User talk:TLSuda/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's Godot13 (submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's ChrisGualtieri (submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included Cliftonian (submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and Caponer (submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from Reid,iain james (submissions), tiger from Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and The Lion King from Igordebraga (submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to Czar (submissions) and Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. 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) 17:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Tangled Soundtrack.jpg

Is there any particular reason you did not close the discussion because I would like to know the reasoning why File:Tangled Soundtrack.jpg was deleted since there was disagreement on whether it should be kept, plus it had been kept in a previous FfD last year with the exact same positions. In this case it looks like you took the Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Administrator instructions#Express closure guidelines instead of the Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Administrator instructions#Standard closure guidelines. Thank you in advance of your response, Aspects (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I felt the arguments spoke for themselves. There was a consensus to delete. You quoted most of the important parts of the previous FFD. When other editors brought up the concept that if the soundtrack were notable enough, it should have its own article, you never responded. You even quoted MOS:FILM#Soundtrack about having a standalone article, which there isn't. Other editors also pointed out that the cover is not the subject of sourced critical commentary, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Your only counter argument was to quote WP:NFCC#8, but you never stated why. Therefore, the consensus of this discussion, which was determined by the quality of the arguments in relation to policy, was to delete. If you would like me to jumble this all into a formal closing statement, I am more than happy to, but I really did not feel it was necessary. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I felt it was ridiculous that people were claiming that the soundtrack was not notable when it has sources and passes both WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. I also felt it was ridiculous that an argument was made that because the soundtrack did not yet have its own article was used as an excuse to claim it was not notable because it could be created now or in the future. The image passed WP:NFCC#8 because it is being used in identification of a notable soundtrack that could have its own article, but no one had split it off from the film article, and the album cover is significantly different from the film poster. Since it is being used as idenfitication it does not need critical commentary of the image itself and since it is significantly different from the film poster, its deletion is detrimental to readers understanding of the topic. If after putting my Keep opinion, had I split off the article, would the discussion have been closed as no longer being applicable? Aspects (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Also in the future, it would be helpful, if a discussion has arguments on both sides, to actually list the reason why something was deleted/kept/merged, instead of simply saying the verdict, so that the editors know why it was closed without having to come ask you. Aspects (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing about WP:NFCC, non-free must meet all points, including having critical commentary. We have exceptions for identification purposes, but only when the subject is notable enough to have it's own article, and actually has it. We see this with television show screenshots, company logos, movies, CDs (CDs with Alternate covers), etc. If you go an create a sourced, notable article right now, I would happily restore the image so you could add it. The content must always come before the non-free image, otherwise we could be waiting perpetually for the content to be created. Its the same concept that allows admins to delete drafts if they haven't been touched in 6 months. If the article had been created before discussion had ended, the consensus would've been different (as long as the article wasn't nominated for deletion) because the arguments of WP:NFCC#8 and MOS:FILM#Soundtrack would be void as they would not apply to this situation. I understand that it helps to have information as to why something was close, but honestly, this close was so obvious. You were the only one who brought up your argument, which really didn't help since you stated the exact information that it failed. Others brought up counter points that were never refuted with policy, it was an open and shut case in my opinion. I see that isn't the case for everyone involved, but that's just how it is sometimes. If you decide to make a standalone article (as long as you could find the sources, I believe it is notable enough), let me know and I will happily restore the image for you for that article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Question about Fair Use

Is it appropriate to use the image of Ford Island in this PDF on the Pacific Aviation Museum Pearl Harbor article when discussing the museum's opposition to a proposal to install photovoltaic panels on the historic runway on the island because it would damage the visual history?--v/r - TP 19:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: That document is created by the Secretary of the Navy and their Assistant Secretary for the US Senate. I believe we can WP:AGF that the images on the document were created by the Navy, or else they would list the appropriate copyright information. As such, it is actually in the public domain as the works of an employee of the US Navy under their job duties. The appropriate tag for the image would be {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}, and the PDF would be the source.

If the image were non-free, it would meet US fair use, but would not meet our WP:NFCC policy (which is purposely stricter). The image looks to be from a map, with a digital rendition created on top of the image. It could be replaced by an aerial photo of the island and runway with a user-generated rendition, therefore failing WP:NFCC#1. The file might have issues with WP:NFCC#8, but to determine that we would need to see the sourced commentary in the article that requires the use of the image to understand. There currently isn't text on that, and the text would need to come first, before the non-free image was uploaded. Fortunately I don't think that you have to worry about that, as it seems to be a free image created by the US Government. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds like a better perspective than mine. The text I had intended to use is here: User:TParis/Pacific_Aviation_Museum.--v/r - TP 21:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You know, I just saw that when poking around. In my opinion, if the image were non-free, there isn't enough contextual significance. But the image is free, so you are good to use it. That major re-haul of the article is looking very good! Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. It's going live next week. I've been in contact with the museum and they think they can dig up a bit more history for me so I'm waiting to see what they can find. But it's almost ready to go live. I'm trying to get all of the Pearl Harbor articles to good article status so I can make it a good topic.--v/r - TP 21:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

That's exciting. If you have trouble finding a Good Article reviewer in a reasonable amount of time, let me know, and I can take a look. I went through the recruitment program, and I enjoy doing it from time to time. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Files by Kcida10

You marked File:20 ft container straight truck with 20 ft container trailer.jpg with {{PermissionOTRS}} (although also keeping the {{OTRS pending}} tag) while deleting several other similar files. Are the other files also covered by the OTRS ticket? Also, is something still pending for the kept file? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The OTRS permissions tag is correct, I must've accidentally left the pending tag. That was the only image that was released in that OTRS email, none others. I thought it was a bit odd as well, and I will probably reach out to the sender for more information. Currently, though, everything is how it should be (I removed the pending tag). Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The Ultimate Warrior

Hi.

You recently deleted the infobox image from his article. I think you were mistaken.

If you'll look at the current article, you'll see its "equivalent" depicts a middle-aged, short-haired, paintless bearded man wearing a drab suit and jacket. This depiction, containing none of the subject's inherently distinctive features, is only how Warrior appeared for three very late days of his near 30 years as a public figure. This smacks of recentism, and the weight should be placed where it's due. The article is about a professional wrestler, not a retired Hall of Fame inductee.

So, if the images don't convey equivalent information, there's no NFCC #3 problem with this one. Myself and others have looked for free content, and the best we've found are the two where his face is obscured, by his arm or Savage's. In the WrestleMania VI fair use pic, he's missing the signature facepaint symbol.

The Ultimate Warrior's active wrestling career was very brief, compared to most top names. Between 1988-1992, consumer-level photography wasn't as widespread as it became. He was back for a cup of coffee in 1996 and 1998, then one match in Spain in 2004. The combination of low opportunity and low technology hinders finding perfectly free content. 2004 being what it was, there are Spanish fan pictures. Only slightly more representative of the general topic.

Feedback would be appreciated. The lack earlier led me to assume the issue was resolved, and made the deletion that much more surprising. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is ever "resolved," especially if a discussion is not closed. Just like you thought the issue was resolved, I'm sure the nominator thought that you didn't truly show his discussion to be wrong, and that it was settled. First, the article is about a person, who is both a professional wrestler and a HoFer, as well as a motivational speaker. These are all important aspects of the person, so saying that the article is about the wrestler negates the other information included. Second, WP:UNDUE is not a valid argument to keep non-free content. All non-free content must adhere to policy WP:NFCC.

