seem like rather uncontroversial talk page nominations, so I would just recommend doing that instead of having to bring the talk page redirects to WP:RFD, especially since blanking the redirect results in an immediate resolution. Cheers! Steel1943 (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure if there is a speedy deletion criterion which applies to those confusing redirects (although there probably should be one), so I thought that it was safer to list them at WP:RFD. The redirects are caused by the fact that there are plenty of files on Wikipedia which hide files on Commons, currently resulting in a lot of files being moved around to solve these conflicts. After a file has been moved away, there are redirects to take care of. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the best option you may have for those redirects, in regards to speedy deletion, would be G6. Either way, from what I am understanding from your nominations, the purpose is to essentially suppress the redirect from targeting the wrong talk page, and blanking the redirect does that. I mean, either option works, but I do agree that these are actually too uncontroversial to even have to wait the 7 day period it takes for an RFD to complete. (Also, I noticed that one of your nominations ended up being deleted per G6 before I had a chance to see it, so I'd say that would be the best bet if you would rather the redirect be deleted.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I was thinking that there was a better template for that. Just a point of clarification, when I said "second criterion," it was the second bullet on the NFCR template. -- Gyrofrog (talk)18:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Removal of IDOL is DEAD covers
You marked several (4 I believe) images (all different covers for different versions of the same album) for deletion. I honestly have no idea why they need to be deleted. You seem to think that they fail "Non-free image use in galleries or tables" but I beg to disagree. I've seen other articles in which they provide examples of multiple covers, because it shows what various versions were released. The same can be said about Idol is dead. It's not as if they're the same image or anything either. I see it as a necessary and fair use of these images. Please reconsider. Fudobrain (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Simply correct the image page instead of censoring articles
Hi, if you see that a particular non-free image is used in infoboxes on two or more separate articles, like in File:Council of the European Union.svg, then please try to be a bit helpful and instead of commenting one of infoboxes out just duplicate the template in image description. This would save other editors' time and also present you as a constructive editor and not a policeman. Regadrs, kashmiriTALK01:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I got your message thanx for informing me. I'll remove it or 'll change its rights soon. Please provide me some links where I can find How to Upload Images? and What should be its criteria while uploading images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangram-Salunkhe (talk • contribs) 18:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
A picture like this is unacceptable as it appears to show a person who is still alive, see WP:NFC#UUI §1. This picture is additionally unacceptable as it is unused. The article mentioned in the fair use rationale was deleted a couple of days ago. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for note. I had to update this logo with the new one that I uploaded. I found out about updating later. Can I do something for it, now? Otherwise we can just wait until fixed deletion in 7 days.
--1xristos2(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Great. Thank you very much for your quick response. One last question, there are some issues in SourceLair page that have been reported more than a year before. I don't think that there is any issue anymore. Should I ask someone to review it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1xristos2 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hullo ! I've been sent to you by Huon because apparently you're a bit of a copyright whizzz, and my queries about this got ignored at Wikipedia:Media Copyright Questions.
So I am keen to upload or make copies of "spider diagrams" (a really complicated example is ) which are commonly published in review papers in organic and inorganic synthesis journals. Do these meet the threshold of originality ? Best --TatanyaGolding (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
A single one of those structures (such as ) is not copyrighted in the United States per {{PD-chem}}. File:AlphaPinene rxns.png contains a lot of them and they are arranged in some way. I don't know if there might be an arrangement copyright or how the arrangements are decided. Try c:COM:VPC. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Why and what purpose do you have in interfering in my own userpage?!? Also what are you doing to my club crests? Abcmaxx (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
You didn't explain it did you, you just went ahead and did it. Not sure what purpose this move serves anyway, you're wasting your time if that's what you do on here Abcmaxx (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
No you're just on here to stir as much shit as you can, you edit people's own user pages quoting some ridiculous law you found for some baffling reason. Also why not just add _NO GALLERY_ if for some strange reason football logos offend you? Also none of those logo's are too big, I'm not sure why you think they are, especially compared to hundreds of thousands of similar football club articles. You must a very fun life if your wiki editing is just pointless editing of images Abcmaxx (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really sure why you're on Wikipedia. Looking at your talk page you have quite a record of pissing people off Abcmaxx (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stefan, hopefully you noticed that I had already requested that this file be deleted as I'm the one that found the free file. Robman94 (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for telling me that the St. Charles Garnier College article no longer links to the non-free image. I have just found out that the college has changed its logo. The image now has no need to be on Wikipedia and I am more than happy for it to be deleted. Thank you again, Pjposullivan (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
File:Filigree.JPG
Hi Stefan, and thanks for making me aware about the issue with the Photo. This is a photo that I took myself from the piece I have at home. I don’t know exactly how to go about to resolve this issue, any help will be greatly appreciated.
See WP:3RRNO: it is not a violation of WP:3RR to tag unambiguous violations of WP:NFCC#1 as unambiguous violations of WP:NFCC#1. And you were the one who prompted the need for a {{subst:rfu}} tag in the first place, since you decided to change the tag to an unfree one and close the PUF discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Claim of fair use
Hi Stefan,
The File:Cinemaparadiso logo.png is heading a company infobox for Cinemaparadiso and I claim its fair use.Nmwalsh (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stefan,
Thank you for getting back to me. I have removed the image from the sandbox page. How do I apply to have the image used legitimately? Nmwalsh (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
In 2012, a different user uploaded a file called "File:Greenslade.jpg" on Commons. As your file was in the way, the file on Commons couldn't be used anywhere on Wikipedia.
In 2015, I noticed this problem and moved your file to "File:Greenslade cover.jpg" and updated the link in the article. A redirect was left behind, and this redirect is now up for speedy deletion. It should now be possible to use both files on Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I get it. Someone did a major edit, cutting quite a bit of the article — possibly vandalism. The article was then restored. This triggered your message to me.842U (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I noticed right after I clicked in Twinkle, and was going to fix it when my laptop decided to die. Thanks for moving them :). Editing on mobile now. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)02:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
New Message
Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please look in depth regarding the [File:2014_National_Costume_Miss_Colombia_(11641421958010).jpg FILE IMAGE] in question for Paulina Vega, as I was the one to put the FIRST picture for Miss Universe 2014 for the Wikipedia. I used it in what I believed to be Fair Use from the missuuniverse.com website, however if you look at media across the internet, others have used similar images as well across a public website. In their TOS on the website, they clearly state I can print one copy for personal use - which is what I did, I printed it on Wikipedia, a non-profit organization.
Dr.K didn't agree before I could defend the issue, reverting it which caused the issue I think when he left a (TW★TW)) tag. I don't know what that means or a Rv copyvio image. Revised? Revoked? The 2nd time I added it, I didn't know he removed it - as I was editing the size of the photo since it was too large to fit in. So TELL ME PLEASE, did I tag it right with a Non-free content or should it be something else? I added where I got the file itself but the night passed and Miss Universe was without a photo. I believe if a photo is found on a public website, as long as they don't specify you can't use it for a non-profit Fair Use, which a Wikipedia article helps them in most cases, it's considered Public Use right?
I don't know what governs replacement of any image used in the article, but obviously you don't want a Wikia full of pictures, just a single photo. So sadly, even though it's probably the most representational picture for a Miss Colombia contest instead of the winner of Miss Universe 2014, I added the picture to Miss Colombia 2013 since she was representative of that title when she competed in the Universe pageant. Thanks for your help Stefan2. Jeydo (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands Hi you recently removed and deleted several photos that I uploaded to the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Island page I am new here so am sorry if I did something wrong.
These photos however are mine taken by me and owned by me so there is no issue what so ever with copyright. I went out to the Gay Kingdom and took the photos myself so don't know how else I can prove that. Some of the photos I took I gave to the Government of the Gay Kingdom so that they could use them others I have kept I and many other people made the trip out to the GLK on a charter plane the photo of Cato Island is not from a satellite but from the window of our charter plane taken by me and I gave these photos to the government so that they can be used on the Kingdoms website www.gaykingdom.info On the trip out I was nominated the photographer so as to record the trip I can understand if they cannot be used but there is no issue what so ever with copyright as I own the photos all of the originals and am happy to share them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpa377 (talk • contribs) 2015-01-27T21:53:56
See WP:IOWN for how to document that you are the photographer. The pictures appear elsewhere on the Internet, which usually means problems. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
File:LoK-Characters.jpg
Hello, please kindly stop messaging me with respect to File:LoK-Characters.jpg. The article the image belongs to was nuked by a vandal and restored less than a moment later by a bot, ergo it is in use and not orphaned. Do try to take a look at the page in question before tagging. Thanks. --LoK Wiki (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stefan2. I'm getting notifications that you're CSD F2'ing the old locations (now redirects) of pages of images I've renamed in CAT:SHADOW. Should I be CSD'ing those redirects? I want to save you work, and I want to make sure that I don't create more work for others that I could (or should) be doing myself. Thanks ~Oshwah~ (talk)(contribs)23:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stefan2. I just realized that you already left me a message about my recent file moves. Thanks for letting me know about the steps I missed. I was following the guidelines in WP:FMV/W. Something didn't feel right when I was doing the moves, and I realized that I wasn't doing everything fully. Between your message to me, and my realization that you did so, I did move a few files. I'll go back and fix those. Please let me know if I miss anything. Nice to meet you, and happy editing :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk)(contribs)00:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
A user sandbox is not an article and may not contain any non-free images. This image doesn't seem to meet the threshold of originality, though. Please adjust your signature to make it compliant with WP:SIG#NT. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
This does not violate anything, because it's an original material. I only used logos that were in Wikimedia Commons, and i did not use anything else. And also i don't see anything wrong with WP:NFCC#10c, i did not violate that law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hockeysoccertennis (talk • contribs) 05:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Um, what? You have not even attempted to write a fair use rationale, and the article is not even about the entity whose logo you are using. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
File:An Wang.jpg has no source specified, so its licensing status is unknown. If no source is provided, it will have to be assumed that the file is copyrighted, and in that case, the file needs to be deleted.
File:Wen Ho Lee.png is claimed to be from 'SnipView', but it doesn't tell what 'SnipView' is, how to find 'SnipView' or whether its pictures are licensed under an acceptable licence. If this information isn't provided, then the file will have to be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Distortion Mirrors photograph
Hi Stefan. No, the files are indeed free for use. They represent the band I work for and I took the photograph. I declared this. Let em know if you have any other questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingslove2013 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Stefan2,
Thank you for the notifications. These files are just the copies of newspaper articles that were published on the book release "If Truth Be Told" by Om Swami.
We did check the File description page, and other Wiki help, but couldn't find a way to justify them being free files.
Can you guide us in this matter please?
Thanks,
Srihariom (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the newspaper has licensed the article under any free licence. Please get the newspaper to follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Amazon Bestsellers.jpg
Hello Stefan2,
I did check the options and seems like this file does fall under Fair use tag.
Can you guide us how/where to add the Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use tag?
I couldn't find any reference on how to use free publication (news paper article copy or online release) related to the page. Your help will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Srihariom (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Since a new editor added this image, I thought it best if I intervene on his/her behalf. The image is no longer orphaned: it is now in use at Brno chair, allowing a link to a commercial site to be deleted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
You stated " The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media)." Howvever, you will note that the image in question is used on the Roadmaster (bicycles) in the infobox. I took the picture but the Logo is the property of whomever owns Roadmaster now. I can fo change permissions if you need that.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The file was not in use when the file was tagged for deletion. As the file is currently in use, it no longer satisfies deletion under that criterion. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
You were indeed the uploader, see Special:Log. Since you didn't provide evidence of permission in time, the file was deleted, and there is now a different file under the same file name, uploaded by a different user. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Q
Stefan, please have a look at File:SXSWorld Magazine cover with f(x), March 2013.jpg. I doubt that a magazine cover can be used to illustrate an article on a concert ("showcase" in K-speak), even if both are owned by the same company. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. This is why we have you on payroll. Hey, while I'm here, I suppose File:Oranjeboom lichtreclame, foto 2.JPG isn't free, is it? I've been working on Oranjeboom Brewery, and I'm wondering also what the status of that logo in the article is. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Ha, I removed the magazine cover from the article and now the editor claims harassment. I'm sure you get that all the time. Oh, I just saw MaranoFan was blocked for all-too frequent use of not-OK content, and a bad case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT to boot; you've dealt with them in the past. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that editors are more likely to complain if a file is removed from the article than if the file is nominated for deletion, so I tend to prefer that option. However, you can never completely avoid things like this. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
"alone in north america" Topic Photos
Stephan - The photos you're deleting are a part of an article which has been submitted for inclusion, but not yet approved. Could you just leave them be for a bit?
DHilbert (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
You are not supposed to upload the pictures until the article has been approved. As the files are not in use in any articles, they can't be on Wikipedia. Besides, it seems that the submission was declined at AfC. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Uploaded files
Hi,
I can not upload this files inside article "Sergei Allahverdov (Allahverdi-Amatuni)", I just simply do not have an option how to do it.
Can you help me with that problem and if you will be so kind, can you transfer those maps(files) in the article about author of this dynamic atlas "Sergei Allahverdov (Allahverdi-Amatuni)".
Thank you.
Kombinator the great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user
Please sign your posts. Files are added to articles by inserting [[File:Example.jpg|thumb|Image caption]]. Modify the code by inserting the correct file name and image caption. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
K, thanks for the tip.
I did sign. You did not see that?
"Kombinator the great".
That's not a signature. You sign edits by inserting ~~~~, which expands to links to your user page and your talk page and a timestamp. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
iCloud Login Page
Hey Stefan, I just wanted to ask for some help regarding this image: "File:ICloud Login Page NEW Screenshot.png". I downsized it but I don't understand the second concern of "no evidence of permission". I stated that Apple owns the copyright and such so what else do I need to add? Thanks.
JC713 (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah that one can go but I reuploaded it as "File:ICloud Login Page NEW Screenshot.png" which gave full credit to Apple. Why is it still up for deletion then? Thanks for the help :D. JC713 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The c:File:ICloud Login Page NEW Screenshot.png still has a few tags that I do not know how to solve. If you could help me out that would be amazing! One of the tags I don't get how to solve is this: "It was requested that this image be deleted as it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:ICloud Login Screenshot.png but this request could not be completed because there is no evidence of permission...." JC713 (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Valentine Greets!!!
Valentine Greets!!!
Hello Stefan2, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
- T H (here I am) 12:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I denied your speedy deletion nomination on File:Metamorphosis Remixes.jpg because it appears to still be used on the article mentioned (though that entire article is... far too long). It never appeared to 'not' be used on the article though (at least at no time recently from what I can see) so I just wanted to make sure there was nothing I missed. Thanks for all of your patrolling work! James of UR (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. If a file is added to an article, then the "orphaned fair use" tag is always supposed to be deleted. I would argue that the image isn't needed in the article, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Can you restore a deleted pic?
Hi Stefan. I created File:Ultraman gyango ruffian from outerspace 19660925.JPG with a proper fair use rationale and provenance to illustrate the article Ultraman. The editor User:Ryulong edit warred endlessly to remove it, and it ended up getting deleted by you as orphaned. I figured he'd eventually get banned, which arbcom has done.
I'd like to restore it to the article, and preferably in the original form it was uploaded, not the last version, which Ryulong had degraded in quality so that he could argue it was not a good enough picture.
The file has been deleted, and only admins can undelete deleted files. I am not an admin, so I can't undelete the file. The admin User:Diannaa, who deleted the file, would be able to undelete the file if it is to be undeleted, and she might also have an opinion on which file we should use in the article.
What does the file look like? The article currently contains one picture of Ultraman: File:Ultraman Festival 2013.JPG. I would argue that a picture of Ultraman taken from the television series would be more appropriate than an unlicensed photograph of a cosplayer, taken from an external website.
If there is a dispute about which file to use, then I think that it is better to settle the matter at WP:FFD, WP:NFCR or a similar forum instead of edit-warring in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
My file was a screen shot from the actual show, cropped and low res, that showed Ultraman as he was portrayed in the show as a 200ft tall being, fighting a godzilla-like monster. This was typical of the show, with episodes climaxing in a wrestling match with death-rays and such between the hero and a giant dinosaurian or alien monster, trampling trees and knocking down buildings. The current picture is cute, but it gives no idea how he appeared in the show. This picture makes him look like a man-sized robot making a cross-sign to ward off a vampire at a halloween party, lol. Here's a clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2gLKCXUir0 from a different episode, solely for fair use purposes, to let you see what I am referring to. I don't know how I got the idea you were the admin who had deleted the picture, so I will contact Diannaa. Thanks! μηδείς (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The image looks like this. Medeis, your original upload was 596 × 500, which is too large for NFCC (and the image looks a little blurry at that resolution to be honest). The correct size to meet our non-free content requirements is about 344 x 288, using the quick rule of thumb that the height in pixels multiplied by the width should not be over 100,000. Display size for a logged-in user who has not specified otherwise is 220px wide, so the image will look fine in the article at that resolution. Medeis, if you are okay with an image size of 344 x 288, I will go ahead and restore the prior image and orphan the cosplay pic. Just post here with your decision - I will watch-list this page. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay it's up and I have put it in the article. If you could check and add something to the prose if needed, that would be perfect. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Can you have a look at this, Stefan2? I find it odd, with the text on the photo. And look at the metadata, "Image title"--that's some of the stupidest stuff I've ever seen. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The website Filmitadka.in licenses many images under Creative Commons licences, and this seems to be one of them. Filmitadka.in is obviously aware that Commons uses some of its images as a Commons copyright template is used in the "copyright holder" field in the metadata. Mediawiki interprets some of the metadata fields as wikicode. There do not seem to be any copyright problems with the image.
The so-caled "image title" is obviously an advertisement for Filmitadka.in. I wouldn't be too concerned about that as the advertisement only shows up on the file information page but not when the image is used in an article. I am more concerned about the text on the photograph as it looks ugly, but I must say that a photograph with ugly text is better than no photograph at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
not sure I understand -- the image is associated with and used in an article on wiki -- pls check as I do not think it is "orphaned" from its article and just floating around in the wiki prime matter of uploaded photos waiting to be used elsewhere Startarrant (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)startarrant
Orphaned non-free image File:OPNsense Logo transparent background.png
Hello Stefan2, uploading File:OPNsense Logo transparent background.png resulted in a sub-optimal logo because of the rather square shape of the picture with much space top and bottom. So I did edit the original with Gimp and go a better rectangular logo.,, as placed in the appr. article, see OPNsense. Thank you for your kind message and all your work, -78.51.252.228 (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Not that it matters about my pages - they were just testing out draft edits of real wikipedia pages - so the sub-pages on my User can just be deleted (which I will do). But the copyright message you sent to me just confuses the hell out of me. How come my reputation is being brought in question for cloning a Wikipedia page to test edits. If you have issues with the content of these articles - please address that with the real Doctor who pages. Addressing it to just me in this manner is pointless, confusing and rude. Maybe saying something like "it looks like you copied a wikipedia article. That page now has copyright issues being addressed. You should probably clean up your copy" would have achieved the same outcome and actually Assumed Good Faith. I would request that you remove the message from my talk page with an apology comment Dresken (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a standard text which is supposed to be posted to user talk pages in the event of copyright problems. If you have suggestions for improvements of the wording, try to bring them up at Template:Nothanks-web. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
My userpages
Please do not blank my userpages with administrative messages about nonsense and copyright issues. My userpages are not in the article mainspace. RoyalMate112:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
You have on your nearly blank userpage an icon that says you're against harassment, yet a cursory glance at your talk page would indicate you pretty much only use this site to harass others while quoting Wikipedia guidelines. I'd suggest getting another hobby mate. RoyalMate112:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, I have not blanked any of your user pages with administrative messages about nonsense. Copyright applies to all pages, including user pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stefan, I left a message on the discussion for deletion page. I've never done it before so I don't know if I tagged everything right... I know there's a backlog but I'm concerned because looks like you seemed to have skipped over my entry, and it seems really obviously not fair use. Can you take a look? Thanks! Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Mullah Abdul Rauf.jpg — Wikimandia (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Stop vandalizing my userpages or I will ask that you be blocked from editing. If there are copyright issues on them please hide or delete them directly and do not blank my entire page. I will ask that you be disciplined and/or have your admin-ship removed. RoyalMate122:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I have not vandalised a single one of your user pages. Please explain how to stop something which hasn't been started. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
What's your opinion of the two title cards? Neither of them is actually commented on in the text, or really tells the reader what the show is about. Neither is free. Like I said, my original opinion was to retain all four images. Also, if you look at Ultraseven it has the Japanese title card as well. I'll watch here, but feel free to comment elsewhere if you don't want to continue this here. μηδείς (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Royalmate1. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to User:Royalmate1/Royalmate6 because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!
I have not made any unconstructive edits to those pages. However, I note that you have made a lot of unconstructive edits to the pages, see {{subst:uw-copyright-remove}}. If you continue making unconstructive edits, you may be blocked from editing. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
If it's a copyvio, what's it a copyvio of? You haven't specified this, which makes it impossible for the issue to be resolved. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
"You haven't specified this" - Incorrect. This is clearly specified if you follow the link from the template to the discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
You have not specified the source of the alleged copyvio.
You have not specified in in the template call (as is normal practice). At the listing page Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#:User:Royalmate1.2FRoyalmate6 you have claimed "various unidentified Wikipedia articles", again without specifying which. You have not specified the source of the alleged copyvio. which thus makes it impractical for any editor to act upon this matter.
At most, these are the commonplace issues of NFC material, or material copied from WP articles, appearing in drafts in userspace. This is not an exceptional event requiring an excessive response. A good editor would advise Royalmate1 what the problem is and how to avoid it. A trivial matter about swapping image embeds to links or placeholders, or of noting source attributions on talk: pages. A minor requirement that is ignored by so many editors in general that I'm hard-pressed to even find an example of someone doing it!
This does NOT require the imposition of a terrifying blanking template with a dire warning "Label not to be removed upon pain of federal mattresscrime". It certainly doesn't justify you 3RR edit-warring to re-impose your template, whilst at the same time doing nothing at all constructive to either explain or resolve the issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I have specified the source of the alleged copyvio (it's given on the discussion page: "various unidentified Wikipedia articles").
The template is to be added whenever a copyright violation is spotted. Also, adding such a template is specifically covered by WP:3RRNO §4 and §5. Also, the user chose not to ask for any advice. Instead, the user chose to post impolite posts to my talk page, thereby choosing to annul any interest in providing him with such advice. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Yet again, you show yourself to be childishly keen to find excuses to exercise some pettifogging bureaucracy, but totally disinterested in doing something either constructive, or even something that fixes the problem you're complaining of.
The statement "I have identified the problem as unidentified" as the problem has been identified: the pages violate copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe we do need three non-free pictures - of these three people - because each of these pictures depicts a individual who is a significant topic within the article. I disagree with your assessment that the pictures violate WP:NFCC#8 because, as it describes a work of visual art, the article can not be understood fully without a visual reference to the collaborators within their work. DTajomaru (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stefan2. I noticed you flagged File:Dave Kerzner New World Deluxe Edition.jpg and File:Dave Kerzner New World.jpg on March 4, 2015, claiming the two images are orphaned. In fact, the images are not orphaned; they are currently being used on Draft:New World (Dave Kerzner album). That article is currently undergoing a review, after which the article (if approved) will be moved to New World (Dave Kerzner album). The articles are not orphaned and are currently in use; please let me know if there's any confusion regarding this. Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
On a side note, I note that there already is a different article called New World (Dave Kerzner album). This means (I assume) that whoever will verify your articles for creation submission will decline the submission on the grounds that an article already exists. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
After your initial notice, the image was added to the article New World (Dave Kerzner album). Maybe this was overlooked, but within the 7 days' notice you gave the image found a home. I would like to re-upload that image, but maybe there's a better solution: is there any way to restore it? Let me know. Thank you. Also, with regards to the creation submission, my request is to have the draft moved; move requests use the same template, and I do not appear to have the ability to move the draft manually myself to the article space. I have made a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests to have the draft moved. Vuzor (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stefan. Just an update: The drafted article has been approved and is in its article space. I also have realized that the image was not set to be deleted until a week from now. As such, I have removed the "orphaned image" template from both images and have restored the previously-hidden image to the article. Thanks for your work on Wikipedia. I'm glad we have things sorted out. All the best to you. Vuzor (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello -- I hope I'm doing this correctly, as I'm new at this. I'm trying to upload a photo and I'm not sure how to work the coding. Please acknowledge that we can communicate through this page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cstwct (talk • contribs) 00:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
You can upload images at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. If you are trying to insert the image in an article, then add [[File:File name|thumb|image caption]] to the page. Also post new comments at the bottom of talk pages, not at the top. Otherwise, your comment risks being overlooked. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
IsarJoey (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC) IsarJoey added:
|Replaceability = There is no free copy of this coin available, as I checked thoroughly via WWW-searchmachines and many combinations of keywords!
|Di-replaceable fair use disputed|The big knobbly joints of the mare's front and hind legs connect directly to the nightly stars and are easily found in the zodiac sign of Leo. The complete mare and even raven and the symbol under the horse is seen in Leo in dark moonless nights! This Celtic Uneller coin is the most precise representation of "Leoni the Mare" found in the night sky.
