User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 10

Rogerfpurcell

Hi, you marked my JordiFolchPi.jpg in wikipage "Jordi Folch Pi" for deletion because you (correctly) noticed it's missing some attribute (I just didn't know how to describe how I obtained it) ... The problem is that this picture was sent (mail, I scanned the picture) to me by his widow when she was alive, but she is now dead ... They guy died decades ago ... We are talking about a personal family photograph which was passed on through personal channels. Who is the owner, when the two owners (subject and widow) are dead, in this case? If I physically scanned the picture, am I the owner? Please advise. If I am the owner, please remove the deletion tag, it's all a confusion then. Thanks! (I don't understand a lot of the technical wiki gibberish that was sent to me, asking me to submit some information about the picture ...)

--Rogerfpurcell (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Check the history, I do not recall marking this image for speedy... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah... OK I now know which image you mean, Are you an immediate member of the family of the individual shown? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

CCP

Hi, can you plz shade a little light on why you want those two pictures of Peniston to delete as their permission were sent by their author last year and are archived in ORS. Uzerakount (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Which specific images are these? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Peniston.JPG and File:Ceciliapeniston1.jpg Uzerakount (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The images are hosted on Commons, and the tag was for deletion of the 'redundant' local description page, not the Image.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I see now. Thank you then and sorry for my inconvenience. Uzerakount (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Malvern Hills Location.PNG

Hi. I have contested the deletion under CSD2 of this file. I am not an expert on files, and I fail to identify the rationale. It appears to be correctly licenced by the uploader. Perhaps you could help me understand it. Many thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The image is on Commons, thusly the description page which is hosted locally is now redundant. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So are you deleting the description page or the image? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The CSD tag relates to the image description page, NOT the image. It could perhpas be better worded. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. As an admin here, I was confused - I just wonder how many other users are confused by this tag ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In further hindsight,as I work on the rewording of uw and CSD templates, I'll see what I can get done about it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You are using {{db-fpcfail}}. The template at {{db-f2}} has the correct wording. Is this a possible Twinkle bug? or is just another case of us having too many templates that say almost the same thing?--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I was told to use the one I was, because the straight F2 implied an image in error... The fact that the two F2 options are

simmilar, suggests to me that the situation requires a new CSD criteria and tag. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ncd

I don't mean to pick on you, but I've noticed there are a lot of images that you tag as now on commons, which are in fact on commons, but are in fact under a different name than the one you've indicated. Don't forget the first parameter of ncd is the file name on commons if it is different than en.wp!

Mind you this isn't a particularly big deal for me, because my little helper application that I wrote for myself in PHP just ignores your suggestion, but other admins without neat self-written gadgets might have a more difficult time with it.

FYI, cheers. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... I obviously need to check more carefully :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

number

You have 30^th place in most edits (170556). Nice! Probably changed by the time you read this. Here:

A user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 23:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for tidying up File:Holding2.jpg File:Holding2.jpg --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 23:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Some people just don't get it. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Images

Can you guide User:SchuminWeb to create lists of images rather than drilling the same message every time like you did? He said he needs to figure out how to do it. Please tell him!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

=

The file I upload File:Amd dock-ellis.jpg is free media. I'm new at this, sorry. How can i change the category to free media? Do i need to delete it and upload it again? Mentac (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentac (talk • contribs) 14:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC) I got it form Google Images. Maybe it isn't free media then. i better delete it and find a free media picture of Dock Ellis. Mentac (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

See my comment on your talk page Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

i can't figure out this copyright business, so it needs to be removed. I don't think the NY Times would begrudge Dock Ellis a photo in Wikipedia that belongs to them, but I sure don't know, so seems best to remove it. how do I do that? Mentac (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ask an administrator to delete it for you :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILEMOVER

It might be worth considering applying to be a filemover, as you're quite the prolific user and I'm sure you'd get it without issue. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I did have filemover but resigned it due to concerns over 'bot' like action. If you think I should have filemove, you'll have to convince a quorum of admins... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I would most likely be unable to do that, as I was unaware of your resignation of the right; 'twas merely a thought based upon your prolific activity in the file namespace. Do keep up the good work, however! Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Beynon Pic

You are correct that the image is a logo. However I have permission to use it as I am writing a page on athletic tracks. I just needed to upload the image before I could add it to my page (not live yet, very new to this so I am trying to figure out everything before turning the page live). I will also be including images of various installations which I also have the rights to. Am I doing it incorrectly. (Sprinter9 (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC))

Noted Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Article

What the hell? My photo isnt "orphaned" its on an article! Goldblooded (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Noted as an apparent 'mistag', sorry Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a mistag, it was removed from the article and then reinstated after you tagged it. No harm done Sfan. Parsecboy (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, It was removed by someone who claimed it to be low res; But it was brought back since its called black and white. Plus you can clearly make out what it is. Thanks anyway :) Goldblooded (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Kolkata Meetup Map 9 July 2011.png

