User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Re: Image Deletion Tag[edit]

Hi, thanks for the heads up. Yes, I'm currently looking into the reason for its deletion from the article and have my eye on it. Hopefully, I'll be able to get it back in without any conflict.TorBel80 (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:CTSRW01.JPG[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:CTSRW01.JPG 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 this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The point was that this is a Commons image so the correct place to make the rename proposal would be on the Commons. I did think about moving it on the Commons but seeing how many other wikis are using the poor quality name, I contented myself with creating a redirect. And now to cap it all it is up for deletion on freedom of panorama grounds! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Haley Lu Richardson . Jpg[edit]

Permission was emailed to WikiPedia. Thanks for your help.

User:Vvaliquette —Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Why Axis.png[edit]

You flagged this file for transfer to Commons, but it appears to me that the file has an invalid licensing tag. The image is a book cover, and is likely copyrighted by the publisher of the book. The uploader appears to be a relative of one of the book's authors, and is unlikely to hold the copyright, and is therefore not eligible to release the image to the public domain. The image has valid fair use on the English Wikipedia, but I was under the impression that fair use images are not eligible for transfer to Commons. Can you please review this case again? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to PUF Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry -- what's "PUF"? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[{WP:PUF]]Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bowen Flypast[edit]

In ref to the image used for Paul Bowen Article. It was taken by his company, for distribution in the public domain. The company has no issue with its further use in Wikipedia. I am new to wiki, and am a bit puzzled why the article has not be accepted yet for the main site. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfighterriat (talk • contribs) 09:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to read WP:COPYREQ, and confirm the permission you have Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:WLFM-LP Logo.png listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:WLFM-LP Logo.png. Since you had some involvement with the File:WLFM-LP Logo.png redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013[edit]

Thanks for your pieces of advice.The reason I upload this photo was to make sure that is ready to use.Unfortunately, I did have another photo rather than this.But don't worry,I willing to do this action as soon as possible.Thank You!--RenRen070193 10:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RenRen070193 (talk • contribs)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Mbunda Chiefs in Zambia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Trade and Terms of Trust: The History and Contexts of Pre-colonial ...By Achim von Oppen, page 113]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSD log[edit]

Re: User:Sfan00 IMG/CSD log: you should have taken action on this two years ago. It is now just ridiculously large. I am being told that I cannot delete it because it has more than 5000 edits. You must contact a steward to do the deed for you. (I come from an age when a 10M byte hard disk was big. I know disk space is ridiculously cheap these days but still the idea of gobbling up 400k bytes to record a 100 byte edit looks like waste to me.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the page is noted.. Is there a way for future logging to split it by date, so this situation doesn't arise again? I can't imagine anyone (other than AWB users and bots) being able to generate over 5000 edits in 24 hours.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At a rough estimate your page had gobbled up about 1.8G bytes of Wikipedia's, apparently limitless, disk space. Prevent arising again? Simples: whenever the page reaches 64k bytes (my personal limit for my user talk page - you may chose a different limit if you wish), move the page to, for example, User:Sfan00 IMG/CSD log/2013 Sep 03. Then go back to User:Sfan00 IMG/CSD log and blank it in case a redirect confuses the logging operation. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-deletion[edit]

I just tried to delete your CSD log, but the system won't let me as there are too many entries. Must be a way round this, but I don't know it. Peridon (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Just read the post above. Peridon (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:SFSD lo-res patch.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:SFSD lo-res patch.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I don't really recall where exactly that image came from; it's been over six years since I uploaded it. I would agree that whoever put the public domain template on the image page did so in error, because the image is effectively a trademark/logo. The fair-use rationale that accompanied my initial upload of the image was valid at the time. I'm not sure what has changed in the meantime (I've been busy with law school and, of late, working for the US Army Corps of Engineers), but I'm sure that if you know the current state of the rules, you can bring the original fair-use rationale up to modern standards. As for the source, why not just use the logo's owner, whose name appears prominently in the image itself?
I'll leave this in your court, so fix the image-attribute template if you please. Just remember, the image enhances the Encyclopedia, and the readers should not be deprived of the value it provides if there is any valid justification for it to stay. Please respond on my Talk page; I don't actively monitor anything else right now. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 18:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Upsala College NJ SEAL.jpg[edit]

I should have uploaded this as a non-free content logo.

