User talk:TLSuda/Archive 6

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 4

→

Wódki polskie

This is regarding my file (Wódki polskie - Krupnik Staropolski, Absolwent, Śliwowica Podbeskidzka, Soplica Wiśniowa, Żołądkowa Gorzka, Żubrówka.jpg) that you deleted. I would like to point out that there was a discussion regarding this file and consensus was not reached. The claims on which it was tagged were invalid. Therefore, I request that this file be undeleted and brought back. I know that this is possible as I've read about it earlier. If you do not comply, I will take things further. I do not wish to be rude and I have nothing against you as a person, it's just that I've had some bad experiences with Wikipedia and would prefer to be straight to the point this time. I hope your decision was simply made in haste and you did not mean anything by it. Thanks for your time. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I know that you've stated that you are not understanding the copyright jargon that is being thrown at you, but the issue is not resolved. The situation is the image fails WP:NFCC#1 & #8 in that it could be replaced by a free image. WP:NFCC is Wikipedia policy, something that all users must follow. I suggest that you read it when you get the chance. I understand that you took the photo and own the copyright to the photo, but you do not own the copyright to the bottles. My decision was not wrong or hasty. I ready every bit of discussion on the image page and on WP:PUF, twice, the first time on Friday and again today. If you were using a picture of one of the bottles (only one) to show that specific bottle on a specific article about that specific brand, that would be acceptable under our policy WP:NFCC. Because you are trying to identify Polish bottles in general, your image could be replaced by older bottles that are Polish brands.

Basically, since you don't own the copyright to the bottle, your photo contains copyright material. Because of that the image is seen as a non-free image on Wikipedia and therefore subject to our policy on non-free content: WP:NFCC. The image must meet all of the criteria of that policy. The first point says that a free alternative cannot be created. In this situation, a free alternative (not exact) image could be created and used. The eighth point says there must be critical commentary and that it would hurt the reader's understanding of the article if the image were to not exist. Using your own words, the image is only for identification, to show that the companies exist and what the bottles look like. The reader does not need to see a picture of vodka bottles to know that they exist or that those specific brand exists. Sourced text can tell a reader that information.

I hope that gives you a more thorough explanation. My deletion was nothing personal against you or your work. It was simply the carrying out of policy. Remember that deletion of images (or any content) that fails Wikipedia policy does not need a consensus. If you still think that the image is necessary, the proper venue is WP:DRV. Do note that if you open a deletion review, and you have no new information than what has already been discussed, there is low likelyhood that the image will be undeleted. Let me know if you need any assistance. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being the first person to actually explain this to me and it is good to know that you made an informed decision. However, you say that "[my] image could be replaced by older bottles that are Polish brands" when I have stated repeatedly during my discussions with Stefan that this is not the case. The purpose of the image was to show contemporary brands using one image instead of having to cram multiple files into the article - not to show older brands that don't exist (or older versions of brands that look nothing like their contemporary counterparts). Stefan's and your arguments are still just that - arguments for your interpretation of the rules, not actual facts and I hope that you know this. Moreover, I think it is quite obvious that, when whether something actually fails Wikipedia policy or not is debatable, deleting such a file without consensus is technically against Wikipedia's rule of giving everyone equal opportunities and not putting one Wikipedian's view above that of another. Perhaps this is where the rules of Wikipedia fail us rather than we fail them.

Nevertheless, I shall not continue this since it has only become frustrating and bears no fruit. Besides, you actually explained things to me, you have shown superior understanding of copyright jargon, and so on. So basically, I respect you; I also understand now that persisting would most probably be futile for said reasons. The world would be a much better place without copyright (or at least without copyright in its current form). Thank you for your time. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand that you are wanting to show the contemporary brands, but a picture of the bottles is not necessary to show that the brands exist. Simply discussing the brands in the article is enough to show the reader that they exist. If you felt that it was necessary to the reader's understanding to see the brand's bottle, that would be an acceptable use, but only an image of one bottle and only on that brand's article (if it is notable enough to have a separate article). I know copyright and WP policy regarding images is very depressing and often does not help, but I hope you continue to contribute. Feel free to come to me for anything, any questions, etc. If I can't help, I will push you in the correct direction. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

So what was wrong with all of my other files? I had a discussion regarding them with another Wikipedian and he helped with modifying them accordingly so that they could stay. Why did you delete those? I'm quite sure that there was nothing wrong with them. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

First and foremost the files were deleted because no discussion was made to support the inclusion of the files at the deletion discussion. Two editors supported deletion on multiple of the files, and none supported inclusion. Second, most of the articles had other images that are currently considered free (but may not be) and therefore the images fail WP:NFCC#1 because there is nothing unique about the bottles in your image that is discussed in the articles. Adding a FUR was a step in the right direction, but that issue was not even discussed in the deletion discussion. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I assure you that Soplica Wiśniowa.jpg was the only image on Wikipedia for Soplica and Śliwowica Podbeskidzka.jpg was the only image of a Polish slivovitz in that article. I request that those two files are undeleted. It is becoming extremely frustrating that much of what I try to do for this encyclopedia is challenged and removed along every single step of the way - often without even letting me know. Is this how people repay a fellow Wikipedian for spending time on improving this very flawed website? By making it all a waste of time? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

deletion of File:Marcus Belgrave, press kit photo, m trumpet leaning.jpg

Hi, we have an email from the photographer ok'ing use of this photo and it went to OTRS. can you restore in the meantime? I think it's just a process snafu. thanks. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've checked the OTRS and found the appropriate email. I have replied via email requesting for information about permission and more evidence of release from the author. As soon as that comes in, I can undelete the image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Edward Vielmetti (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Any update? Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

None yet that I can find. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup error

Hi there- this is just a quick note to apologise for a small but important mistake in the last WikiCup newsletter; it is not 64 users who will progress to the next round, but 32. J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Conseil du Scoutisme polynésien

You closed that as no consensus at the same time that I removed the images per that discussion. Can you please change your close? Sven Manguard Wha? 00:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I have. I literally checked the article 10 seconds before I closed it. You are mighty fine accurate. As it was a BOLD closure, you could've reverted my closure. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Changing someone else's close is something that I would prefer not to do when possible. Thank you for closing all of those, by the way. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm going through and BOLD closing every discussion that's been open over a month. Most of them have been listed at WP:ANRFC for over a month too. These discussions won't ever get closed otherwise. Should I keep an eye out for any more discussions that you are going to take care of? TLSuda (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope, thanks. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atlanta Police Department, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Virginia Highlands (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

File upload

UserGogo212121 Hello TLSuda Can I upload from this site http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/ Gogo212121 (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Images from that site are copyright, so they cannot be used on Wikipedia. You might take a read of Wikipedia:Image use policy to get a better understanding of what is free. Most websites do not have free content. TLSuda (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the RFC closure

Thank you for the clear, concise RFC closure at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_151#RFC:_Month_abbreviations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries, there was a clear consensus, it really just needed to be formalized. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