The main issue with this image is WP:NFCC#1. Although there is not an exact duplicate free image, you have multiple images, that, when seen together, any reader can understand what he looked like throughout his career. The secondary issue, is WP:NFCC#8, which is subjective, except it requires source critical commentary. His specific face paint is only mentioned twice in the article, and only one mention is sourced. That source is about the court proceeding with respect to his ownership of the gimmick. One does not have to see the face paint to understand that he wore it, but if they did File:The Ultimate Warrior RAW April 2014.jpg from later shows him, to quote the article itself, "in a mask depicting his trademark face paint." The features that you discuss as being important to be seen are not even discussed with a source in the article. His change in appearance is mentioned, but not discussed in the "Death rumors" section, but this isn't sourced, nor would an non-free image be required to understand that there was a change in his appearance that caused rumors. Its also used in the infobox (for identification) and is never referenced in the article, so any image could identify the person, as opposed to being required to understanding the article.

The way that WP:NFCC works is that you have to do more than say why you feel an non-free image is required. The article has to have sourced text that would cause the average reader to need to see a non-free image to understand the text. We have exceptions for identification purposes, but not when free content is available. If your claim that his features at a very specific point in his career are notable, I would recommend finding reliable third-party sources that a)show this notability and b)source the information that would then make it required to have the non-free image. I hope this at least gives you a better idea of how non-free content is handled, and at least a process that could possibly cause a situation where the image is necessary. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, definitely more helpful than silence.

Hadn't considered the article text as well I should have, in a #8 light. You're right that it doesn't make clear why each of the seven key elements is key. I may have mistaken some info as obvious. This guy was one of my Top 5 TV Father Figures, but that's definitely not true for general audiences. I'll get the article up to snuff before revisiting the image issue.

As for general weight, the article is clearly focused more on his time as the formerly pictured Warrior, so still think there's a recentism issue. Even considering his private/speaking/blogging life, it's always been about the symbol, if not the others. All over his various official websites, and about as iconic as any in branding. Its lack (at least in a non-plastic form, which doesn't make him look like Droopy) is a main concern, but a broader issue, for the talk page.

Anyway, I'll try again when things are clearer. Could be a while. If I don't see you then, thanks again for the advice. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

If you can get the information together, I'm more than happy to restore the image for you. Sometimes its easy to take for granted what we think is an obvious notability, but with non-free files we have to be more careful. Our policies are more strict than US Fair Use law. I don't fully understand why, but we do have to enforce them. Let me know when/if you get the information together. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The community feel and relative ease of enforcement provides more freedom for restriction. Same basic deal how and why we catch and punish our own kids more than other kids. They all need to come through our door, reeking of whatever banned substance, and we have a vested interest in making our home look respectable.

America's pirate children can dock at any port on the Web, or many of the fewer actual ports on Earth. Faced with that kind of challenge, we can either get tough and fail (looking like a bumbling villain to the public) or lower the bar and appear to be "in tune" instead. Saying you'll put your foot down only works if you've got somewhere to put your foot down. Wikipedia certainly does, and has a very clean house for it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

MFD

Thanks for closing discussions from the MFD backlog, but in the future place {{mfd top}} over the section header according to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Administrator instructions. Thanks. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Dawley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dawley_Court,_Middlesex_in_1929.jpg thanks for tagging the photo. Sorry to ask, but I'm still I'm not sure why it is considered 'not free', in that as public shot in 1929, anonymously, is that not ok for full use. 85 years surely takes it out of copyright? Rodolph (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The file is out of copyright in the United Kingdom, but on En.WP we have to be concerned with copyright in the US, specifically because the servers that host the files are in the US and subject to US copyright law. If it was taken in 1929 by an unknown author, and was never published, it entered the public domain in the UK 70 years later in 1999. If it was ever published, it would be 70 years from the date of publication. I don't see a publication of this photo, so the UK year for public domain is 1999. Due to some fancy legalese in the URAA US copyright was restored to any image that was not in the public domain by 1996. This seems odd I know, but it was the US (and other countries) way of fixing copyright issues across political boundaries. Due to the URAA, the US gives it a copyright for 95 years after the date it was published. Therefore the US copyright expires in 2024 (ten years from now) and it would then be in the public domain in the US as well. I hope that helps. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

thank you very much for kind and patient explanation. Sorry to be thick, but what does publish mean, in that how many people have to see something for it to have been considered published? Or does publish mean 'reproduced' in a book? Or does publish just mean manufacture completion date?Rodolph (talk)

Publish can have many different meanings, unfortunately. Publish can be in a book, or put on display. It can also mean printed (or developed) and disseminated. Basically, to my knowledge the only way to be sure that something is unpublished is for there to be only one copy and it has never been seen by the general public. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

If this is unpublished, then it doesn't have anything to do with URAA at all. Unpublished anonymous photographs are protected for 120 years from creation in the United States, regardless of the source country and regardless of the copyright status of the source country on the URAA date. So if this was first published after 2002, and if the photographer is unknown, then the copyright expires in the United States in 2050.

If the photographer is unknown, and unless the image was published before 1944, the image is currently unfree in the United Kingdom, for one of the following reasons:

• If first published between 1944 and 1999, then the photographer (or his heir) holds the copyright in the United Kingdom for 70 years from publication, and if first published in this period, then the 70-year period hasn't expired yet.
• If first published in 2000 or later, then the copyright belongs to whoever was the first person to publish it. The 25-year period will not yet have expired, so it will still be in force. See Article 4 of the Copyright Duration Directive.

Unfortunately, we don't know when the image was first published, and we don't know whether the photographer is known or unknown in the legal meaning. We know that it has been published by now since it is available on Wikipedia, but the first publication remains unidentified. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Notes on NowCommons deletion

Hi, TLSuda.

Thanks for your helping in clearing the queue. A few notes before deleting an image as NowCommons:

• If there are any old versions in the history of the image, they should be moved to Commons as well. I created a bot specifically for this task: toollabs:magog/oldver.php. Example: File:Donetskrepublic.svg.
• Please make sure to relink any files which are on Commons under a different name. Example: [1]
• Please make sure that the image has been transferred to Commons. Example: File:Mars Exploration and Research Rover (Prototype)-MERR.jpg.
• Please make sure that the Commons image shows proper attribution (i.e., it's not a copyvio for failure to follow attribution requirements). Example: [2]
• Please make sure that the Commons image is not a copyright violation: Example: File:BPolice flag.jpg.
• It is not mandatory, but personally, I like to make sure that if there is any discussion on the talk page (i.e., not just a wikiproject banner), I leave a marker at Commons ({{talk at enwp}}) so that users know not to split the conversation unnecessarily. Example: File talk:Donetskrepublic.svg.

