User talk:TLSuda/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:TLSuda. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Non free images

@ Theopolisme Is there a size to which non free images are supposed to be? I have been adding some movie posters. And I see to it that they are less then half the size of the actual image. But someone or the other keep rescaling it to thumbnail size. I mean the credits in the posters are not even decipherable. Can it be kept to atleast a size to make the credits readable? Because I have noticed some articles where the contents in the main infobox are contradictory to the actual info. Thought that if the posters are sufficiently good, someone or the other may correct the errors. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Policy, Non-free images need to be as small as they could be. There are formulas that are available on that page, but to be honest, I let one of the bots decide the best resolution. User:Theo's Little Bot does a great job of this. Also it is important to note that the use of the poster (or other non-free images) is to "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question" and not to show all of the content on it. A very good rule of thumb is for a Non-free image to have the size of the actual image be no larger than the size it is on the article page. For example if the poster is in the infobox, its probably smaller than 250px or so, and therefore there is no reason for us to have a 400px image. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The other day, I just came across an article Subramaniapuram. The image said, written, produced and directed by M. Sasikumar, whereas the infobox was wrong, [1] . So, I rectified the error, [2]. I mean not every user in wikipedia are frequent editors. Most people who edit using IPs are accidental editors trying to correct some errors they stumble upon. Even I started in wiki that way. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand, and I think it's great that you are going through making extremely positive contributions. If you were to click the image, there would then be a link to the original file location (full size) where you could check anything you desire for accuracy. Happy Editing. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Communist userbox

I deleted User:ТимофейЛееСуда/Userboxes/communist as you requested, but then checked for transclusions (as I should have done first) and restored it because it has half a dozen or so. Are you sure you want to delete it, rather than see if one of the other users wants to take it over? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no desire for it, and it is only on 2 userpages. 1 person has not been active since 2011, the other since January, and sparsely then. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion, eh?

First of all, IDK why you are replacing images in behalf of other people, if the uploader didn't post it, don't do it for them. Second, the "block evader" is not you, is the person whose images you changed. For further information visit Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ElPilotoDi/Archive. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I said "block evasion" because you did the same pattern Piloto tends to do, and Piloto tends to create multiple accounts, and he tends to be tricky just to keep his images. I was about to report you in the same SPI until I notice you are not related to him as you are older, just that you made good faith edits that look bad for someone who has experience with him. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Beautiful Onyinye

Greetings, can you please revert this file "[File:P-Square Beautiful Onyinye Official Cover.jpg]" back to its rightful state? These templates, "db-author" and "di-orphaned fair use|date=13 September 2013" are only on the file's soure page because the "Beautiful Onyinye" (file's article) was deleted and redirected. I was told by User:STATicVerseatide that the single "Beautiful Onyinye" doesn't qualify to have its own article because it fails the WP:NSONGS regulation. I took the contents of the aforementioned single and merged it to its mother page, "The Invasion". Since it has been merged, can you remove the aforementioned templates? I don't want to delete them because I was told only administators who put them there have the right to delete them.versace1608 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I have responded over at User talk:RHaworth‎. As he is the deleting admin, he can undelete it. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Heads up

Hi, I just replied to you on a project page, and noticed your username. This is just a heads up that you might run into some problems with your new name as per Wikipedia:Username policy. I'm not reporting you or anything like I said, it's just a friendly 'heads-up'. Здравствуйте! - я волк дитя!01:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

