User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 3

See also: User talk:ShakespeareFan00 See also: User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive See also: User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 2

undo contribution

I edited a page and got a very bad rank (diff) (hist) . . Silvio Rodríguez‎; 18:34 . . (-3,868) . . Franklin.vp (talk | contribs) (→Discography)

I have been trying to undo it but I still got it wrong. How can I undo that?

Dear User Sfan00,

i've just noticed that you marked my recently uploaded picture "File:Bild4.png" for speedy deletion even though the Copyright holder "Interroll production center" gives permission to use this picture under licence terms of "fair use". You also advised me, if i have the copyright permission i may add a tag to certify this to release that picture from speedy deletion. However, how can I add that tag or remove your "speedy-deletion tag"?

If any question, please let me know. Thx and appreciation for your help and quick response

Stawa (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

hi

Hi! Noticed you were concerned about the images I just added to my page. I have had the artist directly email permissions at Wikipedia but I am new at this, is there anything else you'd like to have me do? Thanks so much! Sarahstern (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

about Sm_pg09suki.jpg‎

cause i allow it...cause this man contribute to orang asli and fight for Orang asli land( aboriginal People of Malaysia )..More information on this website ( http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?file=/2008/9/28/lifefocus/2075609&sec=lifefocus ), (http://www.perakspeak.com/content/view/55/38/) , (http://www.coac.org.my/codenavia/portals/coacv2/code/main/main_art.php?parentID=11374493258660&artID=12263647690297) and (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXlFAuokyvg) ,(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG6RAXjDwFs&feature=PlayList&p=777C4B524D32A743&index=0)

Re: File:Intim Kabaré Poster.JPG

The image is from a photo of a poster found at a flea market in Hungary. I don't know the guy I bought it from. The organization who produced the poster (i.e. Intim Kabaré) is long defunct and I have been unable to find information about them. I believe that the entity that produced the poster has not existed since the mid-1940s. Please advise the best way to cite this document. You also suggested that I reduce the size. As the print is so small and the resolution is so low already, the relevant part of the document which mentions Miklós Vig would no longer be visible. Please advise what you suggest would be an appropriate reduction in this circumstance. Thanks -- Ambanmba (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hey, those 3 Images I uploaded that you posted about on my page are all owned by me.

I'm kind of new to this so I'm not sure how to edit their copyright info to say that.

Thanks --Baldeadly (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Re: St.Johns.jpg

This image was scanned from an old postcard given to me by my mother. I grew up in the Parish of St. John Newland you see. As I'm obviously not the originator of the photograph, and any original citation has long been rubbed away from the reverse of the postcard I'm not sure who or what to attribute the image. - sugarfish (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dublin Castle Explosion.jpg

I have no idea of the details, all I know is that it was first published in February, 1894. More details will be available if/when it migrates from Distributed Proofreaders to Project Gutenberg. -- Jim Regan (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: image question

I've told you before - no UK legislation is enforceable in the US. End of. Unless, of course, you mean American bylaws, which are normally called regulations or ordinances. That is something you'd probably have to speak to an American lawyer about, but given that such legislation is entirely local it doesn't matter unless it is a Floridian regulation/ordinance. Ironholds (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you link me to the particular one? Ironholds (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Bylaws, if they are bylaws rather than internal museum rules, would only be enforceable for New England at most (probably just the town/city, really). This might be a problem for the photographer, but not for us. Ironholds (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Explain rename tag?

You put a rename tag on the Ju 388 image. The image is of a "Ju 388L-1", which is the name of the file. What's the problem? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Easier to upload to WP

Hi SF- In response to your comment, the reason I don't upload photos to Commons is that I work exclusively in English WP and the "Upload File" button on the left sends me to the WP upload page. If I were to upload to commons, it would add about 5 steps. The vast majority of my pix are of interest to only folks in WP; for those few who want my images in Commons, they can upload them with my blessings. Thanks, Bill Whittaker (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Highway signs

To my knowledge, they are public domain in the United States as well as in Canada. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 17:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Galactus Edit War Mediation

Hi. I'm trying to mediate an edit war over the Galactus article here. Can you chime in with your two cents? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

78 record labels

For any and all of the old 78 record labels I uploaded, the source is exactly per the description. Unless I specifically stated otherwise (I don't believe there are any such cases), they were taken directly from the source as described, scanned by me from originals in my own collection. Hope this helps. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• If you didn't know, most of these were uploaded here to en:Wikipedia back before there was a Commons. (Also before Wikipedia had the thumb nail function, otherwise I would have uploaded them at higher resolution.) Looking back, I see that a number of them that were tagged "fair use" qualify as PD-US-no notice (which IIRC didn't seem to be observed on Wikipedia at the time for some reason). I don't recall everything I uploaded on Wikipedia years ago. Updating a lot of such old uploads the info should be fairly obvious, but feel free to ask if there are any where there are relevent questions I might answer. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

FreeSrpska Images

While I do have backup of my 2003 emails, I don't exactly know where it is, so it would be difficult for me to forward them to the OTRS. Note that the permission page actually has entire e-mail source so I don't think this is actually needed.

