User talk:Stefan2/Archive 5

File:Romantic Warriors cover.jpg

You've tagged File:Romantic Warriors cover.jpg for deletion because it is not being used on an article. However it is being used in a draft article - I was under the impression that we allowed such use. It seems a little unfair to blame the draft creator when it is our own AfC that is backlogged. Green Giant (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Non-free files may only be used in the article namespace. The draft author should not upload non-free images until the image can be used in the article namespace. See WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, that makes sense. I've sent an email asking the copyright holder if they will license the image. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Drexel social primary blue full.png

It appears that you've tagged File:Drexel social primary blue full.png for deletion because it's not being used in an article. However, on the file's page, it states that it is currently being used in the article Drexel University, and I've also verified that is the case. --Bradlevinson (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the "file usage" section on the file information page, it says that the image isn't used anywhere. However, this statement doesn't look correct... --Stefan2 (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, the same thing appears to be happening for another logo on the page that wasn't uploaded by me. I wonder if there's some sort of bug. In the meantime, do you know if there's a way to remove the deletion request, or at least ensure that the logos will not be removed as scheduled?--Bradlevinson (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Go to Special:ApiSandbox and select "purge" in the "Action" drop-down box. Tick the "forcelinkupdate" checkbox. In the field "titles", fill in the name(s) of all article(s) using the file, separated by |. After that, click on "Make request". The "file usage" section should now show the image as being used in the articles again. After that, you may remove the deletion tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! This has been resolved for both this image and from Drexel seal.png and the deletion tag has been removed from both. --Bradlevinson (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Veterans Of Foreign Wars Logo.jpg

This file is now used in the Veterans of Foreign Wars article. Thanks for the heads up or orphan status. I think this is a better image than the emblem that was in the VFW article, but I've been wrong before. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Be careful where you place comments

Stefan2, please be careful you do not place comments on user pages but on user talk pages. You placed several comments on my user page which I was not happy about.4meter4 (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The page User talk:Singingdaisies is a redirect to the page User:4meter4. Most people who tag files for deletion use Twinkle, which places the notification on the redirect target if the user talk page is a redirect, and in this case the redirect target was a user page. There are currently five user talk pages which are redirects to your user page. You might wish to change those. I see that plenty of different users have left notices on your user page, presumably related to those five accounts whose talk pages redirect to your user page. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Minister Mason signed by Catherine George.jpg

Stefan, how do I get to keep the 'File:Minister Mason signed by Catherine George.jpg' image I've upload and prevent it from being deleted? Thanks. --Bartallen2 (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The file is not in use, so it violates WP:NFCC#7. It would violate WP:NFCC#8 if added to that article, so the only way to keep it is to ask the copyright holder to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Commented out image on draft article

Please don't comment out an image on a draft article on my sandbox page User:Mtsmallwood/sandbox. I received your notice that the image needed to be linked to an article, and I can assure you that I am taking it seriously. The article for fair use I specified in the upload was George R. Vosburg which although hasn't been formally published yet, soon will be, and within the seven day deadline. It's more difficult to complete an article if the images must be added later, rather than on the sandbox draft page. If necessary, I will include my sandbox in the upload fair use justification for this purpose. Otherwise I would suggest that the seven day notice is sufficient absent some sort of gross abuse, which this is not.Mtsmallwood (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The appropriate instruction is at WP:USER#Non-free images: if a non-free image appears on a sandbox page, for example User:Mtsmallwood/sandbox, the image is to be removed from the page immediately. If you continue to add non-free images to sandbox pages, you may be blocked from editing. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Re:File:Dhirendranath datta.jpg

The photo is being used in the biography of a deceased Bangladeshi leader Dhirendranath Datta. As the only photo presently available of him for use, it is neither an orphan nor is the photo irrelevant thank you Sidsahu (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

As you can see by looking at Special:PermanentLink/625764951, the picture was not in use when it was tagged for deletion as unused. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

hope the problem is sorted out and the photo gets to stay. thanks Sidsahu (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

REF: "Replaceable fair use" B.S. - File:Szeryng.jpg which you destroyed

See WP:NPA. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You wrote in my Talk Page: Thanks for uploading File:Szeryng.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please: Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable. Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject). If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC) REPLY: YOU do all that, I just couldn't care less! (especially after noticing how falsely you're behaving, writing such 'polite' and lenghty warnings and admonitions AFTER having deleted the image I carefully retouched and uploaded) --Go away, leave me alone, go pester someone else. --AVM (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Paxata-screenshot.png