Hi Sfan00 IMG!
It is actually a screenshot from google maps (copyrighted), there wasn't any licensing option closer to what I thought (like "From Google Maps", "Map of a place" etc.), so I selected that as a "Poster". I am confused about the licensing of this picture, can you suggest me the licensing of this? Thanks!
Regards,
Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{09:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)}

Use {{Non-free geo image}} , but I tagged as it replacable, because it should be possible to use OpenStreetMap instead of Google for the purpose. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{09:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)}

Orphaned fair use tagging

Hi, you recently tagged File:Matchboxlogo.png for deletion as an orphaned fair use image. In future, before you do this, please check which articles it was used on (the fair use rationale on the file's description page will usually tell you this) and determine whether it should be reinstated. Usually if the image is the logo of a company or brand, it should be present on the relevant article, unless it has been superseded by a version that is of better quality or in a more appropriate format. — Smjg (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Assistance

Hello Sfan00 IMG, I recently have had a user reccomend you to help me with a problem that involves a non free use rationale. I have an image that I placed on an article, but it was recently removed beacuse it was non free, and I didn't give proper information on the rationale. Could you possibly help me with this problem? Because the image adds a lot of character to the article. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Which article and which image? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole. I chose a different image, and it is not yet uploaded due to the rationale issues. Here is the rationale that I have made:

Monkeys 9711 (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? Wow I thought that something would be missing from it. But since it is suitable, would the image be able to be placed on the plot of the article? Monkeys 9711 (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You might need to explain something at to why you need a charcter image in the rationale if you do that, But I don't see an issue at present.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I know, that is the problem that I have been having. The reason I want the image to be placed on the plot of the article is because it adds character to the section of the page, and the article as well. And there is currently only one image on the entire article- the infobox. I don't know if that is a strong enough reason though. If it isn't, then maybe you would have a stronger way of reasoning it? Monkeys 9711 (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ask User:Ironholds to check over your FUR... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your help :) Monkeys 9711 (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 01:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 15:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Grundenmoos.jpg

I got the image from here: http://www.soccerway.com/venues/switzerland/sportanlage-grundenmoos/. Then I resized it and cropped it.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mtci

Template:Mtci has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Webex.gif

I can understand your adding of the deletion template. Just figured I'd let you know that its not linked to on anything because I swapped the picture that was on the only page it was used in to the PNG version. LikeLakers2 (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Image files uploaded by User:Yosesphdaviyd

All three of them were already deleted for copyright issues under slightly different titles. YD claimed he didn't know and would fix it, and clearly has not. Therefore, you could probably CSD all of them as recreated content. MSJapan (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned image of Melissa Mccarthy

It can not be used on Melissa Mccarthys page as she is a living person so is therefore not needed and can be deleted. please reply on my talkpage. --Editor2205 (talk) 9:47am, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

JoelQuintel.PNG

Deletion? Why? I have recently asked the original owner of the image to send a licencing statement via email to me so I can forward it to wikipedia. Give me a good reason why you're deleting JoelQuintel.PNG. GrandTheftFreak (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Now confirmed, and the deletion tag's been removed :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

RE:File copyright problem with File:Gameboy Icon.PNG

Yea I have the Copyright details on here. Say, can you remove the Image from here so it can work from here?. thanx GameboyMad (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Club SpongeBob.jpg

Done, are you going to remove the notice now? Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 11:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Go right ahead

You can just delete every image you want. In fact, just delete Wikipedia. Go for it. I am so sick of this and you.Mjpresson (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you restore

And I'll add rationale to: File:Gazetawyborcza cover.jpg, File:Rzeczpolita newspaper.jpg. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Try filing a Deletion Review? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

To much bureaucracy. I'll just ask another adminwho is less obsessive about time-wasting rules then. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind I don't have admin bits.. So I can't restore them directly myself Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I retract my comment above, and apologize for assuming you did not want to help. Sorry, I thought you were an admin, my bad. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I get mistaken for an admin a lot... even though I've turend down at least 3 offers of RFA... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Bennett Aircraft Corporation html 6d5e95a4.png

I have added the rational as requested. Please confirm that it is adequate. Regards, Buster40004 Talk 19:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, Buster40004 Talk 14:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Margherita Sarfatti.jpg

Well, it was shot and reproduced before 1923, so I guess it is in the public domain. I marked it as such but don't know how to fill in the licensing. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Images

Dear Sfan00 IMG,

You have been tagging the images I uploaded for such a long time now that I just have to comment. I'll try to do this chronologically:

(1) When I uploaded those pictures many years ago Wikipedia was much smaller, and contributors were actually encouraged to add images if they could get hold of any. "Fair use" (without any "rationale" to be added) was all it took for an image to pass. This also included screenshots.

(2) Then, gradually, Wikipedia policies became much more sophisticated and, let's face it, complicated. The rules were changing continuously, and they probably still are. (In the meantime, even a photo I took of myself has been tagged.)