Anyway, I am not thinking that some of the images were used on the website itself under fair use and so they should be individually checked. See f.e. [1]. Nikola (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:KingdomofJerusalem.png

File Copyright problem

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

/* File:RuffedGrouse23.jpg missing description details */

To the best of my memory, there was no author information on the image in question on the Seney web site at the time that I uploaded it. So, if I had supplied author information, it would have been "unknown". The site at http:www.fws.gov/midwest/Seney/ has been reorganized since that time and the image in question is no longer present as far as I can tell. --Big_iron (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Schomburg.pdf

In regards to this, if you actually look at the PDF, you'll see it's the text from an email. I can't imagine any reason to keep it here, let alone at Commons. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Transferring to Wikimedia a bad idea

SF- After having trouble with images I have uploaded, I am coming to the conclusion that transfering material to Wikimedia is a bad idea. Beyond the obvious question as to why material is being transferred to Wikimedia from Wikipedia when this material is never used in anything other than Wikipedia, I've encountered trouble with people logged into Wikimedia who have deleted images withwout contacting the original uploader. the wortst case with the popular giant ground sloth photo, which was on about 10 wikipedia pages. Once it was transferred to Wikimedia, an editor there deleted it under a spurrious copyright claim that I could have easily addressed if I had known about it. In addition, information is often removed from the files that is relevant, such as the tracing of the 1810 map of Fort Madison. While the original drawing was public domain, I was happy to donate my labors cleaning it up pro bono, but when it was transferred to Wikimedia a credit for my work was stripped off, and only the editor who pushed the button to transfer the image was given credit.

I know that you are a big fan of uplading directly to Wikimedia, however this type of upload takes a great deal longer for people who work exclusively in Wikipedia, and still leaves the tracking issues as problems. I'm starting to realize that many of the manipulations of images that well-meaning folks such as yourself causes far more trouble than it is worth. You transfer to wikimedia to make it easier for other projects to use the images, however, no one in Wikimedia, as far as I can tell, ever uses my images for anything other than Wikipedia.

I was a prolific contributor of images to Wikipedia, but I am giving it up, and limiting my edits to just a few core articles. After wasiting too much time dealing with image issues, and having to fight off really stupid copyright claims that border on vandalism (such as one moron who thought that my photo of a post office was a violation of copyright laws), I've had enough. I'm asking you to stop being part of the problem, and until these issues are resolved, to stop moving files around. If someone has a specific desire for an image that is in Wikipedia for another Wikimedia project that is one thing, but wholesale shifting if files is counterproductive.

Thank you, Bill Whittaker (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Commons

Dear Sfan and DS- Thanks for the responses. I understand Commons full well, and the reasons people give for transferring files to it. What I object to is the different ways commons files are treated; especially the deletion without notification. In WP it is pro-forma that if a file is proposed for deletion the original contributor is informed and can at least have a chance at salvaging it. This has happened a few times, mostly to images of no consequence, but the one incident that pushed me over the edge was the deletion of Giant_ground_sloth_Iowa.JPG This image was used on about 10 Wikipedia pages, including Mammals, sloth, Geology of Iowa, Iowa Museum of Natural History, and several Pleistocene pages. Wikimedia User:FunkMonk deleted it because he felt it did not have adequate copyright release. If he had bothered to inform me of this decision, it would have been a very easy thing for me to fix- I work closely with the museum that owns the model in question, and their directors were happy to see the image on line. However, I did not hear about this until after it had been deleted from every Wikipedia page. Compounding my frustration was a number of spurious copyright challenges on Wikipedia, the most annoying of which was Robert Longo Sleep 84.jpg (you can read that debate for yourself). In looking at similar images that were not so tagged, it has become clear to me that there is no consistent application of copyright. Another big problem is that any editor can nominate any image for deletion for any reason, and the burden is placed on the contributor to defend the image, and if no defense is given, the image is deleted. While most claims of copyright problems are in good faith, I began to feel that for some claiming a copyright violation is a very effective form of vandalism. Defending an image from a copyright claim takes a lot of work, more work than it took to create and upload the image. With my frustrations mounting, I decided to get out of the game. There a several articles that I still keep tabs on and want to improve, but my days of uploading images are over. Thank you, Bill Whittaker (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks, I've calmed down. Appreciate your help. Bill Whittaker (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Iowa Barnstar
		For supporting Rusty the Sloth, Iowa's most famous citizen, I hereby award you the Iowa Barnstar. Bill Whittaker (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Files and Unknown Information

If you unaware of information relating to a File, such as the source of the file. Do not fill this information like you have at File:Electronic Amplifier Class C.png due to this being possibly being incorrect. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 01:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said adding the {{Information}} box was the issue, i said adding information to the description of the image such as "Uploader?" to the source of image can cause issues because we are unaware if that file is by the author and not just some other site that released the file within the GFDL License. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 10:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Kingsnorth-12may44.jpg missing description details

Well I only uploaded that file 2 YEARS AGO, and when I uploaded it i put "Source: Royal Ordinance Survey", so what exactly do you require for "Author Information", as that wasn't a part of the form when I uploaded the file?

Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Council Bluff Photo

Sorry, I forgot that you requested the original version of the Council Bluffs photo, here it is: Council Bluffs Iowa II.jpg. Thanks for your help, Bill Whittaker (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you tagged all of my images with Template:non-free reduce

I've seen many SVG logos, take this File:Coca-Cola logo.svg for example, or this File:Yahoo Logo.svg, and this File:YouTube logo.svg. I can find many more popular articles logos that isn't tagged with this template Template:non-free reduce.But why, and why do you tag most of my images with that thing ? Do you think it is easy to make or convert or compress or upload them (SVG images)? Why do you tagged this file File:Brighton & Hove Albion FC.svg, and this File:Thurrock FC.svg and most of the other images that I've uploaded? I've been uploading images since last year, but why now must it be tagged? And why don't you tag the three files mentioned (Coca-cola etc) and many others. Tagging is a very easy job huh? Why won't you them by yourself, or contribute? If it is wrong, why won't the bots or the admin be bothered to tag them? Can you tell me thoroughly what is the meaning of hi-resolution ? Did the rules told you that 300x300 or 400x400, 500x500, 600x600, 700x700 are hi-res ? I haven't heard of it before. I think the one that should be tagged is 1000x1000 above. You're being bias to me, why don't you reduce their size by yourself huh? I want explanation. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 16:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

SVG image is scalable, I don't think that there is much difference by resizing it. I agree if you tagged the rasters, but its a different story for the SVGs. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 11:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ya, I will try my best to do it in 400x400 range from now onwards and yeah, I will try to take a look at the rasters. will try to convert them if it is possible. (: Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 11:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Image License

Hi Sfan00,

The image I uploaded is an image we created with the artists' permission that is licensed by the copyright holder using the Creative Commons wizard at http://creativecommons.org/license/ under practically every type of license available. Despite all the various versions we've licensed and uploaded, someone keeps telling us that it's not good enough. You gave me a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COPYREQ, but that page merely tells me what permissions Wikipedia needs and suggests what I should tell the copyright holder when asking for permission. We are the copyright holder and we created the image and we have licensed the image and we stated that on the image's permission page and even pasted the code given to us through the Creative Commons wizard. We included a link to the original location of the image on the website for the artist depicted in the image, which demonstrates where the original is located.

Can't someone tell me the email address to email and/or just tell me what I'm not doing that's correct. These 10,000 word essays that explain everything under the sun (except what I need to know) just make it more frustrating. I would appreciate a simple answer to a simple question. Thanks. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

File:PokerTracker screen print.jpg

I saw your tag on File:PokerTracker screen print.jpg. At a reduced size, it is not legible. Can I remove the tag for this reason.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Same for File:PokerTracker 3 profit graph.jpg and File:PT3 HUD.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

File:NOT-PLOT highlight.jpg

You tagged this image with the non-free reduce template, I've removed it since it is a free image, released under the GFDL license - like most Wikipedia text. Guest9999 (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Canadian geese and goslings in GGP edit1.jpg

Hi, Sfan00 IMG. Thank you for the message you left at my talk page. May I please ask you do not add templete move to commons to File:Canadian geese and goslings in GGP edit1.jpg after I will remove it once agai?. As I explained in my edit summary while removing it for the first time there is the same file on Commons already: File:Canadian geese and goslings in GGP.jpg. The file you are talking about is a very slight edit of the original. It was done because I nominated the original to FP and somebody complained about vignetting. As soon as the nomination is clossed, this edit will be deleted. Surely Commons do not need to keep two the same files.Thank you--Mbz1 (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Centpacrr

Whoa... you might not want to spam so many notices, epecially for images like File:CPRR & UPRR Display Ads May 1869.jpg that are clearly in the public domain (published in 1869). --NE2 17:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

File:WikipediaBinary.svg missing description details

You templated me regarding missing information for this image. I did not upload this image as you claim, I merely modified it. I can give no information on the source, but appears to be self-created by the original uploader, Dreftymac whom I suggest you contact instead. SpinningSpark 12:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture of iconoscope patent diagram

Hi, I'd like to use this picture in the German Wikipedia. You mention here that there might be some rights issue with the image (although it is public domain as all patents). What is the status on this topic? Could you please inform me once the image is GFDL-usable, and could you maybe make it available on the German Wikipedia. --Dogbert66 (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Analogtv-digitaltv.png

Question. I noticed that you had File:Analogtv-digitaltv.png listed as possibly too large for fair use. It is a reduced image file, but I would be happy to reduce it further if you think that would still work. The point of the file is that as analog TV signals get grainy and almost unwatchable, digital signals stay exactly the same, so it is helpful to show some detail - for example in the analog version you can't even tell there is a trumpet in the image, while it is as plain as day in the digital version. 2ndAmendment (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Norwoodmunicipal.jpg missing description details

You write:

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

I guess I'm not sure what more needs to be added beyond the existing description, "Norwood, MA: Norwood Memorial Municipal Building, 2002." The time, the place, and the item depicted are all there. And that's the correct official name of the building.Dpbsmith (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Following me