New name? I changed my username back in January 2012, and it was approved by bureaucrat MBisanz. If there had been an issue, or violation of WP:U, my request would not have been approved. Thanks for your concern over WP:U#Usernames_with_non-Latin_characters, but if you re-read it, it plainly says that users "are welcome to use usernames that are not spelled using the Latin alphabet." and further goes on to say "To avoid confusion and aid navigation, users with such usernames are encouraged to use Latin characters in their signature." I use enough Latin characters in my signature to be fine, as I have made over 17,000 edits to date without issue. In response you your reply on the discussion, I am not casting a vote, just making a comment/suggestion. I do not care whether the image stays or goes, plainly per policy the image is allowed to stay, but I believe having an article about a dress that has been worn a handful of times is a little silly. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't notice any Latin, just the Cyrillic. But anyways, like I said... not a big deal for me. As for the dress, it's not how often or how little she wore it that matters, just that when she did wear it, it created quite a notable stir at an already notable event. I agree with you, it should be replaced on pages where there is an available alternative, but it should remain in the one article about the event and the dress itself. - thewolfchild 01:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts are simple, per policy the image is acceptable for use on one page, but my personal thoughts think that page is unnecessary. Good luck with the discussion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Picture of Trey Burke

How do I make the picture of Trey Burke useful User:Lilk846 (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Useful? You can't. Its not a free image, and since there are images that can replace it, see File:20111210 Trey Burke.jpg and Commons:Category:Trey Burke, the non-free image is not allowed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I just made it a free image will the picture be saved now. User:Lilk846 00:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't own the rights to the image, and therefore you do not get to decide whether it is a released under a free license. Simply changing the license on the image does not make it free. The image is either owned by the Associated Press, Rachel Lenzi, or The Blade newspaper. Therefore they are the only ones who release the image under a free license. If it is owned by the Associated Press (which is the most likely) it will never be released as a free image. Since you are not the owner of the image, there is absolutely nothing that you can do to make this image usable unless the actual owner of the image emails proof that the image is to be released under a free license to WP:ORTS. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Mount of Olives (Aerial view)

Hi- I appreciate the time you took to look at my image. When you open it to 100% could you give me an idea of the details that are missing? Thank you for your time.-Godot13 (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

When I open it up all the way, the details of the buildings and landscapes aren't crisp. Some areas are blurry (which is to be expected). Personally, I believe it will get promoted to a featured picture with or without my vote, but my preference for panorama or aerial views is toward crisp images, especially on the focus of the image. On this particular image the focus seems to be the cemetery but to be honest it looks like a warehouse yard. If there were more detail on the cemetery area, I feel that it would be an even better picture. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Topeka & Shawnee County Public Library Logo.png Licensing

Greetings! I had noticed that the file for the Topeka & Shawnee County Public Library Logo was debatable whether or not it should have a copyright. After reviewing it, and looked at your comment on the page for discussion, I agreed that it did not need a copyright and replaced it with the PD-textlogo. Thanks for noticing that! Corkythehornetfan (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey no problem. It is still trademarked, so good catch on adding that. At some point, it can probably be safely moved to Commons. Thanks for your speedy work. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Joymati

Have you not realized that the images are actually public domain? the images in black and white were taken during production, a first in Assamese cinema which is why it probably has photographs available being a historic event. Stating that "you cannot prove it was taken in 1934/5" is just ridiculous, the images were taken then because to my knowledge he wasn't even active in film in the 1940s or later and the images you'll find with Joymati attached to it are of the cast and crew and area that the film was shot in. Sometimes "assume good faith" rings true, the images I uploaded all those years ago were never copyrighted material and it is only now you've revisited them that it is clear that they are PD material.the others appear to have already been moved to the wiki commons like File:Actress Swargajyoti Barooah in Joymoti film.jpg. Dead source links can't be helped, the images are from that film which was shot in India in 1934/5. I've uploaded a new better version of the file you listed at the commons. It is obvious that it is a PD image, you could say that there is no real proof on most images of when they were taken but this is of that film and it was taken in India in 1934/5, so please stop being silly....♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Doctor, you seem to be very much mistaken as to what is going on. The only issue related to Joymati that I've taken any issue with is File:Joymati production.jpg / File:Joymati6.jpg. It is a photograph that was taken in 1934, that is correct. And I've never disputed when the image was taken. But, when was it first published? Copyright law, especially with respect to public domain is all dependent on when the image was first publish. For example, an image could be published in 1934, but never published until 1992, and therefore would not be in the public domain. If this was an image from the actual movie, I would have no issue with it being published, because it was published as part of the film. But this is simply not the case especially since the producer is "putting the final touches" on the film in the image. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

