User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 8

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Fair use image

Thanks for the heads up, I'll take care of it later today. --Zerbey (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

einsteinsdreams.jpg

You tagged it for deletion because I failed to provide a rationale. I'm newish - have no idea how to that - its a book cover so I know it is fair use. Could you possibly provide the rationale and then I will have a template to learn from. Sorry to impose but I learn well from example so your time would be much appreciated. Please? Mark^Dask 17:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola II of Montenegro Image

I have written to the Royal Palace in Cetinje (via email) requesting confirmation regarding the ownership of the image and permission, if appropriate, from His Majesty for this image to remain online on this site. The email was sent today, please can you allow a reasonable time for a response to be received (suggested 28 days). If permission is received I will email you a copy and then can you restore the picture to the Nicholas, Prince of Montenegro page.James Frankcom (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC

picture in 'russell dilday' article.

can u help me resolve issue with picture in 'russell dilday' article.

i reviewed guidlines, but not sure how to designate it as "free"

thanks, ccirulli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccirulli (talk • contribs) 05:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PhilipMcCluskey1 JPEG

Hi SFan - Can you please explain your rationale for tagging this file? If you visit the url at www.lovingraw.com/headshots, it states explicitly that it is under CC licensing and is free to use for these purposes. Have I made a mistake somewhere and misinterpreted this? Please let me know, as I am new to Wiki and appreciate the help. Thanks! Irena 23:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)irenadj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irenadj (talk • contribs)

Mekong Hydropower Map jpeg

Thanks for your message for the above file (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mekong_Hydropower_Map.jpg). I've now inserted a permission, which I hope is adequate. I'd appreciate it if you could have the file's deletion stopped. (Rechmaduong (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Best For Film logo

Thanks for your message. The image in question was tagged in an article which I was in the process of writing when Marasmusine unjustifiably deleted it. I'm waiting for him to restore the article and thereby the image's lineage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmu2108 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mad eraser man

I think this guy is nuts or just trying to reduce the quality of Wikipedia. Didn't your mother tell you that it's better to build than to destroy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Mephistopheles (talk • contribs) 15:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you nuts?

I removed the speedy from Media:Coin of Gautamiputra Yajna Sri Satakarni.jpg. Are you serious? I'm astounded that you think that money that is hundreds of yeas old would be copyrighted. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 22:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this user is a serious tool. --Cyberman (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hammer-mme myou.jpg

Dude, I really don't understand what info you're looking for. The process is too complicated.

Essentially, the image is a screen cap I took from a DVD. My understanding is that there's no problem using a screen cap to illustrate the work profiled on the page. I don't know how to explain that. You realize that I uploaded it more than three years ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Mephistopheles (talk • contribs) 08:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright for really old coins

I don't understand. Please explain how coins that were used hundreds of years ago could still be copyright today and need a fair use rational? It makes no sense to me. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 22:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's that old, feel free to change the license Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But why are you even tagging things for deletion in the first place? The coin template states very clearly that it may be copyrighted, not that it is, so blanket tagging of all coins without a FUR for deletion seems foolish to me. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 22:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not inconceivable that an image of coins a hundred years old could require a fair use rationale. For example, it appears that the Irish government claims a perpetual copyright on Irish currency, even for coins and notes issued before the copyright act went into effect. File:Coin of Gautamiputra Yajna Sri Satakarni.jpg does not say how old the coins are and does not even say what country issued them, so it is entirely possible that it will need a fair use rationale. That said, I agree that tagging for deletion immediately is pretty hasty when the images may well be in the public domain. —Tim Pierce (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Past block, still the same problem

I'm concerned to find this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive623#Bot_malfunction

Has your account's behaviour really improved since then? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not much it seems, if anything it has gotten worse. For instance I wonder which part of Ansbachdragoner‎ has not edited in over a year, doesn't Sfan understand. At least malfunctioning bots can be shut off. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You consider images without an FUR acceptable? If it bothers you so much that seemingly abbandoned accounts get agged,

get the FUR policy changed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer old school WP:IAR to FUR. Besides, it takes too long to change policy. I'd rather see the likes of you banned first, THEN change it. Your sort uses policies as weapons rather than tools, and do more to destroy the encyclopedia than build it.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depeche Mode samples tagged on my talk page

Please kill them all if you want. I don't care enough to waste my time arguing about this kind of thing anymore.

Enjoy your Wikipedia...

Epolk (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DemetriusIElephant.jpg and old currency image deletions

Read the licence.

Now this isn't a great licence, I admit, but our convention seems to be to use it. The problem is that it's actually a multi-licence, with an implicit but unclear selection. The licence claims to be applicable to "old currency" (which is easy to check) and it makes no claims regarding such issues as the Irish perpetual copyright claim (so that's easy to "check" too, because we just don't bother). The drawback is that items licenced under it may be under _either_ PD _or_ fair use, and the licence as tagged just doesn't state which. Obviously if the item is under fair use, it needs FURing.

Now the problem is that this licence isn't automatically processable. A 'bot (or a robotnik like Sfan00 IMG) can't tell if it needs a FUR just by looking at it. At this point, it's necessary to play IP lawyer and judge which of the licence components it's being licensed under. This is a PITA for checking, but I can see how the situation arose, as it allowed a lot of currency images (Irish too) to be tagged easily and correctly with this licence tag.

If you want to check for FURs on things that need FURs (and you don't want to perform disruptive edits), then it's then up to you to determine which of the mutli-licence terms is being applied here. It is wrong to request FURs (on pain of deletion) for those which are legitimately using the PD expression within this licence. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/U

Has anyone got the time (I seriously don't) to haul this whole sorry mess off to RFC/U ? (re Commons edits too) It needs doing, we're going to be losing legitimate content before long. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another dud tagging for deletion this morning. I don't know about you guys, but I can't keep up with this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That one is noted as a mistag, It was resolved in the edit subsequent to the one you note above, but why let the facts get in the way of a complaint? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are loads of mistags. Thanks for fixing this one, but each one you tag still creates work for others to have to check it - even if you then change it afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd also like to provide a detailed list of specfic media you think may have been 'mistagged', I'm more than prepared to give them a second look Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Der Diktator.png

Hi,

Do rationales have to be put in a special field? I'd appeciate any guidance and have raised questions at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#sheet_music_examples. Sparafucil (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Hb 42.50.8.jpg

I believe that I uploaded that from a public use source about 3 years back. I haven't a clue nor do I care in the least if you delete it.Tirronan (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm

I don't much mind if you and Andy Dingley edit was over tags. However, when you leave three messages about the same file on someone else's talk page as a result of edit-warring, that's not acceptable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, That seems to be a side effect of using TWINKLE to tag (which is NO excuse), Thanks for letting me know :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wikipedia approx total edit count over time graph 3.png

I uploaded this file on enwiki deliberately, rather than Commons, because it was enwiki-specific, for use in a Village Pump discussion. (Not that I particularly mind it being moved to Commons; it just seems more appropriate on enwiki). You should probably tag the two older statistics images for moving too, if you think it's a good idea to move them. (I'd be interested to hear your reasons for the move, incidentally; not annoyed, just curious.) --ais523 19:40, 29 October 2010 (U T C)

File:Diane-Arbus-1949.jpg fair use rationale

Would you mind suggesting exactly how you would want to see this rationale expanded? It says pretty much everything the guidelines ask for - the original author of the work, the copyright information, why this is claimed as fair use, etc. --Jashiin (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since apparently you're either unable or unwilling to explain your edits (you have blatantly ignored my query and then continued to tag files I uploaded with "short rationale" notices - how am I supposed to fix the files if you, the person who had a problem with them, refuse to explain the problem?), I'm going to remove the notices you put, until you can provide a rationale for your edits. If you continue adding those things without explaining your edits, I will report your actions as disruptive behaviour. --Jashiin (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, firstly, an apology for not responding more quickly. What you need to do is epxand the rationale so that each point of WP:NFCC is covered. If that's already done then by all means change the {{Short-Rationale}} to a {{Standard-Rationale}}.

Please note {{Short-Rationale}} isn't a deletion notice, and that was for a specific reason, namely that to tag it as a DFU would have been even more 'disruptive'. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying and for looking at those images. I'm sorry if my reaction was over the top, it's just that I've seen some tag conflicts before that weren't pretty, and the delay kind of made me assume this was going the same way. I'll see what I can do about satisfying the standardized rationale format requirements. Thanks again! --Jashiin (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW On a side issue, It's a shame mediawiki can't typset musical notation directly like some other systems (for example TeX)

as it would be invaluable for music related articles. It would also be very useful in transcribing some musical works on Wikisource. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DressLooksNice.jpg rationale

You do realise that it probably took you as much time to nominate File:DressLooksNice.jpg for deletion as it would have done to put a rationale? Non-free artwork for a music release has a very well established history on wikipedia. You can actually save yourself time by using a simple Audio cover rationale, instead of spending a few minutes of your life creating a nomination and deletion discussion which will also use up others time for a slight of policy which presents zero threat to anyone. SFB 23:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of that, but thanks for the reminder. BTW it's not actually used for the main infobox but a subsiduary one.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skyscraperman

Thank you for your comments regarding the image now up on the Skyscraperman Wikipedia page. The copyright holder has attempted without success to send the appropriate email to: permissions-en‐at‐wikimedia.org For whatever reason, the email does not go through to that address. Please advise. Thank you.

Mimiken (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to ask an administrator, issues with OTRS mail are beyond my control Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying redirects

FYI, when you edit User talk:DYKHousekeepingBot or User talk:DYKUpdateBot, you're editing a redirect. It would make more sense to follow the redirect to my talk page. Shubinator (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tag with TWINKLE, SO I don't understand why it's not following the talk page redirect... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, weird. Shubinator (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:NA_2007_Hyundai_Elantra.jpg

Hello Sfan00, thanks for contact me regarding the copyrights on this picture. this picture was originated from wiki file:2007_Hyundai_Elantra.jpg, and edited to remove the front plate. the copyrights of that picture is none; however, as a new user of wiki, i might have done the process incorrectly. thank you Shimman (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images (missing description details)

Kindly help me to add descriptions for all these already uploaded images. I unknowingly missed adding description. I'm not aware how to add descriptions for already uploaded images. Plz help. Thanks.--UtharaMalabar (talk) 09:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to do is Click the Edit tag for the images concerned , and add 2-3 sentences for the description field of

the {{information}} template that's present. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reciently uploaded image

How do you find the images that you say may or may not be public domain, do you just troll around until you find one that might be or not be completly public domain, and by the way, don't template the regulars. --Clarince63 (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was using Special:Filelist and scanning in a systematic fashion.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariusmiti

All makes sense, alas! I have, with regret, blocked this account until the man, woman or dog behind it speaks to us and says "Ah, so that's what 'own work' means!". If there was just a hint of communication going on I wouldn't have, but there wasn't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Audio excerpt fair use rationale

You have tagged File:Hamlet opera-Act1Sc2 Ombre chère 6bars 26of605sec trk13 CD1 EMI7548202.ogg with the Template:Short-Rationale. It is not clear to me what kind of additional information you are looking for. Do I need to quote on the file's description page the passage in the article which comments on the audio excerpt? Or do you think the commentary is insufficient to justify fair use? --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more detail to the file description page and will remove the template for now. If this is not sufficient, please explain. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. if you can udpate other short-rationales it would be appreciated :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE : KPS Flag

I understand, but i have one question, how can i make(change) the copyright status? Thanks. AceDouble (talk) 2:56, 01 November 2010 (GMT)

Click the 'Edit' tag on the Image Description page and amend the license to something appropriate. The flag image IS 'fair-use'

though, so you'll also need to add in some information as to why it can't be replaced with a 'free' image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MTA Maryland bus pictures tagging.

