User talk:Stefan2/Archive 4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_June_4#File:Ammar_ibn_yasir.27s_shrine_and_masuloem_.28before_its_destrcuiton.29.jpg

can you continue helping us with that photo file please? thank you Grandia01 (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I still need your help there please, thank you much again Grandia01 (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

File:De-Wet Nagel profile photo off Internet Movie Database.jpg

Hi Stefan, your concerns regarding the possibility of this file not being free for use has been addressed.

The license is clearly stated on the page underneath the photo and permission is given by the owner for free use. It is also indicated that in this case the subject of the picture is the owner of the copyright. http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2379849728/nm5556881?ref_=nmmi_mi_all_pbl_33 could you please fix this so the picture is no longer listed as a possibly unfree file?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actor lover (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote, there is no evidence that the IMDB uploader is the copyright holder. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It is stated under the copyright notice of the picture that De-Wet Nagel himself is the copyright holder and has given it as free license. Is this not enough? How can I provide you what you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.237.28.82 (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the person who uploaded the image to IMDB is telling the truth. The photographer should follow the procedure outlined at WP:CONSENT. If the copyright has been transferred to someone other than the photographer, then you should provide evidence of the transfer of the copyright and also provide evidence that the copyright holder has allowed to use the image under a free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. The photographer is listed as credit Jumpingrabbit creative and consent has been e-mailed from subject. I don't know what else to do. Could you let me know if this is enough or what procedure I still need to follow and how this photo will be in flagged? Is it something I need to do?

Please forgive me I'm new at this... Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.3.219.246 (talk • contribs) 2013-09-11T08:31:26 (UTC)

File:Iolo logo.svg

Hi Stefan2.

I need a second opinion on this: File:Iolo logo.svg. Do you think it is really eligible for copyright protection?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hard to tell. There are light effects on the red thing to the left, and there are no examples of light effects at Commons:COM:TOO, except for a few Commons decisions (which may be wrong as the decisions weren't made by a court). Some light effects are trivial, so some light effects have to be below the threshold of originality, but it is difficult to know how complex they can be without any proper examples.

There is also the case Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. to pay attention to. If you create a font, then the individual letter shapes are in the public domain, but the vectorisation in a TTF file is copyrightable as computer software. I would assume that many SVG files may be copyrightable as computer software, and in that case, you would need permission from the person who made the vectorisation. An SVG file could maybe also be copyrightable as text if you write the source code in some particularly creative way, in particular if you edit it manually in a text editor (which might not be the case here due to Adobe Illustrator comments in the source). I try to be extra careful with SVG files for that reason. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I can vectorize the logo myself if there is a need. So, all that remains is basically the light effects on the red turn off sign. I'll ask someone with image expertise. Thanks.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello again

Do you happen to have access to Google Chrome 28 or later? I have a report that says the direct link does not render correctly there, like its Wikipedia render.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Mediawiki renders the image differently at different resolutions: [1][2][3]

Different web browsers also render it differently: Seamonkey 2.20 / Chromium 28.0.1500.71

I assume that Chrome 28 and Chromium 28 display the image identically. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Internet Explorer and Firefox both render like SeaMonkey. But I uploaded a version that is not rendered differently at different resolutions. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: Though luck. My version doesn't render well at any resolution higher than 800px. I hope there was a way of testing it before uploading. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

At least it displays correctly at the resolution used in the article, but it would be nice to have this corrected. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to bother you again with this. Could you please check it again in Chromium and Sea Monkey? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Still looks wrong in Chromium. Seamonkey is, and should always be, identical to Firefox. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Strange. I just got confirmation that it looks okay on Chrome 28 and Dragon. Did you bypass your cache? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried deleting all browser data before looking at the image, but I missed that Chromium's cache was in a different directory. If I also delete the cache directory, then it displays correctly. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Too bad you lost your cache for me; although, next time, try Ctrl+⇧ Shift+R first, okay? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Help again with photo

Main page: File:NLeeWood,2011.jpg

I put up a photo on my Wikipedia page, the same one that I intended for publicity and book covers, the photographer gave his permission after there was some question about if it could be used on Wikipedia as well, which said:

I hereby affirm I, Vineet Rajasekhar, am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the portrait of N Lee Wood located here: http:/upwiki/wikipedia/en/0/04/NLeeWood%2C2011.jpg. I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Vineet Rajasekhar, Creator and Copyright Holder vineet.rajasekhar@gmail.com +64 21 051 3562 26 August 2013

As far as I'm aware, he also sent this to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, as requested. But the photo has been taken down anyway.

What more do I need to do? Nonnythemouse (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have asked at WP:OTRS/N#File:NLeeWood,2011.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Photo of Ernst Lindemann

Hi, a new user Pdxleaf (talk · contribs) has uploaded and added the image File:Ernst Lindemann.JPG to the Ernst Lindemann article. Can you please check copyright status? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

On Commons, the user wrote that he took the photo himself. This is dubious as the man died in 1941. We need a proper source in order to determine the copyright status, so I have nominated the file for deletion. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ernst Lindemann.JPG. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I commented as well MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

MUSEUM OF ARTS AND SCIENCES OF EPIRUS

Hello. I am Dr. Harry Gouvas, Director of the Museum. The File Carress of the Sun shows a plastic black Doll with cement and cement hands aplied on her. The tittle is Caress of the Sun. I MADE THIS ART STRUCTURE and i made also the photograph. So File is Share Alike Contribution 3.0. Thanks Harrygouvas (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Update on Mr Wiglet.

We're almost fully resolved now as far as Wally is concerned. It transpires he was just following instructions given here and thought he'd done the right thing. Couldn't save any of his badges but managed to replace quite a few with alternatives from a permission granted source - they're all on Commons now. Turns out Wally is quite the artist, although he uses software to help him create his graphics - still, a very useful editor. Big thanks is due to Graeme Bartlett for his assistance to me and to Wally. Thanks to you as well for your guidance. As a result of the way it was handled we retained a useful (if embarrassed) editor with a great education, a fine mind and an interest in British military matters. I still have to comb the rest of Wally's editing history to weed out any more badges which might be lurking but the end is in sight. Thanks for letting me have the project. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Boeing 747-400 Bandara SIM.jpg and others like it

Hi Stefan. Could you do me a favour? If you've nominated the copy on the Commons for deletion could you please change the db-nowcommons template to a {{nominated for deletion on commons}} template? this will remove the image from the F8 deletion queue and save the persons managing that backlog from having to handle the file. Thanks! -- Diannaa (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought that it was unnecessary to do that if the file would just end up being deleted soon, but if that creates extra work for you, then fine. I'm now using the "fail review" link in User:MGA73/nowcommonsreview.js if I also nominate the file for deletion on Wikipedia (as that is faster than inserting {{nominated for deletion on Commons}} manually) and will update to {{nominated for deletion on Commons}} or {{deleted on Commons}} if the file survives deletion here. I discovered that Category:All Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons contained lots of problem files and started checking the files.

By the way, are you well versed in the copyright terms for films? I found some British films from 1901 which had been moved to Commons, and there seem to be very complex copyright rules involved – see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Robert W. Paul and Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cheese Mites, or Lilliputians in a London Restaurant. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

On one level it's unnecessary, but it saves me having to investigate items you've already examined and nominated for deletion. And presumably (hopefully :/) I am not the only one working the F8 deletion queue, so you might be helping other admins as well. As to your question, no, I do not have much knowledge of copyright law as pertains to films. See you later, I gotta go out now and do a family thing. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC) I guess it depends too on the reason for deletion. Stuff that has to go to PUF often sits for a really long time for example. This particular image is already gone. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This particular image isn't gone, but because of some mistake, I apparently changed the file name when I wrote a previous comment, pointing at a non-existing file.

What do you think of Commons:File:Etlingera elatior-0001 01.jpg? The English Wikipedia uploader has one user name and the Commons uploader has another user name, but both claim own work. The English Wikipedia uploader also links to https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2320715914901&l=87a20165c8 which links to the file information page on both Wikipedia and Commons, so maybe it's simply a user with two accounts? I did a quick cleanup by adding an original upload log, but note that the licensing also differs (Wikipedia has GFDL+CC-BY-SA whereas Commons only has CC-BY-SA).

I have found lots of images with wrong licence on Commons, like this (wrong CC licence & GFDL missing) or this (GFDL missing & also wrong author). I hope that you are carefully checking things which can easily be overlooked, such as wrong licence numbers and cc-by/cc-by-sa mixups, before deleting a file. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do check and correct any errors in copying over the licensing and fix the user name if they've gotten it wrong or forgotten to put it in. The only time I leave the license alone is when the same person uploaded the image in both places, under the assumption that they've changed their mind (and yes I do know you can't actually change your mind once it's out there under license, but what are you gonna do). I add an original upload log if it is missing, and clean up any other junk that's present if I've already for the file open. I also check the number of pixels to make sure we don't end up with a smaller image than we had before (OgreBot catches some of these, but not all). For interesting historic photos, I check to see if a higher resolution copy is available elsewhere on the Web and upload it if there is. And I will tag for Flickr review if it's a Flickr image and add the proper attribution, and will see if the Flickr copy has more pixels, and bring it over if it does. Regarding the flowers, it looks to me like it's the same person. Check out the contribs for the user on the the Commons - there's a whole series of these images. commons:Special:Contributions/019ATAZLAN. Both user names contain the name "Azlan", which appears to be the person's actual name, judging by the Facebook account. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

C/O Sir image

Main article: C/O Sir

Main page: File:Care of Sir audio cover.jpg

You have nominated the audio cover image for deletion, initially I uploaded the text=logo image to feature in DYK, I thought it to relace it with the actual poster later. Now, may I put th audio template to the article's infobox? --Tito☸Dutta 16:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The file is unfree, so it can't be used in DYK per WP:NFCC#9.

Soundtrack images are normally not appropriate in film articles per MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Stefan sorry for interjecting, one non-free file is allowed in an article (in this case the audio cover), the other image is not eligible for copyright and does not meet the threshold of originality as it consists merely of a few letters. That image was used in the DYK which is absolutely fine and was a free image and as for the soundtrack image that is the only non-free image in the article and can be added judging by wikipedia's policies. Sohambanerjee1998 08:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Nopes, I meant to move the poster in infobox and remove the other. --Tito☸Dutta 08:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Tito, could not understand. Do you want the poster to stay or the album art? Which one? Sohambanerjee1998 09:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that File:Care of Sir Bengali movie poster.jpg isn't eligible for copyright in the United States. However, I am very suspicious about the copyright status in India. The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 is essentially a duplicate of the British Copyright Act 1956, and a British court found File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg to be copyrighted. There is no policy which automatically allows one non-free image. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, TOO-Ind is a confusing issue. I recently studied it and mentioned in commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Official_Aam_Aadmi_Party_logo_from_their_website.png. However, I am asking to move the image from the soundtrack section to infobox. --Tito☸Dutta 09:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes stefan I agree with you on this the reason being the colonial rule in India which led to most of the laws of India to be similar to their colonial counterparts. As for the the image this statement of yours has raised doubts in my mind also but there is one thing for Tito to rejoice about, the DYK is over. If this happened when the DYK was still in the pipeline it would have given him a run for his money. Tito's lucky in this matter. In all seriousness the query of yours is genuine and holds a lot of importance. Sohambanerjee1998 09:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The current image (free one) which is in the infobox is not the full poster, only a part of it. The soundtrack one is that of a single. The full soundtrack cover - 1. Therefore I suggest to move the current soundtrack picture by updating it with this and move it to the infobox. Sohambanerjee1998 09:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Apology

See also: WP:AN/EW § User:Onam2013 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: )

I apologise if any act I committed was malicious or derogatory. But some user kept replacing the official poster of Thalapathi with a fan-made version. I was just trying to undo that. Any act that I commit is at the end only for greater good, and I do not want anyone to think I'm causing vandalism. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I saw that you and User:Onam2013 appeared to be having an edit war at File:Thalapathi poster.jpg, so I sent a warning to both of you. I looked at the links in the discussion on your talk pages, but I couldn't determine what's correct and what's wrong. The images contain text in a language I can't read, so they don't help me very much. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The poster I uploaded is scanned from a book, by G. Dhananjayan. Onam's "poster" is actually a film still and contains a watermark, making it evidently a hoax. Who is doing just? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that you brough the matter to WP:AN/EW, so let's see what's happening there. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Template talk:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest

Template talk:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template talk:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template talk:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Estonia Police academy Patch.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Estonia Police academy Patch.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I took a picture by myself with my camera? So what to do? Mravlja Matjaz (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to reply. You need to license your photo under some licence, for example by adding {{GFDL}} or {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to the image page. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

FFD for File:DKM Album Alternative Cover.jpg

Please consider withdrawing Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 September 3#File:DKM Album Alternative Cover.jpg as the redundant file has been deleted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It's still redundant. The only thing that happened was that the other file was converted from GIF to JPG. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at Blurred Lines's talk page.
Message added 21:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blurred Lines 21:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

File permission problems with File:Dr Mangal Singh enthronement photo.jpg and File:Photo of Karma Dhomchhe Norbu Tenpi Gyaltshen Palsamgpo Rinpoche renthronement 2004.jpg

Hi Stefan Thanks for your message. I am sure you get a lot of people who have no idea how to navigate wikipedia's IP issues, and I'm one of them. The photos are owned by Shashi Dhoj Tulachan, who is related to both the subjects of these photos (Dr Singh is a uncle, and the young rinpoche is his nephew). The photos are both of historic events in their lives and the history of Sambha gompa - their enthronement (formal recognition of being the incarnation and seated at this gompa). Both photos were shared with me for the explicit purpose and Shashi's permission to post on the wiki page of Sambha gompa. I will not be able to communicate with Shashi and ask who took the photos (i.e. owns them) for a few weeks as he is in Mustang . I will go there and return by end of October and only then will have email access again. Dr Singh is dead and the young rinpoche stays in India. Assuming Shashi is able to tell me who took the photos (which is not likely for Dr Singh's picture since he himself would have been a young man) what/ how do I proceed? I tried to read the non-free copyright thing but frankly I don't understand it and what I would have to do to address it. (It took me 30mins to work out how to reply here to you!) Thanks for your patience — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.244.212.218 (talk • contribs) 2013-09-29T04:06:19 (UTC)

I think that you will have to ask the photographer to send an e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org to confirm the copyright template you added. If you can't find out who the photographer is, then I don't think that we will be able to keep the images, sorry. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan I am back from Mustang Shashi Dhoj gave me the name of the photographer who took the Dr Mangal Singh picture, a frenchman who wrote a book on the himalayas. My feeling is he is dead...but am trying to follow up. If dead- what next? For the young rinpoche, my understanding is that Shashi or a close friend took it- but have sought clarification from a Nepali speaker. Shashi will be back in Kathmandu in a week or so and I will visit him again, hopefully with the nepali speaker to verify. Thanks for your patience — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nima t100 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

If the photographer is dead, then the photographer's heirs should send the permission statement instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Commons ANI thread

I have started a thread at Commons ANI Commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#My_disappointment:_TOO_and_India Tito☸Dutta 01:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-free reduce and SVGs

Hi there. Before we get into an edit war, let's talk.

I've been removing {{non-free reduce}} because that template is calling for files to be reduced in size. Clearly, since an SVG is designed to be scalable, that's a pointless excercise. I can scale it down, sure, but that won't stop anyone from rendering it at any size without issue.

You seem to be objecting to the level of sophistication of some of the images. That's fine, but using {{non-free reduce}} is the wrong way to do it. If you think that an SVG falls out of policy because of how complicated it is, create a PNG version and then place the SVG up for deletion, citing the policy on SVGs. But don't ask for it to be reduced using {{non-free reduce}}, because that's not going to happen. Making an SVG less complex by removing elements is tantamount to making it inaccurate, and I won't do that. Considering how long the template has been on some of those items, I doubt that anyone is going to do that, because no one actually does manual resizing anymore (although I might do a run soon because that backlog is embarrassing).

So yeah, the TLDR is that if you object to the SVGs on complexity grounds, replace them with PNGs and have the SVGs zapped, because there are no other good options. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

So while I was writing this, you were posting a message on my talk page. I'll check back here tomorrow for a response, and will hold off on finishing the detagging until we figure something out, but for now, it's 3:15 AM local time and I'm heading off. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If you remove geometrical elements, then you do reduce the file's size. Size is not always measured in pixel count. For example, for sound and video files, size is determined by running time, in addition to pixel count (for video files) and audio quality (for sound files). For an SVG file, the size is mainly determined by the number and detail of the geometrical elements, so {{non-free reduce}} appears to apply. Category:Fair use images that should be in SVG format is very clear that SVG files shouldn't contain too many details. Uploading a PNG file isn't possible as that would mean violating the copyright law of my country, exposing me to legal risks. There have been a few discussions at WP:FFD and WP:NFCR where SVG files have been replaced by PNG, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

In the case of File:National Pest Management Association logo.svg, a file I see that you detagged, the problem is different: the logo is clearly {{PD-textlogo}}, but per Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. it seems that some SVG files are copyrightable as computer software. If the SVG code meets the threshold of originality for computer software (there's no example at Commons:COM:TOO so the situation is unclear), then the problem isn't WP:NFCC#3b but WP:NFCC#1 (freely licensed SVG source code could easily be written). --Stefan2 (talk) 10:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No, no, no, if you reduce the "number and detail of the geometrical elements" you're taking a faithful representation and turning it into an unfaithful representation. Not only will I refuse to do that, but if I see someone else doing that, I will simply list the file for deletion as inaccurate, and take the person making the edits to task for deliberately misrepresenting the logo, which is the same as introducing deliberate factual errors, which is a type of vandalism. You cannot say 'oh, this is too complicate, let's just delete a few shapes'. As I said above, if you object to the SVGs on complexity grounds, replace them with PNGs and have the SVGs zapped. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, WP:NFCC#3b is very clear that you shouldn't include too many details. If someone nevertheless does that, then the file needs to be reduced in some manner by removing details. For example, conversion to PNG is one way to reduce it. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see any other way to do it. In fact, I'm seriously considering proposing that we disallow non-free SVGs in the first place, and either replace them with PNGs or assess them as PD-ineligible and move them to Commons. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Simply disallowing non-free SVGs would simplify it. Some files such as File:GateKeeper logo.svg are way too big and display details which would never be acceptable for a PNG file. Keep in mind that PDF files also may contain vector graphic, so those might also need to be disallowed. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:SVG-Res states "The default rendering of this image is of a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company or organization, without being unnecessarily high resolution." If these images are not reduced, this statement is incorrect. 117Avenue (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. How about reducing the default rendering dimensions, as I've just done at File:Parade of the Athletes - Unmixed.svg? -- Trevj (talk) 09:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

PS Sorry that's not actually a good example for me to have picked, because from now looking at Parade of the Athletes, only one of those cover images is justifiable, so we can arrange for deletion once we've all had a look... -- Trevj (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If a file is tagged for violation of WP:NFCC#3b, then it means that the file contains too much information and that some information needs to be removed. If the file is a pixel image, then information is removed by removing some pixels (i.e. reducing the resolution). However, if a file is a vector image, then reducing the screen resolution doesn't mean removing any information. It would be totally unacceptable to store the PNG file generated by the wikicode [[File:GateKeeper logo.svg|3000px]] if the image were uploaded in PNG format, and the same must obviously also apply when the image is uploaded in SVG format.

The covers for Parade of the Athletes are arguably below the threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. If vector images are available, then uploading and using them on Wikipedia allows us provide higher quality information to readers. By rendering at low resolutions (both in article and file namespaces) then we're minimising the extent of use, as seen by readers. If the links (on file pages) to render in other resolutions were removed, then I think that one main difference between us storing vector images and providing links to high resolution bitmap images (hosted elsewhere and often listed under 'source' in FURs) is the technical one. In practical terms, readers in both circumstances can easily access hi-res versions (assuming no dead links for sources). Anyway, this is probably a discussion best had elsewhere... has anyone searched yet to see if a similar discussion has already happened in the past somewhere? -- Trevj (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that as long as the SVG files can be used to create a perfectly rendered image at a high resolution, then the images do not satisfy WP:NFCC#3b. Removing the links to higher resolution wouldn't solve anything as you could still access the high-resolution renderings by downloading the SVG source code (which itself violates WP:NFCC#3b) and render it in PNG format on your own computer, or by typing in [[File:GateKeeper logo.svg|3000px]] in the edit box and download the resulting image.

This problem has been discussed a few times before. For example, this discussion has a fair amount of comments. I think that there was a case at FFD at some point during the past year or so with more discussion, but I don't remember what the file was called, and I haven't been able to locate that discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Did you see Category talk:Fair use images that should be in SVG format? -- Trevj (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No. That page discusses an interesting point: what's big in one context isn't necessarily big in another context. For pixel graphics, we typically assume that images shouldn't be bigger than what is needed to display the article on a screen, but that is probably less than what the US laws require. See also Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old which states that "The resolution should approximately fit the intended use in the article." The text seems to originate from Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old for which the original history is unavailable except for administrators. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• I stated my opposition to the claim that SVGs are infinite resolution at the WP:Village pump (idea lab) thread about it. We certainly should not disallow them as a rule. However, I think that we should be skeptical of converting logos to SVG for another reason, namely, that the way in which resolution is lost, and by who, is a little iffy. Too often I see SVG images display differently in a browser vs. Inkscape, etc.; you're turning an image into almost a program. Displaying logos incorrectly isn't something we want to do for any number of reasons, so it may make more sense just to stick with the unsophisticated format. Wnt (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that SVG files do not necessarily have an infinite resolution. The word "resolution" typically refers to the quality of an image. If an SVG file consists of one circle, then it has a low resolution. If it consists of two circles, then it has slightly higher resolution. If it consists of a million circles and is unfree, then it is probably too big and needs to be reduced, either by converting to pixel graphics or by removing a number of the circles. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Manhattan Plot Gene C90rf72

Stefan,

received your comments and it runed out we need approval from the publisher of the journal. I will upload another picture which is free content and created ourselves to publish on wiki. The one submitted can be removed

Bernardusmuller (talk) 08:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Halloween Photograph

I saw you left a message on my wall. I went ahead and forwarded the email by the priest of St George's Episcopal Church to permissions-en@wikimedia.org but did not receive a reply. Would you like me to forward you the email? How shall I take care of this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maodhóg (talk • contribs) 05:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks as if there currently is a backlog of 20 days, so it might take some time before someone reads the e-mail. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Boxing posters

Hi. Did you follow Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_June_8#File:Holyfield_vs_Bowe.jpg to its conclusion? This would seem to set a precedent for the use of these posters.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I missed that one. It seems that we have two separate discussions with completely different outcome which were closed approximately at the same time, so the situation doesn't seem to be clear at all. I guess that this should be taken up for further discussion somewhere. Maybe both discussions should be taken to WP:DRV together. I see that neither discussion mentions the RfC which took place at WT:NFC during those discussions, so the closing administrators were not necessarily aware of that and might not have taken the RfC in consideration when closing the discussions. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done The whole set has been listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 October 6#Various boxing posters. This includes both the kept and the deleted ones. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. This should resolve it.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Musée Hergé

Stefan2, thank-you very much for answering the concerns at File:Musée Hergé.jpg. I have fought two attempts people have made to eradicate that photo from the planet Earth and have twice prevailed. I had not logged on in a few days and missed this most recent battle that you gallantly took up; I thank-you; you did a much better job than I would have done. Please continue to help me keep an eye on this file. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

File:The_Low_Carbon_Vehicle_2013_Event_Poster.png

Hi Stefan, I have updated the file and changed the tag to non-free use poster. I have also provide explanation why it meets the non-free use criteria and should feature in the article. I have even send my contract to Wikipedia to prove that I represent the owner of the picture. The picture is inside a digital brochure so there can't be include copyright information on that place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei.varban (talk • contribs) 09:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Scouting ranks (Scout Association of Japan).png

At FFD, you said I don't know why someone tagged the image with {{db-f3}} as it doesn't have any of the specified copyright statuses to which F3 applies. It was tagged by User:Blurred Lines, who either is attempting to get rid of nonfree images en masse or who doesn't at all understand the speedy deletion criteria for files. I gave him a stern warning a few days ago because he was tagging tons of valid fair-use claims as db-f7, and I've levied a block because he tagged a pile of valid fair-use claims as db-f3 despite the warning. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen a couple of strangely applied speedy tags by that user, and I have also discussed his use of speedy tags on his talk page a couple of times. I also think that the user is a bit impolite to other users when they contact him on his talk page. See for example this message where an uploader tells that he has sent permission to OTRS and Blurred Lines answered by deleting the section with a nasty edit summary. I don't know what people were writing on the mentioned file talk page (probably File talk:Boney James 2013.jpg) as that page has been deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Your messages

Dear Stefan, please feel free to do whatever you like with the image. I don't intent to pursue the matter at all - life's too short. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 22:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that these photos need two licences: a free photo licence and a non-free licence for the product you took a photo of. The free licence is missing. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

PD-India & PD-India-URAA

Hi there, I'm posting here rather than on Commons, in part because this page is more current than your Commons talk page and in (much larger) part because I hardly ever read my Commons talk page. I posted recently on the Commons discussion for File:Bhagat Singh 1922.jpg. I tend to agree with your remarks there (and you can read my reply there as well), however, I have more general questions about PD-India and PD-India-URAA.

• I understand that a picture can go on Commons only when it satisfies the conditions for both tags. That, in my interpretation, means it should have been in the public domain in India prior to 1996, which in turn means (according to Indian Handbook of Copyright Law (see Terms of Copyright)), that should have been published in India at least 60 years earlier (ie. before 1936). Yet, the Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights page says: "60 pma; photographs 60 pd; 50 pma (death before 1941); 50 pd (photos before 1941); 50 pr (photos before 1908)" It cites two links both of which are dead. I can't seem to figure out where the "1941" is coming from. It is not in the Indian Copyright Handbook, as far as I can tell.
• Regardless of 1936 or 1941, it seems there are some India-related images on Commons that satisfy neither. For example, Subhas Chandra Bose escaped from India in 1941, spent a couple of years in Nazi Germany attempting to receive German support for his plans for liberating India, turned up in Singapore (then under Japanese occupation), and took over the leadership of an unorganized army in the second half of 1943. Both the following pictures: File:Subhas Bose.jpg, File:Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and Members of the Azad Hind Fauj - 1940's.jpg were taken between July 1943 and August 1945, when he died. They are however both on Commons.
• I have updated the book information on: File:19430428 japanese submarine crew i-29.png. So it was not published before 1956 (at least the book was not); whether it was officially taken by the Government of Japan or casually by someone in the submarine crew is not so clear. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Indian rules for photos are a bit confusing. Unless I have misunderstood anything, this is what happened:

According to the Copyright Act of 1914, photos entered the public domain 50 years after they were taken.

According to the Copyright Act of 1957, photos entered the public domain 50 years after they were published. Photos taken before 1908 had already entered the public domain under the previous law and remained in the public domain even if unpublished.

Copyright extension on 1 January 1992: all works (not only photos) had the copyright term extended by 10 years, unless already in the public domain.

This is what gives you the extra complexity at Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. Also, what Commons cares about is the country of first publication. A photo may have been taken in India but first published outside India, which means that Commons uses the laws of some other country instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thanks, btw, for the clear and concise explanation. So, for a picture to be in PD-India-URAA, the key dates are: 1908 (if taken before that date in India) and 1941 (if published before that date in India). In other words, a picture first published in 1943 in India qualifies for PD-India, but not for PD-India-URAA (since it was not in public domain in India on 1 January 1996). Am I right? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And if a photo wasn't in the public domain in India in 1996, then it is treated as unfree on Wikipedia and isn't accepted on Commons as it is still copyrighted in USA. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Image_tags_and_other_issues_with_India-related_images where I made a post. (I think I may have made it too complicated! :) ) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Amending file uploads

File:1929 Sidney Reginald Daniels.jpg‎ You have recently added this message to a file I uploaded; "This non-free media file should be replaced with a smaller version to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and United States copyright law."

The copyright holder has issued me with a license to use this file, the terms of which I linked to the page; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ It states - "No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work." The copyright holder has different sized versions of this image. The one they wished to make available for use under license was this size.

I do not want to be in breach of my license by altering the size of the image to suit wikipedia policy as you suggest. I would be grateful for your comments.

I also note that you have recently deleted this image from 2 of the 3 pages where I had placed it because 'no appropriate rationale was appended'. I have read through wikipedia guidelines on how to append a rationale, however I have not located in these instructions exactly where a rationale should be appended and would welcome your help.Graemp (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-free files should be of low resolution per WP:NFCC#3b. I'm not sure if it is a good idea to reduce files under nonderivative licences, though, as this reduces the possibilities for people to use the image. Maybe it should be discussed at WT:NFC...

If I remember correctly, the image additionally violated WP:NFCC#8 in the other articles, so readding it there is a bad idea. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan2/Graemp! WP:NFCC#3b does not define low-resolution and in this case I believe that NPG consider 800px/72dpi as low res (as its not enough for most print/commercial applications). They consider the high-resolution as 2400px/300dpi. As Graemp noted, the license having 'No Derivative Works' would I think preclude resizing - especially as often when people resize they unintentially remove the meta data (which includes a lot of NPG information) - Maybe it would help if, on the file pages, rather than linking the creative the commons url the NPG url for the use of that image was linked? That would show both the licence and the terms of 800px - i.e. in this case: http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/use-this-image.php?mkey=mw175921 Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, "low resolution" typically means "not bigger than needed for Wikipedia". 800 pixels is usually a lot more than needed for Wikipedia. In the article, the largest side of the image is 299 pixels. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

File:RESeminary seak.jpg

This file was uploaded with permission of owner. Information of copyright is on page. Information was sent last year. Please take this file off of the list of possibly unfree files. JohnKeble (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The file name you quoted above is incorrect. There is a typo in it or something. I have replied on your talk page. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

File name has been corrected. The image talk page says right on it that the image was released into the public domain by the owner so it seems nothing else needs to be done. JohnKeble (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no evidence that it has been released to the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Migration of GnRH releasing neurones.jpg

Hello,

I received an e-mail stating this file is listed as possibly not being free. I have permission from the author of the diagram (Prof. Nelly Pitteloud) who has allowed its free and full use in the public domain. I have submitted this e-mail in the past and on the file's page there is a note saying the e-mail has been received. Please could you let me know what else I need to do to prove that the author is happy for this file to be used freely & openly Thank you. Neilsmith38 (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The file was in a category of files for which the OTRS team has been waiting for permission since last year. Maybe this means that the permission never was sent or that it was missed. I suggest that you send it again, or failing that, ask at WP:OTRS/N. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

File:SC Corinthians celebrating LCC triumph.jpg

I had permission by the organisers' media team to use this photo. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by HealthSX (talk • contribs) 13:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Please ask the copyright holder to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT so that the permission can be verified by others. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Target_data_center_at_CIT_in_Groningen.jpg

Dear Stefan2, I received a message from you that this image might not be free. I sent an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org using the standard template stating that I am the owner of the image and that I release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0. Is this sufficient for Wikipedia to allow this image?? Is there anything else I need to do? I'm sorry for all these questions, but I am new to Wikipedia and sometimes I get a bit lost especially when it comes to copyrights for images. I appreciate your comments so far. Thanks, Sautekai (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Village Pump thread of interest

Hey, I figured you'd be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 12#Disallow non-free SVGs. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:PUF

Just wanted to let you know that I opened a WP:PUF discussion here about a photo that was discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review‎ that you nominated there. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Copyright/License

From DryMartini99 Hello Stefan2

This is regarding File:Crossflow configuration for microfiltration-PNG.png file I uploaded as part of my educational assessment.