(3) At first -- but this is also a long time ago -- I tried to argue, fight, battle, crusade against wholesale deletion of what I considered -- and still consider -- legitimate images on Wikipedia. I almost always lost; strangely, the explanations were not always the same, only the result, i e the loss of an image. (I remember a few notable exceptions where it turned out in the end that the deleter was some kind of psycho who was eventually banned from editing Wikipedia.)

(4) I pleaded/argued then that rather than putting an image up for (speedy) deletion (within a week or so) those who know the current policies much better than the original uploaders should be the ones who should have to come up with a rationale for KEEPING an image. (Your talk page shows me that this is still not the case.)

(5) I finally gave up justifying my old uploads. This was also many years ago. There is not a single one among them which was done mischievously or with the intention to harm Wikipedia, let alone vandalise it. Also, I have no recollection of any lawsuits Wikipedia was ever involved in because of illegal images.

(6) I still get the same kind of messages, for example from you. And I still don't understand many of the reasons cited. Why anyone would want to delete a page from a novel which was published in the late 19th century is (still) beyond my grasp.

All the best,

KF

Which image was the 19th century novel page, because that might be a mistag? And I've been trying to be careful about recent

taggings Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Your question is absolutely, thoroughly beside the point. If THAT had been my "problem," I would have said so rather than written all of the above. <KF> 00:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that current policy is unfair? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read what I have just written. I'm saying that I DON'T UNDERSTAND it, so I wouldn't be in a position to make judgements about it. <KF> 00:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

hmmm Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

KF makes an oh-so-valid point. Nobody understands the image policy. And it would be nice if somebody wrote an article explaining it, using simple words and simple examples. Can anybody point to Wikipedia being sued or images being forced out because of legal threats? In shockingly acute puzzlement, I am your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

File:New_Divide.ogg

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:New_Divide.ogg&action=history

Please don't just tag things without at least looking to see why there is not any fair use rationale. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yuval Ne'eman

Hi,

The rational behind using the non-free content of Ne'emans photo is that it was taken from the Israeli parliament website and the policy of the Israeli parliament is to allow the use of its photos in educational context (e.g., encyclopedic use) and second this photo is in use in Hebrew Wikipedia. Regards --Gilisa (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

IMages

Thankyou Sfan for adding those rationales.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Different image version

A different version of File:TTCMuseumStation.jpg is in Commons [2] under the same name. How can I select the one from Commons? Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Kit body orange shoulders.png

I've already added a tag. Sorry.

Can you check it again this time?

Eduarda7 (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your prolific efforts to sort out images on wikipedia. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi I am a new and ineperienced user. A short time ago you marked my image for deletion tomorrow. The deletion is appearently still current and despite my efforts to tag it. can you please advise why it is still up for deletion. Sorry about this but can you help.

Herbyfitz (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

every day an image dies unnecessarily

Almost every day my watchlist contains an image deletion instigated by you inappropriately. The latest ones are File:MoonEdit.png, which is ineligible for copyright, and File:Msngroups.png, which is a screenshot of a defunct website. I know you add FURs sometimes, so how come these very obvious cases are being tagged by you? You and I know that the admins who do these deletions dont care to look at the images they delete. Why tag them for deletion if you can see that they are not eligible for copyright, or extremely obvious and non-controversial fair-use like logos, covers, screenshots. If you dont have time to do a good edit to an image page, please dont make a bad edit to an image page by tagging it for deletion unnecessarily. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Non-free use rationale film poster

Template:Non-free use rationale film poster has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at WP:REFUND.
Message added 14:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I don't understand . . .

I don't understand what you did here: File:Carl-C-Rasmussen-Los-Angeles-City-Council.tiff. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I added a license tag, you don't need to worry :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

File:TheLastSupper.jpg

I had uploaded a book cover image under this title, but later another user substituted the image of a well-known painting here. I moved the book cover to File:TheLastSupperbook.jpg with all info. Please ask User:History2007 about info on the painting. Kraxler (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Image size reduction

Hi there. You recently tagged a file with {{non-free reduce}} or {{reduce}} that was, in fact, within acceptable size for fair use images. Standard practice places the maximum size at 160,000 pixels, which is 400x400 in a square image. However, 500x320, 600x266, etc. are also 160,000 pixels, and are acceptable. DASHbot, the program that does almost all image resizing, actually won't even bother with files that come out to less than 160,000 pixels, so chances are low that the files will ever be reduced anyways. If you really want a file smaller than 160,000 pixels reduced, you can do it easily with the free program Paint.NET (what I use), or ask me directly.

Just letting you know for the future, Sven Manguard Wha? 14:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Dashbot seems to be catching most of these now anyway so I might consider not manually tagging them for a bit,

for album covers and so on my own gudiance limit was 600x600 which is 360,000 pixels, and 640x480(~310,000) for screencaptures Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Non-free use poster listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Non-free use poster. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Non-free use poster redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I thereby award you with The Original Barnstar for hard work regarding non-free images. Keep up the good work. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 00:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Warner Bros. Pictures SVG for 2D poster variant

200px Do you have a SVG variant of this one? Make different ones for 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. CARS FOR ME (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Non free images should not be in a user space. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 11:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask about a speedy deletion tag?