Could you repair the permissions on this for me? The logo is that of a defunct college, I doubt there's a intellectual property problem because under US trademark law a defunct corporation forfeits its trademark if not actively used within a few years. Never the less, the image use and non-free content policies allow for a logo to be uploaded and used provided its use is minimal and not conflicting with commercial use by its owner.

The logo was on a commemorative Upsala College plate, I took a picture of the plate. The resolution was lowered and the image cropped because the rest of the plate wasn't necessary. The image is mine, the plate was made someone else.

Suggestions? --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:SEA OAT SAND KEY PARK FLORIDA2013083001.jpg[edit]

I did not upload to commons 'cause they have boiler plate about "educational value". Can you point me the link on commons so I can admire it there? Thanks, Dlohcierekim 14:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cam'ronPicture.jpg[edit]

Hello Sfan

Ive uploaded the image File:Cam'ronPicture.jpg , it can be found in other websites not only (Discobelle).. Anyway do you think that we must reupload another image?? or just change the license (CopyRight)? any suggestions?... Thank you Sfan.. ℳ∃ℝТ Hit 21:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you create the photo yourself or can you produce a letter saying you have permission to use it? If not then it's not compatible with Wikipedia's licensing model, and we really don't like copyright violations. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Windmill engines[edit]

In most cases, the maker is not known. Where it is known (e.g. Stelling Minnis), the detailed information is given. Mjroots (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, It's just there were showing up in a disambig list.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Confusions of a Nutzy Spy.png[edit]

Hi Sfan. This image is a title card from an old cartoon, the file was copied from another wiki. This image is not suitable for transfer to the Commons and you should not have tagged it as such. -- Diannaa (talk) 10:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted - Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Ir-Crown-UK[edit]

Template:Ir-Crown-UK has been nominated for merging with Template:Non-free Crown copyright. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic City 'Do AC logo.svg Opposition to Wikipedia Commons Due To Trademark Violation.[edit]

The file File:Atlantic City 'Do AC' logo.svg has an uncertain copyright status and may be deleted. You can comment on its removal.

Sorry to bother you :-([edit]

I see people speedy deleting files, but I don't know how to do it. I uploaded two pictures to public domain that I made myself, but the second one was uploaded purely because I stuffed up the first one! They are essentially the same file, only the first one is a stuff up, and so can be deleted.

This one, the erroneous one, can be deleted, but this one needs to stay, since it's the one I have added to a couple of Vietnam War-related articles!

Sorry!! ... :-( LudicrousTripe (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed -- Diannaa (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:AJHL Oct 13 Cover2.png[edit]

Hi. This one is a magazine cover; it should be tagged for fair use, not transferred to the Commons. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepLocal[edit]

I see that {{KeepLocal}} is being ignored again.[1][2][3]. SpinningSpark 07:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the files already are on Commons, and they should not be copied there a second time. See Commons:Template:Duplicate. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Kirachinmoku's talk page.
Message added 09:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Replied KiraChinmoku (T, ¤) 09:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Original photo source has been updated with a disclaimer allowing public use. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=474589185909491&set=a.474589155909494.99145.474570389244704&type=3&theater

Concerns about an image[edit]

Hey, I noticed that you flagged File:Vampires kiss poster 2013.jpg as a candidate to be moved to the Commons. I kind of want to warn you that the image in question is related to an article that's up for AfD (Joanna Grimes) and is suspected of being a hoax. The editor in question that made the page briefly created another article in their userspace that was a blatant hoax, which they then deleted. I would probably hesitate to transfer this to the Commons in this instance, as there's nothing out there to really substantiate the claims in any context. I have a feeling that this is a fairly elaborate hoax when you get down to the claims and the lack of sourcing when you figure that the editor claims that Grimes is in the newspapers each week, has a picture deal with Dreamworks and Paramount, and has Craig Olejnik and Ian Harding starring in the movie. I'll probably tag the image as a hoax accordingly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Ir-Philippines government[edit]

Template:Ir-Philippines government has been nominated for merging with Template:Non-free Philippines government. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images marked to be copied to commons[edit]

