File permission problem with File:Stephane Valev - 1970s.jpg
Hello Sfan00 IMG,
The copyright of the mentioned image is property of Stefan's wife Dora. The permission is verbal, she doesn't speak or write english. Please clarify what type of document is needed, but it might take time getting it as she is an old lady that doesn't use computer and live in another country.
Best!
LittleMato (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2013 (GMT+4)
File:Ezio Auditore da Firenze.png
Hi Sfan00 IMG,
You tagged the above image with the Non-free Reduce template - I'm happy to do so, but could you give me a vague idea of what kind of resolution would be acceptable? It's currently 2,200 × 5,159 which I agree is rather big. Many thanks -- Codeine (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My guideline is typically to reduce it to an image which would be below around 640x480 for photos, and below NTSC Standard resoloution for films and TV captures. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Change in 5"/38 caliber gun article
On 15:06, 10 October 2013 you revised "5"/38 caliber gun" article by removing "Image:Mk" and replacing it with "Mark" in the "Mount" section. This deleted the Mark 37 mount image and left the caption displayed in red. I "undid" the revision to see if the Mark 37 mount image would return, and it did. I apologize if this is the wrong way to troubleshoot an image problem. During my troubleshooting, I found that the image file name on the Wikipedia server had been changed. "Mk" in the file name was changed to "Mark". Therefore I edited the article to read "Image:Mark...", and article seems to work okay now. Please let me know if there are problems with my fix. FTC Gerry (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Template:Shuttered link requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at ITeachThem's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
your blanking a page for copyright issues on Yuko Nii
I wrote the material on www.wahcenter.net, so how can it be a copyright violation? I also did the material on the wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immunonuclear (talk • contribs) 17:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't blank the page, please check the history. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Kingdom of Loango Flag.jpg
Hi,
The license for the above file states: "This file is in the public domain because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus 100 years."
Forgive me for not understanding the complexities of American copyright law (or any of the more advanced aspects of any copyright law, for that matter) but I'm not sure why permission would be needed for a file if there is no copyright. Would you be able to clarify? --Jonesy1289 (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lysiana exocarpi
Hi,
I just checked this item and found my gallery has gone. One of the items was a copy of the drawing of the original Behr specimen which I got from the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney. The other was an Olive Pink painting which has now replaced the photo of the Charles Sturt herbarium specimen collected by Dave Watson. Dave is the lecturer who set writing a wiki article as an assignment.
Can you give me the names of files? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also was this above message intended for someone else? I don't seem to have edited the article page concerned recently.?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Evoor Ottan thullal.jpg
I don't pretend to understand most of the copyright rules, but note you have reviewed File:Evoor Ottan thullal.jpg and deemed it suitable to move to Commons. According to the metadata, the photo was taken on 19 April 2013, whereas the subject of the photo Evoor Damodaran Nair died on 18 October 2003, almost 10 years before the photo was taken. I suggest, therefore, that the claim of "own work" can only relate to this photo, of a picture taken by someone else several before, i.e. it is a copyvio. Arjayay (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About a week ago, you reviewed a file I uploaded – File:Sofia Wide Centre Map.png as OK to move to commons. Does that mean it's ok for me to move it, or does it need further review? I am unsure, as it is still described as a "candidate"...
If it's ok, and by the same vein, can we also move this wider projection – File:Sofia Full City Map.png to commons as well? Than way, we can have a "family" of three different-zoom projections of the city, along with the already existing File:Sofia Center.png.
I am asking, because I would like to begin using them in articles using geolocation pogs. I have felt the need for these two maps for a while now, as the current "Sofia Center" one is inadequate for a lot of articles, hence why I uploaded the other two.
Thanks in advance! BigSteve (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sfan00 IMG, I saw that you deleted the images I uploaded in September 2013. They were tagged as OTRS pending and on 9/12/13 a Declaration of Consent (see below) was sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org from an authorized representative of the owner giving permission to publish the images 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).]. As such, can these deletions be reversed? Thank you.
You need to speak to an administrator. I can't undelete Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:BrunoMarsTreasureScreenshot.jpg
You tagged this file as "reviewed and safe to move to Commons" -[1]. Unless I'm missing something, it's a screenshot of a copyrighted music video, so that wouldn't be correct. I guess the uploader (who has a mini-"history" of uploading copyrighted files as "own work") could try to come up with a non-free rationale for use, but I tagged it CSD F11 as no permission in the meantime. Begoontalk 17:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Zirkel der Hubertia Freiburg.jpg == and == File:Wappen des Corps Hubertia Freiburg.jpg
Hi Sfan00 IMG, I contested the deletion of the two files. If I understood the reason for the deletion request right, then the chosen description is not in proper English. If this was not the reason, please let me know what we need to fix; updated info according to these points:
This is (1) the logo / post-nominal of the fraternity Corps Hubertia Freiburg used when members sign e.g. letters of official communication and (2) the crest of the fraternity in color. I updated the meta data and apologize that the original description was an improper translation from German to English.
Please let me know if I fixed the right problem or if the file itself does not load correctly on your PC and you need me to re-upload if (one other reason in the criteria listed is "empty" or "corrupt").
