User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 16

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

William Priestley in National Assembly (Sayers etching).jpg

You attached a comment to this image, recommending it be copied to Wiki Commons. I was unable to do this; perhaps I do not have write access to Wiki Commons. I would be pleased if you could find the time to copy the image. Thank you. Katbun (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Phil Cantillon photo

You deleted the image last week,i have send you the approval to the given email address early this week but had no response back. I will revert your change to the page if you can update your records please, cheers

gibbo136Gibbo136 (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Stewart Hase photo

I just sent an e-mail to Dr. Hase to get his approval . . . how long does he have to respond?Stmullin (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Declined rename

Hi

Re [1]. "Current name is accurate."

The current name is Adobe Photoshop CS6 Workspace, and it's an image of Adobe Photoshop CC - which is why the request said "use generic name if image will be updated in this fashion". It used to be CS6, but a new version was uploaded of CC. Cheers.

...and I just noticed that you did the Adobe Flash one: File:Adobe Flash Professional screenshot.png, which was basically the same reason... Begoon ^talk 13:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

OK feel free to re-tag, Not enough coffee.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Dali

I fail to see what is wrong with the photo: Philadelphia_Museum_of_Art#Special_exhibitions. --evrik ^(talk) 17:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No license tag, so silly bots will tag it as unlicensed.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to appeal the commons ... but I put up a license. Do you have a suggestion?

Well it's {{Photo of art}} right now...The photo being {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} but the included item {{Non-free fair use}}Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. --evrik ^(talk) 18:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Rainbow Dash/Twilight Sparkle

I'll let it slide, as I don't know what I'm doing. Dashie (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: File:Tomorrowlandentrance Cd637 (crop).jpg

If you're counting signs as sculpture, you will probably want to include deletion requests for the following pictures from the same article. I don't have a vested interest in these files staying or leaving (the Tomorrowland image wasn't mine, I just uploaded a cropped version to be consistent with other images in that article).

• File:Adventureland_Disneyland.JPG
• File:It's_a_Small_World!.jpg
• File:Disneyland-toontown_sign.jpg
• File:TheHauntedMansion.JPG
• File:Disneyland_plaque.jpg
• File:6308-DisneyLandHotelMonorailStation.jpg
• File:Downtown_Disney_Anaheim.jpg
• File:Tomorrowlandentrance.JPG

--Ahecht (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add these to the existing request.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

MickieJamesKnockoutsChampionLockDown.jpg

This is the license for File:MickieJamesKnockoutsChampionLockDown.jpg Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) it shouldn't be tagged for deletion. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That is an NC license which is not compatible - Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with the license that it can't be upload here on Wikiapedia

'NON COMMERCIAL' Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

How is wikiapedia commercial? --Miss X-Factor (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikikipedia is /not/ commercial (see the lack of ads?). THe license that wikipedia uses is the Wikipedia:CC-BY-SA, that says (basically) that the image has to be able to be used by anyone for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as they give attribution.... An example would be the people who host mirrors of wikimedia content with ads, and reuse the images....that, or selling cds of 'snapshots'. (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) does not allow derivative or commercial use. It isn't 'compatible'. Revent (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Constantine andreou - geisha.jpg

Hello. I added a rationale for the free use of File:Constantine andreou - geisha.jpg. Please let me know if this suffices. --Kimon^talk 16:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

korean symbol

You have propsed deletion for a file i found here. I thought this was freely licensed, but now im not sure. just note it came from a wiki, if that matters. im not disputing your call, I just wish i could understand the complexities of this whole licensing thing better. thanks for watching out for matters like this, i know its important.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Paula Seling- 2009.jpg

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 June 30.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nyttend (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Singapore_Dengue_Cases_May_to_June_2013.png