I'm not sure what is unclear about "provided directly by Paxata". I sent their PR manager an email asking for a screenshot, she emailed me a file. Can you explain what additional information you would like me to add? I would prefer not to include the full real-life identity of the exact contact that provided the image for general privacy reasons. CorporateM (Talk) 14:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The wording "provided directly by Paxata" is unclear as there are multiple ways a picture can be provided by a company. The company could offer the picture on its website or it could send it out to people who contact the company. I think that you should clarify the source field with what you wrote above. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Note that it's just a mention regarding someone else's behaviour, and not taking issue with any of your edits. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Crisco 1492: Thanks for the notification. I've read the discussion, but I'm not sure if I have anything to add to it. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
    • No worries, just giving you a heads up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Zambelo/VAPNG

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, this was an archive of an article that s currently being merged into another. If images were mistakenly copied over, then they should be removed, but why the entire thing? Zambelo; talk 21:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help

Hello,sir,I am new to this wikipedia.I have currently edit Newar caste system. I replaced 'included' with 'includes'.I have also given reason in my edit summary.But something went wrong with refferences.Please help me with that or maintain it by yourself.I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.Jojolpa (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please put topics at the bottom of the page, not at the middle of it. Otherwise, the topic is likely to be overlooked. Which reference(s) do you think look different to how you wanted them to look? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free images that aren't orphaned?

Hi Stefan2! I saw that you tagged File:Screenshot of Delicious in 2004.jpg and File:The screenshot of the delicious website.jpg for deletion as orphans, and their "File usage" sections say they're not used anywhere - but they are in use, on Social bookmarking. That's weird - do you know why that might be happening? Dreamyshade (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why they were gone. Typing curl -d 'titles=Social bookmarking&action=purge&forcelinkupdate=1' http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php from the command-line made them appear there again. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Could you please review why you tagged File:Unsafe At Any Speed Final.jpg? Geo Swan (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The file was not in use when the file was tagged. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Excuse me, but, assuming you are a quality control volunteer who is genuinely committed to helping to improve the project, wouldn't you take a few seconds to check the article where the image was said to be in use, to make sure a sudden orphaning wasn't due to (1) careless editing or (2) vandalism? As an experienced editor you must be aware that it is orders of magnitude harder to restore a recklessly deleted fair use image than to revert a careless edit, or a vandal, who removed a valid fair use image without having had a good reason for doing.

Here is another example. You tagged File:The_Last_Mimzy.jpg as an orphan, when if you had taken just a few seconds to look at the revision history of the article where it was used you would have recognized that it wasn't orphaned at all. Rather User:Coco9091 had accidentally deleted the trailing braces on the article's infobox.

You are committed to improving the project, not wasting other volunteers time, correct? Then I encourage you, I strongly encourage you, I encourage you, in the strongest possible terms, to show respect for the efforts of other contributors, and take the brief amount of time required to verify that recently orphaned images weren't orphaned by accident, or through vandalism. Geo Swan (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#7 is very simple: if a non-free file isn't in use, it should be deleted. Also, the easiest way to find out if a file has been orphaned incorrectly is to tag it as orphaned as the uploader will immediately know that it is supposed to be in use if it is supposed to be in use. Also, by extending the tagging process by several hours, as you are proposing, would just have the result that orphaned non-free files never would be tagged by anyone, and articles missing files would never be discovered. Also, by adding the file to an article, I would be violating the copyright law and risking legal problems. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

User page image

Could you give me a more explicit explanation about why you commented out the logo on my user space draft User:Nyth83/History of Chevrolet to 1958? Was it #3 minimal use? I am just guessing, because you edit summary was not specific. Anyway, I switched the logo as the 1913 one appears to be listed as public domain and is more appropriate to subject. Nyth83 (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

See the edit summary: the page User:Nyth83/History of Chevrolet to 1958 is not in the article namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that #9 which does not seem to link correctly. Odd policy that does not allow time to draft an article and review the appearance before moving to namespace without having to use a silly workaround like adding and removing comment tags. Moot point anyway as I changed the image. Nyth83 (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You tagged this page as a copyvio. Is the problem now fixed?