I hope adding me this way is OK for you, the Uneller coin is a precious even inside Wikipedia. Greetings from snowy Munich, Josef Krem — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsarJoey (talk • contribs) 2015-03-02T20:10:29
The picture has been deleted, so I can't tell what coin it was. If it was a picture of a public domain coin, then the picture is replaceable as someone else could take a different photograph of the same coin. Also, always post new comments at the bottom of the page, not at the top. Your comment was overlooked at first. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Pictures
I will not contest the deletion of the two images. I have improved ones in their place so go ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGracefulSlick (talk • contribs) 2015-03-07T00:59:07
Hi Stefan2, regarding File:DJ White Shadow Bud Light.png, I have removed your replaceable fair use tag. The image is being used (purportedly) to show the person's role in a commercial, not just as a stock photo of the person. Though obviously I would not disagree with deleting it, that needs to be done at IFD or NFCR, not via the tag. --B (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Note that File:DJ White Shadow Bud Light.png was tagged as replaceable by Eeekster (talk·contribs) while I tagged it for reduction. I have now tagged it for deletion as it doesn't have any fair use rationale (at least not one which names any article). The file is also missing a source, for which I have also tagged it. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Now and forever the ballads.jpg
If it wasn't for you, I wouldn't have found that the page was mistakenly changed. Thanks for bringing this to my attention and I have rectified it. Jeremyeyork (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Logo Cercle des économistes.jpg[edit]
HelloStefan2 (talk), I would like to use this logo in the infobox of my association "Le Cercle des économistes" wikipage. But as you saw, it 's not a success yet. Thx if you can help Labraxa (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Labraxa (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Logo Cercle des économistes.jpg[edit]
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Logo Cercle des économistes.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Geraldo Perez: Not only that, the user also inserts invalid file deletion tags. In Special:Diff/650938110, the IP added a tag which says that the file was tagged on 4 March, but the tag was in fact added on 11 March. Incorrect tags risk resulting in incorrect deletions. The uploader should always be given a week to reinstate an image for a reason. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello Stefan. In August I incorrectly uploaded images using fair use for an article on the Tijuana airport. I was new to the process and did not understand the protocols. I stated the source of each image half belonged to me but the other half belonged to others who had given me the images. You explained I could only use my own materials. I then requested that the images be deleted [See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 September 1#Tijuana Cross-border Terminal. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC) The result of the discussion was: All deleted per uploader request. TLSuda (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)], and uploaded only my images onto Commons. The article Tijuana Cross-border terminal was nominated for DYK in September, passed the review process and the 5,000 viewer threshold. In December, the images were deleted as it was stated they were “originally claimed as fair use, but removed from Wikipedia due to false claims and now claimed as own work." When you selected the images for deletion, the reason was that I clearly stated the source of each image, i.e. Mexican government, City of San Diego, and my own. In the written Tijuana article, I supplied more than two dozen newspaper references including a feature article from the Wall Street Journal in which Mexico's border commissioner attributed the project to me. I was invited and presented the project before the U.S. State Department and the U.S.-Mexico Presidential commission known as the Partnership for Prosperity. I went through the OTRS process and was again accused of making false claims by the very Administrator who deleted the images and she again made reference to you. The images you selected for deletion, do you have access to them or do you remember them? I know I must have frustrated you back then, but one of the reasons that the current images were deleted was because the Administrator making the allegations used your discussion as proof of my "false claims". You are the only person who can clarify this issue as to what images were deleted as you are the original source. I hope you recall the case. Respectfully Rnieders (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
At first, you uploaded a number of images to Wikipedia under fair use claims. They were nominated for deletion by me and deleted by TLSuda (talk·contribs) for violation of the non-free content criteria.
After this, you uploaded a number of images to Commons, which were listed as "own work by the uploader" (and also stated that the uploader was the copyright holder, I presume). The files on Commons were nominated for deletion by Ellin Beltz (talk·contribs) and were then deleted by Jameslwoodward (talk·contribs) as there was no evidence that you were the copyright holder. As Jameslwoodward noted, "we do not know who User:Rnieders actually is". If you created the images, then evidence of this is needed. See Ipse dixit#Legal usage. You should also note that these images may be works for hire. I don't know whether these are Mexican or United States images, but according to s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 2/Sections 201 and 202, the copyright to United States images usually belongs to the employer in a "work for hire" situation. Things may be different for Mexican images.
You mentioned that you had contacted OTRS and that "the very Administrator who deleted the images"[who?] explained to you that the information you presented was insufficient. I do not have access to OTRS information, so I do not know what was stated there. I am therefore not able to help you with this. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your fast response. The images you requested for deletion were different from the ones I uploaded and would like to ask if you can access the images that you originally selected. I submitted to OTRS the original images deleted and the ones that replaced them, my own work, but that is not proof of what was originally deleted. I also was not hired or an employee neither in the U.S. or Mexico when I created the images. Since Ellin Beltz continuously used you as proof of her claims I falsely used other people work, I contacted you since I have no access to that original deletion request. I would appreciate your help, Rnieders (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussions are all archived from your Wikimedia Commons user page, please see [9]. I did not use anyone, the images were discussed and removed by Jameslwoodward (talk·contribs) as noted above. I'd point out that the file names of the ones removed from Wikipedia were the exact same filenames used for the Commons upload which - on the surface - seems they are the same images. There is no proof at all that user:Rneiders has the rights to any of these images - several are sophisticated 3D design works which were done by a limited set of people at the time these were created. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Image deletion? Need explaination
I need your explaination on why the images that I uploaded is not allowed in Wikipedia? I believe that these political logos are important for the infobox of Malaysian political party articles. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
As stated avove, the files do not have any fair use rationales. In order to keep them, you would have to add fair use rationales. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Add fair use rationales? Can you show examples because I don't get it. I already fill the necessary info in summary section (description, source, author) and put {{non-free logo|Political logos|image has rationale=yes}} in licensing section. Is it not enough or something else I don't know I missed? Alexander Iskandar (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
{{Non-free logo}} is a copyright tag, not a fair use rationale. You should only add "image has rationale=yes" if the file has a rationale, not in other situations. See WP:FUR for examples and instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
You recently deleted a request made today to add a photo for Mary Aloe's page. It was up before but was taken down. As I understand it, it was removed due to improper citation and copyright tags. This time I submitted again today using one of the templates offered. Apparently I am still failing to submit correctly. What can I do to get the photo up. It is a phote sent to me by Mary Aloe who asked for my help in getting the photo replaced. She is the owner of the rights, is fully aware of its use here and wants it here.
How can I submit a proper upload request to reflect these facts and expedite the addition to her page?
It is a non-free photograph of someone who is still alive. Such photographs are not permitted per WP:NFC#UUI §1. You will have to take a photograph of the person yourself instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I find it disturbing that perhaps the only person contacted about the deletion of this file (me) was not the one who uploaded it. Please be more careful in future. 199.88.72.19 (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
My apologies. I do not recall ever having uploaded a non-free image to Wikipedia; definitely not my style. In the end, though, there is evidence for, and no evidence to prove it was not me. Perhaps I am mistaken; it was a long time ago. This IP is one given by the Wi-Fi of the library where I go online these days. I am eager to disassociate myself from the poor editing practices of the previous user(s) of this IP, but it would seem to be unwise to block it, it belonging to a public connection, unless there prove to be unsurmountable problems.199.88.72.19 (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Kireet Khurana
Kireet Khurana seems to have an excessive amount of non-free images, which are not really discussed in the article, would you mind having a look? You are generally more active in this area than I am. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stefan2! Thank you for letting me know about this image. This is an album cover to go to the Phase (band) page in their discography section. I just am waiting for a page to be created for this. If it's ok with I'd like the image to stay for a while until the page is ready. Thank you!--Mike1582 (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:The Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing Arts Logo.jpg
Good Evening
This particular file is an old version of their logo. A user by the name of Wolftrapwebmanager removed it and replaced it with a new logo which s/he uploaded to commons. Being non-free it was rapidly deleted. I went to their web site and scarfed down an image of their new logo, which I uploaded to English-wikipedia under fair use rationale. That file, Wolf_Trap_Foundation_Logo.jpg, is now installed in article, so the old version, The Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing Arts Logo.jpg, may be rapidly deleted
List of articles about living people containing fair use images
Using the quarry tool that I learned about from you, I created a list of articles about living people that contain fair use images. The list is at User:B/List of articles about living people containing fair use images. A lot of them are artwork, which is more or less allowable. I have found and removed a handful of them where a book cover or CD cover was used in the infobox about the author or artist because the cover depicted the artist. Anyway, I thought I'd share in case you wanted to take a look. --B (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how useful that query is. In the ideal world, there would not be any replaceable files on Wikipedia, so the query would only return artworks for use in articles about artists and such things. Wikipedia is not totally correct, so there are probably quite a few replaceable files in that query result, but I'm not sure how easy it would be to spot the bad ones. It may be easier to find the policy violations by adding more restrictions to the query. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Noticed that you are marking my images as orphaned but I am having a hard time understanding how I can create "work in progress" pages without having the images be orphaned and removed. Am I supposed to upload the images after an article goes live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leesfer (talk • contribs) 17:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
If by "work in progress" pages you mean user sandboxes and similar pages, then policy says that non-free files mustn't be uploaded until the page has become an article, see WP:NFCC#7 and WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for making me aware of the 7 days before deletion of the image. I used the image in an article Navigation Data Standard, but I removed it because we wanted to further clarify the copyright. The image will not be copyright-free, because it belongs to NDS e.V., but there is no open-source replacement. As soon as we have clarified the use in wikipedia with the copyright owner, I will reinsert the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.147.3.162 (talk • contribs) 2015-03-20T16:10:31
Stefan2 said "Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Optical Allusions hardback front cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale."
Stefan, I have no idea how or what to change to fix the above problem, I probably have the file defined improperly (I sell the book, so I would have considered it a non-free item, but my misunderstanding of free vs non-free on wiki seems to be the problem). I am the publisher of this book, I colored the image, and I also own all the rights to the image (and the entire book). This image can be freely distributed since it is a book cover and I want people to be able to see it and use it, but I do not know how to properly classify it or what to classify it as or where to change said classification. I'm working to figure it out, please don't delete the image (please, please).
You have flagged this image with a "fair use - no rationale" tag, whereas the rationale is clearly stated as "To visually illustrate the subject of the article in which it is being used." which is a similar rationale to those used for every other album cover used on Wikipedia. Did you miss the rationale, or do you think it's insufficient? If it's the later, why not add whatever you consider to be a sufficient rationale yourself? Using album art for articles on an album is not exactly revolutionary. Robman94 (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The file currently doesn't have a fair use rationale. All files on Wikipedia, free and unfree, are used for the purpose of illustrating an article, so stating that a file is uploaded for the purpose of being used is useless. Besides, the short sentence doesn't fulfill all requirements stated at WP:FUR#Necessary components. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Adding images of CD or record artwork is totally acceptable "fair use" under Wikipedia guidelines, so if you think the rationale is insufficient, just update it to something you think is appropriate. Looking at your contributions, I see that you are flagging a lot of album artwork causing a lot of unnecessary work for people and maybe causing Wikipedia to unnecessary lose a lot of valid images. So please do the right thing and help Wikipedia, don't hurt it. Robman94 (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:NFCC#10c, all files must have a separate valid fair use rationale for each article in which the image is used. If a file doesn't have this, then the file may be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#F6. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I know, my point is, why not add the FUR yourself, it's easy enough to do and I'm sure you know the syntax. Try to improve Wikipedia, not degrade it. Robman94 (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
It should be much easier for the uploader to add a fair use rationale as the uploader knows why the uploader uploaded the image and what the source is. Why should I waste my time writing a fair use rationale when the uploader didn't bother doing so? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
You don't need to write a FUR for album art, it's automatically generated if you use the right syntax. Is your goal to improve Wikipedia or just to delete as much content as you can? I see your history, you're a one man wrecking machine issuing hundreds of delete requests a day, there's no way people can keep up with that. Most editors contribute sporadically, so many of them will miss your notices and their contributions might get deleted. Why not write an article or upload something yourself rather than just deleting? Robman94 (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
KSU logo.png
The file File:KSU logo.png is already tagged with the "di-orphaned fair use" tag since it was replaced with an SVG version a week ago (at which point the tag was placed). It is set to be deleted after today according to that tag. The "no rationale" tag (and its accompanying additional week) is not necessary. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Detroit Book - image tagged - why?- but it has fair use message
I received an automated message from you about use of image of book cover. There is already a "fair use" notice for that image if you click on it. I don't understand what more you think is needed or how to satisfy your request. Please advise. Thanks.
the article you (or maybe your bot) tagged is here: Detroit: An American Autopsy
Didn't notice that my article about the album was deleted. Wish I had been notified about that, and not just for the cover image. I give up. Delete it then. --T★Weil03:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
File:Pumeza (album)
Hi. Why? how did I fill out the template differently than any other album? In ictu oculi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 2015-03-22T08:33:54
My apology if my files have infringe copyrights or having the wrong information. Please do not delete the files I've uploaded. If you feel the page or file has something to improve, please give advice where necessary thanks.--Hongqilim (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
You uploaded a couple of non-free files without a fair use rationale, but it seems that you have since fixed the files, so there should not be any further problems. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I have asked the organization again to grant me permission (by sending an email to the address you provided) to use their logo for public use. They did it previously but I still received a message from you. I do not understand why.
Hi Stefan2 - I saw your note that I didn't include the non-free rationale for File:Blackbookmarketresearchlogo.jpg. When going to edit the logo info, I also saw that it was requested to use a PNG instead. I converted the logo to PNG and uploaded it, with the proper non-free rationale, and edited the article to use the new logo. I imagine that now that the logo is no longer in the article, it will be automatically deleted within a week. Thanks for your efforts to keep Wikipedia on the "straight and narrow."TechnoTalk (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I still don't get it that why this File:Harish bali.jpg was tagged for speedily deleted from Wikipedia as i was just practicing on my sandbox only via using show preview option. --Baliharish (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Please don't delete this image because it does relate to the article Alexis Marcou on which is included in. In the article it is mentioned that he designed the cover album for the band Phase.--Mike1582 (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
A user has added a fair use rationale, so the file won't be deleted. Remember to write a fair use rationale when you upload a file next time. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I apologize I did not realize that I would not be emailed when the photo was successfully uploaded. Is it possible to have the automatic deletion reverse so I can add it to the article Heather Podesta? Many thanks.--NokoVT (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nokovt (talk • contribs)
I don't know what you mean with e-mail notifications. Several notifications were placed on the talk page of the uploader. If you do not receive e-mail notifications for talk page edits but wish to receive such notifications, then you can enable e-mail notifications at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
comment unseen
Hi Stefan2
I was notified that you left a comment for me at my talk page, perhaps about the proposal to delete an image in the Jim Gary article, but I cannot access it. Please post it again if you intend for me to see it. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Someone uploaded a picture of the band Transit and overwrote the picture of the cover of the Doctor Who novel Transit I uploaded years ago. How may this be sorted out? --‖ Ebyabetalk - Border Town ‖ 00:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
In the file history section, click on "revert" next to the correct revision, and then restore the image to the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
What is it that doesn't work? The file has been uploaded, so all you need to do is to add it to the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I changed the parameter name from "logo" to "company logo" and then the picture suddenly showed up in the article. I'm not sure why it doesn't show up if you use "logo". Strange. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
let me know when to begin replying
User B, Stefan2, et al — Please let me know when you have run out your exercise with the images I have uploaded. Obviously you are devoting a great deal of time in this effort even though presumption seems to be driving most of your judgments and your personal comments. When you have finished, I will begin to respond to each as time allows. Not having the luxury of free time that you seem to have, it will take time, but I will go through my records for each and reply. Please note the correct classifications for those classified incorrectly so that changes may be made. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Stefan2, does a Fresco (I think that's what it's called) count as 2D? File:Tethys 83d40m AntakyaMuseum Turkey-fix2.JPG is cropped and retouched from [10] (direct image link). I have no idea where the original image is from (the tripadvisor one was uploaded well after the Wikipedia image), but this is obviously the source image ... identical angle, identical jpeg artifacts, etc. But if this is a 2D image, then it doesn't especially matter. (Although it would be nice if 83d40m would provide sources rather than making us guess.) --B (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
User:B: Better link: [11]. Probably 2D, not entirely sure. I'm not able to tell whether the images are the same photograph or two different photographs of the same artwork. It is difficult to see the JPEG artefacts, and there will be modifications to the artefacts when the picture is modified. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned?
Hey, I was wondering why you tagged File:Cybernatural 2014 poster.jpg as orphaned. It's still used in Unfriended (originally titled Cybernatural) since there has yet to be any actual official poster released. There's a teaser poster, but so far no official release poster. I know that in the past I'd uploaded teaser posters that were almost immediately deleted since an official poster was forthcoming or it was (like this case) redundant to posters that referred to the film by its original title. What I'm planning for this is that when the official poster comes out, that this poster would be moved to the release section where it can help highlight the film's original name and its rename. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)04:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Tokyogirl79: If you take a look at the article history, you will find that the file was not currently in use when it was tagged, but it was restored to the article half an hour later. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
File StarLeaf.png
Hi, you tagged this image File:StarLeaf.png as orphaned, with the comment 'However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia.'. It is actually being used by an article which I'm writing in my name space User:Abesharp/StarLeaf. Presumably this situation isn't uncommon? How should it be handled? Abesharp (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The rule is that you may not upload the image until the article has been finished. Non-free files may not be used in userspace drafts as userspace drafts aren't articles. Non-free files which are not in use in an article will be deleted. See WP:NFCC#7 and WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
International_Finance_Corporation_logo.png
Hi, you tagged this image File:International_Finance_Corporation_logo.png as orphaned, due to it not being used on any Wikipedia page. I have correct the issue, as the logo should be linked to from the corresponding page on the International Finance Corporation, and I'm not sure why the link was removed. I check the discussion on that page and couldn't find any reasoning, so I reinstated the link. Please therefore remove the request to have the logo image file deleted. Thanks. O-Jay (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Talk back
Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at User talk:The Herald/Talkback. Message added 05:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
USE lvwiki_p;
SELECT p.page_title FROM page p
INNER JOIN categorylinks c ON p.page_id = c.cl_from
LEFT JOIN imagelinks i ON p.page_title = i.il_to
WHERE c.cl_to = "Aizsargāti_attēli"
AND i.il_from IS NULL
AND p.page_namespace = 6
Files unused in the article namespace, possibly used in other namespaces:
USE lvwiki_p;
SELECT p.page_title FROM page p
INNER JOIN categorylinks c ON p.page_id = c.cl_from
LEFT JOIN imagelinks i ON p.page_title = i.il_to AND i.il_from_namespace = 0
WHERE c.cl_to = "Aizsargāti_attēli"
AND i.il_from IS NULL
AND p.page_namespace = 6
Note: This will also find files which already have been tagged as being unused non-free files. If you wish to exclude those files, then you need something which corresponds to Category:All orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files (contains all tagged non-free files), Template:Di-orphaned fair use (used by all tagged non-free files) or Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files (contains categories which contain all tagged non-free files). There are no interwiki links to Latvian Wikipedia, so I can't find any template or categories there.
I see that you have tried to copy quarry:query/1225 as quarry:query/2932. The error you have made is that you commented out AND c2.cl_to = "All_orphaned_non-free_use_Wikipedia_files". Your query now says that the files must appear in a specific category, but the files mustn't appear in any category at all. As a file can't be in a category without being in a category, your query doesn't return any files. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! As for copying - I'm sure there wasn't any results without that comment, but maybe I done something else stupid, because now it works :D
I haven't been able to find any 'Special:Contributions' or similar. The queries might be hiding in an SQL database which you might be able to query, but you would first have to find out what the database is called. I tried to get a list of all available databases (see quarry:query/2934), but got a 'permission denied' error message. It's a bit annoying. I try to keep track of my queries by bookmarking them. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, seems to work. Some queries are marked as drafts, and the search query needs to be modified slightly in order to find those. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Houston, we have a problem. Now I have get rid of unused fair-use images. But it seems SQL report missed some files. For example, this one (yes, it was in the category when report was created :) ). Some ideas, why?
And I will have to ask some more help with another query; sorry, didn't find some similar query and I'm not such an SQL expert :( Hope it's OK to ask. If it's helping, then remember you help me making Wikipedia better :) So, the idea is that I have a category Disambigs. And I want to get a list of pages, which has the most links to them, so result for this page would be 2. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
You used space instead of underscore at some places in some category names. The query will only work if you use underscore. Try replacing the spaces with underscores and see if it works better.
Note that you can also use c.cl_to IN ("x", "y", ...) instead of c.cl_to = "x" OR c.cl_to = "y" OR ... which is a bit shorter.
Perfect :) Big thanks (I really appreciate it)! But for the unused fair-use images - yeah, I knew I did something stupid, but it still isn't working. :D --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 05:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I have a different query which finds files on both Wikipedia and Commons which haven't been tagged with {{subst:ncd}}. That query finds files like that one, but also plenty of other files. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Stefan2 for fixing the link of Fly (Maddie & Tae song)'s official cover, I had created a new page because I was not able to set it as the album cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorenzoFloris96 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for being such a great Wikipedian, and proposing that files are deleted if they are orphaned for a very short time. I understand that your function within the organisation is very important to Wikipedia. In this case, we've kinda jumped the gun. I was having trouble getting that music sample to work properly on all user platforms ie. the sample would appear, and function perfectly on my Windows computer, but didn't appear at all on a friends Mac or I pad, etc. etc. After trying a number of different approaches (involving changing the code) I became desperate enough to try removing the sample from the page completely, with the intention of putting it back a few hours later. I had no idea whether it would work. I will edit the music sample back into the Ayers Rock article in the next 5 minutes. If you could undo what you have done, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
Happy Passover i am not jewish but i thought you would like this from me Dfrr. i am sorry that it is a thophy and not something to with passover but hey that is just me. oh and another thing if you need someone for projects count me in maybe we can get something going hereand get conifer in too he'll do it and this user named User:Trimethylxanthine he seems to only get messages from me and noone else:-(. so have a great April. Dfrr (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks
Hey Stefan, I just wanted to thank you for your alert about the Tappan Zee photo and photos in the past! If I get around to snapping my own photo, I will repost. But currently, I think the photo's purpose is so minimal it is better if it is just deleted. It will become more significant as the bridge begins to take shape.
JC713 (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The Fourth Bear
Hi, Stefan. I wanted to ask your help about the File:The Fourth Bear.jpg, as you seem to be involved with images. The problem is that when I took the white space off the file I originally uploaded years ago (my very first upload!) the result was that the image came out wrongly proportioned - long and thin. (I checked a different browser and another computer - same problem) I tried loading a picture from a different source into the same file, with the same effect. I tried to fix it by uploading a new separate file and proposing the old one for deletion. That worked well, but then my new file was deleted. Do you know what can be done about this old file? or the image on the page itself maybe? Your help would be appreciated. Thank you. Robina Fox (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
When a duplicate copy is uploaded, it is typically better to delete the most recently uploaded copy for deletion so that the original history is kept. Therefore, that copy was deleted. The file File:The Fourth Bear.jpg displays correctly in the article The Fourth Bear, so I'm not sure what problem you are having. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Now it does, yes, since I set the image parameters, and for some reason even the file looks right. If you are interested, you could look at this earlier view of the page to see what the problem was. It still baffles me, but I guess it can be left as it is now. Robina Fox (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Pls Help
I was upload a pic - File:G M Durrani with other Singers and Actors.jpeg for G. M. Durrani wikipedia page. But I failed to attached this pic to G M Durrani page. Kchatfb (talk) Kchatfb 07:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kchatfb (talk • contribs)
Hi Stefan2. I have questions about some specific non-free coat-of-arms files that I am hoping you can answer. In addition to File:Arms-wimbledon.jpg, I also removed the following from articles per WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFCCE:
Would it be acceptable to re-add these files to their relevant articles if I were to add a seperate, specific non-free use rationale for each use or would there still be issues such as WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#8, etc. that need to be sorted out?