File:MiramaxPoster.jpg

Why was File:MiramaxPoster.jpg deleted? The FFD had a consensus to keep, judging it as being in compliance with NFCC 8. ViperSnake151 Talk 03:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The there may have been two votes to keep, but the file still violates policy and that means it needed to be deleted. The image fails WP:NFCC#8, plain and simple. The two arguments in the discussion would have been good, but neither is really covered in the article. For instance, "drastic change in tone and marketing of the film": the marketing is not discussed in a way that requires the use of the poster to understand how it was changed. Disney-like musical is a very powerful description that gives readers an understanding of how it changed. The poster is a different version of the film, but you do not need to see the poster to understand that there was a different version of a film. Alternative posters (for any reason) are usually not acceptable per WP:NFCC because they lack context. There is nothing in the file that if removed would be detrimental to the understanding of the article by the reader. Basically before deletion, the file was only used for identification, (which we give some exception to), but did not meet the required WP:NFCC. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello TLSuda, I'm here onbehalf of WP:ORPHAN in which you are also a participant. So, we want your opinion to a WP:ORPHAN related matter. It is a proposal by Technical 13. Please have a look here. Your opinion (i.e support, oppose etc) are very much appreciated there. Thank you. By Jim Cartar through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

..for deleting the unused versions of the Anime/Manga files I uploaded. Keep it up. Best. —KirtZ^Mail 11:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Just cleaning up a bit. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your close of Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_March_30#File:2014.03.29.torso.sculpture.at.rodeo.dr.and.dayton.way.beverly.hills.CA.jpg

I'm sorry to bother you, but do you mind explaining your reasoning for this close? It seems to me that this image is no different from the ones on Academy Awards and so on.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably The Emmys is a better parallel, since then we avoid the whole Australian thing.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Basically the file still has WP:NFCC#8 issues. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good argument in a deletion discussion because there very well may be issues with those articles too. Just because another article has something doesn't make it right. If it did then we would not ever enforce copyright violations. In this specific case the statue is only barely mentioned in the article, and not it a way where we require the image to be seen. For WP:NFCC#8 to be satisfied, there needs to be critical commentary that is sourced from 3rd party WP:RS. This commentary cannot just describe the statue or where it is, but rather content that requires the reader to need to see the statue. If you can gather that content and include it in the article, let me know and I will happily reinstate the images. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Got it. What does the word "critical" mean in this context?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Necessary. It means to not just add random information to the article that isn't notable or relevant just to include the photo. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. Something more than the fact that the city commissioned the statue specifically for the location, that a model of the statue serves as part of the award given in conjunction with being included in the location, and that a stylized image of the statue appears on the commemorative plaques? I'm kind of at a loss about this. I didn't mention the Emmys as an "other stuff" argument, it seems precisely parallel. More than 50% of the body of the article is about the statue because it's so essentially tied to the subject. I'm sorry to be confused, but I really don't understand.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I can understand the confusion. Copyright is a pain in the you-know-what and our polices in working with files are equally tough to understand. this is why there are so few editors who work in this area. Let me try to approach this another way. Everything in that paragraph is about the statue, but nothing actually gives a reason for the reader to see. Right now with the current text, the image would just be used for identification, which is not enough for WP:NFCC#8. If there were sourced from WP:RS information about why the statue looks that way or how it is a symbol of something or another (etc), that would cause need to see the statue to understand what the article is saying. Something along those lines, where you really have to see the statue to understand what is being said. An metaphor would be like a science textbook having text that needs a figure or chart to understand the text. It would be stretching it to put that information in the article that it is in now, but if you could find it, that would be the most acceptable. Does that make any more sense? Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It makes total sense. Thanks for being so patient with me.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You are the patient one. And thank you for trying to understand the mess that is this place sometimes. I'm always happy to help out editors who are willing to collaborate. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictures You Deleted on April, 5

I was wondering how the pictures I added of File:Rob Smith and Senator Thune.jpg and File:Jack Fitzgerald Calls on Ways and Means.jpg violated the non-free content criterion number 1 rule. It doesn't seem to me like adding these pictures would violate that rule since there is no free equivalent to these pictures that could be found or created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If you could explain to me how these two images violated this rule I would greatly appreciate it. Also, if the pictures do in fact violate this policy, is there any way I could upload these images anyways, as they are essential to the Wikipedia entry on Americans Standing for the Simplification of the Estate Tax, which I have submitted and is currently under review. The image of Jack Fitzgerald is also necessary for disambiguation purposes since there is an existing Wikipedia article for a different Jack Fitzgerald, which is not relevant here. Please get back to me when you get a chance. Thanks so much. Best, HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Basically they fail WP:NFCC#1 because they can be replaced. They are not required to the understanding of the article and are just used to make the article look good. All of the people in the photos are still alive so new photos could be made. Also, since some of them are government related, the US government might have free photos of the same people. In addition to failing WP:NFCC#1, they also fail WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. Therefore they cannot be used on Wikipedia for any reason. Also, for the time being, the one article they were used in is in the AFC space. Non-free files are only allowed in the article space. As a side note, using an image for disambiguation purposes is not acceptable (especially as a non-free file) but there is a disambiguation page for people named John or Jack Fitzgerald: John_Fitzgerald_(disambiguation). I hope that helps. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

O alright I guess I did not fully understand the policy then, thanks so much for clearing this up for me I really appreciate it. Best, HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Kate Lambert.jpg and File:Kato post apocalyptic steampunk.jpg

You just deleted File:Kate Lambert.jpg and File:Kato post apocalyptic steampunk.jpg, stating, "No evidence of permission for more than 7 days." However, permission was sent by Kate Lambert herself on April 2nd to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I know, because I asked Kate to CC me, and I also forwarded my CC to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on the same day, just to make sure it was received promptly.

"I am the copyright owner of the images on Wikipedia named "Kate_Lambert.jpg" and "Kato_post_apocalyptic_steampunk.jpg", and I give permission for it to be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. ~ Kato."

Can we please rectify this immediately? Thank you in advance. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

As an OTRS volunteer, I have seen both emails, and there is currently not enough information. I have responded to "Kato's" email on the request. If adequate permission comes in, I am more than happy to reinstate both files. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Martin Carlos Alarcon.jpg

Just a heads-up (I now see you weren't notified earlier) – there was a request about File:Martin Carlos Alarcon.jpg posted at ANI, and I've restored it, seeing as the problem appeared to be the pure formality of having left out a routine non-free content tag. I assumed you wouldn't object. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks, I would've done the same if I had been notified. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Joey DeFrancesco on Oran.jpg

Wondering if you can restore this file. I notified the copyright holder and they informed me that a permission email was sent. Not sure if there is anything additional needed to restore the file. If so, please let me know. Thanks. --MartinEllroy (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

When the file was deleted, no permission had been received, but it looks like permission has just come in, so I will restore it momentarily. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

All Monsters Attack

Hi I noticed you tagged the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Allmonsters.jpg asking for a smaller file. I uploaded a smaller file just now. Does it suffice or should I use a smaller one?Giantdevilfish (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That is probably acceptable per WP:NFCC policy. Personally, I like smaller, but I'm not going to complain. A general rule of thumb is non-free images should not be any larger than necessary. Often, in articles, the image is no larger than 300 pixels and that is generally enough to see all of the detail necessary to have an understanding of the image. I personally cannot see a good reason to have non-free images much larger than that, since that would be enough for usage. So in this case, you're good. I've gone ahead and tagged it so the old version will be deleted. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Maxime Chaya receives Guiness World Record

Hello, I just would like to know how can i get this picture back "File:Maxime Chaya receives Guiness World Record.jpg" , and i sent a message to permissions-en@wikimedia.org but no reply.Thank you. Stendek008 (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