Hi. Thanx for your post about the Hidden Mickey. I then looked at your contribs and noticed you investigating and/or picking on a bunch of items I've worked on in the past...any particular reason? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia

Can't understand your multiple edits tagging images for moving to Wikimedia. Can't you do some useful editing instead of this pointless tagging? --Phil Holmes (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Replaceable fair use Image:Collecting_shark_teeth_in_the_feild.jpg

Thanks for the notice. The image is replaceable, so I have no objection to its deletion. I'll be going to a fossil site on July 15-17, so I'll certainly take some equivalent pictures and upload them under a free license. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 14:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Western Jin family tree.jpg

Hello, Where shall I add the information? Ktsquare (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Danu (Asura)

Wikis are, by definition, never good enough to constitute a reliable source. Although the information may be accurate, there is also a chance it may be inaccurate (owing to vandalism, false information, or perhaps even an honest mistake). Furthermore, the link doesn't seem to show that the river is there at all: it merely leads me to an unmarked map of the globe. Sourcing from high quality geographical or topological surveys would be much preferred over real-time user editable content. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 11:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright & fair-use rationale of SVGified logo

You are invited to participate in an interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#File:Man Utd FC .svg. Your comments & suggestions are very much appreciated Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 21:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_June_22

OK So the lack of a discussion means if it on PUI it goes?  :(

Some images were there because I was unsure, but thought they could be salvaged, by asking the uploaders to comment. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, per the instructions at WP:PUF#Instructions: "If no objection to the image's deletion is raised, or no proof that the image is indeed free is provided, the image may be deleted without further notice after the 14-day period". Normally, images on Wikipedia are presumed to be free, but when a user raises an objection or query, the burden of proof falls back on the uploader to prove that it is free. You did the right thing; if the uploader or someone else finds proof later, the image can be restored. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Haile selassie.jpg

I'm not sure why you tagged this for going to Commons, the uploader's claim is fairly clearly fraudulent. There's enough rubbish on Commons already without us sending our copyvios over there. J Milburn (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, you're doing it again. We have bullshit claims on File:Sir Nicholas Attygalle.jpg and File:Mahakali Matha.jpg, but you're still tagging them to go to Commons. I don't personally consider the Commons tagging particularly useful to begin with- it's not really an urgent issue, if you want it done, you should do it yourself; but when you're tagging such blatantly fraudulent images, you're really damaging the project. Yes, we all make mistakes, but maybe you should find something at which you're a little better. J Milburn (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Dalai-mao-oct13-1954.jpg, et. al

You have placed the tag "Source information should be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others." Is there any further need for verification? Under PRC law, anything before 1959 is PD. The Dalai Lama was exiled in 1959 - how could he still be present in the PRC and meet with Mao if the image was created after the PD date of 1959? By common sense, he would have been shot. Thus, by argument of common sense, it should be fairly obvious that these images could not have been created after 1959. The source websites also give the dates 1954 and 1955 (depending on which image); also note that Mao and the Dalai only met in those two years. Anything else would be impossible. Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

RE:Fair-use rationale

I have added the fair-use rationale as you have requested. - Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 15:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Osteoconduction, etc...

The citation, as posted in the article text -- I will place it into the caption as well. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Warwick Castle Queen

No, not sure there's an easy way to find out. Spiderone (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Morton (1764–1838).jpg

Hi, you have listed the image above at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. I have seen there that you had added the comment "Reffered to PUI because of the issue over NPG images at Commons" to another image, so I wonder whether I have missed something. Were there any problems related to images originating from the NPG recently?

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 00:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

They sent some legal complaint to a user over their lack of Bridgeman vs. Corel Sweat of the Brow database rights infringement xd lol stuff. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 12:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

File:JoeMabel1.jpg

You put a note on my user talk page saying that I do not indicate authorship of File:JoeMabel1.jpg. It is overtly described as a self-portrait. What else do I need to add? I've now linked my name to my user page, if that's any clearer. - Jmabel | Talk 04:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I also note that you suggest moving it to Commons. Are self-portraits of Wikipedians in scope for Commons? I uploaded it here precisely so that I can use it on my user page (and licensed it under GFDL as a necessity for doing so). - Jmabel | Talk 04:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page that I should start a discussion in an appropriate forum. I did so at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Permissions on old images but now see that there is already quite a discussion going at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#Sfan00 IMG's script assisted bulk PROD'ding of old pictures. - Jmabel | Talk 18:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

File:BattleofCrecyEngraving.jpg

The source of File:BattleofCrecyEngraving.jpg seemed to be to have been indicated. I'm not sure of the point of your tagging it as sourceless. What is the problem? Wondering, -- Infrogmation (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Why can not I add [2] to the Steaua new equipment? Sorry about my expressing, English is not my native language. jjmihai 08:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Old images by Infrogmation