I'd meant to tag these as F2 as they are on Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copy to commons
You tagged files File:NMSS1.jpg and File:NMSS2.jpg for copy to commons but they have been replaced by File:NMSS1.svg and File:NMSS2.svg. There is probably no need for the JPG versions to even be kept. (the SVG version s are much nicer than the original JPG versions.) RJFJR (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you tagged File:Playa Francesa (La Graciosa).jpg as being eligible for copying to the Commons. The original image is under copyright and there is no proof that the Wikipedia editor owns the rights to it. I have updated the file description page accordingly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:HS Kabelkamp.jpg and several other files should also be deleted as copyright violations instead of being moved to Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up, I try to assume good faith when someone claims own work. Seems I am too trusting. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Well, if so many of the "upload wizards" and forms didn't make it so easy to claim "own work" without enough proper warnings and explanations that it actually has to be your own work, maybe less users would default to the "easy option" and we'd get better initial attributions. We almost encourage it. </rant> Just saying... Begoontalk 14:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage you to slow down and look more closely at the images. Some of them are obviously copied from elsewhere, and should be nominated for F11 deletion as inadequate evidence of permission or F9 copyright violations. If you could please review the detailed advice you were given in September (now at User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 15 17#File:Bhagat Singh 1922.jpg) as to how to spot copyright violations, I would really appreciate it. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You just tagged File:MicroStarInternational.svg for deletion but it's obviously PD-text logo. Verno Whitney tagged it as such in October 2012. Then when I decline the speedy deletion, you add a Copy to Commons tag, even though I had already added one just moments before. It's obvious for this file and many others you are not examining them very closely or looking at the page history or you would not be making so many mistakes. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sherkokareem.jpg should not be moved to Commons; it should be speedily deleted as a copyright violation. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Micro-Star International may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
* MSI introduced the Military Class motherboard series{[fact}}
Yes, I am aware that YOU imbeciles believe that no-one outside the continental United States is permitted to post pictures, make corrections, etc. Just continue the way YOU act with your broken English, etc. Soon there will no longer be a continental United States to defend with your idiocracy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.104.205.201 (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have already uploaded the original 3,648 × 2,736 pixel image to commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teamjonalynviray (talk • contribs) 14:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Npcomp's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
OpenPAT images -- Creative Commons Source notes added to Summary Sections of all Images
According to you (and User:Diannaa) the files File:Redbone1971_b.png and File:Redbone1971.png don't come with proof of CC licensing. They do. If you follow the link provided, you will see so. If you can't read Dutch, fair enough, drag the sentence "Alle afbeeldingen met als bron het archief van Beeld en Geluid, zijn te gebruiken onder Creative Commonslicentie naamsvermelding-gelijkdelen" through Google Translate. By the way, there are hundreds of photographs from that Dutch archive (Beeld en Geluid) on the wiki and Commons, all using the same link I used as proof. I don't see why these two photos are a problem. Yintan 13:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deletion Request
Hello Sir
I am User:Sankararamank. That image i uploaded is aleready existed File:Suriya.jpeg. So Please Delete That file — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankararamank (talk • contribs) 12:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Peck's Anchovette Jar.jpg
You have tagged this file as a possible copyright problem. Please explain in detail. I own the jar, the carpet in the background is mine and I took the photo using my camera and I uploaded it within minutes of taking it. Details were given in the metadata.
Thanks Oxonhutch (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you are not necessarily the creator of the artwork on the packaging.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see how that is relevant here. I have not copied Peck's artwork - I have photographed a jar that they sold to me in a three-quarter view. I did not design my car, but I can photograph it parked in the street, and I will own the copyright on the photograph; both in Britain and the United States, if I were domiciled there. Oxonhutch (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand the concept of a derivative work? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do. What aspect of it - relevant to the case in point - do you wish to discuss? Oxonhutch (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most packaging artwork is copyright, thusly by taking a photo of it, you've created a derivative work of it. According to some people on Wikipedia, you need the permission of the brand owner to publish packaging artwork, and photos of it (because you create a derivative work.). It's fine as fair use for identifying the product though.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I politely disagree. Were I to take the label off the jar and slap reproductions of it around my own jars, I would infringe Mr Peck’s copyright. Were I to remove the label and apply my own label, I would also likely be infringing their copyright as, no doubt, they claim the right on the shape of their bottle – just like Messrs Coca Cola do. If I were to go to Mr Peck’s website and use his artwork for the Project, I would also infringe his copyright.
I am not doing any of that at all. From Mr Peck’s three-dimensional jar of finest fish-paste (and I must add, it is good), I have created a two dimensional image, an image in which not one facet of the jar is planar to the camera. The image per se bears no likeness to Mr Peck’s jar; it is flat and badly distorted by both the geometries of projection and perspective – so distorted that my OCR software does not recognise a single character of a word in the resulting image. Try it yourself.
It is only your human eye and brain that resolves my flat image as a three-dimensional object. Why do you think a captcha is a useful way of discriminating between man and machine? My image is novel; it is not a derivative work.
Back now to Messrs Coca Cola, there is no-one more renowned in the world, I think, for defending their corporate mark, even their bottle shape is protected – you can see photographs of both their bottles and cans on the English Wiki. Rolls-Royce and their famous cars hold copyright on the shape of their radiators and protect their image solidly – remember The Beast? You will find several images of their famous mark on the English wiki. Henry Moore’s statues are copyright to his estate but you will find a feast of photographs of his works on the English wiki. Also, have a look through that darling of the British retail trade The Grocer http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/companies/suppliers/ .