A few other rules are at WP:CSD#F8 (naturally). Thanks. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

A Backlog

http://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php?categories=All+free+media&negcats=Self-published+work%0D%0AFreely+licensed+images+of+non-free+subject&ns[6]=1&templates_no=Copy+to+Wikimedia+Commons%0D%0A%3C!--Already+has+information+--%3E%0D%0AInformation%0D%0AGoogle+Art+Project%0D%0A%3C!--+Blocks+on+Commons+Transfer--%3E%0D%0ANon-free+use+rationale%0D%0ANon-free+use+rationale+2%0D%0APD-ineligible-USonly%0D%0ASplit+media%0D%0A%3C!--Shouldn%27t+be+moved--%3E%0D%0Aprotected+generic+image+name%0D%0AKeep+local%0D%0Aesoteric+file%0D%0Auserspace+file%0D%0A%3C!--In+process.--%3E%0D%0Apuf%0D%0Affd%0D%0ANFUR+not+needed&sortby=uploaddate&ext_image_data=1&file_usage_data=1

Any chance in doing your image patrolling you could take a very large axe to items on the above list to ensure every last troublesome woodworm is finally exterminated? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Nifty tool, I've never seen it before. Is the query that you set up seem to be files that are potentially lacking permission/missing source/etc? Or is there something that I am missing? Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to find images to 'rescue' for Commons, but in general images that are missing important data like permissions or sources , or which have iffy licensing should be tagged accordingly. Also if you find stuff tagged PD-US it would be appreciated if it could be determined if PD-US-1923 abroad was actually meant(I've found a few in reviewing the category that should have been tagged with the latter.)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

In Other Words

Editing File:Record lable for Kaye Ballard's recording of "in Other Words" by Bart Howard.jpg

This file can be deleted as it is no loner required. An alternative image is available in Wiki Commons.Panthus (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Fabrizio Sotti Image

Hi there TLSuda! I see you deleted the Fabrizio Sotti Photograph.jpg that was being used on the artist's page. Please note that I have resubmitted the image, alongside permission for the use of the photograph on Wikipedia through a creative commons license. I sent the image and permissions to permissions-en@wikimedia.org just a few moments ago. Please advise on the next step to get this image back up on his page.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurtinfornewcurtains (talk • contribs) 15:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

As soon as permission is received and processed, the image will be reinstated. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I've found the ticket and the old conversations. The volunteer who helped you previously has sadly passed away. I will look into this matter myself and help find a resolution. TLSuda (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done see File:Fabrizio Sotti Photograph.jpg. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Wish to recreate deleted image file - seek help

Hi, you deleted a file I had uploaded because of a permission issue. I have permission to upload the file but request guidance on how to proceed. I have had the following automated advice in Wikipedia: "If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below. 00:11, 12 May 2014 TLSuda (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Kameshwar C. Wali, New York, 27 April 2014.jpg (F11: No evidence of permission for more than 7 days)". I have an email from the copyright owner (currently doing fieldwork in Namibia) with his signed permission to upload the image. How do I proceed? Thanks in advance for your help. Blarcrean (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• I uploaded the image file originally on 4 May 2014 and sent several emails to Wikipedia concerning the process of obtaining necessary permission and furnishing various bits of proof that such permission had been granted - but I received no reply whatsoever. It was then duly deleted after seven days. I am wondering whether I can expect a reply from anyone on this matter - is there anyone out there? RegardsBlarcrean (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I saw the email and duly responded on 9 May 2014. The permission was not enough as the original copyright holder only said that it could be used on Wikipedia. They need to release the file under a specific non-free license, an example of permissions is found at WP:CONSENT. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hi TLSuda, thanks for this. I do not appear to have received the response of 9 May. I asked the copyright holder to submit a letter as per a template I obtained from Wikipedia. The text reads as follows: "I hereby affirm that I, Scott Turner, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the attached portrait image of Professor Kameshwar C. Wali, 27 April 2014, generated on a Nikon D3200, last modified at 13:18, 27 April 2014.

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [SENDER'S NAME AND DETAILS (to allow future verification of authenticity)] Scott Turner, jsturner@syr.edu. 887 Tully Farms Road, Tully, New York 13159 USA SENDER'S AUTHORITY: Copyright-holder I am the copyright holder [DATE]: 13 May 2014" I can forward the email which includes this letter with signature - to which address do I send it? And what would be the next step? Thanks for your response and guidance! All the best. Blarcrean (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have emailed the above document as an attachment to permissions-en@wikimedia.org Please advise how I should proceed from here. ThanksBlarcrean (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• I am receiving no response to my email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org - is it possible to have a response here? Should I proceed with re-loading the picture and state that permission email has been submitted? I am worried that it would be deleted again. Thanks in anticipation. Blarcrean (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue my friend. It can take a week when the queue is slow, and months when it is backlogged, for permissions to be accepted. I've been busy for a couple of days in real life, so I haven't been able to take care of this immediately. It has been taken care of. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you TLSuda - pls forgive my impatience! I've had no email response received at my address. You say "It has been taken care of." Does this mean I may go ahead and upload the image? All the best and thanks. Blarcrean (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you TLSuda, I see the image is approved and 'back' in the system. Many Thanks! Blarcrean (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

File:CasinoCards.jpg

Hello, TLSuda.
A couple of weeks ago you deleted the file CasinoCards.jpg, which I uploaded. I would like to discuss this file with you. It was a photo if various playing cards that were used at casinos. I am inclined to upload it again, since it's a photo I took. I assume the reason you deleted it was that it had the wrong fair use tags and such. That being said, would you be willing to help me find the right tags to put on the image if I upload it again? NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 03:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

A copy of the image can be found here. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 03:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The file was deleted because the image fails WP:NFCC#1, meaning that the image can be replaced with a free image. If you took the photo, the only reason that the file is non-free is because of the logos of the casinos. If you recreated the same image with a standard deck of playing cards (or had a mach up made at the WP:Graphics Lab), that image could be released as a free file. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that all I need to do is remove the casino logos and that will make it a free image, right? NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 05:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The logos need to be completely gone, and as long as you take the picture, you can release it under a free license. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 10:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Can I repost the image — with the logos — if I put a fair use rationale? NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 22:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

No. The images have to meet all of the points of WP:NFCC including point number one. If this same image was recreated with a deck of standard playing cards (with no fancy design) or in the form of a user-created graphic, the image would be free. This image is easily replaceable, so we would not accept any non-free file for any reason. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm disappointed with that answer. But hey, I didn't write the rules. I will edit the photo, show you a copy and if it checks out I'll repost. At least we can still discuss it. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 12:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I can understand your disappointment, but the Wikimedia Foundation's mission is to provide free content. We don't ever want to violate copyright laws, and we want to make our content easily reusable (as much as possible). Let me know, and we can work on this together. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

here is a new version. I replaced the logos with names of Casinos. Is that okay? NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 01:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not the best quality, and I still feel like simply retaking the photos with a standard deck would be more appropriate, but I guess its okay. Are those names of real casinos? TLSuda (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

File:70000TONS OF METAL Pool Deck Stage.jpg

Permission in ticket:2014051510021093. Could you verify and restore? Ankry (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	A very helpful administrator, extremely efficient. Susan Macafee (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Portrait of Tim Gosling.jpg

Hi , I thought I had sent it through and it was in my out tray. I have sent it now and would appreciate your help getting these three images online please ! Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Custardpieboy (talk • contribs) 09:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi TLSuda, would you please take a look at Ticket#2014051410004443? I left a note. Regards. ~ Nahid ^Talk 13:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@NahidSultan: Looked. I agree with you. @Custardpieboy: What is the photographer's name who physically snapped the photo? TLSuda (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi - I dont know which photo you are discussing - there are three? Two taken by one Hugo Burnand and the Bar cabinet by Ray Main. Both photographers have given permission - - I am sending the portrait photo permission in on 19.5.14 but he bar cabinet has been given already? Custardpieboy (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@NahidSultan: Check again, I've commented. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Checked & replied ;) -- ~ Nahid ^Talk 17:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello - I now have been told that both photographers have sent through the approval to Permissions- can you check please and reinstate all the pictures please.Thanks in advance. Custardpieboy (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Another unexplained deletion