When there is a deletion tag for an image not having the appropriate permission, admins generally delete unless they see an {{OTRS pending}} template showing that permission has been sent. I have found the permission for this image and reinstated it. Also note that often times, including right now, OTRS is swamped and we are over 30 days behind in responding to emails and handling requests. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons help

Hey I was wondering if you can tell me if this image is eligible for Commons as it is. I was previously notified by another user that it might be, but I'm not quite sure. —KirtZ^Mail 15:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Its not. The Flickr photo is copyright all rights reserved and the image itself is an advertisement which usually has its own copyright owned by the creator or the company that the advertisement is for. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate it. —KirtZ^Mail 15:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Velvet Rope Tour photos

Hello, I've noticed a few images of Janet Jackson's "You" music video depicting tour footage on The Velvet Rope Tour article were deleted. There's many images of the tour available, however, none seem to be free or have a CC license available, leaving the only replaceable alternatives to be images from the music video. There were five images, each critically discussed within the article and meeting the guidelines of acceptable NFC under 'Video Screenshots'. In this particular case, could the images be reuploaded and used within the article? User5482 (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

In this case, consensus determined that the files you are talking about did not meet all of the criteria of WP:NFCC. The discussion was at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_50#:The_Velvet_Rope_World_Tour. Therefore, as the images were in violation of WP:NFCC they were deleted. Unless they can meet all points of WP:NFCC, they will be deleted if they are reuploaded. If you feel that you can change the article in a way that would make some (but certainly not all of the images) necessary to the understanding of the article (WP:NFCC#8), you should do that first. Then I can work with you to make sure the images are necessary and undelete them. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

On the talk page, it says the photos were only removed as they would be replaceable by images taken by concert-goers, but no free alternatives seem to exist. Based on the guidelines of WP:NFCC, each photo fit the criteria as there are no free equivalents, they were minimal usage, had contextual significance (each performance photo from the video was critically discussed within the article), and are video screenshots, which meet the acceptable image use policy. I'd like to restore the five of them if possible, looking at several recent pop concert articles there's been up to ten to twelve tour photos in comparison. I think in this case five would still be minimal as each image was discussed within the article's critical reception, synopsis, and influence sections. Regards, User5482 (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Just because you haven't found any free images does not mean that they do not exist or that no free alternatives could be found. It also doesn't mean that you cannot approach someone who has a non-free image and ask them to release it under a free file. It looks as if there are a lot of images on Flickr for the tour that you could see if someone would change to a free CC-by-SA license. Many editors have had great success for that. Also, the discussion noted that the images were from a music video and would be appropriate about the music video, because then they really could not be replaced. There were many concerts within the tour, but only certain shots were used in the video. As a final note, 5 non-free screenshots is way beyond what is necessary to the understanding of the article and frankly, in my opinion, fails WP:NFCC#3. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The images on Flickr are of her two most recent tours and not this one in specific. I've attempted to contact a few websites with tour images who refused to allow their usage, that's why I'd like to use the music video images as an acceptable substitute, as they seem to be non-replaceable. I do understand the rules of WP:NFCC#3, but as mentioned there's several pop concert articles with ten to twelve tour photos on them, which is excessive though remain untouched. Would at least three-four be able to be placed back on the page? User5482 (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, TLSuda. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Fdizile (developer) 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Carrie Newcomer In India Monsoon.jpg

I obtained the required permission/license from the owner and uploaded Carrie Newcomer In India Monsoon.jpg / [1] with the required permission. Then on April 3 I received notice that evidence of permission/license was also required. I contacted the owner and this was sent to the proper email address by the owner of the image on April 4th. (I have a copy of the email) I wrote on the notice, the image page and the image talk page that evidence of permission/license had been sent. Then you deleted the image on April 10th. I assume that the image deletion has been running on too short of a cycle not in sync in the lead time for processing permissions. Can you restore the image? I'm hoping that the permissions people don't toss the permission during the gap because there is no image to attach it to. Thanx. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

A few answers to your questions. First, I'm an OTRS volunteer, so when I saw the tag that permission had been sent, I searched for it. There is currently over a 30 day backlog, but even through the updated tickets that had not been answered I could not find an email releasing permission. If you could tell me what the subject was or what address the email came from, I can try to find it again. Second, like I said there is a backlog, and sometimes that means photos are deleted, but whenever permission does come in, or eventually gets processed, the file can and will be restored. We don't throw away permissions for images, as that would not help the project in any way. So, if you can help point me in the direction of finding the email that was sent in, I would be more than happy to restore the image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It was (sending time) 9:52 AM April 4th, and the subject line was one word "Permissions". (distinctive! :-) ) I can give you more details (or a copy of it) by email if you wish. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I will look for it, but if you want to send me a copy using the Email user feature that could help. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I've found the email, but we need permission from the photographer, not the subject. I've replied and requested more information. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be from the owner of the image. And, in fact, if the photographer is not the owner they are unable to grant permission. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Image you have deleted File:FM at Crewe 26th July 2009 245 003.jpg

Re your deletion of the above file ("Editor's summary: No evidence of permission for more than 7 days"): The required email from the image creator/owner was sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on 30 April 2010. Another copy was forwarded on 6 April 2014. Please rectify. Dreamweaver38 (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Permission seems to never have been received from 2010, and since there was no {{OTRS pending}} to let administrators know that permission has been sent so we can look for it. In the future, follow the instructions on the deletion tag to ensure that the file isn't deleted. I will see if permission has been received (I'm also an OTRS volunteer). If we have it I will restore the image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've found the permissions email releasing the image. I've restored the image and tagged it appropriately. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reversing your deletion. The licensing section on the file page said "Unless a link to a webpage with an explicit permission is provided, or an email from the copyright owner is sent or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, the image will be deleted after Sunday, 13 April 2014." So I re-sent the original copyright email from the owner. The section also quoted "Please remove this template if a link to a webpage with an explicit permission is provided, or a tag with a volunteer response team ticket number has been added." There was no specific instruction to create a {{OTRS pending}}. So as far as I am concerned I had followed the instruction. Thank you again. Dreamweaver38 (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I was talking about the template on your talk page which you responded to. "If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion." I'm just glad we have the image, its extremely encyclopedic and makes a good addition to the article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Cannabis drug close

This is a completely non-serious close. What were the guidelines arguments and how did they stack up? What was the actual basis of your call? And what is wrong with trying to get the title of the article right? I'm asking that you undo your close and leave it to someone who can take the matter seriously since obviously you did not. Otherwise, I am certainly going request a review. Msnicki (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a completely serious review, and if you don't agree with the outcome, I'm sorry. Sometime you, and the other editors involved in this article naming dispute need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. There is another requested move discussion opened today, which is even more in bad taste than an RFC opened during a move review. My close is simple. These are the same arguments that are included in the move review, albeit maybe a few more voices chiming in. There is a block off text that I've read over three times that really does not make any good arguments one way or another. I've read the whole discussion through, starting with the original move request through the move review to this RFC and even the new discussion opened today. The little bit of discussion that is legitimate is backed by sentence fragments within policies, and this whole discussion back and forth has just become an editorial-based discussion. These sentence fragments that are being used to push either side can easily be construed to either side if put just right. This is silly. Stop wasting everyone's time arguing over this nonsense. Go do something productive. TLSuda (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Cannabis (drug)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Cannabis (drug). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Msnicki (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I am awarding you a barnstar for taking the time to close the discussion at Talk:Cannabis (drug). You have a lot of dedication to take on such a close. 81.135.61.62 (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this, and thank you for your work at trying to get assistance at WP:ANRFC. Its noble to find new blood to assist, and I wish you the best of luck. I think, though, that this is obviously a hard battle to fight to get more admins and editors to participate in closing discussions. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