Hello Stefan2. Please note your recent edit. You added a copyvio notice that did not supply a URL for what it was a copy of. Now that a histmerge has been done, it's my impression that there is no continuing problem. Either way, can you clarify if you still want the copyvio template there? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The template contains a link to a discussion where the reason is given: "The previous content of this page or section has been identified as posing a potential copyright issue, as a copy or modification of the text from the source(s) below, and is now listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems (listing):" --Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hussein Saeed pictures

Please decide whether the photos of Hussein Saeed will be deleted or not before 6 October. --Hashima20 (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That is usually decided by an admin some time after the end of the time period specified in the template. Also, the process is sometimes backlogged, so it may sometimes take some extra days before an admin makes a decision. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Kindly answer my PUF question in exquisite detail. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Two of the Hussein Saeed photos are deleted because of your (opinion). I explained it very well to you that these photos are not a free content but they're very useful but, you insisted on saying that they're not needed. An admin should make a wise choice of deleting the photos or not but, instead, the photos were deleted before you and we finished our discussion. This shouldn't have happened at all. These photos were completely harmless and they served as helpful photos for the article. Please, understand the situation and have a discussion with the uploader before putting the di-replaceable fair use template. If an admin doesn't decide whether the World Cup photo is staying or not, it will be deleted too, because of you. And if it was deleted by an admin, he deleted it before understanding the situation --Hashima20 (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record: only administrators can delete files. Therefore, if a file is deleted, you will always know that it was an administrator who deleted it. In this case, I would assume that administrator Ronhjones (talk · contribs) agreed with me that the files indeed were replaceable. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

All I can say is that he chose poorly. --Hashima20 (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Your seemingly illegal edit of my user page

You have denied me of the right to express my team winning the first premiership in 43 years by removing the South Sydney image of my userpage. Please explain why (I want a proper explanation). Luxure (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Luxure: I think I can answer for Stefan2 here. The problem was that the image you put on your userpage was a non-free image. (By "free" here, I mean free as in speech, not as in beer.) Wikipedia, by nature, tries to use only freely-licensed images; we try to only use images that have been released by their author as free to reuse and modify. This is so that the license of the images matches up with the free license that Wikipedia itself is written and released under (called CC-BY-SA, if you're curious). But it sometimes happens that a picture we need isn't freely licensed. Thus, we have some provisions that allow for the use of non-free images in our articles. But because those images aren't free for us to use, we're not allowed to just use them however we want; we can only use them in articles, and even then only in articles that have a specific need for them. There's actually an entire set of restrictions that we have to abide by when using such non-free images--the non-free content criteria.

Unfortunately, one of the things this policy says is that non-free images cannot be used on userpages at all (since there's no encyclopedic need for userpages to have any images); see point #9. Since the image you put up on your userpage wasn't a freely-licensed image, I'm afraid it wasn't allowed to be there; that's why Stefan2 removed it. I'm sorry that you can't express yourself the way you'd like, but copyright policy is pretty strict, since it's rooted in legal issues that we as editors aren't really qualified to judge or overrule. I think I can safely say that Stefan2 didn't mean anything personal by it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! Stefan could have at least attempted to explain it. Thanks anyway! Luxure (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image

That's was done, Thank u for your warring. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Three orphaned non-free image deletions

I just want to let you know that I am NOT opposing deletion on two of the images you notified me about on my talk page: [1], and [2]. It seems that these are no longer useful for the articles or for the Wikipedia project. However, you might notice that I commented on the third image [3] on my talk page - at the deletion discussion [4], [5]. If my post here, on your talk page, doesn't make sense - just let me know and I will try to clarify. Thanks---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Question

Stefan, I know you do a lot of work with images and was wondering if you could help me with a licensing question... is this logo non-free or in the PD? I have seen them go both ways, as the previous logo is on the English Wikipedia as non-free and the Commons logo as free. I don't know much about the licensing so I figured I would ask someone who knows way more about than I do! Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 22:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The file on Commons clearly is above the threshold of originality and is therefore copyrightable. A Commons user claims that the image has been licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0, but has not provided any evidence of this. The file has therefore been tagged as missing evidence of permission.