In short, by both reason and example, there is no infringement of Mr Peck’s Fish Paste’s rights whatsoever. Regards Oxonhutch (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My Picture Comment
Hello Sfan00 IMG! Could I ask what is wrong with a media I've uploaded? Seems strange as you placed an improper copyright or licensing information template. --///EuroCarGT 17:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sfan00,
Regarding your "possibly unfree file" message comment on Fort_Tolukko.jpg, the work is my own and I understood I had labelled it as such when uploading it to wikicommons. I don't understand the problem or how I can solve it. Grateful if you can point me in right direction.
Fifteen22 (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you ever sleep?
Seriously, I have been working on a project and every time that an image is uploaded/modified you seem to be there in a matter of minutes. Keep up the good job! - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Mattala Rajapaksa International Airport Opening Ceremony Plaque.jpg
Hi Sfan00 IMG,
This photograph was taken by me from my camera on 29th October 2013.
The user that uploaded this image has been blocked indefinitely for repeatedly uploading images that violate copyright infringement policy. This image can be found on JoJo Offerman's twitter feed here and is not the work of the uploader. The blocking admin suggested that I mention this to you since you placed a template on this image. Thanks.LM2000 (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A template on the image saying it had no permission :) Thanks. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All OK, Free images tagged for Commons (see Commons:COM:FOP , I'm assuming that NZ has FoP like the UK.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please be advised that the file is mistitled (my error); it actually is a G-1 not a G-2. Solicitr (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Keith Wenning Ball State vs Army 2013.jpg
Hi Sfan00 - You tagged this file for deletion. "This file is missing evidence of permission." I emailed the photographers approval to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. The photo was taken by Doug Drysdale Photography and we messaged one another on Facebook. Sorry I'm new to wikipedia. Will the copy of our communication emailed into permissions-en@wikimedia.org work to keep the file from being deleted? Thanks for your help! Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wright501 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Burj Khalifa.jpg
Hi,
I am Benison.
The image File:Burj Khalifa.jpg was promoted to Featured category a few days ago. It hardly made the way to it as it had a tough nomination process due to its copyright problems. Now the author have asked me whether there is any way to add the image in commons. Is there any? Please let me know. Herald talk with me 15:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the look of it you would need to find out who the architects were and get permission from them. As it stands it cannot be moved over to commons, because of architectural copyrights being different outside the US. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Alison_MacMillan_Profile.jpg
My mistake... you can go ahead and remove this. The photographer originally gave me permission to use this and is now asking for a fee if it is to be used on Wikipedia.
You recently marked this file I uploaded for deletion and I'd like to prevent this. The post you made on my talk page was quite esoteric and I don't quite understand how to remedy the problem. The image was taken by my grandmother who passed away. I inherited the image so I should be the copyright holder right?
Looking forward to your help. --Squibman (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violations should be deleted per WP:CSD#F9 instead of being moved to Commons. Please be more careful with your {{Copy to Commons}} tags. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
X-rays
Are not copyrightable in the USA. And are thus in the public domain. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:The brigantine Eye of the Wind, 1982 postcard.jpg
Well, until the authorship is clear or it can be shown it's PD, it's assumed to be copyright (with a 1982 date), regardless of what that website thinks. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out the copyright holder for this photograph, Anthony Timbs, is known (I've updated the information on the file-page). The confusion came because it is unknown who originally snapped the photograph. But since the photograph was made upon request, most likely paid for, and the actual postcard was produced by Anthony 'Tiger' Timbs, who owned the ship at the time, for commercial purposes, I think we can conclude he holds the copyright.
An OTRS ticket has been created and the image has been tagged as such. I will try to contact him, but since I'm told that it may be difficult to get hold of him, it may take some time. Can you give any advice on how to proceed? Refundpolitics (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The image that I provided under the name St Sebastians Church Ayarkunnam is the exclusive work of mine. I am ready to make it available under creative commons free license. Please help me since I am not familiar with Wikipedia; I am a new user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jisstom123 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Fresno County, California seal.svg
The original claim for use of this logo was under fair use. It has since been marked as being copyright free. I don't know if it is copyright free so I've decided to revert back to the original fair-use claim but leave the copyright free claim in place.
Files should not be moved to Commons only because an IP vandalises the page by removing the "no permission" tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FILE PUCHIKO-CHAN.GIF
You recently put a deltion message on my page. I am not sure where to put the link to the website by the maker of camstudio to prove copyrights. Here it is http://camstudio.org/ I am going to remove the deletion messeage Regards, SILLYCAPSillycap (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it ad to meet educational requirements! Dlohcierekim 19:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lysiana exocarpi images
Regarding the image of the germinating seed of Lysiana exocarpi I understood that it had the appropriate license. Botanybay1788 (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding File:Musée Hergé.jpg
Hello Sfan00 IMG. Regarding File:Musée Hergé.jpg, the file is free; the photographer has given his permission for the file to be used in Wikipedia. Therefore, it need not be reduced and I am requesting that you remove the tag you added. Other editors have made many attempts to make changes to this file and I have been involved in every attempt; the last was an editor insisted the "non-free" messages be added. What are your thoughts on all this? Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here isn't the architecture but the Herge artwork.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you meant Hergé artwork. Prhartcom (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images for Lysiana exocarpi
Hi,
I have added two images this morning that were sent to me by the author of Mistletoes of Southern Australia, Dave Watson. Dave said I could use them so I have included the email from him in the upload data.