This file was made by one of my group members and hence does not come under an official license, it was reproduced with the creator's permission and his name is on the page. With all rights reserved.

I request that you do not delete this file, however if there is some details which are missing I would be more than happy to fill them in. However Wikipedia does not seems to have a avenue for diagrams which are self drawn my students. Can you advise?

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DryMartini99 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"All rights reserved" is not acceptable for this kind of images. Images like this need to be available under a free licence. A free licence is one meeting freedomdefined:definition, which "all rights reserved" does not. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Happy Bottom Riding Club.JPG.

This image has been described more fully and a note has been made regarding its historical importance to qualify as a non-free image. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It didn't have a non-free copyright tag. See WP:NFCC#10b. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Denizli rooster bas.jpg

Hi! Thanks for the notice. I uploaded this pic when I was a newbie to Wikipedia and had no real knowledge about licences and such stuff. As much as I could remember, I probably transferred it from the Turkish Wikipedia and thought it is ok here if it was ok there... I totally forgot about this picture, to be honest. I think it can be deleted and I think it is high time for me to review my early uploads and clean them up. Thanks again, Kind regards Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 21:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Tag it with {{db-g7}} if you wish. Otherwise, it might be easier to simply wait for a week until the {{subst:npd}} expires. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Spode Platter Aesop

Main page: File:Spode Platter Aesop.jpg

There appears to be no discussion page about the nomination for deletion of this file. As the entry for it states, permission to use it was given by the copyright holder and forwarded to the address mentioned. Could you please explain on my talk page what more needed to be done? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 October 16#File:Spode Platter Aesop.jpg. The permission on the file information page is insufficient. Please ask the copyright holder to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. Note that there are two copyrights: the photographer's copyright and the plate designer's copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Obviously it ought not to be on Commons. The plate dates from 1831, so the designer has long been dead. I've reloaded the file on English WP now, so please go ahead and delete it from Commons. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do not repost files, fix the first upload instead. I have nominated the most recent upload for speedy deletion as a duplicate so that we don't lose the original upload history. Also, none of the files is on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Like another of your correspondants here, I am reluctant to trouble any further the person who gave me permission to use the file. I did everything I was asked to back then and am discouraged by your unhelpful attitude. Perhaps you should consider trying to enter into the feelings of those less technically minded than yourself. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that you didn't do everything you were supposed to do back then. You obtained a Wikipedia-only permission and stated what the permission was on the file information page. You were supposed to obtain a permission which allows anyone to use the photo, and the copyright holder was supposed to send his permission to OTRS per the instructions at WP:CONSENT so that people can verify that the permission comes from the right place. It is unfortunate that it took some time before your mistakes were discovered. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

File:B23.land of psychedelic illuminations.jpg

Hi there, I'm not sure the best way to handle this with the least amount of confusion and complication for the artist who granted permission for use of this image on Wikipedia. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable with regards to such things could contact him? His email address is: brianexton (AT) talktalk (DOT) net --Thoric (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The easiest way to do it is to simply tell the copyright holder to fill in the form at WP:CONSENT and send that to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion.

Replaceable fair use File:Davies High School building, Fargo , ND.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use File:Fargo North High School building in Fargo, ND.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use File:Fargo South High School building, Fargo, ND.jpg[edit]

Stefan2: thanks for your assistance with my uploaded photo files. I do not think I tagged the files properly for no-free/copywrite use at upload, but don't understand how to change their status now. I am new to my position, so this is the first time I have done anything on Wikipedia, which compounded the issue at hand! The 3 photo files I uploaded are all photos taken by the Fargo Public Schools (essentially I represent FPS in my job) as the photogrpaher, owned by the Fargo Public Schools, and of Fargo Public Schools buildings.

Can you help me retag these files appropriately? Thank you. Fargo Public Schools (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Fargo Public SchoolsFargo Public Schools (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC) (Lisa) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fargo Public Schools (talk • contribs)

The photos are marked as unfree. Wikipedia doesn't accept unfree photos of buildings which still exist, see WP:NFC#UUI §1. If the copyright holder agrees, they can be licensed under some free licence. See WP:CONSENT for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Age sequence.png

The permission to publish the file was given me by the owner Manuel Bastioni and was confirmed to Wikipedia team with an email sent on 06 Oct. If you want confirmation you can write to info@makehuman.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc.alessandra (talk • contribs) 21:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Please simply delete my file File:The Wikinauts on Seriphos.jpg

Please simply delete my file File:The Wikinauts on Seriphos.jpg - I don't need that any more. --Wikinaut (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

My Halloween Photographs

Hi Stefan, it's Maodhóg again. I uploaded File:Halloween Sweden.png, File:Halloween Bangladesh.jpg, File:Halloween India.jpg, File:Hallowmas Slovakia.png, and File:Vigil of All Hallows, St. George's Episcopal Church (2010).jpg, as you know. Because you told me to do so, I forwarded all the emails from the authors/owners of those photographs stating that I was allowed to use them on Wikipedia. Do the authors/owners also need to state (in their emails) that they are releasing their photographs into public domain or is it simply enough to state that the photographs are allowed to appear on Wikipedia? If you have an email address I could send the emails to you so you could see that they're okay. Maodhóg (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's not enough that there is permission for use on Wikipedia; the owners need to make the images available under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license (and, if the owner is the sole owner, the GFDL also), according to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Of course, releasing things into the public domain (or with any license that's strictly more permissive than CC-BY-SA + GFDL) works too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, I appreciate you attending to my question. Is it sufficient for the author of the photograph to send me an email stating that they've released the photograph into public domain? I can then forward this email to the permissions committee. Maodhóg (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, could I forward the emails to you so you can see if they're OK or not? Do you have an email address I can reach you at? Maodhóg (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

To show you an example of the body of the emails that I have sent, I have used this:

Dear Mr. XYZ,

Thanks for your willingness to let Wikipedia host your photograph! In order to keep and use the photograph on Wikipedia, you will need to release that photograph into public domain. I would just need you to reply to this email stating that the photograph is public domain and therefore is permissible to use in Wikipedia. I appreciate all your help throughout this process - you've been great!

Sincerely,

Maodhóg

For a reply, I have received emails from the author like this:

That photo is now public domain and can be used by Wikipedia.

In turn, I have forwarded those emails to the Permissions Committee of Wikipedia with the following message:

Dear Permissions Committee of Wikipedia,

This message is to inform you that File:Halloween_Sweden.png on English Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Halloween_Sweden.png) has been released into public domain by its author, Mr. XYZ. The photograph has a public domain sticker that reflects this licensing information. If you scroll, below, I have forwarded you the email from Mr. XYZ as evidence of the public domain release.

Sincerely,

Maodhóg

Does that suffice? Maodhóg (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that should be okay, as long as you've sent the entirety of the correspondence in the forwarded email to permissions-enwikimedia.org, which is the email address for the OTRS team that handles these types of things. (There's nothing at Wikipedia actually called the "Permissions Committee", but they're close enough). I actually happen to be on the OTRS team; I'm on the road today, but I'll look into it when I get a chance if nobody else has already by then. (OTRS can be slow at times, so sometimes you just have to be patient.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Writ Keeper: Thanks for handling this for me.

Maodhóg: Yes, that should be fine, provided that you include the full e-mails. If something is unclear, the people who handle the e-mails will probably contact you. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys! The emails should be in the OTRS mailbox! :) Maodhóg (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Scottsdale-Stillman Park 20 -Scottdale Model Railroad Club.jpg

Hi Stefan, I just want you to know that I really trust you in this issue. When it comes to these things you have an excellent insight. My main concern is the "toy" thing and since life is a continuous learning experience I want to hear the opinion of a Wikipedian who is a lawyer and an expert. Once I hear from him and if I am wrong in my assumption, I will proceed to delete the image. No, hard feelings on my side since I have said before, I admire your work here. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I don't think that we are in a hurry. I think that there are several issues here:

• The photo shows various objects, such as houses and cars and trains. Toys are generally copyrightable, and I remember that a lot of photos of Barbie dolls were deleted for that reason some time ago. On the other hand, utilitarian objects are explicitly exempt from copyright in the United States, so a real car or a real train isn't copyrighted. The special case of models of utilitarian objects is discussed at Commons:User:Elcobbola/Models, but there is also s:Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. which suggests that such models aren't always copyrighted. I have just raised a question at Commons:User talk:Elcobbola/Models#s:Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. about this. Maybe it means that copyright only is given due to things inside the toys, since it is mainly the inside which is different. On a photo, you only see the outside of the toy.
• The image is a nice photo of the entire railway system, but you can't easily see any individual toy, and if you can't see the artistic aspects of a toy, then you can hardly claim that you are infringing the copyright of the toy.
• If a photo like this contains lots of different objects, it is typically assumed that the objects are de minimis. This application of de minimis appears to be based mainly or exclusively on French law, and it is possible that courts might rule differently in other countries. According to French law, you can't take a photo of a building unless the building's architect has been dead for at least 70 years (a problem you don't have in the United States), but if you take a photo of a whole city with lots of different buildings, then the buildings were found to be de minimis as the photo didn't focus on any particular building. Compare with the examples from Dubai at Commons:COM:DM#Examples. Dubai has the same problem with photos of buildings as France. As the photo doesn't focus on any particular toy, this strengthens the idea that the copyright of the individual toys isn't violated.
• Someone has decided where all of the tracks, houses and other things should be, and I think that this is the only problem here. The person who placed all those things on that table (or whatever it is) can almost certainly claim copyright for that. The railway system was probably constructed by a club member, and it is unlikely that the club member would mind that people distribute photos of the railway system. If you could somehow obtain an OTRS ticket from that club member, then I think that the photo can be kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Images you have tagged

You have tagged File:Croftpyramidcb.jpg and File:DavidBoadella.jpg - both uploaded by me - because you perceive errors in their licensing.

I obtained permission from copyright holders before I uploaded them, but that is several years ago. Since they have been in use for a long time I had thought they were properly annotated. *Please contact me and indicate exactly what short-comings you perceive.* The tag you have used does not do this - for example, it asks for fair use rationales, when these have been provided.

You will understand that such demands, long after upload, are bound to create significant and unnecessary problems - people die, web-sites disappear, and permissions gained then (by email from a different computer in this case) may no longer be available. The editor who uploaded may even have left the project.

Therefore, I ask again, please clearly state your exact reasons for tagging and your exact requirement, referring to policy. Thanks Redheylin (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The procedure is to ask the photographer to e-mail OTRS per the instructions at WP:CONSENT. Alternatively, if the source website states that the images are available under some free licence, linking to that website is enough. It is unfortunate that your errors from 2008 weren't discovered until now. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Stefan - as I say, I myself obtained permission by email. Both photo owners were very happy to have their images used. I consulted at the time and understood that the ordinary principle of good faith, along with our common work towards excellence and information on Wikipedia, meant that my testimony was sufficient. So I do not think it an error, unless policy has changed? Redheylin (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Since 2006 (or so), the policy has been that the copyright holder needs to send permission to OTRS so that it can be verified that the uploader does have permission to upload the photo and that the permission is sufficient. For example, people sometimes get a permission which only applies to Wikipedia, and this is insufficient, as Wikipedia requires a permission which permits anyone to use the image (see for example mailarchive:wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html). Uploaders are usually notified of their mistakes shortly after uploading a file, but unfortunately some files slip through and aren't spotted until several years later. This is what happened to you. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

To tell the truth, even on occasions when I have made it clear that the image would be entering into the public domain and forwarded the agreement to the relevant address, I have never received any acknowledgement and media have still been removed. Even when uploading my own work and declared it as such I have been met with straightforward accusations of bad faith. Similarly, new pages get deleted even when suitably tagged while notability criteria etc. are added. I think this kind of thing accounts for the massive loss of dedicated editors who have no interest in dealing with hostile, long-lasting inquisitions of editors who make thousands of "policy" edits but never, apparently, do anything constructive. Redheylin (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have had files deleted despite mailing OTRS, then it would appear that the permission is inssufficient, that it isn't clear which file(s) the permission applies to or that you missed to mark the files with {{OTRS pending}}. If a file is unexpectedly deleted, try asking at WP:OTRS/N for assistance. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Message on ITeachThem's talk page

I've seen that you've left me a message – Speedy deletion nomination of File:Hatirjheel map.png – on my talk page. Well I've seen that you've deleted the File:Hatirjheel map.png. Now tell me, where can I collect a map for Hatirjheel which wouldn't violate the copyright policy of Wikipedia? And may I remove the message you've sent me from my talk page?
— ITeachThem (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Hatirjheel map.png was deleted as the file is a copyright violation of Google Maps. You can get freely licensed maps from Openstreetmap which you can tag using Commons:Template:OpenStreetMap. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the aid. I'll get a map from the given link as soon as possible. If I get stuck anywhere, I'll tell you. — ITeachThem (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Moving F8 talk pages

Please don't move the talk pages of files destined for F8 deletion. The deleting admin can move it without leaving an unneeded redirect, and it automatically gets tagged {{G8-exempt}} as part if the process. Thank you, -- Diannaa (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I have sometimes seen admins deleting talk pages instead of moving them (although they aren't supposed to do this), and I hoped that moving them myself would prevent deletion of the talk pages. It seemed extra important to keep the talk pages in these cases since there was a lot of discussion on the talk pages. I don't think that talk pages for files on Commons need to be tagged with {{G8-exempt}} as I think that the bot which generates a database report of orphaned talk pages checks whether there is a file on Commons under the same name. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The instructions specifically call for admins to move these talk pages rather than delete them, and the instructions specifically call for the use of the G8-exempt template. If you move these talk pages, you are creating extra work for admins, because if the talk page is moved at the time the file is deleted, the talk page can be moved in a couple of mouse clicks, without leaving a redirect, and with the automatic addition of the G8-exempt template. If you move the talk page, the redirect has to be deleted and the template has to be added, creating extra work for the already overworked administrator. I guess I am asking you to trust that administrators are doing their jobs correctly and that you do not have to do this task in expectation that they are going to do it incorrectly. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Mike London.jpg

Hi Stefan, the copyright status and source is actually very clearly stated on this image's page. Thanks. Omnibus (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no way to verify that the stated permission is valid. The file was later overwritten by another file whose source and copyright status is unknown. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay, I see. I uploaded both files from the same source, photographer Mike Ingalls of TheSabre.com, who approved that copyright notice for both photos (and every UVA-related photograph from TheSabre.com, for which he is the sole photographer). Omnibus (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Danbo (character)

Hi Stefan, I've added more information regarding the character rising notability of the subject, it's very popular photography object, you can check Flickr and Deviantart results. Hope it's fine now. If not please help to add more information. --UrSuS (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Image rotation

Thank you, Stefan2, for fixing the resolution and metadata at File:Torre dei Becci, June 2013.jpg. I learn something new everyday! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 14:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

File:WagonMaster-WheelScreenshot.jpg resolution reduction

Hi. You tagged this screenshot for resolution reduction. I'm happy to do that. However, the image already has a several fold resolution reduction from the DVD, based on its .jpg size of 50 kb. I should have made an effort to quantify this when I uploaded it, but I didn't make the .jpg myself and I don't know exactly. What is the quantitative criterion - the nominal width in pixels? thanks, Easchiff (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is unnecessarily large for the moment. I wouldn't bother about reducing it manually; a bot handles JPG reduction requests once per day. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'll wait & see what the bot does. Easchiff (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Use of Beckley Feed jpg

Hey there, believe it or not, wanted to say thanks for the notice on my talk page concerning the fair use of the Beckley Feed jpg file. I have contacted the wikimedia folks with the e mail of the owner sttaing that I may use this with his permission. Additionally, the OTRS tag has been added to the file page. PLEASE DO let me know if there is ANY thing else I can do.Coal town guy (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The building was demolished and the new McDonalds is on the way. DELETE IT, I could not care less. I am in the process of taking care of things I can preserve. Coal town guy (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice job

So you just go around destroying other people's efforts of completing half-done wikipedia pages? Go away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sendu1984 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Aegukka copyright

Why is lyrics is copyright and the link is WP:LINKVIO. Who told you that? If the author died in 1989 do we have to wait until which year? If it's copyrighted in the US is not possible. 64.231.144.111 (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

In USA, the copyright expires 95 years after the lyrics were first published. See Commons:COM:HIRTLE. In North Korea, the copyright expires 50 years after the death of Pak Seyŏng. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

PUF

I'm not familiar with the format used in Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_October_13#OTRS_pending_since_October_2012

I just processed a ticket for File:St. Mary's Church Interior.jpg and added a note. Should I have removed it from the list? Or added a template?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I found a couple of files which were awaiting permission since last year, so I took them all to PUF as it seemed unlikely that OTRS would have a backlog which is that big. It seems that this made some uploaders finally send permission to OTRS. I added <s></s> around this file name. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

OK Thanks, I searched a couple others, and found nothing.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible Copyright Infringement

Hi Stefan2, You have marked many of the photos that I have uploaded as copyright infringements. Can you please tell me why are they copyright infringements?

I checked this but didn't understand why my photos are marked.Just A Common Guy (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. The images appear elsewhere on the Internet and you didn't provide any credible evidence that you are the photographer. For that reason, many of your files were nominated for speedy deletion. If you did take them, then please provide evidence of this, per the instructions at WP:IOWN. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have read through quite a lot of articles on Wikipedia. I accept File:BruceTemkinPhoto.jpg is a copyright infringements. I am not much familiar with the guidelines here. I had a photo of this guy that I had taken, but that photo wasn't good. So I uploaded this one. I am sorry. Please mark this as candidate for speedy deletion. I want to upload the other photo of him that I have - the not so good one. May I do that? also File:JerryCarrollComedian.jpg is also an infringement, I have his photo too - again not so good one. But now I know it's not about good looking photos but about copyrights. Should I wait for you to delete these files before uploading my pictures File:Doug Lipp Photo.jpg is my own photo, I have cropped, I can send you the original photo if you want.Just A Common Guy (talk)

I have tagged File:BruceTemkinPhoto.jpg and File:BruceTemkinPhoto.jpg as copyright violations, so they will probably be deleted soon.

If you took File:Doug Lipp Photo.jpg yourself, then it is fine. The easiest way to show the entire photo may be to upload it to Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is the photo on Wikimedia.Just A Common Guy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Main page: File:Hugh Lofting.jpg

Main article: Datoteka:Hugh Lofting.jpg

	Watcher
	Thanks for helping me with this. It may need to be looked at in the originating Wikipedia. Petercannon usf (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't speak Bosnian, and I don't know how to report any copyright problems on Bosnian Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Chevaline2.jpg

Have you taken this off the list? It seems to have OK'ed copyright according to the file description. maxrspct ping me 23:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It says that the permission only applies to Wikipedia, which is insufficient. See {{db-f3}}. If you can obtain a more general permission, then please follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Status of File:USC CHP Building.png and File:USC Physical Therapy Class of 1946.jpg and File:Representative Kinesiology Images.jpg

Hi Stefan,

Thank you for carefully considering my uploads. Can you please clarify why you are objecting to the copyright status of these images? I have attached a permission file for each. If I am not uploading these files correctly, please explain because I have received permission to use each one. Thank you. jjkutch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjkutch (talk • contribs) 19:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay ... I see they need to be not for Wikipedia only. These are some of my first uploads -- Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjkutch (talk • contribs) 20:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan - what is the proper procedure after I link to new files indicating un-restricted permission to use the images? Do I simply delete the tag that you left disputing the image status, or is there something different I need to do? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjkutch (talk • contribs) 20:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If you can get a proper permission, then you should follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The authorized representative of my department that holds the copyright is sending the email described on WP:CONSENT to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Is there anything else that needs to be done? Once the email is received and verified, are the deletion flags removed from the images? Thanks. Jjkutch (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have added the tag {{OTRS pending}} to all of the files. This tells people that permission has been sent and that we are waiting for someone to handle the e-mail. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Clifford S. Bartholomew - Allentown Mayor.jpg

He died in 1999. I can't take a photo of him I used the public one that was in my high school yearbook Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If you don't belive me, here is his obituary Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have not done anything with File:Clifford S. Bartholomew - Allentown Mayor.jpg as far as I can see. However, I see that the fair use rationale is for the article List of mayors of Allentown, Pennsylvania, where the image can't be used because of WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. It is not an article about any specific mayor, so it isn't essential to show a picture of any of them. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Johar College of Science and Commerce.jpg

Hello Stefan. I uploaded the image on the page of the college but received your message that it has been designated as Possibly Unfree Image. Let me tell you the scenario so that you can guide me best in this regard.The image to the date is NOT protected by any copyright law but i have applied to the concerned authorities to get it copyright in my favor. What can be done in this situation? Najamnawaz (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no evidence that the image isn't protected by copyright. See WP:CONSENT in case you have evidence that it isn't protected by copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Image in wrong article

You're right, that album cover shouldn't have been at Zang Tianshuo bio, it should have been in a standalone album article Wo zhe shinian. I must have been half-asleep when I did that. I've changed over the direction of the link to the album article and deleted image link from the bio. Do I need to anything else? I haven't answered the template at File:Zang Tianshuo Wo zhe shinian.jpg, since I can't, the template is correct and image should be deleted if staying at bio not album - but now it isn't. What's the correct way to proceed? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The file File:Zang Tianshuo Wo zhe shinian.jpg now seems to be used correctly, so I removed the tag. It seems that the album article didn't exist when I tagged the file. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, No it didn't, I assume I had a mental glitsch and seeing the jpg went away remembering I'd created the album, I hadn't. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Yukio Futatsugi.jpg

Hi, you listed this for deletion due to the possibility of a non-free equivalent as far as I can tell, can you tell me where you've found such an image as I can't find one. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The person is still alive. Free images can therefore be created. See WP:NFC#UUI §1. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

calling for discussion

Nominating images with fair use descriptions is one of the things you do here. I am sure all those efforts were made completely in good faith. Having looked into WP:NFCC, and discussions of the meaning of fair use, I'd like to discuss with you a concern I have that some suggestions that fair use images don't belong here seem to be based on a misinterpretation of the principle of fair use.

It seems to me that we need to remember why States grant limited protections to those who create intellectual property. States grant those limited protections because progress is supposed to be a good thing, and those who create intellectual property should thus be rewarded. Copyright, patents, are supposed to serve the public good.

The principle of fair use allows for exceptions to the limited protections granted to intellectual property creators. There are rare exceptional instances where allowing third parties to use image or text that would normally be protected is seen as also being in the public good.

There have been discussions I have participated in where those arguing for the deletion of fair use images have argued that our use of those images could detract from the ability of the owners of the intellectual property rights to reap profits from those images.

But it seems to me that the legislation on fair use says that in those relatively rare instances where fair use applies the benefit to the public over-rides the protections granted to intellectual property right owners.

I think it is important to remember that both those limited protections and fair use are based on the idea they benefit the public. Fair use benefits the public directly. The limited protections granted to intellectual property right holders benefit the public indirectly.

Am I correct that you have been one of those who has asserted that impeding intellectual property rights owners ability to profit from their images has to override any fair use use? If so I would particularly appreciate you giving thought to this matter. Geo Swan (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to use a verbatim copy of an article in the United States, then no, I don't see how non-free content would prevent you from using the article, provided that all fair use claims are valid. However, it may cause extra trouble for reusers who wish to make changes to an article. For example, let's say that you only are interested in one of the sections in an article. Can you then keep the images in the section, or can they only be used in the context of the other section? This probably varies a lot from article to article.

I think that a big problem with WP:C and WP:NFCC is that the pages only speak about the United States. A potential way for reusers to use Wikipedia articles is to simply press the print button in your web browser and print a verbatim copy of the article which is then distributed to other people. According to this page, only 41% of the users of English Wikipedia are in the United States, so 59% of the users may be unable to use verbatim copies of Wikipedia articles from English Wikipedia. For example, Canada, India and the United Kingdom each represent more than 5% of the Wikipedia users, and users in those countries can't always use Wikipedia content. The ability to create derivative works of Wikipedia articles is one thing, but one should also consider that many potential reusers want to get some quick information and that they don't have the time to modify the data – the right to use unaltered copies is also important.

I'm wondering if the way to go isn't instead to modify WP:C and WP:NFCC to respect the laws of more countries, to increase the potential reuse of Wikipedia. Note that wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy tells that a project should respect "United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed" and that mailarchive:wikien-l/2005-August/027373.html tells that "Fair use doctrine is significantly better in the US than in other jurisdictions, which is a fine thing, but German Wikipedia, for example, follows more restrictive German law on this point. Why? Because part of our goal is re-use in Germany." I am not sure if English Wikipedia is following those ideas by ignoring the copyright laws of for example the United Kingdom (10% of the project's users). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply.

With regard to fair-use images causing trouble for re-users. Don't re-users always have to understand the licensing of an image when they consider re-using it?

If I made a fair-use claim as to why an image should be used in an article, or several related articles, and some other en.wiki contributor likes the image, and wants to use it on another en.wiki article, where the fair-use rationale I drafted doesn't apply, they either have to make an alternative fair use rationale, or live with not being allowed to re-use the image. This has always been true.

Any one of our readers, who likes one of our images, and wants to re-use it on a non-WMF site, has an obligation to understand its licensing. If it was uploaded to the WMF site under a GFDL, CC, or other free license, the non-WMF re-user has an obligation to understand that license, and abide by its terms. Do we have an obligation to police whether re-users comply with those free licenses? I don't think so. If an re-user didn't bother complying with the terms of the license, I think the only party with standing to mount a legal challenge would be the copyright owner. I suggest to you that the situation is basically the same for fair use images -- if our fair-use claim was legally defensible, and one of our readers re-used that image without a meaningful, valid, fair-use assertion, we would not have standing to try to police their re-use, and we would have no responsibility for their re-use. Legal challenges would be the sole responsibility of the copyright holder.

• In the second paragraph of your reply you wrote about en.wiki readers who print out unaltered wikipedia articles, and give them to third (fourth?) parties, without clarifying the license status of the images used on those pages. Realistically, printouts can't be cut and paste into new documents. Wouldn't all the images on any printout of a wikipedia article be considered de minimus? I've uploaded eleven years of the weekly newspaper published by GIs, for GIs, at Guantanamo. Most of those several hundred issues include a review of whatever new movie is playing at the base's movie theatre. Invariably that newspaper includes a promotional image from the film's distributors. Do they have permission to re-use the distributors promotional images? (1) probably not; (2) it is not really our business. There was a nomination to delete all those hundreds of issues, because they each had one page that had an article that included one or two promotional images we weren't licensed to re-use. Some contributors suggested the issues could be kept, so long as all the promotional images from film distributors were blanked out (which, of course, would have represented hundreds of hours of work). But, in the end, reason prevailed, and the consensus was that the promotional images were de minimus. If that reasoning was correct, then I suggest anyone who prints out a wikipedia article should be able to regard the images in that article as de minimus.
• You think an initiative should be initiated to convince the en.wiki community, to place further restrictions on fair use images -- "to increase the potential reuse of Wikipedia."

I looked at wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, could you please clarify how you think that applies here?

I looked at Fair dealing in United Kingdom law. You wrote: "I am not sure if English Wikipedia is following those ideas by ignoring the copyright laws of for example the United Kingdom." So who is suggesting ignoring the copyright laws of the UK or other commonwealth countries? Geo Swan (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to use a copy of an article, then yes, you have to understand how GFDL and CC-BY-SA work. This requirement always applies, and there is no way to get away from it. If you wish to use an article containing a non-free image in the United States, then you would only have to note that the image is used under a fair use claim. If you wish to alter an article which contains fair use images, then you suddenly need a lot of knowledge about complex legal matters when using fair use images (or the reuser could simply choose to remove all of the non-free images), but this extra knowledge isn't needed for using the freely licensed parts of the article. This makes it slightly more difficult for USA reusers to modify articles which contain fair use images. Not sure if this can be seen as a problem for us.

De minimis: I don't know how the it is defined in the laws of other countries, but the Swedish law defines de minimis as the inclusion of an image in another image or in a film, provided that the included image is insignificant to the larger image or film. You can't, for example, include images in text. I would not think of a printout of an article as an "image". It may contain images, but the textual parts are clearly not images. There is also the requirement that the small parts must be unimportant to the image as a whole. This would seem to mean that the images mustn't be related to the text. On the other hand, WP:IUP tells that you only should use images which in some way are related to the text. For example, there was a case in Sweden about a thumbnail screenshot of a website displaying photos. The photos on the screenshot weren't de minimis because a purpose of the screenshot was to show how the website displayed photos. Instead, for Wikipedia images, a reuser would need a different defence. I assume that a UK fair dealing defence can be used sometimes although probably not always, but I don't know exactly how permissive the British law is.

The idea of ignoring the copyright laws of the Commonwealth is for example established in WP:NFC#UUI §9 where it says that you shouldn't use photos of copyrighted statues from countries without freedom of panorama. Instead, people are directed to WP:NFCI §10. Photos of statues are free in lots of Commonwealth countries due to different FOP laws there, so WP:NFC#UUI §9 combined with WP:NFCI §10 together suggest that articles should be more unfree for Commonwealth users. Also, WP:NFCI §10 seems to be incompatible with the InfoSoc Directive, meaning that verbatim copies of articles using such images can't be distributed anywhere in the European Union (including the UK), preventing lots of reuse of Wikipedia.