You know how there's {{subst:orfurrev}}, well I was wondering if there's a similar template to have unused versions of images put up for deletion faster than going to the Speedy Deletion's page. —KirtZ^Mail 18:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. {{Orphaned non-free revisions}} (full version of what you listed) is the tag for deleting unused versions of non-free images. {{Non-free reduced}} is for deleting unused larger size versions of non-free images that have been shrunk. {{split media}} is used when there are two different images in one file's history. If its a free image with multiple versions, it is acceptable to keep those versions. I'm not sure if this is what you are asking, if it's not, please let me know. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear. I meant is there a template that I can use on a file that would nominate previous versions to be speedily deleted within at least 24 hours? At most, less than a week. —KirtZ^Mail 21:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Only if the version is an dubious copyright violation. Then you could use {{Db-filecopyvio}} with the url for evidence. You would probably also want to specify on the file description page that its just the revision that is the copyvio. Aside from that, we require the 7 days to give editors a chance at discussion or remedying the issue. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That's really helpful. Best. —KirtZ^Mail 21:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Question on permission for video at File:Francisco_David_Mercado_Interview.ogv

Hi TLSuda,

Here is copy of email I just sent today to: permissions-en@wikimedia.org as you requested. Thanks, Dave Mercado

I've seen to the permissions sent to the OTRS and I've responded via email. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for help. Dmercado (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

File:St Josephs College Reading logo.png

Hi TLSula. You tagged this image that I recently removed the border from with {{Non-free reduce}}. I'm guessing, possibly incorrectly, that you meant to use {{Non-free reduced}}, which I think would cause the previous version to be removed? If that's the case, should I be similarly tagging non-free images that I've removed the border from myself? And thank you for your "Thanks" on another image I updated - it's nice to get some feedback. --Otus scops (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's right. I left the "d" off. And yes, you're image work is great, thank you for it, but if you tagged either {{Non-free reduced}} or {{Orphaned non-free revisions}} so that the old version can be deleted according to our non-free policy. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

In the future, if you see I've made a mistake like this, feel free to correct it for me if you feel comfortable. If not, let me know and I will do it. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't certain that you'd left of the d rather than meaning that it needing reducing in size (which I did think would be difficult), so I thought it best of check. I'll go back and add this tag where appropriate on the other images I've updated. Thanks, Otus scops (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WAFC True Oldies Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WAFC True Oldies Logo.png. 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. TLSuda (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

‎File:Microsoft WebMatrix screenshot.png

Hello, Timothy

I was hoping you could help me with ‎File:Microsoft WebMatrix screenshot.png. This file is damaged beyond repair as a result of bad algorithm being used for downsizing it. The solution is to temporarily restore one of its past revisions, downsize it properly and re-upload it, then delete the past revisions again. However, only an administrator could restore the revision. So, I'd be grateful if you either restore one of the appropriate revisions (1024×768) for 24 hours or upload it to a file sharing service and send me the download link; I will have downsized version uploaded ASAP.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I went ahead and undeleted and redid the scaling with the right algo to keep the text readable, and reupped that. --MASEM (t) 04:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Masem: for taking care of this. I thought I already responded, but there have been a few EC's here recently. @Codename Lisa: if you ever need anything else, and Masem doesn't beat me to it, let me know. Cheers y'all. TLSuda (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Rust treatment

I have e-mailed three images Rust treat 1, 2, 3 .jpg to photosubmission@wikimedia.org with statement of release of copyright. I will watch my Talk page for the images or any message about them. JustAnotherUploader (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I've seen the email go through the photosubmission queue, but I don't normally process those. I will keep an eye out and let you know. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I Know Of A Truly Remarkable Free Online Image Editing Service

Whenever converting images to PNG Image files with Transparent Background, you might learn to love Free Online Image Editor as much as I do. What's so great about that Free Online Image Editing service is that it does not alter the tinting of colors, fuzz up image details, nor does it have a size limit. Give it a try, next time you're trying to upload a JPEG Image (or any file with opaque background, for that matter) as instead a PNG Image file with Transparent Background. I swear, the results for Free Online Image Editor are rather professional for a Free Online Image Editing service! DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I actually use Photoshop (which I pay a hefty fine for), but I didn't really care about making the images perfect. These are non-free images, they are not supposed to be of high quality or size (per WP:NFCC#3). Second, you know how to upload the images the way you want, why do you keep requesting images uploaded at WP:FFU? You've also come up with this arbitrary number of a file size being 100,000 Pixels². There is nothing that says this. The general rule of thumb, per WP:NFCC, is that the image be no larger than it needs to be. If the image being used on the article is being rendered at 300px on the largest side, then the image need not be larger than that. By having images that are larger in the file than the use in the article we are violating policy in that the image is larger than necessary for use. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, when images are tagged {{non-free reduce}} a bot will come resize them to a size within policy, so you don't have to do the work yourself. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, well a robot doing the resizing for me seems like nothing to complain about, for sure. Now, if only we could find robots who could perform more tasks for us in all other aspects of life. Maybe, we could even find robots who could get up early every morning and go to work, so that way we don't have to anymore. No, just kidding. Thanks for the advice. I was just being silly about the robot joke. I've always been a big fan of larger images but, well, I guess if the "Direct Source Link" is there, I could always click on that link to view the logo at its full size. Violating copyright laws is not exactly something I want to make a hobby out of. Now, are robots actual people with special types of Wikipedia accounts or are they literally an automated computer application that Wikipedia utilizes? DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I like larger images too, but I more like following our polices and US Copyright laws. I must say that you've come a long way since being an ip editor, and I'm glad to see that you are still active, and learning and becoming a great editor. Bot accounts are special accounts that are created and maintained by their bot owner (regular editors). Bots are indeed often run off of programming of many different computer languages. Some are automatic, some are semi-automatic, and some are completely editor controlled actions. All bots have to go through a screening and approval process. If I were smart enough to make a bot I might try, but I'm just not that smart. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"Second, you know how to upload the images the way you want, why do you keep requesting images uploaded at WP:FFU?" — My answer to this question is that I don't know how to upload files into Wikimedia Commons and I also don't feel like dealing with the task of uploading a PNG file if the currently-uploaded file is in a JPEG format. A lot of work. Plus, if I were to upload a new logo, it would be uploaded only into Wikipedia English (but not into Commons). I'm not sure whether it's that only certain Wikipedia users can upload things into Commons or weather I could as well but I just don't know how to do it. Plus, there's another Wikipedia user who often drops by the Wikipedia:Files for upload page and usually he uploads the logos for me. When I had past those 10 updates, that other Wikipedia user had happened not to have dropped by the Wikipedia:Files for upload page on that particular day. DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You upload files to Commons the same way that you upload here. You use the same username and the same password (the accounts are linked). If the logos are below the Commons:COM:Threshold of Originality then you would want the license to be {{pd-textlogo}}. As for uploading PNG files, you simple upload a new file, and tag the old file for deletion (using {{di-orphaned fair use}}. I'm sure Armbrust doesn't mind uploading the logos for you, he's a great guy, someone I've looked up to for years, but I know you have the ability, and I want to see you further grow as an editor. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the complements. I appreciate it. And now I feel like coming clean about one thing. Here It Is: I suppose that also a subconscious desire for an avoidance of accountability might also contribute to my ongoing reluctance to upload images myself. If I make the images too big, then I'm the one responsible for doing that but if another Wikipedia user happens to upload those files at too large of a resolution, than that's not my fault and not my responsibility (but, rather, that's in the other Wikipedian's hands). I suppose that all this reluctance to upload images myself (that I very well could upload) translates to irresponsibility and an avoidance of accountability, on my part. I wouldn't say that I consider myself to be someone who "looks up to" Armbrust (nor do I frown upon him) but, rather, I just see him as someone who has a similar tendency (as me) towards testing the limits of how large image uploads may become up to. I consider myself to be someone who one-ups Armbrust in one regard and that's my tendency to include links for BOTH the webpage that the image was obtained from AND the actual direct link itself. Armbrust usually includes the direct link only (but not the webpage that the image was obtained from) and you do vice-versa (lean more towards the websites but not the actual direct links). I abide by the compromise and include BOTH. DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I can understand the accountability issue, but with size, there isn't any trouble to be in. The file gets tagged, then resized and all is clear, nothing to worry about. When you upload a new version like today, you are attaching your name to it anyways, so now you are taking responsibility for the text that I put in the description. I have faith in your abilities, and worse case, if you mess up, it can ALWAYS be fixed. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You're one of my favorite resources for upload requests for smaller logos. There's been a logo that is available only at a very small size. This logo displays within a SWF animation file. It's the logo for WSYY-FM and it displays in this link here (upper, left-hand corner). I suppose that a "Print Screen" procedure and a copy-and-paste into MS Paint (or Photoshop or whatever) could render a PNG out of that SWF file. And, briefly I will state for the record that I often did possess quite a doomsday paranoia type of speculation stance towards what might become of my Wikipedia status if I things were to go wrong. I don't want to become one of those Wikipedians who gets his account blocked or disabled. I want to be one of those "Legit" Wikipedians who does not wear out his welcome on this wonderful website (excuse me, I mean online encyclopedia and knowledge resource). Of course, this WSYY-FM logo situation begs to ask the other question, "When does a logo become too SMALL to use in a Wikipedia article?" I'm also feeling sort of uneasy about your desire to shrink (sorry, I mean reduce) the logo for WWLL even further. How about we negotiate, larger dimension can equal 350. If so, I can shrink it right now to that size. And this whole negotiating thing is not me taking up a confrontational attitude but, rather, it's just me being reluctant to shed some old habits of "Bigger Is Better" (and it's also an ounce of desperation, I suppose). DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't replied sooner. As for the small image, I believe it is too small for use. It does not even identify the station. You could reach out to the station to see if they have a larger one. Surely using Google you could find an email address. As for being blocked or banned, that isn't something that just happens. We give new editors the benefit of the doubt by first warning, then if the situation continues trying more involved alternatives before getting to that point. You might make a mistake, but that can always be remedied. You know that I know that you are a good editor, so I'd be happy to stand beside you or work with you if a situation arose.