Regarding the photograph of pollen it is available for use as described on the Australasian Pollen and Spore Atlas under there terms http://apsa.anu.edu.au/terms - I have provided the necessary attribution and link to the site.
Please see the "JPG to PNG conversion" section at WP:RDC, which is related to your FFD nominations of File:Pbalson 20060527 IMG 3701.JPG and several other images. I'm not alleging that you've done anything wrong; I'm just wondering about transferring the JPGs to Commons instead of deleting them at FFD. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images
Do me a favour and stop spamming me multiple repeat messages. I'll trust your judgement that they can't be used, although as yet nobody has complained about copyright in 6-7 years... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moten Swing
Given that the upload system is extremely tedious I usually upload on here with a quick fill in and then add the rationale template afterwards. Can you check my new rationale is satisfactory.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks OK to me , BTW Do you want to help get PD-US images definitely cleared for Commons?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PD images are always a good thing!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has a PD license and no Google image hits for a non-free source. Am I missing something? John Reaves 03:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai
Hai friend. Recently I have added a profile photo for this show. But wikipedia says there is a file permission problem. I don't know what to do here. It is very complicated to upload a photo here. Can you please help me out in this? I need your help. Please. What-else can I do? I am a normal person with no contact with any websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragavendaragul (talk • contribs) 05:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image might not be free as I thought. (see File:StackerMachine.jpg and File:TippingBlocks.jpg) I had two of my arcade game images marked for deletion as a deriviatve work by an image patroller who heavily edits on commons. Therefore I suggest we wait until it is determined the image is free before it is tagged again. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 07:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When an IP removes the {{puf}} tag from a file being discussed at WP:PUF, do not add {{copy to Commons}}. Instead, restore the {{puf}} tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exo images
You approved these two for commons. They look like copyvios to me. Are you sure?
(talk page stalker) I have tagged both as copyright violations. I can't tell why User:Sfan00 IMG thought that these were suitable for Commons as a simple Google check reveals that they are not. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed good faith on the part of the uploader. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eve McVeagh last photo review (High Noon)
Hi Sfan00 IMG. Thank you for all the help you have given me with the other McVeagh pictures. I need an approval on one last one. McVeagh_publicity_photo_from_"High_Noon".gif
This photo is much like the Grace Kelly trailer screenshot for High Noon which is in the Commons and like one of Katy Jurado as well but is of Eve McVeagh. I do not want Kelly and Jurado's pictures taken down from commons but I simply used the example "if Grace Kelly why not Eve McVeagh?" Stefan2 makes no sense in his arguments against including this McVeagh photo in the commons and I need a third opinion. If you can approve the photo then all of the Eve McVeagh photos would be able to be moved to commons. You had put a move to commons tag on this a year ago and I am finally literate in how to move it once a tag is applied, so I can do that pending approval. Right now there is a "possibly unfree file" tag put on the photo per Stefan2
Best Regards, Hans100 (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Hans100[reply]
You raised this on my talk page. If the Commons licence is as rubbishy as Commons licences so often are perhaps you'd be kind enough to load the image on English WP, as it is covered by ((PD-US-1923-abroad)). See
[2]. If you think the licence details for the quadripartite composite image need changing, I'll be obliged if you would amend accordingly. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can consider asking commons to take a look at it...Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Image License for File:File:Cristin milioti 120913.jpg
Hey there, I fixed the license for File:Cristin milioti 120913.jpg, an image that I took myself, and so it definitely does not need to be deleted now. I've also updated my Flickr page with the original image to also be CC-SA. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. –- kungming·2 16:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Messages on your user page
Are you aware that lots of people try to contact you by posting messages to your user page instead of your user talk page? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I do read through them..Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sfan00 IMG, I have a special request. Could you or someone that you know, do me a favor and nominate the following image for a "speedy deletion"? The image which is in violation of copyright laws since it's brand and label are copyrighted is File:Ron del Barrilito Tres Estrellas.jpeg. I would do it myself, but I usually end up messing the deletion process. Thank you in advance. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion nomination of File:The Hughleys.svg
Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at K2trf's talk page. Message added 13:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
If the CSD in question is to remove the File entirely, please let me know how I can contest it, as the file is still in use. If the CSD is only related to my backdated versions, and not the current version of the file, then I have no qualms with a CSD on them, as the current version is far superior than mine. k2trf (talk) 7:07 am, Today (UTC−6) k2trf (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This and other copyright violations should not be moved to Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Whitman poem When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd Sequel page 3.jpg
You asked me to add a "replaceable fair use" tag on File:Whitman poem When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd Sequel page 3.jpg...a picture of a book page from 1865 isn't a matter of determining fair use, it's already free use. Whitman Archive released it under a proper CC license, but quite frankly, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. says there is no copyright protection to a mere scan or photo of work already historical enough to be in the public domain. If I tagged this wrong, or uploaded it wrong, please tell me how to fix it...but there's no "fair use" issue to be navigated.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the CC-license selected. It has an NC clause. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, permission was emailed to permissions-en@wikimedia.org by the artist on 12/12/2013. How is it possible to remove the delete tag? Thank you Aretemetic (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding source information
When you add source information, as you did here, please specify where the information comes from. Now I have to take lots of files to PUF because there isn't any evidence that your claims are correct. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK Your concern is noted. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SVGs from Excel
I asked you somewhere, but it doesn't seem to be on this page: how does one export svg files from excel? Tony(talk) 13:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Syrian workers protest in front of UN headquarters in Damascus, Dec 2013.jpg
This is related to your entry on my user talk page.