Hi. I left a note on User talk:Infrogmation. Thanks for your efforts to clean things up. However I'm sometimes not sure how to respond to a question like "which postcard" for File:PhilaTownHall.jpg; I feel like just pointing to the image and saying "that one right there". When I don't indicate some other source, the reason is generally because there is no other source. I scanned directly from originals. (In fact in the early years of Wikipedia I always made sure to only scan from pre-1923 printings; I didn't know at first that later printings of existing old works didn't generate a fresh copyright.) (Also in the early years of Wikipedia, there was no "thumbnail" function, which is why images from that era are sized for how they should be in the article -- I wish I'd been allowed to upload the full sized version of stuff I was scanning back then!) Most of my older Wikipedia images were such scans of originals by me. When you're adding templates to older Wikipedia images by me, those with no other info that look like that's what they are, I believe you'll be safe in assuming that's indeed what they are. Feel free to ask me whenever there's any serious question about something. However a lot of them I think you can easily figure out from the description and looking at the image. As to "author" field, it was very rare for the photographer to ever be named on postcards of that period. Thanks again. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Big-Brother-Front-Door.jpg

You were wrong. I was there and did take the picture. [3] Maybe you should ask people for this infomation before prematurely nominating files for deletion in future. DJ 20:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Malays5.jpg

Replied on its talk page; added statement that I created the image file. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagging out of hand

Are you using some kind of bot to search for old images and propose them for deletion? Whatever it is, it would appear to be acting mechanically and ignoring context: tagging seventeenth and nineteenth century images as "missing sources", for instance. Especially if they're four to five years old, as all of the ones I've recently received template notices about are, it may be difficult to recall the exact sources. All of them were fairly obviously public domain images when they were uploaded.

More importantly, I would hate to see the valid contributions of infrequent or former editors deleted because some bot or algorithm went sniffing for deletions to propose. I see that you've been bulk adding proposed deletions to maps of Wales made from a Commons map; and that's only going by your most recent contributions.

Whatever it is, you may want to turn it off. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: File source problem with File:SIRTF firstlight.jpg

I'm not sure how to correctly cite the source, so I put in the discusison page on File:SIRTF firstlight.jpg and here that here's another version of the image and here's a press release related to the image. --zandperl (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

UK images in the public domain

Please stop nominating reproductions of UK images in the public domain at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. I know about the legal threats from the UK National Portrait Gallery, but foundation policy, and consequently Commons policy has not changed (for example, see: Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag). The situation is messy enough as it is. It doesn't help for there to be a ton of deletion nominations on en.wikipedia or Commons. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagging self-made images for deletion

Why have you just tagged a load of self-made images for deletion? Specifically, the area maps for South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire? I can see no logical reason for it and so have reverted your edits to these pages and images. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 05:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 11:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Pics

Umm. retard..

I made the pics, and licensed them GFDL or public domain.

Delete them if you don't like them.

Just don't go around deleting shit for no reason. You're ruining Wikipedia. Tristanb (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sfan, anyone who starts off a discussion with "retard" I think can be safely ignored. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Bulk PROD'ding of old uploads

I've started a thread concerning your bulk tagging of images for deletion at the Content Noticeboard. You may wish to weigh in there. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Eli whitney illustration.3.jpg

You marked this as not having source information but it is there and has been since 2003, in two places no less. Please look closer next time. Lorax (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Re File:Liliuokalani.jpeg

I'm not following you. Why are you tagging this image? It's not copyright and the comment log of the original uploader clearly states, "19th century photograph". The tag you keep adding says, "This image or media has no source information. Source information must be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others." We already know the copyright status. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: HotU links

Just read you post on my talk page. To be honest, I don't remember having removed them in the first place. A link to one of the articles I removed them from might refresh my memory. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Chawton. Thank you. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 15:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

speedy deletion question

Just wondering why you want to delete the Charles Grapewin image? Thanks!DavidOaks (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have thorough citation,[4] but maybe I'm misunderstanding you about something...DavidOaks (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

OTRS permissions

People do not have to send permission for self-made images to OTRS. Such requests just pointlessly clog the permissions queues and waste volunteer time. Please do not tell people to send permissions for self-made images to OTRS. Mr.Z-man 17:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Another speedy deletion question

Hello there, the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spiriting_397x400.JPG is used with my permission (I'm the artist in question) but I have no idea how to add a fair use or whatever tag to an image someone else has uploaded. I can of course upload another image myself if that is a better idea. Best regards, MMN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxMagnus (talk • contribs) 10:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Klippan sofa

Regarding the File:KlippanSofa.jpg, I reverted my (new) sofa image to the original one. Perhaps you want to delete the copyright-in-question template now ? Thanks for bringing the (potential) problem to my attention, I am fully aware of it. You may also want to delete my uploaded versions now (I agree). --Wikinaut (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: File source problem with File:Hart of london 1.jpg

I'm using the usual fair use rationale that is used for dozens (perhaps hundreds) of images for art. The image is being used to illustrate the text in the article and is fully valid per fair use. freshacconci talktalk 16:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

re: JamesHiggins.jpg

I've provided information about the 1908 photo. It was created by the State of Rhode Island in the annual directory of government officials. It predates the 1923 U.S. Copyright cutoff. Innapoy (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I Don't knw what more I can say. I got the 1908 RI State directory from the University of Rhode Island Library that houses the Rhode Island State Publications. I scanned the image from the original and uploaded it as a jpg file. I cannot see how anybody could be legitimately laying claim to the state archives. Innapoy (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Erodeimages.jpg

Now you're getting a little too soft. There's a bit more of a license to come down hard on new images, and this one clearly doesn't have a source. J Milburn (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Fulla in box.jpg

If you were unhappy about this image being on Commons, why did you transfer it there on 10 August 2008? It seems that your capacity for bizarre decisions remains as strong as ever.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons:File:Greendsandpiper.jpg

Not quite sure what info had been lost here, but I've reiterated that it's my photo and put an approx date. No idea where I took it, long time ago now. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons:File:Bolan Bust.jpg

Nothing important was lost in this transfer

CommonsLFile:P0055av Ring.jpg

Hi, Could you leave a note on this image, to confirm it's status?