Why are you tagging the bus images to be copied to Commons. If I wanted them there, I would have uploaded them there when I had the chance to.--ETLamborghini (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images are free licensed. Free images get moved to Commmons. Are you saying that these images are NOT in fact freely licensed as claimed? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are free. I took the photos. To be honest, I didn't know that free images had moved to Commons until today with you.--ETLamborghini (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skyscraperman

Please be advised the copyright holder for the image at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraperman> has finally been successful in sending the appropriate email to: permissions-en@wikimedia.org Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Mimiken (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Usairmailstamp-C68.jpg

I fixed it, thanks, I missed that one. Nasa-verve (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply about image

I got it off Wikipedia, which has it sourced. I altered it from observing the AMPAR (or maybe it was NMDA receptor) receptor image in the AMPA receptor article, I believe. I manipulated the red diamond, put in a green diamond, and I'm too fucking busy to describe this since you should be intelligent enough of a Wikipedian to notice that I sourced it and there are various linked articles that could give you an example of where the image came from. --Cyberman (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ALL image on Wikipedia need a source, and when tagged the image that the above comment relates to did not apparently have one.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my fault that you are uneducated and do not know how to find the correct sources for things; Wikipedians hold multiple jobs. Some make images and attempt to attach the right source; others who hold domain over particular parts of subjects can relate sources when the wrong source is presented. You apparently do not hold domain very well over a neurobiology section. You were suggesting a decent image, contributed by an intelligent member was deleted. That was foolish. It took more time for me to make the image than find the source. I don't think you are qualified to even hold dominion over those cellular biology sections. --Cyberman (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are to delete my image, you must delete these:

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Activated_NMDAR.PNG

2) Laube, B; Hirai H, Sturgess M, Betz H, and Kuhse J (1997). "Molecular determinants of antagonists discrimination by NMDA receptor subunits: Analysis of the glutamate binding site on the NR2B subunit". Neuron 18 (3): 493–503. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(00)81249-0. PMID 9115742.

This is my own image, snapped from my own camera

Hi, Noticed your response about my image which was uploaded. Since it was posted by me, taken from my camera, I believe the copyright won't be much of an issue.

Best Regards

Siddhesh Joglekar (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sfan,

Sure, will take care from now on - for now, I see that you have added the creative commons license to the image. So, can I remove the disclaimer put there? From the next time, I shall be careful about images uploaded on wikipedia...

Cheers Siddhesh Joglekar (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: File:Gauloises sticks.jpg

This image is currently marked as being 'fair-use' although you indicate it's your own work.. I don't see anything in the image tha would make this un-free, Perhaps you could clarify your reasoning for marking it non-free? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The 'fair-use' is in relation to the visible logos which are copyrighted however it is also my own work with regards to the photo it self. As I understand it, both classifications apply though maybe I misunderstand. Is it not required that if a picture contains logos of copyright material that it be labeled as such but can be used if there is no free equivalent and there is minimal extent of use? David Rogers (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, You've quoted policy directly back at me! It might be worth making it clear which part of the image is free/non-free

if it's not already. IIRC someone else may have considered the logos as 'textlogo' which leads to a slightly different interpratation of the rules, because in the US certain forms of 'text-logo' aren't always considered 'original' enough to be copyright anyway Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Imzadi1979-MI.svg

You tagged the map as a candidate to be moved to the Commons. It has been deleted off Commons for falling outside of the educational scope of that project back in March. Just because something is freely licensed and hosted on the English Wikipedia does not mean that it is automatically a candidate to be moved to the Commons. In fact, in the time that the map was nominated for deletion, I had uploaded a new version of it on Wikipedia to keep it updated on the progress in the County Challenge contest. Please evaluate the content of the image before tagging them to be moved. If there is no possible usage in other projects, don't tag them. Imzadi 1979 → 12:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You should read file description pages more carefully. This edit tagged a photo as a Commons transfer candidate. It's PD in Canada, but as the template lower says, it's not PD in the US, so it can't go to Commons. For it to be PD in the US, it needed to enter the PD in Canada by 1996. It only entered the PD there at the beginning of this year. Imzadi 1979 → 00:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to de-tag accordingly then :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Files such as File:Credit_Agricole_HQ.jpg

Hi,
I dont understand why did you put a template "short rationale" on my images such as this one. I am French, and I had difficulties to understand the problem of "no-Fop in France", but a US guy helped me : no free image available, real use... What is missing ? I thought I add all necessary informations. Thanks. --Tangopaso (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to expand the FUR portion with respect to WP:NFCC, 'short-rationale' isn't a deletion notice BTW. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright notice required for a Wikinewbie

Being somewhat new to this game, I think I may have added the required copyright notice on File:Aqk Percy Aug2005.jpg as requested. Please let me know if this is what is required, or if there is some other hoop(s) that I must jump through.

Indeed, please inform if I have approached you in the correct manner, o exalted one. I.E. is this where I plead for my picture's acceptance?

Aqking (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC) - in reply to the following admonishment- (I'm slowly getting the hang of this)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqking (talk • contribs) 12:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August Manns

Perplexed by your note. Image is out of copyright and I thought adequately documented. Please tell me what you think the problem is and I will attend to it. Tim riley (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East Side Playhouse

"Standard" template. I really don't see what good this template does. It forces the reader to scroll past it to get to the information they are seeking. To me, it is just another big ugly blob that Wikipedians are fond of putting on image pages. Can I please delete it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure , but the image will keep showing up as a false positive in the list of images without a rationale if it's removed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Commutative diagram zelmerszoetrop.jpg

It says I made it on the page. I made it in MS paint. Don't delete it. Zelmerszoetrop (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So add a license tag ... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the means or how to do it. I made it, I don't care who uses it, or for what purpose. I can't imagine anybody would want it. Zelmerszoetrop (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate to move to Wikipedia Commons

Hi! just wondering what this tag means? you placed a tag for a picture of mine to be moved to Wikipedia Commons. Just Wondering about this.

Pumkinhead001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Wikimedia Commons is a repository of free media, moving an image there means that other projects can use it :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOC at Flickr Commons

There are 6,000 photos that need help linking them to Wikipedia if you want to help. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm busy enough patrolling new stuff, but thanks for the consideration Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Government Physical Education College, Dhaka.jpg

Thanks for informing me that copyright status is unclear under the file. The file is uploaded by me and it is the image of physical practice of college students. While uploading the file , unfortunately I have missed to add the licensing information. Actually, as a newcomer I have missed it to upload image according to Wikipedia`s guideline. Anyway, again I have uploaded the file to add the licensing information. If any mistaking is still now, please let me know again kindly. Thanks. Md Saiful Alam (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cover picture on Fatu Hiva (book)

The fair use tag says all. The picture illustrates the article on the book in question. If anything else is required, send me a message. I deleted the picture at Thor Heyerdahl, because it might or it might not be anything or other. And I deleted the other tag requiring something which is already there. How many times and in how many ways something has to be spelled out? Kraxler (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An image on Wikipedia being used under fair-use, needs additional information to explain why it's free use and why the image is not replaceable with a 'free' equvilant. WP:NFCC explains the criteria. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Rip Off Review 2nd Edition.jpg

Hi Sfan00 IMG, What more information would I need for this image. I actually followed the Hightimes magazine upload perfectly. I'm just starting the article for which I'm going to use this image. Do I need to add more information under summary? Check out Hightimes-first-issue-1974.jpg. Let me know. Thisandthem (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to explain how use of the image meets each of the non-free content criteria - see WP:NFCC Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happens next? Do you approve it? The last time I uploaded a non-free I got plenty of help, please let me know. Thank you!Thisandthem (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it meets the criteria, it stays :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourpeaked map

Thanks for the heads up on the Fourpeaked map. I notice that someone had made it appear that it was copyrighted by the State of Alaska. That was an error. The file was created by folks working for the Alaska Volcano Observatory, which is under the auspices of the USGS. I have edited the file to reflect that. AlaskaMike (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on image clean-ups

Hi, as requested on IRC I have taken a random sample of six images you have worked on, 3 on Wikipedia, 3 on Commons. Only identifying those with issues:

No problem.
File:Register renaming:tag indexed scheme.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); adding the information template is fine, though as source information is missing this ought to be sorted out before moving to Commons (I found no matches on TinEye but if the uploader does not identify a source then it probably should be marked for deletion or, as it is a simple illustration, replaced with a new originally designed SVG version).
No problem.
No problem.
There appears to be a duplicate File:Corticosterone.png vs. File:Corticosterone (1).png, there probably is no benefit in having both versions. No other issues as the source is clear.
File:Dlr-crittercountrymap.GIF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - with no source and no author this probably should be marked as PUF (though I find no matches in TinEye) unless replaced with a re-drawn original alternate.

Conclusion: You may want to make more use of TinEye and checking for duplicates on Commons before marking for move to Commons. I would also suggest not marking any image as suitable for a move until the source information is added. Cheers, Fæ (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for the feedback. I am planning on trying to add {{information}} regardless of Commons-ability...

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overzealous Image Tagging

Please do read the full image descriptions before making deletion nominations. If you do so, you'll see that the following images that you tagged for deletion were released into the public domain by their creator, and that the contact information of that creator was available in case clarification was needed. If you find the licensing information to be confusing, then feel free to contact the image's creator to clarify before wasting time with deletions that will have to be undone later.

Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I hope the permissions on those images have now also been sent to the relevant OTRS queue? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The permissions on those are as they were. Since you seem to understand the permissions process better than I, feel free to take whatever action you feel is necessary to get the official ducks in a row. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sigh

Please don't template the regulars. You're being a dick, man.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File duke of Alba

I don't know who is the author of the photo of the 17th Duke of Alba I have uploaded. Ca I say it was me becuase I scanned it? I don't no wehter I can do this. Thank you --Paliano (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the response I left on your talk page Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama Kings 2.jpg

Hi,

That photo is indeed my own work. Not sure if I need to do something more than letting you know? thx Peregrine981 (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I can now tag it for Commons :) Sfan00 IMG (talk)

File:NoPromises.jpg

Hi, you asked me to provide a better source for this image. I saved it from iTunes when I bought the single as a digital download, but it's since been replaced by User:MatthewWaller and I don't know the source for that image. He failed to update the source. So you would have to ask him. Anemone Projectors 15:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

clearly logo

Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_September_5#File:Recsam_logo.jpg - what tha? If you know it is a logo, it isn't appropriate to delete it. -John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK Noted, That PUI shouldn't have been closed as it was then...Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Binh Gia

Hi mate,

I just uploaded File:Binh_Gia_Victory.jpg as a separate image which I would like to be released into Wikipedia Commons. I uploaded the first one due to a mistake, so could you delete the first one please?Canpark (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Incubosullacittàcontaminata.jpg

I have no idea what you are talking about so I've removed your tag. The image is correctly license and the url link is fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting my file