Sana (Syrian Arab News Agency) has given a public permission in late 2011 to anyone interested to republish the images or text from their web site. Their videos are open for download too (http://sana.sy/section.html?&req=videonews&newlang=eng). They could confirm this over e-mail, but it seems that my e-mails to them are unable to be delivered (due to DDoS attacks I'm guessing). LvcAK47 (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Oliver Law.jpg
Hi the photo File:Oliver Law.jpg is from http://www.blackpast.org/aah/law-oliver-1900-1937 the photo says "Image Ownership: Public Domain" right under it. the article source is William Loren Katz and Marc Crawford, The Lincoln Brigade: A Picture History (New York: Apex Press, 2001); William Loren Katz, “Fighting Another Civil War,” American Legacy (Winter 2002). William Loren Katz was the contributor. I don't know what more information you need for it. Redsky89 (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FurMe on Seton pic
I just saw the notice about the pic on the Seton Portage page. I'm the photographer's son. What more confirmation do you need? re here.Skookum1 (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Tokyo topo 1977.jpg
Hi, while I appreciate your concern about the copyright status of images, your message to me is clearly superfluous, and even very superficial knowledge of public domain resources would tell you that 1. this is a US government resource, 2. it is public domain as stated. Thank you for your consideration. BenT/C 10:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of which were stated on the image, or on the link given Sfan00 IMG (talk)
"wrong license"
Hi there. Can you tell me why you made these edits? [3][4][5] These are all screenshots of homebrew games that have been released into the public domain by their owners, as the description indicates (complete with links to where the owners released them.) 28bytes (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't normally bother with fair use file so can you check and see if I got this correct? Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you mark this file for deletion? I made a clear link to the original file on Wikimedia, which contains a link to the original Flickr source that contains the copyright information. Unless the original Wikimedia file is also violating fair use, how is the cropped version of the same file a violation? Corvoe(speak to me) 04:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The original, uncropped photo was uploaded by flickrbot, which automatically detects if a photo is non-free fair use. I've tried uploading "some rights reserved" files with it and it blocks a lot of them. But it didn't block this one. Since the upload was cleared, that would make it non-free fair use. Corvoe(speak to me) 13:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Foton-Motor-logo.png
Hello,
Could you please tell me what to do and which document to provide? I'm enough embarrassed with Wikipedia, it's not very clear for me. There are too many policies and criteria, I'm getting crazy...please help me to find the solution. Thank you very much. Shan|(Talk)
File permission problem with File:Vidwa Siromani C. Ganesha Iyer.jpg
I forwarded the E-mail sent to me by the owner of the image to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on 23 November 2013.
However, the file has been deleted.
I am a user in Wikipedia and a relative of C. Ganesha Iyer. The image was sent to me by the Great-grandson of C. Ganesha Iyer. The Tamil Wikipedia already has published an article with his picture. We are very anxious to see the picture is added to the article in English. Please let me know what I should do to get his picture added to the article. --Uksharma3 (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion on 27 Dec but website image is from clearly states reuse allowed
Hi Sfan00, re your note of 20 December re Eric Boswell (songwriter).jpg. The source website www.dontmentionlittledonkey.com states (not by the image but in small type at the foot of the home page) and I quote 'All text within this website and all photographs of Eric Boswell are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Such material may thus be freely copied elsewhere provided this is not for commercial purposes and that www.dontmentionlittledonkey.com is quoted as the source.'. The type of License given (cc-by-4.0) is included in the list of acceptable alternative licenses (to cc-by-sa) at Wikipedia:File_copyright_tags/Free_licenses so the image appears clear for Wikipedia or indeed any other non commercial use, given the attribution requested by the website is included in the photo description (i.e. a link back to that website). Would thus be grateful if the red box on the image page be removed. Thanks & Merry Xmas
PS originally posted on your user page but understand this is correct place. Hope this reaches you before 27th though I guess if not it's simple to upload again. Regards OnTheDustyRoad (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's Non-Commericial, it's not a 'free'license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SFan, I was just going by the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_copyright_tags/Free_licenses which does include cc-by-4.0 Attribution 4.0 in its list of licences, about half way down the Creative Commons section. But if that really won't do I can look into whether the website will release it under a different sort of license (please let me know which type is preferred by Wikipedia). Meanwhile I note the image is due to be deleted after today - is it possible please to extend this for another 7 days while we sort this? Thanks for your help. OnTheDustyRoad (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I have now found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Uploading_images re the change in policy on no commercial uploads. So the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_copyright_tags/Free_licenses is out of date. Can that page be amended as it could be why people are still uploading non commercials, as I note from another discussion? So, am I right in thinking that cc-by-3.0 would be an acceptable license? If so I can see if this can be given instead of 4.0 by the source. Given the webpage is keen to publicise the subject I am sure this will be no problem. In the meantime given presumably it isn't possible to change the license the photo was originally uploaded under please can you delete the photo (I don't think I can do this) and assuming we can get it under cc-by-3.0 - or please let me know if it has to be a different one to 3.0 - I will subsequently reupload it. Thanks OnTheDustyRoad (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "All images which are for non-commercial only use and by permission only are not acceptable for Wikipedia and will be deleted" do you not understand? Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can anybody help re my above questions please? To summarise: (1) Are Creative Commons 3.0 images allowed for upload or not? and (2) Should we not remove the line from the Wikipedia guide mentioned above which continues to state - now incorrectly - that 4.0 images are allowed? As a new user I don't feel confident to edit that type of page myself. Thanks OnTheDustyRoad (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the short version of the license name, CC-BY-SA for example, doesn't have NC (NonCommercial) or ND (NoDerivs) in it, then yes.