I'm wondering why a clearly U.S. public domain image from the National Archives (File:Winfield Scott.jpg) is being nominated for deletion. I don't question your motive, but because I'm not especially experienced with the differences between pedia and commons as it regards image use, I'm curious. As it happens the page appears on a couple of page creations of mine. What's the deal? The tag doesn't give me much to work with. Appreciate any light you can shine. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 16:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Image speedy deletions?

Why am I getting notices for image speedy deletions? I'm not finding my relationship to those images. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting notifications about image deletions, and I don't see why I am getting notified. Have the notifications also been sent to the people who should get notified? -- SEWilco (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You are getting notified because TWINKLE is perhaps wrongly assuming you are the uploader. Don't worry though, as the IMAGES are commons, it's only the local description page which is being duplicated at Commons, which is up for CSD, NOT the image itself.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I know that the images are merely being moved, the problem is the incorrect notifications being splattered around. TWINKLE notified. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

TB

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Sven Manguard's talk page.
Message added 19:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sven Manguard Wha? 19:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

...and again. Seeing as it's 3:50 AM where I am, it's the last message for the night. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Definition of CSD#F2

I've started a discussion at WT:CSD#Description pages for Commons images - F2 that you may be interested in.—An  optimist on the run! 08:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Waterfall Berdan

Thanks for notifying me for the speedy deletion. But I haven't seen a tag and I don't know your rationale. I suppose you refer to the last sentence of the F2 criteria. I created the file for English Wikipedia and I don't understand why so many people rush to move the files to Commons. If creating files for English Wikipedia is forbiden, why is it permitted in first place ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not forbidden, It just that images on Commons are more widely usable. There is also little point in keeping both a local

(English Wikipedia) and Commons version of the same image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

F2

Hi - could I ask you to hold fire on tagging images as F2 till the discussion I listed above is resolved. Thanks.—An  optimist on the run! 11:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Image

I received a notification regarding File:Wabash River at Williamsport.png, but it's not my image. The author of the image needs to be notified; I'm not sure why I was notified. Omnedon (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

To answer on Sfan00 IMG's behalf: it's because you created the image page by categorising a Commons image [3]. I've started a discussion about whether these pages should be tagged or not (see my comments above).—An  optimist on the run! 12:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Mentor, help him please

Whoever is the editor's mentor, offer him assistance. He's causing kerfuffles and not answering questions, causing others to waste time looking for answers. -- SEWilco (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion notification

It was placed on my page by accident, and since this is your file, I thought I'd place it on the CREATOR's page. Regards.--Hourick (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:USA Parachutist.png

A tag has been placed on File:USA Parachutist.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I know its not MY image. I accidentally put it on your talk, so I went ahead and put it on the uploader's talk page. --Hourick (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at RP459's talk page.
Message added 17:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Touchet-formation-2.JPG

I can't see where you tagged File:Touchet-formation-2.JPG.[4] It is on Commons, so it may be nominated there. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at RP459's talk page.
Message added 21:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

STOP!

Please stop notifying me about F2 deletions. See comments at the top of my talk page.—An  optimist on the run! 11:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 14:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 14:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete - Cutty Sark.

I am not sure I understand the reason for the Speedy Deletion tag. [5] [6]. I have edited the description. The file is used widely on Wikipedia. Gordo (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Kinky

Template:Kinky has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Anatomical

Template:Anatomical has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Sfan00/Temple:Anitomical

I still suggest and believe the template should be deleted per my comments on the tfd (both). I see no reason for this template. I don't see any use for it. And I suggest still deleting this even though this is now in your userspace, because I don't see any forseeable use, and in a few years, this will be brought up at tfd and again, and deleted (per the discussion on their present tfds).Curb Chain (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Userspace is Userspace, so I don't agree with your view Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you make kinky into your userspace too?Curb Chain (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I has happened on TFD that user pages with templates that are contrary to policy or are not used get deleted after a year , or lengthy period. I know you asked for input on this and the kinky template. This is my input. It is clear that the community feels these templates don't have much use, as the bad image template serves the purpose that as has been agreed upon on wikipedia. I understand that somepeople do have nervous disposition towards shocking images, but if images are used properly, the are illustrative and educationing. Such templates are (thus) unnecessary.Curb Chain (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The second of the two templates was G7'ed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Why did you tag it f2?