Now where was the consensus here? No one agreed with the nominators rational. STATic message me! 01:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's remember that WP:Consensus is not a vote. It is up to the closing administrator to weigh all of the arguments in the discussion, and interpret consensus based on the quality of the arguments with respect to policy. In this case, Peripitus, was more correct, with policy. The CD itself would be in the public domain. The design and logos are simply too simple for copyright. (See {{PD-simple}}, {{PD-textlogo}} & {{PD-ineligible}}). Therefore the cover image is in the public domain. Unfortunately the photo of the cover is not, mostly due to the fact it is not simply a 2D reproduction. The effects of lighting and angle, etc, have been determined by US Courts as being enough to grant a new copyright. Therefore we have a public domain CD cover (not too uncommon these days) in a non-free photo. Therefore Peripitus' claim that the photo could be replaced by a free one (of anyone taking a photo and releasing the photo under a free license) per policy at WP:NFCC#1. If you could find a direct 2D cover, like a scan, this would be considered a slavish reproduction and wouldn't be granted a new copyright, and would therefore be in the public domain. Basically we have two ways to create a free image, and as such, the image is replaceable and in violation of our non-free media policies. I hope this helps. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion

It seemed that since no typical rationale was given for tagging File:Carroll O'Connor - 1974.jpg, and that We Hope even provided two examples of similar images without a copyright, the reason for its deletion could use an explanation. His bio now lacks a lead image. --Light show (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

1) The article can have a lead image as fast as you can link one of the other images of the subject.

2) Just because similar images are not copyrighted, doesn't mean that this one is. (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

3) There is no original source of the image. The linked source (for the first uploaded image) is from eBay. This image is plastered in watermarking and yet the second upload is perfectly clean and a much larger resolution (although your description says "crop"). I have no idea where this second image came from, do you? There is no author of the image. The other image (only one was listed) has a clear author, CBS. We need to know when it was first published, if it was this image, then by whom? There is simply not enough information to ascertain correct copyright. When we do not have this information, we remove the image until/if such time we have that information. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The uploaded "key note" photo was scanned by me from the original, which I bought for my collection, therefore better quality. I included a link to the ebay professional dealers, who generally give more background details. The term "key note," in this case with a date, refers to the fact that it's an original photo, not a duplication. Hope that helps. --Light show (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That is good information, although I don't understand why you didn't just scan both sides of your perfectly usable image instead of using their watermarked version. We still don't know who originally produced the image. We don't have a source/author for the creation of the photo. Was it made by CBS? Quite possibly. Could it have been made by someone else? Maybe. Could the image have first been printed elsewhere, or is there information missing from the photo? Possibly. The free image that was linked in the discussion had a CBS sticker on it, ergo, I would be surprised to not see the same or similar sticker if it were a CBS works. TLSuda (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Does most of that really matter? The dealer described it as an "press photo," and they specialize in selling only originals (from the negative.) There's no notice on any of them. And as noted in film still, publicity photos like these were traditionally not copyrighted. --Light show (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Notes on F8 deletions

Some notes on F8 deletions:

• When a file is deleted per F8, note that the associated talk page doesn't satisfy G8. Example: File talk:Deane Nesbitt Jr. in 2014 nesbittmusic.com website homepage.jpg
• Please make sure that the file on Commons is in the same file format. Example: File:BPolice flag.jpg --Stefan2 (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Border removal advice

Hi. Could I ask for some advice, please? I'm trimming some of the jpg images tagged for border removal with jpegtran. Bamil_Biggest_Greatest.jpg is tagged, either incorrectly or because of the single column of black pixels on the edge (I think). I can't trim this losslessly without removing a lot more than this column. Should I detag it as untrimmable, leave it or trim it in a lossy method? --Otus scops (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Otus scops: I would just leave it tagged, maybe someone else can clean it up. I was able to get most of the border without losing too much of the image. A more experienced image editor might could "brush" it out or use some other technique of cleaning it up. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - I'll leave that one as it is.--Otus scops (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Deleted File:GregKurstin2013.jpg

Hi,

I've sent permission from the photographer to use the GregKurstin2013.jpg to permissions-en@wikipedia.org twice now, once when I uploaded it and again when I got the warning message re: deleting the photo last week. I'm not sure why it's not getting logged. Is there another email I can send it to? Thanks, Julie JSFarman (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - @JSFarman:. I have located the ticket which seems to have been accidentally filed into our junk mail queue. I was however unable to view the release - please check your inbox for more details. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Connormah (talk) - got your email. Responding now. Thanks so much for taking the time. Julie JSFarman (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Connormah for looking into this. The ticket is ticket:2014051310000207 for anyone looking (also for easy clicking). JSFarman I could open the attachment, but it is only a screenshot of someone's email (no content about releasing anything). If y'all need me to take care of something, let me know. If not, I'll just let y'all handle it as you're taking care of it. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Connormah and TLSuda - I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I forwarded the email without opening the attachment. It is blank. Oops! Sorry about that. I've asked the photographer to resend and I'll forward it as soon as I get it. Thanks again. Julie JSFarman (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Replaced jpg with png - what to mark the original with?

Sorry, another question. I've replaced File:CST_Brands,_Inc.jpg with a png version, and marked the original {{obsolete}}. I think I also need to mark it for deletion, but I'm not sure what the correct method is. Is there a template I should use, perhaps {{subst:orfud}}, or is it an FFD request? Thanks!--Otus scops (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey Otus scops. You're welcome to come by anytime you have a question. Since its a non-free file that is currently being used, {{Di-orphaned fair use}} (which is part of {{orfud}}) is the best & fastest way to go. You can do a WP:FFD request, but the speedy tag is more appropriate, and usually quicker. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again - I've tagged it. --Otus scops (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Dr. Widad Akrawi Addressing the United Nations.png

Hi there; could you tell me whether File:Dr._Widad_Akrawi_Addressing_the_United_Nations.png was superior to File:Dr_Widad_Akrawi_UN_BMS2010_DI.png? Thanks, —Microchip08 (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is, but there is no evidence of permission for File:Dr Widad Akrawi UN BMS2010 DI.png so I've tagged it for deletion on Commons. TLSuda (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, the image is released into the public domain (at that resolution) but I found the larger image released under a CC-by-2.0 so I've updated the image accordingly. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Dr._Widad_Akrawi_Addressing_the_United_Nations.png is released into the public domain per otrs:2014052310015307; can you confirm that the image you've overwritten with is the same as that one, and I'll add the templates. —Microchip08 (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That ticket has three licenses. PD, CC-by-SA-3.0 & GFDL. That ticket is only for the web image (the original one) the one I uploaded over is apparently different (less cropped) though I thought it was just a larger resolution. The one I uploaded is on Flickr with a CC-by-2.0 license. We need to either split the two media, or chose one over the other. Thoughts? TLSuda (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The ticket covers two images. The image you found on Flickr is also on the webpage (scroll down a bit), and the note at the bottom of the webpage (and the ticket) states that all the images on it are public domain. If I recall correctly, Flickr doesn't offer a public domain option, so I'm guessing the uploader picked the next closest thing. I think we're safe to upload any/all of these images under PD. —Microchip08 (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't see the second image lower on the page. Seems good enough for me. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TLSuda. You have new messages at Rrburke's talk page.
Message added 12:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Rrburke (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Suda

I was wondering if you would be so kind and offer some assistance, I was just in Wiki and Commons help for an hour with no response for a Commons Admin. Previously, I posted a message on the Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard that now has not been answered, as to a question I posted. The information concerning the three images are contained in the links that were provided at the beginning of the post. I left a response to Ankry's post, which has not been answered. Greatly appreciate your assistance. Susan Macafee (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Susan Macafee: Hi Susan. As far as I can tell, its a bit messy. First, whenever you get a reply from OTRS, reply to that email (using the same subject). This will cause the emails about the same subject to be kept together, so there is no confusion. Second, sometimes you have to be patient. We're all volunteers here, even us admins, and we have full lives that we lead away from here. There is nothing that cannot be undone, so pending deletion, or actual deletion is nothing to get frantic about. We can always restore an image as soon as the situation is resolved.