No, because CC 4.0 images that do not have NC or ND the short version of the license name are allowed.--Rockfang (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rockfang. The image concerned is just CC-BY-SA so I'll go ahead and upload. OnTheDustyRoad (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Kareena Kapoor honoured in the House of Commons.png
Hi. I removed the {{Copy to Commons}} tag from this file because although it's tagged {{own}}, frankly it looks like a publicity photo and the uploader has had copyvio problems in the past; this file was speedied from Commons with a .jpg extension. Happy New Year and all the best, Miniapolis 18:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest, that this your edit should be adjusted. Compared with {{PD-old-70}}, {{PD-Russia}} is fully compatible with US-law until Jan. 1, 2016 at least: until Jan. 1, 2016 all works with {{PD-Russia}} (if template was placed correctly) were in PD in Russia (as country of origin) on Jan. 1, 1996. Alex Spade (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Watermark template
Howdy. Where are you seeing the watermark on this image?--Rockfang (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not mark pictures of Ukraine for transfer to commons
Please do not mark photographs taken in Ukraine for transfer to Commons. Photographs taken in Ukraine are not suitable for transfer to Commons. Under Ukrainian Law, the use that is made of photographs of Ukraine in Wikipedia is permitted - i.e. Wikipedia is loosely speaking a news medium - just like for example, the English newspaper the Daily Mirror, which like Wikipedia does cover both recent things, and not-so-recent things such as the Great Patriotic War. However, Wikipedia Commons considers limited rights of use to be unacceptable. So transferring photographs taken in Ukraine to Commons is inappropriate. My understanding is that any and all photographs taken in Ukraine that are on Commons are in breach of Commons rules and should be deleted.
Marking photographs taken in or of Ukraine for transfer to Commons is merely a complicated and unobvious way of proposing them for deletion.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a template for marking photos not to be transferred to commons. {{Do not move to Commons}} and have applied it to the photos, which I hope will stop over-zealous editors such as yourself mistakenly re-adding the "move to commons" template.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request
Sfan00, could you please spend a little more time responding to concerns. Your high volume of useful edits produce a relatively smaller volume of mistakes. It would be a shame if these small percentage of errors, which are still substantial in number, lead to a complaint that results in restrictions on your activities. You need to be careful to communicate with users in a way that encourages them to keep going, rather than discouraging them with incorrect image deletion notices (or move notices). I'd like to see you respond personally to each editor who expresses a concern to you. Thank you. I notice on this page very few responses. JehochmanTalk 15:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In cases where relevant I've tried to respond on the uploaders talk-page. Your concern is noted. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing a valuable job. Thank you. Keep up the good work. JehochmanTalk 18:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you had seen how he/she responded to people, you probably would not have said that. Have a look at how he/she responded to me: [6],[7],[8] - since he/she has the hobby of nominating pictures for transfer to commons, and he/she has been stopped from some, he has nominated one for deletion - see Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good example of how enforcing rules without regard for the human element can lead to bad results. In this case he should have just left the images alone. JehochmanTalk 19:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman - Do you do mentoring? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to help you with any difficult situations you run into. I think you ought to archive this long page, and then leave a friendly message pinned at the top explaining the nature of your work, something to the effect of "Hi, I help maintain images on Wikipedia and Commons by doing ....I use the following automation in my work... If I've made a mistake, please leave me a note and I'll correct it right away." If you get a comment, acknowledge it, and if the person disputes your tagging, then either (1) do as they ask if they are correct, or (2) ask me to have a look and render a third opinion. JehochmanTalk 01:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to archive it every 100 threads or so, but noted..Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HMS Bulolo image
Hi - I answered your query on my Talk page. Londonclanger (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Complicated message
The message you sent me was just way too complicated for me to understand. I took a photo, I put it on my hard drive, I uploaded it to Wikipedia, the same as I have done scores of times before, under the same license, too. I don't understand what is the problem. Thank for the assistance. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the image: File:Fresno, California, water tower (inside), 2014.jpg. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, this appears to have been wrongly tags, thanks for pointing this out.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice regarding this file. In the upload details I included a link to the source of the image on the artist's website - on that page the images are headed with this text: "these images and their hi-res counterparts are licensed for use under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike CC BY-SA". When you click that link it opens a page at Creative Commons with the license title Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0).