Commonwealth law is also ignored by, for example, the treatment of {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} vis-à-vis {{PD-US-no notice}}. A {{PD-Canada}} photo from 1948 would be replaced by a 1949 {{PD-US-no notice}} photo by a named photographer who died in 1980 by citing WP:NFCC#1. The {{PD-Canada}} photo is in the public domain in Canada and most of the rest of the world, but not in the United States, as the rule of the shorter term isn't used in the United States. Conversely, the {{PD-US-no notice}} photo is in the public domain in the United States, but Canada doesn't use the rule of the shorter term on US works, so the US photo is copyrighted in Canada until the photographer has been dead for 50 years. In short: WP:NFCC#1 is used to delete content which is free in Canada, replacing it with content which is unfree in Canada.

wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy tells that you should respect "United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed". Wikipedia seems to have decided that Wikipedia predominantly only is accessed from the United States (and not from any other countries), but statistics suggest otherwise, although the exact implications of the word "predominantly" could be debated. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• You start off with "If you wish to use a copy of an article, then yes, you have to understand how GFDL and CC-BY-SA work." By article, you mean a wikipedia article, correct? So, if our re-user is a University professor, college instructor, or high school teacher, who prints out all of, or a portion of, a wikipedia article, and hands out a copy of it to his or her students -- it is the individual who makes the copies who has the obligation to understand and comply with any remaining intellectual property rights that are retained -- agreed? And, if someone who owns some of the remaining intellectual property rights thinks their rights have been abridged, it is the individual who made the copy who they should pursue -- not whatever WMF project whose content they copied -- agreed? Haven't WMF lawyers offered the opinion that merely including a list of contributors is sufficient to comply with the obligation to attribute work as per the GFDL or CC? Aren't all the wikipedia mirrors seen to be complying with the GFDL or CC, because their readers are informed the wikipedia is the original source, and they can go to the original wikipedia page to see the contributors.

I am going to repeat a point I already made, that I don't think you have responded to. Every time we include an image in an article that is licensed under the GFDL or CC we are leaving it up to our readers to comply with the terms of that license. Our readers could re-use a GFDL or CC image, without properly attributing it to the photographer, even though our description pages make it pretty easy for them to comply with the license. In those cases it is the re-user the property rights owner has to go after -- not us, because our use of the image was fully license compliant.

The way I see it, when a fair use image is used in one of our articles, in a way that complies with the relevant laws, and with any extra restrictions our policies apply, then the responsibility for how or whether our readers re-use that image lies just as firmly solely with our readers as the responsibility that lies on our readers to comply with the terms of GFDL or CC licenses. So why should we be less trustful of our readers with "fair use" images?

The last two paragraphs of your reply -- maybe I am just not understanding you, but they don't really seem related to fair use. If you think they are related to fair use, could you take another crack at an explanation? Geo Swan (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

1882 Photograph

Hi Stefan, it's Maodhóg again. What are the guidelines for uploading a photograph that depicts souling on Halloween from "St. Nicholas: An Illustrated Magazine for Young Folks", December 1882, p. 93? I found an article on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Public_domain that says

Images may be placed into the public domain by their creators, or they may be public domain because they are ineligible for copyright or because their copyright expired. In the U.S., copyright has expired on any work published anywhere before January 1, 1923.

Could you let me know how I should go about uploading this photograph? Maodhóg (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Since you know the guidelines for copyright, you could upload it to and I could just use it on the article about souling or on some Halloween related articles. Maodhóg (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

In the United States, there is no copyright for things published before 1923, so it should be fine to upload the image.

If it was published in the United States, use the copyright tag {{PD-1923}}. If it was published outside the United States, then instead use the copyright tag {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} so that people are warned that the copyright might not have expired in the country of first publication.

When you upload the file, also remember to specify where it was published (as you did above). Otherwise, people might claim that there is no evidence that it was published in 1882. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Hope you like this brownie! Hanvyng (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

TB

And again...

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at Yintan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:IPhone version screenshot plus500.png

Hi Stefan,

I have commented on your nomination to delete here. Thanks, tausif(talk) 11:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

thoughts

Can I get you to help explain policy here? Thanks. Werieth (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Yu Xie's portrait photo.jpg

Hi Stefan2, I received a message saying that the photo is possibly not free. The photo was sent to me by its owner. I am willing to cooperate but I don't understand the nature of the problem, and I wonder if you could please let me know how to solve the problem. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laiguangda (talk • contribs) 02:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Back in June, you added a template which tells that the photographer has sent a permission statement to OTRS, but it still says that no one has processed any such e-mail. As the tag was uploaded a long time ago, it would suggest that no permission statement ever was sent. If so, please ask the photographer to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

NewGenerationBFighters pic

Main page: File:NewGenerationBFighters.png

Hi Stefan2, The File:NewGenerationBFighters.png picture should not have been deleted. I went to the video myself and screenshot the picture myself.--Youngsevon (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that the file has been deleted, so I don't know what it looked like. However, it says that the file was deleted as replaceable fair use, so I assume that it was a photo of someone who still exists or of a building which hasn't been demolished and that you didn't select a free licence for it. In that case, see WP:IUP#Copyright and licensing. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted image of FORscene

Hi!

This image was indeed created by me, and I would like it restored under fair use, as it shows a typical screenshot of the interface for the cloud service being described.

What do you suggest? Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mr Steater. I am Diannaa and I am the administrator that deleted the image. The image is a full screen shot from a computer running Microsoft Windows. In addition to the content produced by the software, there's a row of non-free icons down the left side for other applications such as Mozilla products, plus a row of copyright Microsoft icons across the top of the page. The part of the screen shot that demonstrates the software includes two large potentially copyright images of flowers plus over twenty other thumbnail-size other potentially copyright images. So my opinion is that the image is not suitable for fair use, because of all the copyright incidental elements. If you could produce an image that demonstrates the software without all these derivative works incorporated therein, it would be okay to upload such an image for fair use in the article. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The thumbnails in the interface itself are all my own copyright. The incidental external icons are relevant because the software is a cloud app running in a web browser, on multiple types of OS. This is significant because the term 'cloud' was not in common usage in 2006, the date which the image relates. Merely showing the interface without its context loses this information. In particular, that the software was capable of running on Microsoft OS in a Mozilla browser. Stephen B Streater (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stephen. I've not read the article recently, but if there are independent sources cited which discuss its running in the cloud on the desktop etc. then IMO the case for including the image which depicts such contextual use would be strengthened. Also, it'd probably be desirable for the resolution of the image to be reduced in order to satisfy the criteria of minimal extent of use. -- Trevj (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I just double checked, and the image does not show the software running in a Mozilla browser; it's running on Internet Explorer. And the fact that the software was capable of running on Microsoft OS in a Mozilla browser could easily be described using words, particularly if you have independent third party sources that say so. You don't need an image to prove it, and thus the image fails to tell us anything that can't be described using words alone. Please see WP:NFCC, especially criteria #1 and #8. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Ahmed Omaid Khpalwak.jpg

I would like to contest the speedy deletion of this file (However the contest button in your message to me no longer exists): The journalist is dead, the photo used was the one widely distributed in various at the time of death, there is no current way to get a photo of him. Moreover, a "Non-free fair use in" rationale was provided. Per policy on F7, the use does respect commercial parties in that the same photograph was previously distributed to various news organizations and to non-profits such as Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ.org) and the Newseum. A low-res portion was used for minimal usage of file content in question. The content is for encyclopedic illustration of the subject's article only and for reader verification and understanding. Furthermore, the image description page was properly executed. Crtew (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The photo was deleted as an Agence France-Presse photo. Are you trying to suggest that the photo was created by someone else? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The original source for the photo was the Pahjwok news agency in Afghanistan, and I had provided that in the link. Khpalwak worked for Pahjwok and not for the AFP. I'm not speculating about this source as it is clearly listed in the Newseum's web page: [[4]] Crtew (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hm. I found some other page where it was credited to AFP. In either case, Pajhwok Afghan News appears to be a news agency, so images from that source seem to have the same problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

And that problem is ... please finish your thought, thank you. Crtew (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I want to know a little bit about how you work, please? I have reviewed your contribution history and you seem to make complicated decisions about speedy deletes in a matter of seconds. Four decisions like this in one minute. That's about 15 seconds a decision. You're either amazing, a bot, or you're making questionable decisions.! Please expound on your working methods for me, please. Crtew (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You didn't tell where I have made four speedy deletion decisions in one minute, so I can't answer what I was doing at that time. If there is a large set of similar images with the same problem, then the nominations can be quite fast. Twinkle helps inserting text on pages, saving some time for me.

When looking for problems, I often go to Special:ListFiles and open the latest 50 uploads in different tabs, going through all of them and looking for problems. Some problems are very easy to spot and go fast. For example, if a user uploads an image, writing that it comes from someone else, then it is a trivial case: the image needs to be tagged with {{subst:npd}}. Other problems are more complex and may require reading parts of the Wikipedia article. For example, if a user uploads an unfree photo of an individual, then it is necessary to check the article to determine whether the person is alive or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You never clearly identified the problem, see above. Moreover, when you said photo belonged to a commercial entity, I showed you that your identification of the owner was wrong. Now, my illustrated subject is dead, I have clearly shown that same photo was used by non-profits like Newseum, even UNESCO, and furthermore photo was widespread. I have followed the procedures and steps correctly, and this is for purposes of illustrating one single article. Under Acceptable uses of images number 10 clearly states:

"10. Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." Crtew (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I am quite confident that this decision will be reversed in DRV. Should we go there? Crtew (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You missed WP:NFC#UUI §7: "A photo from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." WP:NFC#UUI §7 overrules WP:NFCI §10. Pajhwok Afghan News is clearly a press agency. Also, the problem was clearly identified in the reason parameter to {{db-f7}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Fetch.jpg

Hi Stefan2, I have uploaded an image (File:Fetch.jpg) as album art for an article about that album's release. As of now, the article (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fetch (album)) is under review. Could you let me know what the best policy is, as I am waiting for approval on the article? Do I delete the image, to upload it again once the article is approved? Do I wait for you to delete it, and then ask for a WP:REFUND after the article is approved? Can the image stay until the article is approved?

Thanks for any help on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvins138 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The image can't be used in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fetch (album) as the page isn't in the main namespace (see WP:NFCC#9). If the article is approved, then you can either reupload the image or request a WP:REFUND. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Already Moved to Commons

Any chance of clearing this backlog?

Catscan query below (had to use nowiki otherwise URL gets mangled) http://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php?categories=All+free+media&ns[6]=1&templates_yes=Copy+to+Wikimedia+Commons&templates_any=Already+moved+to+Commons&templates_no=m-cropped%0D%0Ac-uploaded%0D%0AUploaded+from+Commons&ext_image_data=1&file_usage_data=1

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Jdreamerr Article Drafts/Uploads

Hi Stefan2

As an administrator, can you please help me delete the following files: Jon_Cowherd_(Pianist).jpg, Fabian Almazan Blue Note ArtistShare.jpg, Jon Cowherd-Mercy Album.jpg, and Fabian Almazan (Pianist) ? I'd like to re upload them with updated, accurate copyrights that abide by Wiki's guidelines in order to make my photos and article drafts accurate. Thank you. Jdreamerr (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, so I can't delete files. Some of the files you mentioned do not exist. I note that all of your uploads are up for deletion in a week, so a simple solution is to simply wait until that week is over. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Stefan2 Alright, thank you very much. Jdreamerr (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_November_5#File:Ashchorjyo_Prodeep_logo.jpg will you please comment here?

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	For your comment which displayed your elephantine propotioned knowledge about copyrights. Here Sohambanerjee1998 15:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice welcome

Please read this section where the user in question has given more details about the source of the images you have nominated for deletion [5]. FYI, nice way to welcome clearly well meaning new editors. Great job! Lesion (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at that section, it seems that the pictures uploaded by the user are a mixture of own photos and other people's photos. In either case, as some of them have been published outside Wikipedia before they were uploaded here, the copyright status needs to be verified through OTRS. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with "other peoples' photos" conclusion. It is implied that the image uploader is one of the authors of said papers. You should therefore remove the deletion templates. Lesion (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The rules are clear: the photos were published elsewhere before they were uploaded here, so the uploader needs to provide an OTRS ticket. See WP:IOWN. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Swami Shankarananda (Shiva Yoga) 2008.jpg that you tagged for deletion

Hello you flagged this file for deletion and it has been deleted by a wikibot before I had a chance to provide the required public license info. I accept culpability, I acknowledge that I have not arranged for the required email to be sent. But I also have to say that I have been somewhat confused by the change to the wikipedia policy regarding photos for articles starting a few years ago. It was not immediately apparent to me that an email was required. Because until the policy changed, it seems no such email was required. I recently noticed the file was tagged for deletion because the required email had not been sent, but I did not have a chance to do anything about it and it has now been deleted by a bot. I would like to get this file restored. I can either re-upload the file or you arrange for it to be done yourself. Yogidude (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The file was deleted by User:Explicit. He is not a bot. The file was deleted last year because the file was marked as fair use but was found to be replaceable. This usually means that it was an unfree photo of a person who was still alive.

Maybe you are instead talking about File:Mahamandaleshwar Swami Shankarananda in Ganeshpuri.jpg, which you uploaded in November last year? You had marked the file with {{OTRS pending}}, which means that you had asked the copyright holder to send a permission statement to OTRS. One year later, it said that we were still waiting for that permission statement, so the file was deleted in November by User:Diannaa (who is not a bot either) under the assumption that no permission statement ever had arrived.

If you have permission from the copyright holder for either of the files, then please follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. In that case, the file will probably be undeleted soon. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

the required email authorisation has been sent, and I have left a request with Diannaa to undelete the file, is there anything else I need to do Yogidude (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Malaysia

You nominated the Coat of Arms of Malaysia for deletion as replaceable fair use with no explanation in this edit. I don't exactly see how it's replaceable, but I thought I'd find out why you tagged it before I dispute it. Ryan Vesey 18:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Coats of arms can be replaced by a free rendition of the same blazon. See for example Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 31. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Texas Silver Round Face.png

Hi Stefan, I am relatively new to Wikipedia. I have briefly read your concerns and will do anything necessary to correct the issues, I am however unfamiliar with many of the intricacies of wikipedia's proof of copyright and not quite sure how to navigate forward. For the 4 various files you flagged, I do have full copyright permissions for them from the owner, but not quite sure the best way to document or prove this. Furthermore, he has released said photos for full usage online for anybody to use anyway they like. Please help me in this process as I want to to everything in good faith and accurately.

I would like to go ahead and remove the affected images myself, but I'm not quite sure how to do so. I am fine with Wikipedia deleting said images automatically. Let me know what to do from here and I will happily help.

Thank you,

Chriskaspar (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)chriskaspar

If you have permission for the images, then please see WP:CONSENT which tells how to document the permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll look this direction. Thank you for the help. Chriskaspar (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)chriskaspar

Thanks and sorry

I speedy deleted the photo here as it is on Commons as File:LINCOLN MONUMENT, ALBANY COUNTY.jpg - thanks and sorry for the confusion, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Begum Khaleda Zia image

I am not a subscriber of Time, I have collected the image Begum Khaleda Zia on Time Magazine Cover.jpg from a free source. And it is still available in many websites besides Wikipedia.

http://nuraldeen.com/2013/11/06/rise-of-terrorism-past-future/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endeavorbd (talk • contribs) 05:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Wooden's Legacy

Please tell me how to add the information you want so that this image does not get deleted. Thanks.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Kaiser Darrin Rear Quarter View April 2013.jpg

Since I shot this photo myself and thus own copyright, did you really have to delete it before we could resolve this matter? Since the link to the image was in red, this is what I assumed that you did. When I uploaded the photo, WP's software did not give me the option of stating this was my own work and was thus releasing copyright to it. However, the fact I said this was my work was stated plainly enough for any troll to notice. Or so I thought. Please advise. Jonyungk (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• The file was not deleted by me but by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. I tagged the file as "replaceable fair use", which normally means that the file is deleted after two days, but it seems that the deleting administrator felt that the file could be deleted immediately.

According to Google's cache, the image was a photo of a specific car model. Photos of cars are considered to be "replaceable fair use" (see WP:NFCC#1) because someone could take a photo of a car of the same model, removing the need for a fair use image. For that reason, fair use images of cars aren't permitted on Wikipedia. If the photo was taken by yourself, then maybe the deleting administrator could restore the file so that you can change the copyright tag into a free one. If the photo was previously posted somewhere else, or if it said that someone else took the photo, then I think that you should contact OTRS (see instructions at WP:CONSENT). Once OTRS has read your statement, the file should be deleted, provided that the information in the statement is sufficient. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

File:WKEY EarlMKey Owner1940s.JPG

Please explain to me why the above linked image's copyright status is "unclear or disputed". The image is from the 1940s, which means the copyright has long since expired. The image from a matchbook front, so probably not copyrighted and the "Matchbook cover is 28 years past it's first publication year and no indication that the copyright was renewed." - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There is insufficient source information. There is no evidence that it was first published in the United States, that it is a matchbook cover or that it is from the 1940s. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I provided a secondary and uncropped source at the WP:PUF that shows the stamp "Universal Match Corp. Baltimore". From what I have been able to find, the company was in Baltimore, Maryland. Unless Maryland was removed from the US in the '40s, it was part of the US. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That source looks better, thanks. This looks like something which wouldn't be renewed, so I assume that it is fine. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's one of those things that is tough to source and even tougher to find a copyright for. But you are right, I doubt it was renewed, if it was copyrighted at all.

It is the uniqueness of the matchbook image that makes the WKEY (AM) page even better that it is and what I think helped make the article a GA...but that's just my opinion. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

File:San Siro Giuseppe Meazza Stadium - Milan.jpg

Thank you for your message on my Talk page. Here is the link to the copyright license on the website where the file was taken from: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en As you can see, the file can be freely redistributed. Also, please note that I just became aware that this file already exists on Wikipedia Commons (see File:GiuseppeMeazzaNeazzurro.jpg) under exactly the same copyright arrangement. So I would tend to believe that there should be no copyright licensing problems here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelo Somaschini (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-commercial licences are not permitted on Wikipedia. See mailarchive:wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said, this same picture from the same website is already on Wiki Commons. Are you saying that non-commercial licenses are permissible on Wiki Commons but not on Wikipedia? Angelo Somaschini (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

On Commons, it says that User:Lokal Profil confirmed that the file was available under a licence which permitted commercial use back in 2007. This settles things: you can't repeal a Creative Commons licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Holly Starr.jpg

Thank you! I don't work with image deletions very often, so I manage to screw them up about half the time. For some reason I was thinking that it wasn't a speedy candidate - I'll try to remember that the next time it comes up. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Stefan2 (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

File: Tom Wagner

You are correct. I have permission from Tom to use the Photo, and have requested permission from the photographer. But so far the photographer has not filled out a form for wiki. That is why I stopped writing the article and it sits in my sandbox until formal permission comes. So far no reply at all. Tom assured me that it isn't a problem, but I still won't proceed any further without formal permissions. Redddbaron (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the files can't be kept unless permission is available. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Well it is just one file, Tom Wagner's photo. The other files I uploaded for other pages should be fine as far as I know. So I will fire off some more emails and even try to contact the photographer by phone if possible. If that doesn't work, I'll find a new photo.Redddbaron (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

File: David Campbell

All photos were taken and submitted to me by the artist for the purpose of creating his wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfordd (talk • contribs) 00:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

When you uploaded the files, you added a template which told that the photographer had sent a permission statement to OTRS, but no one has registered any receipt of any such statement yet. If no statement was sent, make sure that it is sent now instead. See WP:CONSENT for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Iraq Babbler.png - Reply

Hello Stefan,

Thank you for notifying me about image copyright, I have got another one from commons. --العراقي (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Schematic view of an IsaMill.png

Stefan, you left a message about this drawing on my talk page.

I emailed a copy of a letter from the copyright owner to Wikipedia authorizing its use on Wikipedia. This letter also authorized other drawings and photographs. There does not seem to have been a problem with these.

What is the issue with this particular drawing? Should I resend the letter? Is there something wrong with the wording in the letter?

I would be grateful if you would let me know how to resolve this issue.

Thank you.ChrisFountain (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

According to Commons:COM:OTRS/backlog, all e-mails older than seven days have been processed. This file was uploaded a lot earlier than seven days ago, so it would seem that the copyright holder either didn't send any permission at all or that the permission didn't apply to this file. Try asking at WP:OTRS/N to find out what the error is. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It was included in the original email. I will resend it.ChrisFountain (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I have resent the letter granting permission to the permissions email address. The subject box of the email is: RE: [Ticket#2013080510000166] Permissions letter for drawings and photographs uploaded to Wikipedia. I hope this is satisfactory.ChrisFountain (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Possibly unfree files

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at Tyros1972's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replaceable fair use - Reply

Hellow Stefan,

I do not know if you are sending me messages or it is a bot, cause I had understood what you mean from your first message on Replaceable fair use File:Iraq Babbler.png. Thank you --العراقي (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The other files are also replaceable, so those were tagged as well. Non-free images of non-extinct species are not accepted, see WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters Part Two

Hello Stefan, You sent me a message, didn't You? I don't know what it's all about, the story with pictures on Wikipedia. I tried to upload a cover of a CD or LP a few times. Always failed. Those weren't my own shots I admit. But the photos show always a commonly known picture, shown on a cover. Moreover there are many many articles on Wikipedia which contain such covers, i.e. Wrap Her Up If I did something wrong, please remove the picture. With the pity for the mentioned article. Maciej Dennis lance (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You wrote that the copyright holder to File:Cover ML&MH2.jpeg had released the image to the public domain but didn't provide any evidence that this claim was correct. Please don't do that. If the file is in the public domain, then you should provide evidence of this. If the image isn't in the public domain, then you should write a valid fair use rationale and add an appropriate non-free copyright tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I won't do that again. I quit adding pictures to articles. Cheers from Warsaw, Maciek 94.124.18.19 (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan2 (my grandfather's name was Stefan) :D I saw that You did something about a photo I uploaded for Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters Part Two, instead of removing it. Thanks a lot! Cheers from Warsaw, Maciek Dennis lance (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

X-files

Hi Stefan!

You are a real tough image curator. :)) Good job. Cheers from Moscow!

Lamro (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair use

Hi Stefan,

just recognized that you are very keen of deleting pictures you consider as having the status non-fair use and subsequently delete them. As you might have noticed are the pictures I've recently uploaded copyrighted but permitted by the owner for publication. Kind regards, Matthias — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattRaupa (talk • contribs) 2013-11-19T17:43:24 (CET) (UTC)

Wikipedia can't accept Wikipedia-only permissions for photos of buildings which still exist. Someone else could take different photos of the same buildings and license the photos under a licence which permits people to use the images for more purposes. See WP:NFC#UUI §1. If you can get a better permission, then see WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Images posted by Rhodian

You've flagged up a bunch of pics of objects I personally own and have photographed. Specifically the ceramics of the Benthall Pottery (Salopian ware) are objects from my personal, private collection, which I personally photographed. The pottery was in operation from the 1890s to the 1930s, and its pieces are now in museum and private collections. They are antiques. I claim the copyright in the images, which I have freely licensed to wikipedia. There are absolutely no other interested parties. Please remove the tag. Rhodian (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You failed to specify how old the objects were. The photos of objects from the 1890s can be kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the Swedish for 'bollocks' is, but maybe it's bollocks. Why didn't you just read the captions to the pictures? Both captions clearly give dates, and if you'd looked at the 1897 vase you would have seen that date is actually painted onto the pot itself! Please be sensible with regard to flagging up images for copyright violation -- it's clear from comments on your Talk page that you are pissing off a lot of people who will now be less inclined to contribute to Wikipedia. Rhodian (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

There was no information about the age on the file information pages. Furthermore, the ceramics images were not used in any articles, so it was not possible to look at any image captions anywhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Huh? The images are used with this article Salopian Art Pottery and are fully captioned. Rhodian (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The article Salopian Art Pottery contains photos of different products. The images listed at WP:PUF are not used in that article. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated question

Please forgive me Rhodian. I am not sure how to reach Stefan2. I am not trying to get in on your conversation. But I am trying to reach him because I have the same issue.

Stefan2 I hope that you get this message. I am unclear exactly how to write you back. Please let me know if you receive this message.

I am the owner of the copyright on the photo of Young Kathy. I find wikipedia very compicated to use and I tried and tried to show that I own copyright of this photo.

Can you help me to show that I own the copyright?

Thank you in advance. Breezesdelsur. And again, Rhodian, I apologize for piggybacking on your conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breezesdelsur (talk • contribs) 20:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

So you were alive in 1949 when the photo was taken? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:HO Srivastava.jpg

A copy of written permission from the owner of the image has been forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org Rupalisharma (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at [[User talk:Rupalisharma (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)|User talk:Rupalisharma (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Photo of Brussels Philharmonic

Hello Stefan,

thanks for the explanation about the permissions and licenses.

I am about to send the e-mail from a certified email address, stating my ownership of the material and my intention to publish it under a free license.

I have a question: are there different databases for each language of Wikipedia, or do all media files end up in Commons? I have uploaded this same picture on English and Italian wikipedia. Should I add 'OTRS pending' to all of them, until I send you the email and we solve this?

Thank you very much for your help and availability. Have a good day!

Giuliettadp (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to upload the image to three different projects; only uploading it to Commons is enough. However, I suggest that you add 'OTRS pending' to all of them until it is settled. There does not seem to be any 'OTRS pending' template on Italian Wikipedia, so I don't know what to add there. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I am in correspondence with the copyright holder re permissions. There is one (hopefully) tiny issue to resolve, which I hope will be resolved in a few minutes.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick: Note that the file was uploaded at three different places: Commons:File:Brussels Phil 2013 - Bart Dewaele.jpg, File:Brussels Phil 2013 - c Bart Dewaele.jpg and it:File:Brussels Phil 2013-c Bart Dewaele.jpg. Make sure that all three copies are consistent with regard to licence (currently they all have different licensing information). --Stefan2 (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it is now late in the day in Europe, so I no longer expect a resolution today, but I will continue to follow this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Stefan and Sphilbrick, thank you very much for your help and your explanations. I linked the photo from Commons to the English page and it works perfectly, with all the licenses and permissions. Lovely! Have a beautiful day! Giuliettadp (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

National Portrait Gallery uploads

Hi. you recently took action on two of my uploads and I thought it was worthwhile me responding to both the points you raised. You pointed out that I had not provided a direct link to the NPG webpage for the Noton Barclay file saying that this makes it difficult for you to confirm copyright. When I upload to wikipedia using the wizard I always provide a direct link when it is requested. Might I suggest that you speak to wikipedia if you wish to see changes made to the wizard. Furthermore, if you are only concerned with seeking confirmation of copyright it is worth you looking at the metadata section as this may contain the confirmation you are looking for as is the case with all NPG uploads including that of Barclay. You have also chosen to instigate a deletion procedure for one of my NPG uploads which you will note I have already challenged. Clearly your comments are based on a lack of knowledge and an incorrect supposition. I would suggest that in future you consider raising the subject first with the uploader, who may know a bit more about the subject matter than you.Graemp (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Mario Segura

About your tagging of articles that are in AfC. F5: "Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article." You need to look at the context more closely before tagging or show why this article will not make it through AfC. Otherwise, you need to come up with a rationale for why article will not be accepted or moved to main space because we have to go back and undelete, which costs the editor and administrators more time that takes away from other parts of the project. I'm just saying, I appreciate your vigilance but what's in the sandbox is different from what's in AfC. Crtew (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That quote is not present anywhere in WP:NFCC which instead tells that "A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted." The files do not comply with the WP:NFCC policy as they violate WP:NFCC#7 and WP:NFCC#9. WP:NFCC#9 violations used to be removed from pages automatically by a bot and then more recently by User:Werieth using WP:AWB, but it seems that no one has been systematically removing such images from pages for some time. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that, been tied up doing other stuff. I guess I let the backlog grow for too long. Werieth (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated comment

Dear Stephen2,

Thank you for bringing to my attention your observations regarding several coats of arms that I uploaded. At the moment, most of the free time that I can dedicate in contributing to Wikipedia is spent on research, to back certain contributions with precise references.

I will surely appreciate it, if you might help me resolve those issues you mentioned in your observation. Thank you.--Sulbud (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

When you upload a non-free file, you need to make sure that the file satisfies all ten of the non-free content criteria, in particular criteria 1 and 7. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I should find extra time to reviews those uploads and correct them.--Sulbud (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

permission for use of image

Stefan,

Thanks for your note today. Actually, the permission for the image is in place. I got this message today too: Dear [e-mail address removed], Your permission has been accepted. I have made the necessary modifications to the file page.

Thank you for your contribution to the Wikimedia projects. Yours sincerely, Corey Clark

Seems like you should discuss it with Corey Clark if you've a problem. I know my friend Gordon Keown (owner and creator of the image in 1971) has no problem with Wikipedia using it, as he said in the note he sent me and I forwarded to Wikipedia.

--Steve Thompson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttrider87 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you uploaded three copies of the image (File:Steven L. Thompson aboard his 350cc Shepherd-Kawasaki GP racing motorcycle, Oct. 1971.jpg, File:Oct. 1971 photo of Steven L. Thompson aboard his 350cc Shepherd-Kawasaki in a garage near Thetford, Norfolk, England.jpg and File:Oct., 1971 photo of Steven L. Thompson aboard his 1969 Shepherd-Kawasaki GP racing motorcycle.jpg) but that the OTRS maintainer only added a permission tag to one of them. I agree that this means that they aren't unfree, but on the other hand, I don't see any use for the extra images, so I think that the images should be deleted as redundant. See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 November 22#File:Oct. 1971 photo of Steven L. Thompson aboard his 350cc Shepherd-Kawasaki in a garage near Thetford, Norfolk, England.jpg and Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 November 22#File:Oct., 1971 photo of Steven L. Thompson aboard his 1969 Shepherd-Kawasaki GP racing motorcycle.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Stefan--sure, delete the dupes. ~~Ttrider87~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttrider87 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

OhConf. images

Stefan, hi—I noticed on my watchlist a few noms for deletion of images he's uploaded. Do be cautious about checking they're exactly the same, and even then, you might consider chatting with him about them. He's a very experienced and trusted user. Cheers. Tony (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

See section #Zeal and How to Win Friends and Influence People below. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Concerns

Stefan you were involved in the RfC were the community came out against your position.[6] Continuing to nominate diagnostic images for deletion for which there is consensus that there is not an issue is disruptive and may get you blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You are misreading the RfC. That section in the RfC suggests that "We should take a conservative position and do what the rest of the publishing industry does". I referred to several copyright registrations from the United States Copyright Office where the Copyright Office had approved copyright registrations of some images, meaning that the position of the Copyright Office is that those images are copyrighted. If some people register copyright of such images in the United States, then it would seem that at least a portion of the United States publishing industry considers such images as copyrightable. If those registrations turn out to be for different kinds of images, then fine. Also note for example VAu001095217 which is claimed to contain 119 copyrighted images, including for example "James Wilson - MRI of the Cervical Spine, 10/20/07" and "Carrie Jefferson - Left Lateral Knee X-Ray: 5/30/06". I realise that some of the images might be highly artistic drawings such as these, but the image titles suggest that at least some of the images are more like these, which are more comparable to the image discussed at WP:PUF. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Zeal and How to Win Friends and Influence People

Thank you for your zealous work on Wikipedia. I bet you never considered that nothing riles people more than seeing wholesale deletion of their work, including images they may place within articles, for whatever reason. And when this is done on any scale, the large number of template messages that are potentially left on different contributors' talk pages could also annoy. Before I had a look at your contributions, I assumed that you may have been a novice or dilettante, but I was wrong because you seem to have been around as long as I have.