• You tagged various images [7] with Wikipedia:CSD#F2. It isn't a corrupt or empty image. Dream Focus 22:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"This file may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an image, hosted on Commons," :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Two renaming tags aren't necessary

If you check the edit history of File:Cressida.JPG, you'll see that I added a rename tag to it just before you did, and suggested a better name. There's really no need for a semi-blank one, as you and Akrabbim did. ----DanTD (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

AWB task run

Greetings, I wanted to let you know that the AWB task request is done. I did notice a few things and I left those comments on the task page. --Kumioko (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Pacs1.jpg and File:Pacs2.jpg

These images were tagged with NoCommons. Please read image description pages before tagging them for speedy deletion. fish&karate 14:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You've done it again, with File:Auschwitz entrance.JPG - this image was tagged with {{KeepLocal}}. Again, you must read the image description pages before tagging them for speedy deletion. fish&karate 13:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Rename tags

Do not add rename tags without suggesting a new name. DS (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Noted Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Film cover fur

I had asked a question on the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 18#Template:Film cover fur that you proposed and since that conversation seems to be stalled at the moment, I think that might help! —mako๛ 15:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the lack of response, I'd assume it's reasonable to close as a 'no consensus' Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Good job

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		All too often, I see people tagging images without regard for the blatantly obvious, or without paying any attention to what they're tagging and whether a simple solution can prevent deletion. So when I stumbled across this, I was pleasantly enough surprised to give you this barnstar! Thank you for thinking before you tag images for deletion, and keep up the good work! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing those rename image templates, I totally forgot to do that! Lynch7 18:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Where

Hello sir,
thank you for informing me of what is needed in making the image a valid one. I would willingly do what you told me to do, the point is: I don't know where I should put it all. Thank you very much for telling me, sincerely yours,
--Rabbie Barns (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Photograph of Hon. Sajith Premadasa

User Gishwi 1020 which he had been taken Sajith Premadasa's Photo from the Lanka c News.

• Lanka c News

• Photograph of Hon. Sajith Premadasa

Urgently intervine pl and remove the file

Regards,

Lal 112.135.229.17 (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to specifcally tag the file for deletion... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello All. I have written permission from Sajith Premadasa Media unit to use this image on Wikipedia, to clarify please contact them on spmediaunit@live.com. I would like to note the Lanka C news has violated copyrights, it originally a Sajith Premadasa media unit photograph and would like to know whether lanka c news has permission. I suppose you will replace this image. Thanks, Gishwi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gishwi 1020 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Gishwi, if you have a direct permission, get the authors to forward that to the relevant OTRS queue. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hype

Hey Sfan00, you tagged one of the Hype images for deletion. But that image isn't actually included on the page. Not sure where it is or how to find it. All the other images that received warnings, I amended with information about who they belong to. Any suggestions welcome. I am new to this Wikipedia stuff. Pnut10 (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

File:20091104 Alisa Weilerstein and Jason Yoder - Saint Saëns' The Swan.ogv

I don't understand what the issue is with File:20091104 Alisa Weilerstein and Jason Yoder - Saint Saëns' The Swan.ogv.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What about the featured tag?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Noted :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think that is a stray FSC tag. I thought it was an FS at first.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually understand what is wrong with user averettes pictures

User talk:Averette You nominated a bunch for speedy deletion. They are still there; did you withdraw it? Because I don't actually get what's wrong with them. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

File:LookUpInTheSky.JPG

Your rename suggestion is fine. It's only used in a couple of places, and the specific name is not all that important. Go ahead and do it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't actually make the page move myself... I don't have filemover Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I also posted my comment on the original nominator's page. If neither of you can do it, I reckon we'll let the bots handle it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

File mover user right

Is there a reason that you asked for the user right to be removed? Considering your recent work, I think it might just make sense for you to have it, instead of filling out all the requests and having someone else (me) doing the moves. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I resigned it because of community consensus Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. By the way, regarding a few of your rename suggestions, I never (or at least try to never) use any form of hyphen or dash in image names, because of... common sense impaired people... who run programs that haphazardly convert one form of dash into another, breaking the image links. Just letting you know that I'll replace any dashes you recommend with commas or spaces when I do the moves. Sven Manguard Wha? 11:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for doing all of this. A few people have known about that DBR and did nothing with it, myself included. This kinda forces us into motion to fix the problem. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You might also want to look over - Category:Files_with_short_filenames where I've also tried to make some rename suggestions. :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

About file deletion

Haven't checked my watchlist in awhile and I saw that the page Callejón (band) was deleted by Tbsdy lives. I helped translate that from the German Wikipedia. Do you remember why that page was deleted, and is there anything I could do to make the page better so that it may stay on Wikipedia? Lothp (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

As it was Tbsdy was that deleted it, I would suggest asking them directly. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The user Tbsdy lives no longer exists. That's why I came here. So then I take it that you have no idea then? Lothp (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If you feel it was deleted unreasonably, talk to an admin (i'm not one). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Created a new Article and requesting your feedback

Hi. Requesting feedback and advice on the Article I have created. I am a graphic novel enthusiast and am naturally happy about high quality graphic novels starting up in India. This article is about a particularly good and popular Indian graphic comic/novel and would appreciate feedback, suggestions and advice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Varunr/Level10_Comics Varunr (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Boule et Bill (comics).jpg