Hi Sfan00 IMG, You have marked the following images as reviewed and ready to be copied to commons: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I am not familiar with this process, so before I copy them, I would like to know whether a OTRS ticket has been issued that I should use in Commons, or if your statement that they have been reviewed is somehow valid there. Can you give me some clues, please? It would be best for them to have a page in commons to link to, because the museum article here is tagged with COI, it looks like a pamphlet and I am currently trying to help out by reducing it to something more acceptable. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 21:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the explanations Diannaa. Much appreciated. Cheers. Hoverfish Talk 17:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice[edit]

Thank you for the deletion notice on File:Herman Matthews percussionist.jpg. The file is no longer in use and has been replaced with a free image. 009o9 (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raman Munjal Vidya Mandir Logo With It's Motto.jpg[edit]

This one is a non-free school logo and should not be on the Commons. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you![edit]

You work hard, so hard that most of time you beat me in tagging copy to commons. Here eat this or rather your monitor up and relax a bit. 
Sohambanerjee1998 17:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Author Winchinchala.jpg[edit]

This one should not be on the Commons, because the person who uploaded it is not the copyright holder. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:AvtoportretG.jpg[edit]

This one should not be on the Commons, because the painter who created the artwork was born in 1959. Therefore the license template is incorrect (the copy on the Commons sports a different license tag). We have no proof that the artist gave their permission for the artwork to be displayed here. When you see stuff like this, both copies need to be nominated for deletion please. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, but I tagged on the best available data here. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime people upload photographs of someone's artwork, an OTRS ticket is required. Otherwise we have no way of knowing whether the artist has given their permission. This requirement has legal implications for the Wikimedia Foundation. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was also my concern a few sections above. It may be acceptable for Wikipedia when a photo of an artwork is tagged as OK by someone who has checked on the best available data here, but I am hesitant to do the copying to Commons as I am pretty sure they require an OTRS there. If someone can advice me on how to proceed with the copying of the photos mentioned, I would be very grateful. Hoverfish Talk 16:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Hoverfish, but it is most definitely not okay for us to display copyright artwork on en.wiki without the artist's express consent. An OTRS ticket is required. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Begum Rokeya University logo.jpg[edit]

This one is a school logo, complex enough as to be copyrightable. You can help by templating the local copy for fair use, if a source can be found. Otherwise nominate both copies for deletion as no evidence of permission. Thanks -- Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bhagat Singh 1922.jpg[edit]

This photo was taken in 1927, not 1922 as claimed in the file name. Therefore it might not be in the public domain outside India. The copy on the Commons is incorrectly templated as the property of the uploader, who quite obviously could not have taken the photo. I have nominated both copies for deletion. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll keep tagging in good faith, and you'l keep finding the baduns :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is most definitely not okay. You are generating extra work the administrators both here and on the Commons. If a sketchy image is transferred to the Commons, you've just doubled the admin workload, and created lots of extra work for people like me. You need to do a better job of evaluating the copyright status of these images, and nominating for deletion yourself any that shouldn't be hosted here. Every single image you look at, please take the time to evaluate its copyright status. Please don't tag images to be moved to the Commons that you are not 100% sure have a right to be hosted both here and on the Commons. And images that are already hosted on the Commons that shouldn't be there need to be nominated for deletion (in other words, don't just tag the local copy for F8 and then walk away). Here are some general tips (Ping @Stefan2: please check these points and make corrections / additions):
  • Tiny images are almost always copied from somewhere on the Internet. There's a script you can install to locate other copies of images on the web. Please copy this script into your common.js (this script is available automatically at the Commons):
// 
// Googling (based on Commons:MediaWiki:Gadget-GoogleImages.js):
if (wgNamespaceNumber == 6) {
  var images = document.getElementById('file').getElementsByTagName('img');
  var imageurl = images[0].parentNode.href;
  mw.util.addPortletLink('p-cactions', 'https://www.google.com/searchbyimage?image_url=' + encodeURIComponent(imageurl), 'Google Images');
}
 