I am trying to fix the non-free use rationale of this image which I removed from A&N International Media per WP:NFCCE. The image currently has a nfu rationale for Northcliffe Media, but it is not being used in that article. The "source" used in the Northcliffe rationale is a dead link, and I have not been able to find an alternative. I have asked the uploader of the image about this, but would like to know if it is acceptable to use the "dead link" as the "source" for a new rationale so that I can re-add the image to "A&N International Media". The file has been tagged for deletion because it is an orphan, so I'd like to try and save it if possible. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmm
It's been six years since I edited Heaven & Hell (Meat Loaf and Bonnie Tyler album) and it seems that the reason for the orphaning is someone uploading another version of the album art. As I know nothing about the new album art, can you research further which is correct and make sure the correct one is used? If that means mine gets deleted due to not being used any longer, so be it; as long as the right one is there, it doesn't matter. CycloneGU (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Dfrr (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
W.B. Mason article and logo image contention
Hi. Please see [13] regarding the logo of W.B. Mason company in its article. User:CherryWind replace the logo with a "new" logo from 2015 but it's the same logo. So I kept the original file. There's no reason to proliferate images unnecessarily. Did I miss something? --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I saw that I was notified and wanted to comment. While the logomark maintains the name "W.B. Mason" as its primary feature the logo itself has changed stylistically. W.B. Mason no longer identifies itself with the "flat" version of the logo you initially added to the page. As seen both on the W.B. Mason website and on its printed catalogues and flyers the newest version of this logo features shadowing, beveling, and a "3-dimensional" effect. However seemingly minimal these ARE a part of the logo, the old version is no longer used - which accounts for my having updated it. CherryWind (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Have you seen Bystander selfie? I think it's patently false, but there is a link to a WMF legal opinion where the WMF is pushing the concept that if you hand your camera to a stranger who takes a picture of you, then you, not the stranger, own the copyright. --B (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
That page appears to be faulty. Have you seen c:Commons talk:Own work which also contains some discussions about this? The situation for these bystander photographs differs from country to country, so the situation is very complex. For example:
Sweden: Only the subject of the photograph needs to give permission if the photograph was taken between 1 July 1961 and 30 June 1994. If taken on 1 July 1994 or later, then both the bystander and the subject of the photograph need to give permission. This is quite clearly defined in the law.
United States: The initial copyright holder is the author. m:Wikilegal/Authorship and Copyright Ownership discusses the matter, but seems to come to the conclusion that it is unclear who the author is (the subject or the bystander). I'd guess that it may vary from case to case. If the bystander is the author, and the photograph was taken before 1978, then keep in mind that Pushman v. New York Graphic Society, Inc. tells that the copyright automatically is transferred to the subject when the bystander returns the camera.
Canada: I think I've heard something about an old Canadian law saying that the copyright holder is the owner of the storage medium (negative or memory card) but that this was switched to an ambiguous 'author' definition at some point. Needs verification.
Also, the rules for foreign works are complex:
Sweden: Copyright is transferred according to the laws of the foreign country, provided that the copyright isn't transferred using a method which is an invalid method of transferring copyright according to Swedish law.[14] I'm not sure exactly how you determine if a method of transfer is 'invalid' or not, except that confiscation is an invalid method of transfer. For example, the copyright to Mein Kampf was confiscated according to German law, but this confiscation had no effect on who is the copyright holder in Sweden. I don't know whether the copyright to bystander photographs commonly are transferred using invalid methods somewhere in the world.
France: Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention forbids any use of foreign law, and foreign law is null and void when determining the copyright holder in France.[15] This could mean that quite a lot of foreign bystander photographs have one copyright holder in France and a completely different copyright holder in the source country, making this very confusing. The lower French courts had made the mistake of looking at 17 U.S.C. § 201 when determining the copyright holder in France of United States works, but this was wrong; the courts should instead have used some articles in French law, which identify a different copyright holder than United States law. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I had not seen the other Commons discussion - thanks for pointing it out. I fully agree that before the 1976 Copyright Act went into effect, bystander selfies were a thing. But I have trouble with a claim that Congress deliberately set out to repeal this court ruling but somehow failed to do so. --B (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Only warning
If I spot you tagging a non-free image for deletion that is easily fixable after the date of this message (e.g. by simply adding it back to a page due to vandalism or a software bug causing the image to be incorrectly marked as not in use, or by adding a standard fair use rationale of a type that applies to an entire category of images) I may report you to WP:ANI for WP:DE. Your actions in this regard are blatant WP:GAMING and evidence of WP:NOTHERE. Mdrnpndr (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a ridiculous warning. If the image was removed from a page by vandalism, then fix it - there are hundreds of orphaned fair use images every week and, though the deleting admin will verify before deleting that the image is not currently in use, the tagger is not necessarily going to validate any of them. As long as the vandalism is reverted inside of a week, the image will not be deleted ... and even if it is, for the last decade, we have been able to undelete images so if the vandalism is discovered after the fact, you need only make a request at WP:REFUND and the image will be restored. --B (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Besides, this is why the uploader is given a notification: if the file was removed incorrectly, then the uploader is informed of this and is able to restore the file to the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I have almost completed coding for a bot to handle this automatically and should be ready to test and submit the BRFA tonight. See User:B-bot. I am programmatically executing the Quarry query to pull the list of fair use images and then recording that list for two days. Only those images that have been on the list for three consecutive runs (meaning for 48 straight hours) will be tagged. So that should eliminate the concern of images that were only removed momentarily during vandalism or where there was edit warring going on. So hopefully these complaints go away. --B (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Proposal to move to dated pending and received categories
Hi Stefan2, I am sending you this message because you are one of the admins, OTRS volunteers, or other editors who regularly deals with image issues. I would like to propose that we move to monthly {{OTRS pending}} and {{OTRS received}} categories and that we have a bot help out with automatically tagging images for deletion where the tag has been in place longer than the current {{OTRS backlog}}. The purpose of this exercise is twofold: (1) it reduces potential duplication of effort in checking on images and (2) it prevents images for which we do not receive appropriate permission from sitting around longer than need be. My idea is at Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard#Proposal to move to dated pending and received categories and I would welcome your input. Thanks, --B (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Regarding your edit to Stained glass, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Your no-doubt vital work of finding things to delete is no excuse for a careless edit that breaks a significant part of an article for no good reason. Please be more careful in future.Andy Dingley (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't care how you achieve it, but you don't break a page and just walk away. By all means, have an edit go wrong and break something - but you look at it afterwards, and if you broke it, you fix it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan2: Dumb question about this image in particular - under COM:FOP#Germany, shouldn't this photo be okay to treat as free? Since the window is visible from the outside, I would think it would be covered. --B (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
You are confusing c:COM:FOP#Germany with c:COM:FOP#Austria. c:COM:FOP#Austria requires the object to be located in a public place outdoors without placing any restriction on the location of the camera whereas c:COM:FOP#Germany requires the camera to be located in a public place outdoors without placing any restriction on the location of the object. In this case, the camera was located indoors, so German FOP doesn't apply. You could maybe take a photograph of the same window by taking it from the outside of the building, though. This matter was discussed in de:Hundertwasserentscheidung, where someone took a photograph of a building located in a public place, but where the camera was located in a private flat in another building. This picture satisfied Austrian FOP (according to the Austrian supreme court) but not German FOP (according to the German supreme court). --Stefan2 (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Stefan2, currently Cluebot III seems to archive none of the closed discussions at WP:NFCR (with substed "archive top"). Did you mean to revert your disabling [16] after fixing 1 post? I don't know, when Cluebot III is supposed to archive posts on that page, but "Archive top" is currently not listed as trigger for archiving in the page's header. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
ClueBot changed {{archive top}} into {{tl|archive top}} in the archive, which made it impossible to read the closure rationale in the archive. You must use subst: instead. It seems that I removed too much from there, though. I've added some text from the substituted template which I think that the bot will use to archive the discussions. Take a look at the page again in a day or so to see if things have been archived. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I always subst that template - when I remember to do it :). Thanks for the fix, will keep an eye on the page. GermanJoe (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Mobisystems headquarters 2015 jpg upload
Hi Stefan2,
Thank you for your prompt response, I have send an email containing the folllowing:
I hereby affirm that [I, (Georgi Georgiev), am] ] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [17].
I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Non-free. So, if I make up my own graphic, entirely a work of my own, I put it in the public domain, and use it to represent my affiliation with the Green Party of the United States, then I can also use it in conjunction with the Userbox I made, correct? Knowledgebattle (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Why have you removed "File:Kilkenny GAA Crest.jpeg" from the 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2014 All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship Final articles? The file is listed under "fair-use" and is the same as the rest of the GAA logos. I have reverted your changes. Sliothar (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm in the process of improving the article, not discussing the topic on a talk page, so I think removing the image was a bit overdoing it, but whatever; I'll wait until I publish the article until I re-add the image. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 11:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Barcelona crest
If I recall, I asked for the removal of SL Benfica logo which was granted. Can you explain, why does FC Barcelona (crest).svg appears in dozen of Barcelona articles? Is it because it's a bigger club?--Threeohsix (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Why you are keep on deleting public domain images from my user page? Once images comes to Wikipedia they don't have any copyright and we can use it freely. Thank you. --Human3015 talk • 13:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand the criticism of the attribution and would appreciate some help getting it right - this image is the only one available of the work, there is no freer image and it has a non-free use rationale. I have changed the licence to that for a 3D art work as this seems more appropriate than the photo of art template. If this is still not right, I would appreciate some advice on what you think would be correct. Thanks, CJspa (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
As stated, you have to provide two copyright tags. {{Photo of art}} is the preferred way to specify these two tags: {{Photo of art|free licence chosen by the photographer, covers the photographer's contributions only|the name (or pseudonym) of the photographer, for example a Wikipedia user name|non-free copyright tag for the item depicted}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I have now used the Photo of art template to provide copyright information for both the original work depicted and the photograph, but you have again labelled the image for depiction on the grounds of Fails WP:FREER. I don't understand what else is required - the answers to the two questions
"Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and
"Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?"
are both "no", as stated in the use rationale, for which I have used the template suggested. Please can you tell me exactly what I need to change to comply with your requirements? I am happy to do so but do not currently understand what more you want me to do. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJspa (talk • contribs) 09:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The additional copyright tag (the photographer's licence) is currently an unfree copyright tag. The photographer is required to license his contribution. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The guidance section on "WP:FREER states that "Non-free content cannot be used in cases where a free content equivalent, with an acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose, is available or could be created." As stated, there is no free content equivalent. In this case I believe it is acceptable to use a photograph with an unfree copyright tag. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Krays.jpg. Here a non-free photograph is used to illustrate the work of an artist. What do I need to do to qualify on the same grounds as the David Bailey picture? In fact, I still believe the Template:Non-free_3D_art is most appropriate as the holder of copyright in both the original art work and the photograph is the same person, but I am willing to apply whatever template satisifies Wikipedia's requirements. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJspa (talk • contribs) 10:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
As stated at WP:FREER, a more free picture can be obtained by using one where we have permission from the photographer. In this case, we don't have permission from the photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
{{Non-free 3D art}} is the copyright for the photographed artwork. It is not the copyright for the photograph and does not replace the need for a licence from the photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, that is clear, Thank you. Please can you clarify the following situation: The original sculpture is not on public display so it is not possible to go and rephotograph it. If I can demonstrate that the photograph of the artwork meets the 10 non-free content criteria, will you then allow its use? Thanks, CJspa (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The picture needs to comply with all of the non-free content criteria, for example:
WP:NFCC#1/WP:FREER: there should not exist other sculptures which people could take pictures of which could be used to illustrate the article instead of this sculpture.
WP:NFCC#3a: the article should not contain pictures of more than 1-2 different sculptures.
WP:NFCC#4: the picture of the sculpture must have been used somewhere else outside Wikipedia unless the picture is licensed by the photographer
WP:NFCC#6: the picture must not contain unlicensed material by Wikipedia users.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Man, I spent my fucking time putting images of fucking biographies onto the Portal:International Relations that had been neglected for months and you come removing my shit? Nigga WTF is wrong with you? Im trying to fucking educated the mofos in motherfucking Wikipedia and you have to come and fuck my shit up????????nigga Why the fuck you doing this to me ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcosoldfox (talk • contribs) 2015-05-12T04:21:33
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You are disputing this file's Fair Use tag because "there is no fair use rationale anywhere on the page." If you read the Summary section it clearly states "This is the only known photo of her available online. It was found is a digital copy of her obituary from Town Topics weekly, on 18 Feb 1998. This is the Fair Use rationale." So I am not sure how you can claim there is no rationale anywhere on the page. Kingturtle = (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The text in the summary section is not a fair use rationale. See WP:FUR for an explanation of what a fair use rationale is. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stefan2, I'm looking at an OTRS ticket regarding Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2015_February_25#File:M_gelling_1965.png. This photo was scanned from a passport. I am assuming, in answer to your question there, that the passport is from the UK (that is where the subject of the article lived her entire life. Is it fair to say that if this is the case, it is subject to Crown Copyright rules (PD after 50 years from publication)? Does issuing of the passport count as publication? --B (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
If this was published in 1965, as suggested in the file name, then a 50-year term won't end until 1 January 2016, so it is too early for the picture to be on Wikipedia.
Who creates passport photographs for British passports? Here in Sweden, you apply for passports at a police station and the photograph is taken by a policeman when you apply for the passport. Before security regulations were changed 10 years ago or so, you went to a photographer and asked the photographer to take a photograph of you before you went to the police station. This means that 'modern' Swedish passport photographs are 'government works' while 'old' Swedish passport photographs aren't. Whether this 1965 photograph is a 'British government work' or not would depend on how passport photographs were created in the UK in 1956.
'Publication' usually means that you offer copies of the photograph to the public. In the past, Swedish law stated that anyone could obtain a copy of anyone's passport photograph by simply contacting the correct authority (the police I think). At some point, the law was changed so that it became very difficult to obtain copies of other people's passport photographs. I'd assume that this means that 'old' Swedish passport photographs generally are published whereas 'new' Swedish passport photographs generally are unpublished. Whether anyone actually wanted to see my passport photograph or someone else's passport photograph probably doesn't affect whether the photograph was published or not as long as people still had the option to see the photograph. Whether British passport photographs are 'published' or 'unpublished' may depend on British rules for seeing other people's passport photographs, and I don't know what those rules say. Simply issuing a passport doesn't seem to be publication if copies of the passport only are offered to the person who applies for the passport. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
That's an interesting thought - I hadn't considered it that they might have provided their own photo. I have never had a passport and I just assumed that it was the same thing as getting your driver's license - you show up and they have a camera sitting right there to take a picture of you. If the requestor replies, I will ask if they know how passports work in the UK. --B (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
UK passport photos are supplied by the applicant. We (almost all) renew passports by post, sometimes with the aid of an application counter-signed by a local doctor or councillor to state that the photo subject is really who it's claimed to be.
It's also usual for UK passport photos to be taken in automatic photo booths (in larger post offices). Per WP ruling, these thus have no copyright (If WP reckons that a macaque can't hold copyright, neither can a machine). Changes in recent years for the EU biometric passport have made it harder to take a rules-compliant photo and so they're no often taken as selfies etc. A rejected application is expensive and many rejections are for very minor details about the photo format. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
This means that the photograph could have been taken by anyone. I guess that automatic photo booths weren't very common in 1965, so the photograph was probably taken using some other method. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Automatic photo booths were certainly common in the 1960s (they're pre-war in origin). With fewer cameras around, how else do you get photos like this? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
So the answer is that the picture could come from anywhere, and if the uploader provides a reasonable explanation of where it comes from, then we would have to accept that explanation. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I provided an explanation in the information section for this image which I thought would allow me to post this image, as we do have the rights from the photographer himself to use these images online. He is a good friend of ours and has done multiple photoshoots and promo shoots for both myself and Aerial. This is what I put in the information section: Frank Packer is a friend of ours and we asked him to undertake this photoshoot for us to use the images for promotional material (both in print and online). I am able to provide a written confirmation of this agreement if you require.
I asked the Wikipedia volunteers to help me post my dispute for this, but none of them could help me out. Instead they suggested I speak directly to you. Is it possible to dispute this claim and keep the image uploaded?
I discovered the page because it contains non-free files. The page is essentially a gallery of mostly non-free logos. Non-free files may not be used on userpages. See WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
dcw2003
You deleted my picture of Maxie Rosenbloom, with the explanation "we only need one picture of him."
This was a picture in boxing pose. The article was bout him as a boxer. The one photo we have of him is as a comedian, after his retirement from boxing. It is not very functional in a boxing article. As you know, the man earned his fame as a boxer, not a comedian. You also made the statement, I believe that a "free picture" (public domain) should be available of Maxie Rosenbloom. I searched the Library of congress website for such a picture and could not find one. I assume then, that since you deleted my photo, you could inform me of the best process to find a public domain picture, or a picture with an expired copyright, or a press packet photo, or something better to use. After all this was your explanation for deleting the picture. While I appreciate your efforts to provide volunteer work for Wikipedia, I would equally enjoy information on how to obtain photos with expired copyrights of boxers or other individuals. If you are not aware of this process, could you direct me to someone who is?>????
dcw2003 here
The photo was a non free, fair use liscense. After you deleted the photo, you gave no explanation as to how I could find one more suitable, or where I could find one more suitable. Or what information you needed in my explanation that might have enabled me to keep the photo. I was not able to secure more detailed information about the copyright. I believe a more beneficial process or beneficent editor might provide information about how to find suitable photographs of individuals taken around 1930 although the photo might be earlier. (Please don't perceive this as a crisizm, just a request for assistance. The only photo we (wiki) have of Rosenbloom is in his wiki article, as far as I know.
Which picture are you talking about? The article Maxie Rosenbloom contains a public domain picture, so we can't use any non-free pictures of him, see WP:NFCC#1. Furthermore, the article is about a person who was active in the United States in the early 20th century. At that time, the copyright law of the United States required copyright holders to apply for an extension of copyright, or else the copyright would expire 28 years after publication. Quite a lot of newspapers and magazines entered the public domain in the United States 28 years after publication, and those newspapers and magazines contain a lot of photos of famous people. You should search those newspapers and magazines for suitable pictures, and be careful not to search through those newspapers and magazines for which the copyright was renewed. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you've misinterpreted WP:NFCC#1. Non-free content can be used if no FREE Content can adequately replace its use. My point, was already made quite clearly. The picture of Rosenbloom in his Wiki article (Maxie Rosenbloom), though free is NOT A BOXING PICTURE AND MY ARTICLE which references him is strictly about him as a boxer!!! The free picture (public domain, older and in his fiftys) in his Wiki article is not a suitable replacement nor of any real use in an article that discusses him as a boxer. You evaded the issue I brought up initially simply by quoting a Wiki rule. (The photo you deleted was Rosenbloom.Maxie.jpg) which you deleted from my rather decent article Abie Bain.
Your other point is that I should obtain a younger picture of Rosenbloom from a paper from around 1958. How many pictures of Rosenbloom as a young boxer are going to be available in papers post 1958? Anyway, more to the point, am I right about what you are saying that I can assume a young photo of Rosenbloom as a boxer taken around 1927 or 1930 in a 1960 paper would contain an expired copyright? Please confirm this is the case. Can you confirm this? And where would you suggest finding an online list of newspapers focusing on sports that were published after 1960. I've checked googlenews. Any other ideas? I appreciate any help you can provide. I apoligize for being slightly snippy. I hate having my photos deleted. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!!!!!! Your deletion of photos seems to be less work than finding suitable ones, though its clear you stay busy with Wiki from looking at your talk page.
A free image exists, as demonstrated by the infobox picture. The article doesn't need a picture of him taken during a specific point in his life or at a time when he is doing something special, so any public domain picture of him is fine.
If the newspaper or magazine was published before 1964 and was published in the United States, then a renewal was required approximately 28 years after publication. If the copyright wasn't renewed, then the publication, including its pictures, is in the public domain. You can look for renewals here, with some specific information about periodicals here. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Dcw2003 (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
ONce again, I'd have to make the point you're not quite following. An article about a boxer, would best be illustrated by the subject in a photo as a boxer. Certainly the infobox picture of him in the article Maxie Rosenbloom at 50 taken while he was in Hollywood is acceptable. (I don't belive its in a photobox)
Its just not great journalism, nor does it really encompass the essence of the man's accomplishments. He was a boxer. References to him in other articles will be as a boxer. OF COURSE Wiki could use a photo of him as a boxer. As an historical figure, he was a boxer. He gained fame as a boxer. His notoriety came as a boxer, certainly not as an actor. Surely you get this point. You direct me to a copyrights book, but tell me nothing about how to find photo records in the copyrights volume. Or even how photos are categorized when they are identified in copyright books. Is this a book only of photographs? Are the photo's identified in some way? Please realize I appreciate your help, buy I have spoken with MANY wiki writers who need more help with securing photo copyright information. This truly should be your bailwick I believe.
Thank-you for any help you can provide!!!!!!!
The Catalog of Copyright Entries reveals if copyright has been renewed. If the copyright to a newspaper has been renewed, then the newspaper and the date of publication should be listed in the Catalog of Copyright Entries approximately 28 years after the newspaper was published. If the newspaper isn't listed in the Catalog of Copyright Entries, then it should be safe to use the photograph unless the photograph is listed separately in the Catalog of Copyright Entries. The picture will then have to be obtained from the newspaper. You can often find old newspapers at certain libraries or from websites such as Google News Archive. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Dcw2003 (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry , but the image of Jack Silver you deleted is the only image of Jack Silver in the article about Jack Silver (boxer). Perhaps you were unaware of this. It is also grainy, cropped and only one year at most from already being public domain by definition. Maybe you are unaware that all photos taken prior to 1923 are public image by definition in the United States.
Perhaps you could address this issue if you have time. Other images have already been deleted from this
article. This is the only photo of Jack Silver in the article. Perhaps you could undelete the image, or allow me to re-load it. You deleted a photo which is only one year from public domain use anyway, assuming it is not already in the public domain. IT IS CERTAINLY ESSENTIAL TO THE ARTICLE AS IT IS THE ONLY IMAGE OF JACK SILVER IN THE ARTICLE. That is why it SHOULD be available as a NON FREE FAIR USE
image, if not a public domain image to begin with.
If you still see a reason to delete it please let me know. I may re-upload it.
US Copyrights
Technical enquiry -
In respect of works first published abroad (pre 1909) , and then later published in the US (in compliance)(at a post 1909 date) when does the 95year term start. Is it from the US first publication rather then the original?
Asking because you seem to know these things... and I have a 1904 work (UK publcation) subsquently reprinted in 1969 (US)... and I'm getting confused as to what it's status is.
Are you talking about the mess discussed at m:Wikilegal/The 9th Circuit and Works Published Without Formalities? According to the Copyright Act of 1909, the copyright expires at the latest 95 years after publication. Due to various complexities, courts in a part of the United States (the 9th Circuit) do not always recognise publications outside the United States, and this may affect whether a work has been published, when it was published and whether it has been published with copyright notice. I'm not sure exactly how to determine if a work was published according to the 9th circuit definition and I don't know if courts in other parts of the United States would uphold this position or whether the United States Supreme Court would uphold this position. The position of Wikimedia projects has long been that this confusing 9th Circuit definition is ignored but that the Wikimedia Foundation might take down material in the event that a DMCA takedown notice is received because the Wikimedia Foundation is located within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit.