Hi! I have realised that you have reviewed my file "File:Singapore_Dengue_Cases_May_to_June_2013.png" attached to 2013 dengue outbreak in Singapore and it's safe to move it over to Wiki Commons. However, I have done another updated graph with the latest dengue data as of the last week of June and was however unable to update the picture to overwrite my first picture, I uploaded the file twice and still failed as the system auto generated itself back to the old first screenshot that I have uploaded. Please do advise. Yienshawn (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Liquified natural gas

I reverted your edit from this morning simply to allow me to revert the vandalism that had preceded your edit by less than an hour. I believe I restored your edit, you might want to check. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Source not needed for PD-ineligible

See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Short Pure Text Images and Sourcing, which mentions two images you nominated under {{di-no source}}. Note that a source is not necessary when the image is ineligible for copyright. I believe it is not the first time this has been mentioned to you, so please keep this in mind for the future. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Roy Harper album covers

Hi, I don't understand why an FUR has to be added to several albums you have edited, when there is already a FUR for those album covers. Am I missing something? Stephenjh (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Roy Harper album covers

Hi, I don't understand why an FUR has to be added to several albums you have edited, when there is already a FUR for those album covers. Am I missing something? Stephenjh (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Extreme Talk logo.png

Why is this file under review? Do you think it qualifies for public domain? Levdr1lp / talk 21:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It may qualify for PD-textlogo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thought so. Thanks for the reply. Levdr1lp / talk 16:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

File:SiteScout Logo.jpg

Hi, I'm in the process of writing an article for SiteScout and the logo will be used there Dankind (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion closure

Per your request, I'm just dropping you a note that I've closed the accidental FfD nominations. No harm done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

In response to Pembrokeshire flag image

Hello there I noticed you posted on my talk page about my recent upload to the Pembrokeshire. I don't quite understand what I'm supposed to add to the page as I am not really acquainted with Wikipedia and image uploading. All I would say is that the flag, the flags design and the online image of the flag are 100% in the public domain and the licence to be used freely by whoever in whatever context. The Flag Institute is linked to the British Government and the Monarchy and for a flag to be placed within it's database it has to be completely free and be owned by nobody. This can be clarified and confirmed (if you wish for it to be) by visiting the British Library in London, contacting the Home Office in Whitehall or by directly contacting the Flag Institute. Poiuytre (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SJ Butcher (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Image licensing question

Hello there, Sfan00 IMG -- would you mind having a quick look at the licensing of this image file? You had placed a deletion alert on there and, as this is my first image upload, I want to make sure everything is correct. I had contacted the copyright owner who emailed that we are free to use the image. I then sent him another email asking him to kindly fill out the permission form declaring consent to re-use work and mail it to me or to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I didn't hear back from him, but in the meantime you removed the deletion notice. Does this mean the owner sent the consent form and we can now use the file? Thanks, Not Sure (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it just means the item is pending, and isn't an immediate OMG DELETE this NOW! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm keeping my fingers crossed he'll get back to us, because there's been only radio silence since I sent him the consent form. Cheers, Not Sure (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

What does this mean?

What the heck does "threshold of originality" mean? It's not mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Prioryman (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It means the content is "too simple", and is being flagged for review because it's content that doesn't meet the NFCC, by virture of not actually needing to be 'non-free', because it's not complex enough for copyright protections to apply.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

So what is the solution for that? Prioryman (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The license on the image needs careful review, and if it meets the criteria changing to {{PD-text}}. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment - memorial images

Re your messages on my talk page: User_talk:SonofSetanta#File_permission_problem_with_File:UDR_Memorial_-_National_Arboretum.jpg & User_talk:SonofSetanta#File_permission_problem_with_File:UDR_Memorial_Seat_-_National_Arboretum.jpg. Permissions have been e-mailed to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Should these be deemed insufficient stronger ones can be requested and will definitely be granted. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