I had thought this would be sufficient. Could you advise me what other permission / license I should have sought before uploading the file? Thanks in advance for your help, and your expertise, it's appreciated - steinman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This image should not be moved to Commons. Instead, it should be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#F9. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copying to commons
Hello. I've come across a bunch of personal files uploaded by User:Vaibhavupadhyay. I have nominated them for deletion but I can't help notice that some time back, you nominated them for copying to Commons. I zm at loss to understand why files like this and this would be appropriate for Commons. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. In general I tend to consider most 'free' images as acceptable for Commons. In general the only items that should be local are 'fair-use', and stuff that's sufficently esoteric it's out of scope at commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This photograph is is not in the Public Domain as stated by the license tag. Shouldn't it be uploaded as a non-free? Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Raise the issue at Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on San Francisco Library Photos and Your Non-Free Tagging
You recently tagged 3 photos from before 1923, which I had received written permission from San Francisco Public Library to use on Wikipedia, with a complaint that they might be Non-Free. There is an ongoing discussion on user:Masem's talk page (link below) about the issue.
Please weigh in on the discussion so we can properly resolve this issue, and find a way for these photos to be included in their articles.James Carroll (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: File permission problem with 3 files
Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at 1Minow's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Greetings Sfan00 IMG, can you please transfer this file to Commons. I do not have a TUSC account to transfer this file using CommonsHelper nor the software needed to use For the Common Good. I'd appreciate your help, thanks! versace1608 (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decorah eagles
Hi there, I have sent the email to Raptor Resource Project for written permission for each new image being used on Decorah Bald Eagles but strangely haven't heard back yet, after 3 days. They were happy to give permission last time (example), but I assume that isn't relevant to these images. I expect once they see the email and have a second, permission will be granted. Would it be OK to add the "OTRS pending" tag based on these assumptions, to save the photos from being deleted unnecessarily? Thanks, petrarchan47tc 22:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on File:BlackFuries.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from URL. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I did not upload this. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mistaken identity
Apologies, your user name is v similar to someone who has deleted a few of my files on commons. Following the advice of another Wikipedia editor I no longer upload to commons because of the culture there. Lesion (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Greg Cravens, surronded by books.jpg
Hello, thank you for the message.
I've forwarded an email from Greg, which he includes the photo for my use on the Wiki page, to the OTRS. However, I'm unsure how to place the OTRS tags on the file page. Could you explain what I copy, or, do it for me? Baa Maa Pii! AllanVStalkcontribs 18:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised to see you mark that image as needing to go to commons, as it is marked as needing to be in the PNG format. I've always assumed that we were supposed to convert the file first, and then upload it to commons. I note that you did not mark my conversion (File:The Fran Drescher (Tawk) Show logo.png) as being commons material.
So I'm just getting clarification here: do you think both images (JPG and PNG) should go to commons, just the JPEG, or just the PNG? And do you agree that we should probably use the full sized image at commons?
Please use the {{talkback}} template or otherwise contact me on my talk page, as I'm don't want to watch this page and get updates that aren't relevant to this conversation. — trlkly 19:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Trlkly's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Why do you think there's a problem with claiming PD-art on this? January (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because we aren't sure about the status in general. If you think it still meets PD art status though please feel free to raise it on an appropriate noticeboard. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing unclear about the status is whether its PD in the source country, but it's definitely PD in the US on account of having been published before 1923. PD-art only makes reference to the US so there's no reason why the unclear UK status would be an issue when using that template. January (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for moving to commons
I appreciate you taking the time to move MarkRosewaterMARO to commons. :) Keep up the good work!Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at WOWIndian's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I am sorry for my incorrect edit with this file. Thanks for correcting them! Best regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why?!
Why the hell did you delete my file? File:Absolwent (Polish vodka), version for export called "Graduate".jpg - you categorized it as a possibly unfree file, leaving a message on my talk page to ask me if I object. I objected on my talk page AND at the link you gave, yet no reply came and my file has been deleted. I will not tolerate such vandalism. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I did not delete your file. Secondly your accusation of vandalism is uncalled forSfan00 IMG (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am mistaken. You are the person who started the process of removing my file and refused to talk with me about it, but you are not the person who deleted it... can you explain why you behaved in such a mean way? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not refuse to talk to you about it, I was awaiting other opinions in respect of the PUF before responding. It seems someone else took a more radical view. The issue was that packaging artwork, is still copyright, and so you can't claim the photo of packaging artwork as entirly your own work, because someone else (typically a grpahic artists for the vodaka company) came up with the design originally. Wikipedia prefers free images, and labels on high-end products are rarely made available under 'free' terms. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then how are images of all the other drinks still up on this website? What makes them any different? If a photo of something isn't my own work, then what else am I supposed to select as the license? There is no option for that. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Had you told me about this earlier, I would have added this to the usage section of my file and it would still be up here. Will adding this prevent my other files from being taken off? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would go a long way to helping retain them. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I apologize for my aggressive behaviour earlier, though I still think that you could have informed me about this earlier. Ronhjones is the person who deleted the file... ugh, and now he listed my other files as possibly unfree. I hope he will not delete those. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sfan00