With recent events, It would be nice to be sure :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What is this? And why did you place this on my talk page? Modernist (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Done...it is an ok image - no problem, thanks...Modernist (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if you need anything else besides the note I left...Modernist (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons file move

It appears that the Commons:File:La Toma,O ateStatue,byHouser.JPG needs to be moved to Commons:File:La Toma,OñateStatue,byHouser.JPG

The spanish character ñ was omitted.

I added the annotation about the work being created entirely by myself. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

On the photograph of Ms Mirzadegi

I am not responsible if Ms Mirzadegi has failed to write to Wikipedia. My memory may be failing, however I do remember that at the time no one objected for the photograph to remain on Wikepedia. In any case, the contact details are there and someone should undertake to send a note to her and remind her that she should send an e-mail to Wikipedia regarding that photograph. Kind regards, --BF 02:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC).

Your messages

Hi, you sent me 26 identical messages within 12 hours in spite of my request not to do so. Is this really necessary? I'm on holiday right now and I can't be bothered to check all those images. Well, thanks anyway, and all the best, <KF> 13:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Your regular nominations to delete images...

Please stop flagging images for deletion. I have now found several instances where you have flagged images and nominated them for speedy deletion when they have clearly stated their public domain status or have been uploaded and released by the author. You have ignored said notices and therefore I have had to remove not only the flag you placed in the image, but also in the attached articles that mention a pending deletion.

I understand that this may be something of a personal campaign for you, but I ask that you find something more constructive to do, such as adding, rather than deleting content.--74.209.22.144 (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please stop; you are deleting appropriate content on a mass basis. It's led to another AN/I, because it is highly destructive. --Elvey (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominations to delete images (another plea from another Wikipedian)

I agree 100% with the previous poster's sentiments. Please stop flagging images for deletion without a good reason. The images in question have been uploaded and any copyright has been released by the author. What is exactly is the problem with them? It's not like the images are irrelevant to the topic, or offensive, low-quality or even illegal. The existence of those images on Wikipedia is perfectly legitimate and there is no good argument for deletion.

How about finding something more constructive to do with your time. Instead of destroying information, why not add some? Deleting content is fine, so long as there's a good reason for it. However, you provide no good reason or justification.

Nabokov (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Added the source of image

Per your request, added this image was created and owned by Turbulence1996, but can be used for public for free. I noticed you added "This image or media has no source information. Source information must be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others. Unless the copyright status is provided and a source is given, the image will be deleted after Saturday, 1 August 2009. Please remove this template if source information is provided. " I don't know how to remove the "delete" notice you added. Please remove the delete warning created by you instantly.

--Never mind, I found the code you added "{{"di-no source|date=25 July 2009"}}". Now I know how to add this code to other images without source information! Turbulence1996 (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Images

My talk page is being flooded with image related stuff. You're like a bot! There are lots of images that I wish to delete because the Wikipedia articles have evolved and the images have been replaced by better ones. What's the easiest way I can do this as a non-admin? Francium12 (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is my response to all those lovely image templates on my talk page. What should I do re the Hull image. AFIAK the image is surely public domain as it was drawn c1600. The creator is long dead

• File:ColdWarmontage.jpg - I have no idea where the images in the montage came from, the clique that control the Cold War article didn't want it and reverted some fairly decent edits to article - DELETE
• File:Poor relief.GIF - I have just got the article English Poor Laws up to GA status so would rather not be lectured about academic courtesy. But, I have in fact thrown away the source of the statistics making the image useless. The gist of the image is covered in the text of the article - DELETE
• File:MapofUniversityofBristol.JPG - Much better maps can be found on Open Street View -DELETE
• File:Tartlogo.JPG - I cannot prove I own the image can I? I could change the rationale to logo? KEEP
• File:Hull1.jpg - A copyright claim is made here (http://www.workhouses.org.uk/index.html?Hull/Hull.shtml) Quite how you can copyright an image made in 1600 and something is beyond me? The creator is long dead! UNSURE
• File:Book of murder.gif - public domain - KEEP

Francium12 (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons

Sure thing, let me make sure I still have a working login there. I have been forgetting to tag them "commons ok" where the bot moves them.

July 2009

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages (notably User talk:Geni) to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence a discussion. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 23:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as I've noted on your talk page, I was bringing the individual notified into the discussion so that their somewhat 'extreme' view could be challenged. Not that it matters Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Pune FC

Hi, can u pls let me know the exact kind of details u require whilst transferring these files in to commons? Thanks. Shovon (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

RE:File:James Prescott Joule gravestone.JPG missing description details

hey,i am a real wikipedia rookie. I tried adding this file to commons but apparently i failed. Can you help me out? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glaukon (talk • contribs) 19:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You're back...