It's extremely irksome that you often seem careless or clueless when you go about the deletions. For example, when you speedy an image just because it looks like the same file you saw when you googled the picture when mere examination of the source will tell you that it's free (and that it's clearly stated in the image page); or that the version on the web is of a lower resolution that the one whose deletion you propose – Have you considered asking yourself what could that mean?? Clearly speedying such an image shouldn't be used as a first course of action. And what gives you the right to make presumptions of whether an image has a forseeable use without even bothering to discuss it with the creator(s) beforehand???

This is just the sort of brainless and anal-retentive bureaucracy that put me off contributing to Commons. I'll just conclude by saying that what earns the Grand Prix for idiocy is when you attempt to delete GFDL-compliant images saying that they are non-free (hello, does anybody live here?). If you choose to continue doing things in this disruptively brainless way, I will invite you to join those retards at commons. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it is time to bring this user to WP:ANI? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Although my words were harsh, I just want that zeal tempered and for Stefan to tread with more caution. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is hoping. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I also have had problems with this editor who does not write articles or add anything to Wiki in a creative or constructive way but who comes here with a deletionist attitude without looking at the bigger picture or even all the facts. Perhaps it is time to bring him to WP:ANI? Jack1956 (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• User:Ohconfucius: I realise that File:Xerxes20plus.jpg should have been at WP:PUF instead, with the problem explained more clearly. The wording "free license" isn't very specific. Take a look at the comment section where one user asked "Le mention "Free licence" veut-elle dire que les images sont libres de tous droits, dans le sens CC-BY-SA 3.0 License ou GFDL" (= Does "free licence" mean that the image is free of all rights, in the sense of CC-BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL?). This question was answered with "cela veut dire que les images sont libres de droits, que vous pouvez les réutiliser, mais que nous aimerions que vous citiez la source" (= this means that the images are free of rights, that you can reuse them, but that we would like you to cite the source). The user didn't confirm that the image is licensed under the indicated GFDL licence, and the clarification only mentions that it is possible to "reuse" the image, which isn't exact enough. If you have permission to "use" an image, this often means that you only have permission to publish unmodified copies of the image, but that it is prohibited to modify it (note that {{cc-by-nd}} redirects to a speedy deletion template). It is also not clear whether this licence can be repealed if the copyright holder changes his mind at some point in the future. Wikipedia can only accept images under licences which permit modification and which do not expire. The text of CC-BY-SA 3.0 explicitly mentions modifications (section 3 (b)) and the text in section 3 clearly states that CC-BY-SA 3.0 is a perpetual licence.
• File:20110614ITNalt.GIF is not GFDL-compliant as it says that you created the image all by yourself, which is not the case. The image in the "in the news" section is for example File:DirkNowitzki.jpg by Keith Allison. Both GFDL and CC-BY-SA require attribution of the author, and you are not even attributing the author but attributing someone else. The page MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning contains some instructions and also links to the terms of use, which contains more instructions: you must include a list of the authors, or link to a page which contains their names. WP:CWW contains further instructions with which you have not complied. An interesting observation is the file File:DirkNowitzki.jpg, which was imported from Flickr, presumably by someone other than the photographer. Flickr users have not agreed to the Wikimedia terms of use for their Flickr contributions, so only the attribution requirements in CC-BY-SA 2.0 apply – not any additional optional ways to attribute an author which might have been provided by "Wikimedia-copyrightwarning" or in the terms of use.
• At File:Nait3 4550.jpg, I linked to a website where the image had been posted before the image was uploaded to Wikipedia (see List of HTTP header fields#Responses about "Last-Modified"). As the other copy was older, it was obvious that Wikipedia's copy wasn't the earliest copy of the image. The file therefore seemed to be an obvious copyright violation. Now it says that the image is a "High-resolution version given to me by Sean Fretwell". As it was given to you, as opposed to taken by you personally, you need to follow the instructions at WP:IOWN and make sure that the copyright holder sends a permission statement to OTRS. Same with the other images which appeared on other websites before they were uploaded here.
• If a file appears to lack foreseeable use, the usual solution is to simply nominate the file for deletion without prior discussion. If you look at the deletion discussion page, you will find that the deletion nominations by Kelly were done in the same way. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • pardon me for saying that I found each point you raised hid behind some technicality that gives you wriggle room to say you did nothing wrong or that I hadn't complied fully with policies or guidelines. The way you are conducting the arguments is now very close to what I experienced often at Commons and what got me disillusioned, and I think you'll actually find yourself quite at home there.

    Of course I saw the response in the Q&A at the Xerxes page, and while that doesn't overtly cite "GDFL", it's obvious that being very layman and cartesian, when a French person says "les images sont libres de droits, que vous pouvez les réutiliser, mais que nous aimerions que vous citiez la source", it means that you can do what the fuck you want with them provided you attribute, which is Share Alike with attribution without the Anglo-Saxon legalese. The vast majority of people will give you blank stares and shrug their shoulders and say "whatever" when you specifically mention "copyright" let alone GFDL.

    Just because you publish an image on a website doesn't mean you can't subsequently upload to WP. I wasn't going to mention it, but I actually did create some of the original images that you had put up for deletion just as I was going to bed last night. I am interested in hifi and I often trade or resell pieces of gear. How my images found their way onto others' pages doesn't really bother me and it's really the other person violating my copyright in those cases. But I'm not going to cry, issue take-down notices, or send out solicitors' letters, if you get my drift. But I do get upset if you say they isn't mine to use as I see fit.

    You dispute that I created the screenshot. It's a pathetic technicality because De minimis rules apply in such cases. In any event, community consensus is that we don't need to attribute at each insertion, just at the point of origin (ie at the 'File').

    It upset me very much that you went through every single image I ever uploaded in a very short period of time. I don't know how you managed to track them all down (because even I don't remember some of them). But it very much looked like WP:STALK because you seem to have fucked with each of them in some way and put half of them up for deletion.

    You seem to be working like a bot, making edits at 4 per minute throughout the whole time you are one line but edit summary doesn't mention such use. Are you in compliance with WP:BOTS? I suspect that your above justifications are thought about ex-post as there is no way such complex decisions could have been made when you are editing at 4 to 6 edits a minute.

    I noticed that you seemed to be in competition with Kelly to have the greatest number of deletion nominations. Your competition and zeal is making you reckless. I am not the only editor to remark that you are being overzealous, and I once again urge you to take a little more time over your edits, or you could soon find yourself on a long forced wikibreak, or forced into exile at Commons. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

    • The policy is abundantly clear: If you post an image to a different website before the image is posted here, then the image needs an OTRS ticket (or evidence at the other website that you are controlling the uploader's account on that website). There is no difference between Wikipedia and Commons here. Choosing to upload to Wikipedia instead of Commons does not give you a carte blanche to ignore copyright problems. What I saw was that a large number of your photos appeared on numerous other websites without any indication that the images had been posted there by you. The usual thing is to tag such files with {{db-f9}}; this is what every user who deals with file-related copyright problems does.
    • I never claimed that you didn't create the screenshot. I claimed that you didn't create the all by yourself as you stated on the file information page. Various other people created the images and wrote the text, although it is possible that you may have created a portion of the material shown on the screenshot. Anyway, the licences are clear that you need to provide attribution, but you didn't provide any attribution at all. However, let's keep that discussion on the PUF page.
    • WP:BOTPOL only applies to bots, so that is irrelevant here. Some tasks are faster than other tasks. For example, finding an image elsewhere on the Internet is often a very fast task and permits a higher edit rate. In the same way, the edit rate can go up a lot if there are multiple identical situations right next to each other. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
      • There have been lengthy discussions on where and when to attribute, and the community view is clear that we don't attribute at every turn at every insertion point. That the image wasn't even attributed on the MP proves my point! And I honestly don't care if it doesn't conform to your interpretation of what the copyright law is in that respect, because those considerations were taken into account in arriving at that consensus, and your interpretation is but your opinion. My screenshot was used to illustrate the necessity or otherwise of wikilinks in a given section. I wasn't discussing basketball nor any player, so I feel DirkNowitzki.jpg (however it was obtained and previously attributed at its original point of insertion) was incidental to the main purpose, and thus de minimus. I believe my screenshot is accepted use for that purpose.

        I didn't question what the usual procedure is if a file appears to lack foreseeable use; I would probably do the same. I questioned how you made the determination of "lacking foreseeable use" for files that I had only created a few weeks earlier. I'm saying you fucked up, and you ducked. There's the 'what', and the 'how'. A person can be such an anal arsehole when applying the rules that makes him/her disruptive. Wholescale deletion upsets people, even though you may be technically right on one or another point. All along, you've been treating me like some sort of serial copyright violator. It's untrue, and I absolutely hate it. You template plenty of notifications, but there's a gap between notification and sufficient or adequate communication when you do this en masse.

        I'm wasn't just accusing you of using a bot, but I was also challenging your edit rate and your inherent ability to make coherent decisions. Not all jobs are amenable to be performed at that pace, especially when often complex decisions are involved, and you made some 170 edits in about two and a half hours – more edits than the average WP editor makes in a week. The rate of the average WP editor is not the point, but to achieve those speeds you do, decisions need to be binary, for one needs to simplify one's workflow enough to disengage grey matter.

        You will be no doubt pleased to know that I won't make any further comments to you here in this forum, as you seem to be wedded to your high-speed and highly mechanical approach and immune to mine and others' concerns or protestations. I shall be grateful if you will keep the fuck away from me in future. Please go about your own business, and I'll mind my own. I hope never the twain will we meet again.-- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

        • File:Naim pre @ 2013.png is well over two months old, unused and {{should be text}}; it doesn't take much effort to realise that the image isn't very useful.
        • Attribution is a mandatory licensing requirement and never optional. Attribution is done by inserting the name of the author on the page using the material, in the history of that page or by including a link from either the page or from the history. Articles link to file information pages, so if attribution is provided on the file information page (without the need to follow any links from the file information page), then the attribution requirement is satisfied as far as the article is concerned.
        • 170 edits in two and a half hours doesn't look that much at all. It means just below two edits per minute, and many copyright-related tasks are very trivial, such as searching for identical copies of an image elsewhere on the Internet. On top of that, add that there often are multiple edits related to the same action: 2 edits if a DB or DI tag is used (file information page & user talk page), 3 if it goes to PUF or FFD (file information page, user talk page, PUF/FFD daily summary page). --Stefan2 (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

re File:Tablewaiters Scattered Visions cover.jpeg

As the author of the image and designer of the Scattered Visions single artwork I gave permission for the use of this already and an email containing details of the permission for this file has been sent in accordance with WP:OTRS. If you need anymore information please feel free to contact meMrMoog (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The file was tagged with {{OTRS pending}} in June. At Commons:Commons:OTRS/backlog, it says that the current backlog is 11 days, so it would seem that the message either wasn't sent or that it wasn't possible to identify the file to which it refers. Try asking at WP:OTRS/N, or resend the e-mail if that fails, being very clear about which file it refers to. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I (Tony Ameneiro) as the creator of the Scattered Visions single artwork File:Tablewaiters Scattered Visions cover.jpeg, gave permission for the use of the artwork already and an email containing details of the permission for this file has been sent in accordance with WP:OTRS. If you need anymore information please feel free to contact me, I have also made a direct reference to the artwork and given it my copyright acknowledgement on the Tablewaiters page where it is currently in useMrMoog (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a template which tells that the previous e-mail was insufficient, which means that the permission e-mail didn't contain sufficient information. OTRS probably told you why the permission isn't sufficient. If not, ask them what else you need to do. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion notification

Giving my friendly notification of a protest discussion of an image resizing. The discussion is here. Have a nice day. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 09:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I have replied there. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Maria Pitillo photo

Stephan2

The photo in question is part of my personal collection. This is a link to the original uncropped image. Maria Pitillo verification photo. As you can see, there is water/chemical damage to the edges of the image, which is why I cropped it. This is the best available photo of Pitillo from the period in which people most know her. I have other photographs, but they are all from Press kits and show her in character for those roles. Djfitzgerald111 (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have contacted Pitillo's manager of record in regard to this issue. I have contacted her in the past without a receiving a response. Please give me more time to sort this out. Djfitzgerald111 (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help. Djfitzgerald111 (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Why don't you just delete all the photos? Djfitzgerald111 (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I have replied on the file talk pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Photo of Michel Tabachnik (Brussels Philharmonic)

Main page: File:Michel Tabachnik & BrusselsPhilharmonic (c) 2010 Chris Hofer.jpg

Hello Stefan2,

I am here to ask again for your help. I uploaded a picture for conductor Michel Tabachnik and Brussels Philharmonic on Commons here. I'm not sure that I got the license and the owner right, though. Can you check it out, please?

Thank you very much! Giuliettadp (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The file name ends with "(c) 2010 Chris Hofer" which suggests that Chris Hofer is the photographer. If so, get Chris Hofer to send permission to OTRS as you did with the previous file, then tag with {{OTRS pending}}. In the {{Information}} template, you wrote that Brussels Philharmonic is the author of the image. You added {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}. This suggests that you are the copyright holder which contradicts the "(c) 2010 Chris Hofer" in the file name. Unless you took the photo yourself, you should normally use just {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} instead. That said, if there are errors on the page, but an e-mail to OTRS contains all details about photographer and licence, I would assume that the OTRS volunteer who handles the e-mail will correct all errors. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: File:City-of-Gilroy-seal-350px.png listed for deletion

I agree with the proposal to delete this file and have stated so at the discussion. This should be done as soon as practical (ASAP). — Quicksilver^{T @} 23:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Replaceable fair use File:Bergamo-Stemma.png

Hello. I read very carefully what you wrote in my discussion page about the file representing the coat of arms of Bergamo, but I didn't understand what's wrong with the description. Before uploading it, I looked at other italian coat of arms files uploaded on en.wiki and followed the instruction on UploadWizard. Why all the CoAs of italian municipalities uploaded here are ok and this one is not? — Kingston28 (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-free images of coats of arms are not OK as someone else could create a freely licensed image based on the same blazon. See for example Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 31. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that those coat of arms are not the ones officially adopted by italian municipalities but representations made by the website araldicacivica.it which gave the permission of uploading their creations on Wikipedia (see here). — Kingston28 (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

All images from that website were deleted from Commons at some point. In the deletion discussion, I think that the main point was that the website seemed to collect images from various unidentified sources such as books. It was therefore questioned whether the website was the copyright holder in the first place. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Italian CoA:

“ Further, on their website AFAIK there is also coats of arms from others website, under "fair use" concept or something like that; see, for example, this coat of arms, without author's name, and this one, with the name of the drawer (Stemma ridisegnato da: Massimo Ghirardi - coat of arms redrawn by Massimo Ghirardi.) ” — Trixt, Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Italian CoA

Stefan2 (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

JPEG

So why isn't that information made clear when you upload? I'll keep it in mind for the future. Tony (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't what information made clear? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

That it's better to use svg than jpeg. Tony (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

RE: East and Central Africa Cricket Logo

I was under the impression that no copyright issues would exist in such an image as the original Cricket Union of whom the imaged is based upon no longer exists as an entity? Is the issue not with the Cricket Union, but instead with the uploader of the original (internet) image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J man708 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:COM:HIRTLE: copyright normally expires 95 years after publication or 70 years after the death of the person who made the logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-Free Fair Use

I have now added criteria from WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#2 for all three images which you have listed for possible replacement. I hope my descriptions are satisfying to you. Happy editing, Carbon6 ^talk 17:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

graphic in Tibetan Buddhism

Hi, Stefan. Thanks for your interest in the Tibetan Buddhism article. I'm a bit unhappy with you reverting my change to that graphic, though.

Changing the graphic was work for me. You don't say anything about it on the Talk page, where I had raised this some time ago and when I made the change I commented there again. So what's the story?

Your summary says, "higher resolution", but you have not added anything. My graphic and the one you reverted to are exactly the same resolution. Please say what you are talking about.

Please post your reply to this on Talk:Tibetan Buddhism.

   Moonsell

Before you reply, please consider: if you don't like something but you don't have the time to check the talk page about it, you don't have the time to trash it either. (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated matter

I own my picture it it should not be a question (Tnoova (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

It is MY picture and I give permission is given by the owner for free use (Tnoova (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

See the file talk page. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

{{admin help}}

Please release MY photo

(Tnoova (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC))

energizer bunny battery packaging

Hello Stefan, you made a comment over here[7] that I didn't really understand. The picture is a four-pack of NiMH batteries from energizer, still in the package. You said "delete as derivative work of copyrighted packaging". But from what I understood, COPYVIO should only apply to text that we cut-n-pasted, right? The picture in question should either fall under fair use (just like for instance File:1959_Studebaker_Deluxe_4E.jpg which is a product-pic taken by an amateur photographer and then CCBYSA-licensed), or in the worst case WP:NFCC. Is that wrong, and if so, can you help me grok the image-policies, I'm new at that stuff. There is some text, in the picture. There are some logos, in the picture. There is also the picture-file itself, as a legal entity. There are some batteries in the picture, but I think your argument is about the packaging-stuff, not about the product-which-is-in-the-packaging. If we had photo#2, which was just a battery, no packaging visible at all, with text-on-the-battery-casing and logo-on-the-battery-casing visible in photo#2, would that still be a problem? Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The image File:1959_Studebaker_Deluxe_4E.jpg does not fall under fair use (a.k.a. WP:NFCC) as the vehicle isn't copyrighted. The image File:Energizer NiMH.JPG fails WP:NFCC in the article Nickel–metal hydride battery as you can illustrate the article with a battery which isn't copyrighted. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, okay, perhaps a better example would have been a photo of a celebrity or politician, rather than a brand of truck -- use of a picture of RandomCeleb is one of those borderline cases, right? And although I agree that we can have an article on NiMH batts, with a picture of a generic batt and/or an unbranded batt, I disagree that correctly reflects/documents/describes the topic.

the analogy of headache-capsules , as compared to battery-capsules

It would be like having an article on aspirin, without a picture of a bottle of Bayer(tm) Aspirin, or an article on acetaminophen without a picture of Tylenol(tm). Now, as it turns out, all four headache-medicine-articles exist; acetaminophen *does* have a pic of Tylenol capsules, and aspirin *does* have a pic of a Bayer bottle. Interestingly, ibuprophen lacks a picture of either Advil as well as Nurofen, top brands in USA and the Commonwealth respectively... instead they have a generic-grocery-store-chain bottle as the 'typical brand' picture. My preference would be to see a picture of *both* Advil and also Nurofen bottles, as the major exemplars of the concept as translated into the minds of average folks.   At the moment, the NiMH article has some WP:PEACOCK issues, with the big photo up top of the "Modern, high capacity" brand called Power2000, with the brand clearly visible in the pic. (Cf the oh-so-carefully-oriented "Safeway" brand in the generic ibuprophen pic.) Now, I'm sure Power2000 is a nice battery, and adorama/b&h/jr as well as amazon/rakuten/mysimon are glad that wikipedia features their wares. But there is no way they are the leader in marketshare, whether you speak of volume or value. Energizer, Duracell, and Spectrum-fka-Rayovac are dominant overall.[8] When in comes to consumer NiMHs, detailed info is hard to come by, unless you're willing to pay through the nose for it. We can use amazon as a proxy-indicator, however.[9][ 4 ] That tells us that those three giants remain important, but since being invented in 2005 the low-self-discharge sanyo eneloop has leapt to the top of the amazon charts (best-selling / most-popular / best-avg-review). Sony is also doing well. In the niche market, Tenergy leads the pack, but Ansmann and Accucell also get honorable mentions. For generic-slash-wholesale-brands, AmazonBasics is best-selling, and Yuasa followed by GP are best-otherwise.

Point being, that in the ibuprophen article, I would expect to see a picture of a generic, of Advil as a top USA brand, and of Nuprofen as the top Commonwealth brand. In the NiMH article, I would expect to see a picture of a generic like Power2000, of Eneloop-aka-Sanyo as the top brand nowadays, and of Energizer as the top historical brand, plus maybe Duracell as the runner-up-historical-brand... Sony, Yuasa, and Tenergy would prolly get mentions in the prose, but not photos. Anyways, this turned into a bit of a long reply, sorry about the TLDR. But am I making sense? There is a chemical technology called ibuprophen, and then there is a separate brand-marketing world called Advil/Nuprofen, which is also Noteworthy, and essential to understanding the topic of headache-medicines. There is NiMH, plus also EneloopSanyo/Energizer/etc. By just showing the semi-generic Power2000 brand, and the disassembled technology-demo-picture, we are pretending like there is no market, only a technology. HTH. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ahron Daum Image

Main page: File:Rabbi Ahron Daum in Jerusalem.jpg

Main page: File:Ahron Daum à Jerusalem.JPG

Hi Stefan. Thank you for your explanation. i have instructed the owner to send a mail to Wiki Commons indicating his intention to publish it under a free license. Can you perhaps tag the photo in question that it is in a 'pending'-status. I'm not sure how to do that. Thank you for your help. --Lespaul3675 (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Now tagged with {{OTRS pending}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

File:F. G. Natesa Iyer image.jpg: Difference between revisions

Can you please let me precisely know what more needs to be done to put FG Natesa Iyer image in Wikipedia commons?

THis is a family photograph taken more then sixty years ago. It is widely used in India by publications related to classical music and dance - SRUTI,(Issue 330, March 2012) and Sangeet Natak Akademi journal( XLII, NUMBER 4, 2008). And FG Natesa Iyer is a public domain figure for South India, and perhaps for India as well. Can you please advise what more needs to be done?

There were some more photographs uploaded of FG Natesa Iyer,which were not used/deleted. For example please see (File:FGN as Hiranyakashyapu.jpg ). I would kindly wish to reinsert these files back to Wikipedia and release this to commons.

Anant (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The template {{PD-India}} only provides information about the copyright status in India. It can only be used for photos published before 1953. It says that the photo probably was taken during the 1950s, although there is no way to verify this. Stating that it was taken in the 1950s is too inexact as there is no way to tell whether it was published, let alone taken, before 1953.

Wikipedia is hosted in the United States, and USA uses a different copyright term. In the United States, all Indian photos taken in 1941 or later are copyrighted. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There are a few photos taken before 1920s decade. Can these be uploaded? There should be no ambiguity on the copyright status?. The photos were removed, as can be seen by the notices on my talk page. This particular photo was probably taken before 1953, as that was the yearFG Natesa Iyer left Tiruchirappalli that year.

Anant (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

File:RESeminarySeal.jpg: Change of Status

Stefan2 Thank you for your help. While the Seminary had given permission for the use of their Seal and had planned to put notice of the Creative Commons License on their web site, based on your feedback and research into other related denominational logos on wikipedia, it seemed best to go with non-free fair use. I consulted with the Seminary and this is what they thought was best given the updated information. I made the appropriate edits on the image page. JohnKeble (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Backlog clearing efforts

Can you have a look over my recent efforts to try and clear down some of the PD-x type templates? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have changed {{PD-x}} into {{PD-x|commons}}. Did you check for any subsisting copyrights for those files? The {{PD-x}} templates do not necessarily warn about that. It might be conceivable to assume that there is no subsisting copyright in most cases, but I'm not sure if it is a good idea to add the |commons tag without checking this. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

To be fair I was going by dates.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Bloor Street Baptist Church1.jpeg

Checked the archive.org source listedSfan00 IMG (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Moodu Pani image

Please return to the page where u listed File:Moodu pani album cover.jpg for deletion. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Even though you let the image stay, why is it still listed as under threat of deletion? Kailash29792 (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

License tags

I'd been looking through media tagged with these...

{{PD-AR-Photo}}{{PD-Australia}}{{PD-AustraliaGov}}{{PD-China}}{{PD-Egypt}}{{PD-Hungary}}{{PD-India}}{{Pd-india}}{{PD-India-old}}{{PD-Italy}}{{PD-Pakistan}}{{PD-RusEmpire}}{{PD-Russia}}{{PD-Russia-2008}}{{PD-Sweden}}{{PD-Thailand}}{{PD-Ireland}}{{PD-UK}}{{PD-UK-unknown}}

{{PD-Canada}}{{PD-Czech}}{{PD-NewZealand}}{{PD-NZ}}{{PD-ROC}}{{PD-Myanmar}}{{PD-Malta}}{{PD-Malaysia}}{{PD-Lebanon}}{{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}{{PD-Jordan}}{{PD-Bangladesh}}{{PD-South-Africa}}{{PD-Czech}}{{PD-HK}}{{PD-HHOFFMANN}}{{PD-Iraq}}{{PD-Israel}}{{PD-Israel-Photo}}{{PD-Japan}}{{PD-SAGov}}

but I'm going to take a bit of break, as concerns have been raised that I'm misapplying things.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Image for Chrome Dokuro

Hey, I want to get image for Chrome Dokuro, but, the last time I remembered, you said that I need to get copyright from the copyright holder, which is from Artland and Akira Amano. How can I get the copyright just like other Reborn! characters images like this one? Mukuro Rokudo, or Tsuna Sawada Thank you. --Arami-re (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember where the previous discussion was. The other characters have images which are uploaded under fair use claims. Try doing the same. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still new to this, so I actually still don't really understand how. Can you explain it to me the way? --Arami-re (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

UK copyrights

Wikipedia currently applies 70 pma to the UK (see PD-UK) but the relevant copyright law has some savings for pre 1957 works - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/schedule/1, could you consider updating the template accordingly for clarity? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the section has the effect that certain copyrights are extended, not shortened. The European Union established some common copyright terms in the Copyright Duration Directive. However, Article 10.1.1 in that directive tells that the EU directive shall not have the effect that the copyright term is shortened for any work in any country, provided that the work was created before the EU directive was implemented in the domestic law. Therefore, you need to look at both the current copyright law and the former copyright law and see which term is longer and apply that term to each work. The portion of the UK law that you found essentially contains half of the text of Article 10.1.1 in the EU directive (and I assume that the other half appears somewhere else in the British law). Under the old UK law, the copyright to certain works created between 1 June 1957 and 1 August 1989 (I think) expires 50 years after the work was first published, without any regard to when the work was made, essentially giving perpetual copyright to unpublished works. On the other hand, the EU directive provides a term which is normally life+70 years for such works. Therefore, you need to check whether life+70 years is longer or shorter than 50 years from publication. The term for works created before 1 June 1957 is extra complex because terms in an even older British copyright act sometimes are relevant. The terms in all old British copyright laws become obsolete on 1 January 2040 upon which only the EU copyright terms will apply.

This PDF file tries to summarise all different terms which currently apply in the United Kingdom. It is very messy, and I don't know whether everything is correct there. The PDF file disagrees with Commons:Template:PD-UK-unknown with regard to literary, dramatic and musical works, and I can't tell whether it is Commons or the PDF file which is wrong.

The PDF file actually misses a few unusual special cases. A small number of works, such as the King James Bible and Peter and Wendy, are subject to perpetual copyright in the United Kingdom (which expires on 1 January 2040 when the old copyright laws become obsolete). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyrights (Again)

https://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php?categories=All+free+media&negcats=All+non-free+media%0D%0APD+Italy%0D%0AWorks+copyrighted+in+the+U.S.%0D%0AWorks+copyrighted+in+the+United+States%0D%0AWikipedia+files+for+deletion&ns[6]=1&templates_no=protected+generic+image+name%0D%0Aprotected+image%0D%0App-protected%0D%0App-template%0D%0Aexample+files%0D%0Aprotected+sister+project+logo%0D%0ACopy+to+Wikimedia+Commons%0D%0ANow+Commons%0D%0ADeleted+on+Commons%0D%0ADo+not+move+to+Commons%0D%0Anominated+for+deletion+on+Commons%0D%0AAlready+moved+to+Commons%0D%0ANotMovedToCommons%0D%0Adb-nowcommons%0D%0AShadowsCommons%0D%0AKeep+local%0D%0Aesoteric+file%0D%0AConvert+to+SVG+and+copy+to+Wikimedia+Commons%0D%0Am-cropped%0D%0Ac-uploaded%0D%0AUploaded+from+Commons%0D%0Aduplicate%0D%0Affd%0D%0Apuf%0D%0Absr%0D%0AImagewatermark%0D%0Afile+at+CCI%0D%0Adi-no+license%0D%0Adi-no+permission%0D%0Adi-no+source%0D%0Awrong-license%0D%0Aout+of+copyright+in%0D%0AOTRS+pending%0D%0AOTRS+received%0D%0AWikipedia+screenshot%0D%0ANFUR+not+needed%0D%0Adb-reason%0D%0Adb-f9%0D%0Adb-redundantimage%0D%0Asplit+media%0D%0Auserspace+file%0D%0Adi-dw+no+license&ext_image_data=1&file_usage_data=1 - This query] lists about 1000 images that may or may not be suitable for Commons. It would be nice to try and reduce it to zero if possible.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Philippine peso coins

I'd kindly ask you to double check as images are present on the PDF. I suggest checking Page 11 (the PDF page number, not the actual page numbers on the pages). :) --User ⁵⁰ 16:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd kindly ask you to double check page 11. The photographs on page 11 clearly have different light, damages and similar. A source and licence for our photographs is needed. See {{photo of art}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a possibility of it being from an older version of the PDF as the images were uploaded several years back you know... --User ⁵⁰ 17:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, in either case we need a source and licence for the photographs we are using. Currently we only have a source and copyright tag for the underlying coins, not for the photographs. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, I think they come from here. --User ⁵⁰ 17:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree file because of 3rd party edit

Please help understand this, because I'm unclear. The file I uploaded File:Shi DeRu and Shi DeYang.jpg & provided proof of permission for, via email, is listed as possibly unfree again by Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 November 15#OTRS pending since July, because the user Mochamad farhan, who decided to troll by replacing it with a Bruce Lee photo, that it was reverted from. So am I now required to re-get permission from the the individual(s)/organisation that granted it in the first place, to show that it is free again? It seems to me that this is simply a case of vandalism that's been reverted back to normal & needs no further input, unless & until such an event should occur again. I don't see the reason for it to be re-listed as unfree. Thanks for your help. InferKNOX (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Demetrius Aniketou.jpg

I'd like a second opnion..