I am the author of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Physical_Education_College,_Dhaka and the image File:Government Physical Education College, Dhaka.jpg . Already I have given necessary licensing information. Anyway, How can I protect my file from speedy deletion process? Could you say me please , again, Sir? Thanks Md Saiful Alam (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide a license tag for the image.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for File:Introduction2003albumcover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Introduction2003albumcover.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to annoy people deliberately ? This is a waste of my time. The source is not incomplete. I specified the exact web page on which I found the image, shortly before uploading it nearly five years ago. It is obvious that the domain is no longer active. If you must reply, then reply here. Rubywine (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the full URL of the page on which you found the image, It's a very simple request :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to read? I supplied the full URL at the time. It's on the image page. Rubywine (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Full URL is one that ends up in a path+ filename. e.g http://somewebsite.com/index.htm Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, but I am required to assume that you are misinformed and acting in good faith. A URL is valid if it is a valid URI reference. [http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/urls.html] Stop mistagging images on this invalid ground. If your misinformation is based on a Wikipedia source then identify it, because it requires correction. I am also repeating the advice which you have been given on many previous occasions: Don't template the regulars. Rubywine (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... Feel free to de-tag the image then, if you haven't already done so. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Standard-Rationale

Template:Standard-Rationale has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Short-Rationale

Template:Short-Rationale has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

I'm not an expert on these templates. My feeling is that they should not be used unless they are absolutely necessary, and if they are used they should be as short and to the point as possible. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly image

While I can't identify the butterfly, the user who's uploaded it talkpage says they're migrating to citizendium although that was in 2007 and they edited a small number of times since then. However considering they identify as MT Abdullah and their edit history and they call themselves TAbdulla, I'll take a stab that they're [4] so you could try contacting them there if you don't get a useful response on wiki. I've posted this here out of respect for the uploaders privacy as talk pages on wikipedia are noindexed so won't be picked up on external search engines. (Of course considering their research interests, they may not know.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for File:WallacePratt.jpg

I uploaded that file six years ago. Fortunately I remember the source, and it is still active: http://www.nps.gov/gumo/historyculture/pratt.htm H2O (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. you could have easily found the same link yourself by typing NPS Photo Wallace Pratt into Google. I do not edit much on Wikipedia anymore. In years past I mainly wrote stubs and occasionally still do so. Many of them have blossomed into wonderful articles. Unfortunately I don't have the time or patience to mess with a lot of the details. H2O (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Greetings! How should I add copyright information in that file? I have made it myself, what else should I write? Regards, --Gligan (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I saw the problem, sorry for bothering you. --Gligan (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SEAOIL Philippines Image Copyright

Hey! Thanks for taking notice of that. How do I put up the sources and all the needed information on the image? Robert Osorio (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback per IRC request

Hi,

Ran a quick sample of 6 images from your contributions today, I spot no issues with them. My only quibble is about specifying the source. If someone has uploaded an image that they claim is from an album cover we really should be able to verify it in some way, most easily by visiting the website. The problem in saying "source: can be obtained from <some production company>" is that the company may be long gone and without the uploader saying anything about how they got the image (most commonly taken from a website or sometimes self-scanned) there is little evidence that the image has not been tampered with in some way. One could imagine reasons for watermarking or making an image a personal attack in some way which it may not be easy to spot as a hoax. Anyway, it's a minor quibble and possibly accounted for by staying diligent. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not an expert on how to find obscure recording labels. I've got no objection at all to Rationale/source improvement drives. Even if an image has an FUR there's nothing to say it can't have additional information added if it becomes available.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be missing the point here, probably as I was not clear enough. If we were to apply WP:NFC#UUI point 10, then a FUR would not be valid for the images I examined without a source being defined. I do not believe the argument of being an historic image would apply for album covers as these are not unique as at any time someone could make a new scan of an original cover. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... Good point. However, some people see WP:NFCC as 'advisory' not 'laws that must obeyed' ... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hence my use of the words "quibble" and "if". If this were me sorting out FURs, I'd be asking the uploader for more information.

Fæ (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thanks for reviewing BTW :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Backlog Drive

Hey! It's pretty sparse at the moment but any input you could give or additions you would like made would be most appreciated! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WQA Notice

Just FYI, your actions were complained about at WQA. I attempted to placate the user, but you may want to talk to them so their concerns are resolved. Hasteur (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerned was apparently put up under fair use , but didn't seem to have a clear FUR, that's why it got tagged. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my image upload

Hi, Thanks for your reminders on my image uploads. Since I am new to image business, I do not entirely know how to tag the images to satisfaction of automated wikisystems. The images I uploaded are all without copyrights. They are all military insignias which are necessary for the article at hand. Since military insignias of Iran are created by government of Iran their images on public domain for descriptive purposes are not copyrighted and are free to use. I have pointed this in their description. I would really appreciate if you tag them properly for me. Thanks once again.--Irooniqermez (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time you have tagged my photo upload. The last time I left the above message asking what was wrong, but you never said it. Just going on "patrol" and killing pictures is not enough. Either explain your position or stop tagging. --Irooniqermez (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't stop tagging merely because you are unfamiliar with the way things work here. ALL images uploaded to Wikipedia need a license tag. Provide one or the images WILL get tagged. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your extremely aggressive behavior which is uncalled for. Your message on my talk page was inappropriate. You have been completely unhelpful to say the least. As I have already tagged the photos that I have created them. So what is your point here? If you are implying that English Wikipedia does not approve that article about Iran then go ahead and delete everything. Why dont you?--Irooniqermez (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expect an apology from you over that. If you think me leaving you a hint as to how an image should be tagged is unhelpful,

then I'm not sure what else I can suggest. Whilst you may think you've tagged the images, I'm STILL not seeing a recognisable copyright tag. This has NOTHING to do with anyone's views on Iran or otherwise, it's a simple matter that Wikipedia needs to be absolutely sure about what copyright status images have. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of good humor? Is that a joke on your user page?--Irooniqermez (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cousinbox.jpg

Hello, I am recieving notices about File:Cousinbox.jpg in spite of there being a file description with what appears to be the copyright information requested. Can you please specify why any more information is needed? Thank you. 贾宝玉 (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short rationale

Hi! I noticed you tagged the short rationale tag in a few images.

What is missing from the rationale? I'll be happy to help fill in what is needed. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NFCC as that exaplains what points need to be explained on a fair-use image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So do you mean simply adding the copyright tag at NFCC #10? If so, I took care of that

Next time it may help to mention exactly where in NFCC the uploader is required to consult, so that guesswork is taken out of the process

The tag itself says "The reviewer should contact the uploader and also attempt to add additional information to the Fair Use Rationale to resolve the concern. The concern should also be noted on the talk page." - So you need to state exactly what the problem is, and let the original uploader know via his/her talk page every time.

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Navbakery.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Navbakery.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So delete it then.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 17:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled the shop and found it and have added a description. Robman94 (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check file histories before tagging images

Please check the file history before tagging images or other pages for deletion for lack of a copyright tag, as happened with File:Grey-female-longhaired-cat-MaggieO-MCB.jpg. That image was uploaded in 2006 with an appropriate Creative Commons copyright template, but was recently vandalized by an IP who removed the copyright template. In that case it's much easier for everyone to just restore the unvandalized version of the page. Thanks, MCB (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of...

...just telling people that the images that they have nicely uploaded in the name of helping wikipedia hasn't enough detail or information and you've sent it to be fucking deleted, why not tell people how to correct it? Or are you on some stupid quest to have one of the highest edit counts by just cutting and pasting crap? It's people like you who think they are on a quest that are ruining wikipedia

Wake up, wise up and realise that people take and upload photos for the good of the community and that some may not have all the right detail because they were uploaded 5 years ago!

Now go back to [5] and say what should should be there Torqueing (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded need a source - That's what needs to be provided. If the template doesn't explain it.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding your tagging of some images

I noticed that you tagged a number of images that I uploaded. Most of these were works of the government retrieved from either the Army Center of Military History or are from pre 1900 meeting the criteria for allowance. In many cases it would be impossible to identify who specificially took the picture though. Most are clearly marked as works of the US government though so I believe marking these as having invalid sources was in error. --Kumioko (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, If you can provide slightly more information in terms of sourcing it would be appreciated.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately in some cases there isn't much. I have 100+ cd's of Images I have gotten from the Army, Navy or Marine Corps and about 25 are relating to Medal of Honor recipients, events related to them, the battles, ceremonies, etc. Most don't have any documentationa (and after asking the services in the past they dont have anyway) but they came from the service and they are freely distributable...but hwo to prove it. I have only put a few out there and usually dont deal with images because I have found that when dealing with old images (like some of these that date back to the American Civil War) its next to impossible to verify them and they just get deleted. Thereby wasting everyones time. Thats why, as you might have noticed, I havent uploaded any for a very long time. If you want to delete them feel free because in most cases I cannot prove the information one way or another other than adding the tag that they are works of the government. Regarding the 3 following images go ahead and delete them. In most cases a better one exists:

File:CharlesKilbourne.jpg - (thats a lousy picture, go ahead and delete it I have several better and hve sources for them).
File:Medal-of-honor-army.png - We have better images now
File:General AmbroseHill.jpg - We have better images now --Kumioko (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put something like Source: Old photo supplied from US Government archives or something, and de-tag. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok can do thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLeaks

Your question about WikiLeaks at WP:AN has been moved to Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Propriety_of_linking_to_WikiLeaks_.27released.27_documents. IMO it would be helpful to have a handful of specific examples, so if you have a few handy, please provide them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't . It was a general enquiry... If you find examples , feel free to raise them directly in the thread... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hawke images

Hi, I added NFURs as requested. They can be improved, but I didn't expect that (uploaded long time ago) and I rushed in putting them -hope it helps. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale

Check the original license and you'll know all you need. In short, we as Wikipedia got permission to use pics from that site as we please (thousands of high-quality historical pictures, most of them PD because of age anyway). However, some copyright paranoids decided that the license is not free as in free beer and decided to change all the pics to some non-free license instead. Ask them for their reasons. //Halibu tt 00:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the 2 icons at the article SAINT PATAPIOS

Please tell me if there is a problem with the rights of religious paintings (icons) of the Saint Patapios and the Saint Hipomoni (Saint Patience) in the text SAINT PATAPIOS. If there is a problem, tell me to remove the above 2 icons immediately, and put the old pictures (drawings)I painted my self.

About the religious paintings (icons) I mention here, they are from an UNKNOWN ARTIST and made at an unknown date (probably at the 15th century). They are BYZANTINE icons, very old frescos (certainly not the last century, but CENTURIES AGO), and on the page the 2 religious paintings (icons) are PHOTOS from the cave of Saint Patapios' monastery.

I would also like to mention that these 2 icons were ACCEPTED from the Greek version of the wikipedia at the saint Patapios article: ΑΓΙΟΣ ΠΑΤΑΠΙΟΣ

688dim (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Udpated to use PD-art, as clearly ou of copyright re the original. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image upload

Hello. I didn't upload the current file named Historias.jpg. I had uploaded the poster for the Brazilian film Histórias Que Nossas Babás Não Contavam but some other guy apparently came on a recent date and uploaded a file with the same name, which replaced my upload. Therefore, the current file isn't related to me in any way and I don't know if I can still be held responsible. Ciao! Behemoth (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the 2 icons at the article SAINT PATAPIOS (I did not understand your answer)

Dear Sfan00 IMG. I did not understand your answer. I repeat you my question.

Please tell me why there is a problem with the rights of religious paintings (icons) of the Saint Patapios and the Saint Hipomoni (Saint Patience) in the text SAINT PATAPIOS. If there is a problem, tell me to remove the above 2 icons immediately, and put the old pictures (drawings)I painted my self.

About the religious paintings (icons) I mention here, they are from an UNKNOWN ARTIST and made at an unknown date (probably at the 15th century). They are BYZANTINE icons, very old frescos (certainly not the last century, but CENTURIES AGO), and on the page the 2 religious paintings (icons) are PHOTOS from the cave of Saint Patapios' monastery.