As for this specific situation, I am happy to help, but I need more information. We have permission from the copyright holder that the video is released under an appropriate free license. We need to know what images that you've uploaded come from that video. This includes images that are currently in use and ones that may have been deleted. From what I can tell, there are images from the film: File:The Ribbon crossing the Arlington Bridge.jpg, File:Ribbon Reflecting Pool.jpg, File:Survivors addressing congregation.jpg, File:"The Ribbon" at the White House.jpg, File:Ribbon at the Capitol.jpg, File:Mary Frances Jastor.jpg, File:Justine Merritt Interview.jpg, File:Justine with Ribbon from Russia.jpg, File:Joan Urbanczyk.jpg, File:Justine addressing congregation.jpg, File:Howard University.jpg, File:Helicopter view Pentagon.jpg, File:Betty Bumpers.jpg, & File:A Bomb Memorial.jpg. Are there others somewhere on Commons/Wikipedia? Or others that have been deleted? If not, I've updated those that I've linked with the appropriate information.

My next question is for some other images that you've uploaded. Are the following also part of the film? If so the description pages need to be updated to reflect that Nigel Nobel is the author and that the source is the film. If not, where did these come from? The files are: File:Washing_National_Cathedral.jpg, File:The Ribbon Starts Here.jpg, File:Tying panels on the Mall.jpg, & File:California Banner on Mall.jpg

I'm also curious about File:Wash Cath Surviors 1.jpg, File:Chancel area - South Transept Balcony.jpg & File:Washington D.C. National Cathedral.jpg, where did this image come from?

Let me know and I can try my best to work with you. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply.

I have put Nigel's name with the copyright at the bottom of the cuts that I took from the video. I previously had asked Sven about adding the copyright information at the bottom of each page on April 12th, and he said it was ok. I also asked Sven about uploading the cuts and what was need for the photos. I have no problem going back and adding the information you mentioned. As more copy in added to the page for length, I may take a few more cuts from the video. The other photos are a combination of mine, Mary Frances Jaster - former National Co-coordinator for the 1985 event, and Michele Peppers, the current Executive Director. Do you want me to designate, which photos belong to each individual person?

A file has been deleted, The Ribbon Route. There is no copyright on the image. As I mentioned in previous postings on talk pages, I had discussed the image and it was viewed by Howicus and Huron in Wiki help IRC and they said the image was ok for posting. Michele sent the image to me, as she had no idea as how to navigate in Wikipedia or in Commons at the time. She wanted to get the page presentable for viewing. I eventually had to draft detailed instructions for Michele and Mary Frances since they are not computer savvy, and then be on the phone with them in order to get the photos uploaded and placed on the page. For the last four years, I have been asked if I would do this Wiki page, since I attended both days of the 1985 event, had numerous pictures, and had previous experience with Wikipedia. For the pictures listing me as the author, they are my own photos (press pass) that I took during the two day event.

If you need more information, please let me know. Thank you again, as you were the person who handled the photo of Justine that I spent two months getting the permission and release. Thank you for updating all the required information for Nigel's cuts, greatly appreciated! ! ! Susan Macafee (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

All of the images that I linked I have already cleaned up. Anytime you upload images that are from the film, you should include all of the information like I've done in the descriptions for the images. What is the full name of The Ribbon Route image? I cannot find it. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The name of the file is: File:The Ribbon Route.jpg - it has been deleted. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Susan_Macafee#File:The_Ribbon_Route.jpg

Thank you again for your prompt attention and actions. Would like to get the map restored on the page. Susan Macafee (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Who made the map image originally? Where did it come from? Has it ever been posted elsewhere on line? If so, where? TLSuda (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

From what Michele told me about the map, it was in a box of items from the 1985 event, as she has numerous boxes of items from the 1985 event. She also told me that was no copyright on the map and she has no idea as to where it came from. She also participated in the 1985 event, and thereafter, was working with Justine. Apparently, the map has been sitting in a box for almost 30 years, just like the video. Michele dug through boxes looking for items to use on the Wiki page and found the map. Were you able to find the file and look at the map? I just took a chance and called the former director of The Center for a New Creation, that was in Alexandria, VA and coordinated the DC event. She has been at a UN meeting in NY, but I lucked out, and she answered. She said that the map was a US Park Service map, which has no copyright and she used the original map for another event. Before Michele found the map, I contacted the Park Service about using one of their maps for the Wiki page and the Park Service said there was no copyright because it is government property and has free use. Let me know if you have any more questions.Susan Macafee (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope you understand this is all a bit confusing, so I want to make sure that I completely understand. 1) Michele got the map image from a box from the event from 1985, but says it has no copyright, even though she doesn't know where it came from. (Everything created has a copyright, the situation is we are trying to find out who owns it and/or if it has been released under a free license). 2) The former director of The Center for a New Creation (which coordinated the event) claims the map came from the US Park Service (still has copyright), but being a government created file, it would be in the public domain (and therefore usable). Is this all correct? If so, is there any way that we can get an email from the former director attesting to this information? TLSuda (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The former director for the center is going out to her garage tomorrow and getting the map out of a box and then calling me, concerning the map. What does she need to say in the email, and to whom should the email be sent? Again, thanks for all your help, I had a feeling the map was a Park Service map, after previously going through Park Service maps. Susan Macafee (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If she can send the email to OTRS with the information about ht being a Park Service map, that would be great. Let me know if/when she does and I will get the image restored for you. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply. Thank you so much for everything, greatly appreciated by numerous people. Will let you know about the email. Susan Macafee (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Suda,

Marie Dennis sent the email you requested this evening 5/24. It is noted in the subject line: Attention TL Suda ­ RE: File:The Ribbon Route.jpg. Thank you Susan Macafee (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Susan Macafee: -  Done image is at File:The Ribbon Route.jpg. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Suda,

The image of "The Ribbon Route" has been restored. Thank you again for all of your work on these images, very impressive and positive. Greatly appreciated. Susan Macafee (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Note on F5 deletion

When deleting old revisions per WP:CSD#F5, as you did here, please also remove the row from the table in the "File history" section. Otherwise, the file remains in the database report of files which need to be tagged with {{subst:orfurrev}} (User:Svick/Non-free images with multiple files in the history) forever, making it very difficult to find more files to tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking. I revdel'd the image so the original uploader is still attached to it. We did this per Sven Manguard's request (User_talk:Sven_Manguard#Template:Orphaned_non-free_revisions_and_Template:Non-free_reduced) because he pointed out that he was often getting messages for images that he simply reduced. Maybe you could explain better, or else we need to work something different out. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Replied there. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