As for the WWLL logo, the article that it is used in only shows 220px width. I cannot fathom any reason why we need an image to be twice what is actually seen on the article. Especially when there is a link on the file description page to see the full-size image for anyone who was curious. 350px would be less, and I would probably not bring it up again. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Crimea decision

You know, if you'd put half as much effort into explaining your Cannabis (drug) decision as you did into this one, I'd have accepted anything. Msnicki (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I know you won't believe me, even if I showed you my hand written notes (which I do keep). I was prepared to close that discussion in a similar manner, but when I went through and read the move discussion and the original discussion, and the newly opened discussion and realized that there was nothing new to add. It was just repetition of the same information over and over. I gave it the only close it needed, and I'm sorry that you disagree. We will see how the move review goes, but I feel confident that I did exactly what was necessary. I'd also like to point out that there was a discussion on WP:ANI just before my close about why there are so few closers. Before I even started my close, another editor pointed out that editors like you who cannot accept the outcome cause disruption of the process, even in simple obvious closes like this one. Editors who have to keep arguing, long after the discussion is over and closed are the reason why there is always a backlog at WP:ANRFC. I'm done with this discussion, and I'll let the move review play out. I'm only curious to see how long before you bring this issue up again. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"Editors like me?" You still can't accept that my complaint was just exactly what I said it was, that you did a poor job of writing up the close, not that there's something wrong with me. Even if you thought there were no "new" arguments – and btw, I think there was one, namely, the whole "is marijuana the same as cannabis" question which several opponents claimed hadn't been debated fully in the RM nor considered properly by the closer – I think you should have written a close that outlined the entire set of major arguments you thought had been made and which ones you found persuasive. As it is, we have a first close that does provide a detailed analysis and supported move, a MR that mixed complaints about the closer's behavior (that he should have been an admin and that he shouldn't have introduced his own evidence) with arguments about consensus and a close that further confused, given the RfC, whether the effective outcome was a relist (continue the discussion) or an overturn (outcome reversed) and then your close which just calls the whole thing silly.

What you should have written was a final summary that simply listed the major arguments from both parts of the debate in one place without the irrelevant distraction of whatever the first closer did wrong, with an assessment of which ones were persuasive. The disjointed history through the RM, the MR and then that ridiculously titled RfC made it impossible to know what you considered unless you told us – and you didn't. Instead you just called it silly and repetitious, painting with a broad brush as if everyone repeated equally and in the same way, and said you were closing it simply to make way for a new RM. If indeed you had already done the work to create your notes of the actual arguments, I have no idea why you didn't type a few of them into the close. You could and should have done better and the fact you still can't see anything wrong with your close – never mind that yes, of course it will get endorsed – and can only think to blame and insult "editors like me" is, I think, pretty sad. When you close a contentious debate, it's just not fair to any of the participants to do without explaining your reasoning. You don't seem capable of hearing that criticism. Msnicki (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

First, I was not the first editor to say that the situation you created with the move review is the reason discussions are not closed quickly. That was mentioned by another uninvolved editor on WP:ANI (now archived). Second, whether I handled the close wrong or not is no longer the issue. Now its how you are handling yourself. If you had politely come to my talkpage asking for more clarification in my close, I would've happily given it to you. Instead, you came to my talkpage and then WP:ANRFC whining and complaining and making accusations that my close was incompetent. The close may not have been what you wanted, or as thorough as you wanted it, but it was fully correct and all that was necessary.