Wikipedia would accept the file as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Commons would only accept the file if the copyright has expired in the United Kingdom, which will only be the case if the author has been dead for at least 70 years. For a book published in 1904, this isn't always the case. If the 9th Circuit issue might have legal implications for you or if you have general questions about it, then I suggest that you ask at c:COM:VPC as I don't think I understand the matter fully myself. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Sfan00 IMG: Also, there is another thing to consider with the 9th Circuit issue. The cases which resulted in this complexity only discussed 'publication' within the meaning of the Copyright Act of 1909, but since 1904 was before 1909, you might have to figure out how the 9th Circuit would interpret 'publication' within the meaning of the Copyright Act of 1790, or whatever law the United States used before 1909. I have no idea whether the 9th Circuit would interpret publication within the meaning of the 1790 act any different to publication within the meaning of the 1909 act. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
File source problem with File:Al-Nusra, Al-Qarmeed military base.jpg
The author and copyright owner is, like I stated in the image description page, the Idlib Islamic Media. I can try and find the original twitter post if you like but for the name of the exact person who made the image I don't think that would be possible considering this is a pro-opposition/rebel media group whos photographers are all anonymous in fear of retribution. And since they are an unofficial/underground rebel media group all images are automatically disseminated widely for propaganda anti-government purposes and I don't think they have concrete terms of use for their content. EkoGraf (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The single word 'Twitter' is not a source. All non-free files need a source (for example a specific link to Twitter) and files without a source violate WP:NFCC#10a. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, how do you propose we overcome the following problem. I found the original link. Problem is that twitter account is now suspended, most likely because the media group was affiliated to the al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda in Syria). Here [18]. This pro-opposition news article included the image from the twitter account and directly linked to the twitter post itself. And as you can see the image is now broken and when you click on the twitter link it redirects you to a message the account has been suspended. EkoGraf (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Kazuma Kiryu in Yakuza 0
Hey, to be honest I'm not entirely sure on the source of the Kazuma Kiryu image, I just know I found it through a google search. It may have been a deviantart png art. I think it may have to be deleted then. Osh33m (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Commenting out the logo from the BrickHouse Security article
Hi Stefan2 - Please explain your reasoning about why you feel the BrickHouse Security company logo doesn't belong in the company article. I was only alerted about your action rem'ing out the logo in the infobox when the logo was flagged for deletion for not being used in an article. Please use my talk page to share any concerns.Timtempleton (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I removed the logo when the page was in the draft namespace, but the page has since been moved to the article namespace. Non-free files may only be used in articles, see WP:NFCC#9. A draft is not yet an article, so drafts may not contain non-free files. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
OK - thanks for letting me know. You did the right thing. It was confusing because I didn't realize the accompanying article had been moved to draft status, during which time you removed the logo, but subsequently the article was restored to live status.Timtempleton (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Some more help with SQL
Hi!
Was wondering, would it be possible with SQL to track down articles which uses {{Infobox}} template directly, not through some other infobox? Or it would be too hacky query where I should put in where clause all infobox templates which uses {{infobox}} as a base? If you don't remember me, I'm this guy :) And yes, this question is about Latvian Wikipedia, if it matters --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Not possible as far as I am aware. The database only records that articles use the {{infobox}} template but not how the template is used. You would have to write a bot which downloads all articles one at a time and scans the wikicode, which would probably be very slow. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Found out another way. Just to simply search for insource:{/{/infobox. We (lvwiki) didn't have so much results, so this was good enough solution :) Sorry for disturbing you. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 11:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The article uses a much lower resolution. Why are these extra pixels needed? Before {{fair use reduced}} was merged into {{orphaned non-free revisions}}, {{fair use reduced}} uses a separate category where it said that the largest dimension normally shouldn't be larger than 300-400 pixels, and both 513 and 641 are larger than '300-400 pixels'. Also, WP:IMAGERES suggests that we usually do not need more than 100,000 pixels, and we currently have a lot more than that. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd appreciate a note next time you decide to sidestep an editorial decision by pocess-wonking it over to an inappropriate forum. Until then and until such time as you figure out how to communicate without passive-aggressive tagging and specious deletion requests, I have again reverted.
The wording 'next time you decide to sidestep an editorial decision' suggests that I have at some point in the past decided to sidestep an editorial decision. Would you care to identify one such situation? You have not done this in the above message at least.
The file you mentioned, File:Original Doge meme.jpg, currently violates WP:NFCC#3b. This was solved by adding {{non-free reduce}} with the result that a policy-compliant copy of the image was uploaded, but a user, User:Anetode, decided to violate policy by re-uploading policy-incompliant copies of the files. The file was then listed at FFD, the usual place for discussing policy violations, and after a week, the discussion was closed as 'reduce' because the file violates WP:NFCC#3b. A few days after the file had been reduced, User:Anetode decided to ignore the consensus at WP:FFD (where the user chose not to comment in the first place) and again uploaded the version which was deemed to be policy-incompliant int he deletion discussion. User:Anetode additionally decided to hide the {{oldffdfull}}, which makes it more difficult for users to find the discussion which lead to the consensus that the file should be reduced. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The output looks very simple, so it may be below the threshold of originality, but I don't understand the language of the text, so I am not able to determine if there is any creativity in the text. Computer software is usually not licensed under CC licences. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear Stefan2, I had uploaded the same picture earlier & due to defective internet connection could not link it to the Wiki file 'IOL Scaffold'.
Later I could not find it anymore, thus I uploaded it again on another name. Both files pictures are mine & taken during surgery, by hospital camera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjoykdas (talk • contribs) 09:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Please don't upload multiple copies of the same picture under different names.
Hello, can you please explain why you continue to remove the picture file "File:Heart-Black-On-Black.jpg" from the page of the song it is used for?
The only explanation I see is that it hasn't been used on Wiki before, however I am trying to appropriately use it. This picture is the CD single cover of the single for the song "Black on Black II" by Heart, and by everything I've read it is fair use to display it in the manner I am attempting to.
Thank you for your explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DFWRaider (talk • contribs) 2015-06-16T14:18:22
So are you saying that once this draft has become an article it can be used? The image is an album cover for the draft I have created, and I don't understand why it can't be used in that regard up until the draft is approved. I'll comply with whatever the requirement is, but I want to make sure you understand why it is being used as it appears that I am justified in using it based on what I've read and I've received notices that the image will be deleted because it is not being used (and I am trying to use it). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DFWRaider (talk • contribs) 2015-06-16T14:33:50
The rule is that the image only can be used in articles and that it must be used in at least one article. The page Draft:Black on Black II (Heart song) is a draft, and a draft is not an article. If the draft is accepted (that is, if the draft becomes an article), then you can add the image once the draft has been accepted. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hm, no idea. His latest edit was over a month ago. There is a notice on his talk page that he is having trouble with his computer. It was added a long time ago, but he still seemed to have trouble when he made his latest edit (Special:Diff/660620931) as he mentioned his computer trouble in the edit. I hope it's just his computer which is failing and that he will be back once this has been fixed. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, let's hope all is well except for hardware....I know he was experiencing sudden failure with solid-state hard drives and was going back to traditional. I'm using a 13 year old Toshiba...got so much research stuff on it...I had a new high-end touch-screen laptop on extended home trial but couldn't get on with the keyboard. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Is there any other way we could populate a list? (I'm assuming that there isn't a parser function that could be used to allow an image to self-categorize as orphaned?) --B (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
There is Special:UnusedFiles but it also includes unused free files and might not be updated frequently enough. I'm in the same situation: I can't obtain an updated list of non-free files with orphaned revisions, so my bot can't run either. I'd suggest that we simply wait until Quarry becomes available again. It's not a big problem if an F5 bot doesn't run for a day or two. The files won't go away and will be there for tagging later. I'm more worried about the fact that lots of other bots are down. For example, bots are not adding pages Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2015-06-18. Compare with Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2015-06-17 which contains lots of pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Surface Images
You have absolutely no right to delete my images which do not contain any copyrighted material and are completely my work. Ians18 (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The files were deleted after a discussion at WP:PUF because they contain non-free elements. See the links to the discussions on your talk page. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#9
Heyo! So you have commented out a number of pictures in my usersspace. Just wanted to say sorry & thanks. As you may have pieced together, I am updating a ton of pages. Rather than slowly making edits in the main namespace, I like to copy the page to my userspace and edit the page at my own pace. I never intend to keep the images in my userspace, but sometimes the page redo takes longer than anticipated so the images are up longer than they should be (which I guess technically if I have them up for even a second that is longer than they should be....). Anyway, just wanted to drop you a message to say sorry and thank you! Hope you are well! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
If I have commented out a file from a page, this typically means that the file violates WP:NFCC#9 on a page. Non-free files are not allowed on pages outside the article namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi
How do you do? Regarding these messages, I am not the author of these images, might be a Twinkle error? I in fact just renamed them on the file-move requests. Faizan (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Faizan: You were the one who created the local file information page (a redirect shadowing Commons) but failed to unshadow the file on Commons by nominating the redirect for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I removed what someone else added as a joke on the Fernando Muslera article it wasn't me who vandalized! I removed this line "noone understands why he moved to galatasaray as they are most definitely the word club in the world" be more careful accusing others Methedemon (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
If you mean this, then the comment wasn't added by me but by LardoBalsamico (talk·contribs) who forgot to sign the comment. I notified you about something else (and that was two years later than the comment about the Fernando Muslera article): the file File:Grid Autosport cover.jpg was unused as of June last year and risked being deleted for that reason. As it remained unused, it was deleted for that reason one week later. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
NFC review question
issue resolved
You know more about image issues than anyone else I know. I raised an issue at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Straight-outta-compton-nwa-movie.jpg for which I would love to get some input into areas:
First, I'd be interested in your opinion on the merits. Second, I suspect you understand the process better than I do.
I thought we had some time but it turns out it may be helpful to reach a resolution in the next couple of days. I raise the question at that noticeboard to get some feedback from the group. I did get some feedback but it is short of a clear-cut yes it should be deleted or know it should not. I realize sometimes it can take some time on that noticeboard to reach a resolution but I'd like to see if I can push to a resolution sooner.
I did not see what I felt was adequate justification for an image in which the photographer desires it deleted. I understand that fair use law allows us to retain an image even if the copyright holder prefers a be deleted, but I assume we take great pains to make sure we are reasonably certain of our position when we decide to retain such an image.
My process question is whether I can review the responses by the contributors and form an opinion myself and deleted a whether protocol requires that if someone raises a question here someone else has to act on it.
My content question of course is whether you have an opinion on whether the image should be retained over the objection of the owner or deleted.--S Philbrick(Talk)02:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Sphilbrick: Sorry for the late reply. I took a look at the file information page before, but didn't have time to read the discussion or write a reply.
If I remember correctly, there were several concerns with the file:
The source link was dead, so the file didn't satisfy WP:NFCC#10a. This may be easily repaired.
The file information page contained insufficient information to determine if WP:NFCC#2 was satisfied or not. In the NFCR discussion, a user provided a link which gives a good indication that the file violates WP:NFC#UUI §6 (and thus WP:NFCC#2) on all of the pages, so I agree with the deletion.
The file was in use on a two pages for which it didn't have a fair use rationale. The file should not be used there, for example because it doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#8 there. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey Stefan2!
You have flagged my photo for uncertainty of source, this is because i created the Rimstock page originally and uploaded photos all without reading how to write on wiki! so the page was deleted along with the photos, i am trying to now re write the page and re upload the photos correctly, as why there is a duplicate of the photo! The original photo can be deleted and the new one kept if possible?
You uploaded two copies of the same file with inconsistent copyright information. It is necessary to identify the correct copyright information, or else the file needs to be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The 3 files you've put up for speedy deletion for copyright are actually my photos, i uploaded them previously before i had read up on how to write on wiki and upload and they were previously deleted so i have had to start again, please dont delete them! thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logthelife (talk • contribs) 11:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The files were deleted as they appear to be copyright violations, because (if I remember correctly) they appear somewhere else on the Internet. If you created the files, then you will have to provide evidence of this, see WP:IOWN. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleting file redirects
Hello. Pls don't bother letting me know about these, I'm more than happy for you to request their deletion. They obviously get created automatically after a file move. As such in future when I move a file should I also tag it for speedy deletion myself? The only reason I haven't is that the policy states to leave a redirect (pls see Wikipedia:File mover). Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
It's too much trouble to check by whom the redirect was created and much easier to just leave a notification to everyone. When you move a file which shadows a file on Commons, you should make sure that there is no local redirect which shadows a file or redirect on Commons. If there is a redirect, please update all file usage and then nominate the redirect for deletion. In other cases, it is typically a good idea to have a redirect, but if there is something else on Commons, the redirect prevents people from using the Commons file and also causes confusion. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Isn't there some clever tool that allows you to find if an image has been published elsewhere? I have some doubts about File:Police Commissioner Jerry Speziale.jpg. It looks like an official headshot. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Haha, I was too lazy to even try that--I thought there was some sort of comparison tool. It seems that old Stefan is out of town, doesn't it. Let's see if I can find the proper template. ... Never mind, it's on Commons, and I don't know how shit works over there. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a "report copyright violation" link on the left hand side bar, just click that and give your reason. It's remarkably simple. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, again! May I steal some of your time? I'm stuck. The problem in short. Want to get Special:UncategorizedPages v2. Besides those articles, which have cl_from IS NULL, I would like to include those articles, where only category is X or Y, or some of hidden categories. I just need the skeleton, will put the needed categories in X and Y place. Something has been done here (better see the code in comment), but probably something is screwed up. I could finally write a stub about Skogskyrkogården (it has been in my UNESCO plans for a long time) in Latvian Wikipedia as a thanks to you :) BTW, does Skogskyrkogården really translates as The Woodland Cemetery in English? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 15:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Edgars2007, are you still looking for this? Take a look at quarry:query/5269. Unless the query contains a bug, the articles returned by the query should not appear in any categories at all, or only in categories which are either redlinked or hidden.
Skog = forest/wood, kyrkogård = cemetery, so the place name means 'The Woodland Cemetery' or 'The Cemetery in the Wood'. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, hi! Have so much Wiki-projects, that I have completely forgotten about this request for help :) Well, I found out another way of doing this (DB scan with AWB), but query will be much more better way of doing things. Results look good. Finally created the stub, as it turns out, there are also some Latvians buried. Also thanks for other queries related to image tracking, they make the biggest part (if not the whole page) of my Wikipedia maintaince project page for images :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
WVBX
Hi Stefan2. I was wondering if you could take a look at Talk:WVBX#Use of non-free images when you get the chance. You were pinged to the discussion by another editor, but you appeared to be taking a break from Wikipedia at the time, so I'm not sure if you saw it. FWIW, I'm more than happy to defer to your judgement on the matter and to be trouted (gently I hope) if you think my understanding of NFCC#8 and how it applies to logos such as this is incorrect. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Marchjuly: I wrote something there and moved one file to Commons. I have been a bit busy lately and also felt that I needed a wikibreak, so I've stayed away from Wikipedia for two months. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I understand File:WYSK-FM.png is now "PD-logo" so that there are no longer any non-free content concerns, but I'm just curious for my own benefit. Did the use of the logo in the article comply with the NFCC in your opinion? It was pointed out during a discussion about another non-free former logo (WP:NFCR#File:WLFV-FM 2009.PNG) that WikiProject Radio Stations states in their "Logos" section that old logos can be used in such a way or within specific sections for such logos using gallery tags, but that the uploader is to first be sure that the logo passes the fair-use criteria. It's just not clear to me how using non-free former logos in galleries or within articles where they are not the subject of discussion is NFCC compliant. I'm really only asking this for my own future reference to help me avoid a similar misunderstandings in the future. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
When former logos are nominated for deletion, they usually end up being deleted for violating WP:NFCC#8 unless there is sourced, critical discussion about the former logos. I haven't seen WP:WPRS#Logos before, which contradicts with the usual processes for non-free files, so I guess that it would be a good idea to discuss the matter somewhere so that contradictions can be removed. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. FWIW, I thought the file might have not been simple enough for "PD-logo" because of the design, so I'm more than happy to be wrong on that one. Do you think File:WLFV-FM 2009.PNG might be OK as, at least, "PD-USonly"? That would resolve any NFCC issues the file might have. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking closer look Stefan2. Do you think the image should be used in such a way if it is non-free? It was removed once per WP:NFG and NFCC#8, but was almost immediately re-added by the uploader. Usage was then discussed at the above-referenced NFCR discussion, but no common ground could be found with the uploader. What is, based upon your experience, the best approach to try next in a case like this? The uploader thinks things should be left up to the image people and the policy people to figure out. That's fine with me, but I thought that was the purpose of NFCR. Not sure where else to go to discuss this which doesn't involve FFD. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
If a user finds the use of a file unacceptable, then the file is usually listed at FFD (not NFCR), unless the nominator thinks that the use of the file in another article might be acceptable. However, since a user found a text on a wikiproject page, I'd suggest discussing the matter at WP:NFC. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Bonny TM here. I just want to know on what grounds you have given my page graph coloring.png for speedy deletion? If it is because of copyright violation or scaling down another image then that is not at all correct. That image was created myself and it is not a copy of any other image on the Wikipedia. I have specified the path I have created it. It doesn't mean when we create an image it can't be of same pixels as an existing image. If you have some other reasons for deletion can you please specify it? ThomasRed 01:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonny TM (talk • contribs)
I'm not sure that I like such timestamps in file names. A timestamp could confuse people that the timestamp is when the file was created and it is not very interesting for most people to see when a file was first uploaded to Wikipedia. Also, I don't think that it is worth the trouble to add {{rename media}}. Unless it is unclear what the picture shows, it should be trivial for a file mover to come up with a suitable name. I'm also solving some conflicts by moving files to Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Hohum: Oh, sorry. For some reason, the Twinkle icon hasn't been showing up correctly these past few days, so I have had to do a lot of tagging manually, which increases the risk that the wrong user is notified. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi I hope I am posting this to you correctly. You recently sent me a memo " Stefan2 left a message on your talk page in "Speedy deletion nomination...". A tag has been placed on File:World Senior Chess Championship 2013 Pelias.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been..." regarding photo on a bio page i am working on in my sandbox
I own the photo, so am confused why it was marked for speedy deletion. Thank you - Chessqueen (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Chessqueen (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The picture appeared on another website and there is no indication that you are the copyright holder. In the event that you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions at WP:IOWN. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Christian Narkiewicz Laine
Hello dear Stefan,
I noticed that you noted the picture include in the Christian Narkiewicz Laine wiki page for speedy deletion even though it meets the criteria. I have asked the owner of the photo to send me a grant permission letter which I will forward immediately once received. Please let me know if this will work fine.
User:Glekel82: Note that the permission statement should be sent to OTRS. See instructions at WP:ORTS. Once the permission statement has been sent, remember to tag the file with {{OTRS pending}} so that the file isn't deleted before the permission e-mail has been processed. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
In furtherance of the above I've just done a mass rollback of the G6 tags I could find, made a request at WP:REFUND, posted at WP:AN, and resigned file-mover, on the grounds of competence. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of File:Lattice to Bridged T(2) (new) and File:Lattice to Bridged T (3) (new)
These files are for Lattice networks. I noticed while writing a follow-on article that the labels in two diagrams in the article contained errors, so I attempted to introduce new diagrams with the errors corrected. However, you have chosen to delete the new entries, so the incorrect diagrams once again appear in the article. I appealed against the speedy delection, but that didn't seem to do much good. The files with "(new)" attached are NOT the same as those that appear in existing article. I don't know what sort of mathematics your Wiki program uses, but I can assure you that "2.x" and "x/2" are not the same (they differ by a factor of four!). Please arrange for the corrected diagrams to reappear once more. D1ofBerks (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I tagged those files for deletion as identical files existed on Wikipedia under other names. As the other files are pixel-to-pixel identical, I don't see what the problem is.
Hi, Thanks for the prompt reply. I have looked at the revision histories as you suggested and yes, the "current versions" of the files are the correct ones and yes, they are identical with the "(new)" files that you have deleted. My problem is that the diagrams appearing in my article are still the old, incorrect versions, which reappeared after you deleted the (new) files. (It was only by introducing the (new) files that I got the article to appear as I wanted). I'm afraid I don't know what the problem is, but hopefully you can fix it. D1ofBerks (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I've bypassed my cache using Cntrl_F5 and the correct diagrams now appear on my computer (thank you!). Perhaps I should clear my cache permanently? Am I correct in assuming that I would be the only viewer seeing the incorrect diagrams, due to the influence of my personal cache? D1ofBerks (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Other people who have not recently cleared the cache might see the old picture for some time, although the cache should be cleared eventually. Don't worry about this. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The moral of this story is don't grumble until you know all the facts (something I repeatedly fail to learn!). Thank you for your time and patience.D1ofBerks (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Renaming
Sometimes a file will shadow a file redirect on Commons. I have seen several examples of these being subject to rename requests but I don't think they meet the criteria. What's your view? BethNaught (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
If a file on Wikipedia shadows a redirect, then there is still something which is being shadowed, and this may for example cause confusion when wikicode is copied from one project to another project (for example when translating articles from one language to another language). There is some discussion about this problem at File talk:File.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stefan, you deleted this image because it was not made before I think you said 1923, yet I thought the PD-Art rule allowed things made by artists who died 70 years ago or more?Rodolph (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
You are making the mistake of mixing up United States copyright law with United Kingdom copyright law. Wikipedia only cares about the former, so what the latter says is irrelevant. In some cases, the copyright to a United Kingdom work expires in the United States before it expires in the United Kingdom, and in other cases the copyright expires in the United Kingdom before it expires in the United States. There are essentially no situations where the copyright to a United Kingdom work expires at the same time in both countries, though.
In the United States, the copyright to a United Kingdom work by an author who died after 1925 has expired if the work was published before 1923. If it was not published before 1923, then the copyright status expires 95 years from publication if the work was published before 1978. If it was not published until later, then the United States copyright rules become more complex. It is irrelevant if the copyright has expired in the United Kingdom as this has no influence over the copyright status in the United States. You had made two statements about the age of the work, at one place stating '1920s' and at another place stating 'circa 1930'. Neither age implies that the work was published before 1923. Since there wasn't enough information available to show whether the work had been published before 1923 or not, the file was deleted as the United States copyright status couldn't be determined.
In the United Kingdom, the copyright to a United Kingdom work expires 70 years after the death of the author. There is an important exception to this: certain kinds of works get a minimum copyright term of 50 years from publication even if the author has been dead for at least 70 years, giving a perpetual copyright term to unpublished works. The '50 years from publication' rule will be abolished on 1 January 2040, so if that rule is the only rule preventing a work from entering the public domain in the United Kingdom, then the copyright expires in the United Kingdom on 1 January 2040 at the latest. You had established that the author died more than 70 years ago. If the painting was also published somewhere more than 50 years ago, then the copyright has expired in the United Kingdom. The problem for you is that Wikipedia doesn't care about the United Kingdom copyright status at all, so knowing the United Kingdom copyright status is unimportant for Wikipedia, but it could be dangerous for a person in the United Kingdom to upload a file which is not in the public domain in the United Kingdom as the copyright holder might sue the uploader.
The {{PD-Art}} template is something which is based on United States copyright law. In the case Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., a United States court held that 'slavish copies' of paintings are uncopyrightable in the United States, and the court held that photographs of some paintings constituted 'slavish copies'. If the photographer tries to influence what the photograph looks like, then the photograph might be copyrightable in the United States, but a normal photograph of a painting is not.
In the case Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., the photographer claimed that the photograph of the paintings are copyrighted in the United Kingdom. This has as far as I know never been tested in a United Kingdom court, but the threshold of originality is a lot lower in the United Kingdom than in the United States (see for example the examples under the respective country section at c:COM:TOO), so it is possible that the photographer is right about this. While the copyright status in the United Kingdom of such photographs has no influence over their presence on the English-language Wikipedia, editors in the United Kingdom might wish to be careful when uploading such photographs as uploading such photographs could be expensive if a photographer decides to sue the editor in a United Kingdom court, at least if the court decides that the photographer holds the copyright to the photograph within the United Kingdom – the outcome of a potential court ruling seems to be unclear. I try not to upload any such pictures myself as the copyright status in Sweden (where I live) is a bit unclear, and I don't want to risk being sued by some photographer that I've never heard of before. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
that is really kind of you -CFCF-. I was inquiring about the restoration of a 1920s black & white photograph of another version of the same portrait. (It seems in order to be consistent, for example -Stefan-, someone should also delete the oil-painting, the one you posted above?), :-), Rodolph (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
User:CFCF: There are two requirements for it to be on Commons: the file must have been published before 1923 (United States copyright term) and the author must have been dead for at least 70 years (source country copyright term). We only have evidence of the latter but not of the former. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
In order to be on Wikipedia, the files must be in the public domain in the United States. Those paintings by Picasso which were published before 1923 are in the public domain in the United States. The first few ones I found in the article were created before 1923, so presumably someone has confirmed that they also were published before that year.
In order to be on Commons, the files must additionally be in the public domain in the source country. The source country is the country of first publication, which, in the case of Picasso paintings, normally means Spain (where the copyright expires 80 years after the death of Picasso) or France (where the copyright expires 70 years after the death of Picasso). Obviously, there are few paintings by Picasso on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
You placed a message on my talk page about File:Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party Logo.png, saying that I could contest the speedy deletion nomination, but it seems to have already been deleted. The thing is, there is no way a logo like this should be on commons - it should be used here with a "fair use" tag. Looking at it, it certainly seems to be to meet the threshold of originality and be more than "simple geometry". Please restore the fair use tag. StAnselm (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the file's presence on Commons is debateable as the Australian threshold of originality is a bit low. On the other hand, the Australian flag is old and the copyright (if any) to that flag has already expired. Note that the file never was on Wikipedia in the first place. Wikipedia only hosted a local file information page with some text. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh - was I the one who added it from Commons in the first place? Is that why I was notified? Anyway, I have removed the image from the article. I don't have access to Commons at the moment, but I suppose I could add it back here with a fair use rationale. StAnselm (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Shadowed files (up for deletion at Commons)
Do you have a report of the ones nominated for deletion at Commons, at the very least so that there's not a wasted effort?