//
  • Images of famous people are almost always copyright violations.
  • Images of ultra high quality are almost always copied from somewhere online.
  • Check out the metadata at the bottom of the file page; sometimes there's copyright information embedded there. Absence of metadata does not prove an image is a copyright violation, but its presence is a good clue that the photo is the uploader's own work, and most recent legit uploads will contain it.
  • If the file page says "sent to me personally" or "evidence: will be provided on request", that means the uploader is not the photographer and therefore not the copyright holder. These images should be tagged for F11 speedy deletion unless they have an OTRS Pending tag.
  • Photos of two-dimensional artwork where the artist is alive need OTRS tickets. Two-dimensional artwork created after 1923 is in almost all cases still under copyright.
  • Freedom of panorama laws apply to three-dimensional artwork. Please see commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama for the laws governing this.
  • Logos of schools and businesses, magazines, book covers, and the like have no business being on the Commons in almost all cases. They need to be tagged for fair use. Most uploaders won't know the ins and outs of how to do this, so if you see one that's in use and you can locate a source for it online, you should convert it to fair use. Example of what to do. This is what I am going to do if I run across the image; it's a better choice than deletion, and I suggest you do the same.
  • The Hirtle Chart is a great resource you can use to help determine the copyright status of images. Stefan is very knowledgeable (but not infallible) and I am sure he would be willing to answer questions. and you can ask me as well; i am not as knowledgeable as Stefan but I know lots. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your hints. Expect complaints shortly :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking this in good spirit, and thanks for all your help with images. Sorry it's all so fiendishly complex, but I suppose (like golf or climbing or chess) if Wiki were easy it would soon lose its charm. Here's a couple moar:
  • Please assess the validity of copyright tags on the article. For example, if it's tagged as being taken by a US Govt employee in the course of their duties, we need a link proving that.
  • All images need source information. If there's no source provided, the reviewer on the Commons will delete it, so there's no point sending it over. Unsourced images on en.wiki qualify for F4 speedy deletion. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some extra comments:
  • If the uploader has uploaded several photos, it pays off to check all of them. The metadata typically contains the name of the camera model. Most people have access to a limited number of cameras, so if a user has uploaded 100 images using 100 different camera models, then the files are likely copyright violations. On the other hand, if there are 100 images taken using 1-2 different camera models, then they are unlikely to be copyright violations.
  • Compare the upload date with the creation date in the metadata. If the photo was both uploaded and created today, then it is likely fine. A file taken today has typically not yet been widely distributed, so copyright violators might not yet have found the image. On the other hand, if the file was uploaded today and taken 10 years ago, then chances are a lot bigger that the image was downloaded from some website somewhere. The date of photography check is not enough to assume that something is a copyright violation, but it may give you an indication that something potentially is wrong.
In my opinion, simply tagging everything with {{NowCommons}} if the file exists on Commons is better than ignoring the files altogether as that brings the file to someone's attention. Files which should not be on Commons can then be deleted. A bot, User:MGA73bot, used to tag files this way. Files with {{keep local}} and {{do not move to Commons}} should not be tagged, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's very true: Tagging as NowCommons means the image will be reviewed by an admin, who will presumably thoroughly check these things. But any assessment / deletion nominations undertaken by non-admins is a Good Thing, as there's very few admins working image deletions at present, and the backlogs can get overwhelmingly huge. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jean-Paul Paloméros french general.jpg[edit]

I added a permission link for the use of the file File:Jean-Paul Paloméros french general.jpg, which is why I deleted the 'deletion template' from the file. Category:Wikipedia files missing permission as of 15 September 2013 also suggests removal of the template is acceptable when permissions are added. So can we take the template off now? Thanks
EzPz (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Permission link given does not give a CC-BY-SA style release. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you for the quick reply.
EzPz (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File Euzone Warrior[edit]

Hello. I am Dr. Harry Gouvas Director of Museum of Arts and Sciences of Epirus Greece. Where is the problem? The photograph is mine. The statues with the Uniforms belong to my Collections. The Copyright is Public Domain Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. What do you want to do? Harrygouvas (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concern was the artwork behind the statue. As this was artwork in your own collection, and the artist agreed to you showing it?, you should explain this in the description (or in an e-mail to the relevant OTRS queue)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSD for some image[edit]

Hello, you tagged an image for deletion but I am unable to see the problem with it. There is a claim that the user asserted the picture to have been someone else's content and I do not see this assertion anywhere.