I would also like to mention that these 2 icons were ACCEPTED from the Greek version of the wikipedia at the saint Patapios article: ΑΓΙΟΣ ΠΑΤΑΠΙΟΣ.

The Greek administrator send me a message that there is not any problem with the rights of the 2 icons and he added on a box of both of the above icons that THIS PICTURE IS COMMON BECAUSE THE PERSON WHO CREATED IT HAS DIED 70 OR MORE YEARS AGO. THIS IS A GLOBAL ISSUE. Why is there a problem with the english wikipedia? 688dim (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that when you uploaded the images, you forget to add a 'license' tag so that the images could be confirmed as 'not copyright'. What I've done is to add an appropriate license tag in response to your concerns. The images are NOT going to be deleted now. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help!

Hi Sfann00. I just wanted to say thanks for your work. I know enough about copyright in WP and the Commons to move around, but clearly you have some expertise. My IUPUI students and I are creating the Indiana Statehouse Public Art Collection, which has lots of images. User:Herr0183 has been working to get the images correct the licensing of all of the images. We'd be thrilled to have any help you might be able to offer. Also, I've never moved an image to the Commons, but clearly some images could be moved over there. Any help you could have with that would be great. Many thanks! --RichardMcCoy (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, try someone like User:J Milburn Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 19:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Andrew Revender's talk page.
Message added 23:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dead Frontier screenshots

Hello! I provided the rationale for the two screenshots in Dead Frontier. If anything is missing, please let me know. Thanks, --WizTheDoc (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several images set for "speedy deletion" contributed by an editor who retired over a year ago

I note that you have tagged several images contributed by Ian Dunster for speedy deletion. It should not escape your attention that the following was left on his user page: As the immortal saying goes, So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish. - I've left Wikipedia, but best wishes to all the fellow contributors who haven't proved to be a pain-in-the-arse. Ian Dunster (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you accordingly please hold off on the process of tagging images contributed by Ian Dunster for speedy deletion to give other editors time to clear this mess up? Several articles are likely to be adversly affected. Thanks Minorhistorian (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I use TWINKLE, so it may be possible that I never actually saw the talk page concerned. I also would like to think that I don't show any bias in what gets tagged. Thusly all I can say is good luck in fixing up the images tagged :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honda MT125R Page

Every image I have posted on there has been listed as photos taken and owned by me, yet the bot keeps pulling them. This is turning into a waste of time. Tell me SPECIFICALLY what is missing from the images. The most recent image *barber*.jpg has been posted two or three times

Tburklow (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC) (Tburklow (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Read the warnings you got on your talk page , if that doesn't explain please list the specfic images concerned below. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Octoberlowres.jpg

Hi, I forgot to add the licensing, it's been fixed now. Shoplifter (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys actually look at what you're putting templates on?

this poster is from 1917 Russia! How can it possibly not be public domain? Does anyone actually look at what they're putting templates on, and maybe putting some thought into the ideas behind the rules rather than mechanically going after everything that deviates from the proper paperwork? Is it just the paperwork that matters? Esn (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The first issue is that, according to the files history, it was you who uploaded the image using the {{Movieposter}} tag, which is now {{Non-free poster}}, thusly placing it into a non-free category. Because you did this a FUR should have been placed on it, and because it did not have one it was correctly tagged with {{di-no fair use rationale}} both by this user and again by another admin a month later. Salavat added the {{Film poster fur}} on December 3. Through the years nothing was done out of process, and if you note this user also placed a {{Wrong-license}} tag on the image as well, due in part to Knulclunk's summary of "though I cannot imagine anything from 1917 being under copyright."

The second issue is that this may not be the "original" 1917/1918 artwork but artwork for a more modern release of the film, in which case it would be non-free. For example this appears to be a VHS release and shows different artwork. And some other sites that post "rips" of DVD's show File:Father sergius.jpg as the cover of the DVD.

Overall though the difs should help to show the source of your feeling/s actually lies with your first upload. Your December 14 summary of "1917! I'm sure it's public domain. What's with you people" and the thread title here of "Do you guys actually look at what you're putting templates on?" should actually be aimed at yourself. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can't argue with a Jobsworth like that, can you??Weiterbewegung (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Sacher image

Can you help me figure out how to properly label the image, I don't know how. I took this picture myself, I wouldn't think there are any copyright requirements involved.--JonnyLightning (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the link to the license page, I believe I've fixed it now.--JonnyLightning (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar Cheating

You gave The Good Humor Barnstar to yourself, you didn't deserve it. it was like cheating.

The barnstar on your user page states that you awarded it.

Complaint: Unfree files

Sfan00 IMG, please overlook the unfree file list for 15 December 2010. [[File:George Lundgren and Fern Walters.JPG ]] MUST be overlooked, because I took the photo with a camera. My OWN camera. The image was displayed in a computer screen, and I cropped most the edgeso the computer screen doesn't show. And what the damn hell is the Arnold TV show??? Please OVERLOOK the entire list of possibly unfree files of December 15 AGAIN. Thank you for your cooperation.

To the idiot above: Sure you took it with a camera; but the image is of a cutout from a copyrighted television program. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 00:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RipOffReview.jpeg

Hi Sfan00 IMG, Would you check out this image I uploaded for The Rip Off Review of Western Culture. I wasn't sure if I could take a shot of the two covers together and load them to that article. Thank you!Thisandthem (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Different View

We got the OTRS permission for usage of File:A Different View.png and other logos of the International Association for Political Science Students. I don't know if I have to provide also the rationale for this usage. -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under a Cruel Star image

I had a permission from the publisher to publish but rather than going through all this lengthy approval I have asked them to uploaded themselves. this case is closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatraplan (talk • contribs) 20:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:199x OLIVER BEVAN The Clapping Song.jpg

Many thanks for your very helpful message regarding the copyright status of this image. It is one of five I've uploaded, and I have the artist's permission to use them under the stated copyright tag, so I will forward that e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org as you advised. I am still learning about Wikipedia and copyright, so I am grateful to you for your helpful and informative advice. Jpardey01 (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

einsteinsdreams.jpg

You tagged it for deletion because I failed to provide a rationale. I'm newish - have no idea how to that - its a book cover so I know it is fair use. Could you possibly provide the rationale and then I will have a template to learn from. Sorry to impose but I learn well from example so your time would be much appreciated. Please? Mark^Dask 04:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kerry Katona crop.jpg

Hi Sfan00 IMG--I think we have been through this before: once an image is Creative Commons licence any explicit permission to reuse it is no longer required. That is how WP can be a FREE encyclopedia--only attribution of author is required, which, in this case is indeed in place.

See, for example: User_talk:Artiquities#File_permission_problem_with_File:Bond_Henry_Kensington_neutral.jpg

--Artiquities (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should not add move to Commons on files that can not be moved

Hi! You added a move to Commons on this [6] and a few more like it. You should not add a move to Commons on files that can not be moved to Commons. The idea of adding the tag is telling others that someone has checked the file and verified that it is ready to move. --MGA73 (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sfan00 IMG, I keep running into files incorrectly tagged by you with {{Move to Commons}}. Are you actually checking files before you tag them? I doubt it judging from the rate you're going and the number of errors I encounter. Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons is so unreliable now that we should probably remove the template from every file you tagged and start all over again. multichill (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression I was checking them 'carefully' , no objections to a mass rollback here though Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a list of specfic examples . Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake happens and if it was only one or two we could not care. But when Multichill and I checked a number of files on User:MGA73/No license (files without a license) we found at least 10 files with a move to Commons. That was the main reason why we left you the notices. --MGA73 (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Can you knock up a script to generate a list of {{mtc}} or releated tagged images that don't have a 'recognisable' license tag, It would certainly assist in finding the problems. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

You're right, I uploaded some time ago, derived from another image, because it was a long time and did not know much of wikipedia, I wanted to give a prize to a person because of his good and consistent contribution to wikipedia. You have the right to delete or keep it in wikipedia, although this user have in his profile page (and deservedly), the image is still in use. Greetings from here--Venerock (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Krotoshinsky

File copyright problem with File:Krotoshinsky Draft Card.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Krotoshinsky Draft Card.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I fixed the problem... I added "

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. See Copyright.
Note: This only applies to works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision. This template also does not apply to postage stamp designs published by the United States Postal Service since 1978. (See 206.02(b) of Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices).

". Tag to the image. Please let me know if I did it correctly. ThanksV. Joe (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:San-mar-mil.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:San-mar-mil.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 14:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file was uploaded with complete copyright and origination information. If you'd bothered to check the file history, you'd have seen that the information was removed by a vandal. Please do check file histories before dumping several inches of rubbish (as above) into people's talk pages. Those of us who make the positive contributions to this project do it all the time, so you iconoclastic types really should do it too. Just click "View History" before jumping to conclusions. Thank you. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 17:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Sunflower seeds.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Sunflower seeds.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't upload this file, it's not even mine. This bot sucks. Please revoke the license for this bot. Jernejl (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My photo.

Hi, I got your message and wanted to let you know that it's a photo I took myself for the purpose of illustrating the cobblestone article. I'm pretty illiterate with regard to wikipedian procedure, but if there's anything further I need to do to secure my photo please let me know. Cheers. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging with no license

Hi! I noticed a few files like this File:Undershadowlol2.jpeg. You have informed the uploader but there is no notice on the file. I have therefor informed user again a few times. There is no need to inform the user twice so it would be nice if you remembered to check if there is a notice on file + on user talk. --MGA73 (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning... If you find anymore LMK Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Massop and Buckie Marshall

I photocopied the photo from a library that I use.The gentlemen in the photo are now dead also the photo was taken 32 years ago so I'm not sure what the status is on the photo.How do I place copy-write information within the photo? Richardlord50 (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use the edit tag, and provide as much sourcing information as possible :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sound files tagged for reduction.

Hello. I have removed at least one, and possibly more than one {{Non-free reduce}} tag that you placed on a sound file that was 30 seconds or shorter. A 30 second clip length is generally considered to be acceptable, and indeed, is an industry standard for song sampling. Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music samples) for more information.

Note that the 10% clause might be occasionally ignored. Reducing a 30 second clip of a song that is of the standard three or four minute length is unrealistic at this time. Category:Non-free Wikipedia file size reduction request , where the non-free reduce tag winds up, is backlogged and does not appear to have a sound file editor helping to clear it (I can and do fix and clear out the images, however.) Therefore I recommend that you prioritize reporting of sound files to those longer than 30 seconds.

Thank you, and keep up the good work. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't tagged for length, it was tagged for bit-rate IIRC Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typos!