The file on Wikipedia may arguably be below the threshold of originality, but it may also be above it. I have listed the file for discussion at WP:NFCR#File:Fox News Channel logo.png. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 14:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Stefan2:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – The Herald 12:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Hello Stefan2, regarding the right in the file . I was the person who took that screenshot. According to Wikipedia guidelines there is a fairuse for this type of images.Nicoguaro (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

As you can see from the notification, the file was not in use. As the file wasn't in use, it didn't satisfy the non-free content criteria. However, I see that it is now in use again. Please do not use non-free files outside articles, such as my talk page. Such use violates WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Nagle image

The image File:Florence Nagle alt.jpg can be deleted right away - sorry I forgot to put a deletion notice on it when I managed to find a better quality replacement (also not free use but no free use are likely to be available). Apologies for causing you extra work. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Improper image tagging

I've seen you tag quite a few images for deletion after they were obviously improperly removed from the corresponding articles (as a result of editing up to and including vandalism). I ask that you stop doing this immediately as it is highly detrimental to the encyclopedia. You are responsible for each and every edit you make, and this includes verifying whether an image was properly removed from an article before tagging it for deletion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and this goes for images with trivial licensing description mistakes on their corresponding pages as well. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's not correct. Tagging with {{subst:orfud}} only requires verifying whether the image is in use, not checking why it isn't in use. See WP:NFCC#7. Besides, tagging it sooner rather than later speeds up the time it takes to have an image restored to an article, if it was incorrectly removed from the article, as the uploader receives a talk page notification and checks the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, but you don't do that, now do you? You just wait around until the image is deleted through inaction on the part of non-administrator editors. I suppose that's the real problem here, isn't it? (By the way, your assertion isn't supported by your link, since it doesn't explicitly waive your implicit responsibility for your edits in such instances.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

So what is your suggestion instead? That files which have been removed from articles never should be readded to them? That Wikipedia should host millions of unused non-free files? The uploader is more likely to know why a file has been removed from a page and can therefore much faster identify if the file should be restored there. Also, by restoring a non-free file in an article myself, I would be violating the copyright law and risk legal problems. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest doing one of two things: either not tagging images that were obviously improperly removed, or tagging them but then actually working to resolve the relevant issues when it is trivial to do so. The bottom line here is that your actions in this regard cause the disappearance of images that should not be disappearing. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

So what you are suggesting is either 1) make sure that the files never are restored to Wikipedia articles and that Wikipedia hosts thousands of unused non-free files, or that 2) make sure that the files never are restored to Wikipedia articles and that Wikipedia hosts thousands of unused non-free files? Why would that be any better? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Reply to your message on my talk page...

You're welcome. The logo can always be archived on Logopedia, though. ~~LDEJRuff~~ 19:26, 29 October, 2014 (UTC)

Persib logo.png

Hi Stefan, I just want to say that the picture is the logo of the club. It is non-free but as I understand logos for football teams are exceptions as long as its only used in the club articles, am I right? Cheers!! MbahGondrong (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Re:Orphaned non-free image File:Regnecentralen.jpg

Hello Stefan2, in the article Regnecentralen my logo was replaced by an image of much higher quality. therefore the "orphanization". The replacemant is a "manual" redrawing of the company logo and is declared "public domain" by the uploader. I doubt whether a high definition painting of a logo effectively bypasses a probably still existing copyright on this logo (today Fujitsu), on the other hand only a very few people of this company would remember even the name "Regnecentralen" today. Ergo: the file may be deleted without any harm. Best regards --Jkbw (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Moonpeel and non-free image policy warning

Hi, you removed an image from a draft that I'd reviewed. Unfortunately your tagging tool got a bit lost and left the warning message on my talk page, rather than that of the image uploader. I've moved your message to the right page, but you might get a notification about that. Rankersbo (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Johannesburg Stock Exchange 2014 logo.jpg

Dear user, Kindly refer to the JSE Limited page before claiming the logo is "Orphaned". The Description and use is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by unidentified user (talk • contribs)

Which image are you talking about? --Stefan2 (talk) 10:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Regarding non-free image policy for File:나는남자다하단.jpg

Thanks for the usage of the Non-free image policy. I have upload new version of the image files from the official website, KBS I am a man (Korean). I also have add another Template, which is Template:Non-free use rationale. Before I use on my draft article, I need your help to confirm that the logo is non-free image before I use it on my draft article. You may view the image here: File:나는남자다하단.jpg

Once again, thanks for remind me about usage of Non-free image policy Kingsho (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2014 (Malaysia Standard Time)

You can never use any non-free images in drafts. See WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If that case, I handle the image to you. You can delete the image or keep it. Kingsho (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2014 (Malaysia Standard Time)