...on ANI. Elvey has resurrected the thread here. J Milburn (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Los Generales, Ft Bliss 1913.jpg

Its already in Commons, as of to-day(2 August).--Lyricmac (talk) 05:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged it as a F8 (duplicate) of commons:File:File-Los Generales, Ft Bliss 1913.jpg, since it has a slightly different filename. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 08:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Viau Bridge.jpg

I've inserted the missing information for this file's transfer to Commons. Do you wish to transfer File:Lachapelle Bridge.jpg as well? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Tute deck twoplayergame.jpg

Well, that depends on what you want to use it for, I made that picture just for Wikipedia but if you wanna give it another use like commons go ahead.

Photos Of Groudle Glen Railway / Manx Electric Railway

Hi, I see that you've commented on my photos added to the above. The fact is that I took all the images myself and created the MER text too. I'm unsure how to copyright/tag these and understood that by making the relevant comments on each one I'd covered all bases. Can you help me? Thanks.--Gordonastill (talk) 09:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My response to your proposal

Good idea!

Here is my response: Wikipedia_talk:ARS#Image_Recovery_Squad

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		The "What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar should be awarded to a user who identifies a means to improve Wikipedia in a profound way. This barnstar is awarded to sfan, for their great idea about the Image Recovery Squad. Ikip (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Aurthohin

Hi
I noticed you FURed File:Aurthohin.JPG a while ago. However, it's usage in the infobox of Aurthohin doesn't comply with WP:NFCC, and I don't even think it's an image of the front cover in the first place. For those reasons I've removed the image from the band's infobox, if you know more than I do then feel free to fix this.
Amalthea 15:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sons of the San Joaquin FUR

Thanks for adding the FUR to my entries. I didn't know I was missing that step until another file I uploaded was marked for deletion. I went to check my past entries and found you had me covered. Thanks again and I'll be sure to get the FUR in there in the future. Rasdock (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding File:IMG MONT 0686.JPG, File:IMG 0684.JPG and File:IMG Navona0166.JPG

Hello! All of the above images were taken by me in 2006 in Italy and uploaded by me to Wikipedia. If I need to take further steps to comply with the rules of Wikipedia for them to be here please let me know. I don't log in that often anymore but if you have any further questions about these images or other images I have uploaded please feel free to post on my talk page and I will make a point of checking it. Other images from Italy I have uploaded are these - File:View -1.jpg, File:View -2.jpg and File:View -3.jpg. One of them is currently being used on the San Gimignano page. The others are variations on the same shot and are currently not being used. There may be others out there I have forgotten about. Ee60640 (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Channel V Philippines Logo

Opps! Im Sorry I forgot the copyright of the said music channel. My apologies. In Fact this is the current channel logo of V Philippines as of this time. Puppyph (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

copyright pic.

i made all those pics in paint. could you not delete them

Bigcvnt14 (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Black Country Museums

Hi, Just to confirm this account is used by members of the Black Country Online Project. Could you point us to the relevant policy document you mentioned? Had alook myself but got a bit lost. Ta. BlackCountryMuseums (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Have added explanation to user page. Just to clarify, my mission (having accepted it) is to make sure that information on BC arts/history venues is accurate and complete, not to 'big up' said venues in any way. I have made casual contributions to Wikipedia before and am aware of NPOV etc. Many thanks for your help & advice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackCountryMuseums (talk • contribs) 13:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Pashto text.png

Hi, I uploaded the file from this wikipedia: de:Datei:Paschtutext.png. Thanks for the comments. X02.163.91.xxx (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:Georefimprove

I have nominated Template:Georefimprove (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:Geofact-inline

I have nominated Template:Geofact-inline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:Geofacti

I have nominated Template:Geofacti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

About file description

"This file is a screenshot that reveals the most important discovery of a documentary and no portion of the work, compete with the copyright holder's use." I placed this explanation on the File:Tour-1.1.big.jpg page, but I don't know if it's enough or not and if it's placed in the correct place. Could you look at it once more and advice? Thanks, DmitryGaliullin (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Image

Hi. I see you left a message at User talk:MusicMaker5376 about an image. MusicMaker is on a long wikibreak. Can you tell me what information you think is missing from the image? The image description page says that he created the image himself using Sibelius, and the song The Twelve Days of Christmas (song) was published in 1780, so it is public domain. If anything else is needed, please let me know, and I'll try to help. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! I'm very low tech and have no idea how to move something to Commons. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

my talk page...

could you sign your post on my talk page please? :) By archiving Bot won't archive it unless it has a timestamp. thanks :) Kingturtle (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sfan00 IMG, please could you also add your "signature with timestamp" to the post you made on my talk page (history of edits: 21:48, 16 November 2009 Sfan00 IMG). Thank you. --Bluewind (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Disney Channel 2007.svg