NFCR

You should really stop flooding that page with obvious pd-text cases. You have doubled the amount of open cases, when 95% of those should just be converted to pd-text and never taken to NFCR. Werieth (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

noted Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You might want to slow down the rate at which you file NFCR cases, you have more than doubled the load on the page in a very short time. Pushing the page to over 200 sections is a little overboard. Werieth (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Its now at 250 sections.... Werieth (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It's clearing a back-log of {{wrong-license}}, hopefully thing will slow down when that's cleared. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

How about you stop. Processing these over a longer period of time would be a better solution, right now you are overwhelming a page that just cannot handle that much work yet. Werieth (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Please check again

Hi you. I added valid sources for old iranian army logos that you mentioned in my talk page.(Sorry! I cant write english very well)

So, please check them again; and if you satisfied, remove the templates.

thank you.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Fuso logo question

Please note that there is no "complexity" threshold for corporate logos to be trademarked, copyrighted, or otherwise protected by their corporate owners. The blue oval encircling the word Ford in a script font is hardly complex, but it is also hardly public domain. The same would be true for IBM's block letter logo. Use of the Mitsubishi Fuso logo in the article about that company meets Wikipedia Fair Use standards, and there is an FUR for it, but it would be a legal nightmare to assume that company's logo falls within the public domain because it fails to meet some undefined complexity standard. If a corporation or other commercial business entity claims its logo is protected by trademark, copyright, etc., Wikipedia editors cannot presume otherwise. --Writeswift (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually they can, copyright does have a threshold. One can be Trademarked, without copyright. See Threshold of originality. Werieth (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Note, though, that "originality" and "complexity" (cited in the Mitsubishi Fuso case) are not the same. Regardless, Wikipedia editors do not function as copyright, patent or trademark attorneys, even if that happens to be their day job. Trademark protection is still a legal ownership protection (see Trademark infringement). You cannot move a corporate (or other legal-entity) logo graphic into the Wikipedia Creative Commons License/public domain arena if the corporate owner or other legal entity claims it is protected, simply because you don't think it meets some standard. That said, Fair Use rules would allow the use of that logo in most legitimate Wikipedia applications, so there is also no need to try to change its status. The user just has to supply a reasonable FUR. Finally, in case you think only copyright protection matters at Wikipedia and not trademark protection, note the following, excerpted from Wikipedia: Copyrights: "The only Wikipedia content you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation about is the trademarked Wikipedia/Wikimedia logos, which are not freely usable without permission." I stand by the last sentence in my first post.Writeswift (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Please note that {{PD-text}} does state that an image may still be trademarked or have other restrictions. It states Please note that there may be non-copyright restrictions protecting this image, such as trademarks and design patents. Claiming something cannot be copyrighted is separate from any trademark issues. In the Mitsubishi case the image cannot be copyrighted regardless of what the trademark owner states. There are two distinct issues that you need to separate (Copyright & Trademark) and treat each independent of the other. In this case the image cannot be copyrighted, but is trademarked. The usage of each has its own limitations and issues. Werieth (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

PS Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:MitsubishiFusoTruckofAmericaLogo_RGB.jpg never uses the term "complexity" they only used the term "originality". Werieth (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Sexist-by-occupation billboard, January 1977, California.jpg

Hi. I took the photo, made the image and uploaded the file and believe it is perfectly acceptable under the guidelines, but I am leaving it to others to provide the rationale, so I wish you would do it. I'm sure with your experience you could do a better job than I can, particularly since I am now very busy doing other Wikipedia articles. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Schwergewicht.png

Dear Shakespeare fan,

Thanks for the notification of File:Schwergewicht.png's tagging for missing rationale, but I'm still a bit confused: is the rationale I included in the summary and comment sections too skimpy, or is there another place to put a non-free rationale? Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline specifies that it is to be put on the "image description page", which points to Help:File page, but it's not quite clear what the expected format would be. tia, Sparafucil (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to explain why the image is used in the article, and yes the current rationale is a bit short. Why is it nessecary to show a notational exceprt? 80.176.129.180 (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)