Re: Orphaned non-free image File:OrientdbLogo.png

Stefan2, thanks for the notification. I'm not sure what to do at this point. The File:OrientdbLogo.png was added as FairUse for the OrientDB article, but was recently replaced with an updated version of the logo. The user uploaded File:OrientDB Logo 2014 280x177.jpg, but it is missing licensing templates. I was going to add the Apache tag and remove the warning, as the user that uploaded specified "Apache 2.0" in text, but I'm not sure the image itself is Apache 2.0. The free version of the software is released under Apache 2.0, but I'm not sure that makes the logo of the company fall under that license. So my thought would be to change it to FreeUse again, but that's not allowed on WikiMedia. So, not sure what to do as both images might end up getting deleted. Morphh ^(talk) 15:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have converted the "no licence" tag into a deletion request on Commons as I am not sure if the Apache claim is correct. Feel free to comment there. File:OrientdbLogo.png will be deleted in one week if it is not in use before then. I note that the two logos are different. I don't know if this is correct. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

NOT UNDERSTAND

I didn't get what you have commented at WP:FFU#Sadichha Shrestha.what do i have to do now with that.would you please like to explain?will it be uploaded or not?Jojolpa (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You claimed that the photographer has released the photograph to the public domain, but you didn't provide any evidence that the photographer has done so. There is no information about the copyright status on the linked page, which usually means that the photograph is fully copyrighted. Unless you can provide that the image is in the public domain (or freely licensed), then the request will be declined after a week. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Gogo212121 (talk · contribs)

UserGogo212121 Hello Stefan2 please look this three page

Link To License Information: http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/celebritymicro/images/id/5396/category/parties/type/view/imageid/2683885/

URL: http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/celebritymicro/images/id/5396/category/parties/type/view/imageid/2658572/

URL: http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/celebritymicro/images/id/171/category/parties/type/view/imageid/2683800/ --Gogo212121 (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

--Gogo212121 (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I do not see any image there. Some images from that website are licensed under {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}}. I don't know if this is the case with the image you are trying to link to. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

UserGogo212121 Hello Stefan2 please look page wikipedia files for upload please --Gogo212121 (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I assume that you are talking about WP:FFU#Shah Rukh Khan, Deepika Padukone & others snapped at Maharashtra Assembly Elections 2014.jpg and the following sections. Since I can't see the images, I can't do anything about the requests. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

UserGogo212121 Hello STefan2 Can i upload files in wikipedia Commons --Gogo212121 (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gogo212121:,if you are trying to upload information data as an article to Wikipedia from compute ,then it is not possible.Jojolpa (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

As the link does not work for me, I am not able to tell whether the file can be uploaded or not. I would suggest leaving the section for someone else who is regularly patrolling the WP:FFU page. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Why

WP:FFU#Sadichha Shrestha You upset him.Why did you declined his request so fast?.yep,the name and photos are same but he provided it with different link and holder/copyright as you told him you didn't get much information from above section.now please ,please upload the photo.I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.Oi kt chakh farkana,chikna man lagyo. (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely no point in having multiple sections about the same image. That only causes confusion. As stated in the first section and at #NOT UNDERSTAND above, the user needs to provide evidence of permission before the file can be uploaded. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

HELLO

hello!I provided the photo with different link and holder.you said that there is not enough information in above request so I left it and began new request with same headline for same photo with different link and copywrite .Please read my new request before talking any quick action.Jojolpa (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems that you posted a duplicate section at WP:FFU#Sadichha Shrestha. Is this what you are talking about? As stated at #NOT UNDERSTAND above, you need to provide evidence that the file is freely licensed or in the public domain. None of the links you have provided in either section shows this. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

i gave the link from my facebook account then what further proof are you asking for free licence ?Jojolpa (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the Facebook account holder has licensed the image under a free licence or that the Facebook account holder is the copyright holder in the first place. The image has appeared on numerous websites since at least 2010. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned_non-free_image_File:Dimmi_che_non_passa_music_video_cap.jpg

Hello Stefan, thanks for your notification. The thing is that actually this image *shoud* appear in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmi_Che_Non_Passa_(song) but for some reasons it looks like I cannot manage to upload it. Any suggestion? Thanks a lot! Mattia Mat (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image: Nick Drake

It appears that another image is now used in the Nick Drake infobox, thus orphaning the earlier one I put up. I see no reason to place the earlier one elsewhere in the article, though perhaps someone might be inclined otherwise.