South Florida Regional Transportation Authority

TLSuda. I have provided evidence that the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority is in fact an agency of the State of Florida, and not a non-government organization. Please review it here: Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Please_review.E2.80.A6- Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 18:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Photo of Ikuhiko Hata

Are you certain you were correct in deleting the photograph of Ikuhiko Hata which I uploaded to Wikipedia? As I noted numerous times, I had formal written permission from the copyright holder to upload and use the photograph on Wikipedia. Is it really true that copyright images may not be uploaded even when the copyright holders expressly wish for their material to be used on Wikipedia?CurtisNaito (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: I am 100% certain that I was correct in deleting the photo. The photo is copyrighted and marked as non-free. Non-free images can not be used if a free version can be made (does not have to exist, simply be made). If the original copyright holder (usually the photographer) has or will release the photo under a free license (including for commercial use) they can send an email through the WP:Consent process and the image would be reinstated. Permission to "used the image on Wikipedia" is not sufficient, it has to be released under a free license. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I got the idea of asking the copyright holder for permission to use his work on Wikipedia after seeing this photograph, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elusive_Quest_for_Growth_by_William_Easterly.jpg, which was also used with permission. Is this photo also being improperly used?CurtisNaito (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Although that image has permission from the source to "use on Wikipedia," it is not sufficient enough to have the image. The image is non-free (just like the one you uploaded) and is being used within our WP:NFC policy. It is the cover of a book and therefore cannot be replaced by a free replacement (because you cannot just create a new cover for the book). For non-free images to be used, they have to meet all of the points of WP:NFCC. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hansa jet

bsd. i see you deleted the pic i uploaded, if i understood correctly, because it violates "No free equivalent". the original notice it said that if i disagree, i should put a notice and explain it in the talk page, which i did to the best of my ability. only to find it arbitrarily deleted. why do you waste my time asking me to post my disagreement, just to see it summarily deleted. i understand there isn't time to haggle about every file, but if one tries to get it right, you shouldn't throw the book at him. i consider myself fairly experienced (2006), and have never been as frustrated (in contributing). --Ben Stone 03:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Benstown: You did put a notice and explain it on the talkpage, but frankly you never showed how the image would not be replaceable, rather you only stated that you had not found one. WP:NFCC#1 states that we can only keep a non-free image if it cannot be replaced by a free image. This policy does not mean that an image must exist currently, just that one could be created. The jet was manufactured from 1964-1994 and wass used by a couple of airlines, so a new photograph could be created of the plane. At least one is still in airworthy condition (see [http://www.hansajet.de/en/frames/main1043.htm source). The image that you uploaded is of a plane that is currently at Hamburg Airport in a hanger. Someone could easily find one of this planes and take a new photo, or you or another editor could reach out to the website/copyright holder (their email is listed on the website) as see if they would release that photo (and maybe more) under a free license through the process at WP:Consent. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What Prompted This Deletion?

The Wikipedia page "Elmira District Secondary School" page was established in March 2007 by‎ Dconlon268 who does not now have a Wikipedia account. I assume this would be the Dave Conlon who was in my EDSS Graduating Class and later went on to be an EDSS Vice Principal. As far as I can tell, he uploaded the image [3] when he started the page. In 2011 there was a move to delete the picture over copyright. This is what the notice on the page said:

This Canadian work is in the public domain in Canada because its copyright has expired for one of the following reasons:

1. it was subject to Crown copyright and was first published more than 50 years ago, or it was not subject to Crown copyright, and

2. it is a photograph that was created before January 1, 1949, or

3. the creator died more than 49 years ago.

The media description page should identify which reason applies.

This file is only in the public domain in the United States if it entered the public domain in Canada prior to 1996. This image can only be kept if it is also in the public domain in the US. If it is in the public domain in both Canada and the United States it may be transferred to the Wikimedia Commons.

Note: If this image is in the public domain in the US, modify the end of the copyright tag from “}}” to “|commons}}”. This will replace the preceding US copyright notification with a nomination for this image to be moved to the Wikimedia Commons."

The photograph shows the school in its pristine new condition, prior to subsequent renovations or encroachments of the town, which backs up Dconlon268's upload which dates it as from 1939. This picture was hanging at the school in the 1970's when I attended it, and may still be there.) It was certainly well into the public domain, whether or not it had been under Crown Copyright. I checked back later and was pleased to see that the picture had not been deleted.

Until now. This year the school is having it's 75th Anniversary, which is a time when many people would be likely to look at the Wikipedia page. You can see the image is included on the EDSS Anniversary site here: http://edss75.com/beginnings/ But when I looked at the Wikipedia Page again [4] I was surprised to see the picture had been deleted in January 2014 with the notation "File without a source for more than 7 days." The image was uploaded along with most of the rest of the article in 2007, which is substantially longer than 7 days. So I am wondering what this means exactly. Can you please explain what prompted the removal of the image? Thanks, Laurel L. Russwurm 18:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurelrusswurm (talk • contribs)

@Laurelrusswurm: There are a couple of things at play here. First, the only information about the image that was on the description page is: "Picture of EDSS Elmira District Secondary School original building." That means there is no date given for when exactly the image was taken. Without a date, we cannot determine whether or not the image is in the public domain. Also, the {{PD-Canada}} tag, (which was applied by a different user) specifically says "The media description page should identify which reason applies." There was no identification on which reason. The image is most likely not Crown Copyright. We have no idea when the photo was created. We also don't have a listed author, so we don't know if it has been 49 years since the author's death. Simply because the school was built 75 years ago, does not guarantee that this image is from 1939. This could've been taken later, or edited. We just don't know. According to the article, the first additions were not until the 1950s, which means the photo could've been taken between 1939 and 1950s and may still be copyrighted. Also, most of the article is largely unsourced, so we cannot even go by that information. If we have a reliable source that includes where the photo came from, when it was taken and who took the photo, we can put it back (if the file is in the public domain), but without that information, we have to treat the file as if it is not free, and therefore it would be replaceable by a current photo of the school (see WP:NFCC#1). I hope that helps. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@TLSuda: Photographs taken in Canada before 1949 are in the Public Domain. Work-for-hire photographs owned by institutions taken after 1949 have a 50 year term. While this photo may have been taken in 1939, or even 1940 it certainly wasn't taken much later, both because of the plantings evident and that the town grew up around it. Photos of students standing in front of their school bus in front of the school (dated 1940) support my supposition that this was taken in 1939. This picture shows the school when it was new, and it hung in the school when I went there in the 1970's. This is an important image because although this building is still the heart of the school today, it has been largely obscured by the ugly addition added in front. I may be able to discover the picture's provenance at the reunion next week, but it is equally possible there may not be any record. If I had a week or two in which to do the requisite research, I could probably establish it is in the public domain with circumstantial evidence. Maybe find out if it was taken by a local photographer, or by the local paper. But even if this image were somehow still improbably under copyright, fair use/fair dealing exemptions would make it usable, as a great many clearly copyrighted images are, in the Wikipedia article (even if not Wikimedia Commons) because this is a piece of history and nothing equivalent exists. — Laurel L. Russwurm 15:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You have no evidence of when the photo was taken. Your information is all WP:OR and cannot be verified. I believe that you are quite possibly correct about the date, but we need proof of the date. Hopefully you can find it as you have suggested. As for using the image as non-free, I'm afraid it still could not be used in the article's current state. It was used in the infobox for identification. There it could be replaced by a new free image of the current building, making the file fail WP:NFCC#1. The only place where it might be appropriate is in the "Building the new high school" section. Here it would fail WP:NFCC#8 because there is no contextual significance in the article that would require the image to be seen to understand the article. You need to remember that all non-free files must meet all criteria of the WP:NFCC policy. If you can get any evidence (that isn't Original Research and show it to me, I will happily restore the image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Sex Tips