Is there some reason why before nominating perfectly good pages for deletion, you are unable to check for simple and obvious typos? [7]. There are no prizes for the most pages deleted; it would be a pity to lose a page for the sake of a 5 seconds check. Giacomo 23:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More care required

Please take more care when tagging a file for speedy deletion. This sort of nomination only shows that you are not examining the content before tagging. An image of a book's title page, cleared dated to 1718, is bound to be in the public domain unless the author, Richard Boulton, lived to be over 200 years old (actually, he died circa 1724). Looking at your contribution history shows that you spent no more than a minute after your previous edit in considering this image before nominating it. --RexxS (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I call them as I see them. Thanks for letting me know it's PD though. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case you need to look harder to make sure you see them properly. If you don't understand how PD copyright works, then you shouldn't be tagging images for deletion. If you do understand how the copyright works, but you're not spotting obvious PD images, such as those of 2-D objects dated hundreds of years ago, then you're not spending enough time considering whether the image could be PD. I'll remind you that WP:CSD states "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way". There is an onus on you to make that consideration; in other words, the mere absence of information such as licensing is not sufficient grounds for deletion by a speedy process, unless you've taken a reasonable amount of time to examine the page to see if the information could be supplied. I don't believe the 60 seconds you spent on this image was sufficient to make a proper determination in this case. --RexxS (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pinched torus.jpg

Why did you leave me that message? Have you looked at the file? I clearly stated that the article was my own work. Why couldn't you just add the appropriate licence yourself? If you manage to pull yourself away from Twinkle for two minutes, maybe you would like to read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars — Fly by Night (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I call them as I see them, No recognisable license means they get tagged. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

picture in 'russell dilday' article.

can u help me resolve issue with picture in 'russell dilday' article.

i reviewed guidlines, but not sure how to designate it as "free"

thanks,

Ccirulli (talk —Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You need to add an appropriate license tag. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ackerman1822.jpg

This is exactly what it purports to be -- the title page of a book published in 1822.

1822 -- Illustrations of Japan; consisting of Private Memoirs and Anecdotes of the reigning dynasty of The Djogouns, or Sovereigns of Japan; a description of the Feasts and Ceremonies observed throughout the year at their Court; and of the Ceremonies customary at Marriages and Funerals: to which are subjoined, observations on the legal suicide of the Japanese, remarks on their poetry, an explanation of their mode of reckoning time, particulars respecting the Dosia powder, the preface of a work by Confoutzee on filial piety, &c. &c. by M. Titsingh formerly Chief Agent to the Dutch East India Company at Nangasaki. Translated from the French, by Frederic Shoberl with coloured plates, faithfully copied from Japanese original designs. London: R. Ackermann. OCLC 5911523.

Ackerman is a well-known British publisher in this period.

I don't understand this question. I don't understand what is perceived as unclear. --Tenmei (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Original BK Logo.png

This image did not have its trademark renewed and is now in the Public Domain. PD Images do not require FURs. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Image

Hi,

Thanks for your message about my image. This image is my own work, but I don't need it to be here on Wikipedia. I would have deleted it myself, but I do not know how. Would you please delete it at the first opportunity, and then inform me when you have done so? Regards. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagged for copyright

hi. you tagged File:Multiple sclerosis pic.jpg for copyright issues. had you bothered to go to the website in question, you would see to the right of the image a sentence stating "this image is copyright free". please do your work right if you wish to constructively contribute. Thanks. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It still requires a license tag, even if it's stated as copyright-free. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may indeed be a problem with that image. A tin-eye search shows it's used on multiple sites, but the original clearly belongs to "A.D.A.M., Inc." as the watermark indicates. The terms and conditions of A.D.A.M. indicate that "the content accessible within the Website (the "Content") is the proprietary information of the Company and its content providers, and the Company and its content providers retain all right, title, and interest in the Content." So it's possible that the image is actually copyright, and the Life in spite of MM website is mistaken in claiming it's copyright-free. It certainly deserves further investigation to clarify the issue. --RexxS (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further: This is the original image. It looks copyright, unfortunately. --RexxS (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Batman and Robin of image patrol depriving the project of useful images. Someone give them an award please. But firtst read the comment by a copyright attorney directly below here....WildHorsesPulled (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just craziness but insanity

Some explanation about this editor is necessary. First, Sfan00 IMG, for the most part, is NOT personally viewing images and tagging them himself/herself. All you have to do is look at his contributions page to see that he is using some kind of a mindless Wikipedia bot function to tag images for deletion. This bot began on July 20, 2007, and has tagged over 500 images in each 24 hour period almost every day since. Notice that the so-called edits begin each day shortly after midnight and continue every few minutes until shortly before midnight. No editor stays on Wikipedia twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week. Second, he seems to deny this with comments like, “I call them as I see them.” (See his remarks on his user talk page for January 9, 2011, at 12:51 a.m.) Third, Wikipedia’s developers are more than capable of creating a legitimate Wikipedia bot to detect the sort of “copyright errors” which Sfan00 IMG claims to be finding. So if Wikipedia developers and administrators believe these edits are truly worthwhile, they could themselves develop a program, as they frequently do, to accomplish a similar objective without leaving it to this private editor. Fourth, Sfan00 IMG’s contributions pages reflect very few entries showing that he has actually edited articles or uploaded images — at least, the number is quite limited. Fifth, this mindless bot really cannot determine whether an uploader’s fair use statement is valid without reading it entirely, so countless legitimate images are being destroyed on Wikipedia because of the bot. Wikipedia editors should join forces and ask Wikipedia to ban this sort of bot because of the huge potential for completely unwarranted damage to the encyclopedia. Sixth, Sfan00 IMG is an alternate account of ShakespeareFan00, and neither account explains his qualifications as an editor, not that this is required by Wikipedia, but his spelling preferences suggest he is not a U. S. citizen and apparently is not familiar with U. S. copyright laws. Seventh, I am a U. S. attorney, licensed to practice law in the U. S. federal district courts, the United States Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court, and I have practiced copyright law for the past 22 years. So go ahead, Sf00 IMG and hit me with your best shot, as something tells me that I know more about copyright law than you do. To other editors, please be assured that many of Sfan00 IMG’s criticisms are silly and nothing to worry about. For example, uploaded images of artifacts which were made before A.D. 1000 clearly have no copyright except that the person making the original photograph owns the image, and these contributors often waive the copyright to the image. Eighth, editors should notice one of the above comments noting that a Wikipedia administrator has previously blocked this user, and from the best I can tell, he has made little effort to conform the conduct of his bot. I would sign my user name to this post, but I fear that Sfan00 IMG will then set out to terrorize the Wikipedia images I have uploaded. (I see this as self protection, not cowardice.) I’ll be surprised if Sfan00 IMG permits these observations to remain on his discussion page, but likewise, I will make absolutely sure that neither he nor his bot deletes any images I have uploaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.204.248.87 (talk • contribs)

This isn't a bot account, but your message isn't exactly polite or constructive. Nevertheless, I'll look into Sfan00_IMG's contributions and see if your concerns are justified - if they are, I'll take action as appropriate. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've had a look, and to comment on your concerns:

Sfan00_IMG is not a bot. I know this for several reasons: His edits have a solid gap in them that occurs around 0100 UTC, and thus he is not 24 hour editing. In addition, I'm talking to the person who runs the account on IRC right now. He's spending a good two or three minutes on each image, judging by his contribution history.
His replies are short - they might even be described as terse, and certainly confusing to newcomers. I'd ask SfanIMG to spend a little more time replying to them in future, and assuming that whoever he talks to is unfamiliar with copyright and Wikipedia.
A program could not do what this user is doing. Such a program would be massively complex, and able to recognise patterns, variations, text, and derivative works - not to mention researching what the image is actually of. Such a task is far beyond even the professionals on Wikipedia.
Sfan00 makes all his non-image contributions under the account ShakespeareFan00 (talk · contribs).
This account is not a bot, so your comment doesn't really apply.
One does not have to be a US citizen to understand US copyright law. Nor does one have to be a copyright lawyer. Many Europeans and Canadians are actually quite well-versed in US copyright law, in the same way that many US citizens are lucky enough to be well versed in European and Canadian laws. Language is thankfully not a barrier.
I'm a little concerned about your claims to being a copyright attorney; in any case you can't prove it any more than the rest of us can prove that we aren't, so instead we go by the letter of the law and by applicable policy. 'Non-original' images of 2D artefacts made before 1000CE are public domain, and the photographer cannot (usually) hold copyright over such an image, as the image is nothing more than a 'slavish copy'. I'm not a lawyer, but I understand these basic tenets of copyright law. Obviously, individual cases require individual judgements, which Sfan00 seems to be making rather well in the cases I can see. He certainly picked up File:Multiple sclerosis pic.jpg as a copyright violation, so he's doing something right!
Finally, he has made a solid effort to improve in the past few months. The major concern now - although it's less a concern, and more an area for improvement - is that he needs to help users more in his replies. An answer like "it needs a copyright tag" could be vastly improved by pointing to the Wikipedia:New contributors' help page or the help page on how to use copyright tags. Simple stuff, but it helps new contributors navigate the maze that is Wikipedia.
You say that "I would sign my user name to this post, but I fear that Sfan00 IMG will then set out to terrorize the Wikipedia images I have uploaded.". If you'll contact me privately at chasemewikigmail.com, I'll keep your identity secret and check your image contributions to make sure there aren't any problems. You can trust me: I'm on the Arbitration Committee, and one of the long-standing administrators on the project. I also answer a proportion of Wikipedia's legal and copyright emails through the volunteer response team. Finally, I hope that we can all assume good faith here: we're all trying to help the project, each in our own way. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, to but in here. Why do you have to discuss this with Stan of IRC? Is his talk page here not functioning correctly? Giacomo 22:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This isn't a bot account"

How do you know that? Several past editors have queried exactly this, from its rigid and unhelpful behaviour. Given the comments here about frequency and timing, the likelihood looks even greater.

"but your message isn't exactly polite or constructive."

Not constructive? But running what is either an undisclosed 'bot or a really bad case of WP:COMPETENCE perhaps is? Just take a look at the complaint log on this talk: page.

I questioned this "editor's" tags a while back, and the next thing was that they went to Commons (I upload a lot to Commons, rarely to WP) and tagged an entire category of 100+ scans from a 1920s book for deletion. This editor's concerns are quite understandable, and from my experience, entirely justified. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recently User:Sfan00 IMG has tagged a lot of files because they had no license. I made a list here User:MGA73/No license of around 2.500 files and because of that list User:Sfan00 IMG was able to find and tag so many files so fast and do so many similar edits.

The issue is if the edits are good or not. Files need a license so something had to be done. I'm pretty sure that the edits are done by a human with some of the scripts/tools that has been developed for use on Wikipedia and not a bot. As you can see I have found some mistakes and I reported some of them above. If the edits was done by a bot they would all be done in the same way and the bot would not forget to tag a file.

As for the nomination of files for deletion we can best tell if nomination was right if we get links to some of the nominations. If a file gets nominated for deletion and the file is deleted then the nomination was right. If he nominates files for deletion without a valid reason I suggest you leave a not to the admins. --MGA73 (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, There may be some in your list that have got tagged on a technical lack of a tag, rather than having no-license as such. would appreciate someone giving some of my earlier tagggings a second glance. I'm checking back as well Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of Sfan's tags are under CSD not FfD, and many of these are on files uploaded some years ago, often from editors who are no longer active, and often under descriptions that were acceptable back then but no longer seen as quite up to standard. These are deleted automatically, in many cases without any human review. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no license on the file what is there to discuss? I think that a FfD is for files where you can discuss if a file should be deleted or not. Personally I hope that the admins will check the files before they delete them. If not should we not blame the one deleting the file and not the one tagging it? But perhaps it would be vise to add a note on the relevant categories and perhaps admins noticebord just to be sure that the admins know about the cleanup and remember to be careful. --MGA73 (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between actions that are correct and actions that are useful. In many cases, there are several "correct" actions that could be applied to a file that's in technical breach of our requirements. Correcting an obvious typo in a licence statement (an example is back up this page somewhere) is rather more useful than causing its deletion. Finding a file uploaded in 2005, with a FUR that doesn't meet today's standards is both an opportunity to fix it, or an opportunity to delete it.