Dreadarthur (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The file violates WP:NFCC#1 as there are freely licensed images of the person. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Message from October 30, 2014

Thanks for informing for File:Schibsted Media Group logo.jpg, but actually, to tell the truth, the REAL uploader is 82.35.30.54 (I uploaded it for him, as a approval of request from Files for upload). Please review this. Wikipedian 2 (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

When approving a request at WP:FFU, make sure that you follow the instructions:

• The user should be notified about the activity, but the only notification I find at User talk:82.35.30.54 is from another user, none from you.
• When uploading a file, remember to add {{subst:WPAFCF}} to the talk page.
• It says "Make sure you're familiar with Wikipedia's policies on non-free content (or simplified version)." It seems that you are not, since you failed to add a fair use rationale.

If there is a notification about the file (for example, a deletion notification), the notification will typically go to the person who uploaded the file, not to the person who requested the upload on the main WP:FFU page. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Cover of Bobby Broom Plays for Monk

This album should not be scheduled for deletion: This photo was made available by BobbyBroom.com and granted fair use status: "Bobby Broom’s photographs are rights cleared for use in all print, Internet, and video news, social, and informational media. Fair us shall be for non-commercial purposes: Informational, news, educational, and historic uses, in both high res (print) and med-res (web applications)." http://bobbybroom.com/newsmedia/ They were apparently granted clearance to use the two photos for the comparison, and to make them available to all media. It does not violate copyright therefore. Theclevertwit (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)theclevertwit

See the footnote to WP:NFCI §1: images like this are typically only suitable in the article about the product, but not in other articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This is for a historic comparative relative to the artist and the story and still seems to be in compliance with your footnoted item. I can put the image on the discussion of the album, which has to be generated when I have time to write it up, as well. It is germane and should remain. Theclevertwit (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)theclevertwit

non free image removal

I see you dive-bombing the Graphics Workshop again removing non-free images leaving blank spots in your wake for others to fix or figure out. I would kindly ask that you don't be a dick and instead swap the offending image with {{GLNF|image.jpg}}. You might know the rules but often others don't. Being a dick about it isn't the most helpful way to go about fixing the problem. Of course one may say I'm trying to fix your problem by being a dick, but sometimes that's all someone being a dick understands. – JBarta (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

All of the requests had already been processed, unless I am missing something. Each section contains {{done}}, {{resolved}} or both. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. People look at them after they're done or resolved. People sometimes go back and refer to them after they're archived. When there's no image, people have to figure out what's going on. Experienced editors sometimes figure out that someone was being a dick and try to figure out what image was there, but newbies will have no clue. An easily avoidable annoyance. Just please, if you remove an image, replace it with the template. Problem solved and everyone is happy. – JBarta (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service Logo Removal

Hello, I do not understand why you keep commenting out the image I used on my draft article. If you are going to keep doing that, please just explain why you're doing that. I've attached information to the image file about why it is OK to be used, so I don't see why you keep removing it. I am a new editor, so perhaps I'm missing something, even though I've read through the fair use pages and feel certain that I've substantiated the claim. KeepCoolDon'tFreeze (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

As I have told you, the image violates WP:NFCC#9 in the draft article. Non-free images may only be used in articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

So, is the problem that the logo is uploaded as File:LIRS logo.gif or that the logo is in the LIRS page which is currently a draft page (and once it is a regular article it will be fine to have the logo image there)? --KeepCoolDon'tFreeze (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Since the file is unfree, it can't be used in article drafts. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thank you, I'll remove it from the draft page and wait to put the image back up until it is a regular article. KeepCoolDon'tFreeze (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

File Star Wars Rebels is no longer orphan

I un-orphaned the file File:Star Wars Rebels Characters.jpg, and it is now featured in the relevant article. Am I allowed to remove the deletion tag, or do you need to do that? Luthien22 (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

As the file is now in use, I have removed the tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I noticed you added a reduce tag and made a reduced version. How do I replace the current version with the reduced one? Luthien22 (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That tag is usually processed by a bot some time after the file was tagged, so you should not need to do anything. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much!Luthien22 (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Alexander Nelke Portrait.jpg

Hi, this image was tagged for deletion for a couple of reasons... One being that it isn't currently being used, which I just read isn't allowed in one of your other sections. Fair enough...the article is almost ready for submission. However, I'm not quite sure what I should do about the other reasons, and any help would be greatly appreciated.