According to http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/dept/coins/library/whitehead/ R.B Whitehead died in 1967, so if it's a photo he took it's NOT out of copyright as far as I can see.

However, if it's an unknown work taken in Pakistan ( he was working in Lahore) then it might be.

Your thoughts? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

What matters is the country of publication, not the country of photography. It therefore depends on which country the book "Coins of the Indo-Greeks" was published in. Regardless of that, the image satisfies {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Amended Template

I made some changes to {{PD-UK}}, I'd appreciate some wording tweaks though..Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Image Status review

We need a non PUF/FFD process for image reviewing I think..

So that things like this one :- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_Greyhound_%281900%29_underway_at_Portland.jpg

can be looked at.

This is a PD-US-1923 abroad image.

It also likely (given the subject and sourcing) to have potentialy been taken officially (i.e PD BritishGov).

PUF or FFD seems like the wrong process, and {{Wrong-license}} is typically used for non-free content misifentified as free.

It would be appreciated if someone such as yourself could draft a proposal for a 'License Status Review' process which could replace {{wrong-license}} but still allow for images like the above mentioned image (which no-one is saying is non-free for Wikipedia purposes) to be determined by collective expertise. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hello Stefan2, I have a special request. Could you or someone that you know, do me a favor and nominate the following image for a "speedy deletion"? The image which is in violation of copyright laws since it's brand and label are copyrighted is File:Ron del Barrilito Tres Estrellas.jpeg. I would do it myself, but I usually end up messing the deletion process. Thank you in advance. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Lurker comment: It looks like User:Sfan00 IMG has nominated the file for deletion on Commons (see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ron del Barrilito Tres Estrellas.jpeg). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Cast Menjou.png

Tagged for commons in good faith, but would appreciate a second opinion.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive photos (India/Pakistan)

A contributor I respect, raised concerns on IRC about Category:Pakistani_public_domain_photographs given that it contains images which are pre partition and thus should be some other license than PD-Pakistan, because they were created under the British Raj...

I am therefore asking that someone with image expertise takes a look at these carefully, and gives a second opinion Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

If they were created in British India, then I would guess that the source country is either India or Pakistan, but I don't know how to determine which country we should treat them as being from. I think that we have the following five cases:

• Published before 1923: PD in USA per {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Copyright status in the source country more complex, but only needed for a Commons move and not needed for hosting the file locally.
• Terms in both {{PD-India}} and {{PD-Pakistan}} satisfied on 1 January 1996: PD in USA per {{PD-URAA}}, and can be moved to Commons. Unclear which source country template we should use.
• Terms in {{PD-Pakistan}} satisfied on 1 January 1996, but terms in {{PD-India}} not satisfied: No idea what to do. Try asking at Commons:COM:VPC in case someone else has a clue, but expect the only answer to be "no idea". Free in USA if published before 1923.
• Neither {{PD-Pakistan}} nor {{PD-India}} was satisfied on 1 January 1996: Treat as unfree in USA unless published before 1923.
• Government work: Per {{PD-UKGov}}, British Government works enter the public domain 50 years after publication (sometimes 50 years after creation for photographs). The British government has also stated that this applies worldwide, so we do not need to bother with URAA. Problem: The source country is possibly India or Pakistan (not the UK). Also, the copyright holder may have shifted to either the Indian government or the Pakistani government upon independence. I don't know whether the terms in {{PD-UKGov}} can be used for such government works. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

SVGs from Excel

How do I export an Excel graph as an SVG, then? Tony (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't use MS Excel myself. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Audio deletion

Hi. Just to ask, can you remove your vote supporting the deletion of the "File:Crush Em.ogg" sample? I appointed another editor to address the topic, and it appears that he did the request.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Added the sample to the song page. Anything else that needs to be done?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you point me what else needs to be done in order to keep the sample? If not, you should put a note saying that only the older version of the article is up for deletion. And what do you mean by "orphaned"? The audio is used in the song article and its use is justified.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

What part of "The previous version(s) of this file are non-free" in the template is it that you don't understand? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

In that case, the discussion regarding the sample's deletion should be closed.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Tanguy

There aren't any free equivalents available...Modernist (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

He's an important Surrealist and we need one of his paintings to show what he did...Modernist (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The purpose is to show what surrealism paintings look like. Some surrealism paintings are in the public domain per {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, so the painting is replaceable by those pre-1923 paintings. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

In fact his type of Surrealism cannot be duplicated by someone else. Artists are unique - there is no free equivalent to Tanguy's work. Why did you delete the Fair Use Rationale I added for use in the Yves Tanguy article?...Modernist (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Because the image wasn't in the Yves Tanguy article (although it seems that the image has been added to the article now). Fair use rationales are only useful for the articles in which the image is used. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I added it. I'll re-add the FuR...Modernist (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with...

Re: File:Oamaru stonework.jpg, File:NorthOtago.jpg, and File:Oamaru stonework.jpg - the pd template clearly says "This work has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder." I would not have added that template if I were not the copyright holder. All three now state more explicitly that I took the photos, but please be aware that someone can only release a work into the public domain if they are the copyright holder of that work, and as such, it was already clear that I was and had done so. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that {{PD-release}} only states that the copyright holder has released the image to the public domain, but without telling who the copyright holder is. If the copyright holder is unknown, then we need to know who the copyright holder is, and we also need evidence that the copyright holder has released the image to the public domain. I see that you have fixed this problem by adding a clear statement that you are the photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

When I uploaded the photos in 2005, the template was all that was needed - if you used it, it automatically meant you were the copyright holder. The system has probably changed several times in the last eight years... and I notice that {{pd}} has simply been a redirect to the quite different {{pd-because}} since about 2010. There are probably 40 or 50 of my pics which simply have {{pd}} on them. Sounds like I need to expect a barrage of similar queries. :/ Grutness...wha? 05:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I have taken a look at all revisions of {{PD-release}} from 2005, and they all state that the file was released to the public domain by the copyright holder without telling who the copyright holder is. A problem is that lots of people seem to think that all material on the Internet is in the public domain, and so they upload things from dubious sources using this public domain template. Unfortunately, it isn't possible to tell a valid PD claim from an invalid one unless the source is clearly indicated. Note the difference between {{PD-self}} and {{PD-release}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Despite that, it was all that was needed in 2005 and was unquestioned at the time - especially since {{PD-self}} was newly created and wasn't known to many editors in early 2005. As such, you'll find a lot of copyright holders who used it who gave no further reasons. I agree that the work needs doing, but it'll occur a lot with older files (and a lot of those will have been uploaded by people who are no longer editing WP, so there will be a lot of deletions of perfectly acceptable material). There are ways of weeding out the obviously copyrighted works (TinEye, for example), but others perhaps need a little more than a standard boilerplate "they will be deleted unless info is added "within the next days" (whatever that means - presumably a parameter was missed out when the template was made). I'd suspect that if the photos were added by an admin (as I was by 2005), and look like snapshots rather than posed works (as these do) there's a good chance they're kosher, too. I realise that making such judgement calls makes the copyright-checking process a little more complex, but it reduces the risk of (a) deleting acceptable and useful files, and (b) boilerplating editors who have clearly been on Wikipedia for many years as if they were newbies. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Tineye doesn't work that well with old files. Old files have often been copied to lots of pages on the Internet from Wikipedia, and the original source for a copyright violation may have been deleted. If the uploader hasn't been editing for a long time, it might be a good idea to use more than just 7 days. I realise that many photographs also have EXIF metadata which indicates the date of photography. If a photograph was taken shortly before the upload, it is less likely to be someone else's work. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Stefan2 - On the ones I'd been reviewing, I'm often more inclined to put a {{wrong license}} tag where it might be a self image not labelled as such.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that many files with {{PD-release}} previously had {{PD}}, which means that the file is claimed to be in the public domain for some unspecified reason. Often impossible to verify as there's no information about where the file comes from. It's unfortunate that many uploaders do not provide sufficient information to verify the copyright status. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Your move request for Template:Already moved to Commons

Yours is the oldest surviving move request at WP:RM. From reading the discussion, a move to Template:Incomplete move to Commons appears logical. Would this be agreeable to you? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about that. I've added a comment now. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you favor 'Copied to Commons but not deleted here'. Is that template intended to be a complaint that will draw the attention of someone who will fix it? I see why a person might tag a 'duplicate' enwiki image that presumably is no longer needed since it exists on Commons. But is someone unhappy about that? Is anyone supposed to do anything? Or is it just a routine acknowledgment of a situation that may have some reason but is not worth any further research. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This tag means that the file can't be deleted because the file doesn't satisfy WP:CSD#F8. It could for example mean that the file has been nominated for deletion on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

So this tag puts the image in a temporary status, that ought to be resolved soon? Does this tag say something different from {{Now commons}}? EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This is typically meant as a temporary status. For example, we might be awaiting the outcome of a deletion discussion on Commons. I think it's occasionally used in other cases, for example if someone tries to get a "keep local" file deleted as F8 (not possible as a "keep local" disqualifies the file for deletion as F8). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the current move discussion does not reveal any consensus. If you think it is likely that opinions will change, I could relist it. Otherwise it is better for me (or some other admin) to close it now as No Consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is clear that there is consensus that the file shouldn't have been moved to its current target back in May. I think that the problem is that the people who participated in the discussion don't know very well what the template means. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Jwratner1

Hi Stefan2, would appreciate if you took a look at this contributors uploads, some concerns have been raised about them being copied from texbooks? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Many of them look like scans from books. Some of them also seem to be below the threshold of originality, but it's hard to know where to draw the line. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

MC

Soham (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Soham (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! --Stefan2 (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Curtain call at the end of a performance

Good morning, Stefan, the picture is not available online any longer except as a link: http://www.google.de/imgres?start=80&safe=off&sa=N&hl=de&tbm=isch&tbnid=CY5u7tdjIBKREM:&imgrefurl=http://www.freiepresse.de/THEMA/Marat&docid=6VfNJH7EBaBeFM&imgurl=http://www.freiepresse.de/DYNIMG/93/36/4289336_W150C792x528o8x0.jpg&w=150&h=100&ei=hgu2UoK3A6XK0AWT14HQDg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=491&page=3&tbnh=80&tbnw=117&ndsp=36&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:100,i:37&tx=74&ty=42&biw=1173&bih=787 The author gave his permission but did not manage to send it to Wikipedia yet; he needs more time, if possible. Thank you, Cote d'Azur 22:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Which picture are you talking about? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This picture:

Main page: File:Curtain call at the end of a performance of the opera Charlotte Corday.jpeg

File:The Story Of Vernon And Irene Castle - The Yama Yama Man.ogv

Hi, I did research on this and was unable to find a video that shows the Yama Yama routine which is what the article is about. Except this one which is not PD. What are your thoughts why the rationale is not right? -- GreenC 16:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no critical discussion of the Yama Yama routine in the article, so the purpose of the image is obviously not to show that. Instead, the only purpose of the image is to show what a person looks like in those funny clothes, but we already have several free images of that in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The video is not there to show "what a person looks like in those funny clothes", it is there to show the Yama Yama Man dance routine, as I described in the Fair Use rationale. Not sure why you are saying the rationale is to "show what a person looks like in funny clothes", the rationale does not say that. Second, the dance routine is discussed in the article and sourced as such, see Daniel Goldmark; Charlie Keil (2011). Funny Pictures: Animation and Comedy in Studio-Era Hollywood. University of California Press. pp. 42–43 for example. This is discussed in the opening paragraphs of Yama_Yama_Man#The_Yama_Yama_Man. -- GreenC 19:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, there is no critical discussion about the dance routine, and the film is also replaceable by the text in the section Yama Yama Man#The Yama Yama Man, or by a contemporary recording by someone who is willing to license the recording. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, there is critical discussion about the dance routine; videos/pictures are not replaceable with text descriptions; and while it's theoretically possible someone modern could try to re-enact the dance routine it's not the same as contemporary from the period which is not reproducible. Clearly we disagree on this issue, how about we agree to disagree and let others voice an opinion. Merry Christmas. -- GreenC 18:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Please specify where the critical discussion is. All I can find is a textual replacement of the film, but no critical discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

File:1952 Building Finn DInghies at Borresens Baadebyggeri, Denmark.jpg

Can you take a look at File:1952 Building Finn DInghies at Borresens Baadebyggeri, Denmark.jpg. The PD-because template claims that image is in the public domain in Finland because it expired in 2002 (50 years after publication). I don't really understand the whole URAA stuff, but wouldnt that not make it in the PD in the US because it was not in the PD in Finland prior to 1996? See also File:1952 Finn L18 Gold Medal.jpg & File:1952 Harmaja skyline.jpg Should these be converted to non-free? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

All moved to Commons. Photos published before 1966 entered the public domain 25 years after they were published (which was a lot earlier than 1996), and these were clearly published in that report from the 1950s. The uploader gave the wrong PD rationale, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You sir, as always, are awesome. Thanks. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Photo Copyright Permission

Hello,

I'm hoping you can help direct me in regards to a photo that I added:

I know that there was some back and forth on this particular image as I had sent an email from the person who took the photo with their iPad to the OTRS board and it was pending their approval. But it now says that the message I sent them was insufficient. Can you help guide me on what I need to do next? I keep going from page to page that has everything and anything to do with permission use and I'm lost on what to do.

The person who took the photo of the building gives all rights and permissions to use it in any way shape or form however I don't know how to make sure that this permission is accepted.

Any help that you can provide me would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Caswivel (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

A month ago, User:SarahStierch added a template which tells that the permission is insufficient. Users get one month to fix insufficient permissions, and that month is now over. You would have to contact the copyright holder and get the copyright holder to send in sufficient permission for the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Is their anywhere that I can find what that format needs to be for sufficient permission, a template of sorts of what exactly the email needs to say that you can direct me to? Thank you.

23:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caswivel (talk • contribs)

See for example WP:CONSENT or Commons:COM:ET. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!! Caswivel (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Consider applying for OTRS volunteer?

Hi,

I notice that you have nominated quite a few files tagged with OTRS-received for deletion. Have your considered applying for OTRS access yourself? Working with someone with OTRS access/having the permission yourself could be very useful to resolve the problem presented by insufficient OTRS information, rather than go through the entire tagging-and-untagging, which can be hectic.

Regards, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion ?

Hello. Can you please explain the speedy deletion request notice that you posted on my talk page ? That file was uploaded by me to the Commons and I can't see what's wrong with it --[Tycho] (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You created a local Wikipedia page for a Commons file. The local page was deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Kim fam

Hey Stefan—the page at Kim dynasty (North Korea) was a userspace draft and doesn't use any other page's history. If that's still a "copy-paste" move, how should I proceed? czar ♔ 01:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I missed that. Also, the only thing in Kim family which potentially could be above the threshold of originality is the template. I don't think that there is any advantage for copyright reasons to do things differently here, and as the current page seems to have been independently created from the original, moving in some other way might be a bad idea and might just risk causing confusion. I'll revert to your revision. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Have a happy New Year! czar ♔ 02:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Stefan2

Soham — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

File:IntercoolerGigAdvert.JPG

See also: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 December 31 § File:IntercoolerGigAdvert.JPG

Hi - It's been a number of years since I last logged onto Wikipedia, and I have found that the image File:IntercoolerGigAdvert.JPG has been wrongly deleted. I am the person who took the photograph of the window of the Republic Bar here in Hobart, Tasmania. I was clear that copyright was gifted to Wikipedia. Please see that the file is undeleted thanks. Sa cooke (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on the discussion, the file doesn't satisfy Commons:COM:FOP#Australia. The file name suggests that it is a photograph of an advertisement. Advertisements are usually in two dimensions and are usually not permanently installed. You therefore need to make sure that the person who created the advertisement follows the procedure outlined at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

File Emma_Eliza_Regan.jpg

Hi Stefan, Emma Eliza Regan had these photos undertaken herself as promotional shots and specifically sent me this photo and asked me to include it. Do you need me to get clarification from Emma for you? Regards, Simon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonjohnpalmer (talk • contribs) 18:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It says that the permission statement which was sent to OTRS was insufficient. You would have to sort this out with OTRS. Try WP:OTRS/N. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Simon,

Could you please ask Emma to reply to the mail we sent on 23 May 2013 or send us another mail containing the permission with text similar to [[10]]?

Thanks,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stefan, yes of course. Thanks again, Simon. --Simonjohnpalmer (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification

Your actions are under review at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback File:Solar storm 2003-10-26 (SOHO-EIT Ultraviolet 195 Å).png

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_January_12#File:Solar_storm_2003-10-26_.28SOHO-EIT_Ultraviolet_195_.C3.85.29.png.
Message added 20:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

HP Prime Graphics Calculator

I changed the image to a wikipedia suitable flickr image. You can get rid of the other image if you want. See HP Prime Springyboy (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. When rotating a file, please add {{rotate|270}} instead of uploading a thumbnail image. That way, a bot will take care of the rotation. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The Reason of "File: Newsweek 22 September 1980.jpg listed for deletion"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear Stefan2, thanks indeed that you notified about the issue in my message box.

First of all, let me tell you the background of this particular Newsweek cover and why it is placed on the main 12 September 1980 coup wiki page.

The original uploader, named in Turkish as (https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullanıcı:Docbaba), is in the Turkish wiki of the coup page. She/he uploaded the image, scanning directly the front cover of the 22 September 1980 Newsweek issue, on the Turkish wiki page on 3 September 2008.

While I was revising both Turkish and English pages and updating the dead-links, in the English one, there was only a Turkish cover of a nationwide newspaper called "Hürriyet". And the English translation [of this cover] was already written as " ...headline read 'The army has seized control' ".

While there already exists an international weekly-magazine cover [of the coup] in the Turkish wiki page, I thought that it could be a good and more neutral idea to re-upload this Newsweek cover in the English wiki and put them in the main page one under the other. I placed the Newsweek cover up; because it was an international news circulation and placed the Hurriyet cover down; because it was nationwide. There is not any other particular reason [on placement].

In the deletion list-page, you have written: "Fails WP:NFCC#8: the cover isn't critically discussed in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#10c: despite the claim in the FUR, the article as a whole isn't dedicated specifically to a discussion of this cover."

I cannot know what you thought when you were writing the reason above; I can only estimate what you thought, which, of course, I may be wrong about.

You may have thought that the Newsweek cover represents a one-sided point of view as it is written "Turkey's Night of the Generals"; when the Turkish "Hurriyet" newspaper is translated as " ...headline read 'The army has seized control' ". I think, Hurriyet's translation seems more neutral than the Newsweek cover. But please pay attention: Even though there seems one is less-neutral, there are two different publications from different points of view and different editorial boards [of the publishing companies]. More covers, more "editorial boards" and etc. mean more neutral.

Moreover, if there are another covers from vast variety of publishing institutions [early 1980s], from the covers of memoir-books of investigative journalists, from TV snapshots, etc. those must be uploaded in the main English wiki page.

Keep: It is clear from all my statements above; it is better to keep the Newsweek cover in the page. --Toksoz (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unrelated matter

Please see my comments on the talk page of File:Contoocook Railroad Bridge and Depot Historic Marker.jpg thanks. Djsteve321 (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: File:IFR-FFR Hybrid Approach.jpg

Thanks for the message concerning copyright over this image.

This image is from a scientific journal which has freely accessible journal articles (requiring only registration to their site). http://www.pcronline.com/eurointervention/57th_issue/179/

The formal citation of the image is:

Petraco R, Park JJ, Sen S, Nijjer SS, Malik IS, Echavarría-Pinto M, Asrress KN, Nam CW, Macías E, Foale RA, Sethi A, Mikhail GW, Kaprielian R, Baker CS, Lefroy D, Bellamy M, Al-Bustami M, Khan MA, Gonzalo N, Hughes AD, Francis DP, Mayet J, Di Mario C, Redwood S, Escaned J, Koo BK, Davies JE. Hybrid iFR-FFR decision-making strategy: implications for enhancing universal adoption of physiology-guided coronary revascularisation. EuroIntervention. 2013 Feb 22;8(10):1157-65. doi: 10.4244/EIJV8I10A179. PubMed PMID: 23256988.

You will note that I am a co-author of this publication and have permission of the first author and the senior author to upload this image to wikipedia. I will ask my colleague, Dr Ricardo Petraco to confirm this in an email if required. As a co-author and as the image is freely available on the journal website, and has been presented publically at international Cardiology conferences (including EuroPCR and TCT), I feel use of this image falls within fair use.

Please let me know if this is sufficient information. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukhjinder.nijjer (talk • contribs) 23:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence from that website that the image is free for any reason (at least not without an account). If you made the image, then see WP:IOWN for instructions on what to do with previously published material. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stefan, I have email confirmation from the first author, Dr Ricardo Petraco, and from the Editor of the Eurointervention Journal, providing permission for the use of the figures. I will attempt to follow the Wiki procedures regarding this. Please let me know if steps are incomplete or further action is required. Best wishes.Sukhjinder.nijjer (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Then send the permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, and after that tag the files with {{OTRS pending}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Images of Papua New Guinea

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at Jack Greenmaven's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Can I assume that the three images, described on my Talk Page, are now accepted for use on WP, now that you have removed the templates from the image records? It is pretty confusing. --Greenmaven (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This depends on what it says in the e-mails that you claim to have sent. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

What I am asking is - how do I know when the process is completed? When can I be sure that the images are not going to be deleted? --Greenmaven (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You will have to wait until someone has read the e-mails. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

File: ECRC_Building.jpg

Hi Stephan, I hope all the required permissions for File:ECRC Building.jpg have been submitted via e-mail this morning. I hope this resolves the issue you highlighted but please let me know if there are still any problems.--BenVrackie (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Then we will have to wait until someone reads that e-mail. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Confused

With regard to the photos in the story "Norm Drucker", the photos are private photos, without a copyright that were taken privately by a photographer and given as a gift to my father, Norm Drucker, one of the subjects in each photo. The person who took the photos is now deceased and the use of the photos at Wikipedia represent the first use of the photos. What exactly should I be doing? Can you specifically tell me where to click so that the photos are not removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NBAscholar (talk • contribs) 03:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The photographer's heir should follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Non-free content in draft or AfC articles?

Several images in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ramsey Interferometer were tagged for speedy deletion for several reasons, some of which I agree with. What I am confused about is the fact that these images are categorized as not being used in any articles, even though they are used in an article undergoing WP:AFC review. Is there a legal reason why common sense cannot be applied here, considering such images are essentially being used in an article pending the review outcome (especially considering the exception given in WP:F5)? Thanks. Azaghal of Belegost (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no exception given in WP:NFCC#7 or WP:NFCC#9. See for example Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 58#Proposed addition: Use in draft articles. Non-free images used to be removed automatically by User:DASHBot from all pages outside the main namespace (including drafts), but DASHBot stopped doing this for some reason. More recently, User:Werieth has frequently been doing the same thing. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and direction to the relevant conversations. Azaghal of Belegost (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edit to PUF January 18

Specifically, this edit. You removed two headings and your commentary from two entries. I see what you were doing but doesn't this mess up the formatting at that page and at the "master" PUF page? I think there are mechanisms that expect an H4 for each reported file.

Aside: I feel as if JJS is being piled-on...that is, if I were in JJS's position I would feel piled-on... but I don't see an alternative. Jeh (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, any number of files can be listed under the same H4 header, and in some cases it is useful to discuss files in bulk. {{subst:Puf2a}} can help you with this, but unfortunately the "delete" link in the template suggests the wrong deletion reason by including the wrong section link.

If a user has uploaded multiple copyvios, the best way is usually to report all of them as soon as they are discovered. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the reply. Jeh (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

RE: File:Primate Mindstate.jpg

At the time of upload of this file, the page Primate Mindstate was not created and therefore was automatically redirected to Apathy (rapper). I only realized this when I finished the upload of the file, (which it therefore automatically changed Primate Mindstate to Apathy (rapper). However, it does meet the requirements to be on Primate Mindstate. So I do apologize for the inconvenience. Thank you for your time TwinTurbo (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

SUNY Oneonta Athletics Dragon

In response to this message last night, Thank you for uploading File:SUNY Oneonta Athletics Dragon.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. \ I have updated our image non-free use description. This is the official logo of the SUNY Oneonta Athletics team. We own the rights to use and present this image as our mascot for the campus.

Please remove this notification or add the needed information to resolve this. We own the copyright at the State University College at Oneonta and use this image for our campus Mascot in our Athletics Department.

Thanks - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugyijp (talk • contribs) 13:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Previously, it said that the article as a whole was specifically dedicated to a discussion of the logo, which is not true. Now it says that the logo is used in the main infobox at the top of the article, which is also not true as it is used in a different infobox elsewhere on the page. The file therefore still doesn't have any valid fair use rationale. It is also dubious whether the image satisfies WP:NFCC#8 in the first place. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Uploaded Images

I am surprised and shocked to see many listed "nominations" for delete candidates of posters/covers, I have uploaded. May I know what exactly went wrong there? I uploaded those with proper licence policy. It is disappoinng to see my hardworks are "going" to get deleted. Let me know the options to keep those without getting deleted..please help me Stefan2. Thank you Rajeshbieee (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

As explained at MOS:FILM#Soundtrack, film soundtrack covers fail WP:NFCC#8 and may not be uploaded. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Chemical ...

Main page: File:Chemical structure DRAQ5.jpg

Dear Stefan2, Thank you for picking this up. I was aware I had duplicated the image but was unable to locate the named one afterwards. Griffin56a (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Micheal Seatter's Cap.jpg

The image of Micheal Seatter's Cap was emailed to me by his son, how would I go about proving this. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ask the photographer to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Image copyrights question

Per User:We hope's recommendation, could you take a look at User_talk:Connormah#Sports_cards? Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Stefan2 (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Jose F. Caro.jpg PERMISSION

Stefan 2: Evidence of Permision (email) to use file File:Jose_F._Caro.jpg was just forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org as indicated. Thank you

link=User talk:<Neuralia>

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at [[User talk:<Neuralia>|User talk:<Neuralia>]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Neuralia (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems that this has been sorted out by OTRS. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

asian wiki permission

Main page: File:Ayaka Komatsu at Busan Film Festival October 2013.jpg

The "asian wiki" picture you tagged for deletion explicitly says "Photo taken by AsianWiki October 5, 2013 during the 2013 Busan International Film Festival.". Do you have any reason to doubt the authenticity of that statement? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

In particular, google reverse image search finds no copies of this photo anywhere except asian wiki and wikipedia, which one would expect if it was just copied from some other source [11]

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Asianwiki states CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0, which does not allow commercial use or derivative works. On the other hand, User:Sayerslle wrote that the image is in the public domain. CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 is not a free licence and there is no evidence that the image is in the public domain. You might be able to ask the original uploader for permission here, but an account is needed for editing the wiki and Special:UserLogin/signup can only be accessed by sysops. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

hello - I had assumed Wikipedia editor, author: Ramen Lover was at the event and took the photo him/herself and put it in the public domain. I don't understand all the arcana of copyright - CC means creative commons to me and I assume it means it is o.k. to use -I hope I have not contravened any rules. the article is so much better with an image don't you think. if it is deleted on feb 6 the article loses out imo - if you understand the arcana of the rules why don't you try and get the permission needed rather than just delete photos - if a Wikipedia editor ramen lover took the photo and its used on the Asian wiki I don't understand why it cant be used on the English wp. you do understand why so why not try and overcome the problem? Sayerslle (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Sayerslle (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

(CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)

'You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format' - so that sounds like it can be used o.k. - Wikipedia isn't commercial use is it? Sayerslle (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

CC-BY-NC-ND doesn't allow you to use the material commercially. It is also not allowed to modify the image. Wikipedia only accepts licences which allow you to use the material commercially and modify the material, see {{db-f3}}. Furthermore, Wikipedia occasionally contains advertisements asking for donations, which may mean that Wikipedia is commercial. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

could you not ask ramen lover, who added the image to the Asian wiki ayaka komatsu page,[12] if wikipedia can use it? isn't the point to try and save images that add to a page rather than search for reasons to impoverish the page? may mean that wikipedia is commercial' - seems to me you are stretching things to delete it.Sayerslle (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As I told above, you need an account to edit Asianwiki, and Special:UserLogin/signup can only be accessed by sysops. Thus, I can't contact the user in any way. In either case, it is the uploader's responsibility to make sure that sufficient permission is available. If you can somehow contact the user, then try to get the user to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

and the may mean ? is it commercial or isn't it? and you say it is not allowed to 'modify' the image . well it isn't 'modified' is it? anyway, go ahead and delete it then, brilliant, i'm sure the world would have fell in if you'd left it alone. Sayerslle (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The important thing is that Wikipedia doesn't accept non-commercial or non-derivative licences. See WP:CSD#F3. Your claim that the file is in the public domain is unsourced and the file is therefore up for deletion per WP:CSD#F11. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

the creative commons says of the CC BY NC etc 'You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format' - it is not for commercial use, and it is not modified - you seem dead set on deleting the image rather than helping out - the jargon you understand, you wrote 'states CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0, which does not allow commercial use or derivative works.' but it is o.k within these parameters imo. if my reasoning was wrong about public domain or whatever, forget about that, I don't understand the jargon, or the right words to use -it seems to me you look for trouble to delete stuff. Sayerslle (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Cosmology Large Angular Scale Surveyor File Permission

Hi Stefan2, I forwarded an email from the owner of the file "Class cmb experiment rendering.jpg.png" to permissions-en@wikimedia.org; however, it looks like it has been deleted. Could you reinstate it, or let me know if something further is needed? Thanks! --tom.essinger.hileman (talk)

If the permisison is sufficient, then the file will be deleted eventually. If not, then the file will remain deleted. Try asking at WP:OTRS/N if you have any questions. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Input request

There is a discussion taking place here regarding the inclusion of File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg at Jimi Hendrix. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Ontario Hansard 1953.jpg

I've just closed the above discussion as having consensus that the image is below the TOO in the US and therefore is in the public domain. However, in my lack of experience and there not being discussion for a particular license, I was hoping you would help me out. My belief is the image would be suited with a {{PD-ineligible}} or the more specific {{PD-simple}} tag, but I wanted to run that by you first. Thanks, -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I would guess that this is below the threshold of originality in the United States. The coat of arms is probably not, but it is probably older than the rest anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

NFCR

Please stop flooding NFCR with 10c cases. Just remove them or add a rationale. Werieth (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Amrita Sher-Gil

Hi Stefan. I see your deletion requests at Amrita Sher-Gil to take down her art images has now been carried out.

Your rationale for this was that although her work is PD in India and the EU, it isn't in the US because of GATT. That's quite true of course and it's great that public-minded individuals like you are policing the Commons to make sure it's GATT compliant. How lucky we all are!

Nevertheless it's a pity that her article isn't now illustrated, the more so when you consider how relatively poorly woman artists are covered on Wikipedia.