Which is happening here? Sfan has always demonstrated a rather simpler worldview: anything that presents an opportunity for deletion is an opportunity not to be missed. Files are not valued for their potential value as content, but just as a scoring point in the grand deletion hunt. How many examples are there of this account doing constructive edits to a file other than tagging for deletion, even where such an edit would be relatively simple? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If there is no license on the file what is there to discuss?" – Whether a useful licence can be found, of course. Take a look at the section #More care required above for an example where a photograph of a page of a 1718 book was tagged for speedy deletion, despite the fact that there is no way it could be anything other than PD in the USA. I simply don't buy the argument there's nothing to criticise in nominating for CSD. CSD is for uncontroversial deletions, and a nomination in cases like that is a grave mistake an an abrogation of the nominator's responsibility to consider whether courses of action other than deletion are possible. That image was uploaded by Geogre (who is sadly no longer editing) and fortunately some editors still watch his talk page. How many valuable and usable images may have been deleted because a departed uploader has no-one watching their talk page? --RexxS (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should add the right license if possible and if it is likely that it is possible (for someone) to find a valid license then a PUF/FfD is better than a CSD (because that way file will be discussed). But for own work there is not much we can do if uploader is not active. --MGA73 (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For own work, that's right most of the time. The obvious exception is a photograph/scan of a public domain 2D work, since under US law, that can't generate a fresh copyright, and the resulting image will be PD. --RexxS (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the observations of the Wikipedia administrator/arbitrator

First, thank you for being in the British military services — you have my utmost gratitude for making sacrifices in the name of freedom. Secondly, I respect your position with Wikipedia, and of course, we will all have to comply with your decisions. If my observations “were not exactly polite or constructive,” I apologize for the tone violation, but I would have guessed that the multiplicity of these images for tagged deletion would be of urgent concern to Wikipedia.

1. Sfan00_IMG is not a bot. I know this for several reasons: His edits have a solid gap in them that occurs around 0100 UTC, and thus he is not 24 hour editing. In addition, I'm talking to the person who runs the account on IRC right now. He's spending a good two or three minutes on each image, judging by his contribution history.

You seem a bit uncertain about this conclusion. Are you sure that this is correct? While Sfan00_IMG might not be using a “bot,” I remain unconvinced that he is not using some sort of automated program to make thousands of edits. To really understand this issue, one should peruse his hundreds of contribution pages. According to “Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits,” since June of 2007, he has made 133,831 edits. About half of these have tagged images for deletion and the other half are the deletion notices on the uploader’s talk page.

My reasons for questioning this conclusion also include the following:

(a) I find it hard to believe that any Wikipedia editor spends somewhere between 12 and 18 hours, virtually every day, apparently doing nothing besides searching for and tagging images for deletion.

(b) An editor with that much experience, 133,831 edits since 2007, if he were making all them manually, should have become sufficiently familiar with the Wikipedia policies to have avoided several of the criticisms that appear on this talk page.

(c) The edit summaries on his contributions pages all have striking similarities.

(d) Sfan00_IMG did not respond to my comments on his talk page until 23:03, and I posted my comments at 21:09 — nearly two hours earlier — but curiously, Sfan00_IMG continued (for nearly two hours) to tag images to delete. If he were manually editing during this whole time, why the delay? His account should have reflected the post immediately.

(e) Interestingly, when Sfan00_IMG did respond, he did not confirm or deny that he is/is not using an automated program and seemed content with permitting the administrator/arbitrator to explain/answer this question for him.

I think the best person to answer the automation question is Sfan00_IMG himself. So, Sfan00_IMG, can you explain to the Wikipedia editors whether or not you are, even in part, using an automated procedure (bot, computer program, or something similar) to tag any of the images for deletion?

And Sfan00_IMG, if your answer to the above question is “No, I am not using an automated procedure of any kind,” then will you also confirm that you are manually spending 12 to 18 hours per day, virtually every day, doing nothing but tagging images for deletion?

I simply cannot comprehend why an editor would want to spend endless hours tagging images for deletion — sometimes over 500 per day. Think about it — is this likely? He might have a generic concern to protect Wikipedia from a copyright violation or lawsuit. But Wikipedia is liable for violations, not Sfan100_IMG. This seems extremely excessive to me. If he really is manually editing, I hope he is not doing himself harm. He can spend his time as he wants to, but as for myself, I could not maintain my sanity if I were to spend that much time on Wikipedia.

2. His replies are short - they might even be described as terse, and certainly confusing to newcomers. I'd ask Sfan00 IMG to spend a little more time replying to them in future, and assuming that whoever he talks to is unfamiliar with copyright and Wikipedia.

I agree. His terse responses also suggest a lack of time to explain. Why would that be? He apparently has plenty of time to tag, so why not explain? Good explanations might even reduce the number of tags.

3. A program could not do what this user is doing. Such a program would be massively complex, and able to recognise patterns, variations, text, and derivative works - not to mention researching what the image is actually of. Such a task is far beyond even the professionals on Wikipedia.

As I stated under my reply to No. 1, above, I am not convinced that a savvy computer programmer could not accomplish this. Some programmers know how to create complex viruses which can utterly destroy a computer. Such a program could also vary the amount of time between edits and turn itself off during various time frames. Essentially, the program would simply need to go through various Wikipedia articles, search for images with potential licensing problems, and then tag them for deletion. Would that be so difficult?

4. Sfan00 makes all his non-image contributions under the account ShakespeareFan00 (talk  contribs).

Yes, I noticed that — perhaps should have been more clear in my first post. But his contributions are still limited, at least compared to all the tagged images. I think you will agree that a good editor should spend more time contributing to articles rather than reducing them. He hasn’t made any contributions from the ShakespeareFan00 account since October 3, 2010. Why does he feel compelled to use a separate account? Could it be because the Sfan00 IMG account is too busy making automated tags?

5. This account is not a bot, so your comment doesn't really apply.

See responses above.

6.One does not have to be a US citizen to understand US copyright law. Nor does one have to be a copyright lawyer. Many Europeans and Canadians are actually quite well-versed in US copyright law, in the same way that many US citizens are lucky enough to be well versed in European and Canadian laws. Language is thankfully not a barrier.

I have again read my post, but I did not say that a non-U.S. citizen or a non-lawyer cannot understand U.S. copyright law. The reason that I even mentioned this, at all, is that Sfan00_IMG sometimes does not appear to understand the purposes behind the various U.S. copyright laws. From the best I can tell, Wikipedia’s policies appear to make an honest attempt to apply both U.S. and international copyright laws. Being a U.S. organization, Wikipedia should be concerned with U.S. law as much as any other.

When he does not understand the underlying rationale for the Wikipedia rule, he is prone to tag for deletion. For example, as best I can tell, the image he tagged which was uploaded by Theresa Knott (above) should not have required a fair use rationale. Other criticisms, above, are also valid. He has tagged for deletion hundreds of images, such as the ancient artifacts, which were created before any country in the world even adopted a copyright law. I don’t understand the point of all these tags — if the image is patently not subject to copyright, why all the fuss? What is the danger? Does he understand that the absence technical requirements of licensing can sometimes be harmless? Indeed, in his July 11, 23:03 post, Sfan00_IMG admits, “There may be some in your list that have got tagged on a technical lack of a tag, rather than having no-license as such. would appreciate someone giving some of my earlier tagggings [sic] a second glance.” So I guess he is saying an editors should upload images with a license, then he will second guess the adequacy of the license, then a third editor is supposed to come along and third guess his tag. No editor believes that this is really going to work, especially when he makes 500+ edits in one day. If he is making manual edits, this does not indicate cautious editing.

To make this point even further, I might ask Sfan00_IMG whether he is familiar with the seminal case of the United States Supreme Court in Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 4 S.Ct. 279 (1884), wherein the court first ruled that photographs can be copyrighted in the context of “intellectual property.” Does he understand the difference between photographs that constitute “intellectual property” versus those which are not?

I am curious whether Sfan00_IMG can cite the specific range of statute numbers of the United States Code concerning copyright claims and provide an outline of his understanding of some of the basic concepts. Can he provide citations to the statutory copyright laws if his home country? If not, is he really familiar with copyright?

7. I'm a little concerned about your claims to being a copyright attorney; in any case you can't prove it any more than the rest of us can prove that we aren't, so instead we go by the letter of the law and by applicable policy. 'Non-original' images of 2D artefacts made before 1000CE are public domain, and the photographer cannot (usually) hold copyright over such an image, as the image is nothing more than a 'slavish copy'. I'm not a lawyer, but I understand these basic tenets of copyright law. Obviously, individual cases require individual judgements, which Sfan00 seems to be making rather well in the cases I can see. He certainly picked up File:Multiple sclerosis pic.jpg as a copyright violation, so he's doing something right!

I have again read my post, but I didn’t say that I am a “copyright attorney.” I said “I am a U. S. attorney, licensed to practice law in the U. S. federal district courts, the United States Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court, and I have practiced copyright law for the past 22 years.” While this distinction might seem tenuous, the former phrase implies a practice of law that is largely limited to copyright law, and the latter does not. There are only a handful of attorneys in the United States who limit their practices exclusively to copyright law, and I make no such claim. I will say, without hesitation, that I am familiar with the United States Code copyright provisions and numerous opinions of the federal courts. I have copyrighted numerous books, and clients frequently consult me for copyright advice. I have had to confront individuals for copyright violations, usually in the form of a letter threatening a lawsuit. I frequently litigate in the federal courts. Sfan00_IMG has yet to claim such familiarity.

I don’t really care a great deal whether you believe I am a lawyer. I have considered e-mailing the administrator/arbitrator PDF copies of my five bar admissions (one state and four federal). As I will explain in the last paragraphs of this post, I do not intend to further participate in this discussion unless it becomes necessary, i.e., Sfan00_IMG continues to tag images I have uploaded. The assertion, “in any case you can't prove it any more than the rest of us can prove that we aren't” is simply incorrect. Regardless, it is not my intention to gain an unfair editor’s advantage by alluding to my experience or bar admissions, even if it might appear otherwise.

The administrator/arbitrator states that he is familiar with copyright law. Having practiced law for 22 years, I am quite aware that laymen (regardless of nationality) can be meticulously familiar with just about any particular area of law, in any country. I have no quarrel with that observation. Law enforcement officers, for example, typically are not attorneys but they must have a good, general understanding of the laws they enforce. I would only caution that most lawyers agree that the area of copyright law can be extremely complex, and I do not believe that most attorneys, even a “copyright lawyer,” would claim to understand this area totally and completely. This area of practice is subject to continuous interpretation changes by U.S. the federal courts. And, of course, Congress is free to amend the United States Code as it chooses. One has to remain abreast of the changes and know when they become effective. So laymen must be careful. Take, for example, the Wikipedia article on “Poor Man’s Copyright” — obviously, some laymen can be very misguided. I think it is fair to observe that I have encountered many, many clients who know less about particular areas of the law than they think they do. That should be no surprise. I reiterate that copyright law does not always provide clear answers to difficult questions. No one, attorney or not, should pretend to know all of the answers.

I get the feeling that your quotation, “'Non-original' images of 2D artefacts [sic] made before 1000CE are public domain, and the photographer cannot (usually) hold copyright over such an image, as the image is nothing more than a 'slavish copy’” might be designed to test my legal knowledge. If you were one of my law clerks preparing a court pleading, I would suggest that you add the following qualification to the end of the sentence, “but if the copy retains a unique or creative attribute which qualifies as intellectual property or ‘such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article,’” the initial photographer retains his copyright, as set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 101.” But the point of my posts, for the most part, is not to argue the law. And if you don’t believe I am an attorney, it doesn’t matter anyway.