What are you doing? It's fricking tiny. If this is opposition to SVGs generally, you want a policy change, not a change on that image. J Milburn (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess that was caused by inexpert creation, rather than anything else. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Square Max Hymans

I shall refer to "No free equivalent" because of France's strange copyright laws. I will refer to other criteria too. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Tour-Total.jpg&diff=328034795&oldid=327961774
• In regards to that, in France images of modern buildings have two licenses (one from the photographer, and one from the architect) - So the image is CC from the photographer, but copyrighted from the architect. However the problem with including the CC template is that it includes the non-free image in a category with a preview, and that shouldn't happen.
• Also Tango did take the image by himself - it's just that because of French law, the architect's copyright applies to the building too
• WhisperToMe (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop repeatedly deleting

File:Prof_dreyer_nelson_mandela.png

   The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Skeptical about a self claim - There's evidence of possible half-toning in the image suggesting a magazine or book scan. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

   The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

---> I am the original author of this university wiki, staff of the university, and several of the images were taken by me, almost all subsequently deleted, and eventually allowed. This image, of Nelson Mandela, is scanned (yes correctly observed -the 'halftone') from the university's brochure. It is not a publication, nor needs referencing. I request you refrain from repeatedly deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jondudent (talk • contribs) 23:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Various images

I have tagged two of the images for deletion, and cleaned up the third. It'd be good if we could get some sort of database dump or something listing all images that have confused licensing like this... J Milburn (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, it's something I don't mind dealing with. J Milburn (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (MDesjardinss (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Noted, However I fail to see how removing 'stale' captions from pages I did NOT create myself, is vandalism or disruptive. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick-draw McGraw

You certainly don't waste any time tagging my pictures for Commons, even before I get a chance to add them to pages. Wow. You must be psychic. I'm flattered, I guess. ;) --Hugh Manatee (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Czerwona-ksiazeczka298-299.jpg

I'm not very active in English wikipedia, I work in Polish version much more, and I rather do not know exact rules of en:wiki. I have reduced Czerwona-ksiazeczka298-299-file to 800×535px and I though it is enough. But if it is not - do what you want, this scan is not important for me.

Regards

Julo (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Spengler Cup

So i've added several templates to the Spengler Cup logo, would you be kind and check if it's all correctly done and consequently remove the Di-no fair use rationale template? Also while you're doing that you might as well check if the templates are ok with the HC CSKA logo. Thanks. --IJK_Principle (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Ratzeputz.jpg

Hi. Thanks for correcting the details on this one. I would be grateful for a second opinion on whether the image licences are okay and constitute fair use. I have basically taken the info manually from the equivalent article and image on de.wiki. I do not wish to fall foul of the rules. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Future Combat Sytems.jpg

Definitely Pd-gov but was unable to obtain it from a government website. username 1 (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues and File:Future Combat Sytems.jpg

You tagged File:Future Combat Sytems.jpg for copyright issues. Please be more careful. As a United States military image, it is in the public domain, like all images and text from the United States government. Please see Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army. I removed your tag. - Eastmain (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use Reductions

What's the difference between this list and just using Category:Non-free Wikipedia file size reduction request to keep track? Surely it takes a really long time to find a file name on that list? Million_Moments (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Mina Se stasera sono qui.ogg

Hey, I am having a hard time editing the file. Actually, after the editing, the ogg file plays ok in my computer but after I have uploaded it to Wikipedia, it claims "Invalid ogg file". Would you know a way to tackle this? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Jätten Vist copy.JPG

Hi. The photographer has released the image under a free license. I was worried about that the sculpture is copyrighted and the photo could be considered a derivative work. That is why I uploaded it here too and added the fair use rationale. Now it seems that a photo of a sculpture located permanently at public places outdoors in Sweden is not under the copyright of the sculpture. I will remove the rationale, but I would still prefer to keep a local copy on the English Wikipedia. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Duane Whitaker.JPG

Hello and thank you for your note on my talk page. While I have successfully uploaded other types of content to Wikipedia, I am a little confused as to handle this issue. In this case I was looking for a picture of a relatively obscure actor, Duane Whitaker, and took a screenshot from a film in which he was present. It appears that I am missing some info though. Any guidance would be great. Thanks again. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Update. I believe it is correct now. Thanks for your time. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your message on User talk:Ludvikus

Stan - I am sorry but as Ludvikus was banned because he annoyed too many people, he will not be able to fix this problem himself. I am answering you because his talk page is on my watch list. Please could you try and sort out this problem yourself. Or you could try emailing him - as there is a link on his talk page. But remember, as he is banned he can only advise you, he cannot implement.

Happy new year.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Image concerns

To the best of my knowledge, an image of a sculpture has two copyrights. The artistic copyright and the photographic copyright. I can release the right to my photographs even though the artistic copyright does not allow free use of the image. Thus, both File:20060819 Moose (W-02-03) (1).JPG and File:20090316 Large Internal-External Upright Form.JPG need two copyright explanations, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, but my understanding was that for Wiki purposes, the non-free was the important part in respect of derivative works. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes but both are applicable. Even if the artist releases his rights, my copyright is still valid. I think both are necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Are they now satisfactory?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)