Why is this CSD'd? File:Flagging_tape.png. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem to be mistag. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:SpaceHub Southeast Logo.png[edit]

Hi, yesterday you mentioned that "there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license" for the image I uploaded, while in the 'permission' section of the file upload you'll find:

"Our logo may be used under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"

Is this not enough proof? Thanks,

OrbitDive — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrbitDive (talk • contribs) 15:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now resolved. And tagged for Commons, Thanks :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrbitDive (talk • contribs) 15:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atlantic City 'Do AC' logo.svg tag[edit]

Please DO NOT REMOVE the template tag from File:Atlantic City 'Do AC' logo.svg until the discussion is officially ended. If you read in the template it specifically states "The page must not be blanked and this notice must not be removed until the discussion is closed." If you have any further questions or concerns please let me know on my talkpage. Thank you for your cooperation. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:WAMM-AM.JPG[edit]

User:Melesse reuploaded the above linked image as it needed to be fair-use reduced. I'm not sure why I got the orphaned image message, but it should be forwarded to Melesse. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AR Games[edit]

Please do not reinsert the image. As it stands the image doesn't tell readers anything about the subject that a free use image couldn't already accomplish. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

X-rays are technically[edit]

Not copyrightable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE : File permission problem with File:Dr Vipin receiving award for services at National Animal Championship.jpg[edit]

Hello, regarding the upload : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dr_Vipin_receiving_award_of_honor_from_cabinet_minister_S._Surjit_singh_Rakhra.jpg i've already Forwarded email with sharing permission of images to permissions-en@wikimedia.org Coolvipcandy (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE : File:Armorial of Henry Sinclair of Roslin.png[edit]

Hello. On the matter of the upload I note that the upload came up for copying to commons. As I'm a newbie here I am unsure what is being asked. I did the render. The source file is on commons as File:Blason Henri Ier Sinclair.svg. The blazone is rendered by User:Jimmy44 and the Armorial de Gelre (the source document) indicates a crest: Cimier : Une tête de chameau au naturel, une couronne d'argent. I simply rendered this crest in order to create a topic of discussion. I am ok with putting it on commons if that is what is being asked? Family locator (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to worry, about. Just indicating it eligble for transfer after a review.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Mohammed Ali's image to wikicommons[edit]

Hi,

Can you move this image [4] of Ahmed Mohammed Ali to wikicommons, caus I want to use it in Hebrew wikipedia under wikicommons license, and I wouldn't know how to move it to wikicommons? --Midrashah (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raghusri image.jpg[edit]

Thank you so much for reviewing my File. But i want to Keep it local so that i removed yours added Template. I hope you can understand :) Regards, Raghusri (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demi Lovato image[edit]

Hi, may I ask you how you reviewed this file? While it is a good picture in therms of quality, I think it maybe should be deleted because when you go to the source, you notice it's a Facebook fan page. There are other pictures of her, but I don't think that the admin of this page is the photographer of this picture... It could easily have been taken from another website. --Sofffie7 (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The image comes from E! Online. I don't know if the person that uploaded the image is from E! Online, but if not the licensing would be wrong as it says "I, the copyright holder of this work"...
The image has been deleted while I was writing my previous message. Anyways, forget everything ;) Cheers, Sofffie7 (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

photo help please[edit]

Hi there, my photo "Green beans in a pressure canner ready to be processed" is scheduled for deletion. Please help me to understand why and what to do about it. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is being flagged as it on Wikimedia Commons, You don't need to worry.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No removal please of the photo Motion in the article on PINK de Thierry[edit]

I sent today the following mail (with an attachment from the Utrechts Archief) to permissions-en@wikipedia.org:

Dear madam / sir

Attached you find the permission to use the photo on internet. When used by third persons on internet the credentials of the photo has to be mentioned (and not to be paid for). So use on internet is from now on free though I would restrict it for use on Wikepedia (global) only. In the contemporary arts the freedom of distribution of these kind of photos is essential.