The image in question is a partial image taken from a family portrait that was given to me by the heirs of the Nelke estate which I scanned and cropped. I was told that because it is a partial image, it was ok to use. If this is not the case, please let me know what steps I will need to take to use the image properly in the future when the article is ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishRhino (talk • contribs) 22:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

As there currently is no article in which the image can be used, you should not have uploaded it in the first place. Family portraits usually do not satisfy WP:NFCC#4, so you will presumably have to ask the photographer to follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Since the photo was taken nearly 80 years ago by a photo studio which no longer exists, that would probably prove to be quite an undertaking. But I also have a copy of his Naturalization Papers which include his photo. Would this document fall into Public Domain? According to the National Archives Website, "all government records are in the public domain and may be freely used." Seems it would be easier to use this image if that is so. Would this be a good alternative?IrishRhino (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Who took the second photograph? Was it taken by a government official, or was it taken by someone else? If the photograph was taken by a government official, which country's government did the government official work for? Has the photograph been published somewhere? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The photo would have been taken by a US government official for a US government document (1945 Naturalization Records). From everything I've read from USA.gov and the (USA)archives.gov: "A United States government work is prepared by an officer or employee of the United States government as part of that person's official duties. It is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work". To me, this would indicate that this document would be classified as public domain. Pretty certain I'd be able to use the image... but I'm still looking into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishRhino (talk • contribs) 15:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

In that case, you should be able to upload the image using the copyright tag {{PD-USGov}}. Please remember to provide enough information so that it can be verified that the image comes from the U.S. government. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the help. I'll upload the new image with the proper tags once the article is ready. Also, I guess I'll just have to wait until the current image gets deleted by an admin as there is no way for the uploader to remove it manually. Thanks again.IrishRhino (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

EwanMcLennan.jpg

Hello there.

Thanks for taking a look at the article on Ewan McLennan. The photo that you tagged for deletion is taken straight from Ewan's web site, and is also part of the free publicity material that can be downloaded. Ewan himself has viewed the draft and has given it his approval. Could the photo be reinstated, and the article approved and published?

Thanks, Dave Naganata (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the photograph is freely licensed, and it currently says that the photograph is unfree. If the photograph is freely licensed for some reason, then please ask the photographer to follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I have sent the wording from the WP:CONSENT page and asked Ewan to send the appropriate email. I've included the album covers as well for completeness. Naganata (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This does not look like a self-shot. Ewan is unlikely the photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Stefan,

Although Ewan isn't the photographer, he is the "the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright" as per the WP:CONSENT guidelines. That apart, the album covers are in the public domain (see Amazon, iTunes etc.) so you could still use them. If the main picture is a problem can we go forward without it? Ewan says he has sent the email to you (Wikipedia) granting permission to use the images listed anyway.

Thanks, Dave

Naganata (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem

I have already forward a letter from Thomas, to permissions-en@wikimedia.org He grants this files dude... Heleluyah ;)

File permission problem with File:05112014172200Kinematics&DynamicsOverview.gif

File permission problem with File:05112014172209Kinematics&DynamicsSummary.gif

Thomas Funkhouser 5 Nov (6 days ago)

to me They may be used freely.

On 11/5/2014 10:42 AM, Alex Cham wrote: BTW, here is an article prototype. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alex.Cham/Blender3D#Skeletal_animation_.40TODO

On 5 November 2014 18:30, Alex Cham <cau.mbox@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Thomas! Recently i found your amazing overview of kinematics in princeton archive http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall99/cs426/lectures/kinematics/

I decide to use files from there, in terminology section of my wikipedia article. But after upload i was noticed about file permission problem.If you dont agree to use this files as free content, i'll ask admins to delete them. Thx for your time and btw - sory for my english.

From wiki: "Thanks for uploading File:05112014172203ForwardKinematics.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license. If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion. If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.Cham (talk • contribs) 2014-11-11T00:08:59 (UTC)

The wording "They may be used freely" is not specific enough. What does "freely" mean? Used by whom? Is it permitted to modify the material? Please ask the copyright holder to follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT. Additionally, the message refers to File:05112014172203ForwardKinematics.gif, but you listed two other images further up. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: permissions for pics

Dude, I know Mr. Serv-On personally and he said I can use the pics he put up on datpiff, and the pic of him was sent to me FROM HIM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespon (talk • contribs) 00:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Please get the copyright holder to follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT. The copyright holder is normally the photographer. Since the pictures do not look like self-shots, "Mr. Serv-On" is unlikely the copyright holder. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he owns the ones on Datpiff. I still don't completely understand how to "obtain copyright." I just feel like people wouldn't really care if I used album covers since there are tons here on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespon (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright is automatically obtained when a work is created and usually belongs to the person who created the work. In some countries, there are exceptions for works created as part of an employment contract. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Now About File:UVCoordinatesTextureMapping.png