That reasoning is just silly. Why would that picture be any less likely to be accurately labelled as any of the others in http://newsbloglive.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/photographs-from-first-assamese-movie.html ? Isn't it bleeding obvious that the photograph is public domain? Why would you assume the photograph to be much later than 1941 or 1953 when he wasn't even a film director and why wold you assume that the photograph was never published until 1992? It seems a tall order to claim that it isn't anything other than public domain.I'm sure if somebody looked into Indian library archives you'd find that the photograph was published before 1992. Have you done the research to prove otherwise on this? It comes down to paranoia that you think somebody might sue wikipedia for using it, otherwise what is your explanation for doing the thankless job that you do policing such old images? What are the chances I ask even if it was published after 1992 of anybody really caring about it? It's people like you that make people give up here in exasperation, it's absurd to even consider deleting it and if you do this sort of thing across the website you're definitely not helping improve us in terms of content and resources are you? Anyway what makes you think that the film was widely published in 1935 and those photographs are a derivative of it? Those images if anything are more likely to have been taken from a more recent video or DVD on the film which has been recently published than somebody photographing them from the original. Are you going to delete all of them because you cannot be sure of this? just looking at those images I'd say they were all taken from the same source, whether it was from a video or from library archives which document the film and its production, how can you tell either way? How do you know that when the film was originally published that some of the material behind its making wasn't published with it? Sorry, but your pettiness over this is really bugging me. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I've explained my reasoning once here, and twice in deletion nominations. Please take your discussion to one or both or all of the possible discussions. And, until you can learn how to leave a comment on my talk page in one try (using the show preview button or simply proof reading), instead of 3-6 edits, please don't edit my talk page. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Er, I hope this is how you do it!

Hi, you left a 'talk' message for me (totally new to doing things on wikipedia rather than just reading - sorry!) saying that a photo I've uploaded was attributed to http://west-uist-chronicle.blogspot.com/2011/01/vampires-aliens-and-fairies-interview.html. I didn't mean to - I took the photo and am the owner of the work! How do I undo it? I have sent an email stating my permissions and used the template form to do it. Have I done enough for it not to be deleted? 'Thanks for uploading File:Fiona McDonald Australian Author profile picture.jpg, which you've attributed to http://west-uist-chronicle.blogspot.com/2011/01/vampires-aliens-and-fairies-interview.html. 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.' Thanks! Beattie! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beattiealvarez (talk • contribs) 01:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Basically the photo that you uploaded, and claimed to be the photographer of, is a crop or close up of a photo on that website. If you are the photographer of the image you uploaded here, then you must also be the photographer of that photo as well, yes? Since the image was published on another site first, you need to show proof that you own the copyright. The easiest ways are to either update that website that has you photo on it with the same licenses you applied to the photo you uploaded here, or submit your permissions through WP:OTRS which it sounds like you have. Hope that helps. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll wait and see if I get a rejection email from them! The subject has used that photo (with my permission) for a few things, I can change it to one that hasn't been used if this ends up being an issue. Thank you very much for your help and prompt replies! (Beattiealvarez (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC))

No worries, thanks for understanding. We just have to make sure that we follow copyright laws, as Wikimedia really doesn't want to be sued over something trivial. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

And fair enough too! Am I allowed to try to upload a different one or am I in trouble over the first one ( I swear I took that photo!)? Or should I wait to see if they reinstate it once they've read the email I sent yesterday? Sorry for all the questions, you seem to be the most knowledgable and helpful person on here! :-) (Beattiealvarez (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC))