The photo is used in the enWiki article ‘’PINK de Thierry’’ and stored in Wikimedia under: File:"Motion", Utrecht 1969. Intervention art project by Mass Moving in city center.tif The following is important: 1. The photo shows a moment in one the many actions in a street intervention artwork. 2. The intervention project itself was 100% financed by the City of Utrecht (= local government, thus public institution) 3. The copyright on the photo is in the hands of Utrechts Archief (The Utrecht Archives is a 100% Public Service of the City of Utrecht) 4. There is no copyright on the created action by the street intervention group Mass Moving (see the article itself) 5. The Free Art License seems an adequate license for this use of the photo

Hopefully you can agree with this. Otherwise I hope to hear what is the best to do in this case. As I am a newcomer in Wikipedia I haven’t yet a full view in the rulings in the Wikipedia jungle, so please assist me in this case.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Yours sincerely,

Donald Louw

Cc Sfan00 IMG 

   Rushton2010

Donald.louw 14:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw (talk • contribs)

checkYI replied to this person by email directing them to Commons:Commons:Email_templates where they can find explicit instructions to do what they want to do. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New York Daily Mirror[edit]

The New York Mirror is defunct. It ceased publication in 1972. There is no successor paper. I doubt if the copyright (if there was one) was ever renewed. I probably should have uploaded it under the free use template. I'll do it under another name and we can delete this file.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Aasen.jpg[edit]

Hi I noticed that you tagged one of the photos I uploaded onto the John Aasen page. the permission is shown at this link http://www.springerimages.com/Images/MedicineAndPublicHealth/1-10.1007_s11102-012-0389-5-4 just scroll down to license is says "This image is published with open access under the Creative Commons Attribution license." It should be ok to use but if that's not correct or if we can't use it without written permission from the photographer then it is ok to delete it. Redsky89 (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:M07 image[edit]

I am new to wikipedia, and i KNEW that i'll fail when it comes to licensing the image. If i want to upload the image, next time i'll first ask someone and only then upload it. Also, can you make Zastava M12 Black Spear page? Thanks.Delija Do Groba (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of people from Greenwich, Connecticut may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ] Grammy Nominated songwriter recipient of 6 Platinum Albums, born and raised in Greenwich.<ref [http://movies.nytimes.com/person/1202520/Joanne-Stanulonis]</ref>. She is CEO & Founder of the
  • News, as printed in ''The Advocate'' of Stamford, June 22, 2006, Business section, page B2</ref>) and lives in the Belle Haven section of town.<ref>Costagregni, Susie, "Local honorees celebrated

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep local[edit]

WP:CSD#F8 does not apply to images tagged with {{keep local}}; please don't tag such files as F8. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Epoth_Retrosyth.gif[edit]

Hello homie, I already copied https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Epoth_Retrosyth.gif to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Epoth_Retrosyth.gif. Cheers.

Georginho (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Water resource policy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jacobsville Sandstone may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_j/J-text9.html|archivedate=September 22, 2012|deadurl=no}}{shuttered link}}</ref> that covers an area of {{convert|4,363|sqmi|sqkm}}.<ref>{{cite web|title=List of Acquifers|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • archive.org/web/20121013082225/http://www.apec2011.gov/meetings/index.htm| archivedate=2012-10-13}} {{dead link}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question concerning speedy deletion of File:Kennedy-Thorndike experiment.svg[edit]

Is the deletion software intelligent enough to seek out and automatically change all references to "File:Kennedy-Thorndike experiment.svg" in the English Wikipedia to "File:Kennedy-Thorndike experiment DE.svg" in Commons?

Thanks, Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the template message for CSD F8,indicates links SHOULD be updated before the file is removed.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take care of that issue. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the reference on "User:Multichill/Free uploads/2012-07-26", which was bot-generated, all references to this file have been changed to "File:Kennedy-Thorndike experiment DE.svg", and it should be OK to speedy delete the version on the English Wikipedia. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Racing Is Life, McQueen Advertisment.jpg[edit]

Hi. I've removed the {{Copy to Commons}} tag from File:Racing Is Life, McQueen Advertisment.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), because the image is a derivative work. I've also nominated the source file on commons for deletion. I hope that makes sense. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons markings[edit]

Stan, please make sure that when you mark an image as {{subst:ncd}}, if the image has a different name on Commons, that you input the different name. I've noticed that this has been a problem with a lot of your recent markings. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, Do you think I should raise the posisbility of Twinkle doing an autocheck for a different name from the page text, with it's maintainers..Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it might help you out, go for it. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00_IMG/Archive_17&oldid=1146343897"