Currently your are convincing me that once the current batch is resolved, I should just stop contributing, It seems at present that well meaning attempts are only creating "wasted" effort. As I said recently, I have competence concerns.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience in "reviewing" my eagerness. I've reviewed a few more recent ones, and if you check my contributions at Commons, I've made some rename suggestions there (Criteria 2) where I felt future name clashes might occur. I've also changed a few of the FNC#9's locally to FNC#2, for the reasons given the tag. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
It's getting late, so I'll skip that. There are lots of filemovers on Commons who should check for renaming requests anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Possibly, I leave it to your discretion, but I feel that as the new title makes it easier for users to find specific people, I would say yes. I've tried to follow the same convention on other name collisions of deceased persons, for live ones I've tended to put the occupation or notable profession. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Also would it be possible to compile a list of the Shadowed files which are NOT up for deletion at Commons, but where the name is less than 12 charcters+the extension. I've found that these tend to be the ones where name collisions are more likely to occur, and so it might be prudent to rename BOTH the commons and Local file :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear Stefan2, about the deletion of File:HerbCiezosil.ws.png there is no problem since commons have a better .svg file. The issue is with File:Herb Glinski.jpg that commons doesn't have any .svg file to change for. Unfortunately I'm absolutely unable to draw in .svg way. This file must be deleted, OK ... yet it would be better to ask somebody (like User:Bastian for example) if he can do this job first. Anyway is nice to meet you. --Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
You created two local pages with some text. I tagged this text for deletion while the images were not tagged for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Stefan2 send a message and I ask that from my file 3fanocoo.jpg.jpg the tag is removed. Kalmbach H.E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.141.54 (talk • contribs) 2015-10-05T06:09:25
Please place new comments on my talk page, not on my user page. I have moved this comment to the correct location.
A Wikisource issues thhat you may be able to help with=
Over on Wikisource an issue has arisen in relation to how a gadget there handles tables split over multiple pages, which are then transcluded.
What I was needing was a list of pages at Wikisource in the Page: namespace which have |- as the last text on the page ignoring headers or footers. I'm not sure how easy it would be to find these, but you seem to have some experience in writing queries.
if you need to limit the size of query, please confine it to pages where ShakespeareFan00 or Sfan00_IMG are the users that made the most recent revision. Thanks in advance :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Image stalk
Hi.
Can you do a review on some recent efforts I am making with respect to the 3500 or so nominally local free files that lack {{information}}. Some of them may be incorrectly licensed, but I'd appreciate a more experienced contributor giving a second opinion. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
'Dead since 1931' does not imply 'publication before 1923' as photographs could have been published during the last eight years of the person's life or not at all.
You wrote that all necessary components of a FUR already were present at Special:PermanentLink/676813023. Then could you specify where exactly in that revision I can read what proportion of the work you are using, whether the resolution has been reduced, what purpose the image serves and why it is irreplaceable? Those are the four mandatory components which are listed at WP:FUR#Necessary components and I can't find any of them on the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
As you can see by looking at the file information page, no source has been specified on the file information page. An author and a year of creation have been specified, but neither constitutes a source. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
This file has no description, and may be lacking other information. Files should have a summary to inform others of the content, author, source, and date if possible. If you know or have access to such information, please add it to the file page.
Notify the uploader with: {{subst:add-desc-I|1=Stefan2/Archive 5}}
Source
No source specified. Please edit this file description and provide a source.
Date
Author
This file has no author information, and may be lacking other information. Files should have a summary to inform others of the content, author, source, and date if possible. If you know or have access to such information, please add it to the file page.
Notify the uploader with: {{subst:add-author-I|1=Stefan2/Archive 5}}
There are three different fields: 'source', 'date' and 'author' (= photographer). These fields are obviously meant for three different things. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
But there is no rule that they must be filled specifically. It is also permissible to have the entire rationale in the description. WP:NFCC. CFCF 💌📧23:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#10a states that you should always include the source and that the author and date are optional (but recommended). In this case, the file information page contained the optional information (the author and the date) but not the mandatory information (the source). You are free to put the entire fair use rationale in free text form, but you must include everything which you are required to include, which you didn't do. See also m:File metadata cleanup drive: consider cleaning up file information pages when you see any without machine-readable metadata. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
You seem to live under the fallacy that all images can be found on the internet. Many times the first source of the image is the scan provided for Wikipedia - and the image itself is just a free image. Author and date are exactly what is the source, potential URL is not. As for files without machine-readable data that is never a cause for deletion, you are free to convert the description into such text, but it is never a requirement and never grounds for sending a file to FDD. CFCF 💌📧00:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
If the image comes from a paper publication, then it should be stated which paper publication it comes from. There must be a justification for WP:NFCC#4. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on File:08klemperer.jpg. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Last time I checked it was about 3000 data rows though, but may be useful in finding unsourced images claimed to be under free licenses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfan00 IMG (talk • contribs) 2015-10-07T00:39:03
Simplifications: Use {{deletable image}} instead of listing all "DI" templates. Use {{db-meta}} instead of listing all "DB" templates. The "DI" and "DB" templates are based on these two templates, so you get the whole set by just listing two templates. Listing two FUR templates should be unnecessary as you are excluding the entire Category:All non-free media. The FUR templates will always put files in that category. {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} and {{Userspace file}} are redundant to {{Do not move to Commons}}. There seem to be a couple of other redundancies there.
Potential error: You wish to exclude all pages using {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} and in the 'negative categories' section you list three of the categories which the template may populate. By listing the template separately, you are excluding all of the categories that the template may populate, unless I'm missing something. Is this intentional? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The query could be redesigned/reformulated to remove redundant parts certainly, Thanks for the hints . I'm having diffculty at the moment in getting catscan to complete it anyway :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I added the {{non-free media}} template to the list of negative templates. This made all the categories redundant to the templates. It should be a bit faster if the query only searches for either templates or categories but not for both. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
BTW If you take out Self claims in that query, it should be around 1000 rows, which should be reasaonably straoghtforward to check for sourcing issues :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The rule is that the person who created the page should be notified, and if you take a look at one of them, you can see that you were the one who created the page. Therefore, notifying you about the pending deletion is the correct thing to do. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You're talking about an edit from 2007 that has long left my memory bank and currently has no importance for me. I did not download and place the image on WP, it seems I added a category to it. I hope you have been contacting the ones who downloaded the image/s to WP in the first place and not just contacting "incidental/tangential" editors who may have included the images in categories or articles. Thanks for clarifying, IZAK (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I have not tagged any of your images for deletion, only a local file information page which you created. We do not need local file information pages for Commons files. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
A licensing problem
Check the recent notifications towards the end of User_talk:Deadly437, they seem to claim
That because of a flikr license being Creative Commons, it's OK for Wikipedia. (Really?)
That video game screencaptures are yours to relicense (They are?)
That Non-commerical Creative Commons is OK for Wikipedia. ( It is?)
That artwork which obviously contains well known comic book charcters of a third party shouldn't be sent to PUF for a discussion. ()
As you have more experience, perhaps you'd be willing to clear up any misconceptions I have?
A explanation has already been given for this file, but if you're that desperate to have the bloody thing deleted just please do so and stop bothering me. thank you. ShugSty (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I guess most of those are in the public domain, but they could get better sources... I listed one at PUF because of conflicting source information. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Where is the issue? to quote...
"9. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)"
I am attempting to improve an article. I am making these improvements on my own sandbox. One cannot effectively see what it will look like without the images that will ultimately be in the article. I am a member of the the club the image represents and have full authority to display such image as a patch holder.
Who are you and what gives you the right to change my personal working space? Hoke35 (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
You are attempting to use the image in a user sandbox. User sandboxes are not articles. Since user sandboxes are not articles, they may not contain any non-free images. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
This file is not on "Commons".
This file has been challenged before, but was regarded as "fair use" for the following reasons:
Other information
The inclusion of the packaging is considered "fair use" because the packaging is significantly obscured and in the background and because the product is obsolete and no longer manufactured or sold. The packaging is included for historical interest to show how the product was packaged.
Note, it is not eligible for the Commons because that server doesn't allow "fair use".
On the contrary, Wikipedia does allow fair use in the category of packaging, " In other cases such as cover art / product packaging, a non-free work is needed to discuss a related subject. " See: Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Explanation_of_policy_and_guidelines. The reasons I cited above provide the rationale for the fair use and why the image does not have commercial value (significantly obscured, in the background, obsolete product, etc.).
I am deleting your notice. ----Zeamays (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The file does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8 as you do not need to see product packaging in order to understand flash photography. Furthermore, the file is not currently listed as a non-free file. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
See quarry:query/2856. I took the opportunity to improve my query a bit: the two commented out lines were replaced by the three lines below. If you want to try the query yourself, you could use either lines 1-4 or lines 1-2 + lines 5-7. The result set should be the same in either case, but the running time may differ. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
5632 was direct cribe from an example in the manual, it's supposed to I think find Unused images without relevant details, but I'm going to blank it as it got killed for taking too long :)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
That's why I gave up query #2856 a couple of months ago: there were too many photos of non-free statues, so the output wasn't very useful. I 'fixed' the query by excluding files which transclude {{photo of art}}, but I don't think that this can be a permanent solution as there ideally shouldn't be any category overlap. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - [[21]] is one example I was trying to find. It's a minor inconvenience that this dual categorise. Free media to me means stuff that could be transfered to Commons. If it can't be transfered to Commons, it shouldn't to my opinon really be be tagged as 'free media'. Thats partly why Free in US media got created as a categroy, Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The reason for the query (5360) is to identify media, that's a 'free' image of a non-free subject. Ideally, these should be considered as non-free, the subject license overriding the photo license, but current Wikipedia policy consensus seems to say the photo license should still be mentioned, hence the {{photo-of-art}} template, With the query it should be possible to find the images that aren't tagged as {{photo_of_art}} slightly more easily.
Hello Stefan, you have nominated a photo that I uploaded some years ago for speedy deletion [[22]]. The quoted reason "because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image" i do not follow the logic behind those listed reasons? If you could explain what specifically is wrong with the image that would be helpful for my future reference. Thanks. Geez-oz (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
You both created local file information pages for Commons files. We don't need local file information pages for Commons files, so such file information pages are normally speedily deleted with notification to the person who created the local file information page. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Request!
@Stefan2: I am asking you very politely for the final time, that if I did not create an image and did not upload it to WP, then please do NOT notify me that you have nominated it for any kind of deletion. Merely because I may have placed a "category" on any image's page on WP, before it was ever moved over to the WP Commons collection, is not a good enough reason to notify me about its fate on WP if it will be saved on WP Commons in any case. I did not create those images and I did not upload them and therefore I am not responsible for those images, and you should be contacting the creators of those images who downloaded them to WP in the first place. Contacting users like myself who tried to simply organize those already-existing images, who may have added categories or who may have used them in articles is a very long stretch and I would say mis-apllication of WP's notification guidelines and at this rate it just looks like harassment to me, so please stop it. If you persist you may leave me no choice but to lodge an official complaint, which I would not like to do and would prefer if you would just respect my simple request right here. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The rule is that you should notify the user who created the content, and that means you. You are the sole editor of the local file information page and the local file information page is what is nominated for deletion. A notification shouldn't go to anyone else as no one else has anything to do with the content for which deletion has been requested. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan2: I did not create any "content" as far as the images in question go because when I came across those pics pages on WP I merely added WP:CATEGORIES to them, period. Those were the days when many of those pics were not on file on the commons pages. You should be notifying the creators of the images since it is about their creations and not mine. Maybe we are speaking two different languages. I am not a techie, but you seem to be more informed about that and that is where we are having a problem. My perspective is practical as a user focused on content, while yours seems to be overly technical. Perhaps there is another WP forum or noticeboard for you to list your ongoing requests where users with a technical bent will know how to respond to you. Please do not be so narrow about interpreting policies as that comes across like WP:LAWYERING. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
You were the solve creator of the local page. If someone else had edited the page, then that would have been indicated in the page history. I'm not sure why you are suggesting that I should notify other editors who have absolutely nothing to do with the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
October 2015
You have been warned in the past about over-zealous nominations of files for deletion from the English Wikipedia. If editors wish to keep a copy of files they have created locally, then the consensus established by multiple failed attempts to do away with the {{keep local}} template shows that their wishes should be respected.
You do not have a mandate to impose your view of what files should be kept locally over that of so many other editors. Please try to understand that the insignificant increase in server storage taken up by having local copies, where requested, is a small cost compared to the disruption caused when you ride roughshod over editors' clearly expressed wishes.
If you continue to tag local files for speedy deletion, where there is a {{keep local}} template or similar on them, then I'll take you to AN and ask for you to be topic-banned from any tagging of image files, ensuring that all of the editors whom you have upset by your over-zealous tagging are aware of that request. I hope it won't come to that, but the decision is in your hands. --RexxS (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
User:RexxS: What do you mean? I don't remember ever trying to speedily delete a file with {{keep local}} under WP:CSD#F8. If I have, then it must have been a mistake. Yesterday, I made a few reversions like this and this because I though that one editor had made too bold edits, but those edits seem to be the opposite of what you are accusing me for. Some of those files had a deletion tag of some kind which I didn't touch because I wasn't sure what was the best thing to do with the tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I may have nominated some files with {{keep local}} for speedy deletion as copyright violations, if that's what you mean? I don't remember doing that recently, though. Files with {{keep local}} may be deleted for copyright reasons or for violation of the non-free content criteria. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Once the files are deleted, it's not easy to show the problem. I agree that speedy for copyright violationss is perfectly acceptable, but I'm concerned about files being copied to Commons and then the local copy being deleted, despite a {{keeplocal}} template being on the page - as seems to have happened with File:Geraldine F. "Geri" Thompson.jpg, for example. Would you be kind enough to review the file history linked and see whether I am mistaken? I'm quite prepared to apologise if I am indeed wrong about that. Thanks in advance. --RexxS (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
As you can see from the log, File:Geraldine F. "Geri" Thompson.jpg was deleted in 2010. In 2014, a user created a local file information page, but didn't upload any file under that name. A precondition for using {{keep local}} is that there must be a file under that name. Since there was no file, the file information page was subject to speedy deletion per WP:CSD#F2, and deleted for that reason. We don't keep file information pages for files which do not exist. All file information pages should be on the same project as the file. If a user wants to keep a file locally which currently doesn't exist locally, the user is required to upload the file locally, or request undeletion of the file if it has previously been deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Stefan, but from the history, I can't see any trace of the file being deleted in 2010. There's no record of an administrator editing the page prior to today. Elvey (the original uploader) edited it in 2014 and left the edit summary Please restore and tag with {{keeplocal}}; but that wasn't a creation of a local information page - as you can see, the edit removed 553 bytes from the existing page. Is there any doubt about what the original uploader's wishes were? --RexxS (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Deletions are not edits but log entries and those clearly show that the file was deleted in 2010. From 2010 and until the undeletion which took place yesterday, there was no file with this title. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Right. Thank you, I can see the sequence of events now. Elvey uploaded the file locally in 2009 and you tagged it as eligible to be moved to Commons. A year later it was copied to Commons and three months after that the local copy was deleted, but the history erroneously shows that the description page still existed in October 2014 when Elvey asked that the local copy be undeleted and left a {{keeplocal}} template. So when you visited the page earlier this month, you were correct that a description page existed for which there was no file. Nevertheless, I disagree with your solution to resolve the inconsistency: deleting the description page when there is a keeplocal on the page is clearly inferior to arranging for the local file to be restored. Surely you can see that the best way of fixing the problem was to explain to Elvey how to ask for the refund, rather than causing him further aggravation with a CSD tag? --RexxS (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion
It seems you prefer to spend your time trying to delete images for odd and unnecessary reasons rather than trying to fix small coding issues with them. Why is this? --RichardMcCoy (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
We do not keep local file information pages for files on Commons. The file information page should be on the same project as the file itself. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Images
Can you please not spam me messages over images. I could not care less what you delete. I trust your judgement. But spamming me when I've asked you many times in the past not to is disrespectful. Please programme whatever you use to not drill me messages, thankyou.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Dr. Blofeld: By default, Twinkle notifies the original uploader, and I often do not check who the original uploader is. If I see that you are the original uploader, I'll try to remember to untick the notification checkbox. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:NFC#UUI §17 implies that a university logo or seal only should be used in the main article about the university but not in the articles about subdivisions of the university (departments/schools/whatever). If a subdivision has its own logo or seal, then that may be used in the article about the subdivision. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Would you recommend me nominating it for deletion or just remove it from the article with the edit summary of WP:NFC#UUI §17 and have it orphaned (CSD F5)? Corkythehornetfan10:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stefan. Can you please withdraw your deletion nomination? The file on the Commons has now been deleted, so this pic no longer qualifies for F7 deletion. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I realize it is more fun to just tag an image and be done with it than to fix bad transfers, but that leaves us with two choices:
Another file poweruser (of which there are very few) fixes it, which is going to take weeks given all the problems you've found.
A non-knowledgeable admin comes along and just deletes the file and now the attribution is wrong and the file is a copyvio.
Given that you know about as much as I do about this process, I think it would be appropriate if you could fix bad transfers rather than just tagging them with the image history. Otherwise it creates a headache for admins to clean up. It creates even more of a headache when you use OgreBot to combine image histories which have incompatible licenses. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry! There are so many files which hide another image on Commons, needing various different solutions: deletion nomination on one or both projects because the file is a copyright violation or out of scope, move the local file (or move it to Commons or tag it with {{ShadowsCommons}}), move the file on Commons because it has a meaningless name, et cetera. I clean up a lot of bad moves on Commons like this, but sometimes it becomes too tiring to clean up a bad transfer if there are lots of them. I'm afraid of what might happen if a badly transferred file later is moved on either project so that it becomes more difficult to find the other copy and would prefer to get through all of the files as soon as possible. I assume that there are lots of cases where people have transferred files improperly but uploaded the file under a different name, and those might never be discovered or corrected.
If I have used OgreBot to merge images with incompatible licences, then this must have been a mistake. Sorry about any trouble that this has caused for you. In some cases, it's difficult to determine if a Commons file is meant to be the same image as the one on Wikipedia, but outdated or in lower resolution. One particularly confusing situaiton is the one where an SVG file exists on both projects. If a user downloads the file using Firefox's "Save As" function, then Firefox makes some changes to the file, which can be checked by downloading the file first using Firefox and then using wget and noting that the SHA1 checksums differ. If an SVG file shadows another SVG file on Commons, then it often seems that the Commons uploader has downloaded the Wikipedia file using his web browser (and thus got a slightly modified SVG file) and then uploaded the file to Commons. But it is difficult to tell if the SVG differences only are "web browser modifications" or if there also are other differences. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
File:Kannan Nair MV 2013 VJT Hall.jpg: Invalid PD rationale (publication before 1 March 1989 with additional requirements) as the file seems to have been created in the 21st century. The file appears to be unfree, and Marthandavarma (novel) does not need any files. Unless it can be shown that the file is free for any reason, the file should be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stefan, We could change the descriptions in non-free use rationale, if there are any errors in filing the same for File:MARTHANDA VARMA 1933.jpeg, kindly do put forward your suggestions. The file description File:Kannan Nair MV 2013 VJT Hall.jpg, might not be the right one as you remarked, kindly put forward non-free use rationale to be used in this case, or any examples of similar cases. Please help to correct the both, as you might know or came across such cases earlier. Possibly we could retain those images in the article. ωAwaiting your support and suggestions. Thanks.—(harith·discuss)00:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Was Non-free use , base don some updated information I changed the license to PD-US-1923 abroad, but would appreciate someone that knows what Swedish rules for corporate works are reviewing. ( The author of the underlying story died in 1921, and the director in 1928, the article on the film doesn't have other technical credits I could check dates for.)..
Swedish copyright rules for films are very complex.
Old Swedish rules: The copyright to a work expires 50 years after the death of the longest living co-author, and most of the people who contributed to the film appear to be co-authors of the film unless they only are 'actors'. Where the contributions of different co-authors can be separated from each other, it seems that different parts of the film enter the public domain at different points, due to different death years of the various co-authors.
EU rules (Copyright Duration Directive): The copyright expires 70 years after the death of the longest living of the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the film. However, if the film was created before 1 July 1994, the old Swedish rules are used instead of these rules whenever the old Swedish rules provide a longer copyright term.
In order to show that a Swedish film is in the public domain, you therefore need to show that four people have been dead for at least 70 years and that numerous other people have been dead for at least 50 years.
Note that most photographs seem to be below the Swedish threshold of originality, so when using screenshots from photographic films, it is maybe sufficient to wait until the 'photographer's' (cameraman's) neighbouring right specified in {{PD-Sweden-photo}} has expired, but you will have to consider the full film copyright term if the picture shows any part of the film which meets the threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I can't make sense of what the problem is regarding the message you left for me. Can you please explain in simpler terms than the incomprehensible message you left? Thanks.
Grebbsy (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
You already seem to have solved the problem. The file was missing a fair use rationale, and you added one yesterday. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I added the rationale, deleted the warning of deletion as it asked me to do, and someone added it back again. But if all's now well, I shall leave well alone. Sorry to be bothersome.
Grebbsy (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I've visited that periodically in the past and it's a mess, usually would result in a flood of nominations from me. Though I have found that many of the licenses can be converted to other, more specific, PD tags. Kellyhi!16:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Good day, Stefan2. All of the images were created by and belong to the Canadian Department of National Defence. The Santa Claus image, in particular, was created by one of our air base's photographers, here at 22 Wing/Canadian Forces Base North Bay. Because of this, all of the images are automatically in the public domain, but must be credited to the Department of National Defence or to our air base, which I have done. In fact all of these images have been used in numerous public displays put together by our base--such as at annual Armed Forces Day festivities in the City of North Bay, Ontario, and during a 60th Anniversary celebration of our base in 2011--plus the CF-18 with Bear bomber image was also used in Canadian newspapers, such as the October 3rd, 2007 issue of The Globe and Mail, a national newspaper headquartered in Toronto.
In short, because of this our base is free to use these images, and other DND created or owned images in its archives, as long as credit is given and they are not sold. As well the badge images cannot be altered without permission from both the Department of National Defence and Canadian Heritage, an office of the Government of Canada, since the badges are official heraldic devices.
I understand and appreciate that you must remain on guard with respect to images, and thank you for keeping an eye out regarding the Wiki article about our air base. At the very least it keeps us on our toes.
This is our base's busy period, of military history and heritage activities with Remembrance Day and the associated Veterans' Week coming up. Afterwards, I shall be adding a few more images to the article; I shall keep your remarks in mind as this is done.
Hello, Stefan2. The first half of November I was away on speaking engagements, and the last half, including today, am busy with a 62-year-old jet fighter wreck, a partial recovery partial burial, deep in the Northern Ontario woods. Telling you this to explain why I haven't responded. Have images if you want proof. Shall get back to you in greater detail on this matter after the fighter wreck task is over. Incidentally, I am thoroughly versed with Canadian Government copyright rules and regulations, a requirement of my job.