Club ponytail
Ponytail pic is mine and has been used in published MACKINAC JOURNAL-February and March Edition 2014--(CC-BY-SA)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:Outoftheblue.jpg. Since you had some involvement with the File:Outoftheblue.jpg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User Longhair
Has not actually retired - but hey check his edit history, and dont expect a speedy reply!!! satusuro 09:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, but I felt it reasonable to query images where the source has become a dead link. If you know of a better forum LMK.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
very sorry when people go quiet - to raise em is close enough to... also to keep tabs of dead links - pity there wasnt some form of gadget or process where cited web sources are also kept within a web archive related to wikimedia in some way. maybe there is a project for someone passionate enough... satusuro 09:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at SarekOfVulcan's talk page. Message added 14:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
if you click the link to the webpage where the picture appears it has this next to it -Creative Commons BY-NC-SA - [9] -I thought that meant it was o.k. to use - does it not? if it doesn't mean that I don't understand what it indicates. is it like an opening position this 'Creative Commons BY-NC-SA' - means , you might be able to use it, but now you have to e-mail the photographer? Sayerslle (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NC means it's Non- Commerical and Wikipedia can't use it as a 'free' image. 18:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Re: File permission problem with File:Chemical chameleon reaction (permanganate).ogg
You tagged this for speedy deletion as lacking evidence of permission. However, if you follow the link to the source page, and click the "About" tag, you'll see it says "License: Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)". I stated this on the file page after "Permission:", "Visible on source page "About" tab.". This is the same for File:Elephant toothpaste reaction (peroxide decomposition).ogg, which you reviewed as OK. What gives? ʍw 17:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Damn right it's a mistag. If I were less experienced, this might have scared me off. And the fact you might be scaring off new editors competent enough to properly tag their uploads (and those are the kind we really need), whilst engaging in an activity that benefits Commons much more than en.Wikipedia, annoys me all the more. ʍw 19:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove the {{Copy to Commons}} templates from the files I tagged as {{Keep local}}? The latter template does not prevent a file from being copied to Commons, it just saves the local copy from being deleted. I have nothing against Commons (or, rather, I realize the benefits of a central media repository outweigh any qualms I do have with Commons), but I prefer to do my uploads locally and I don't like my uploads being deleted without my being notified and before I can react (which has happened to me before; at least you notified me).
My understanding was that if somoene tagged keep local, it was reasonable practice to remove the copy to Commons tag to avoid confusion. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably good practice. ʍw 20:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Club Ponytail -1962 to 1969 Harbor Springs, Michigan
is now ready to be uploaded!
EFV I am new at all of this but learning!!
tagging images for Commons,
Hi there, I see a lot of the images you tag for commons while looking through recent uploads. While most are good you've had a run in the past week or so that are not so good. I've deleted quite a few as obvious copyright violations including the latest File:Andrew Hawkins with the bengals.jpg that has a Press copyright in the exif data. Please don't stop what you are doing, just thought you might like to know. - Peripitus(Talk) 11:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh , Bother , If it has to go, it has to go ..... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PD-Canada
Hi there, I'm assuming you are going through images tagged {{PD-Canada}} and marking them as ok to move to commons. I am very confused after reading this commons deletion request, and this commons undeletion plus the various comments (by yourself, Floydian and others) and the requirements listed on the template itself. This is one of the many times I am glad I am not a lawyer as I feel that the law knots the brain unnecessarily. It boggles the mind that someone can take a photo long ago, have it enter the public domain in their own country so it is reproduced widely, and yet somehow restrict usage in the USA and, I presume, have penalties for misuse levied. I'd love to help but the only clarity I can see Canadian crown images published prior to 1964 are free, anything published before 1923 is free, much else is a confused mess. Are you following the strictures from the commons PD-Canada template ? - Peripitus(Talk) 11:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on the basis of the En Wikipedia version. If someone else is flagging them because of URAA concerns. :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to follow what the Commons template says which basicly says, Pre 1949 photos, pre 1960's crown works, and artworks where the artist died prior to 1946. All other items can't be moved (and probably need an FUR here) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The website I got the image from is a free image database and the link provided in the permission explicitly states that the files on the website can be used for editorial purpose (and that includes wikipedia). And the fact that Advertising agencies can register on the page for full access to pictures (it's in the options), shows it is suitable for commercial purpose as well. This image should not be deleted, it's a free image. Thanks.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it actually says Creative Commons, and you can show that . it's an 'unfree' image for Wikipedia Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence
You do a ridiculously mundane and massive job, on migrating images from en.wp onto Wikimedia Commons. I'm sure someone, somewhere will appreciate some of this, someday. Eventually. But if not, I can appreciate how very extreme you have always been toward this overall mission. I will learn how to do this someday. — Smuckola(Email)(Talk) 21:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:BrunoMarsTreasureScreenshot.jpg&diff=577436549&oldid=575706239){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Micro-Star International may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
.JPG){kind=link}
Template:PD-art-US-only has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Thrust_Title.png&curid=28582199&diff=586948268&oldid=468873238){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Stay_Frosty_(SpiceWare)_1.png&curid=28653686&diff=586875166&oldid=468568589){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Juno_First_-_Atari_2600_screenshot_3.png&curid=28661771&diff=586875093&oldid=468873250){kind=link}
_cropped.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ADnepropetrovsk_9781s.JPG&diff=590233532&oldid=590211883){kind=link}
_Show_logo.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