Hi TLSuda, thank you for reviewing my article. I want to re post it and I've changed the about section so now it's written by me. I shouldn't have been so lazy and just copied from the website. Hopefully it goes through this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michy19 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Intercollegiate Studies Institute Student's Guide Multi-volume set.jpg

What is your opinion about this? You deleted the file, and now it has been reposted. However, the deletion request does not look very clear. I would say that the file violates WP:NFCC#8, but this was not at all discussed in the deletion request. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. You could re-nominate for deletion and include that information. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

{{Nominated for deletion on Commons}}

Note that you need to include the file name on Commons: {{Nominated for deletion on Commons|file name on Commons}}. The file name on Commons is optional if it is the same as the file name on Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Stefan2: It sure would be nice if the template description page had documentation for that. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Question...

You deleted File:Sean Haugh, 2014 NC Libertarian Candidate for Senate.jpg due to lack of permission. If I have documentation that proves permession to use the image, how to I show that so it doesn't get deleted again? Eric Cable  |  Talk  12:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You would need to send a release to the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team. The problem with the image was the lack of an explicit license from the copyright holder. Microchip08 (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what Microchip08 (talk · contribs) said. There is a good template at WP:Consent that they could use. If you want to let me know when the permission is sent, I will search for it for you as I am an OTRS volunteer. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I dealt with otrs:7563544 last week, but there was no (satisfactory) license release. Microchip08 (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Aha. I see. If you get a satisfactory license, I'm happy to restore this, or any OTRS permission image for you. Just let me know. TLSuda (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sutton Court/GA1

Hi, On 26 May you kindly put a note on Talk:Sutton Court/GA1 suggesting you would have your review up shortly, and I was wondering if you had had a chance to look at this yet?— Rod ^talk 08:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Rod, I am very sorry. I do my reviews off-wiki and then copy them over. This time I must've forgot when I finished as I thought I already had. I wish I had noticed sooner as I know you were patiently waiting. Thanks for letting me know that I forgot. Its up now. Let me know if you have questions, everything in my review is suggestions. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review which has definitely helped to improve the article.— Rod ^talk 06:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Evidence: Will be provided on request.

If you add {{PermissionOTRS}}, then please also delete the text "Evidence: Will be provided on request." Otherwise, it sounds as if more evidence is needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Objects made of chitosan.png

You deleted the file in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 May 23#File:Objects made of chitosan.png. There is now a file on Commons with the same name. Is it the same file, and does it have the same copyright problem as the one on Wikipedia? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Same image. Different author listed, but I think that the author that was listed and the uploader are one in the same. I don't think we need to do anything about it, but if you want a copy, I'd be happy to email you the information to make a decision for yourself. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi again

Can you please perform rollback here for me? All files have been restored via OTRS. Thanking you in advance. ~ Nahid ^Talk 14:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Note that rollback only is a shorthand of going to [5], typing in an automatic edit summary and clicking on "Save page". Anyone can do this. I have fixed this. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Stefan for handling this, and for showing how to do it for the future. Cheers to you both, TLSuda (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you know of anyone who may be able to assist with creating Wikipedia:High-risk images?

Hello TLSuda,

I'm reaching out to you to see if you may either be able to assist with this page, or know of any other editors who may have interest in building this page. I created this page due to seeing that an entry on WP:CSD, as a guideline for high-risk images, referenced a guideline on WT:CASC, a talk page. Given the fact that certain talk page are subject to being archived, and the fact that a policy page should really not refer a reader to a talk page for a guideline, I created Wikipedia:High-risk images using the text that was in that talk page section. I'll be honest, I feel that this subject really needs expanding, but I have no idea where to start. Would you by chance know of any editors who may be able to provide assistance in expanding this page, or would you have any input you could provide yourself? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what that page is for, so I don't know how to help, or who to point you to. Could you explain it to me a bit better? What's the purpose of the page? What are the goals? How can you quantify those goals? I'm happy to help, but I need some more information. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The goals of this page are to define to its reader what a "High-risk image" is as outlined in WP:CSD#F8. I copied this text from Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#About high-risk images to start a "rough draft" of this page. This page would explain to the reader, or any editor, the criteria that qualify an image to be designated a "high-risk image". According to the information that I see so far from what I copied over, a "high-risk image" is an image that would essentially break Wikipedia if deleted or altered, similar to a template with a high-transclusion rate or an image that is used for a system function. One such group of examples that I can provide are the images of padlocks that are used to represent when a page has some sort of protection implemented on it. (I mean, can you imagine if some vandal found a way to replace the padlock images with ... let's say chickens?) Steel1943 (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm still very confused as to why this is needed. Anytime we have a "high-risk image" (using your terminology), it should be taken to WP:RPP and then protected forever. That's the whole process as I know it, and I cannot think of any reason to change it. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Seems like the proposed scope of this page may be better as a section of an already-existing guideline. (After your first response, I was thinking this myself, but your second statement confirmed my thoughts.) Anyways, thanks for your input! Cheers, Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

GAC help

Hi Suda, hope all is well with you. Would you mind assisting me with one of my GACs, The Cockroaches, which has been languishing in the long queue? Actually, I'm competing in the Wikicup this year, and I need the points! Thanks, and best to you. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, review done. Let me know if you have questions. Should be a quick and easy clean-up. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Jena Engstrom.png

Based on the edit summary, you may have deleted one file revision too much. Could you check? Note that some revisions of the file are free and that some are unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the unfree ones (instead of just revdel) and I restored the other one. There isn't much difference, just 12 pixels. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the only difference between the two versions is the black border at the top that I forget to crop.--Otus scops (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Uploads by Aldercraft

Hi there, I'm sure you've heard about the uploads by User:Aldercraft for which we're not sure where they came out of. They're currently listed in my Sandbox to see if we can salvage any of them. User has said he was the copyright holder of a few of them section on South Africa and I believe that's correct & have moved them. Seeing that you then nominated them (well 1 out of 4 so far) for deletion on Commons, I've now asked user to send OTRS permission for them too - he's familiar with the process so hopefully it'll get sorted. Thanks & apologies for perhaps being too quick off the bat moving them. Oh, and thanks for the barnstar :) Deadstar (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I had saw something about it previously, but since the issue hasn't been completely resolved, I felt that impending deletion would be the quickest way to have this taken care of. Let me know what I can do to help. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

How does en: wiki decide when to keep something with a Fair Use rationale? Would any of his uploads apply? Deadstar (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

On En.Wp all non-free media must conform to our WP:NFCC policy and WP:NFC guideline and then you would add the appropriate copyright and non-free use rationales to the image description page. It looks like some of these images would be able to be used under our non-free policy, but definitely not all of them. The images would need to be addresses on an individual basis. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Deadstar (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Request

Can you go ahead and review and close Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 63#Thoughts on a new NFC#UUI item and add the new UUI if you think appropriate? Werieth (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I've done something.... not really closed, but I was WP:BOLD. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply to the file permission "problems".