22WHERO (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Canadian law protects government works for 50 years from publication, and Canadian government works may not be uploaded to Wikipedia until they are old enough. If you have evidence that the files are freely licensed for any reason, then please follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, again, Stefan2. Military duties have kept me away from Wikipedia. Your points are noted. However there are two factors in play here. There is the 50 year copyright law. However, our air force base's Wing Public Affairs Office and Wing Heritage Office are both mandated by the RCAF to represent the Department of National Defence and, in particular, our air base to the public and media--and in this capacity are permitted to release DND images related to our base to all forms of media, such as newspapers, television and those of the Internet, such as Wikipedia. The images I posted to Wikipedia of the Bear bomber interception by CF-18s, the Christmas NORAD Santa Claus activity for children, etc., are among those images. They have been used in newspaper articles, television reports, etc. I appreciate your fastidious care in what can be posted. But the Wing Heritage Office for 22 Wing/Canadian Forces Base North Bay is authorized to insert DND historical images related to the base where they apply, regardless whether that history was five years ago, twenty, fifty or whatever. For example, this June 8 is Armed Forces Day in North Bay, a celebration taking place in the City of North Bay of the local military--army, navy as well as air force--that includes exhibits, music, a parade, activities for children and so on. I shall be setting up an exhibit in the city museum and using complementary images in the media about the history of the air force at North Bay. Understanding that you have only my word for this, you may contact our base to confirm that what I am writing here is correct. You can contact Major Kathryn Contois, the 22 Wing Administration and Technical Services Office Deputy Commander, my immediate superior, at kathryn.contois@forces.gc.ca. Our Wing Public Affairs Officer is Captain Marguerite Dodds-Lepinski, e-mail 22WgPublicAffairsOff@forces.gc.ca. You can also contact Major Brendan Bond, Deputy Director of the Office for Air Force History & Heritage at 1 Canadian Air Division, in Winnipeg. His e-mail is brendan.bond@forces.gc.ca. Major Bond oversees all Wing Heritage Officers in Canada. In two weeks I shall be reinstating the images that have been removed from the CFB North Bay page; the two weeks gives you ample time to confirm that what I have written is true. If you would like to contact me outside of Wikipedia, e-mail raymond.newman@forces.gc.ca. I receive requests for Canadian military historical information from around the world; if I do not have the answer, I usually know where it can be found. For a bit of an idea of the types of public work that I perform Google Captain Doug Newman North Bay. Best wishes. 22WHERO (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Copyright unknown
You're better at determining copyright issues than I am....is the copyright status or permission to use this image easily determined or was it simply lifted and uploaded with a link to the website?--MONGO17:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Third opinion please. The issue is that the image is a "third party" upload to an image sharing site, assumed to have been uploaded in good faith, but the half-toning in the image suggests that original publication is much older, and thusly the source isn't necessarily the relevant copyright holder. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
70 soundtrack album covers uploaded by me have been nominated for deletion. I wouldn't be able to involve in the 'discuss' against the deletion of each of them. All the covers added are under 80kb in size and are added only in the 'soundtrack box' of the corresponding films. How would I be able to keep them from deletion? — Kannada123 (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The rule is that we do not add soundtrack album covers to film articles. See MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. If some of the soundtracks meet the notability policy, then you could create a separate article about those soundtracks and use the pictures there, but most of the soundtracks are presumably non-notable. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Steel1943: For the record, the parameter image has rationale=yes formally only means that the file has a rationale, not that the rationale necessarily is valid. I think that the parameter sometimes has been added automatically by a bot for files with templated rationales. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I have undone the change you made to my userpage (removal of Java image) as there was no explanation given. Can you please let me know why you did this? Thanks! Mediavaliatalk11:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Kelly. Yes, I realised this later after looking at and then decoding what the link meant. Just to be clear, I work for Oracle Corporation on the Java side of the business. If I make this clear in my userpage, would it be permissible to use it or not? Thanks! Mediavaliatalk13:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stefan2, can I ask, why this file was deleted? It is my own photograph, taken on my own camera, so I own the copy right on it, and it is on display in a public place, on a property that the owner has not issue with? I felt it added to the article as Boris Karloff, is still something of a local hero? The Emperor of Byzantium 17:27, 02 November 2015 (UTC)
It says that the file was deleted as a dupe of File:Boris Karloff Blue Plaque.jpeg, which in turn was deleted due to lack of source information by User:Diannaa. The file name suggests that it is a photo of a plaque. Note that plaques normally are subject to copyright and that you therefore can't take photos of plaques without permission from the copyright holder to the plaque. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Much appreciated if you could provide an opinion, I am fairly certain this is PD-Australia (as it was a work issued by the Commonwealth Government.) but Norman Lindsay was still alive until 1969, so I'm wary about tagging it for commons immediately. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
This is obviously in the public domain in the United States as it was published before 1923. It is presumably a government work (thus making it free in the source country), but it would be nice to find some evidence of this. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I have a reasonable view that this is the gallery themselves uploading (in which case they should be encouraged to indicate this).
What I'm less clear about is how on that basis the can re-license photos of works as FAL? If it's the gallery uploading they would need to confirm the copyrights in works photogrpahed transferred to them>
Perhaps you could leave some carefully worded advice to them, as I don't want to scare of a potential GLAM contributor who seems to be acting in good faith.
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you talking about File:Minnie Reinhardt hog hill school.jpeg? That's the only FAL picture mentioned on the talk page. The painting might be {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. The FAL template could possibly refer to the photo of the painting. Some European countries protect photographs under neighbouring rights which are not based on originality, and photos of paintings may be problematic in certain parts of Europe for that reason unless you obtain permission from the photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
It seems that you have copied and modified quarry:query/2669. I have updated my query to exclude files tagged with various deletion templates and additionally files tagged with certain templates which suggest that the file's non-free status is questioned. You might wish to use the updated version of the query. Replace SELECT p.page_id with SELECT p.page_title if you prefer file names instead of file numbers.
When I wrote the query, I assumed that a fair use rationale needs a minimum number of bytes, and files with shorter file information pages will either have an incomplete FUR or no FUR at all. I found that files with a file information page with less than 200 characters are unlikely to satisfy WP:NFCC#10c, but it is also difficult to write a fair use rationale in only 250 or 300 bytes. Try increasing the number and see when you start getting too many false positives. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
This was flagged as a don't move to Commons until 2016 ( hardly a long wait), but it's a work by British architect in Australia (No it's in France), both of which have Freedom of Panorama for Architectural works which obviously doesn't have FoP. Perhaps you could clarify with the uploader if this was the concern, and point out that the image could barring the {{Do not move to Commons}} tag be moved already without issue, It's sourced, adaquately described, and I don't see a permissions issue.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
It is a WWI memorial for Australians in France, and the problem is that there is no FOP in France. 2016 is wrong, it should be 2017 instead. I've fixed this and added a reason to the {{do not move to Commons}} template. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
This claims it would have already expired under an old Indonesian Copyright law, but not under the current one, does Indonesian copyright work retroactively for works that had technically already expired? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The Indonesian copyright term for photographs used to be 25 years from publication, but the term was extended to 50 years from publication at some point, and the copyright extension restored copyright to photographs whose copyright already had expired. Therefore, Indonesian photographs are unsuitable for Commons unless published more than 50 years ago.
The Indonesian copyright term to photographs was only 25 years from publication on 1 January 1996 (the URAA "date of restoration"). Therefore, {{PD-URAA}} can be used for Indonesian photographs published more than 25 years before 1996, provided that the publisher didn't follow United States copyright formalities. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, if {{PD-URAA}} is used for an Indonesian photograph which is not currently in the public domain in Indonesia, make sure to use the syntax {{PD-URAA|YYYY}}, where YYYY is the year when the copyright re-expires in Indonesia, so that a "move to Commons" template automatically is added at the right time. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank for you the concise explation, these are sorts of answers that should ideally be collated down into summaries for uploaders. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The source country is the country of first publication. If the British publication was the first publication, then the UK is the source country. Unless we find evidence of any earlier publication in some other country, we will have to treat this as unfree in the source country. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Any chance of a query to find unused local images that aren't tagged for commons? (And naturally the ones that can't be moved need to be raised at FFD. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
'Unused' as in no transclusions in any namespace. Links to an image from talk namespaces will typically need further review. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
That reminds me, I wonder if it's time to raise the issue of policy regarding unused "keep local" files that was recommended at that recent deletion review. I just dread how the conversations get dragged into the gutter almost immediately whenever the subject comes up. Kellyhi!17:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Policy says that files with {{keep local}} aren't to be speedied under WP:F8, but I guess that you just want the files deleted although not necessarily under F8. Policy does not say what should happen if a file is listed at FFD, which as you have seen results in different outcomes depending on who the closing admin is.
There have been three TFD nominations for the {{keep local}} template, which is not the right place to change or discuss policy. In those discussions, it seems that some editors might want a "keep local" template, but that there maybe should be restrictions on when a file is kept locally. You might be able to find more supporters for your position if you propose a process where the needs for keeping a local file can be evaluated before deciding if the file should be kept or deleted instead of trying to amend the speedy deletion policy to permit speedy deletion of files with this template. I think that FFD policy concerning the template needs to be written anyway as it is not useful to have a deletion process where the outcome depends so much on the closing admin. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Good Day to you Sir, What is the sense of tag deleting a harmless image which was contributed harmlessly and does not breach the policy's of Wikipedia ?
It is not fair for an editor of 7 year to be going through this over and over and over again, I did it correctly, No information is missing..... What is the sense in doing this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrinidadandTobagoEditor (talk • contribs) 2015-11-07T17:59:49
Images not in expected media categories
Trying to write a query here to find media that isn't in the three major categories, mostly typically because there's no license tag, : http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/6037 but I may have mis-coded it. Care to take a look?
A good thing though, the Missing Information query I wrote doesn't seem to be returning many results now, meaning that hopefully things are improving. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Files which are not in any of those categories are typically:
{{Non-free Wikimedia logo}} which uses a different category. Are there still any non-free Wikimedia logos? Many logos were released under a free licence some time ago.
"PD-somecountry" without assessment of URAA status.
Files without copyright tag.
I think that a better way to spot files without copyright tags is to fix all copyright tags so that Category:Files with no machine-readable license only contains files without copyright tags. I just fixed this in {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, but there seem to be lots of other templates which lack machine-readable copyright data. However, fixing the query is faster, but additional categories will have to be added to it. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to best handle {{Non-free Wikimedia logo}} files. The WMF licensed a lot of logos a couple of years ago, and the template is presumably used for a lot of logos which no longer are unfree. Besides, the files are technically non-free but do not have fair use rationales. Discuss at WT:NFC?
"Is there a list of Copyright templates that can't be machine read at present?" - Not that I am aware of. You can find files with such templates in Category:Files with no machine-readable license, but after a template has been fixed, it may take several weeks after the files with that template are gone from the category, and the category may therefore contain lots of false positives. Try picking some files from the category and fix the copyright tags for those files, and then check the category again in a month and see what's left. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Shonen's Column.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Shonen's Column.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 description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
What is unclear or disputed about the copyright status? In the Licensing section it states "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License." Which bit of that don't you understand or dispute? --RexxS (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
See Ipse dixit#Legal usage. It is not sufficient to add a copyright tag to a file information page. You must also provide evidence that the copyright tag is valid, and you must also follow the terms of the licence. For example, the author of the unspecified original work is currently not named. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
So you're prepared to accept the word of an uploader when they say "I took this photograph", but not the word of an uploader when they say "The file I re-used is released under a free licence"? Why doesn't ipse dixit apply to that? --RexxS (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The rule is that all files should have a source. A statement "I took this photograph" contains a source, but "some unspecified image licensed under a free licence" is too unspecific. See WP:F4. The vast majority of all free licences require anyone who uploads a copy of a file which is available under a free licence to specify who the author is, and your unspecific statement makes it impossible to verify if the author is mentioned or not. Uploading a CC-BY-SA image without attribution is a copyright violation and terminates the uploader's right to use the image under the CC-BY-SA licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Deletion of images
I don't understand what you have against me but Wikipedia is one stupid place where others can delete what I upload but I am not allowed to delete images myself. What the hell! When someone uses an image from Wikipedia in his/her blog, they just credit Wikipedia, do they credit me. So, why the hell should I contribute to this useless project. Now deleting images on flimsy grounds is easy, can you get replacements.Ravi[[User talk:Ravichandar84|My Tea Kadai]07:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-free files can only be hosted on Wikipedia if they meet specific criteria, see WP:NFCC. Other non-free files may not be hosted on Wikipedia. File deletion is reserved to administrators. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
There is also a file under that redirect name and that file is unfree. The file should be deleted as it is unfree and unused, but the redirect should be kept. I'm not sure how to best tag this. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Third opinion request, It seems to being used in an article on the character whose central in the plot of the book concerned.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Tagged for F6 deletion due to lack of FUR. It may be useful to have a book cover on that page if the character appears on the book cover, but don't know if that is the case here. There are too many covers on the page anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I removed the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} template as there is no indication that that template applies. Russia changed its copyright terms a couple of years ago, and for that reason, there won't be any Russian works which can be co-tagged with {{PD-Russia}} and {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} until 2017 or so. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The picture is sourced to a book from 1997. If that was the first time the picture was published, then it fails w:WP:SC, making it unfree in the United States.
The {{PD-Russia}} template reveals that anonymous published works enter the public domain 70 years after publication, but does not reveal when the copyright term expires if it takes some time before the picture was published.
This one's complicated, The photo is the uploaders dated 2013, but the subject is a memorial built by the Gadaffi regime in the 1970's. I've not tagged it for Commons but would appreciate your opinion. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
According to c:COM:CRT#Libya, the current law is from 1984, but both "COM:CRT" and "COM:FOP" are based on a law from 1969. I have no idea what Libya changed in the 1984 law or whether the 1984 law provides FOP or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Third opinion request, I've looked at the copyright notes at the souce listed and can't see any sort of Creative Commons type release. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
These 7 files appear to be redirects at Commons, which seemingly means the local file by that name cannot be easily accessed at present. Hmm...Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
You can access the files by adding ?redirect=no at the end of the URL. However, we should not have pages like this which are hidden - they should either be moved or deleted.
File:Wiki gold medal.svg appears to be a soft redirect for the file on Commons. Soft redirects for files do not work. I guess that there should be a normal redirect on Commons so that the Commons target shows up on the pages which attempt to use the file.
File:Pe082305a1 hr.jpg appears to be a local file information page for a file or redirect on Commons without any useful content, so I tagged this for deletion per WP:F2.
File:Potenga beach.jpg seems to have featured picture tags in the history (although not in the current version), so that one should maybe be moved to the right place. There are hundreds of pictures with featured picture and DYK tags which have been moved on Commons after they got a local file information page with a template on enwiki, and the local file information pages need to be moved to the right place. As there are hundreds of files with that problem, I'm not sure how to best handle this. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, you might want to carefully check the local uploaders other efforts, this doesn't seem to be the only image that there is a confusion about the status. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
No dobut this is PD, but it's technically un-sourced, so I've dropped the user a note that less menacing than the CSD one.
If you think I should just CSD these as un-sourced, LMK. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
If the photo shows the person it is claimed to show, then I assume that this is in the public domain in the entire world. It would be nice to have a source, though... --Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
This is OK, it would be "nice" to get the Australian side, to confirm Australian Govt (i.e Crown) works expire when they expire after 50 years do so globally. The current wording of the templates seems a bit cautious, but it's worth asking the Australian Wikimedians and their local chapter to push for a confirmation. It would also of course be nice if the Australian Govt moved to something like Open Government Licence for more recent works :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The Australian Government licenses some recent works under a Creative Commons licence, if I remember correctly. Can't remember which one and I don't know exactly when the licence applies. On the other hand, the UK, Canada and South Korea decided to create their own "OGL" and "KOGL" licences. In some way, I think that it is better if a government uses a well-known international licence instead of creating an own licence as this simplifies for reusers who don't need to learn how to use lots of extra licences. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but the wording of the template isn't necessarily clear in respect of something like this which is according to you an ineligible technical image, perhaps the template should be updated? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Uploaded with no license ... So the uploader adds CC style, Check the source which doesn't give that license, so they change it to FAL, which the source doesn't indicate either. Before I hit 3RR can you explain what I'm missing?
Sfan00 IMG (talk)
Tagged for no source, was challanged on my talk page, so I udpeated the source field. Your opinion appreciated, as it my understanding sourcing was needed EVEN if it was old. Perhaps you could advise both myself and the other contributor on how best to handle old images?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The uploader makes two claims: a) the photographer is anonymous, and b) the picture is from 1930. We need a source for verifying both claims. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
We need evidence that every copyright tag on Wikipedia is correct. That's why we have WP:F4 and WP:F11 in the first place. Compare with {{fact}} which is used in articles where people add unsourced statements. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
F11 is for licensed content, not PD. It implies that there is a licensor, and that we need to record their permission. That is irrelevant for PD works.
F4 is for cases where there is a lack of necessary information. In this case we have such information, the uploader has told us that it is a 1930 image (also Russian and anonymous), which is then sufficient, per {{PD-Russia-2008}}.
F4 and F11 are both for situations where we do not have sufficient evidence that the copyright tag used is correct. F4 means that there is no source, and without a source, it is not possible to verify that the {{PD-Russia-2008}} copyright tag is correct. Note that the uploader does not say anything about the photographer, so we don't know why the uploader thinks that the copyright tag applies. Also note that the uploader added {{PD-Russia}}, not {{PD-Russia-2008}} (which was later moved to {{PD-Russia}} - the original template was deleted in 2011). If an uploader provides a source which does not contain evidence that the photographer is anonymous, then this is also a reason for deletion, but at PUF. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Those PD-Russia files were the next batch for now of the backlog, the next batch will need some thinking about given certain peoples comments on older images, and the fact that no-one responded to the STILL backloged categroy of "is-old blah" images that still lack full sourcing, which leaves them open to deletion is moved to Commons. (sigh) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that User:Kelly listed a lot of "PD-Russia" files on PUF today. Another problem category is Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:NoRightsReserved. The template doesn't specify who the copyright holder is and the uploaders have often not specified this either. In some cases, it seems that the files should have been tagged with "PD because of copyright expiration" instead. I suspect that there are lots of potential "no source" and "no permission" tags for those files. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Already listed 2 of this uploaders images at FFD, this is the third I've found with a concern noted. Would you be able to review (and nominate en-masse)?
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/6046
The next big batch is all the 'self' images, It would be appreciated if you could also look through it and help cleanup the images which can be transferred to Commons. 00:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfan00 IMG (talk • contribs)
Third opinion request, I consider this derivative work, as a model is not 'functional' in the sense that an actual car would be, thusly it must be treated as non-free? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The uploader claims that the author is Lisa Bostwick-Eilar and the text suggests that this person is a third party. Tagged as 'no permission'.
The file information page states that the file is available under a CC licence, but also states that it is 'fair use', which is contradictory. However, if something is sent to OTRS, then I assume that OTRS will sort this out. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Third opinion request, Added information in good faith, but it would be nice to know if this can either be moved to Commons, or needs an NFUR. The concern arises as it's a semi-architecural work. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
In this case, the e-mails look better than in the case below: a licence version number is clearly stated, and he is confirming that it is a self-shot. Ideally, there should have been an OTRS ticket. According to c:COM:GOF, people added OTRS links to pages on Commons in 2006, and this is slightly later. No idea when people started adding OTRS links to English Wikipedia or how well-advertised OTRS was at that time. Note that there is also File:Mark Evanier 2.jpg on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The permission comes from the subject of the photograph, who is unlikely to be the photographer, although he writes so in one of the e-mails. Is the picture from a magazine? The right border looks strange and might contain a little bit of a different page in the magazine.
He doesn't specify a GFDL version number. It is required to include a copy of the correct version of the licence each time you use GFDL-licensed material. Also, since we don't know the version number, "migration=relicense" might not be correct, as this depends on the version number. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Claimed as self, but I think this is an older historical image, Third opinon requested. And thanks for responding to these, as it must get tedious.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Note that the file information page also contains a 'press release draft' about an event in 2010. Press releases are typically non-free. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Third opinion request, I may be overly cuatious, but I'm not sure the text there is freely licensed as it looks like an anecdotes copied from another (unknown) source Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
This unlike some other instances does seem to be from the artist concerned. However, I'm not sure if i should move the biography to article space or userspace as I'm not sure how notable they are.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The text seems to have been added by the artist herself. Therefore, the person who wrote the text may have a WP:COI, and the text is also {{unreferenced}}. I don't think that the text in its current state is suitable for the article namespace. I'm not sure if it would be useful to move the text elsewhere if no one is going to edit the text anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Uploads by Turbanator
I'm adding information in good faith, but I really don't see how these could be used, Special:ListFiles/Turbanator
Argh, no. We would need help from a dewiki admin who can figure out if something is available on dewiki and possibly ask the uploader for information. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
File:MF135_angle.jpg I'm using the tweaked sandbox version here, Is the suggested new name for Commons clear enough, or should it be more prominent? In effect the paramater 'newname' is an attempt to combine the relevant Copy to Commons template, with the rename media one.
I've not yet incorporated the 'inline=yes' style code that I suggested would be appropriate in the discussion on merging {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} with it's ! 'ed equivalent. Perhaps this is something that you would be able to look into in the fullness of time?
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Who would use the suggested name? There's a link in the template: 'Copy to Commons: via CommonsHelper'. This link uses the current name instead of the proposed name. I don't know if anyone who moves files to Commons actually uses that link, though. WP:FTCG automatically proposes that you use the same name as on Wikipedia. The Commons Helper allows you to include one filename in the URL (the current name on Wikipedia), but I'm not sure if a proposed new name can be included in the URL. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I am on step ahead, as I've attempted to raise the possibility of Commons Helper, picking up the 'suggested' name automatically, with one of the tools maintainers. If you think it's worthwhile I'll also raise it with the FTCG maintainers?
I would assume that people transferring images to Commons have some common sense to consider the appropriateness of filenames, as they would when seeing the tag with a {{rename media}} as at present. By having the newname in the Commons tag, it might make it easier for automated tools later on.
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
'Secure download'? But this looks like an electric circuit...
I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to use {{rename media}} directly instead, in case the user who transfers the file to Commons doesn't notice the request to use a better name. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
First and second image look like a 90 screw connector for plumbing pipe. Not sure why there's a screw in it though.
The images are from userspace pages on Wikiversity. The Wikiversity users have created projects and illustrated those with images. It's necessary to go through the Wikiversity pages and figure out what the users have done. This is a very boring task. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The sandbox version of the template now picks up newname and sends on to Commons Helper if needed, I also added in the logic so the ! version can be merged. Subject to some cleaning up to resolve some minor differences between the sandbox and the main version it's almost ready for live. Your assistance in making this happen would be appreicated :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Third opinion request, An old coin inscription, which is ancient, but the apparent image source seems to be an academic paper, The image itself only appears in a reference in the article. It may be too simple but.... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The handwriting is ineligible for copyright in the United States, see {{PD-signature}}. The handwriting might be copyrighted in the source country if the source country is not the United States. If the text is ancient, then the text is PD too. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Technically unsourced, but this looks like it's an archive image from the (US) Naval Historical Center, given the caption format.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
responses to your enquiries regarding my images on red gambit
I have created three chats regarding your enquiries about the images on 'red gambit' wiki page. I trust that you can see them.
Yet again, an admin comes along and questions copyrights et al. Is there no record of previous works done by others?
I understand the need for vigilance, but it can get tedious.
ChrisC2116 (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. The user has stated that he has a conflict of interest, so there is reason to suspect that he has a conflict of interest. There is however not sufficient reason to assume that he is the copyright holder without further verification, see WP:IOWN. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Task Force 1-41
Maybe you should have tried that link to the facebook page of the photo owner a couple of times. It worked every time I clicked on it. Anyways he sent you a email. I hope you read it.Don Brunett (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett
Facebook reports:
“
Sorry, this content isn't available right now
The link you followed may have expired, or the page may only be visible to an audience you're not in.
”
Since Facebook suggest that the page may 'be visible to an audience you're not in', it is possible that the link works for other people (for example, Facebook account holders, or a subset of all Facebook account holders). --Stefan2 (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I have not received anything. As stated in the message on your talk page, the copyright holder should contact OTRS, not me. I hope that the e-mail you are talking about was sent to OTRS. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Stefan2 here is the email for the POW picture.
I David Spencer hereby give Don Brunett permission to post my photo of prisoners of war captured by soldiers of TF 1-41 Infantry 2AD (fwd) attached as 3rd Brigade 1st ID to wikimedia. I am in possession of the original film and I posted it to social medial for public viewing. Thanks for your understanding and I can be contacted at davespencer@sbcglobal.net if you have any questions/concerns. Thank you, David Spencer 1-41 Inf, Desert Storm. I hope that works.Don Brunett (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett
LATE REPLY to your destructive edit of 2014: Replaceable fair use File:Szeryng.jpg
YOU WROTE
Thanks for uploading File:Szeryng.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I REPLIED:
YOU do all that, I just couldn't care less! (especially after noticing how falsely you're behaving, writing such 'polite' and lenghty warnings and admonitions AFTER having deleted the image I carefully retouched and uploaded) --Go away, leave me alone, go pester someone else.
It's no big deal and please don't let it spoil your day but although your edit summary stated "Removing untrue statement about 'ID' being printed on EEA ID cards since 2012: not used on Swedish ID cards issued in 2015.", the part you removed actually stated something materially different: (EEA national identity cards designed after 2012 typically use the designation "ID" in their machine readable zone; (underlining added for emphasis). Although I don't doubt that your ID was issued in 2015, the design of the card was finalised in the latter part of 2011. I can't give you sources without breaching professional confidence, I'm afraid.
In your edit summary you then go on to write "Unclear if 'ID' is printed on other countries' ID cards". Although I don't doubt the current state of your personal knowledge, may I jog your memory that it was your proposal that has made checking this a bit more laborious than would otherwise be the case - which is not to make any comment on the rightness or wrongness of your proposal... BushelCandle (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your rapid and helpful response! (Incidentally, it now occurs to me that the title I chose for this comment is potentially misleading - it's not your editing action that I am characterising, but rather my temerity in drawing your attention to it...).
