User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Archives

Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here

Image Unfree Files Claim

Hello. I'm still relatively new to editing and uploading images to Wikipedia. File: RFYL-Blood Pit.jpg and File: Zombie Chase are both pictures taken by me and stored on my friend's computer, Billy Weiss. There is no copyright on either picture. I didn't know what to put on where the images came from, my actually taking them or the person's computer they came from. I'm not positive what I need to write to allow them to stay up. They shouldn't be breaking any copyright laws or infringements because I didn't take them from anywhere else. I assigned a creative commons license to them because the details said it didn't need copyrights. Can you tell me what needs to go into these two images to display the correct information and not have them deleted because of wrong or missing tags? I really appreciate it. Thanks.

Regarding deletion of 150 years old photo of Antun Knežević JPG

Well this is a (Re-brushed) photo not a painting, as you can see, and its more then a 100 yrs. old photo of the person that lived between 1834 - 1889. This means that photograph must be old at least as person it depict, don't you agree? I placed appropriate Licensing, but hardly anyone knows who took this photograph some 150 yrs. ago (!?). So, I am certainly not able to say who took it, but I can say that I borrowed it from bs.wikipedia article about this person. Please feel free to delete or what ever you think is appropriate.

RE: Image upload wizard/form

Hello. You have new messages at Carnildo's talk page.

My Bad

Sorry about that, I don't really know much about putting pictures on. Thanks for telling me. Rb360

Thanks for the feedback

This is in regard to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boyce_Avenue.jpg The only two images of Boyce Avenue I found that had free commons were too small and blurry http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/Boyceavenueperform.jpg The other one was blurry and was already marked for delation on Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alejandro_Manzano_(Boyce_Avenue)_%26_Tyler_Ward.jpg

Could you suggest what I should do next or will the image I posted be acceptable since I gave credit of the image.

Thanks.

(Soren0 (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for getting back to me about this. I'm afraid we still won't be able to keep the image, since it's non-free. The crucial criterion is that some new, free image of the band could in principle be created any time. Per our rules at WP:NFC, it doesn't really matter whether such a free image already exists. By the way, since we're at it, could you please also clarify the situation of your older upload File:LonnieValerie1005.jpg? You credited it to somebody from a newspaper, probably a journalist, and at the same time said it was under a free license, but you didn't point to any evidence the newspaper had in fact released it under such conditions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

I called the newspaper up, The Iowa Source, and the lady told me what to put for the image and they released it by have me put the link back to the page of the image. I can get evidence if needed from them via email. I noticed that the page I created for professor Lonnie Gamble was deleted since I listed him being a famous person. I'm not sure if the page can be brought back and listed as a professor instead. If so, I can get evidence that the photo in fact has been released. If the page for Lonnie Gamble can't be brought back, there is no need to keep the image.

Soren0 (talk)

Ah, I see. About the article, it actually was talking about him as a professor at the time it was deleted (somebody had expanded it after you wrote it), but the deletion reason said "No more notable than an average professor. No significant secondary sources. Tagged for notability since November". This was a so-called "proposed deletion", i.e. a process based not on a formal deletion discussion but on the assumption of consensus, so if you insist, I could restore it for you any time. Only, you'd probably risk somebody else taking it for a deletion debate again fairly soon. About the image, thanks for making that effort. If the newspaper is willing to release it and you wish to keep the image around, you could ask them to send a brief permission statement to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org". Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. If I decided to bring the page back, like you said it might get taken down again for deletion so let's leave it as it is. I created the page a while back for my professor and to learn how to create a wikipedia page. I guess there is no need to keep the image since there is no page for the image to be placed. Thanks again - Soren0 (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Doon School Social Service Image

Hi there, how do you propose I solve the issue with the aforementioned image which you speedily deleted? Any kind of help is welcome. Can you put it back if possible? Merlaysamuel (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid since it's a commercial AP photograph, and moreover since it's just a generic, easily replaceable photograph of some kids in an nondescript school setting, there's no way we can use it. If you want a picture of some boys sitting at a desk and smiling, you'll need to go to a school and take one yourself. – Also, please don't remove FFD tags, as you did at File:Nehru in Kashmir House, Doon School.JPG. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

Alright, I understand what you're saying. But this is an authentic photograph taken inside the school. It says on AP WEbsite: Doon School. Moreover, on their website they say it's allowed to use for editorial content. So what's the problem?