WP:DROPTHESTICK applies again. I thought we had gotten to a point where we just silently agreed that enough is enough. You opened the move review, I replied, and I thought that was the end. You just can't let that be, which is why you came back to my talk page to attempt to prod and poke me, and maybe even bait me. If you are going to come back to my talk page every time I close an RFC to either drudge up the past or create new arguments, I'd gladly ask you to stay away. I don't want that because I think you make valuable contributions, and I think in any other circumstance we might have been able to work well together. We don't see eye to eye on what is required in a discussion close, and you simply won't listen to what I have to say, and you think I won't listen to you. Could I have put more verbiage? Yes, of course. Should I have? Maybe, but I don't think it was necessary. Did I? No. In the end, did it matter? No. That's the most simple take on this whole arrangement. There is nothing more to say on this topic. I would appreciate if you just move forward, as I have. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

What "situation" do you think I created with the MR? The IP-hopper who dug through my edit history (but hides his own) to argue that I'd been harsh with the first closer offered a selective quote if ever there was one! What he conveniently left out was that when Dpmuk added additional comments explaining that he had wanted to relist but couldn't do that very easily with that silly RfC open but that was his intent, I apologized, told him I was completely satisfied and thanked him for his efforts. Go read the whole thing here. You could have gotten that from me, also, if you'd taken my complaint seriously. I came to you first and you insulted me. You should have just typed up a few of those notes you say you had. I understand that you believe I'd have MR'ed you anyway but now you'll never know. I don't think I would have because I do understand that none of this is clearcut, it's a judgment call and that of course things can go either way. It's in the record that that's exactly what I said to the reporter 4 days after the debate had ended. I thought I'd won but we'll see. Even if you were convinced I was just a total jerk who'd continue to be a total jerk no matter what, you should have given me the chance.

You didn't even notice that I was complementing you on your Crimea close. You did do a fabulous job there. That was twice as good as I normally see. There was the olive branch. What did you do with it? I came back not to poke you in the eye but out of some hope that if you could compare your own very different quality work on these two closes and with the passage of time for both of us, that you might say, "Well, you know what, I still think I was right and it is over, but I can see now why she was unhappy and how I can do better in the future." It's not like I don't have some takeaways as well. Hopefully we all learn something from every experience else it would be a pretty dreary existence. Do whatever you want with that. No response is necessary. I have no intent to pursue any of this any further. Msnicki (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Abaqus CAE 6.9.3.png

Hi, Timothy

Same problem with WebMatrix in this image. Same request.

Interestingly, the image description page says instead of dimension, image color depth was reduced, which means the downsizing was superfluous in the first place.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've pointed Theopolisme to this discussion, since it looks like there might be a problem with his bot. --Otus scops (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I've restored it. I cannot resize it and it look right, so you are more than welcome to. Let me know when you finish, and I'll delete the old revisions. Even though the color was reduced, I still think the size should be reduced. The image shouldn't be any larger than it needs to be for use. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've downsized image to 400px. Less than that, the result is incredibly horrible. You are clear.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Cheers, 16:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there -- looking at the history of the page, it appears that the bot was still in a test phase at the time of reduction -- the problem was resolved shortly thereafter (in response to the undesirable behavior as you've seen), and I simply neglected to re-run the bot on that specific page. Sorry about that! Theopolisme (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Bollywood Hungama

UserGogo212121 Hello TL Suda Can I upload photos from 2014 from this site http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/ --Gogo212121 (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure, you might ask User:Armbrust, he might know. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Green Arrow (The Batman character).jpg

Hi, I've undid your edit File:Green Arrow (The Batman character).jpg because you hadn't delete the orphaned file yet.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've fixed it. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

:File:Cranfield.JPG

I moved File:Cranfield.JPG to Commons as File:Cranfield.jpg, and you have deleted the original on en: - I now have a problem because I did not move it properly and it's about to be deleted. The Move bot wasn't working when I did the move, and the back-up version seems to have produced a description lacking the licence code.

Is there any way to "undelete" the original at least to see what the code was, or to find the detail of the deleted file?

Hogweard (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes, the image could be restored. Instead of restoring it then re-deleting it, I just checked the information and copied it over to the Commons file. I must've not looked over it well before I deleted the local version. Looks good now. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a Little While

Three images from "Just a Little While" were removed but met the criteria of the article. The first was an image from its music video, which nearly every pop single page has. The "filming herself" caption was only there to describe the photo as its the action being performed in the video. There was also a small image from its alternate music video, which is a different body of work centered around the same song, hence its inclusion. The second image was alternate cover art, which is also acceptable. I'm not sure why another user said its not a "true alternate cover," it can be seen here on Billboard and is on other music sources. The same goes for the "Feedback" article where the alternate single cover was removed. Can these be added again? 18:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)User5482 (talk)

A few points to note. Just because other articles have it, does not mean that it is necessary. WP:NFCC#8 requires the image needing to be seen to understand the article. While visuals are nice, in this case the music video images did not need to be seen to understand that she filmed herself. There was no sourced critical commentary about this that required the image. The alternative cover art is only acceptable if it meets all criteria of WP:NFCC, including once again number 8. Simply the alternate cover existing is not enough for it to be kept. There is long standing consensus that alternate or additional covers are only allowed when there is sufficient justification and critical commentary about the cover itself. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

In "Just a Little While," the music video is discussed in the section pertaining to it in the article, explaining its creation and plot. Can a smaller image of the video be added to that section? For "Feedback," the alternate artwork is discussed on the page from MTV and Logo although it doesn't have its own section, which would seem unnecessary. Could it be added if one or two lines regarding it are placed in its critical reception section? Thank you again for assisting with this. User5482 (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Since there was a discussion at WP:NFCR about these articles, I don't think it would be right for me to make a decision. If you wanted to open a discussion at that discussion board including these questions, that would be the best. If you get support of a consensus I would happily restore the images. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you direct me where to open the discussion? The discussions on the NFC content review are both closed and it says not to modify them. Thank you, User5482 (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Just open a new discussion. Add links to the old discussion, and bring up the points that your brought up here. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Permissions ticket #2014042110015198

I helped the user get that image up and request the release, but it never occurred to me that the wording "Wikipedia" would imply that the image can only be used in Wikipedia, although I see how that is the case given your response to the LifeTouch rep (they forwarded it to me). Would it be acceptable if they sorta state in their response that they are amending the release to read "at the discretion of the requester" or simply "CC-by-SA"? I tried to ask in Commons but apparently they've never seen one of these! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I read over the release again. It does include the phrase CC-by-SA. Its enough of a legal document that it should barely be acceptable. I'm gonna go ahead and accept it. Surely as a large professional portrait studio they would understand releasing it under a specific license. The box at the bottom for (c) Lifetouch is not checked, so it should be okay. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks so much! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

copblock.org logo

Does this fix the problem? Sorry to cause extra work.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, now I see it's been replaced in the article with an image uploaded to commons and set for deletion there. What do you recommend? Should I leave the non-free use rationale on the image I uploaded and fix the article to use that instead, or ????— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, and now I see that you've nominated it for deletion on commons. What the uploader says about the license is true. It says at the bottom of the source page: © 2009-2014 by its author and licensed under a Creative Commons - Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license unless specified otherwise. Please advise.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The Commons file is better, so that's the one to keep. I'm not sure that the company intended to release their logo under a free license, but indeed the website does release the content. Sorry about that. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Unipolar brush cell.png

Hi! I see that you deleted an image that I uploaded for Unipolar brush cell, and I wanted to know why. As far as I am aware, it does not violate the non-free content requirement #1 because there is no free alternative that could possibly replace the image. If the image violated the rules in some other way that I am unaware of, I'd like to know so I can avoid making the same mistake in the future. Thanks. -Iamozy (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

First, WP:NFCC#1 means that no free alternative could be reasonably created. (Not that none exists.) I'm not a scientist, nor do I claim to have any specialized knowledge in these specific cells, but the article directly states: "UBCs are plentiful in those regions linked to vestibular functions." That would point, to me, that any science student who is studying these cells could take a photo with a microscope fairly easily. This image could also be replaced by a graphic (including one created by our WP:Graphics Lab) that would be created based on factual data that is within the sources of the article. A graphic like that would be able to include identifying marks or descriptions and labels, etc. A well-done graphic would actually possibly be more encyclopedic that the image that was up.