I don’t question that Sf100_IMG sometimes gets it right, as in the File:Multiple sclerosis pic.jpg mentioned in the administrator/arbitrator’s response. But I wholeheartedly agree with one of MGA73's comments, “The issue is if the edits are good or not.” The problem is that an incredibly large number of Sf100_IMG’s tags are not good.

8. Finally, he has made a solid effort to improve in the past few months. The major concern now - although it's less a concern, and more an area for improvement - is that he needs to help users more in his replies. An answer like "it needs a copyright tag" could be vastly improved by pointing to the Wikipedia:New contributors' help page or the help page on how to use copyright tags. Simple stuff, but it helps new contributors navigate the maze that is Wikipedia.

Some of the editors have indicated improvement, but I do not understand the relevance of this statement. If many of his tags are unwarranted, Wikipedia policy should not continue to tolerate the tags.

9. You say that "I would sign my user name to this post, but I fear that Sfan00 IMG will then set out to terrorize the Wikipedia images I have uploaded.". If you'll contact me privately at chasemewikigmail.com, I'll keep your identity secret and check your image contributions to make sure there aren't any problems. You can trust me: I'm on the Arbitration Committee, and one of the long-standing administrators on the project. I also answer a proportion of Wikipedia's legal and copyright emails through the volunteer response team. Finally, I hope that we can all assume good faith here: we're all trying to help the project, each in our own way.

I will explain, below, that I do not intend to return to this talk page unless Sfan00_IMG continues to tag my uploaded images for deletion.

As to the assumption of good faith, I hope all Wikipedia editors adhere to this policy, but evidence is mounting against some of Sfan100_IMG’s methods. I agree with Andy Dingley’s comment, above, “anything that presents an opportunity for deletion is an opportunity not to be missed. Files are not valued for their potential value as content, but just as a scoring point in the grand deletion hunt. How many examples are there of this account doing constructive edits to a file other than tagging for deletion, even where such an edit would be relatively simple?”

Well said. Is this what Wikipedia considers to be “good faith?”

Moreover, the administrator/arbitrator seems to have mostly defended Sfan00 IMG, and I am puzzled by some of the responses. Looking at other Wikipedia administrator decisions concerning other complaints, they seem prone to protect the editor being challenged. The most attention a complaint ever seems to get is a block for a few hours; occasionally, for a few days; and rarely, for a few months. Nevertheless, several editors on this talk page think Wikipedia should put a stop to this behavior. Of course, we must now abide by the decision of the administrator/arbitrator. I remain in control of the amount of time I spend on this. Being now quite frustrated, I am going to have to reconsider whether to continue as an editor, as it seems to be a waste of time to upload images, in conformity with policies as they existed at the time, only to discover that they have, at some future date, been tagged for deletion by an overzealous editor for an incomprehensible reason. Do any of us have cause to be discouraged?

Having arrived at the end of this post, I am now exhausted. I have wasted enough time. I do not intend to add to this discussion. As previously stated, I do not intend to return to this talk page unless Sfan00 IMG tags my images for deletion. Maybe another editor can become the voice of reason and be more persuasive. Meanwhile, I will remain concerned about the damage being done to this encyclopedia and to the objectives of this laudable cause.

For the same reason I previously explained, I will not sign this post for fear of more vandalism from this editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.204.248.71 (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the response:

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for being in the British military services — you have my utmost gratitude for making sacrifices in the name of freedom. Secondly, I respect your position with Wikipedia, and of course, we will all have to comply with your decisions. If my observations “were not exactly polite or constructive,” I apologize for the tone violation, but I would have guessed that the multiplicity of these images for tagged deletion would be of urgent concern to Wikipedia.

1. Sfan00_IMG is not a bot. I know this for several reasons: His edits have a solid gap in them that occurs around 0100 UTC, and thus he is not 24 hour editing. In addition, I'm talking to the person who runs the account on IRC right now. He's spending a good two or three minutes on each image, judging by his contribution history.

You seem a bit uncertain about this conclusion. Are you sure that this is correct? While Sfan00_IMG might not be using a “bot,” I remain unconvinced that he is not using some sort of automated program to make thousands of edits. To really understand this issue, one should peruse his hundreds of contribution pages. According to “Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits,” since June of 2007, he has made 133,831 edits. About half of these have tagged images for deletion and the other half are the deletion notices on the uploader’s talk page.

Do you remember the incident with one of Betacommands Bot's?

I've edited manually precisely because when I bot goes wrong it's a major pain for admins to fix. If anything a smaller number of mistakes made would be indicative of a human editor rather than a bot.

My reasons for questioning this conclusion also include the following:

(a) I find it hard to believe that any Wikipedia editor spends somewhere between 12 and 18 hours, virtually every day, apparently doing nothing besides searching for and tagging images for deletion.

Well, I was told contributors should concentrate on things that were of concern to them , in this case trying to find images that represented an issue. Some of the image were tagged because of Wikipedia policy rather than strict copyright interpretation,

and sometimes such policy could be better explained.

(b) An editor with that much experience, 133,831 edits since 2007, if he were making all them manually, should have become sufficiently familiar with the Wikipedia policies to have avoided several of the criticisms that appear on this talk page.

Erm. I like to think I know enough for specfic tasks, but it would in my view be impossible to hold the entirity of all (conflicting) Wikipedia policy, especially given breaks in editing.

(c) The edit summaries on his contributions pages all have striking similarities.

That's a side effect of using TWINKLE.. It will put in 'standardised' edit summaries.

(d) Sfan00_IMG did not respond to my comments on his talk page until 23:03, and I posted my comments at 21:09 — nearly two hours earlier — but curiously, Sfan00_IMG continued (for nearly two hours) to tag images to delete. If he were manually editing during this whole time, why the delay? His account should have reflected the post immediately.

Can you identify the specfic comments concerned? It's possible that in dealing with a large number of images the comments

got lost in the noise?

(e) Interestingly, when Sfan00_IMG did respond, he did not confirm or deny that he is/is not using an automated program and seemed content with permitting the administrator/arbitrator to explain/answer this question for him.

Bot's need approval via WP:BAG, Hence I'm not currently using anything more advanced than WP:TWINKLE. I did raise the issue of TWINKLE needing BAG approval before, but can't recall if this was on-wiki or on IRC...

I think the best person to answer the automation question is Sfan00_IMG himself. So, Sfan00_IMG, can you explain to the Wikipedia editors whether or not you are, even in part, using an automated procedure (bot, computer program, or something similar) to tag any of the images for deletion?

I refer the honourable contributor to the answer I gave previously.

And Sfan00_IMG, if your answer to the above question is “No, I am not using an automated procedure of any kind,” then will you also confirm that you are manually spending 12 to 18 hours per day, virtually every day, doing nothing but tagging images for deletion?

It's not 18 hours, but yes I am spending a LOT of time trying to 'improve' Wikipedia.

I simply cannot comprehend why an editor would want to spend endless hours tagging images for deletion — sometimes over 500 per day. Think about it — is this likely? He might have a generic concern to protect Wikipedia from a copyright violation or lawsuit. But Wikipedia is liable for violations, not Sfan100_IMG. This seems extremely excessive to me. If he really is manually editing, I hope he is not doing himself harm. He can spend his time as he wants to, but as for myself, I could not maintain my sanity if I were to spend that much time on Wikipedia.

There are plenty of 'gnome' editors that concentrate on rather trival issues like fixing typos and spelling, so to me it does not seem unusal for an contributor to spend a lot of time on a specific task. I can also assure you that my sanity is fine,

even though a desire to see English Wikipedia free of troublesome images might be seen as obssesive by some.

2. His replies are short - they might even be described as terse, and certainly confusing to newcomers. I'd ask Sfan00 IMG to spend a little more time replying to them in future, and assuming that whoever he talks to is unfamiliar with copyright and Wikipedia.

I agree. His terse responses also suggest a lack of time to explain. Why would that be? He apparently has plenty of time to tag, so why not explain? Good explanations might even reduce the number of tags.

Hmmm. I'm not sure what needs to be explained, when the messages that get left on uploaders talk page should be explanatory in any event. Do you have any specific comments that you feel were too short?

3. A program could not do what this user is doing. Such a program would be massively complex, and able to recognise patterns, variations, text, and derivative works - not to mention researching what the image is actually of. Such a task is far beyond even the professionals on Wikipedia.

As I stated under my reply to No. 1, above, I am not convinced that a savvy computer programmer could not accomplish this. Some programmers know how to create complex viruses which can utterly destroy a computer. Such a program could also vary the amount of time between edits and turn itself off during various time frames. Essentially, the program would simply need to go through various Wikipedia articles, search for images with potential licensing problems, and then tag them for deletion. Would that be so difficult?

I refer the honourable contributor to the incident of Betacommand's bot, which attempted to do something like this,

and which when it malfunctioned was controverisal.

4. Sfan00 makes all his non-image contributions under the account ShakespeareFan00 (talk  contribs).

Yes, I noticed that — perhaps should have been more clear in my first post. But his contributions are still limited, at least compared to all the tagged images. I think you will agree that a good editor should spend more time contributing to articles rather than reducing them. He hasn’t made any contributions from the ShakespeareFan00 account since October 3, 2010. Why does he feel compelled to use a separate account? Could it be because the Sfan00 IMG account is too busy making automated tags?

The reason for the alternate account ( permitted by policy BTW) was so that issues in respect of images (and related) weren't mixed up with issues related to other matters like article contributions.

5. This account is not a bot, so your comment doesn't really apply.

See responses above.

6.One does not have to be a US citizen to understand US copyright law. Nor does one have to be a copyright lawyer. Many Europeans and Canadians are actually quite well-versed in US copyright law, in the same way that many US citizens are lucky enough to be well versed in European and Canadian laws. Language is thankfully not a barrier.

I have again read my post, but I did not say that a non-U.S. citizen or a non-lawyer cannot understand U.S. copyright law. The reason that I even mentioned this, at all, is that Sfan00_IMG sometimes does not appear to understand the purposes behind the various U.S. copyright laws. From the best I can tell, Wikipedia’s policies appear to make an honest attempt to apply both U.S. and international copyright laws. Being a U.S. organization, Wikipedia should be concerned with U.S. law as much as any other.

English Wikipedia is not American Wikipedia, and thus contributors should be able where needed to sensibly apply local rules,

There are for example a number of images that I would like to see on Commons, but can't move because they aren't as such out of copyright locally.

When he does not understand the underlying rationale for the Wikipedia rule, he is prone to tag for deletion. For example, as best I can tell, the image he tagged which was uploaded by Theresa Knott (above) should not have required a fair use rationale. Other criticisms, above, are also valid. He has tagged for deletion hundreds of images, such as the ancient artifacts, which were created before any country in the world even adopted a copyright law. I don’t understand the point of all these tags — if the image is patently not subject to copyright, why all the fuss? What is the danger? Does he understand that the absence technical requirements of licensing can sometimes be harmless? Indeed, in his July 11, 23:03 post, Sfan00_IMG admits, “There may be some in your list that have got tagged on a technical lack of a tag, rather than having no-license as such. would appreciate someone giving some of my earlier tagggings [sic] a second glance.” So I guess he is saying an editors should upload images with a license, then he will second guess the adequacy of the license, then a third editor is supposed to come along and third guess his tag. No editor believes that this is really going to work, especially when he makes 500+ edits in one day. If he is making manual edits, this does not indicate cautious editing.

Bold editing is Wikipedia. I accept you point in regard to the old-coin images. However, I don't agree with you about treating 'technical' absences as harmless. If you don't fix ALL the broken windows, others will get broken by those that don't

understand sadly..