I wonder if you would care to complete your contribution by uploading Fair Use images for her article? Can you let me know please. Thank you. Jennie Matthews 97 (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

fyi

I think I have told you before that I am concerned that some of your interpretations of fair use are too aggressive. Please see this reply. Geo Swan (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

World Radio Day

Thanks Stefan2. Ben Stanford is my office mate, we work in UNESCO. The copyright information can be found at the bottom of this page: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/events/prizes-and-celebrations/celebrations/international-days/world-radio-day-2014/social-media-banners-spread-the-word/#c1362301 Let me know if you need anything else

Thanks Stefan2. Ben Stanford is my office mate, we work in UNESCO. The copyright information can be found at the bottom of this page: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/events/prizes-and-celebrations/celebrations/international-days/world-radio-day-2014/social-media-banners-spread-the-word/#c1362301 Let me know if you need anything else

Sorry, I overlooked a miniscule "cc-by-sa" statement on that page. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:ABS-CBN Sports plus Action logo.jpeg

See File:ABS-CBN Sports plus Action logo.jpeg's talk page for the rationale behind the contest deletion of the said image.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 15:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

What Size is Allowable for International Settlement Photo ?

Main page: File:International Settlement 1940s San Francisco Pacific Street FaceWest Crp1.jpg

I see that you tagged my uploaded photo of Intentional Settlement as being too large. Please remember that permission was given by San Francisco Library to use the image, it is the smallest size that they offer, and the image is 75 years old and may not have a copyright owner. Is this really necessary to reduce the size of the image when we have this permission for an old photo? If so, what is the largest pixel height that we can use? I'd like to resize it myself and not have a bot make that decision.James Carroll (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

As you can see, the file has been reduced now. As it isn't known whether the image still is copyrighted, it has to be treated as unfree unless more information about the copyright status can be provided, and this demands a low resolution. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

What if a large public library like San Francisco's gives us a WRITTEN STATEMENT that there is NO copyright holder -- can we use a larger version? I know that they make an attempt to determine who the copyright holder is, because it appears on some of their historic photos like this one ( Notice the text, "RESTRICTIONS MAY APPLY ...HBlair." ).

http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/record=b1014008~S0 And we can follow that link to this page of copyright determinations,

http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/search~S0?/eRESTRICTIONS+MAY+APPLY./erestrictions+may+apply/-3,-1,0,B/browse

This is unlike the other photo [ http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/record=b1014012~S0 ], which does not name a specific copyright holder, and is likely to be without a copyright holder by their determination.

Again, what if a large public library like San Francisco's gives us a WRITTEN STATEMENT that there is NO copyright holder ?? James Carroll (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There would have to be concrete evidence that there is no copyright holder. This would require finding the original source, or original publication of this image and showing that there was no copyright notice with it. A letter from any institution, major or not, is useless unless that institution can back their information up with original source information. With no known original publication, it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that the file is not copyrighted, unless the original image can be produced. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, you will have to specify where this was originally published in case you wish to claim that the image isn't copyrighted. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Your seemingly unfounded disagreeability regarding two photos

Hello,

You seem to have taken issue with two photos: File:New York City rooftop apiary in Brooklyn Navy Yard, owned by Brooklyn Grange Rooftop Farm.jpg and File:Brooklyn Grange Rooftop Farm.jpg You claim that these two locations can be photographed from the buildings in the background, yet you have no citations to prove such a claim. You have not been to these locations in person as I have, but yet you make declarative statements concerning how they can be viewed from buildings in the background. You make declarative statements concerning the current state of photographic equipment yet provide no citations nor personal anecdotes or experience. You even have gone so far as to make a direct accusation of these photos being a "hoax", yet with but a moment of Google it is clear they are not. I would like nothing more than to provide free-use photos, but due to the unique locations of both these photos, none exist nor can be created using any reasonable means. The rooftop farm in one picture is the largest example, by a multiple of at least 4, of rooftop farming anywhere in the world, and represents a singular and ground breaking engineering achievement both for the company who owns it and the City of New York. If you feel this does not warrant a non-free use posting on Wikipedia, then by all means delete the photos. If you ever happen to visit New York City, I implore you to visit the location and see for yourself how absurd your claims are. This is not meant as insult, but it may take your own personal experience to realize that the word "absurd" is the only appropriate term for your claims. I would also suggest you consult a professional photographer, sit down with them and use Google Earth to view the location and surrounds, and get their professional assessment of your claims. Thank you. Andy Sherman (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Unambiguous violations of WP:NFCC#1. All you need to do is to take a different photograph of the buildings or different buildings with the same function. As you might have noticed, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise decided to speedily delete the files for violation of the non-free content criteria. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That makes no sense in the context of what these photos were portraying. But you seem disinterested in the facts of the matter. If you find anything remotely similar to these locations, please do let me know. Thanks! Andy Sherman (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Tina Charles Heart 'n' Soul artwork

Main page: File:Tina Charles Heart n Soul Album.jpg

Main page: File:Tina charles heart n soul.jpg

I have now connected the artwork image to the artical for the album. It looks as though my original image was replaced by a lower resolution image which somehow broke the link, but my original image still showed up in the article until I replaced it.Delangle9 (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Both images show the same cover, although the colours are a bit different. Since your image is now in use, I have removed the deletion template and tagged the other one as orphaned. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I remember this one now. It was my first attempt at uploading album art. I got confused with my first attempt and abandoned it without seeing a method of deleting it. I then uploaded the second (better) image successfuly, so there is bound to be an orphaned image. I am now confident, after many successful uploads, that I am OK with the method.Delangle9 (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hey Stefan2, I had made File:Watm 2009.png transparent and removed the opaque template. Then you added back. May I ask why? I am confused, because when reading that template, it says it isn't transparent, which it is now because I made transparent. Hope you can help clarify it. Thanks. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 21:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I added the wrong template by mistake. As the file is unfree and has multiple files in the history, it should be tagged with {{subst:orfurrev}} until the old revision has been deleted (usually happens about a week after the file is tagged). I have fixed this now. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries! Have a good rest of your day! Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 21:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Story of Luke movie poster.jpg

Thanks for the heads up! The image has been replaced by the official movie release poster. It is safe to have it deleted. Asaifm (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Then let's just wait for a week until someone deletes it. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Rafael L. Bras photo

Main page: File:Rafael Luis Bras Provost Georgia Tech.jpeg

Thank you Stefan2 for your notice about the photo in Rafael L. Bras wiki page. I have communicated with the author and obtained a lower resolution and free licence version and received their permission to upload it in wiki. I have noticed that the photo is already replaced with a lower quality one. Shall I still replace it with the new free one. I apologize for inconvenience. I am a new kid in the blockMebtehaj (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC).

The person is still alive, so a non-free image can't be used. See WP:NFC#UUI §1. If you have an image which is licensed under a free licence, then it can be uploaded, but see also WP:CONSENT for instructions if you need to upload an image which was previously published outside Wikipedia or taken by someone other than yourself. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

See also: User talk:ТимофейЛееСуда § Gallery of country coats of arms

See also: User talk:Arms Jones § February 2014

See also: User talk:Arms Jones § February 2014 2

Please stop edit warring in Gallery of country coats of arms. You go against the consensus. Arms Jones (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Please explain exactly how it is against the consensus to uphold the consensus from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 31. Also, immediately stop editing against the consensus in Gallery of country coats of arms! --Stefan2 (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is that the file can be used there as the article is written now. You are referring to an obsolete discussion, dealing with the design the article had when it was a plain gallery without discussing text, before the present form. Arms Jones (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There is not consensus for the non-free files to be used. My closure still reflects consensus. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There was also a second discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 44#Gallery of country coats of arms, recently closed by Timofey Leye Suda (is this the correct transcription?) which also concluded that the image isn't suitable in this article. I am not sure what discussion you are talking about. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That discussion concluded that the image wasn't suitable in the article when it was merely a gallery of images without any text discussing and comparing the images to eachother. This is not what the article is like now. See? So, if you are not sure what discussion I am talking about, it is because you haven't read it thoroughly enough. Arms Jones (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I have provided two discussions, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 31 and Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 44#Gallery of country coats of arms, which concluded that the image can't be used in the article Gallery of country coats of arms. You, on the other hand, are talking about some unspecified discussion which you claim concludes that the image may be used in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The latter concluded that non-free images can't be included in a plain image gallery according to Wikipedia:IG#Image galleries and as long as there was no comparing text in the Gallery of country coats of arms, the use of some images in that gallery was not permitted. Now text has been provided to A, B, and C, and I planned to do the same for the rest of the article, but you still would consider the article to be a plain image gallery? Arms Jones (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Delete all other images

Since you are choosing to interpret the WP:NFCC#8 to an extreme, try and delete all of the other television station legal identifications and logos (which do provide important commentary and, among other things, provides noteworthy distinction from other stations). There are literally hundreds of other stations on Wikipedia that have these IDs, so you may not get a consensus on this. Strafidlo (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Pick any television station (i.e. WABC-TV) and see how many legal IDs and logos you come across in the article (that are lacking critical commentary) and try putting them up for deletion. Strafidlo (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Do You Have a Bot which Stalks my Photo Submissions?

I could not help but notice that in just 25 minutes after I submitted a historic photo for submission today, you had a tag placed on that image file which submitted it to some type of extensive review with a questionable issue resolution policy. Wikipedia:Non-free content review And your issue of contention was trivial -- that I should be able to find a replacable public domain photo which is 150 years old and focuses on a particular wharf at the end of San Francisco's Pacific Street. There are not many photos from that era, let alone with that geographical focus. What is going on? Is Wikipedia trying to discourage photos in its articles, regardless of whether they are without copyright infringement? I certainly hope not. If Wikipedia is to survive it must keep up with the times and competing websites which now present a plethora of photographs while Wikipedia lags behind and has a severe deficiency of photographs within its articles. The many barricades of photo submission seem to grow the closer that we view Wikipedia's policy and the behavior of its staff. Trying to sell an Internet encyclopedia without photos is a little like trying to sell an automobile without windows.James Carroll (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I do not have a bot. I was looking at recent uploads at Special:ListFiles, and your file was one of them which caught my eye. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, "caught my eye." Well, maybe I should be asking "Are YOU are stalking me?" Let's not play the game of semantics.

This is very disturbing that you are singling me out -- it is a veiled form of discrimination and a type of harassment. How do you defend your actions, especially when basing your decision on such a trivial complaint about 'replacability' -- when so few photos are 150 years old and focus on the end of Pacific Street in San Francisco? You don't really think a similar photo is out there in public domain that is reasonable to find. So what is it about my previous actions that had drawn your targeted focus? Is it your intention to stifle my future submissions of photos, and why? James Carroll (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for removing my orphaned file. I did not understand that if I uploaded it and then didn't use it I should remove it. I'll make sure to follow this in the future. Pugsly8000 (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Just in case you still thought the photo was a hoax, or was somehow viewable from the roof of the skyscrapers that are almost 2 miles away

They just posted this http://livingarchitecturemonitor.com/index.php/news/allnews/318-brooklyn-grange-releases-time-lapse-video-of-rooftop-farm Indeed, no way to create free-use pics, certainly not a "hoax", and an utterly unique location. As they do not want their pictures being used for commercial endeavors, especially by large agricultural companies with whom they do not share a philosophy, how would you suggest a picture of their location make it into Wikipedia? Or do you feel it is not unique enough to warrant any attention? Andy Sherman (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC) No suggestions at all? Andy Sherman (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

fyi

I finished this just before my buddy buzzed me to join him for breakfast at my local coffee shop. My interpretation of policy is that I would definitely owe you a heads-up -- if I had mentioned you by name. Usually I would have left the other party a heads-up, even if I had not mentioned them by name. I didn't before I joined my buddy, and it disturbed me, during breakfast. My apologies. Geo Swan (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: File:MukeshKashyap1.jpg

Hello Stefan2. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:MukeshKashyap1.jpg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Please note the author of the photo. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Question by User:EB Norris

Speedy deletion of File:OKHwy37 Pink.jpg, File:Mammatus clouds over Pink OK 2010.jpg , File:Absentee Shawnee house foundation Pink OK.jpg, File:Old Highway 37, Pink Oklahoma 2006.jpg . These are my personal images, taken with my personal camera. What do I need to do to be able to use them for illustrative purposes? 17:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)EB Norris (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The files were deleted as unambiguous copyright violations, which normally means that they appear somewhere else on the Internet. You need to contact OTRS to prove that you are the copyright holder. See WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Adly Mansour and 2 other files from Egypt

File:Mostafa Mahmoud march heading to Tahrir Square.jpg, File:Mostafa Mahmoud march heading to Tahrir Square II.jpg and File:Adly Mansour and Catherine Ashton in Cairo.jpg → Didn't you see this? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

That would mean the files should be deleted. Wikipedia doesnt accept non-commercial licensing. Werieth (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0 is not an acceptable licence. You also claimed that the files were available under a different licence, but didn't provide any evidence of this, so the files were tagged as lacking evidence of permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Coral reef near Marsa Alam.jpg

I just uploaded this one. Can you tell me if it's ok? I made a couple of edits after uploading and one was by changing the license from CC-BY to CC-BY-2.0. Thanks. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:King William Street 1890.jpg

Hi there, I included this photo after receiving permission from the owners by email. Would you like to see a copy? Gomez050 (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Permission has to be sent to OTRS and has to be sufficient. See WP:CONSENT for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi there
I've sent a copy of the email to OTRS as instructed. Gomez050 (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:RFC at WP:PUF

There is an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Header that you might find relevant as you have participated in past discussions about the use of {{pufc}}. Thanks, -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

File deletions

Hey, I noticed you tagged a picture I uploaded (File:Sports Illustrated Appalachian State-Michigan.jpg) for speedy deletion because it is a copy of File:Large 0910 large.jpg, which I also uploaded. I don't believe you noticed that I had already requested File:Large 0910 large.jpg be deleted because the file name is not descriptive and I cannot rename files. I have contested the speedy deletion as such.... however, because you are a file mover, could you perhaps just move the first file to a better, more descriptive name? I'll drop my contest of the speedy deletion if you can do that. Toa Nidhiki05 16:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Considering that it was up for deletion for that reason, I have simply moved the {{db-f1}} tag and replaced the usage. Deleting the badly named one is simpler than moving it and deleting the other one. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Muntazir764

Bothe images was being used in the artical Abdul khaliq (athlete). I can not understand yours resons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muntazir764 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Keep on maintaining our image repository. Soham 16:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chris Christie State Assembly 1995 campaign flyer.png

Hi Stefan2. The image is orphaned because I can't add it to the Chris Christie article until an administrator or reviewer approves the Fair use of the image. If you could review it, I will then add the image to the article. Thanks! Cwobeel (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The fair use of this image is disputed. The discussion is reflected in the Talk page for the File.CFredkin (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#7 is unambiguous: if the image isn't used, then it can't be kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand, thank you. Who is responsible for assessing fair use? The template says "admin and reviewers", so how that gets done? Cwobeel (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If there is a dispute about whether the file belongs in the article or not, the usual thing is to open a discussion at WP:FFD or WP:NFCR. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! Cwobeel (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Eva_Hesse_-_Repetition_Nineteen_III_.280.1_MP_reduction.29.jpg

Regarding your post to my my Talk page I am interested to see that you concede the image may only be used under a claim of fair use. That was precisely how I uploaded it, but you nevertheless marked it for deletion. I therefore uploaded a new (and better) version and linked that instead, and that is why the original version is orpaned. However in the event you you marked its replacement for deletion as well.

I have retired from editing for the time being because of your harassment which has been continuous (either from you or from your cronies) since I began my account. I will await the outcome of your nomination for deletion of the Chilkat blanket. Depending on the outcome I will either retire completely or resume only on condition of an assurance from you that you will stop stalking and harassing me.

Any further posts from you to my Talk page will be deleted without comment. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Eva Hesse - Repetition Nineteen III (0.1 MP reduction).jpg is claimed to be used under a fair use claim, but is not used in any article. All images used under a fair use claim have to be used in an article, or else they should be deleted per WP:CSD#F5. See WP:NFCC#7. The article uses a different photograph of the artwork.

File:Eva Hesse - Repetition Nineteen III (0.1MP cc-by-nc-sa-2.0).jpg is the image used in the article. It lacks a free licence from the photographer and should therefore be replaced by an image which has a free licence from the photographer. I also note that Eva Hesse lived in the United States for a large part of her life. Many artworks from the United States from that age are in the public domain because they were "published" (exhibited) without a copyright notice or, if exhibited before 1964, without a copyright renewal 28 years after the exhibition. See {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{PD-US-not renewed}}. It is therefore likely that some or all of the artworks by Eva Hesse are in the public domain, although it is unclear which ones. This one might be in the public domain. If there are artworks which are in the public domain, then per WP:NFCC#1, the article should normally only contain pictures of the artworks which are in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Photo_of_Albertan_MLA_Sheldon_Chumir_on_a_chair.gif t

This is the meta data that indicates that my photo is useable so please stop deleting it.

Media data and Non-free use rationale Description MLA Sheldon Chumir of Calgary Buffalo riding 1986-1992 Author or copyright owner Sheldon Chumir Ethic Foundation Source (WP:NFCC#4) Original publication: Sheldon Churmir Foundation for Ethics, published online on foundation's website, unknown publication date. Immediate source: http://www.chumirethicsfoundation.ca/files/graphics/SheldonSC1.gif Use in article (WP:NFCC#7) Sheldon Chumir Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8) for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of his/her biographical article Not replaceable with free media because (WP:NFCC#1) Not many photographs exist of MLA Sheldon Chumir, despite his massive work over 10 year career. Probably because Calgary was a smaller city in the 80's. There is however a huge archive with the Glenbow museum archives that may yet to be researched. However, I managed to only find about 4 photos of Mr Churmir, which was released by his human rights foundation. Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3) It will remain on the wikipedia article for Albertan MLA Sheldon Chumir. Unless another editor found credentials to 'free release' the photo. Respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2) The file comes directly from the Sheldon Churmir website for ethics and leadership. It is a human rights and social service advocacy think tank. The head of communications has writen to me giving me premission to post. Other information The subject of the photograph has been deceased since: January 26, 1992 Copyrighted In addition to the fair-use assertion shown on this page, the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia. This permission does not extend to third parties. This tag must be used in conjunction with another fair-use image tag. To the uploader: Please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. Warning

I asked premission from the Sheldon Churmir foundation to use this photo FOR Wikipedia only. I will provide the contents of email I am 'Casey' in this Gmail conversation: Dear Trustees of the Chumir Foundation, Enclosed is a photo that I would please like to use on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time, REsponse from Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics and Leadership: Hi Casey, you have our permission to use the photo you sent us of Sheldon Chumir.

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsamcat (talk • contribs) 2014-02-20T17:23:07 (UTC)

The file is unfree. As explained in WP:NFCC#9, unfree files may not be used on user pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really care, do what you got to do.

Coats of arms for deletion

Could you please explain why you've marked these for deletion? Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 15 January 2014. Are the coats of arms significantly old enough that if someone drew their own version, they wouldn't violate the copyright on the original design? Such an explanation is necessary. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

According to Commons:COM:COA, the blazon of a coat of arms is typically ineligible for copyright. For this reason, numerous files were deleted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 17 (search for the ones with "stemma" in the name) and other places. Is there something wrong with this argument?

It seems that the textual description of the coat of arms of Leicester was last modified in 1926.[13] It doesn't say when the drawings in that category were made, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Braniff Airways and George Gordon Photos Marked for Deletion

Hello Both of these photos are Braniff Airways, Inc., and Braniff International Corporation photos and are owned by me and part of my Collection. All materials, photos, logos, and likenesses of Braniff Airways, Inc., are now part of the public domain as a result of a court ordered agreement in 2012. George Gordon was Braniff's advertising executive from 1972 until 1981 and this is a Braniff File Photo portrait of Mr. Gordon. These photos, although owned by me, are part of the public domain and are free and clear for any type of use, even for reproduction and sale.

Extended content

BI BRANIFF INTERNATIONAL By: 200 Kelsey Associates, LLC tweet it Tweet Logo Share on Facebook Transportation of passengers and/or goods by air Perfect for these industries Words that describe this logo Transportation & Storage Services transportation passengers andor goods air This is a brand page for the BI BRANIFF INTERNATIONAL trademark by 200 Kelsey Associates, LLC in New Rochelle, NY, 10801. Write a review about a product or service associated with this BI BRANIFF INTERNATIONAL trademark. Or, contact the owner 200 Kelsey Associates, LLC of the BI BRANIFF INTERNATIONAL trademark by filing a request to communicate with the Legal Correspondent for licensing, use, and/or questions related to the BI BRANIFF INTERNATIONAL trademark. On Monday, May 17, 2010, a U.S. federal trademark registration was filed for BI BRANIFF INTERNATIONAL by 200 Kelsey Associates, LLC, New Rochelle, NY 10801. The USPTO has given the BI BRANIFF INTERNATIONAL trademark serial number of 85040280. The current federal status of this trademark filing is ABANDONED - AFTER INTER-PARTES DECISION. The correspondent listed for BI BRANIFF INTERNATIONAL is EDMUND J FERDINAND III of GRIMES & BATTERSBY LLP, 488 MAIN AVE, NORWALK, CT 06851-1008 . The BI BRANIFF INTERNATIONAL trademark is filed in the category of Transportation & Storage Services . The description provided to the USPTO for BI BRANIFF INTERNATIONAL is Transportation of passengers and/or goods by air. Word Mark: BI BRANIFF INTERNATIONAL Status/ Status Date: ABANDONED - AFTER INTER-PARTES DECISION 3/1/2011 Serial Number: 85040280 Filing Date: 5/17/2010 Registration Number: NOT AVAILABLE Registration Date: NOT AVAILABLE Goods and Services: Transportation of passengers and/or goods by air Mark Description: The mark consists of fuchsia, light pink, yellow, green, teal, dark blue, purple, red, dark pink and white is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of 3 horizontal lines at the top of the mark, the top and bottom horizontal lines are fuchsia and the horizontal line in the middle is light pink. The letters "BI" in white are superimposed over 9 touching quadrilaterals, which from left to right are yellow, green, teal, dark blue, purple, fuchsia, red, dark pink and yellow. The end Type Of Mark: Service Mark Published For Opposition Date: 10/19/2010 Last Applicant/Owner: 200 Kelsey Associates, LLC New Rochelle, NY 10801 Why is this contact information displayed? Mark Drawing Code: Drawing/Design + Words Design Search: See Similar Logos >> Three or more quadrilaterals (Geometric figures and solids - Quadrilaterals) see more design... Quadrilaterals touching or intersecting (Geometric figures and solids - Quadrilaterals) see more design... Quadrilaterals that are completely or partially shaded (Geometric figures and solids - Quadrilaterals) see more design... Straight line(s), band(s) or bar(s) (Geometric figures and solids - Lines, bands, bars, chevrons and angles) see more design... Horizontal line(s), band(s) or bar(s) (Geometric figures and solids - Lines, bands, bars, chevrons and angles) see more design... Register Type: Principal Disclaimer: ("INTERNATIONAL") Correspondent: EDMUND J FERDINAND III GRIMES & BATTERSBY LLP 488 MAIN AVE NORWALK, CT 06851-1008

Thanks so much Mmb777e (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Which files are you talking about? Also, where can I find evidence that they aren't protected by copyright? The text you quoted only seem to be about trademark rights but not about copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello

What is the problem in File:ArianaGrandeDecember2013.jpg? And how i can help?. Connie (A.K) (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Stefan, I remove the message in File:ArianaGrandeDecember2013.jpg, according to the message, i intented to fix it, but, i need knows what was the problem to I can correct. Explain me CSD G2 & CSD F2 to i can correct it. Thanks, regards and sorry for my english. Connie (A.K) (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You have created a local file information page for a file on Commons. You should not do that; all information should be on Commons instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you says that have created a local file information page for a file on commons, so.. how do I do that?. Regards. Connie (A.K) (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC) PD: The Grande's article needs actual images, if this can fix, I hope that it can.

The user whos uplaed the images was user:CanadianDude1, is new to wikipedia. Connie (A.K) (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hello. I have a question about the File:997thepoint.png edit you made. I tagged it so that previous versions would be deleted. Why did you revert that? It isn't any different then deleting previous files for TV stations. I guess I'm confused. Hope you can help. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan^(talk) 05:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Previous versions should only be deleted if they are unfree. Per WP:NFCC#7, all unfree files have to be in use, and old versions of unfree files are unused, and so old versions of unfree files are deleted. This file is listed as being too simple to attract copyright protection and is therefore not unfree. If you are questioning the {{PD-textlogo}} tag, then you should list the file at WP:PUF. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Corkythehornetfan^(talk) 18:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you please be more careful...

You applied a speedy deletion tag to File:The TTC's Birchmount Loop in 1953.jpg -- apparently without noticing it already had had a {{db-f5}} applied. Secondarywaltz advised me they had found two free alternatives to this image, and I replaced the non-free image right away, and then promptly applied the appropriate deletion tag.

My first encounter with an overly hasty quality control volunteer was way back in 2005. Up until that time contributors had been allowed to upload images released under a license that disallowed commercial use. This change in policy was an unpleasant surprise for me. I hadn't uploaded many images then, but a considerable fraction of those were images of RCN or CCG vessels under license that disallowed commercial use.

I gritted my teeth, and spent most of the next weekend hunting for free alternate images. I looked for images taken by USN or USCG personnel, on joint missions. Those twenty images took about an hour each to find -- ie a lot of work. So I was very surprised to see a quality control volunteer had tagged some of the completely valid images I had just found for deletion.

I asked that quality control volunteer why they tagged those images for deletion, and why they hadn't left the uploaders the usual courtesy heads-up. They had noticed Canadians uploading a lot of images to replace those that were about to be deleted as their license was no longer accepted. They thought they detected those uploaders were employing sockpuppetry and flickrwashing to upload copyright violating images under bogus licenses that only appeared valid.

He'd got into a rythym, and had conflated the valid images I had uploaded with those of the sockpuppeting, flickrwashing copyright violator. He'd put copyvio tags in place of the valid licenses of some images User:CambridgeBayWeather had uploaded as well, on the grounds that they were of too high a quality to have been made by a volunteer. He was not apologetic.

As to why he wasn't telling uploaders that he had replaced their valid licenses with copyvio speedy deletion tags, he explained, "I could leave other contributors the recommended courtesy heads-ups, but doing so would 'erode my efficiency'".

I decided, at that moment, that while it was important for all contributors to do their best to comply with all policies, the quality control volunteers who decided to enforce our policies had a particular responsibility to strictly observe both the letter and the spirit of all our policies, while doing so.

Every so often I come across a quality control volunteer who, like that first guy, makes me wonder whether they were putting too high a value on the efficiency of their quality control efforts, and they were skipping necessary steps.

I realize that automated tools allow you to apply tags quickly, but can you understand that instances of this kind of apparent haste can give the impression that you sometimes skip actually looking at the images in question, or actually giving their fair use rationales reasonable consideration?

So, please, could you be more careful, and slow down?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

File:The TTC's Birchmount Loop in 1953.jpg appeared in a category of incorrectly tagged F5 candidates, because the person tagging the file forgot to fill in the template's mandatory "date" parameter. The fastest way to fix this (so that the file would end up in a category of files which actually will be deleted rather than files awaiting syntax correction) was to simply tag it with a template with correct syntax on top of the one with wrong syntax. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I think implied, in your reply, is an assertion that you don't think my advice that you slow down holds any value?

I can't help noticing that you didn't weigh in at WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 112#A Question about how to interpret WP:NFCC images.

Another contributor asked you if you really thought File:Chongqing yangjiaping 2007.jpg was a useful replacement for File:The John Irwin House, supported on temporary piles, 2014-01-26.png.

In your reply to my defense of the image you asserted doubt that the John Irwin House had not been demolished yet -- please appreciate that since both article and the fair use rationale make clear that the heritage structure will be incorporated into the new high-rise. No one said it was going to be demolished.

Please appreciate, that added up, these factors are all apt to trigger doubt as to how much attention you really paid to the image and its fair use rationale.

Other contributors at File:The John Irwin House, supported on temporary piles, 2014-01-26.png asserted that if theoretically possible free replacement pictures required trespassing, then quality control volunteers, like you, can't reasonably assert that the unfree image was "replaceable".

• As to whether the template's date field was mandatory -- I checked the doc page, which confirms that. But, excuse me, a mandatory field that is always supposed to be ~~~~~? That sounds like a bug to me. I don't remember seeing any error messages. So I don't think I should feel embarrassed for being unaware of this mandatory field.

Surely, pruning this category of files with missing fields is bot-work? Isn't there a bot that automatically nominates non-free files that have been unused for more than a week? Are you unsatisfied with the work of this bot? Geo Swan (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no bot which searches through Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files as of unknown date 2014 for files with wrong template syntax. That category needs to be checked manually once in a while. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"Sourced critical discussion"

You often say you require "sourced critical discussion", but you do not explain what that phrase means, even when prompted. Can you please explain it here? Where should the discussion be? Who should take part in it? Maproom (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sourced critical commentary is just what it sounds like, there needs to be reliable third party discussion about not only the existence of an image, but also the contents of the image. One example I can think of is of a fairly major actress being on the front of the playboy magazine. The image caused some PR issues, but nothing in the actual image was discussed. The primary issue was the fact that she was portrayed in that manor, not that their was anything noteworthy about the specific image. On the other hand take Virgin Killer is an example where the graphics of the image have caused quite a bit of discussion, and debate due to the graphic nature and age of the subject. Werieth (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sourced critical commentary is sometimes needed for an image to pass WP:NFCC#8. In a small number of cases, this is needed to pass WP:NFCC#2. Virgin Killer looks like a very good example of an article with critical commentary about an image, since there is an entire section about the cover art. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Not only is there a subsection, but an entire spinoff article about the controversy that it caused. (see Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia) Werieth (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

So the "sourced critical discussion" must be a discussion about the image and its content in an independent published source; and without it, the image must be deleted? On this criterion, most of the images in Wikipedia should be deleted. It makes no sense to me.

I had uploaded an image of a fraction of a plate by András Bereznay, a cartographer, to illustrate his style, in the article about him. The plate is one of many in his published work Erdély történetének atlasza, published by Méry Ratio in 2011. The image was deleted after Stefan insisted that "sourced critical discussion" was required, and failed to respond when I asked what he meant. On the page of the atlas facing the plate from which the image in question was extracted, there is discussion of the content of the plate. Does that constitute "sourced critical discussion"? It seems to me that it probably does; it also seems unlikely that it is relevant.