As a side note, the image was used in the infobox for identification purposes, rather than being required to be seen to understand by having sourced critical commentary about the specific content within the image. This would fail WP:NFCC#8.

I hope that helps your understanding. Feel free to reach out to the graphics lab to see if one of the experts there would be willing to work with you to create an free image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! Although UBCs are common in the brain, they are not well studied or photographed. To take an image of a cell, you can't just slip a brain slice under the microscope - it usually takes multiple days and expensive reagents/equipment. A quick google of UBCs can get you 4 images of actual UBCs, only 3 of which actually show the structure of the cell. I don't really understand what's going on at the Graphics Lab and I will check it out, but if they can draw a neuron from a description and this is reason enough to delete an image, why have any copyrighted content on Wikipedia at all, if someone could possibly illustrate any concept themselves? Lastly, although the image was in the infobox and can be used for identification purposes, in neurons understanding structure is necessary for understanding function, and the structure of UBCs is the most defining characteristic about it. So it's not just a picture, it is required for understanding what a UBC is and does, especially since the structure of the UBC seems to defy what most people reading the article think they know about neurons. I will try to improve the article through text to better get this point across, but I would argue that a free alternative is not something that can be reasonably created or that the image is dispensable from the article, and I would have appreciated a discussion of this image before deletion. -Iamozy (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

HSCfootball2012.tiff

No evidence of permission? I provided and linked directly to the evidence in multiple ways: http://i.imgur.com/7SLvyFu.png

Do better research before removing images MorrisS (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

First, that is not adequate evidence of permission. Second, you did not follow the directions that were left on your talk page. Had you followed those directions, and sent the appropriate permissions to the OTRS team, the image would not have been deleted. Finally, you should assume good faith that I know what I am doing. I checked your image. There is no evidence that they are the copyright holder, nor is there evidence that that is an official account that has permission to release image. Also, the image must be released under a free license, and in this case you are just "welcome to use the image" with no license or specifics. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Unfortunately, I never received notice of anything on my Talk page, so I never had the opportunity to do anything. All I saw was that the image was deleted. I'll take care of getting the correct licensing... maybe have them just upload it directly to wiki. MorrisS (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

On your talk page on 24 April at 22:10 UTC you got a message about the pending deletion of the image. That gave 7 full days before the image was deleted, which is often enough time to get an email through to the permissions volunteers (which I am one of). I'm sorry that you did not see that message in time. If/when permissions comes in, I will be more than happy to restore the image myself. We have these policies in place, not as a form of punishment, but rather a way to prevent Wikipedia from committing copyright violation. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Sorry for being harsh in my first message. I was surprised and confused. I asked the original person that took the picture to send the email with permission for free use. MorrisS (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just processed the ticket and I requested a bit more information from the subject (not named for privacy reasons). As soon as that is resolved, I will restore the image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of public domain material created by the US Government's National Security Agency (NSA) and NFC from GCHQ

The NSA documents you deleted, as noted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_48#Global_surveillance_disclosures_.282013.E2.80.93present.29 were PD-USGov. That was stated and seems obvious to me. Yet you deleted and claimed it was per consensus. Furthermore, the view was that one of the GCHQ files should have been kept as well. Please review the law behind PD-USGov and reconsider. --Elvey (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Elvey: Had you been a part of the discussion and been around before they were deleted you would understand why. But since you weren't let me explain more specifically:

File:NSA iphone location services.jpg while made by the US Government, it contained screenshots from an Apple Inc. advertisement. The government doesn't own those, and so therefore as a derivative work, the file cannot be in the public domain.
File:NSA iphone location services 2.jpg contains an iconic copyrighted photo, (also owned by Apple) from an advertisement of the iPhone with Steve Jobs, same derivative state, cannot be public domain.
File:NSA iphone location services 3.jpg contains two Apple copyrighted photos of the iPhone 4 release. Same derivative state, cannot be public domain.

Although works created by the US government are public domain, they are not public domain if they use copyright material, and instead the government is violating copyright laws by using them. This copyright violation was most likely not intentional, as I understand the documents were not supposed to be released

As for the others:

File:GCHQ discredit a target.png is a slide from a presentation that has two logos (one in each upper corner) and therefore fails WP:NFCC#1 as it is replaceable by text. We are an encyclopedia and can source this information to third-parties, so we do not need this evidence to understand it exists. There was also not sufficient sourced discussion of the slide/image in the article to satisfy the critical commentary requirement of WP:NFCC#8
File:GCHQ discredit a company.png same thing, two logos, and text, replaceable, and not directly discussed.
File:GCHQ propaganda.png contains copyright logos of multiple companies with an online presence, and is therefore a derivative work, same situation as the works you claim to be PD-USGov.

I have no issue with you coming to inquire about these, but please do so with some good faith. As an admin who works primarily in the filespace, you better believe I understand PD-USGov. I've argued for the keep of files and moved hundreds to Commons under that license. You might think the files seem obviously to be PD-USGov, until you see that they are blatant copyright violations. If you would like, I would be more than happy to email you copies of the photos for your viewing (but not uploading) pleasure. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and patience. Now the deletion seems reasonable; it did not. Indeed, as you note, from where I was, there was no way to know of Apple-copyrighted content within the works, and don't see it given as an explanation for the deletion (except, I suppose, that NFCC was referred to); I came to the discussion after it was over, and found no rationale for the deletion that made sense. (Rather, I saw a user who routinely and unapologetically flouted the rules regarding file deletion say "The three iPhone images also appear to violate WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8, for the same reasons." It appeared to be entirely spurious and ignoring Template:PD-USGov-NSA - the only thing obviously relevant once the files and any derivative natures were invisible. When documents about GCHQ's covert propaganda efforts had been deleted, and no good reason is apparent, I wondered why. Assuming good faith, and noticing evidence of bad faith, and providing reasons for seeing the justifications as spurious, I asked you to reconsider your deletion. Surely you agree it's an alarming problem when any mention of documents about GCHQ's covert propaganda efforts is cleansed from a Wikipedia article. Now there's a reasonable explanation for the file deletions available to me. Thanks, and sorry if my identification of what seemed to be spurious arguments came off as bad faith. Cool?

I googled; I guess at least the first two GHCQ files can be found at https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ ; is that right? If not, please do email 'em and identify or email the third or links thereto. Ditto for the NSA files. If we're talking about [3] can you clarify why the logos aren't PD? They seem to qualify because either they only consist of typefaces and simple geometric shapes, which we allow, as for File:BBC2 color logo 1967.jpg per Template:PD-logo, or per de minimis,the content is acceptable; see [:File:Expo_2005_Aichi_Japan_in_Nagakute_02.jpg] which is used as an example when de minims is discussed at Commons:De minimis. And, as I see it, the logos could be removed, as exemplified in the discussion of ruling #567 there. The one logo is a circle and 3 rhombus, the other is so de minimus it's illegible. I don't see evidence that any of these defenses were considered during the discussion. (Even assuming the logos are free, I do recognize the NFCC hurdles remain, of course.)