To make this point even further, I might ask Sfan00_IMG whether he is familiar with the seminal case of the United States Supreme Court in Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 4 S.Ct. 279 (1884), wherein the court first ruled that photographs can be copyrighted in the context of “intellectual property.” Does he understand the difference between photographs that constitute “intellectual property” versus those which are not?

I'm not familiar with the court case concerned, but fail to see it's relevance to this..

I am curious whether Sfan00_IMG can cite the specific range of statute numbers of the United States Code concerning copyright claims and provide an outline of his understanding of some of the basic concepts. Can he provide citations to the statutory copyright laws if his home country? If not, is he really familiar with copyright?

I fail to see the relevance of this given that I've been trying to apply Wikipedia policy as opposed to actual copyright interpretations. If you are trying to say that only people that are professionaly qualified should attempt to tackle copyright issues on Wikipedia, then the entire project would collapse.

7. I'm a little concerned about your claims to being a copyright attorney; in any case you can't prove it any more than the rest of us can prove that we aren't, so instead we go by the letter of the law and by applicable policy. 'Non-original' images of 2D artefacts made before 1000CE are public domain, and the photographer cannot (usually) hold copyright over such an image, as the image is nothing more than a 'slavish copy'. I'm not a lawyer, but I understand these basic tenets of copyright law. Obviously, individual cases require individual judgements, which Sfan00 seems to be making rather well in the cases I can see. He certainly picked up File:Multiple sclerosis pic.jpg as a copyright violation, so he's doing something right!

I have again read my post, but I didn’t say that I am a “copyright attorney.” I said “I am a U. S. attorney, licensed to practice law in the U. S. federal district courts, the United States Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court, and I have practiced copyright law for the past 22 years.” While this distinction might seem tenuous, the former phrase implies a practice of law that is largely limited to copyright law, and the latter does not. There are only a handful of attorneys in the United States who limit their practices exclusively to copyright law, and I make no such claim. I will say, without hesitation, that I am familiar with the United States Code copyright provisions and numerous opinions of the federal courts. I have copyrighted numerous books, and clients frequently consult me for copyright advice. I have had to confront individuals for copyright violations, usually in the form of a letter threatening a lawsuit. I frequently litigate in the federal courts. Sfan00_IMG has yet to claim such familiarity.

I fail to see the relevance of this to the disscusion. Are you trying to say that non-professionals should stay out of the

project in areas like trying to ensure copyrights are respected?

I don’t really care a great deal whether you believe I am a lawyer. I have considered e-mailing the administrator/arbitrator PDF copies of my five bar admissions (one state and four federal). As I will explain in the last paragraphs of this post, I do not intend to further participate in this discussion unless it becomes necessary, i.e., Sfan00_IMG continues to tag images I have uploaded. The assertion, “in any case you can't prove it any more than the rest of us can prove that we aren't” is simply incorrect. Regardless, it is not my intention to gain an unfair editor’s advantage by alluding to my experience or bar admissions, even if it might appear otherwise.

Provided the images meet Wikipedia policy, they shouldn't get tagged. If you'd like to name SPECFIC images you think may have been wrongly tagged, I'm sure myself and other contributors would be more than willing to re-examine them.

I don’t question that Sf100_IMG sometimes gets it right, as in the File:Multiple sclerosis pic.jpg mentioned in the administrator/arbitrator’s response. But I wholeheartedly agree with one of MGA73's comments, “The issue is if the edits are good or not.” The problem is that an incredibly large number of Sf100_IMG’s tags are not good.

How large a number compared to many many images that have been tagged and not contested?

9. You say that "I would sign my user name to this post, but I fear that Sfan00 IMG will then set out to terrorize the Wikipedia images I have uploaded.". If you'll contact me privately at chasemewikigmail.com, I'll keep your identity secret and check your image contributions to make sure there aren't any problems. You can trust me: I'm on the Arbitration Committee, and one of the long-standing administrators on the project. I also answer a proportion of Wikipedia's legal and copyright emails through the volunteer response team. Finally, I hope that we can all assume good faith here: we're all trying to help the project, each in our own way.

I will explain, below, that I do not intend to return to this talk page unless Sfan00_IMG continues to tag my uploaded images for deletion.

As stated above, If the images meet Wikipedia requirments they should not get tagged, If you would like to name SPECFIC examples you feel may have been mistakenly tagged, they can be re-examined.

As to the assumption of good faith, I hope all Wikipedia editors adhere to this policy, but evidence is mounting against some of Sfan100_IMG’s methods. I agree with Andy Dingley’s comment, above, “anything that presents an opportunity for deletion is an opportunity not to be missed. Files are not valued for their potential value as content, but just as a scoring point in the grand deletion hunt. How many examples are there of this account doing constructive edits to a file other than tagging for deletion, even where such an edit would be relatively simple?”

I don't like tagging stuff for deletion either, but policy is policy.

Well said. Is this what Wikipedia considers to be “good faith?”

Having arrived at the end of this post, I am now exhausted. I have wasted enough time. I do not intend to add to this discussion. As previously stated, I do not intend to return to this talk page unless Sfan00 IMG tags my images for deletion. Maybe another editor can become the voice of reason and be more persuasive. Meanwhile, I will remain concerned about the damage being done to this encyclopedia and to the objectives of this laudable cause.

Hmm...

End of response.

21:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If your images are not correctly licensed, sourced or listed with proper permissions, he has every right to mark your images for deletion. Your comments are less than helpful, we've had this discussion on many separate occasions. Sfan00_IMG is not a bot, he is an extremely hardworking, useful, human editor. Nothing more, nothing less. All human editors make mistakes from time to time, I know, I've done it myself. But screaming "BOT" everytime someone queries his work does not help in the slightest. If you don't want your images marked for deletion, upload them correctly, license them properly, source them correctly and make sure you have the proper permissions, and there'll be no reason to delete them, will there? Barking Fish 00:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the images that Sfan has speedily deleted were correctly uploaded, but since they were uploaded we have made our standards for how to state licensing and authorship more stringent. He is just as welcome to assist in fixing this by updating such statement, in the many cases where that fix is an obvious mechanical operation. Yet he shows no inclination to do so, preferring instead to always seek deletion, no matter what the alternatives.

When an endless stream of other editors are complaining vociferously about your edits, the likelihood is that it's not those editors who have the problem, but yourself. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the argument that "not correctly licensed" = "he has every right to mark your images for deletion" just does not hold up. This image was incorrectly licensed. The uploader (a notorious dyslexic) had typed "PDiself" instead of "PD-self". Now just look at how Sfan00 dealt with that: he nominated it for speedy deletion. Is there any rational editor who actually thinks that a right exists to tag that for speedy deletion, when the obvious change of ONE character would have fixed it? I know that's an extreme example, but I'm saying it's symptomatic of the issues that have arisen, because policy is being applied to the letter, not by the spirit. In other words, the CSD process is being applied without sufficient consideration of whether the problem can be fixed first. I object to that, and would like to see some recognition that these issues exist and that some steps are being taken to avoid them. --RexxS (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, RexxS. I understand where you're coming from with that. I'm doing some tagging on Commons at the moment, and one of the things I've been told is that we personally are not supposed to change the license tag. That is for the uploader to do. But I agree that in that circumstance, a tag marking it as having no license is what I would normally have done. I wouldn't have gone straight for speedy. But I don't tag on here, and Commons is not Wikipedia, as we're clearly told. I do back you up on the CSD thing though. That does need sorting. Barking Fish 11:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raised at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sfan00 IMG

I've raised this account's deletion tagging at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sfan00 IMG. I would welcome contributions there from all parties, particularly ShakespeareFan himself. In particular, if you support my description of the issue, it's necessary for another editor or two to endorse this RFC in the next 48 hours, otherwise it lapses automatically. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of King Nikola II of Montenegro COPYRIGHT issue

[8]

I have written to the king's representatives regarding the picture of him. I have received this reply from them:

Thank you for your email.

For the purposes of copyright law, this image is the property of the Order of Danilo and has been in the public domain. For the purposes of the Wikipedia entry to which it is attached, the Order of Danilo is happy to grant permission for the use of the picture in this context.

Grand Chancellery Order of Danilo OrderOfDanilo@aol.com

If this is sufficient for the picture to be restored to the Wikipedia page Nicholas, Prince of Montenegro please restore the picture to that page. If you need me to forward the email correspondence to you or someone else please message me and advise accordingly.James Frankcom (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name change for Nicholas, Prince of Montenegro article

Please could you change the name of this page to Crown Prince Nicholas II of Montenegro as this is the title he uses and is recognised as by the Government and President of Montenegro.James Frankcom (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. I will consider doing that move. Suggest you check the manual of style as well WP:MOS ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File copyright problem with File:Carlos de Campos.jpg

Sfan00, I had tagged that image with the old brazilian public domain tag, because it was more than 70 years old. I'm trying to contact the government of São Paulo to know if it is really under the public domain. If it is, I will upload the same image in the Commons with the right tag. -Sitenl (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Jic fittings on valve.jpg

I was the photographer of the referenced image, which I clearly noted at the time of the file upload.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 8

Archives

Fair use image

einsteinsdreams.jpg

Nikola II of Montenegro Image

picture in 'russell dilday' article.

PhilipMcCluskey1 JPEG

Mekong Hydropower Map jpeg

Best For Film logo

Mad eraser man

Are you nuts?

File:Hammer-mme myou.jpg

Copyright for really old coins

Past block, still the same problem

Depeche Mode samples tagged on my talk page

File:DemetriusIElephant.jpg and old currency image deletions

RFC/U

Fair use rationale for File:Hb 42.50.8.jpg

Hmm

File:Diane-Arbus-1949.jpg fair use rationale

File:DressLooksNice.jpg rationale

Skyscraperman

Notifying redirects

File:NA_2007_Hyundai_Elantra.jpg

Images (missing description details)

My reciently uploaded image

Mariusmiti

Audio excerpt fair use rationale

RE : KPS Flag

MTA Maryland bus pictures tagging.

Skyscraperman

Reply about image

This is my own image, snapped from my own camera

RE: File:Gauloises sticks.jpg

Files such as File:Credit_Agricole_HQ.jpg

Copyright notice required for a Wikinewbie

August Manns

East Side Playhouse

Candidate to move to Wikipedia Commons

LOC at Flickr Commons

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Government Physical Education College, Dhaka.jpg

Cover picture on Fatu Hiva (book)

File:The Rip Off Review 2nd Edition.jpg

Fourpeaked map

Feedback on image clean-ups

Overzealous Image Tagging

*sigh*

File duke of Alba

File:Panorama Kings 2.jpg

File:NoPromises.jpg

clearly logo

Binh Gia

Protecting my file

Better source request for File:Introduction2003albumcover.jpg

Nomination for deletion of Template:Standard-Rationale

Nomination for deletion of Template:Short-Rationale

Templates

Butterfly image

Better source request for File:WallacePratt.jpg

Copyright

SEAOIL Philippines Image Copyright

Feedback per IRC request

WQA Notice

Regarding my image upload

Cousinbox.jpg

Short rationale

File:Navbakery.jpg missing description details

Please check file histories before tagging images

Instead of...

Question regarding your tagging of some images

WikiLeaks

Jeff Hawke images

Fair use rationale

About the 2 icons at the article SAINT PATAPIOS

Image upload

About the 2 icons at the article SAINT PATAPIOS (I did not understand your answer)

Thanks for your help!

Talkback

Dead Frontier screenshots

Several images set for "speedy deletion" contributed by an editor who retired over a year ago

sigh