Dear TLSuda:

Thank you for the above note where you explain your position. I do really respect the lengths the Wikipedia community goes to make sure proper copyright protection is given for images uploaded to it. I have always tried very hard to abide by these rules - but it seems now that maybe I did not understand them well enough. I am sorry - but this is all getting me really a bit down - especially as i went to a lot of trouble in each case to make certain I had the permission of each photographer.

I feel sure that, because of the care I took gaining permission, there should be no problems for Wikipedia and, in the unlikely event of ever any such thing occurring, would not my personal word that i did my very best and, in good faith, thought I had obtained proper permission for each photo, not hold some weight?

It is very difficult for me now to chase all these matters up - especially as I no longer have current email addresses for all the photographers and also that I am sick and bedridden.

I see that you have just written me another note about all the Qashgai photographs and I will therefore try to contact the photographer through a mutual old friend and colleague who I believe now lives, I believe, in Toronto.

This morning I have also written to Mr. Latta - the photographer of the photo of the Saw-shelled Turtle in the Wikipedia, and asked him to please try to write to you directly. I just hope he is still at his old address. Here is what I wrote to him today:

Email, no need to fully display, as it contains personal details.

Original Message -------- Subject: Attention: Mr. Craig Latta. Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:11:20 +1000 From: John Hill <wynhill2@bigpond.net.au> To: aftforum@bigpond.com Dear Mr. Latta: In 2010 I wrote to you requesting permission to upload your outstanding photo of a Saw-shelled Turtle to the Wikipedia. It is still accessible on the Wikipedia at File:Saw-shelled Turtle.jpg. To see it - and to check all the copyright details - including a copy of your original message giving permission, either click on this link or copy it into your browser: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saw-shelled_Turtle.jpg Unfortunately, Wikipedia seem to be becoming stricter about their copyright requirements and have questioned a number of photos I uploaded by other photographers (because I thought they would be enjoyed and of interest to a really wide audience), even though I sought and received permission from each photographer - sometimes, as in your case, more than once. This is becoming a major nuisance to me - especially as I am now handicapped and spend almost all my time in bed in pain and on heavy doses of medication. I will paste in the note I have just been sent by one of the Wikipedia's editors and ask that, if you would still like to see it on Wikipedia, please write yourself to the editor giving permission again. I am so sorry to trouble you with all this. Yours sincerely, John Hill Cooktown, Queensland ........................................................... File permission problem with File:Saw-shelled Turtle.jpg[edit] Thanks for uploading File:Saw-shelled Turtle.jpg. 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. Thank you. TLSuda (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC) I saw that you included the text of an email on the description, but email permission must be sent through WP:CONSENT. In this case, the permission would not be approved because the original copyright holder did not release the image under a specific free license. They get to choose, not us. We need a letter of permission from the original copyright holder (photographer) stating they release their image under (whatever license they choose) for us to be able to use it. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC) There is a similar situation with File:Sepik River initiations 1975.JPG, we need the written permission that you have for "free of copyright." The same is true forFile:Rakaposhi 4.jpg, File:Rakaposhi 3.jpg, File:Cape York Peninsula Map.jpg. We also need to know who the original author of File:Flo Ziegfeld & Sandow c. 1893.jpg so we can truly know if the photo is in the public domain or not. Also, "free of copyright" doesn't truly have a legal meaning, as everything has, or has had a copyright, unless it is specifically released into the public domain. I've gone through all of your uploads, and cleaned up a bunch of material and licenses. Most of the photos that were over 100 years old were incorrectly licensed. Everything else is good, as far as I can tell. I know this is upsetting to have your work dissected like this, especially so late in the game, but this is part of the process we have to go through to ensure all media we are hosting is free. Somehow your files have slipped through the cracks for many years. With patience we will get through this, and I'm happy to help see this through fruition. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC) ............................................... If you do decide you want to contact this editor about the photo - you should be able to do so through his main page on the wikipedia at: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TLSuda or his "Talk page" at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TLSuda

@John Hill: First, if you point these people to Wikipedia:CONSENT, there is a simple letter they can use and send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Or if they reply to you with enough information, you can forward it to that same address (or if you find an old email, forward that). Second, thank you for your work John, and I sincerely mean it. You've done great things for Wikipedia getting all of these photos together. I know this can get people down, but realize the majority of your uploads were good, a few needed minor tweaks, but overall you were good. I wish this process had happened back in 2005 when you first uploaded, as surely it would've been much easier for you to handle then. Also know that if any image is deleted, and we get permission afterwards, I will personally restore the image. I don't want to lose any content that we have permission for. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful and kind note. I do appreciate it and I do understand why making absolutely certain of copyright is so important for the Wikipedia. I will send the link you have given on to any of the photographers in question that i can find now, and ask them to send copies of permissions both via that link and to myself. Best wishes and thanks, John Hill (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Cockroaches GAC

Hey Suda, I have finished addressing your comments here [6]. Hope they're okay. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Final thoughts added (all about files, which are my specialty). Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

2nd Battle of the Odon map

Hey,

I am confused by your ruling on the issue. What exactly happens now?

Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The file is deleted. Because we cannot verify any copyright on the file, we have to treat it as non-free. As a non-free file, it is replaceable by a free version therefore failing WP:NFCC#1 as a map could be created. If you think that a map like this is helpful to the article, one can be created. You could reach out to the wonderful folks at WP:Graphic Lab/Map workshop who might be able to work with you to create a higher quality map. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense now. I shall contact them shortly. Thanks.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

Hi TLSuda. In case you are not aware, there is an upcoming campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia, culminating with an international edit-a-thon on June 21. See Atlanta's Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Wiki Loves Pride 2014 for more information. We are expanding the LGBT Atlanta, Georgia pages. This would be a tremendous help to Wikipedia and coverage of LGBT culture and history. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions! --tdempsey (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Tdempsey: I was not aware of this and it seems very interesting, but I'm a bit confused. Is this an actual meet up, or simply a project for the whole month? Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hoping for a Meetup and training for the community later this month - still planning. tdempsey (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Tdempsey:This is gonna sound kinda sad, but I would actually be more likely to participate if there were a meetup. I love to think that I would work on it from my home by myself, but I often get too involved in various admin responsibilities and I don't get much time to just edit anymore. I live about an hour and a half north of downtown, but I would be more than happy to help out with anything that I can. Let me know what I can do. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I am very interested in a Meetup/Training which will give people a hands-on experience with Wikipedia and have people there to give help. It is a matter of location and the number of people involved. I will see what happens by the beginning of next week. tdempsey (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Suda

Since you are so intelligent, efficient and a great person, I was wondering if you could recommend an Administrator/Editor in Wikipedia that is equal to your capabilities; to assist me with a page. Thank you 24.251.41.161 (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi IP24. Thank you for the compliment, but I don't know enough about what page you are working on that you would like help. Your best bet would be to find the WikiProject most closely associated with your page. There you could find some active users who have experience in articles in that field. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Would it be helpful is provided the page? I am having major problems. The Ribbon International Thank you. 24.251.41.161 (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the two users who worked at Talk:The Ribbon International, aside from that I don't know anyone who would work well in that article. I'm not a writer, and I don't work well with content. Maybe try asking at the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations. Good luck, TLSuda (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)