PS Thanks for deleting File:NSA GENESIS.jpg, as I requested at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_April_15 --Elvey (talk) 06:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Those are the correct GHCQ slides. I'm still happy to email anything, if you'd like. As for the logos, they are both rather small in these images, and therefore hard to read. The JTRIG logo has a blue spider in the middle of the black symbol and the other logo includes brushstrokes in the main circle as well as a glossy effect. Both are from UK organizations, and the threshold for originality is much lower than in the US (see Commons:COM:TOO#United_Kingdom), where most logos are not. Also, the brushstrokes and the spider would possibly push them over TOO in the US as well. As for de minimis, once again the UK is a little bit more strict (see Commons:COM:De_minimis#United_Kingdom). The part that prevents it from being used under de minimis is "incidental inclusion" because in this case the logos were intentionally included. The full slides themselves, even if logos were removed, would still be under Crown Copyright, and cannot be used because they could be replaced with full text content and/or links to WP:RS about the documents.

I've realized, looking back through this discussion from your point of view, that there is a bit of an issue here. Copyright is a messy, yucky, pain my tuckus. We have editors who have devoted many years to understanding both US and foreign copyrights (including myself). These editors often seem like the heavy-hitters of the filespace noticeboards because they are so well-versed. When specific questions like yours aren't brought up during these discussions, most of this information is just second nature to these editors. We have a full understanding of these concepts so that we can look at the images and know what the issues are. We probably cut corners by not including every bit of this in the discussions, because most of this seems second nature to us. I have to take a bit more blame for not including a better explanation in the close. The close was technically correct, but not explained in a way that others visiting it would understand. Thank you for pointing that out to me, I'll try to be better about that. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. [[barnstar]], esp. for ¶ 2 and gently letting me know the logos were less simple than my copies showed. I found the policy on Commons, but can you point me to the policy that says that on en, uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is free in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work? I've done some searches of Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights, and the closest thing I find is "While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries." on the latter, which at least implies a different policy, a difference that makes some sense given the divergent project goals, and matches my recollection. Plus, 0 hits.

Note: I do recognize the NFCC hurdles. Please do email (or identify) File:GCHQ propaganda.png. Please email me the page (wikisource) content of the 6 files too. I found the NSA iPhone location services* images here: https://www.eff.org/files/2013/11/15/20130909-spiegel-smartphones.pdf Having seen them, I'm still having a hard time understanding the justifications you gave for the the NSA iPhone location services* images. The NFCC hurdles seem easily met: I would argue that if copyrighted, the USG thought the images were essential to the messages and fair use, or they wouldn't have used them- otherwise it would have been knowingly violating Apple's copyright. File:NSA iPhone location services.jpg is clearly a derivative of copyrighted work; I'm not familiar with the photos in the other two. What is your evidence/specific reason to believe they are copyrighted by Apple? (ignoring the de minimus content on the phones)? The 3 slides, with the images removed, would surely be PD; agreed? Did any of the files have NFCC sections before they were deleted? --Elvey (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no policy, to my knowledge, on En.WP that forbids the uploads of non-US works. Its quite the opposite actually (see {{Do not move to Commons}} and specifically {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}). The issue of whether the images are below TOO is still a question. On the first 2 GCHQ images (in order from above) there is the gradient in the background, the different colored waves under the header, and the whole layout of the slide to consider. I would venture that even the US copyright office would allow/enforce copyright on this content. In my opinion, these slides are more complex than the image examples listed at Commons:TOO#United States.

The image you are requesting is literally a white slide with a black outline (very basic). It contains logos to Twitter (the one that is more than TOO due to gradients), YouTube (same TOO issue, not the solid color), Facebook (this is fine) and Flickr (fine as well). The text is simple, but IMHO useless as the slide has no real content. Here is a link to the slide.

First off, remember that these slides are part of a confidential report that was not supposed to be released. It would be like an presentation from a high school student to pass English. I believe that no consideration was given to copyright laws, as the information was not supposed to be disseminated. The first slide is an obvious copyvio and could be replaced by the text from a source quote that says "The slide says .... and includes screenshots from Apple's 1984 commercial."I guess that I just jumped to conclusions that they were copyright owned by Apple as they have been used in past advertisements. The one of Steve Jobs is actually an AP photo by Paul Sakuma. The face paint iPhone 4 is a Gettys image by Toru Yamanaka. The last photo is a crop of a Reuters photo by Jeff Zelevansky. All three also fail WP:NFCC#2, remember that WP:NFCC is stricter than US fair use law. If we crop the photos, then the slide is literally just text, and it would be rather pointless to have the image with just text. We could also include an external link to the exact document that you linked above showing the slides.

I'm happy to email photos and screenshots of the file description pages, but I cannot send attachments through the email this user feature. If you will send me an email, I will respond with the attachments. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

All I want is the source -- the wikitext, which you can send via the 'email this user' feature; I don't want screenshots or photos. --Elvey (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like you're now confirming my recollection that on en.wikipedia, we accept content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries. That is, it's the U.S. laws that matter, not the country of origin's laws, yes? From that it follows that Commons:COM:TOO#United_Kingdom and Commons:COM:De_minimis#United_Kingdom, which you had brought up, aren't too relevant. Yes? "TOO"? You provided a broken link. ... Ah, you must mean WP:TOO. I've not asserted that the entirety of any slide met TOO. Images with "just text" (like this for example) are hardly pointless.

Emails have been sent per request. The link that I had meant to link for TOO was actually: Commons:Commons:TOO#United States where there is specific information about US copyright with respect to the threshold of originality. As for the UK links, those were only in response to your statements about de minimis and TOO. I still firmly believe that none of the images are below the threshold of originality in the US or the UK. I don't believe that any part of the slide is below, especially because of the background. Any fancy cropping to remove certain aspects will dwindle down the image to where it does not have the same power and they are purported to have. These slides, in my opinion, are not powerful documents like the Constitution. These images have so little text, and what is there is sentence fragments or bullet points, that they are completely useless without context. The context is not useless without the slides though. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Will check for 'em, hopefully tomorrow; gotta switch gears now, for a while. (I don't understand why you were pointing to the UK sections in particular in the first place. In hindsight, do you see that you shouldn't have? If you understand copyright issues so well, as you claim to, why am I seeing an apparent pattern of bringing up irrelevant stuff and making over broad claims? You claimed that works were copyrighted by Apple when you had no evidence to support the claims you made. Kudos for fessing up, when pressed, at least. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but given the accuracy issues pattern with these past statements about this set of images, it seems unwise to trust your claim that all three fail NFCC without giving it further scrutiny.)

I don't know why you have turned so disrespectful. I know that you and I have had previous issues, and you are constantly working to have everything your way. I've tried to be helpful. You came to this discussion after it happened. You have tried a different argument every time I've given you the information you've asked for. You don't have to trust my opinion that the files fail WP:NFCC, there was a discussion about it, and there was a consensus for it. I've just explained the consensus. I made one mistake about assuming that the files were owned by Apple (since Apple does in fact use them in their advertisements). I could've left it at that, but I took the further steps of digging deeper (something you could've done but didn't) and found that all of the photos are press agency photos, thereby failing WP:NFCC#2. Aside from that one mistake, I've given you all of the information. The information about the United Kingdom was in response to the blanket statement that the last three files fail TOO in their country of origin. It may not be relevant here, but it is relevant to that discussion. You no longer want to work respectfully with me, and that's okay. I'm finished going above and beyond for you. Good luck on your conquest. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)