I'm afraid I must reiterate that the design of the Swedish national identity card was finalised in the latter part of 2011. I still can't give you sources without breaching professional confidence but, as you've so perspicaciously pointed out, there are many articles and factoids that although unsourced are not necessarily untrue. (The reverse is equally often true, of course.) BushelCandle (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Later: Actually I now have another pedantic and trivial quibble. In the version of theNational identity card (Sweden) article that I looked at, I could only see that the caption of the image stated: "The front and reverse of a Swedish identity card (2012 version)". That could very well mean that the card was first issued in 2012 and, if that's the case, would not be incompatible with my own private knowledge about the final design approval date. BushelCandle (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I have compared my own cards with the pictures in the National identity card (Sweden) article. My card from 2015 looks like the one which is claimed to be the 2012 version, but the issuer is listed as the 'Police Authority' (Polismyndigheten) without specifying which police authority, while the picture on Wikipedia lists the issuer as the 'Police Authority in Stockholm County' (Polismyndigheten i Stockholms län). No idea why this differs. My old expired card from 2009 looks like the version which is listed as the 2007 version, except that Wikipedia's copy of the 2007 version displays the colours differently - the background image should have the same colours as the 2005 version. As you noticed, it is not clear if '2012 version' means that the version was designed in 2012 or that it was first issued in 2012. There is no source for the 2012 date, but File:SwedishIDcard2012.png was first uploaded in 2012, so the card design can't be more recent than that. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi
Can you delete the redirect of UTA Arad page? I want that page to open directly when someoane opens it. Thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexutz924 (talk • contribs) 2015-12-01T16:58:26
Hi, I notice the Ainu flag was finally deleted after discussion, but I wonder why only this flag from FOTW website has to be deleted, while there're 30 other flags from FOTW in the same page? Is there any special copyright applied this image only? (just want to know) Chakazul (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Stefan2 - I am a new contributor to Wikipedia and am confused with your "Speedy deletion request". IOW Editor had requested the deletion of example image placeholders in my original submission before re-submission. I did that and clicked "Save Page". It seems your speedy deletion request followed that. What do I need to do to fix whatever is wrong? Many thanks!Johngosselin (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Was there any point to this edit [24] ?, The link only required a colon (there's 70 odd examples directly above that edit ....) which you seriously could've done yourself .... It was obvious to anyone my intention was to add the image as a link and not as an actual image ..... Thanks, –Davey2010Talk17:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC),
Sorry I shouldn't of been so bitey so I apologize for that, I was completely unaware of the image issue but it's my fault for not properly checking, Don't get me wrong I obviously don't expect anyone to add or fix stuff for me but I just assumed adding a colon would've been quicker than adding the hidden comment code that was all, Ah well no harm done :), Anyway have a great weekend :), Thanks and Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk18:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that could work. I just wish I could actually combine the two infoboxes, and if not, then at least add the logo and the image in the existing NRHP infobox somehow. I've been having too much trouble trying to do this. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Actors for general term.
Hello. I here to tell you that the term actor is a term that is gender-neutral. So if the Japanese has actors and female actresses, it's gender-neutral so the term must be actor. Even they can have a different nationality to each other, they can be still be preferred termed, as actors. If you have a reply, please reply own my talk page. Ivan Milenin (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The movie is in public domain. According to Government of India, 60 years have passed. Whatever the picture details say. --TheAvengers01:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
At File:Kismet1943film.jpg, it says that the picture only is in the public domain in India but not in the United States. The template {{PD-India}} states that the copyright to a 'work of cinema' expires 60 years after publication, but a poster for a film does not seem to be a 'work of cinema', so the picture is possibly subject to a copyright term of life+60 years in India. I note that {{PD-India}} and {{PD-India}} disagree on the copyright term for certain kinds of works, so there are errors in one of the templates, unclear which one. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Whatever the templates say, in case of literary-artistic works, it's sixty years after the death of author and in case of pictures, it's sixty years after publication even if the photographer being alive, the picture will be in public domain.TheAvengers16:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
This picture is not a photograph but a normal artistic work. In the United States, the copyright to film posters normally expires 95 years after publication, but there are exceptions to this rule. For example, Indian film posters which were first published before 1941 are normally in the public domain in the United States. The rule of the shorter term is not used in the United States, so you will often find that a work is in the public domain in the source country but not in the United States, or vice versa. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
What should I update in the article? I have not previously edited the article or even heard of the article subject. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Stefan, Please explain in plain english (not wikipedia legalese) why I may not use the MSU logo on my user page. It is currently being used on the university's article.
Denise B-K (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Denisebk
User:Beyond My Ken: The two files are identical. When multiple copies of the same file have been uploaded, it is typically better to delete the most recently uploaded file so that the original history is preserved. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but they are not identical. The first has a black background (which conceivably could be very dark blue), while the second has a royal blue background. On the first "Warner Bros." at the top is clipped, on the second it it not. There has been an intermittant problem with Wikipedia not updating thumbs to show the uploads. BMK (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, I see what the problem is. I originally uploaded to the same filename, but it wouldn't update, so I reverted that one back to the original and re-uploaded under a different filename. You're seeing the one I uploaded to the original filename, but I'm still not, despite having purged my cache repeatedly. BMK (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
This might be WP:VPT#Image thumbnail not purging. The two thumbnail images in that discussion showed different pictures for me yesterday, but today they are identical. Something must be wrong with Mediawiki's image cache. The two posters are identical to me. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, I think I've fixed the problem from my perspective, the new thumb is now showing on the old filename page, and it's also showing (for me) in the infobox. I'm going to mark the new filename as db-author. BMK (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
File:SilverCityDailyPress26Apr2013.jpg
Hi Stefan2, You deleted[25] an image I uploaded since it was orphaned. I initially added the image here. User:Ipicknick replaced it with another image here, but gave no justification to make the replacement. User: Diannaa mistakenly replaced that image with a logo[26]. Another user placed the logo under the correct parameter[27] but the original images now were orphaned. In short, would you please restore File:SilverCityDailyPress26Apr2013.jpg into the image= parameter in the Silver City Daily Press article. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Please name your pictures correctly! A file called 'Self portrait from 2010' qualifies for renaming per WP:FNC#2 since the file name doesn't reveal who the subject of the photograph is. I see that you have uploaded yet another copy with an incorrect name, which has now been tagged for speedy deletion as a duplicate.
Also, when multiple copies of the same file are uploaded, we should always delete the most recently uploaded file so that the original file history is preserved. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
> Also, when multiple copies of the same file are uploaded,
> we should always delete the most recently uploaded file
> so that the original file history is preserved. --Stefan2
> (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
in other words, even though the most recently uploaded file is correct and represents the current 'situation', you delete it, and instead, use the old file which had out of date information and is not current??? just checking o make sure i understand how you keep wiki articles up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihorwi (talk • contribs) 14:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
If the original upload has out of date information, then that information should be updated. This is done by editing the file information page of the original upload, not by uploading a new copy of the file. As far as I am aware, the file currently doesn't present any out of date information, or at least not any out of date information which was not also present in the deleted uploads. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
With respect, your strict interpretation of NFCC is having a detrimental effect on articles. Arriva Trains UK is a subsidiary of Arriva, and its logo is the same as its parent, not used in the absence of anything original. It's the same way that Santander UK and Santander Bank have the same logo as their parent the Santander Group. Cloudbound (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Just quoting shortcut links at me doesn't help. The discussion you refer me to isn't as unanimous as you'd like to make out. It's the logo for that company, and isn't used in the absence of anything else. Now we have a bare infobox. Where's the positive outcome for the article in your stance? Cloudbound (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm new so just checking I'm on the right lines. I've forwarded the permission email as suggested to permissions-en@wikimedia.org just now - is that all I need to do or is there anything else? SocialDem (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I have added {{OTRS pending}} to the file so that people will know that something has been sent there. Now we need to wait until someone reads the e-mail and determines if it is sufficient or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote WikiCheer, and to hopefully make your day just a little bit better, for Wikiclaus encourages we all spread smiles, fellowship, and seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirits from Wikiclaus !
Oh dear, I had no idea that was a possibility. I'll look into how to prevent recurrences; thanks for bringing it to my attention. DS (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
...the template editor user right. I've noticed some of the edits you have performed on the FFD-related templates, and from what I have seen, you obviously have enough understanding about how templates work to be able to utilize that user right efficiently. Steel1943 (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
For some, probably such as yourself, it's not a matter of utilizing it often, but rather utilizing it when you see a need for an edit but there's template protection on the page. For example, I think that since you edit some of the FFD or PUF templates, they have since been template protected. Steel1943 (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Steel1943 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
I would like to respond on the fair use copyright issue but do not find the place to paste this link etc. {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}
That would be the file information page, but that won't help as this is a photo of a person who is still alive and therefore an unambiguous violation of WP:NFC#UUI §1. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Mixing up user contributions
This is the picture which was uploaded by you.This is a different picture, showing a Ukrainian flag.
Hi There,
A few years back, I contributed a picture a store/shop front. This image has recently been subject to a potential non-free concern (it is free, as I took the photo and released it in to the public domain). However, after some moving/renaming by some admins, this file is being diverted to a picture of a Ukraine Flag, which has nothing to do with me or my original contribution. It would be appreciated if this could be fixed.
Hey Stefan2, I was wondering if I could utilize your knowledge of files to answer this question: In this list of a specific editor's contributions (most, if not all, of which are file uploads), are these files eligible to be uploaded to Commons, or are they actually non-free? (I'm guessing the former, though these images were created via a "web site/tool"; if the latter ... well, that's going to take a lot of file tagging to resolve.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
On the file information page, the uploader stated that the file is unfree and didn't specify a year of creation in the FUR template, so I didn't realise that I should question the uploader's claim that the file is unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I've corrected the description page as best I can, and I've restored it to all the articles it was used in (apologies if Iv'e bombarded you with notifications, mass rollback is the only efficient way I know of for reverting 84 edits). I'm slightly confused as to where the issue has come from—the image has been around a lot longer than two days, but the file history says that was when it was uploaded. Any ideas? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Kjerish added a new file with the crest which is a "svg" file type and went through the articles changing the file. The old file "File:RoyalMarineBadge.png" still exists. Gavbadger (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing this, User:HJ Mitchell. When an uploader states that a public domain file is unfree, the uploader should expect users to mistake the file for being unfree, but it is a bit unfortunate if the file is removed from pages before the uploader's error is fixed. I spot a lot of PD-textlogos which are mistagged as non-free, but mistagged PD-old-100 files are more difficult to spot as the age of the file often isn't immediately obvious from the fair use rationale or from the copyright tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
hi, someone (you?) flagged a flickr CC-licensed image i used as under copyright dispute, then you commented that it's CC-licensed NC, which it is. why is that disputed? can i consider this matter closed? Jm3 (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Cc-by-nc is an unacceptable licence on Wikipedia as commercial use is prohibited. Unless the file is relicensed under an acceptable licence, the file will be deleted. See {{db-f3}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
OK got it, thanks. you could have me saved some time if you had posted **that** instead of the nearly incomprehensible notices about "disputed whatever" which i assume came from some semi-automated script. also, free tip: your talk page is so long it took like 30 seconds to load on my browser — maybe archive the old posts so that leaving you a comment is less painful? peace in 2016 Jm3 (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Why do you think that Harris Wittels is the original owner? This doesn't look like a self-shot. The photographer is probably someone else, unknown who. This person is presumably the copyright holder, and without any permission from that person, this is a non-free image. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Dear Stefan2, the flag of Collectivity of Saint Martin is of very low quality. I think, we could re-create the same image with the same dimensions, under the same non-free comment, using higher quality source (1971x1399), which is available at ANMWE.com page. The page also includes ready-made downsized thumbnail Logo-Collectivite-Saint-Martin-400x283.png. Since the Wikipedia page says "You cannot overwrite this file.", I opted for leaving this note to you. If I can be helpful anyhow, just let me know. Mîḵā'ēl (SK) (talk)
The pictures are not identical. It is possible that one of the files is 'right' and that the other one is 'wrong'. Additionally, both files suffer from JPEG compression. I suggest that you ask on the article talk page for an opinion on which version of the flag to use. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense. There are lots of situations where editing another contributor's sandbox is totally appropriate. See for example WP:USER#Non-free images, which says that non-free images in user sandboxes are to be removed without warning. Also, tagging sandboxes for speedy deletion (e.g. WP:G12 if the sandbox is a copyright violation) is also appropriate. You didn't specify what edits you are talking about, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Total crap, you know exactly what you removed. It was not an incorrect usage in anyway. Perfectly legitimate usage. Completely unethical to edit another users sandbox, sandbox is private, leave a message if you disagree with something by all means, but do not edit my sandbox again. DjlnDjln (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Since you are refusing to tell which edits you are talking about, I assume that there is nothing problematic with any of my edits. Consider reading WP:OWN#User pages, which tells that user sandboxes are not owned by the user. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Don't play the fool, if you really can't remember what you changed, I am sure you can find out yourself without me showing. Not interested in reading reams of petty guidelines. My sandbox is private, don't edit it again, thank you. DjlnDjln (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Stefan, clearly you have a problem understanding English, I asked you politely not to edit my sandbox. And now you do it a second time. I regard this as an invasion of privacy. It is not about the images, which as far I am concerned is fair usage. It is the arrogant way you go about it. As far as I am concerned editing another editors sandbox is a big no no, please do not do it again. Please do not send me links justifying your actions, not interested ! DjlnDjln (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't mind you moving stuff out that I shouldn't be using, but I wish you'd clean up after yourself. My coding is now all over the place and it's affecting the rest of the images; I'd appreciate you popping back and fixing things. Thanks. CassiantoTalk18:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm unsure what to make of the South Korean FOP-law. As I interpret it the image may remain public in my flickr photo stream as well as Wikimedia Commons as long as the CC-License includes the non-commercial bit. However, does the fact that the Wikimedia Commons license templates do NOT include any CC-licenses containing the NC part mean that only licenses allowing commercial reproductions or derivatives are okay?! I'm confused. Moontan (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The file is listed under a non-commercial licence on Flickr, but was listed under a different copyright tag on Wikipedia, and we are missing evidence of permission that the other copyright tag applies. You later updated the file information page on Wikipedia by confirming the non-commercial licence, and the file then became eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F3, since Wikipedia doesn't accept files which can't be used commercially. Creative Commons licences with the NC and ND attributes are not allowed on Wikipedia. Additionally, there is a FOP problem: South Korean law doesn't allow you to use pictures of artworks for commercial purposes without permission from the person who created the artwork. Such pictures may therefore not be uploaded to Wikipedia. With respect to the use on other websites such as Flickr, you should note that Flickr is a commercial website, so using a picture there presumably counts as commercial use. Whether you want to use such pictures on Flickr or other websites depends on what risks you are willing to take and what the rules of those websites say. For example, there's always a risk that some copyright holder might choose to send you an invoice for illegal use of a work, or someone might sue you. If you are not in South Korea yourself, it might be difficult for a copyright holder to sue you based on South Korean law, and the copyright holder might have to sue you based on another country's copyright law which may state something else. Looking at the most recent photos in the Flickr photostream, I found pictures from many different locations: the Republic of China, North Rhine-Westphalia and New York City, all with their own copyright rules. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Can you help me understand this edit?
I'm not an experienced Mediawiki user but I am slightly concerned with the recent alert I received stating my “edit on User talk:Stefan2 has been reverted by Stefan2” because to my eyes it looks like heaps of other users' comments were deleted from my account which I definitely did not do. Can you confirm you have noticed bulk deletions on your user talk page yesterday that were attributed to my account? Moontan (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
In Special:Diff/699841601, you added a section at the bottom of the page, but you also made a lot of modifications to other sections. I reverted your edit so that the other sections were kept unmodified, but then restored your section at the bottom of the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I saw the list of way over 200 deletions of whole paragraphs. For the record, I did not commit these changes but I have a strong interest in finding out how and by whom they were applied, because this could explain why at the time I added the paragraph at the bottom the interface accepted my inputs and responded extremely slowly, as though connected via a lagging SSH link. Is there a way to get some traffic log details on the edit in question from Wikipedia? Moontan (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
You created the page stated in the notification on your talk page: a local file information page for a Commons redirect. That page has since been deleted, though. Since there is a redirect on Commons, it is a bit difficult to access the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Unfree Derivative images
Hi. Per this comment, you have apparently conversed with User:McChizzle educating him about copyrights on images. At Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 January 28, there are bunch of files nominated for deletion as copyright problems has the user has claimed to have drawn them but are essentially fairly faithful reproductions of copyrighted images. Perhaps you can review and comment based on prior interaction with this editor? Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding "TheBlackHouseCoS.jpg" and "BlackHouseCoS.jpg".
I received your postings on my talk page. I'd be grateful to receive some clarification on the matter if possible.
My reason for re-uploading this image as free was because previously, the non-free fair-use rational was only assumed on my part. The images are my "own work" insofar as I was the one that took the screenshots. I'm not certain as to what Wikipedia's policy is on screenshots taken by users. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I overlooked that the building was demolished. Since there is no evidence that you are the photographer, we have to assume that the picture is unfree. If you took a screenshot of an image taken by someone else, then you are not the copyright holder and you can therefore not license any use of the file. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
What should I do now? Both images are screenshots I took of a video, not screenshots of a specific photograph that was taken by somebody (don't know if that makes any difference).--St.HocusPocus (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I've updated the "Not replaceable with free media because" section of the "Media data and Non-free use rationale" for the TheBlackHouseCoS.jpg. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I suspect both the Wicomico and Washington County flags could find fair use in the counties list, and that the only things missing are links to the article and "specific non-free use rationale[s]" in each image file. You seem to have familiarised yourself with copyright policy. How would you recommend I word these "specific non-free use rationale[s]"?
You need to provide evidence that you are the copyright holder. Since the image comes from Flickr, you will have to prove that you were the one who uploaded the image to Flickr. Since the image has been deleted from Flickr, I don't know how to prove this. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I took the photograph and own the Flickr account. I suggest that you would need to prove that I am not the copyright owner to justify not restoring. -- Jtneill - Talk20:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
That's not how it works. See WP:IOWN. Since the picture was posted to Flickr before it was uploaded here, you need to prove that you are the owner of the Flickr account. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Tapad Logo
I just now noticed your comments from 11 days ago here on the Tapad logo image deletion discussion: "Do you think that this is the preferred logo colour, or should we use one of the other ones?"
I brought this page up to GA status as a paid editor sponsored by the article-subject. As part of that process, Tapad themselves specifically asked me to use this version of the logo. I just asked them again to verify and they confirmed the green version is preferred for most uses. The white logo is used for black backgrounds, the blue one is used on the website and some other applications, while the green version is used for "everything else" like Wikipedia and most uses.
I don't know to what extent Wikipedia has a desire to comply with a company's unpublished logo guidelines; I imagine that any of the three would be ok, but I can confirm that this is their preferred. I won't argue over it if you feel a different one should be used.
I don't think that there is a problem with the green version. I was just wondering since I noticed that there were three versions on the company's website and the main one seemed to be one of the other versions. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I am the owner of this picture as I order this picture of myself to a professional and paid her to avoid any copyrigts. I willingly realease it on wikipedia and wave any claim of copyright on it.
Could you please remove the tag of "possibly unfree file" from the Maurice Machenbaum.jpg file ?
If the picture was taken by "a professional", then the copyright belongs to that person. Evidence of permission is required from that person, see WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 February 15#Files from User:Amitbhb12
The files did not have {{puf}} tags, so I didn't realise that those files were the ones you listed at PUF yesterday. To avoid discussion fragmentation, we should speedily close the discussions on one of the PUF pages with a reference to the other PUF page. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I adjusted the naming of the logo in the free rationale use. The error was mine. When it was downloaded in 2009, it was still considered a non-free logo. I think it should be OK now. Chris (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at File:Portrait photo of John Radford.jpg and File:John Radford portrait photo.png? The first has been tagged by ImageTaggingBot, but both are from the football club where the uploader has admitted WP:COI as an employee (initial declaration at my talk page, copied across to the uploader's talk page [28]). I have advised that the second image is not satisfactory (and suggested that the employee/uploader should provide a replacement image from his own 'phone) but correct image tagging is not familiar to me. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I tagged one of them as a duplicate of the other one.
If a user asserts that he is related to a club, then this is sufficient reason to assume that the user has a conflict of interest (and thus carefully scan the articles for any bias), but per WP:IOWN, we need better evidence before we can assume that he is allowed to license pictures for which the copyright belongs to the club. Additionally, it is possible that the copyright belongs to someone other than the club, for example the photographer, or it could be a newspaper photograph. I am therefore tagging the other file as marking evidence of permission, giving the uploader a week to provide such evidence. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
This is not an unusual edit by your standards. It is still though, unconstructive (it constructs or builds nothing), pointlessly bureaucratic, trivial and most of all, it completely ignores any attempt to fix the amazingly minor problem you complain of.
Why do you do this? Why do you always do this, and do nothing better than this? If our licensing needs repair, then by all means do so - maybe fix the very problem you complain of. Yet you do not, instead you simply try to delete things whenever you can find some feeble excuse to try it, even when fixing the underlying problem would be easier.
Per WP:NFCC#10c, a valid FUR must name the article it refers to and the FUR must also state what purpose it serves in the article. This is not currently the case. "Illustrate" is not a valid purpose since all files are used for the purpose of illustrating something. Note that WP:NFCC#10c is all about bureaucracy: tags such as {{subst:nfurd}} are to be added when a user hasn't complied with some bureaucratic thing. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
So fix that. It is very easy to fix that. Instead, as always, your reaction is to try and delete whatever is nearest. You are a nett negative here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
(WP:TALKSTALK) @Andy Dingley:WP:NFCC#10c has more than a merely bureaucratic function. Taking your time to write a proper rationale forces you to think whether or not all non-free content criteria are met. While it's possible to meet some criteria accidentally (eg. minimal use in the low-resolution sense), some of the more problematic ones require active input. Take for instance contextual significance. You can not meet contextual significance without declaring what purpose the image serves in the article in question. Fair-use claims are claims of fair-use, so it makes a great deal of sense to make users think and document their reasoning.
"Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof."
For obvious reasons, those who upload or add images to articles are probably more likely than non-free content patrollers to be "users seeking to include or retain content". It's safe to assume that a patroller is indifferent toward the image (rather than seeking an excuse to delete it), and by this virtue, the responsibility with regards the rationale falls on the user who wants to keep using the file. Filling out a rationale is competence that is required on the part of those who add non-free content. Trying to read the uploader's mind is neither required nor an "amazingly minor" fix. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
It is not hard to write a FUR. But it is evidently too hard for Stefan, and as a result, he persists in deleting content regardless of any other value to the project. This is the prioritisation of a petty bureaucracy over any broader goal. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be of the opinion that writing a FUR is merely a bureaucratic annoyance that has to be overleaped in order to make our rightful use of non-free content. This is not the case. We do, after all, claim to be "The Free Encyclopedia", and well-considered FURs are essential to ensure we do not overstep the bounds of what non-free content we have allowed ourselves to use. Looking at that particular image, I do not see why we should have it: it just seems to be a picture of a type of plane that the film shows, I don't think it adds any educational value to the page. While the particular deletion tag applied may have been pernickety, the FUR on that page is manifestly deficient because it does not explain why the image has value on Wikipedia (and "illustration" per se doesn't count: we could illustrate Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) with shedloads of non-free screenshots but we don't, and it's a GA). BethNaught (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
" a type of plane that the film shows" Except that it's the type of plane, the technical development of which the film is all about. It's also a particularly obscure class (not just one type) of aircraft, and that's illustrated by the image. If you really think that the image is unjustified, then there is a deletion process to address that.
Stefan did not make any such claim - merely (by which I mean trivially) that the paperwork for the image didn't list the article in use (which of course it did, repeatedly and even automatically). For that reason alone he targeted the image for deletion. Such is not constructive editing, but it is the editing exemplified by Sefan. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The uploader is required to provide a valid FUR. If someone else always writes a FUR on behalf of the uploader, then the uploader has no incentive to start writing valid FURs, thereby continuing to create extra work for other people. Also, other people shouldn't have to waste time if the uploader doesn't bother providing a FUR. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Yet, it is not your place to demand anything of other editors. If you feel something is missing somewhere, you ought to add it yourself as a constructive contribution. ♆ CUSH ♆23:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
As stated at WP:NFCCE, I only need to point out that something is missing. It is the burden of the one who wants to keep the image to provide a valid fair use rationale. For example, in this case, the fair use rationale contains no valid justification that WP:NFCC#8 is satisfied, and looking at the use of the file in the article, there is no apparent way to improve the fair use rationale so that it contains a valid justification that WP:NFCC#8 is satisfied. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
"I only need to point out that something is missing."