I had decided to let the matter drop, I have better uses for my time than struggling with the opaque bureaucracy of Wikipedia. But today I received an email from András Bereznay himself, saying "I just discovered that the map you put to the wikipedia site on me had been removed. Can you make sense of it why and what is to be done about it?" I am now wondering how to reply. Maproom (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If you are in contact with the author, ask for a sample/example to be released under a free license. If the work is under a free license you avoid the issues of NFCC. Depending on the type of discussion in the book, that may be sufficient. However if its just explaining the contents of the image, and nothing about the artistic style of the artist, then it wouldn't be sufficient. There are several "easy" categories where there isnt a need for critical commentary (album covers, book covers, images of artworks on the article about the work, ect) where the image is being used as the primary visual method for identification. Except for these "easy" classes of images there needs to be justification for usage. If you can source discussion about the style of work for the artist, and have 1 example it may be justified, but that is a case by case basis using the available evidence. Werieth (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Photos permission

I want ask about the celebrities photo permission because you remove photos from Sarah Fasha article and you told me about Manuel José de Jesus so I just want know if I make contact with them and ask them for permission dose it work or not ? thank you for your help--Ahmed Mohi El din (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The picture in Sarah Fasha was deleted because it didn't say where the photograph comes from. The picture in Manuel José de Jesus is up for deletion because it is a photograph of a living person without permission from the photographer; see WP:NFC#UUI §1. If you can obtain permission from the photographers, then please follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

But this just screenshot I made from talk show on T.v. I try to get permission from Manuel José de Jesus does it work ? --Ahmed Mohi El din (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Schwenningen Wild Wings logo

Sorry just unsure of why it's to be removed? It's supposed to be used in other articles? ..It's the team's logo, what is to replace it after it's deleted? Triggerbit (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The image is not used in any articles. The article contains a different image: File:Schwenninger Wild Wings.png. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh i see. I wasn't aware another user has uploaded the exact same logo and replaced it.. Triggerbit (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Images like this should normally have a transparent background as this makes them look better when used in an article. The other user gave the file a transparent background, but for technical reasons, this required changing the file format from JPEG to PNG, which is why it was uploaded under a different file name. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Good to know. Cheers Triggerbit (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Teknicks logo

Hello Stefan2, when I uploaded the logo originally, I included an email I received from someone at the company that I had permission to use it. Was that not enough? If not, let me know what else I need to do and I'll take care of if. Thanks! alvb — Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The instructions that you are supposed to follow are given at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I just emailed them the form and asked them to complete it and email it in. Thanks for the help! Andrea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvb (talk • contribs) 01:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ron Najafi article

Hi Stefan2, This is my first article and I have asked user Reddogsix to help me fix the issues that he raised originally. Is there any issues that you are concerned about? It is taking me some time to learn how to fix these issues since I work on the article in my spare time. The help pages are not always helpful. I am learning a lot about Wikimedia and would like to be a contributor. Thanks. (michaelmohit (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC))

When you uploaded File:Ron Najafi-Photo.jpg back in October, you added a template saying that the photographer has sent an e-mail to OTRS following the instructions at WP:CONSENT. It is now February and it still says that we are awaiting that e-mail, so maybe there is some problem with that e-mail. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This was sent by Ron on 2/5/2014.

Dear Wiki, I give permission to use the attached picture. In my Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Najafi Thanks! Ron Cell: 415-747-2087 (Michaelmohit (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC))

Halloween Photographs

I saw you left a message on my wall. We discussed the public domain status of the photographs on your wall right here, when I asked you if the way I wrote my emails was appropriate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stefan2#My_Halloween_Photographs All those emails were sent back in October but since you didn't see them, please search permissions-en@wikimedia.org again. I just re-sent the four emails to the Permissions Committee. You can search for all the emails sent by me, maodhog@hushmail.com and you will find them there. It should also be known that I received an email from Aubrey Jett confirming the files in question, with the words "Your permission has been accepted. I have made the necessary modifications to the file page." It seems though, that the "necessary modifications" were not made. In the mean time, I removed your notices on my photographs so that you can take care of the situation. Maodhóg (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Careful

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at SusanLesch's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Carnegie Library Photo

Hi user:Stefan2, Thank you for your advice concerning the photo I posted of the Carnegie Library in Roswell. New Mexico. I am new to creating an article and I thought the photo passed the fair use criteria. I removed the photo from the Carnegie Library (Roswell, New Mexico) article. I will pursue permission to use the photo from the copywriter of the photo. --Maidmarian55 (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maidmarian55 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page.
Message added 21:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I think I have run almost out of old OTRS not approved - just waiting for the odd one or two to finalise.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings

I sent you guys the emails again. What do I do to make sure that my images aren't deleted? You gave me a long list of them but the two that I uploaded are "File:Haunted House Halloween (The Dark Destiny from SPAN Ministries) in Tallmadge, Ohio.png" and "File:Haunted House (The Dark Destiny from SPAN Ministries) in Tallmadge, Ohio.ogv.png". By the way, the second file has "ogv.png" at the end of it. It should just be ".png" so you can change that if you want to. PFAStudent (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The Palomar Ballroom

Hi Stefan,

I received permission from the owner of the rights of the images (The Los Angeles Public Library). I forwarded the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org

Is there something I am doing wrong? I sent it from mar2194@columbia.edu on November 26, 2013. Please get back to me on my talk page if you know what's I've done wrong. Mar2194 (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

URAA file

This photograph is is not in the Public Domain as stated by the license tag. Shouldn't it be uploaded as a non-free? Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The image comes from the Library of Congress in the United States. Does this mean that it was taken by an American photographer and first published in the United States? If not, why does the Library of Congress have the photograph? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at CHScribbler's talk page.
Message added 09:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Unfree files

I have had endless correspondence about [File:Ardgour_House,_Argyll,_Scotland.jpg], which is my image, a photograph taken by myself on my camera, by me for me, with my authorisation for its use on Wikipedia or anywhere else anyone wants to use it. I know of no other way of stopping correspondence on the subject than removing the image and letting you re-post it. So please go ahead. Shipsview (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Are You the Same Person as Sfan00_IMG ?

• I recently received complications on some photos from before 1923 which had received written permission for Wikipedia’s use from the San Francisco Public Library from User:Sfan00_IMG.
• Are you also posting under the name User:Sfan00_IMG ? The names look very much alike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Carroll (talk • contribs) 17:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the San Francisco Public Library is the copyright holder, so the permission isn't worth anything.

I am not sure why you are mixing me up with User:Sfan00 IMG. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Have You Read Masem's Latest Directions ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Masem#San_Francisco_Library_Photos_and_Confusing_Wiki_Copyright_Reviews

Concerning this photo, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dancehalls_of_Pacific_Street_Facing_West_San_Francisco_1909_SFLibraryCode_AAB-6692_CropA.jpg

Have you read admin User:Masem latest directions on his Talk Page (link is at top)? He said that after I add the Non-Free Use Rational templates, I should remove the complaining tag templates. James Carroll (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Quickimgdelete

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js#Possible PUF bug.
You can remove this notice at any time.

Milanko Petrovic photo

Then delete it! --Backij (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)--Backij (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Images

Thank you. I'm going to upload four images with no free licenses only for using them in an article (Italian unification) and only for educational purposes, providing all is necessary for their use. Let me know if it could be a problem.--Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I finally used those four images in the article of Italian unification. Is it now possible to remove the deletion proposals? Thank you.--Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

They still violate WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFG and other criteria. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but how can they avoid the deletion? thank you.--Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Question

First of all, I want to thank your support. You are someone I have always looked up to, and I will continue to look to you for guidance. Your knowledge and wisdom are beyond anything that I will ever attain. In my recent successful RfA, I promised to be opened to recall with specific terms similar to User:TParis/Recall. Before I make any edits that require the mop, I wanted to cement my own recall process, including a list of editors who can specifically call for the recall of my administrative rights. Due to my high level of respect for you and your opinion, I wanted to know if I could include you on said list. Thanks, -- TLSuda (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Re:Disputed non-free use rationale for File:A Deadly Secret(連城訣).jpg

I did whatever I can to correct it. Thanks for notifying me.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 November 27#File:Michael Harris Ph.D., Academic.jpg

Not sure if I agree with Secret... Still the original small image was already on commons, so I've moved the big one there as well, updated the info to reflect the en-wiki data of the source (since that has not been disputed), and deleted the en-wiki one as "now commons" - so no issue any more with the en-wiki image.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't look correct, no. The photograph was clearly not taken by the uploader, so this is one of those cases where OTRS is required. I also note that the user's posts about the file look very messy, and the user sounds confused about how copyright rules work, so he could easily have misunderstood something about the ownership of the image. I guess that it should be nominated for deletion on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Userpage Content

I refer to this edit that you made yesterday. While you were correct according to WP policy on this, I consider the way that you did this to be incredibly rude. Specifically, you did not ask that I remove the content beforehand (which I would have done), nor did you leave a message afterwards explaining the action. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

When non-free files are used outside the article namespace, the usual thing is to simply remove the files from the page without notification, since it is an unambiguous violation of WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

But when altering userpages you should also act according to WP:USERTALKBLOG, which says:

• "The best option if there is a concern with a user's page is to draw their attention to the matter via their talk page and let them edit it themselves"
• OR "[after action] leave a note explaining what you have done, why you have done so, and inviting the user to discuss if needed."
• OR "special care should be taken as the user may be expecting leeway and take it personally"
• AND "Users with a strong editing record and/or most of their contribution edits outside their user space should be given a little more leeway in this regard" etc.

Of which you did none. Please understand that deleting large amounts of content from a user's personal page is not going to go down well unless you leave a talk page note explaining this. You don't save any time by not doing so, because an irate user like myself will just force you to discuss it on your talk page instead. Cheers, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to cite WP:USER please cite the correct section Wikipedia:User_pages#Non-free_images Non-free images found on a user page (including user talk pages) will be removed (preferably by replacing it with a link to the image) without warning NFCC issues are not treated the same as other inappropriate content. Werieth (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the standard thing is to simply remove non-free images from user pages. In the past there was a bot (User:DASHBot) which removed such images automatically once per day, but it stopped doing this when one of the toolservers broke down about two years ago. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that neither of you understand how deleting content on a user's personal page without warning them before or after, or indicating that you've done so, can be in any way irritating. I wish DASHBot was still operating, because it could hardly have dealt with people any less impersonally. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

MasterOfHisOwnDomain it may irritate you to have your user page edited, but you dont own your user page. Addressing WP:NFCC issues takes priority. There have been cases of users who where ask, reminded, and had non-free files removed from their user pages multiple times. In those cases the offending user is often blocked. Lets take a look at a theoretical example. User A adds non-free media to their user page. Several days pass before someone is able to address that case, they leave a message on the talk page for the user. More time passes, and either the user ignores the message, isnt around, or doesnt care. It takes user B at least a week to follow through with enough notice and due diligence not to offend the user. This means we have a file used on a non-article for at least 10 days, where we are open to legal issues. Yes it may lead to fewer irritated users, but also has a major downside. It also triples the work for those who patrol that issue. As there are currently about 100 NFCC#9 violations. Werieth (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a theoretical example has much utility here; for instance, it wouldn't have taken more than a few seconds to observe from user contr. that I am a fairly active user and unlikely to ignore a talk message for a week. I appreciate the work that you guys do, that's why I simply think it would be better in the long-run (for everyone) to solve cases like this with more tact. That's all I have left to say anyway. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Now thats what i call feel good.jpg

I was indeed using a script, this one, I'll message the author. Thanks for the heads-up. James086^Talk 15:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Edith Humphrey.jpg

Your template didn't seem to address my first attempt at Fair Use justification. I've now added some more detail to the summary, in particular a citation for its previous publication, which occurred while the company that owned the photo still existed. Please review. I don't understand why this case is different to Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Fair_use_image:_person_that_has_deceased which has been given a completely different response, even though their subject is only recently deceased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monxton (talk • contribs) 01:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, looks like it's been sorted, thanks. Monxton (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This image is being used at Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism and Communication. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That article uses another, similar, image: File:Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism and Communication Logo.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Penguin slap 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Britain (film) images

Thank you for your heads-up on the orphaning of images in the film article, however, the other ones in question have already been removed without notice. Please explain. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not made any images orphans by removing them from articles. However, some of the images in Battle of Britain (film) were removed by User:TLSuda after a discussion at WP:NFCR. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you point me to that discussion; I tried but could not find a record of the deliberation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 47#Battle of Britain (film). --Stefan2 (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think I have finally found the discussion at [14] but it leads me to think that the entire discussion should have taken place at the talk page of the article as the editors who were part of the Non-free content discussion were not contributors to the article nor were there any substantive arguments made for how many photographs should be applicable. Are there no situations where film articles of significant films have more than two-three images? See Gone With the Wind and Titanic as examples. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFCR is the usual place for discussing non-compliance with WP:NFCC. In the past, article editors used to be informed of discussions risking removal of images by placing {{non-free review}} on the article, but in Template talk:Non-free review#RfC: Should the non-free review template be added to articles? lots of editors voted for removing the notification process, so article editors are unfortunately no longer informed that there is an ongoing discussion which may result in removal of content from the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that admins and editors are making arbitrary decisions such as this, is very disconcerting, considering that using "hard-and-fast" rules rather than common sense decisions just continues to drive away "good" editors like myself. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFCC isnt something that is arbitrary. I was actually the one who requested that we add the {{non-free review}} to articles in order to make discussions more transparent and provide plenty of notification. If users go to the length of an RfC to have those notifications not be made I cannot just ignore the outcome of the RfC. Werieth (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I read the comments and deliberations which were dated back to January 2014 which did not give ample clarification as to the reasoning, other than a blind allegiance to a rule. You set up the question, there was only one other comment and you consider this as reasonable; this is just wikilawyering. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There was more than the required 7 days for discussion, yet there was no more participation. The non-free files violated the WP:NFCC policy, and because of that they were removed. The remaining images are, in my opinion, only borderline compliant. Following WP:NFCC is not "blind compliance" rather a policy that is put in place so that Wikipedia is not violating copyright law. I hope that helps. -- TLSuda (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, why did you comment out the image?

I could not understand why did you make [15] change? BengaliHindu (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Non-free files aren't permitted in the User namespace. See WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out. Cheers! BengaliHindu (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:USM Bel-Abbès (logo).png

Thank u for your warring, I resolved the problem. Regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Moderntimes.jpg

Hi, I noticed that this file should actually be in the public domain, as it's actually just another version of File:Modern Times poster.jpg (with better colours). Can I just remove the deletion notice and borrow the info from the other file? I think it may actually be better to use this version of the poster in the article Modern Times (film) because the colours are less faded. Esn (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In some cases, it was also possible to renew one year too early, and it seems that some renewals were published in the books with copyright records one year too late, so I'm not sure if the checks are sufficient. That said, the statement on the file information page suggests that there is no copyright notice, and it doesn't seem likely that many posters were renewed, so the PD claim is probably valid. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Biggest Focker Collection Ever.jpg

Hi Stefan, is there anyway for this file not to be deleted within 7 days as my work on wikipedia is for a school project and I doubt my prof will be able to mark my project within that time frame as the project is due on the 9th. Also would you recommend adding it to the Meet the Parents (series) page? Thank you for the update. Swa1111 (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The file can't be kept here if it isn't used. It seems that the image currently is used in the article Meet the Parents (series), so there shouldn't be any problem any longer. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Using a non free image on a project describing a collaboration

The only place the image is used is here [16] as they are one of the collaborators on the project. Do they need to release their logo CC BY SA for it to be used like this? How do we collaborate with other organizations on Wikipedia? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is WP:NFCC#9, which tells that non-free files can't be used outside the article namespace. An OTRS ticket is definitely needed if you wish to keep the image there. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes that interpretation does not make much sense. Brought it up here [17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The Gurdjieff Journal article and image deletions

Hi Stefan2,

A while ago I posted an article page for The Gurdjieff Journal. For some reason Ducknish decided to redirect the page to the editor of the journal. In my sandbox I did a test page for this article and now want to post it to the article page named The Gurdjieff Journal instead of it being redirected to the author's page, William Patrick Patterson. I also was posting the images in preparation to posting them in the article, the same ones you have set for speedy deletion.

This journal stands on it's own as it is about Gurdjieff and The Fourth Way and is similar to Parabola (magazine) in Wikipedia. It is cataloged by the Library of Congress, has it's own ISBN number and has been in continuous publication since it's inception in 1992. Please let me know if you need any more information to make this happen.

Thank you, Waterman12 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The three images are unfree and unused. Per WP:NFCC#7, all non-free images must be used in an article somewhere, or else they will be deleted. Per WP:NFCC#9, they may not be used in your personal sandbox.

The article The Gurdjieff Journal was nominated for speedy deletion by User:Ducknish for two reasons: he thought that the journal seemed to be non-notable (WP:CSD#A7) and that the article looked like an advertisement (WP:CSD#G11). Later, User:Bbb23 decided to redirect the article to William Patrick Patterson, although he didn't say why. Presumably, he agreed that the article satisfied at least one speedy deletion criterion, but found that a redirect would do better. If you think that the journal is notable and that the article doesn't look like an advertisement, then you can insert article text here, but keep in mind that other people might nominate the article for speedy deletion again if they do not agree with your assessment. If you need help determining whether the journal is notable, I recommend that you ask someone else. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Canadian 10 cents obverse.png

I don't contest the deletion of this and File:Canadian 10 cents reverse.png as another user has uploaded and linked replacement images: however I wonder whether these replacements (File:Canada 10c 2010 Obv.png and File:Canada 10c 2010 Rev.png) are properly treated - they have been loaded to Commons, described as "own work" and licensed cc-by-sa. I'm no expert on copyright in Canadian coins but that looks all sorts of wrong. The same user has uploaded 50¢ and Loonie images with the same treatment (and the Loonie images are named the wrong way round!).--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 22:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated the Canadian coins for deletion on Commons: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 636Buster. If you think that your images are good enough, then restore them to the article and remove the deletion template. If you prefer the Commons images, either upload them locally or tag them with Commons:Template:Fair use delete (which should instruct a bot to upload them). If you choose the {{fair use delete}} option, then note that the bot won't be able to write fair use rationales for you – you will have to do that yourself instead. If you do nothing, then the article will probably be without images when the deletion request ends on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Chevalier de Saint-Georges

This morning, checking on our article we found the flag changed to the old one by “Omnipaedista.” Please take a look as it is now. I know there is no point to put ours back, just to have it replaced over and over as in a war. According to your rules as I understand them, I am pasting the letter below to Omnipedista’s talk page and, at the same time, take the liberty to forward it to you, asking how we can be protected from this major incursion in case he refuses to comply with my plea. Not knowing what else to do, but gratified by your help with our illustrations, I am turning to you asking your advise of how to protect the integrity of my husband’s work.

Below find my husband’s letter to Omnipaedista’s talk page, hoping that it is within Wiki’s standards.

Good day Omnipaedista,

I am a performing violinist and musicologist by profession. Very sorry to have to contradict you, but I have to tell you: Saint-Georges was not a “Caribbean- French figure” but a French fencer and musician living and performing in Paris, since he was 7 years old. Calling him a “Caribbean” without mentioning that his mother was a slave of African ancestry, does not serve our common purpose well. Saint-Georges was not only famous on the “Paris musical scene” but on the athletic “scene” as well. He was active in both those fields not only “prior to the French Revolution,” as you put it in your flag, but also during and after the Revolution, giving concerts and fencing matches in Lille in 1790 and 1791, and conducting an orchestra in Paris once again, from 1797, up to his death. All these facts are documented by Notes in my Saint-Georges article.

Contrary to some modern authors, Saint-Georges was never called “Le Mozart Noir” until 2008 by a CBC docudrama on which I was featured as commentator, but was unable to change that presumptuous title they used to help promote the DVD. There is no such category as, “… musicians of the European classical type,” and Saint-Georges was not just one of them [the earliest musicians of the European capital type], but, to quote my flag, “The chevalier de St.-Georges IS the first classical composer of African ancestry.”

I do think it rather unethical of you to use the result of my years of research in various European Archives to legitimize your flag formerly referenced solely with the aforementioned modern DVD, including its commercialized title, “ Mozart Noir” or “Black Mozart,” which Saint-Georges himself would have rejected.

In view of the above, as the author of articles, including the entry on the subject in The New Grove, Dictionary of music and musicians 2000, a monograph in The Black Music Research Journal of 11/1990, an acclaimed biography in 2007, and having published his violin concertos in 1982, and premiered them in 1984 and 85 in New York and Japan, I appeal to you, esteemed Omnipaedista, to restore or permit me to restore my flag to its painstakingly researched article. Dsteveb (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? Which flag are you talking about? Which article are you talking about? Does it have something to do with the article Chevalier de Saint-Georges? I currently do not see any flags in the article. Also, does the use of the words "we", "us" and "our" above mean that your account is used by multiple people? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Chevalier de Saint-Georges Picture of Toussaint

Toussaint Louverture: It is by Denis Volozon, a painter settled in Philadelphia about 1800. This is a picture we received from Jean-Paul Hervieu, archivist of Guadeloupe, while researching Saint-Georges there. I made a mistake by not having put it on Wiki commons. Sorry, I am still learning. I have just uploaded it so it is not an orphan. Thank you, Dsteveb (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Which file are you talking about and what is the problem? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Chevalier de Saint-Georges Picture of Toussaint

This is the file.

Toussaint Louverture

The problem is that I erred in my first description in the questionnaire describing it as non-free. Above this is the explanation we hope will serve to qualify it as free. Thanks, Dsteveb (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"Thanks for uploading File:Toussaint L'Ouverture.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media)".

Chevalier de Saint-Georges Other pictures

Stefan2, Many thanks for approving it. The files of Philippe Duke of Orleans, and Fencing Match at Carlton House are both on commons already, sorry to be so late in finding out. I have uploaded them from there. I am awaiting judgement for three more: Young Saint-Georges (:File:Print_of_Young_Saint-Georges.jpg) François-Joseph Gossec (:File:François-Joseph_Gossec,_composer,_Saint-Georges’_teacher_and_mentor.jpeg) and The Théâtre Italien in Paris cca. 1780 (File:Le_Théâtre_Italien_in_Paris.jpeg). All three should be on commons. Should I put them back in the article so you can find them, and they avoid being orphans? Thanks again for all your help, Dsteveb (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Major General Sir Herbert Stewart.jpg

I'd like a second opinion, According to the question I asked on the reference desk it was suggested that it's highly unlikley that the R Taylor identified was still alive in 1944. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It says that the photo was published in 1885. If the artist made the illustration at the age of 20 and died at the age of 120, then it is still copyrighted. However, in most cases, you will find that the author died within at most 50-60 years after making a work, in which case this one would be safe.

British Museum suggests that "R Taylor & Co" was active between 1872 and 1901, while NPG says that Richard Taylor was active from 1871 to 1901. If he started his business in 1871 and retired in 1901, then he probably died within 2-3 decades after 1901 at the latest, well before 1944. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that information, I wasn't aware of that when I uploaded the image. Sfan00 IMG, no objections if you want to copy it to Commons based on Stefan's response. January (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Seattle flag

Not sure I understand. I thought the image was public domain; at least it says so in the rationale. How can an image be both public domain and under copyright at the same time? TCN7JM 22:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag of Seattle.svg is listed as unfree. The fair use rationale tells that "Image itself is public domain; design owned by City of Seattle (according to Scott Cline of the Seattle Municipal Archives)." I guess that this means that the person who vectorised the flag renounced his vectorisation copyright. However, this has no effect on the copyright to the flag, which remains for either 95 years from publication or until 70 years after the death of Paul Kraabel. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I understand now. Thank you for clarifying. TCN7JM 23:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies and request for overhaul of ____ version available tags

First off, I want to apologize for undoing your edit. You didn't just undo the {{vector version available}} tag, but also the deletion tag. I didn't even notice the vector tag was gone. Your edit summary didn't make sense for removing a deletion tag.

That said, there needs to be a severe overhaul of the tags {{Vector version available}} and {{PNG version available}} if they are not allowed to be used for non-free files. There is no way to use them without also including the image. Yet {{Should be SVG}} and {{Should be PNG}} specifically tell you to use those tags when replacing a file.

I generally stay away from policy discussions due to the animosity that often occurs, but you don't seem to be the type to shy away, so I thought you might want to look into this. — trlkly 23:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, at first I reverted too much, and I used bad edit summaries.

If a file is non-free and replaced by a file in a different file format, then the file will soon be deleted as an unused unfree file. Also, {{di-orphaned fair use}} has a "replacement" parameter which contains the file name of the replacement. If the file soon is going to be deleted, and the file name is given by the {{di-orphaned fair use template}} anyway, then it is maybe not a problem if {{vector version available}} or {{PNG version available}} isn't present. If you need to use those templates anyway, then maybe the templates could be given a parameter "non-free=yes" which doesn't display the replacement. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism on my user page - can you flag this up?

Hey there! I would like to say that my userpage has been vandalised by the I.P Adresses User:188.190.98.13 and 178.175.130.138 and 178.175.130.138, who altered my page to say that I was from a different country, and more seriously, place this line of text under my data, as well as remove my image of Bray Lock. Here is this line of text.

"I believe that this world should get rid of people who hate only people with yellow skins and gas other skin colours. Poland is free of dogs and should remain human."

Can you please get the admins to take a look into these IP Adresses? Editing someone's userpage without permission is against the rules, or so I think. BrayLockBoy (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

In general, it is permitted to edit other people's user pages (see WP:NOBAN). However, it is not permitted to vandalise other people's user pages or harass the user to whom the user page belongs. The edits to your user page look like vandalism and/or harassment to me.

If you are troubled by the IP edits, then you could request semi-protection at WP:RPP, in which case IPs and recently created accounts no longer will be able to edit your talk page. Blocking and warning the IPs might not be effective as IPs often change quickly. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Bray, I actually should have dug a little deeper when I fixed the broken wikitable holding your userboxes. For this lack of observation, I apologize. As far as the vandalism goes, I'll say that the two IPs (188.190.98.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 178.175.130.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) appear to be different people based on the whois lookup. I would request that your user-page be semi protected for a week and see what happens. I would not request that your user talk page be protected however. If I can be of any assistance here, please let me know. I am, as my name implies, quite technically adept and would be happy to help you (I even have some special anti-vandalism code on my user page that I would be happy to set you up with that warns visitors my page has been vandalized and by whom most recently, which is actually a fairly useful deterrent all of its own). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Technical 13! If it is okay, could you set up that script on my page? Upon some digging around, I found that these three IPs seem to be altering the Wye Valley School page, so I believe that they may be operating from there. Looking at the WHOIS Data, one of them is from Moldovia, which would explain the reasoning behind altering my page to make it look like I'm from Poland. Thank you for the help!BrayLockBoy (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Ken Yee - Bolshoy Ice Dome.jpg

Russia has no Freedom of Panorama. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, Wikipedia is not hosted in Russia but in the United States. There is freedom of panorama in the United States, see {{FoP-USonly}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone consulted a lawyer about that? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the template talk page?

US FOP law doesn't say anything about the location of the building other than that it must be ordinarily visible from a public place, and this building is ordinarily visible from public places in Russia. There does not seem to be any case law in the United States, but in de:Hundertwasserentscheidung, the supreme court of Germany rejected the photographer's FOP claim for a photograph of a building distributed in Germany but taken in Austria (and thus required compensation to be paid to the architect), although the building was covered by Austrian FOP. That case concluded that when a photograph is used in Germany, only German FOP rules apply, regardless of the FOP rules in the country of photography. It is unclear exactly how a US court would rule if faced with a similar case. In either case, permission from the photographer is needed when using a photograph of a building, and it should be easy to find a different photograph of the same building which is licensed by the photographer.

As far as I have understood, the difference between German and Austrian building FOP is that Germany requires that the camera is located in a public place without restricting the location of the building, whereas Austria appears to require that the building is located in a public place without restricting the location of the camera. In this case, the photograph was taken from a private flat in a nearby house. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Image sizes

It would be just as easy for you to take an extra few seconds to reduce the size, rather than just tagging. Ever thought about being helpful in that way too? - SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It is much easier to just tag and then wait until the bot reduces the size automatically tomorrow morning. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

unneccessary and unkind deletion

very sorry, I see now your Talk page. I'm sorry, I was so extremely upset at the removal of an ok image. It was'nt you, so I'm extra sorry, though you did assign it its death warrant. Alfred Hitchens died in 1942, (and the picture was done pre- 1923), that is over 70 years ago, so image is ok for the UK. I will put it back up but avoid USA?Rodolph (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• This was left at my talk page, but the message was meant for you-copying it here. We hope (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
• You chose not to participate in the deletion discussion and no one presented any evidence that the image had been published before 1923 (and such evidence is still unavailable), so the image was deleted one month after it was listed as potentially unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it not artist death date plus 70 years? Look at for example Gwen John who died in 1936, paintings done after 1923 are on her page.Rodolph (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

All paintings by this painter entered the public domain in the United Kingdom 70 years after the painter died, whereas the photo of the painting that you uploaded enters the public domain in the United Kingdom 70 years after the death of the person who took the photo of the painting. However, Wikipedia is hosted in the United States, where the rules are completely different. In the United States, paintings are in the public domain regardless of the year of death of the painter under the condition that the painting was published before 1923. If the painting was first published between 1923 and 1977, then the painting normally enters the public domain 95 years after the painting was first published (regardless of when the painter died), although there are some exceptions (see Commons:COM:HIRTLE). --Stefan2 (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I took the photo and gave permission.Rodolph (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: Orphaned non-free image File:Tourist Guide to Surat Thani.pdf

Hi. Pages 33 & 35 of this PDF are referenced in: Sultanate of Singgora. This PDF file is NOT orphaned! I've revised the licensing page to reflect this.

Singora (talk).