Also, I do apologise for removing the tag but please understand that Nehru image is an important one (historically significant to the school) It's almost a hundred years old so how can someone get the copywright? I urge you to do something about it. It's my earnest request. Also, accept my apologies. Can you help, sir? Merlaysamuel (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

So, you "apologize" and say you "understand" what I'm saying, but at the same moment you simply re-upload the same file? I told you there is no way we can use it, period. You need to learn to listen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The apology was for removing the tag. Can you help me regarding Nehru image :'( ? I still don't understand the problem with it, to confess.

Merlaysamuel (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It is simple. That picture is either in the public domain or it isn't. If it's in the public domain, it's fine and we can use it. But you didn't claim it was, at first, so I have no way of figuring out whether it might be. That's up to you to demonstrate. It's likely to be in the public domain if it was first published (not just made!) before 1941; to demonstrate that, you'd have to point to the exact bibliographic information of the first publication. – As long as it's not in the public domain, it's copyrighted. And in that case, we can't use it under the criteria of WP:NFC. It doesn't matter how important the event depicted was in the history of the school. What matters is how important the visual presence of the image is in order to help us understand the event. It is not important, because the event can easily be described in words: "Nehru visited Doon School". The image conveys no encyclopedic information over and above this simple sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

My bad about files

I deleted it, notice it was wrong. Sorry. Robbie2448 (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Nehru image for Doon School

Please take a look at the revised fair-use rationale for File:Nehru in Kashmir House, Doon School.JPG and remove the deletion banner. I will be very grateful. Thank you. Merlaysamuel (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that revised rationale is complete and utter nonsense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I give up. Do what you wish. But it'll be great if you can somehow save it. Many thanks for your help anyway.

Merlaysamuel (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The image is not even violating any Copyright laws!!

Merlaysamuel (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Dipankan001's talk page.
Message added 14:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dipankan ^{In the woods?} 14:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Image of Pramukh Swami Maharaj

Hi, I recently noticed you placed a notice on File:Pramukh Swami Maharj.jpeg regarding issues with the file's license. I recently moved the file to File: Pramukh Swami.jpg with the correct license and permission necessary, but was hoping to have the original file deleted to avoid confusion. I was hoping you could help me with this task.

Thank you

^The World 19:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I was not having a "revert war"

Seeing as how my attempts to resolve the conflict with the user discretely are getting interrupted, I will be making a formal report and requesting that he be removed as admin for improper conduct.

Anonyma Mädel (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Useless. Your conflict over your block is on de-wiki. This is en-wiki. We have no jurisdiction over what goes on in the other projects. If you want to challenge a block on de-wiki, you need to do that there. You probably won't succeed though, because from the little I saw you were clearly blocked for a valid reason: your German is simply too poor to contribute usefully there, and your contributions – piss-poor German combined with naive tendentiousness – were objectively harmful both to article content and to discussions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You're being extremely rude, but that aside, there was still no justification. There was already another user who was addressing the issue, and then this guy decided to arbitrarily get involved, despite the fact that a solution had already been worked out.

• He was a German,
• Who banned a Russian mixed race German,
• Who is married to quarter Jew,
• And then he deleted the user page that says I am half Russian.
• This was also in response to objecting to the myth that Germans are totally victims of WWII, which they love to see themselves as.

But I will drop the issue.

Anonyma Mädel (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Mrsafety.jpg

Hello. You put a note on a file I uploaded that it was replaceable and so wasn't fair use. So, I uploaded an (own work) image to Commons with the same file name, hoping to have the original replaced, but it's still there. Is there any way you could just delete the image that's under fair use - would this mean the commons version under the same filename would come up on the articles instead? I hope you know what I mean. Here's a link to the new image. Thanks in advance. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 17:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for providing the free alternative. You were right; the presence of a locally uploaded file will have the effect of masking a Commons file of the same name, so the local file had to be deleted to make the one on Commons visible. The new file looks okay and should be visible now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:TheREALCableGuy

Ha--beat ya by a minute! DMacks (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Unhelpful

I'm disappointed that you've just deleted my file when I have permission to use/upload it. Hardly helpful of you. -- User:Matt.whitby

I assume you are talking of File:The Nines.jpg. I'm unfortunately not blessed with the gift of clairvoyance, so I have to go by what's on the image description page. You used the "non-free image" upload form for it, thus admitting it was not a free work. It was also very obviously a promotional image, of the type that is almost always non-free. You neither bothered to fill in the fair-use data, nor say anything about a license you had. Hardly helpful of you. If you actually do have a license – and I mean a fully free one, and evidence of it – then you are of course welcome to re-upload the file, with proper data this time. If you don't have such a license, please don't bother re-uploading, because even with a fully filled-in fair use rationale it would never stand a chance, being replaceable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)