As long as the FUR doesn't name an article, it may not be used in an article. As long as the FUR contains no valid justification that the file satisfies WP:NFCC#8, the file can't be used in that article. It is the uploader's responsibility to provide a valid justification that the file satisfies WP:NFCC#8 (which seems impossible since the file seems to violate WP:NFCC#8). --Stefan2 (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
That view is why you fail WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED. No-one is required to do anything here, but we are expected that anything we do do is to be a broadly constructive addition to a collegial project of building an encyclopedia. You do not share this view: you prefer instead to act as a lone bureaucrat, against all other editors and prioritising your simplistic agenda of always deleting the slightly imperfect over anything positive that others may be working for. You are not helpful here: any slight tidiness you might bring to the meta-paperwork is outweighed by your unnecessary collateral damage. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
A user who uploads a file is required to provide certain information about the file. If this information isn't provided, the user should expect that the file will be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
And you really think that's the best that can be achieved? That's slightly pathetic, really. This is why this is a competence issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
If information is missing, then the standard way is to document this by adding maintenance templates such as {{fact}}, {{huh}}, {{verification failed}}, {{subst:nsd}} and {{subst:nfurd}}. The community has decided that failure to timely address the shortcomings should result in deletion when some of the maintenance tags are used. Not my fault. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Not your fault. But reviewing your edits and deletions as well as the replies to them, your attitude seems highly questionable. Please do not destroy other editors' contributions for the sake of your personal crusade. Please assume a more collaborative conduct. ♆ CUSH ♆00:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I assume that everyone who tries to clean up Wikipedia by removing inappropriate content gets complaints from editors who wish to include inappropriate content. I don't think that there is any reason to believe that I get more complaints than anyone else. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Stefan2, file uploaders not providing FURs for non-free files on a grand scale? Can't say that ever happens, well, at least not anymore since the uploader finally figured out how to add FURs to their uploads ... after over 40 cases I caught where they did not. Steel1943 (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Stefan2. It appears that new information (including some sources) discussing File:Bhutan FA.png was recently added here by Fenix down to Bhutan national football team#Logo which was not in the article when it was first discussed at NFCR. Since you, Masem, and Fenix down were the only ones to particpate in that NFCR discussion (TLSuda did the close), I am wondering if either you, Masem or TLSuda might consider the new information sufficient to now allow the logo to be used in the article, either in the infobox or in the relevant section. Just for reference, none of this new information has yet to be added to Bhutan Football Federation (maybe it should be added), but it doesn't totally seem inappropriate to include information about the kit and badge in the main national team's article as well. Maybe this is a case where due to new information that the usage can be considered to satisfy NFCC compliant even though the team is still technically a child entity of the national federation? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I added a quick addition to that section to point readers in the direction of the federation article where they might see a copy of the image, but it did strike me as somewhat unhelpful that one of the most important identifiers of a national sporting team can be described in the team article but the image can't be shown. It would be useful to be able to show it in this instance. Fenix down (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Looking at WP:NFCCP, it would seem perfectly reasonable to include a copy of the logo in this specific article in this instance per point 8. A sourced discussion of the logo is contained within the article. As, with the exception of the colours of the kit which are also discussed in the article, the logo is the primary means of identification of the national team, it seems reasonable to include an example of it, even though it is identical to the federation's logo as its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. It seems fundamentally ludicrous to discuss an image of such importance to the article subject without being able to show the image itself even though the image is allowed to be shown elsewhere in a related article.
This is not to say that NFC#17 is redundant. Aside from its obvious applications outside of sporting logos, I am happy to accept that it is applicable in instances where the logo is not discussed in sourced prose in article as NFCCP#8 is not satisfied, that NFC#17 takes precedence and logos should not be shown as NFCCP#3 is not satisfied. Given that the discussion which I believe led to the creation of NFC#17 did not achieve a consensus and was acknowledged as such, it would be useful to have the opinions of @TLSuda:, @Masem: and @Marchjuly: especially as I am not an expert in this area. Fenix down (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
It does seem to me that logo-specific content has been added to the article logo since the logo's non-free usage was first discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png in August 2014. Whether this information is more suitable for Bhutan Football Federation I am not sure. I do have some concerns about the sources cited though. The pdf cited for the national emblem (www.constitution.bt/TsaThrim%20Eng%20(A5).pdf) is a dead link; this is not really a big deal because I found an 2012 archived version of the pdf here (it takes awhile to load at least on my computer). While it is true that the national flag and emblem are discussed on page 70 of that pdf, there is no specific mention of the soccer (football) badge/logo itself. Same goes for the source (www.tourism.gov.bt/about-bhutan/national-flower) cited for national flower. While these sources (also this one here) might be fine for verifying the national emblem and national flower, the connection between the sources and the badge/logo itself might be seen as a bit of WP:SYN and WP:OR. Perhaps I am being too nitpicky, but it seems to me that the content about the logo would have a better chance of never being removed by another editor if a source was provided which directly stated this is what the logo means, etc. I am not saying that what Fenix down added is not true, only that the connection between the content about the logo and the cited sources seems a bit tenuous in my opinion. I did not, however, participate in the aforementioned NFCR discussion and if those who did feel that the new content added to the article is sufficient to justify using the image, then that is fine with me. In the meantime, I will see if I can find a better source for the logo. I did check www.bhutanfootball.org, but there was nothing about the logo. It's possible that there is a such source out there somewhere, just not in English, so someone who understands Bhutanese may have more luck. For reference, the source doesn't have to be in English per WP:NONENG, but it should support what is written. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:NFC#UUI §17 appears to be about WP:NFCC#3, not about WP:NFCC#8. A non-free file needs to satisfy all of the ten criteria.
I don't think that the new "logo" section is enough to add the logo at the top of the article, but maybe enough to add it to the logo section. However, it may be necessary to discuss the matter somewhere first. I don't know why, though. WP:NFCR was closed down, and WP:FFD only seems to be about decreasing file use but not about increasing file use. I've been busy lately and expect that I will continue to be busy for a while. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deletion Caution For The Logos
Hello,
I have got a message sent by you related to deletion policy about the logos of my article. You can see the logos I have mentioned;
1) Ugur_group_company.png
2) Ugur_integrated_food_ltd.png
I reorganised licencing under the rules of "Non-free media information and use rationale". Could you please check if the article has any other deficiency?
Awaiting your response for improvement.
Thanks for the heads-up on my failure to include an article-specific rationale. I've added one and removed the tag. At your convenience, might you take a look at the rationale and let me know if it passes muster? Thanks. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
inappropriate and harassing behavior reported at ANI
Nonsense. WP:IOWN says that we should assume that a Flickr account and a Wikipedia account belong to different people until otherwise proven. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
It also states that we should try to demonstrate that the accounts are the same, not begin by seeking ways to delete everything. Yet again, you show yourself to be no better than a very small Perl script, as your only reaction is to delete, no matter what the situation.
You are an overall negative to this project. Your collateral damage outweighs any gains. It is past time you were topic-banned from such deletions. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
In order to try to demonstrate that the accounts are the same, it is necessary to start a discussion about the files at a discussion venue somewhere. The most suitable discussion venue for such discussions is WP:PUF, since that discussion venue is specifically designed for problems like this. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering why we need to history merge from a user sandbox where the only editor is the person who cut and pasted to the article space. Every edit on the article is correctly attributed the way it is right now. -- GBfan17:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
It is still sometimes useful to have a complete page history. For example, if someone later discovers another copy of the article somewhere else on the Internet, having easy access to the edit history can help showing that the text was written for Wikipedia and not copied from the other website. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The Twitter page indicates that the copyright holder is someone other than you, and the Twitter page only contains a permission statement which is incompatible with {{db-f3}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Image has been db-author'd. WAAAY too much annoyance over an image of a radio station's studios. Seriously though, archive your talk page. It's laggin' bad! You have stuff on here from 2014. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I got the box updated with rationale included. There are many comics that pay tribute of one person. Many comics in 2000 did that to Charles Schultz when he died on Memorial Day weekend. Here is the Garfield link about this as an example. ([30]). I also corrected the file name to improve the rationale. I understand what you are trying to do, but don't overdo it. You can make yourself look foolish if you are not careful. Chris (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
All are clearly {{PD-textlogo}}. I could find a reliable source that one of the logos was real and therefore uploaded that one to Commons. One has a source which I can't determine if it is reliable or not. I tried clicking on some links in FURs and article infoboxes, but only found other logos on those pages. I prefer not to spend a lot of time cleaning up mistagged logos if I have no way of telling that the logo is real. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate you taking the time to check. I'll do a little digging and see if I can find some better source links for the remaining four files. If I do, then th rest of the cleanup just involves converting the non-free use rationale template to {{Information}}, adding {{Trademark}} if needed, and adding {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Explicit: Well, a lot of the files also had other problems, such as being old uploads, and at least one of the files was tagged as 'copyright expired', so I wasn't sure what the best solution would be. By the way, it seems that many files in Category:Wikipedia files missing permission as of 28 February 2016 also were tagged without notifying the uploader. I checked the first row of files and found that no uploader had been notified, so these files do not yet qualify for deletion under WP:F11. I don't have time to update the dates, notify uploaders or check which uploaders people have notified right now, so I'll just add a warning to the category page. I think it's a problem if people give the uploader seven days to provide information, but without informing the uploader that the uploader needs to provide information within seven days. How is the uploader supposed to know that information needs to be provided in that case?
While we're on the topic: it's inconvenient that {{di-replaceable fair use}} doesn't let the tagger explain why they think it's replaceable use. This is not always obvious to the uploaded or to the deleting admin, because there can be many ways a file breaches WP:NFCC#1. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
It's possible to specify a reason: {{di-replaceable fair use|date={{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}|1=reason goes here}}. It seems that the {{subst:rfu}} template lacks this parameter, but it's available in Twinkle. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Finnusertop, do you have a suggestion on where and how to document the reason parameter? I hadn't realised that it was undocumented. The parameter can currently only be accessed by adding {{di-replaceable fair use}} manually, but users are advised to use {{subst:rfu}} instead, and the "rfu" template currently doesn't have this parameter. I guess that we should first add the parameter to the "rfu" template and then mention it in the documentation for that template. I modified {{rfu/sandbox}} so that you can use either {{subst:rfu/sandbox|reason}} or {{subst:rfu/sandbox|reason=reason}}. Any opinions on this implementation? And do you find any bugs? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Greetings. I have been working at getting this backlog emptied and I've noticed that you seem to be doing the bulk of the tagging. Do you perchance have access to some tool that can find shadowed/shadowing images?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I have access to a list of the around 1400 untagged files which shadow Commons. On my watchlist, I've seen people resolving a lot of conflicts lately, so I was thinking of filling up the category with some more files today (and resolve some conflicts at the same time).
For File:Wikiversity-logo-41px.png I suspect that different crops generated different files. The image is used on the Main Page and while Commons does have mechanisms to protect images used on other projects' main pages, here we rely on locally uploaded copies as extra protection (there was a declined task in Phabricator phab:T21625 about cross-project protection). For File:Harrogate Stonefall Cemetery war stone 1295542316.jpg I'd file a FFD like I did here; I do think that "keep local" images sitting over higher quality Commons images should be discussed, whether for renaming, reupload, for de-"keep local"-ing (if the uploader agrees) or deletion. Finally, unrelated to the images may I recommend you to archive your talk page? It's so large that I had difficulty editing it.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Jo-Jo Eumerus: If the uploader isn't willing to keep the local and the Commons copies synchronised, then we shouldn't keep local copies in my opinion. The uploader shouldn't expect other people to do that for the uploader. Maybe FFD is the best way to go. CAT:SHADOW now has over 500 files again, so I'll take a break from ShadowsCommons tagging. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, For the time being I have removed your delete tag on this image and placed it on my watch list. My reasons should be clear by my post to him. User_talk:Wyrdlight#Your_frequent_challengers_to_your_copyright. WyrdLight at Wikipedia. EXIF also confirms. It reads crystal clear to me but I have suggested he makes his uploads clearer still. This frequent contributor, of high quality professional images, also has autoprotrol rights on WC.--Aspro (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
For feedback. This contributor has now updated this file and I' am happy with the amendments. Keep up the good work though. --Aspro (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally. There may be a new discussion starting on WC about Credit lines. So many new comers to WP/WC find their uploads not conforming, simply because they are not computer literate enough. Wikipedia and its sister projects should be (ideally) welcoming to all talents. The new upload page introduced a few years ago helped immensely over the pervious image upload facility but it is still not perfect. If you have any useful info that will help them get-it-right-first-time, that may make your patrolling job a bit easier, so please do please comment over on WC.--Aspro (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Whilst this file is Orphaned at the moment I uploaded it for use on the RocksDB page which is in draft. Please can you wait until that review is approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamretter (talk • contribs) 16:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
It seems that there already is an article about the subject: RocksDB. Therefore, the person who reviews your submission at Draft:RocksDB will probably decline the submission, citing this reason:
Submission declined.
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia.
You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. If you require extra help, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk or get help at our live help chat from experienced editors. Find sources:Google (books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs) ·FENS·JSTOR·TWL.
The reviewer(s) who declined this submission will be listed in the page history.Last edited by Stefan2 0 seconds ago.
I don't know whose e-mail address you inserted above, but consider avoid mentioning e-mail addresses on the Internet. Spambots may find the address and may start sending spam to it, and there may be privacy issues involved too. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add {{subst:rfd|content= at the beginning of the page and a closing }} at the end of the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Xaosflux, I think it's because of bugzilla:28299. If Wikipedia and Commons both have redirects with the same name, then the redirect on Wikipedia seems to be ignored. You need to manually add ?redirect=no to the URL in order to override the redirect on Commons, and even then, Mediawiki displays redirect information from Commons, so you also have to click on "view source" to actually see the local data. This is a bit confusing (and for that reason, it's a good idea to delete the redirect – that's why it is at RfD). --Stefan2 (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You are now a template editor
Your account has been granted the "template editor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.
If you are willing to process edit requests, please consider adding User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable to your watchlist, it is a bot generated list of outstanding template-protected edit requests. Before answering, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.
Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
I've often seen you making edit requests here, or making suggestions about improvements to templates, so I think you are a very good fit for this user right. Sorry to do this without asking first; if you don't want the user right, just let me know and I'll remove it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪03:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that would be a good idea. I participate in a lot of discussions, and users might accuse me of being involved if I start closing some of the other ones. See for example this edit by Masem. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about the "involved" issue unless you actually participated in that specific discussion. I can say, for example, at WP:RFD, one of the two most active administrators who handle closes at that noticeboard is also one of its most active contributors. From that, I would say that having experience in participating in a noticeboard equates into experience in being able to make good judgement calls when it comes to discussion closes. And even with the diff above you provided by Masem, the issue that seems to exist on some of these noticeboards is "...the lack of [discussion closers]..." That, and with your experiences in debating points regarding images in general, you obviously have the know how to determine if a proposal is bogus. I think you'd be great at closing these discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
This image is public domain per the image file and City. How do I get it back into the template?
I can mail them to ask. The file page says it's public domain per the city's municipal archive. What about the Seal that you removed? Its dated from 1937. Isn't that past copyright? Ujjwiki (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Seals seem to share a feature with coat of arms in that they only are loosely defined, and then someone draws a version out of that loose definition. Each drawing then has its separate copyright (see c:COM:COA). One rendition has been uploaded as File:Corporate seal of the City of Seattle.jpg, and another rendition can be seen here. These pictures show the same seal, but the rendition is different and therefore they do not necessarily have the same copyright status. According to the article Seal of Seattle, the seal has been redesigned multiple times since 1937. The copy on Wikipedia is probably not the rendition from 1937 but the most recent rendition of the seal, which is still copyrighted. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I've emailed the department in charge of this for verification of it's status. What address at Wikipedia do I mail that confirmation to if I get it so that we can use these? Ujjwiki (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your work in speedy deletions under R2 (and sorry that I keep forgetting to add them myself after I move pages)! Appable (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
No problem! I try to check for new R2 candidates everyday, so redirects like this will typically be spotted quickly. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
ShadowsCommons update and your bot
Greetings. I saw yesterday that a while ago that you ran a bot (User:Stefan2bot) to tag images as {{ShadowsCommons}} when they qualify, but you shut it down because sometimes the conflict needs to be resolved on Commons (by a deletion request or by reuploading). Given that the template now indicates these two alternate possibilities and Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons has been substantially reduced, would it be possible to start up the bot task again? The quarry is kind of unwieldy as it needs several copy and edit operations to access the file(s) in question.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
As I wrote there, I found that there are many cases where it is more appropriate to do actions on Commons than to do actions on Wikipedia. For example, there are many cases where users have uploaded thumbnails of Wikipedia files to Commons as 'own work by the Commons uploader'. These need to be cleaned up on Commons: the full-size copy should be uploaded and the source and copyright tag should be added, or the file should be tagged as a copyright violation if it is an unfree file. I think that it would be problematic if files like this instead are moved around on Wikipedia so that Commons continues to provide incorrect authorship and licensing information about files without there no longer being a way to discover the problems on Commons, and would prefer to go through the remaining untagged files manually instead. Also, if the files are not tagged automatically by a bot, the set of untagged files acts as a list of files which I have not yet checked for these problems, which I think is convenient. Why are you in a hurry? CAT:SHADOW contains plenty of files which you can start with, and according to quarry:query/950 there are only 618 untagged files left (excluding untagged files which have been nominated for deletion on one or both of the projects). --Stefan2 (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm currently filling up CAT:SHADOW with additional files, but most files are nominated for deletion on one or both projects and therefore won't appear in that category. It seems that many of the files in CAT:SHADOW currently are listed at PUF, FFD and other deletion processes, so I realise that it might be hard to identify files with which there is something you can do, but the deletion requests should close at some point. I don't think that it is a good idea to rely on documentation being read as documentation often isn't read. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I received a notification regarding the above file. A Non-free media information and use rationale – non-free logo summary for this logo already exists. What else do I need to do? Thank you for your help. –SMasters (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
If there are any issues with any image in User:Impru20/sandbox, either limit your edits to comment out those images or brief me on which images are non-compliant so I can remove them myself. Those which are compliant with copyright guidelines should not be removed, and surely, even the presence of non-compliant images does not justify for the disruption of entire tables or the deletion of entire information; your last edit reverted to a earlier version of the page and removed entire new information from the page that was added later. I'd appreciate that I can continue my work without disruption; I'm sure that we can reach a common understanding for removing non-compliant images without needing to touch the rest of the info. Thank you. Impru20 (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Stop the disruptive editing in my sandbox; you're reverting to an earlier version which does not include the current info. I'm working hard to update it, so it's rather disgusting for someone to come and remove it twice without entering to discuss the issue. Tell me which images should be removed and I'll remove them myself, but stop disrupting my sandbox and come to discuss the issue. I don't think what you're doing is required at all. Impru20 (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I spent a lot of time two days ago commenting out those images. You can't expect me to spend a lot of time on commenting out those images everyday when you have reposted them. Instead, the page is simply reverted to a clean version. Ensuring that your sandboxes are in compliance with policy is your responsibility. Immediately stop with your disruptive editing of your sandbox! --Stefan2 (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hage you bothered to explain the problem? Not everyone will understand the implications of NFCC#9 from a link right off. You're being far too heavy handed and POINTy. Impru just asked you a question here in good faith and you could have resolved the issue by answering politely. Instead you nominate their page for deletion. Sheesh. BethNaught (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
It is obvious from the above and below posts by the uploader that the uploader knows what a non-free image is. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Not all images are non-free. At first I maintained the images you removed because I did not understand why was that being done, but once I figured it myself (because you did not care on explaining to me what was exactly wrong with those) I respected that. You removed the Kinima and Potami images, and I've respected that and substituted them for text. Then you keep insisting on reverting to an earlier version of the page with a disrupted table version not including any image, which I don't understand why (the current shown images have no copyright licenses), removing lots of content along the way. I asked you for discussion on which images were causing the issues so I could remove them or replace them myself, and you instead nominated the whole page for deletion... despite images occupying a very small fraction of it. And all of this without even caring to discuss with me where's the issue. Don't you think that you are going a little too far? I've shown willingness to solve the issue in a way that satisfies us both, and you want to delete the entire page instead. I see this as very excessive and unneeded. Impru20 (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The non-free images must be removed. I can't spend a lot of time on locating and removing them myself everyday, which I did two days ago – that's your responsibility. Or I can revert the page to a revision which I know is clean – but that also means that other things are reverted. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I've taken a look at the images, and I've detected that one of them was copyrighted. The remainder of them have free licenses. Your proposal to solve the issue of having a single problematic image out of a 390,000 byte-sized article was: 1. to disrupt the page and 2. to delete the page. I asked for you to tell me which images were non-free. You removed the Kinima and Potami images, edits which I eventually respected, and then you went on removing all of them without even explaining which ones were causing issues. I asked you to do so, and kept on your behaviour. I was willing to work with you towards improving the article and remove the issues, I just needed info, which I asked you for and you didn't give to me. So, I again tell you that what you did was not needed at all. The issue is now solved since the copyrighted file has been removed. I now ask you to remove the deletion nomination from the page. Thank you. Impru20 (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hm, was there only one image left? Sorry for overreacting a bit before. I've closed the MfD discussion as there is no longer any need for actions on the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
May I endorse this motion? Or at least recommend that you have auto archiving on your talk page? {{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo=old(31d)
|archive=User talk:Stefan2/Archive %(counter)d
|counter=6
|maxarchivesize=70K
|archiveheader={{talk archive navigation}}
|minthreadstoarchive=1
|minthreadsleft=4
}} is the code I use, for example.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
hello!I provided the photo with different link and holder.you said that there is not enough information in above request so I left it and began new request with same headline for same photo with different link and copywrite .Please read my new request before talking any quick action.Jojolpa (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
it seems as if you are not here to upload image in WP:FFU .you have been only declining and i don't see your any accept.stop this or i will report you.Jojolpa (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! Unfortunately, your request has been declined. The reason is shown on the main FFU page. The request will be archived shortly; if you cannot find it on that page, it will probably be at this month's archive. Regards, (t) Josve05a (c) 00:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
. There was enough info on the page to avoid deletion. I said that I was the photographer and that I released it. We have had many discussions, Steffan, I feel that this was done behind my back. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help and support at Motto of the Day in 2014. Our best wishes for the New Year. We hope to see you around in 2015. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
) which are commonly published in review papers in organic and inorganic synthesis journals. Do these meet the threshold of originality ? Best --TatanyaGolding (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
) is not copyrighted in the United States per {{PD-chem}}. File:AlphaPinene rxns.png contains a lot of them and they are arranged in some way. I don't know if there might be an arrangement copyright or how the arrangements are decided. Try c:COM:VPC. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Royalmate1. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to User:Royalmate1/Royalmate6 because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!
- Marchjuly (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
'With screw'? Er, what?
There's apparently a second one too...
'Secure download'? But this looks like an electric circuit...
Done Added here Special:Diff/708540379. Stefan2, dile redirects are peculiar, I don't think anyone will actually ever see this. — xaosflux Talk 04:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
wikimedia.org. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_October_8#File:ISI_Web_of_knowledge_logo.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Continental.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AYogurtinglogo.gif&diff=636826533&oldid=349345139){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_March_2013.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Alexis_Marcou_2014.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_cover_-_debut_album_by_Pumeza_Matshikiza.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Alexis_Marcou_2014.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/06/65/36/6f/antakya-arkeoloji-muzesi.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CherryWind#Orphaned_non-free_image_File:WB_Mason_2015_logo.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-coloring.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[19]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/b/b5/20150930165116!Lattice_to_Bridged_T_%282%29.png){kind=link}
![[20]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b5/Lattice_to_Bridged_T_%282%29.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[21]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Disquieting_Muses.jpg){kind=link}
![[22]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fossil-museum1.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[25]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/File:SilverCityDailyPress26Apr2013.jpg){kind=link}
![00:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stefan2/Archive_5#c-St.HocusPocus-2016-02-01T00:38:00.000Z-Regarding_"TheBlackHouseCoS.jpg"_and_"BlackHouseCoS.jpg".){kind=link}
![00:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stefan2/Archive_5#c-St.HocusPocus-2016-02-01T00:59:00.000Z-Regarding_"TheBlackHouseCoS.jpg"_and_"BlackHouseCoS.jpg".){kind=link}
![20:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stefan2/Archive_5#c-St.HocusPocus-2016-02-01T20:52:00.000Z-Regarding_"TheBlackHouseCoS.jpg"_and_"BlackHouseCoS.jpg".){kind=link}
![[29]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Screen_shot_Birth_of_a_Giant_airborne.png&diff=706143154&oldid=628886613){kind=link}