You are not in trouble, I should have had you tag the old image as OTRS Pending, but I thought the permission would have gone through before it was deleted as such. Always feel free to ask me as many questions as you need to. You are more than welcome to upload another photo, but if it is posted to another website, we would have the same situation. This time I would make sure you have the file tagged so it wouldn't be deleted while awaiting permission. When you upload another file, let me know and I will check everything ASAP. Keep up the good work, and don't let this get you down. :) -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You are wonderful! :-) I have uploaded another photo - making sure that it is NOT ANYWHERE ELSE - Fiona McDonald Australian Author and Artist at lunch.jpg . I don't know how to tag things on here (Facebook however is another matter....:-) gee I need a life!). If you wouldn't mind checking that it's okay, that would be great! Thank you so much for everything, it's nice to 'meet' helpful people! (Beattiealvarez (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC))

Everything is good on this image, I found no copies of anything even similar elsewhere. I liked the other image better, and so I look forward to when the permission gets processed for it. Don't be afraid if the image is moved to the Wikimedia Commons. That's generally where free images are kept so they can be used on other language Wikipedias. Thanks again for your patience. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Night of the Stormrider

When closing a discussion at WP:NFCR, you removed some images, but you also removed {{album ratings}}. This was a mistake, right? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Absolutely a mistake. Thanks for catching that! Fixed.-- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Links to my translations

1. I don't understand what was wrong with the links to my English translations of the books and articles that were cited in the various article. The links are to to free PDF downloads, not commercial websites.

2. I changed the links to my book (Probing the Future...) to reference citations, so why is that still unacceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delphenich (talk • contribs) 17:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The comments left on the bottom of your page do a better job of summing up what is going on than I could alone. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

FFD closures

When closing an FFD discussion, please use {{ffd top}} and {{ffd bottom}} instead of {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Actually, thanks for catching all of my mistakes and being nice about it. :) -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I noticed the closure on my watchlist and realised that something looked wrong. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm very thankful that you are helping me out like this. You are one of the Wikipedians that I strive to be more like. I don't nearly have your skill, and I'll never have your intelligence, but its refreshing to work with you. If you notice anything I am doing wrong, or anything that I could do better or different, please don't hesitate to tell me. I may have almost 18000 edits, but I'm still new at this. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

File:965 WKDD Station Logo.png

Thanks for loading a version w/o the potentially non-free background. How did you do this? Gimp? Levdr1lp / talk 19:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

GIMP works, I personally use Seashore on my Mac because its quicker and easier. Also, with that file, it wasn't good quality to start with, so I was not too worried about getting the quality perfect. If I was rich, I'd use Photoshop. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the quality is what it is. Better than nothing. Thanks for the info. Levdr1lp / talk 20:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:HOT-969-Logo-(WBQT).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:HOT-969-Logo-(WBQT).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. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree files

Some of your files may be unfree. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 November 1#OTRS pending since June. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Could revered your edits on Fællesrådet for Danmarks Drengespejdere

Please check before making your edits. The logo's may fail your own made up rules but pass WP:NFCC#8 --Egel _Reaction? 13:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are saying, but I believe the general gist is that you are unhappy with my removal of images from the above listed article. I closed a discussion which has been stale since July 2, 2013. It determined by consensus that the image fails WP:NFCC#8. The consensus is policy-backed, and to be honest, I do not care about the images or the article, but policy is policy. The discussion is located Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#F.C3.A6llesr.C3.A5det_for_Danmarks_Drengespejdere but will eventually be archived. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

After the discussion, changes were implemented to ensure that the logos pass WP:NFCC#8 --Egel _Reaction? 14:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I know it's a bit bold but I'll give you the new opportunity to write a correct summary. --Egel _Reaction? 14:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

No changes were made that dealt with WP:NFCC#8 after the discussion. It has been many months, and the discussion is still valid and the images still fail. As for your revert of my closure, you are reverting consensus, and I'd recommend you not do that. As an experienced, uninvolved editor, I am allowed to close a discussion per WP:NFCR and WP:CONSENSUS. You are not allowed to overrule consensus by reverting my closure. You can attempt to "give me the new opportunity" to do nothing. I closed the discussion, if you have a problem with my closure, please take it to a discussion board or notify an administrator. You obviously disagree, but you are not going through the correct processes to have any action taken. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Which discussion board?--Egel _Reaction? 15:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