RE: File:Tourist Guide to Surat Thani.pdf#Licensing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singora (talk • contribs) 02:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Linking is not the same as using. The file would fail WP:NFCC#8 if used there anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

How about if I upload the file to Wiki Commons? Try to remember that is just a FREE tourist guide. I guess I could also put it on SCRIBD. --Singora (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to upload it to Commons, then please provide evidence that it is freely licensed. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Just uploaded the file to SCRIBD (LINK REMOVED PER WP:LINKVIO) and changed the link in the Sultanate of Singgora article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singora (talk • contribs) 09:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the link per WP:LINKVIO as there is no evidence that the tourist guide was uploaded there with permission from the the copyright holder. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. I've used the original link: [[18]]. I'm just trying to get round the problem of link rot. Thai government websites seem to alter their URL structure quite often. In addition, what makes you think this work is copyrighted? Where did you see a copyright notice? I've not seen one. Singora (talk — Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I've discussed some of the points raised here with friends of mine who are employees of the Royal Thai Government. Some of them are employed by provincial tourist authorities. I've no desire to be rude, but the consensus is that you are absolutely bloody useless. My friends want to know what your problem is. I have been attempting to expand the audience for a FREELY AVAILABLE THAI GOVERNMENT TOURIST BROCHURE. My friends would like to know why someone on Wikipedia is attempting to block such expansion. Do you really not understand that the Royal Thai Government publishes this material in the hope that it is not only read on the website on which it is made available but also reproduced elsewhere and introduced to a wider audience? Please would you be kind enough to put me in contact with a Wikipedia Supervisor with whom I could discuss these points. Once again, I apologize if this appears rude, but I resent having my time wasted by fools. DO NOT CONTACT ME AGAIN UNLESS IT IS TO PUT ME IN TOUCH WITH SOMEONE WORTH TAKING SERIOUSLY. AND DO NOT MAKE FURTHER EDITS TO THE SINGORA ARTICLE. Singora (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Everards logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Everards logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. There was a mistake made in the article, now fixed. Your choice, but it may be worth considering as part of the process taking a look at the recent history of the named article for non-free images to see if there was an error or a vandal edit. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gosport and Fareham IRS.gif

Hello Stefan

• This Image Gosport and Fareham IRS.gif is included in the article Gosport and Fareham Lifeboat Station. The Image had been removed from the article at some point by another editor with no explanation why so I have now reverted that. There is no need for the deletion tag now so would appreciate it if you can remove the tag. All ways in good faith Cheeseladder (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at Samotny Wędrowiec's talk page.
Message added 22:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

White Plains logo

The White Plains logo has already been uploaded by someone other than myself and is being used in the appropriate manor. Users from White Plains can tag themselves as such, and it is a matter of pride. Why are you just commenting out code without discussion, first? -TopherKRock (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You may not use non-free images in templates, such as {{User White Plains}}. See WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The criteria are met. Back off. -TopherKRock (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The page {{User White Plains}} is still not in the article namespace. It is never permitted to use non-free images outside the article namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Derbyshire . Tell me if that breaks the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopherKRock (talk • contribs) 16:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That flag is claimed to be in the public domain. If that claim is correct, then that image is allowed in the template. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kaufmap.png

Thanks for contacting me about this image. I don't understand why it hasn't been deleted yet, given that it has been replaced by File:GermanyMustPerish2.jpg. --GCarty (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It sometimes takes a while before files are deleted, in particular if there are lots of files to delete. In the meantime, I have nominated the replacement for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

National Alliance logo

Hi Stefan2 I don't understand why the logo of National Alliance (here) must be replaced with one which is less clear, smaller and blunder. Thank you. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Non-free files should have a low resolution. See WP:NFCC#3b. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok thank you very much, so I stop to revert the uploads of the bot. Kind regards. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

Hello Stefan. This is to inform you that you have been mentioned in a discussion at ANI. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Paul Gaskell. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

DoodyCalls

Thanks. I will be working on this shortly; but not now -- so am taking it down for now.Researcherguy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent issues

Hello, I note that once again there is a row about copyright policy enforcement.

Whilst I appreciate your viewpoint on such matters, the net result seems to be the potential loss of a contributor, which is not good. I'm also frustrated that because of a dispute not of my origination, my good faith actions get called into question as well.

I am giving consideration as to whether I should stop contributing as well ( the issue being one of perceived competence) It's not easy getting the balance right (between at least 5 different copyright regimes), but I get the sense that there is a view that the copyright policy is being applied too vigoursly, even if it's being applied correctly and in good faith. As this has potentially resulted in the loss of contributors perhaps it's time to review why people are objecting.

I'd strongly suggest taking a break from doing images for a while. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

File:UniversityOfMumbai.png

Thanks. It seems that User:Theo's_Little_Bot replaced my image with a lofi version? this is now being used in University of Mumbai page - so I hope it is no longer orphaned. Chirag (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I want to ask you something

Recently a picture I had uploaded years ago was deleted. Here is the discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_January_26#File:King_kong_esp.jpg

I only came across this discussion recently. I was never notified because the original file I had uploaded was replaced by a smaller scan from an administrator. Reading what you wrote you stated that the artist had to be dead pre-1952 for the picture to be public domain. But the artist is not credited anywhere in the comic. It was my understanding that artists were hired by Editorial Orizaba on a work for hire basis and were paid a flat fee for their work for all the titles the company produced. I believe the company went under decades ago and were notorious for publishing comics based on foreign properties without permission by the copyright holders. (In this case King Kong, who had copyright split between Merian C Cooper and RKO). So I was wondering why an uncredited artist who's work became owned by the comic he/she worked for that was based on a property illegally and who folded years ago has to be dead pre-1952 for that work (never owned by the artist themselves) to be considered public domain.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Combustion efficiency of aircraft gas turbines.svg

I've declined the disputed speedy of File:Combustion efficiency of aircraft gas turbines.svg as the uploader seems to be the author of the image. I've asked him to release his SVG under a free license. If you feel that the image is still replaceable, please take it to a discussion board for review (WP:FFD or WP:NFCR). -- TLSuda (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at PUF, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I've brought your attention to the requirement at PUF requiring notification on pages using any file listed, and do so again. This is a reminder that I have pointed out that you have frequently not provided the required notification, and pointed out that it is mandatory and you have replied, saying that it is a commonly ignored rule. You have continued to ignore the rule in new PUF listings, even despite a failed subsequent attempt to get the rule changed. As the rule remains in force, this is a final warning. Continued flagrant flouting of the rule may lead to enforcement actions, up to a community ban. As this flouting constitutes a deliberate attempt to violate Wikipedia policy, I believe it compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism is any deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Elvey (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: File permission problem with File:When In Manila Logo.jpg

Hi! I saw that you left me a message regarding the subject matter stated above. I suggest that you refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When In Manila since the logo problem and that one in the said page are two related matters. Current representatives of When In Manila are actively discussing there to retain the page. I suppose retaining the page also means retaining the logo for use on that wiki entry. Thanks! RepublicaNegrense (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The file was deleted due to lack of permission, usually meaning that the uploader didn't provide evidence that the copyright holder had permitted the image to be used under the specified licence. If the uploader can provide such evidence, then please see WP:CONSENT for instructions on how to document such permission. Should the permission statement be sufficient, the file will typically be undeleted shortly after the permission statement has been sent. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for bringing this up to me. Since I am no longer part of When In Manila, nor its legal representative now, I can no longer be its viable advocate, but I suggest you bring this up with I'm Tony Ahn since he might be interested in keeping the image alive. After all, he is a representative of When In Manila, and I uploaded the image when I was still a representative of When In Manila, under the direction of its Publisher, Vince Golangco. Anyway, do what you see is fit. RepublicaNegrense (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Bartholomew Voorsanger Images

Dear Stefan2,

I received permission from the owner of the rights (Bartholomew Voorsanger) to use those images in my article about him. I forwarded a couple of times to permissions-en@wikimedia.org his email to me, which states very clear that I have the right to publish the image files on Wikipedia.

Is there something wrong about the process that I have followed? Please let me know what it is to be done in order to resolve this issue.

Thank you! Gmihalea (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If you only have permission to publish the images on Wikipedia, then the permission is insufficient. The permission must allow anyone to use the images for almost any purpose. If something is wrong, try to ask for assistance at WP:OTRS/N. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe free media

see here. Frietjes (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Overcompressed JPEG

Hi, I've noticed that you've added {{Overcompressed JPEG}} to a handful images over time. Just so you know, this template is designed for images for which JPEG is the right choice of format (nearly always photographic or photo-realistic images), but the compression strength has been set too high. If it isn't a photographic image, or anything remotely resembling one (e.g. File:Robbie Williams Dream A Little Dream.jpg), then it shouldn't be in JPEG format at all, and so shouldn't be tagged with {{Overcompressed JPEG}}. The correct template with which to tag such images is {{BadJPEG}}. Good luck. — Smjg (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Tangled soundtrack cover in film article

Since you previously started a FfD for the Tangled soundtrack cover in its use in the film article, I wanted to let you know there is a new discussion started at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 April 30#File:Tangled Soundtrack.jpg, your opinion would be appreciated. Aspects (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: File permission problem with File:Grave of Richenza of Poland.jpg

Hi Stefan, I think that there is a mistake about the authory of this file: Is the first time in almost one year that could check my Wikipedia pages (sickness and work!!) and never post it. Thanks for being considered in check copyrights rights, anyway. Aldebaran69 (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The file was deleted due to lack of evidence of permission, which usually means that there is no evidence that the copyright holder has allowed you to upload the file under the specified licence. If you have permission, then you should provide evidence of it following the procedure at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Brief note

To say glad you're back and hope all's well. We hope (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Imaages

Hello, back on the job?

If so - http://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php?categories=All+free+media&negcats=Self-published+work&ns[6]=1&templates_no=Copy+to+Wikimedia+Commons%0D%0A%3C!--Already+has+information+--%3E%0D%0AInformation%0D%0AGoogle+Art+Project%0D%0A%3C!--+Blocks+on+Commons+Transfer--%3E%0D%0ANon-free+use+rationale%0D%0APD-ineligible-USonly%0D%0A%3C!--Shouldn%27t+be+moved--%3E%0D%0AKeep+local%0D%0Aesoteric+file%0D%0Auserspace+file%0D%0A%3C!--In+process.--%3E%0D%0Apuf%0D%0Affd&sortby=uploaddate&ext_image_data=1&file_usage_data=1

needs looking through, It's about 1000 images, but clearing this particular backlog with a view to having ever 'free' image with appropriate information/confirmation, or in a suitable deletion/review process would be welcome.Sfan00 IMG (talk)

I will probably not have much time to do anything before the end of the month, so that will have to wait. I had a little time today, so I took a quick look at the category for {{wrong license}} and tagged a couple of problem files. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Unknown sources

Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source - Any chance on emptying this before the next ice age? XD Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It should be emptied at some point. The files sometimes do have a source, but not in the "source" field in the templates. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Finder10.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Finder10.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Looks like there were a few careless mistakes in edits where good images were removed along with deleted image comments. See this link. Please do not remove the following files, all of which you tagged with {{di-orphaned fair use}} which no longer applies.

• File:Finder.png
• File talk:Mac OS 9 screenshot 2.png
• File talk:Finder 7.0.png
• File talk:Finder10.png

Thanks! :) Nasa-verve (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Hi Stefan2. Moved convo here from my talk page for your convenience. Could you please remove the deletion templates from the 4images above that you placed there? (EDIT) We are having a discussion (link here) about keeping or removing the images and I do not want the images removed if they may be ultimately kept in the Finder (software) article. Thanks! :) Nasa-verve (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The files are not currently in use, so the deletion rationale is still valid. I have reset the date in the deletion tags to allow you some time to finish the discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that meets the need. :) Nasa-verve (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

And one more thing, do you mind weighing in on the discussion here? Nasa-verve (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Judas Priest pictures

Hi, the 2 Judas Priest pictures you emailed me about may be deleted. Kind regards Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:16nancyj/sandbox

Hello Stefan2, I Speedy Kept this page and closed the MFD early. If you disagree you may renominate it for deletion and I will not be involved in the next nomination. Happy editing. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Location map of Elelenwo based on Wikimapia.png ‎

Wikimapia images come via Google, A few years ago a contact of mine had disscussions with some of the Imagery providers Google noted as sources, The results were that Wikimapia appears to exist in a grey area, copyright wise.

Open Street Map by comparison is free, and VERY clear about it's licensing model.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That comment was probably meant for Stanleytux instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sean Harris - message

Re: File:Sean Harris as Micheletto from The Borgias Showtime Series.jpg.

Yes, this pic is an orphan. It's not in use and should be deleted. It was long removed from the article and appears in no others that I know of.

Thank you.

Legaleze (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding File:Happy Valley (TV Series) title-card.jpg

Dear @Stefan2:

You have requested that the image is replaced with a smaller version. I have resized it manually, and re-uploaded it. Please can you check that everything complies and please mark it as okay. You also commented on my User page, I have now removed said image off the user page. Is the image not allowed on my User page?

Thanks, --Limbsaw ^~talk~ 21:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I see you've marked it with the template again... please can you tell me what is wrong with the new uploaded image. Image size could mean two things, the pixel resolution or the actual file size. Thanks again, --Limbsaw ^~talk~ 21:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Still too big. Just wait until the bot fixes it automatically. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Stefan2: Okay, but I've resized it again to 300px. Surely this isn't too big? The intended size for the article is 250px, so I had to leave some of the size just in case! --Limbsaw ^~talk~ 22:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Woollahra Colleagues Rugby Football Club logo.png

This image is not orphaned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Woollahra_Colleagues_Rugby_Football_Club_logo.png

Amend your bot, please. Ham105 (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

File: Royal Canadian Mounted Police.svg

Hi Stefan2,

I don't understand why this picture is non free content. It was uploaded on the French version of Wikipedia and it does not seem to be a problem. How can I make it free?

Thnaks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolinebn8 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:International Polo Club Palm Beach logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:International Polo Club Palm Beach logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification Stefan2. I added File:International Polo Club Palm Beach logo.png to the infobox on International Polo Club Palm Beach. Can you please remove the deletion request template from File:International Polo Club Palm Beach logo.png. Thank you. Eunev (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

photo of Joey Covington

If you wouldn't have removed the photo it was included in the article per Wiki rules for almost a year... non free but usable in this article. I own the photo and as a courtesy allowed it's use on Wikipedia. please put photo back as you have messed up the entire page now. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.75.188 (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Bandinusa

Pictures from Flightgear Flight Simulator

Hi this is Stan388. Thanks for your concern on my pictures. These pictures are actually screenshots taken by me of an open source flight simulator called Flightgear. Flightgear is totally free and open source, look it up on wikipedia to check that. These screen shots were taken by me on my computer. The only reason i didn't label them as my own work is because in the criteria for your own work it says not to use for screenshots. Could you perhaps help me to find an appropriate licence? Cheers Stan388 24 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan388 (talk • contribs)

Please provide evidence that the flight simulator is available under a free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Listen Mate. I wrote in the license flightgears website that says it is free and open source, and it says right hear on wikipedia that it is totaly free and open source. what else can i do??? Stan388 10:50UTC 30 May 2014

Where do I find that statement? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

http://www.flightgear.org/about/Stan388 (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at Jmabel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Photo of Jack Womer

Hi Stefan: Thank you for your message regarding the photo that I uploaded for inclusion in the forthcoming article on Jack Womer. That particular photo is posted on many internet sites, and is included in Womer's biography that he and I co-authored and published. No one has ever raised any concerns about use or distribution of the photo. I don't see how including the photo in the Wikipedia article on Jack Womer will cause any problems. But please feel free to proceed to have Wikipedia publish the article without the photo. Thank oyu. Steve DeVito — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scdevito (talk • contribs) 2014-05-29T12:49:51 (UTC)

Please specify which image you are talking about. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I am referring to the portrait photo of Jack Womer in his uniform. It is the only photo of him containined in the article on Jack Womer.

Undateable.jpg - non-free or free?

I was wondering what is your opinion on File:Undateable.jpg? It's just text on a coloured background? Surely it doesn't meet the threshold of originality. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It has textures similar to those discussed in Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:BF-Schriftzug.png. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Bogusflo3/sandbox content not out for review but deleted?

Main page: User:Bogusflo3/sandbox

Hi! I was wondering why the bogusflo3/sandbox page was deleted when it wasn't out for review. I was trying to remedy apparent copyright issues from a previous page in the sandbox, but my updated page was taken down before I could rewrite the draft to submit for review. Where else was I supposed to draft a new page? Can I have the copy back to submit to what I now see as a temp page? Also, it never said where it said the material was copied from. It just says "copied from ,". Seems like a necessity to know what part of the page is in question. Appreciate the hard work. Thanks! --user:Bogusflo3 — Preceding undated comment added 2014-05-30T15:14:19 (UTC)

There are copyright concerns, see discussion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 May 29. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Clones supernova.jpg

Not sure what the problem is. It's a screenshot of my game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomkorp (talk • contribs) 2014-05-30T16:12:05 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at WP:IOWN. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Re:File:La Rogativa.jpg

No, problem at all, I will delete this image. This was taken when I was rough on the edges in regard to photographs. The Jayuya bust was donated to the public, I'll have to check that one out. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Actorsiddharthray.JPG

The image has been added back to the page. He was an actor (Siddharth Ray) of Indian films, someone done wrong editing and thus it was an orphened imgae.Please do not delete it. Rajeshbieee (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BeywheelzLetItRip. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to User:BeywheelzLetItRip/Windows Vista because it appears unconstructive to me. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability block users like you from editing if they are engaging in vandalism. If you have any questions, contact me in my talk page. Thank you. BeywheelzLetItRip ^{(What is it?)} 12:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:USER#Non-free images. Removal of unambiguous violations of WP:NFCC#9 is not vandalism. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

"Orphaned non-free image File

Stefan2 - the file has been uploaded and was in use by a draft version of the page Eaton Partners. It can be found at Draft:Eaton Partners. Another user recently deleted it. Should I wait until the page has been approved by the editors before uploading the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VillageAlbourne (talk • contribs) 13:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Robert Jones

Thanks for your comments on image:Robert Jones (surgeon).png used on the page Portal:Trauma & Orthopaedics/Selected biography/1. I took the image from the full biography page Robert Jones (surgeon) where it appears in the infobox and tagged with the fair-use rationale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mschamberlain (talk • contribs) 2014-06-02T19:16:16 (UTC)

Non-free files may not be used outside the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Jack Orion

You wrote: "... it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically User:JackOrion217, may fail our non-free image policy." My response: I am happy to correct this but I have two questions.

1. This article uses only images that were uploaded to Wikipedia by other users. I thought that would guarantee compliance with your policy. Was I wrong?
2. Which of the images is the problem?

Jack Orion (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

One image (File:New York Times Book Review cover June 13 2004.jpg) is listed as unfree. Unfree images may only be used in articles (not on user pages). See WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Edited my Sandbox

Main page: User:Konvay/sandbox

Can I get an explanation why my Sandbox was edited less than 24 hours after I created it, removing "orphaned" images? The 7 day rule may apply, but I hadn't even had the images up there for 20 hours now and they disappeared with a message from you. Explanation requested, thank you Konvay (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NFCC#9. Non-free images may never be used in the user namespace (for example in sandboxes). Non-free images which are used in the user namespace are removed from there as soon as discovered. If not used anywhere else, such images are up for deletion after one week for violation of WP:NFCC#7, per WP:CSD#F5. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pillow Pets.jpg

Thank you for alerting me about this. Apparently, someone vandalized the page and removed the image. Sorry about the confusion--Breawycker (talk to me!) 19:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Ondarun_Logo.png

You added Ondarun logo to Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_June_4#File:Ondarun_Logo.png... But I don't understand what you meant really.. This logo is made by Ondarun creators themselves, how can I proof it ? Regards, --Lascar33 (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You have not selected a valid copyright tag for the logo.

Note that you may not use unfree images in the "Draft" namespace. See WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

In fact this logo will be able to use this copyright only when Ondarun will be an article.. Not in "draft"... Which copyright I should use in the mean time ? --Lascar33 (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless you get the copyright holder to comply with the procedure outlined at WP:CONSENT, you can neither upload nor use the image as long as the article remains in the "Draft" namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

OK noted :) Thanks for your replies ! --Lascar33 (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

File:2014 Gulf Ice Hockey Championship Logo.jpg

Excuse me, Stefan2. I removed your tag but you can't actually di-orphaned fair use my article for no reason. OK. AaronWikia (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2014

File:Qualidade de vida book.JPG

Hi Stephan2, how can I Diogofekete (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC) talk to you? I want to know if I create my article then I will not be violating WP:NFCC anymore.. is that right ? — Preceding comment added by Diogofekete (talk • contribs) 22:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You can't use non-free images in User:Diogofekete/sandbox since the page is not in the article namespace. See WP:NFCC#9.

If you move User:Diogofekete/sandbox to the article namespace, you still can't use File:Qualidade de vida book.JPG in the article, since the image violates WP:NFCC#8 in that article. See the footnote to WP:NFCI §1. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What if I don't to use that image for this article, but use it for another article about that book? Will that image be deleted ? Diogofekete (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The image can be used in an article about the book, if an article about the book exists. Carefully check WP:N to determine if it is permitted to have an article about the book. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Contemplate Ltd logo.png

I uploaded this image with the intention of using it in the article ThreadSafe but then discovered that there was no good way to incorporate it, so it's fine with me if it is deleted. Dsannella (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Fort St. John

Check back at WP:VPT; although I wasn't able to explain what was going on, I've fixed the symptoms of the problem. Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

La Mafia albums 1-6, number 8, and 12

I just brought the article back sourcing the article as well if it doesn't comply with the standards then by all means delete. but the article is in used. I sourced it using my friend's fan page because the album is rare. I also brought the other articles back again using my friend's website as a source they are rare collectables and no other sources can be found. if the articles stay please remove the picture deletion sign — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Please sign your posts. Who are you? Which page(s) are you talking about? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Templating a regular... wrongly

Thank you for posting a template on my talk page. You have wrongly asserted that I have "recently" "uploaded an image",specifically the logo if the Republican party. I have not uploaded that image. I instead copied an infobox already used at the main article for a sub-article. The image was apparently uploaded 18 months ago. Perhaps you could notify the actual uploader. That might be helpful. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The template does not say that you have uploaded an image. It says that you have "uploaded or added [an image] to an article". You need to read the warning correctly. You may not add images to pages without satisfying WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#9 and WP:NFCC#10c. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Asking to upload photos

We will share more photos on page Hossein Shahabi Эlcobbola user has deleted it. Please note that you can help us and they did not bother us. Few months that they will not let us upload pictures Hossein Shahabi. Thank you, very much.Kalame10 (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it would be useful to ask someone who understands Farsi to talk to this guy. His explanation of multiple people trying to upload an image due to the fact that internet connectivity in Iran is rather limited, does at least seem a little plausible. There's a possibility he/they have in fact taken a photo of this person but don't understand what they need to do or say. (The promotional nature of the titling is another thing that hints at lack of knowledge/understanding being the issue rather than their having no connection with the subject of the photo.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi to Wikipedia administrators. I'm from Iran..

The image I've photographed and the photos allowed me to take her own Wikipedia page I load.Please tell Эlcobbola the user does not delete my photos. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalame10 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright issues

I don't see your email address. Please email me neotarf (AT) gmail (DOT) com. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC) The text in question has been redacted. This should satisfy any outstanding policy issues. —Neotarf (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

My Sandbox

Hey thanks for commenting the audio out on my sandbox... totally forgot about it. Chihciboy (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Files Absoft Target Options.png and Absoft Project Options.png linked from Absoft Fortran Compilers

You left messages that two files I uploaded recently were not linked to by any article. Actually they are illustrations in a new article, Absoft Fortran Compilers. I suspect that there is a day or two latency between moving an article from sandbox to article status and updating the database used by the bot. -motorfingers- (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The files which were tagged as unused on 8 June are not currently in use in any article. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

copyright vio

You have clearly not heard of "Don't template the regulars". What you did was ridiculous beyond belief. It's bad enough that you go deleting all my images, please never, never, ever place the huge copyvio tag on my talk page ever again. You can have the fucking thing back. Thanks for your attention. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

See the documentation for {{subst:copyvio}}. The rule is that {{subst:copyvio|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/business/chinas-battle-against-google-heats-up.html?_r=0}} should be inserted on pages which contain textual copyright violations. You may not remove the template until the copyright violation has been resolved. In this case, a user inserted lots of copyrighted text on the page User talk:Ohconfucius, so the template had to be added to that page.

I do not see any copyright violations of http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/business/chinas-battle-against-google-heats-up.html?_r=0 on this page, so I am removing the text you placed below. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• You could have trimmed the offending text and have been done with it. The copyvio tag is clearly not meant for use on user talk pages, and its use on same is highly disruptive. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The Everglades: River of Grass

Stefan2 - you just commented out the use of Image:Everglades River of Grass.jpg in this article saying see WP:NFCC#10c. I have spent an hour looking at WP:NFCC#10c, WP:FUR, and WP:NFUR. I can't understand what is the problem. The image has a non free use rational stated. Could you please explain the problem to me? Thanks. -GroveGuy (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Everglades River of Grass.jpg only has a fair use rationale for the article Marjory Stoneman Douglas. The image may therefore not be used on any other page.

File:Everglades River of Grass.jpg appears to violate WP:NFCC#8 on the page Marjory Stoneman Douglas. The image may therefore not be used on the page Marjory Stoneman Douglas. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Moondyne (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand. I now see that on the use rational it says the image is to be used for the author page. I changed that to say it is to be used for the book. -GroveGuy (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

File:CBSA_Badge.jpg

Hey Stefan,

I noticed some files are being put up as orphaned non-free works, which is great. However, some of these works, such as this one, are orphaned because they've been replaced by SVG versions of the same image, which is also great. The problem is that these non-free images are being replaced by "free" images where they are in fact the same image. In this case the non-free badge being replaced with this "free badge" where one is simply an SVG rendering of the other. Where the goal of getting rid of orphaned works is good, I think that certain users are trying to use this to 'scrub' images of their copyright licences by uploading the same image (or an SVG rendering) onto Commons as free, replacing it on Enwiki, and then the licenced image disappears due to speedy orphan image delete.

For example, this file here was uploaded 4 May 2014 with sourced copyright and trademark licences. A user who tried to undelete a similar image then uploaded the exact same image which I had put together, onto Commons as "ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship" a month later on 1 June 2014. trackratte (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

c:File:Flag of the Canadian Army.svg has an obviously invalid copyright tag as the image clearly isn't below the threshold of originality. It is also obvious that the Commons user isn't the author of the Commons image as your file File:Canadian Army Flag (2013).svg is earlier. I would suggest that you tag the file with {{copyvio|[[w:File:Canadian Army Flag (2013).svg]]}}.

c:File:Badge of the Canada Boarder Services Agency.svg is not the same image as File:CBSA Badge.jpg. According to c:COM:COA, the copyright does not reside in the blazon of a heraldic image but in the representation of the image. The Commons image therefore seems to be fine. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! I agree with your first point absolutely, its questionable at best.

For the second point though, yes COM:COA does state that an image based only only the blazon is usually safe for upload. However, the CBSA badge (c:File:Badge of the Canada Boarder Services Agency.svg) does not claim to be based on the blazon, it claims to be the "own work" of user: Ng556, which is obviously untrue as we can see here.

Even if that user were to make a claim that the image were based only on the free blazon, with no reference to the copyrighted image, this is clearly untrue. The blazon states:

An escutcheon gyronny of six Azure and Argent charged with a portcullis within a tressure erablé Or all within an annulus Azure edged with rope, inscribed with the Motto, cotised by demi-maple leaves Or, and ensigned by the Royal Crown proper;[19]

As we can see, there is nothing in the blazon which mentions that the portcullis in the centre has six points/bars, or that the far right and left points are half points instead of full, or how many maple leaves are around the badge, or that there are chains hanging off either end of the portcullis, or that there are three maples leaves of that style within the tressure, etc, etc. All of these elements are nowhere in the free blazon, but are only in the original official copyrighted drawing at the above linked registry. The only way all of these elements can be included in the SVG rendering is through 1. prior knowledge of the copyrighted work, 2. Attempted mimicry of the copyrighted work, and 3. A resulting work stylistically similar to the copyrighted work (legal test applied in UK and Canadian courts). So, yes, works based only on a blazon are free, but works based on copyrighted works are not.

There is also this, right from the CBSA site:

Anything we create, design, develop or produce as part of our job, even if we or any other person have improved or modified it outside working hours, becomes the property ofCBSA and the Government of Canada. We therefore cannot market or sell any of this property. We recognize that the Copyright Act protects the CBSA identifiers (such as badges, logos, branding images etc.) from illegitimate use, trade and sale.[20]

trackratte (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Cheeseladder/Civil War

From an Angry editor to Stefan2

Common courtesy!! should requires you to contact an editor before you begin an edit on there sandbox. Do not interfere with my sandbox again unless you have communicated with me about your intentions.Cheeseladder (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:USER#Non-free images: "Non-free images found on a user page (including user talk pages) will be removed (preferably by replacing it with a link to the image) without warning and, if not used in a Wikipedia article will be deleted entirely." --Stefan2 (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I Repeat Common courtesy or is that not in the Swedish vocabulary. All ways in Good Faith.Cheeseladder (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC

I repeat: "Non-free images found on a user page (including user talk pages) will be removed (preferably by replacing it with a link to the image) without warning and, if not used in a Wikipedia article will be deleted entirely." --Stefan2 (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Would it hurt to explain your actions at the time? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Your arrogance is astounding! I could not be in the least bit bothered if you delete the image. For starters it was uploaded by others. I mealy found it whilst wiki-linking the name and found the image on the Fred Copeman page!! I am very annoyed by your attitude towards me. I try to be as polite and friendly as I Can to other editors, its a shame the concept of this is above your intellect. It is obvious by your attitude that you thrive on creating conflict and intimidation towards others with your veiled threats.Cheeseladder (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

a bout ap logo

Main page: Template:Andhra Pradesh

what you know about andhra pradesh and why you delete it from teplete! i want answer! dont do your self contribution. (Visakha veera (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC))

Non-free images are not allowed in templates. See WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

first you vlearly check that imag ! what hte author is mentioned? The previous version(s) of this file are non-free. The older revision(s) are no longer being used in articles, and therefore fail the Wikipedia non-free content criteria. The current version will not be deleted, only previous revision(s).

Administrators: If there are no problems with the current version, and it meets the non-free content criteria, please delete the previous version(s) on June 18, 2014 (seven days after June 11, 2014, when this template was added). This is he mentiond first check it man (Visakha veera (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC))

Do not ever add any non-free images to templates! Both the current revision and the older revisions of the file are unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

:The official emblem of AP is a non free image I guess.--Vin09 (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Dutrou-Bornier flag.jpg

File:Dutrou-Bornier flag.jpg was created per a request at Dutrou-Bornier's flag at the Graphics Lab Illustration Workshop for use on the page Jean-Baptiste Dutrou-Bornier. The copyright status of this image is actually rather unclear. The image itself was created by me, as a derivative work from this image. The copyright information on the site hosting that image is here, and makes no mention of derivative works, though it does provide explicit permission to use up to 5% of any images in a non-commercial manner, with attribution.

So it is clear that they maintain copyright. It is not clear exactly what sort of claim they might have on the image in question, being a derivative work. I know you do a lot of work with images, and if you have any greater familiarity with the vagaries of copyright law as applied to derivative works, or know of another user who does, I would appreciate any input. In the meantime, I will use the image on the page in question. Thank you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)