Hi. File:Boule et Bill (comics).jpg does not need splitting. See File:Birds Britannica.jpg. You can safely purge the history. Fleet Command (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Do you think I should make a {{Split media - processed}} template? Fleet Command (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the hope eventually is that {{Split media}} tagging can be automated to an extent Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The template is ready. See Template:Split media - processed/testcases to see its working in action. I have to leave documentation for a later time; I have to go now. Fleet Command (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

File renaming

Sorry about that, thought I had. Will be looking more closely from now one. Cloudbound (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Manly colours

Hi there, is there any reason why File:Manly colours.svg was moved to File:Manly Colors (1950-2007).svg. The reason wasn't apparent to us at the rugby league wikiproject (see here). Your input would be greatly appreciated. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

From the look of it, it was moved due to a possible name clash. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. From the file history, you requested the move. But File:Manly Colors (1950-2007).svg is a nonsensical title: Manly's colours were the same before that and after it. Now we have red links to File:Manly colours.svg across the project where we should have images (eg here). --Mkativerata (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've already put in a request for the template that might be breaking stuff to be fixed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, where is that? I ask because we're in a bit of a hurry: a bot has started to remove redlinks to the old file location. And I'm still unsure why the new file title is appropriate. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Leaugeicon}} was where the change needs to be made I think. The rename was because there were may have been two files called 'Manly Colors.svg' with different cases, and the aim of the rename was to make each name distinctive. If you say the colors

haven't changed then the images need to be renamed again to make it very clear what the respective versions are actually reffering to, The two images concerned, File:Manly Colors (1950-2007).svg and File:Manly Colors (2009-).svg are obviously different, yet presumably are intended to refer to the exact same club? 18:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

They're two very different clubs. But we can think of some different names. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you might want to check ceration other simmilar club insignia. In Manly's case one would appear to be union rather than

league? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thankfully I think Manly's the only club with both a league and a union club. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there -- just hold up with the re-naming on articles for the moment. We have another club - Wynnum-Manly -- whose colours you're changing. I'm doing an AWB run right now that should sort it. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Opps... I just noted that problem , you might want to check that clubs colors as well. Sorry :(

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I forgot about the other Manly myself. It would confuse anyone! --Mkativerata (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it . . .

i have no idea what this is all about in some of the graphics I have uploaded: { {Should be PNG} }. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It means exactly what it says, It says that the GIF files should be converted to PNG format. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it says that GIF files should NOT be converted to PNG! "Please do not convert this image directly to .PNG! This image has already lost its quality; conversion will not restore it." - but that a PNG original should be uploaded instead. What if the original is GIF/JPG? You've tagged File:YesAsia logo.gif with this tag, but the original on the commercial website (see link provided as source) is GIF, so can I remove the template? - – Fayenatic (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, now you've changed {{Should be PNG}} to {{Should be SVG}}, which says the information "could be stored more efficiently and/or accurately". Too bad; it's only 3KB, and if GIF is good enough for the owners of the original logo on the official website, it's all we are going to get from them. If we create own own scalable versions from the raster originals, won't they scale poorly?

Incidentally, if you are going to use Template:Should be SVG, I suggest that you should at least add the relevant parameter so that the image gets categorised more specifically e.g. Category:Logo images that should be in SVG format. – Fayenatic (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

If there's no PNG original, then feel free to remove the tag, but please leave a note on the description so it doesn't get tagged by someone else :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have an example for this note? Would a new template be useful? – Fayenatic (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A new template would be useful (mainly for conversion bots as opposed to human editors) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, but how would we make it detectable to bots? Include a new category? – Fayenatic (talk) 08:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I am unaware of any bots that use that tag. It is not something that bots should using, as it requires human judgement. By the way, to all involved parties, this is in no way a big deal. I personally don't like non-animated .gif files because they aren't very effective preservers of quality and don't scale well, but no one in their right mind is ever going to advocate a campaign to eliminate them or force convert them. If you don't like the template, remove it. It's not a big deal one way or the other though. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I removed it, and added a note in the "Other information" field stating, "There is no PNG or SVG original on the official website so there is no point tagging this page with {{Should be PNG}} or {{Should be SVG}}." That doesn't show up as well as a separate template stating the same thing, though. If human editors are likely to tag GIF logos, then a new "please don't bother" template might be useful. I've made Template:Good GIF. – Fayenatic (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused now... why are you adding those other templates to gif logos such as File:BDO Seidman logo.gif, File:Tenonlogo.gif and File:HLB logo1.gif? – Fayenatic (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel they could be better as SVG versions.. Most of them look like they are text logos anyway. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see... simple enough logos that image hobbyists could create a matching version using the shapes, colours and text. Unlike some other GIFs. Thanks for explaining. – Fayenatic (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Notes on your user page

Incidentally, are the "important" notes on your user page still required? They do not appear to be current. – Fayenatic (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The notes on my user page are still technically 'current', because they were added following an AN/ANI debate and a later RFC that hadn't been debated again to my knowledge. I can consider removing some of the points, but would prefer it if you sought community consensus first. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Renaming