These changes [3] and some before. --Egel _Reaction? 15:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Please believe me and WP:AGF when I say that I did actually look into the article, and the history and changes before, during and after the discussion. With that knowledge and the discussion itself, I still believe that there is clear consensus that the images violate WP:NFCC#8. As for which discussion board, it depends and I'm not sure that I know the 100% best place. If you "believe the closer of a deletion discussion (me) interpreted the consensus incorrectly" then WP:DRV. WP:DRV also applies if any of the first five criteria of WP:DRVPURPOSE are met. If none of those top 5 are met, I would seek out an administrator (like I said above) because per Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions: "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." I'm sorry I cannot point you in a better direction than those, but usually one of those methods works pretty well. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a little angry, disappointed because I thought I had met the wishes of Werieth and MASEM (the "Deletionists") and there were no comments on the images from them after the changes, only on the procedure. And in the discussion, I think, was clear that under strict conditions multiple logos are possible. I will take it to WP:DRV. --Egel _Reaction? 16:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

A word of advice, you shouldn't call another editor a deletionist, unless they identify as one. Werieth and Masem both focus a lot of attention in maintaining and upholding the policies at en.wp and of the WMF. If anything, individually they are each simply extremely strict with their interpretation of policy. Masem is also an admin (I'm not saying his opinion is more important; its not) but he was given the mop by a consensus of editors. Also, when you take it to DRV, please be sure to notify all involved parties, especially myself, and those who participated in the discussion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Bikini in popular culture

This page still has the Leia bikini image. --George Ho (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, must've missed that one. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Savannah State Logo

I initiated a discussion at WP:MCQ regarding your last change over concerns that it may meet the threshold of originality, which, of course, you are welcome to join in. Thanks! – Connormah (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Its all a mess up. I meant to change it from an SVG to a PNG because SVG logos have the copyright from the logo and the copyright of the SVG file. I nominated the Commons upload for deletion: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Savannah State University Logo.png. I don't believe there is any need for discussion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Also see withdrawn discussion here: Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Savannah_State_University_Logo.svg. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

SVGs as far as I know do not have separate copyights -- whoever owns the rights to the logo I think has it. I'm not too sure that the file format makes a difference from my experiences. Could you post that at MCQ? It seems that the issues here would be the design and not the typefaces (which do pass as PD-text, I think, but irrelevant) – Connormah (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

SVGs are created in code (much like computer software) and like software the code is copyright the creator. See Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, the PNG is almost certainly based off a vector image, which was created by whoever designed the logo. So I'm not sure. – Connormah (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A request

Hi, there has been a complaint about your closure of this discussion. Would you mind closing each image discussion separately in case different criteria apply? For example, some may have critical commentary noted on the image pages and some may not, and in the case of those that do, you would need to explain why it was inadequate. Having these closed separately would make it easier for others to see what's what, and would help the uploader to work out what he needs to do to have them kept. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

In progress, although the discussion was mostly a general one, I will explain the more specifics. I've also commented on your talkpage. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Question on use of record label scans

Hi, looks like you approved a record label scan for use at Jerden Records but not at Flip Records (1950s). Seems like a label scan should be permitted to illustrate the record label layout, credits, numbering system, etc., and a quick survey shows that many other record labels are illustrated in this way. Why was the Flip example rejected? Thanks! Relbats (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

If there is disputes about use of non-free content, the discussion is taken to WP:NFCR. There was a discussion for each image individually. I simply closed each discussion and therefore my name is attached to the images. One discussion only focused on the fair use rationals (specifically on the image for Jerden Records) see discussion here whereas the other discussion focused on the criteria at WP:NFCC (discussion here. To be honest, the Jerden Records image probably fails the same issues the Flip Records image does. But, in the same breath, the Jerden image is probably in the public domain as {{PD-ineligible}} and the other one may be as well. I know this has opened more questions than given you answers, but I hope it is a start. If you have further questions, don't hesitate to ask. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Note to self

Done. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)