Hi! I noticed you add rename requests to many files. Free files can be renamed when moved to Commons. But except for that I wanted to inform you of this notice Wikipedia_talk:File_mover#Where_was_the_discussion_for_this_edit. Perhaps you would like to comment. --MGA73 (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I prefer not to get involved in on-wiki politics. I only try to suggest better names, the ones I'd been tagging for rename had been duplicative filenames, or ones with short names that were not descriptive. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Noticeboard Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Giving_Sfan00_IMG_back_file_mover.3F. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion notification (moved from User page)

Just thought I'd let you know that you notified the wrong person when it came for the image being deleted. While its not my horse, I didn't particularly care, but I do feel that more due diligence could have been done on this. --Hourick (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback note (moved from user page)

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Rammer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PNG instead of GIF

Hello! Thanks for tagging File:You Get Me-1.gif as a candidate for PNG. However, exporting PNG with GIMP gives me a HUGE file to upload. What should i do? Thanks! --LABcrabs (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It depends what you use to capture it from the video; can you set the screen capture program to save directly as PNG? – Fayenatic (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't you have a plugin PNG optomiser for GIMP? If the data is photographic, you could also consider JPEG export as an option.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

200px|right

When is PNG better than JPG? I found this PNG File:Rethink Mental Illness logo 2011.png but it's smaller, and looks terrible when stretched:

No improvement on File:RethinkMentalIllnesslogo250 250.jpg. Should I delete it again?

(P.S. I know a fair use image can't stay here on a user page, the link is intended to be temporary.) – Fayenatic (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

In this instance it should perhaps be converted to SVG, which will scale. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Splitting images

We only need to split images if the files are usable... In this case I think that the file(s) should just be deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to nuke any that can't be rescued.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Same here... One file seems to be a copyvio. I'm just suggesting that you do not add the tag on all files with more than one file in history. Just pick the one where you think the hidden file(s) are ok. --MGA73 (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not a big deal one way or the other. Sfan00 certainly isn't breaking any rules, but for simple practicality, MGA73's approach is probably better. If the buried image is a copyvio, just ping an admin on IRC, and if not it's free but unusable, ignoring it is fine. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastily/FfD

Hi Sfan00 IMG. As you probably know, when nominating files for deletion at WP:FFD using twinkle, it occasionally fails to list the file. Because of this bug, I have set up a program to generate a list of files nominated for deletion without an associated nomination. A few of the files you nominated for deletion came up in the report, so I thought you might be interested in this list. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep. It got me too. TW is so much more useful now, but there are new kinks. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

County of London Plan 1943 book over

Because this is a book cover, I feel I'm on solid ground in using the fair use provision of US law (even though it's a British book), and I've used the standard Wikipedia statements for book covers.

You've suggested it might be PD. I don't really know. The front material refers to both London County Council and Macmillan Company. The word "copyright" does appear in the front matter, but the word appears by itself without referring to which entity actually holds the copyright.

In Canada, crown publications are *not* PD. Perhaps it's different in the UK?

At this point, I'm unsure how to proceed. Would using a PD template merely lead to objections from other people? If you feel a PD template is legally accurate, go ahead and change it. Canadian2006 (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

A UK governmental work would be 'British Crown Copyright' which is typically 50 years if the work was published commerically. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Image Names

I am highly confused as to why names for files like "File:Theband 103. 7 (KKSF) logo.jpg" and "File:WMRE-AM (Radio Stations) 2008 logo.png" are even remotely necessary when "Image:WMRE-AM 2008.png" works just fine, but it needs to come to a halt. Creating unnecesarily long image names is beyond pointless, it is borderline disruptive. I suggest you take this whole thing to ANI for comment since you seem to be doing this on a wide scale, which would require consensus. Until then, please cease all image renaming until then. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In BOTH instances , the renames were due to 'duplicative' filename clashes. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why this is 'borderline disruptive' behaviour. It's file renaming, and while some of the renames may be slightly pointless, it's not creating any problems for anyone (that I can see). NH, would you mind explaining why this behaviour is, in your view, disruptive? Who is it affecting? The Cavalry (Message me) 11:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There is in fact a serious problem with the items on the largely duplicate file names list, in that it is easy to get a file you weren't looking for just by messing up on the capitalization. The LDFNs come down to two types of instance. One is where there are two files with names like Exampleimage.jpg and ExampleImage.jpg, the other type is where you have Exampleimage.jpg and Exampleimage.JPG. If you're having a hard time trying to spot the differences, imagine how problematic it is for users to type in the name of a file they just uploaded, not transfer the capitalization properly, and have a totally unrelated image come up. A while back, I proposed that the tech team patch the issue, at least for future uploads, and it achieved consensus but the Bugzilla was left to rot. By virtue of the consensus that this situation was in fact a issue of concern, the LDFN list became an actionable task for file movers. As far as I am concerned, SFan 00 is in the clear here. Sven Manguard Wha? 11:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't say that. It is very difficult to get anything other than WMRE's page when you link to "Image:WMRE-AM 2008.png". I know, I uploaded that image. I make sure all my images have very discriptive image names. The logo in this case is for WMRE-AM from 2008. I don't need three extra words and some parentheses to show that. I don't know about other images, but those are fine. The reason it is disruptive is you have image titles that are insanely long and don't really add any new information to the image. It is unnecessary to create an image title that large when only a word or two does the job quite well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see what you're getting so worked up about. It dosen't hurt anything on your end, in fact it has absolutely no effect on anything on your end, but it solves an issue on our end, one you were unaware of. Whether you like the new name or not, it still works. If we knock of the entire LDFN backlog, I can go back to the developers and make a much stronger case for the fix that would prevent LDFNs from forming again in the first place, which would solve a major persistent headache which, whether you have experienced or not, has been complained about by new users before. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I know about the misnamed images. They are a pain in the ass, trust me, I know. But my main concern is the renaming of images that don't require it. Essentially, creating more work that actually necessary. The WMRE image didn't renamed since there isn't a group called "WMRE" and the image name was faily discriptive. I am just concerned that images are being renamed that don't require it. Yeah, I can understand renaming "DSC 0001.png" or "SomePictureIFoundOnFlickr.jpg", but some don't require renaming. Less work for you, less crap I have to keep an eye on, less headache for all. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sfaan, please stop renaming images with the 'rename request' template until we've got this sorted out. You're just creating a massive backlog at the moment, and it's painfully obvious that you're disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What then, do we do about File:OperationThunderbolt.jpg and File:Operationthunderbolt.JPG? They are two different, validly titled images, which are distinguished from one another only by capitalization. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Because of the issues above, I'd reverted back to a mechanism whereby the renames got reviewed. If you think there is suitable consensus, then I can start clearing the backlog straight away. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, if a file is in the list of LDFN, it does not need to be tagged for renaming, because that's what the entire list is for. DS (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The recent batch were 'short' filenames as opposed to LDFN for the most part :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I get rather annoyed when people who don't work in files, and therefore are unaware of what we do, why we do it, and how we work, come in and start saying that the things we're doing are in some way 'wrong' or are 'disruptive'. I consider myself largely uninformed about, say, templates. Therefore I don't go to the talk pages of template workers and tell them that they are working on problems that don't exist, or that they're being disruptive, because short of obvious vandalism, I really wouldn't know if those statements are true or not. By that logic, you should not go to Sfan's page and say that his work is 'disruptive'. What's he done? He's moved a bunch of files and filled up a couple of backlogs. He's going to clear out those backlogs himself later on, and the issues he tagged were actionable anyways, so why is this a problem? How is he being POINTy? I'm not telling you all to leave us alone, but I am saying that the only person in this thread, other than Sfan and I, that I've ever seen spending time in files is Dragonfly. Not surprisingly, the only person who's offered what I consider an informed opinion on this affair also happens to be... Dragonfly (who is correct that Sfan probably should go straight to the rename, bypassing the template tagging, if an item is on the LDFN list). Please let us do our jobs. If you can point to something that Sfan has done that has caused harm to the encyclopedia, then we have something that we should discuss, but until then, you're micromanaging a situation that you really don't have the credentials to micromanage. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

re images of User:LessHeard vanU

Please do not do this, or similar again without either checking the edit history or having the courtesy of informing the editor of your intentions. I specifically made a local copy of the image so that I might use it on my talkpage without reference to any changes or amendments that editors may make to the original, and per WP:TPOC I am entitled to do so. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Noted :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

File:IMG 6410.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:IMG 6410.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:IMG 6410.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:IMG 6403.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:IMG 6403.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:IMG 6403.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Zoon.jpg listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:Zoon.jpg. Since you had some involvement with the File:Zoon.jpg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Zoom!.jpg listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:Zoom!.jpg. Since you had some involvement with the File:Zoom!.jpg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT2409.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT2409.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT2409.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT2439.jpg listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT2439.jpg. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT2439.jpg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT2454.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT2454.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT2454.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT2532.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT2532.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT2532.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT2556.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT2556.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT2556.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT2562.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT2562.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT2562.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT4638.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT4638.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT4638.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT2479.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT2479.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT2479.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT3124.jpg listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT3124.jpg. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT3124.jpg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT3339.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT3339.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT3339.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT3343.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT3343.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT3343.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This is to say thankyou. Your image renaming work may ruffle a few feathers occasionally, but it's important work, and I don't want you to stop just because you make an occasional mistake or because people occasionally complain. Keep up the good work. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you check over the redirects for disscussion stuff? I am using RfD because there isn't a suitable CSD, for 'R4 Retitle from procedural name, where relevant usage updated.' Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT3367.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT3367.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT3367.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT3750small.jpg listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT3750small.jpg. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT3750small.jpg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT3462.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT3462.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT3462.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT3447.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT3447.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT3447.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:PICT3902.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:PICT3902.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:PICT3902.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)