As described here: Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Deprecated#Non-free Creative Commons licenses I must add tag {{Db-ccnoncom}} because of their license: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Opengl-tutorialorg but Db-ccnoncom template doesn't exists! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.Cham (talk • contribs) 2014-11-11T00:33:41 (UTC)

The speedy deletion template is called {{Db-noncom}}, not {{Db-ccnoncom}}. Since Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Deprecated#Non-free Creative Commons licenses uses the name {{Db-ccnoncom}}, I have created {{Db-ccnoncom}} as a redirect.

Do not remove comments posted by other users. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

He told me his DJ, DJsuckafree took the pic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespon (talk • contribs) 18:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

DJsuckafree also did most of the artwork, Trouble a.k.a. Rob Ellis did the art for Guaparation canal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespon (talk • contribs) 18:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Try to get the person who created the image to follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT. If the image was created as part of an employment, it may, depending on in which country the person is employed, be necessary to get the person's employer to follow that procedure. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It was here in the US though..

I don't understand why there are all these issues with pics here on wikipedia, they don't care on other sites.

File:Ahmad Keshvari.jpg

Hi Stefan I used this picture from Sajed website and this website mentioned in the site that all information are free according to GNU Free Documentation License {{GFDL}}. I requested from you until see this website and don't deleted this picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliAkar (talk • contribs) 2014-11-11T06:16:50 (UTC)

The link gives a 404 Not Found error. If the file is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, then please clarify how this can be verified. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stefan

The link of this picture temporarily is interrupted and had problem to loading. Please wait and in the next few day this site load again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliAkar (talk • contribs) 2014-11-12T06:54:07 (UTC)

The link is now working again, so the image has been forwarded to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 November 13#File:Ahmad Keshvari.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Map of the Energy Community Members.jpg: Revision history

Sorry, I do not understand how or where am I to reason the usage of the image? I do not know where to add this code. I assume that is not under License. I now accidentally deleted the text there. I was not able to undo. Sorry. If my arguments are not good enough, what can I do as next? Can I re-upload and categorize the image in a different way? We just wanted to have it for the facts box. If you think it should not be protected, that's fine with me. I just see very little reason why/how could be used on any other page. Or, we star having some other modified version. But, if there is a reference to the Energy Community, that's naturally fine. --Lesjak H (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Heli

As the map is unfree, it has no place on Wikipedia. See WP:NFC#UUI §4. If you want the image to remain on Wikipedia, the copyright holder must follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks I will try to follow the procedure. Hope I manage. Thank you

--Lesjak H (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)HEli

The Girl Who Loved Horses - cover art

Hello Stefan, I am not sure why this picture has been flagged for deletion. It is currently being used on the article for The Girl Who Loved Wild Horses, despite what your message said. In fact it was being used on that article since before that. It falls under free-use and is being used for an article. What exactly is the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.156.168 (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Which image are you talking about? File:CM girl loved horses.jpg is used in the article and is not up for deletion. File:The Girl Who Loved Wild Horses - Paul Goble.jpg is not used in the article and is therefore up for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Huygens landing site.jpg

In June 2014 you deleted File:Huygens landing site.jpg with the rationale "F4: File without a source for more than 7 days". However, looking at the deleted revisions, the image did have a source supplied, albeit not in the "Source" field of the template: "Other information = Source: ESA web site". That web page is still active and does match the image we have.

Based on this, I'd like to restore the image but I thought I'd check with you first. You might also want to check whether other images are/were similarly attributed. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The file has been deleted, so I can't see the file or the file information page and therefore do not know why I tagged the file as "no source". I do not see any reason to believe that images hosted on the "esa.int" website are freely licensed. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I saw it had been deleted for no source so didn't look at the copyright. The image page at esa.int says "Copyright: ESA/NASA/JPL/University of Arizona", my knowledge is that ESA images are generally not free but NASA and JPL ones normally are. Can you either advise whether this is free or not, or suggest where to ask someone who would be able to advise? Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

F4 doesn't seem to be a valid deletion reason if the link you mentioned is present on the file information page. I might have mean to tag the file for deletion as F11, or the link might have been added after I tagged the file (although I would probably have spotted this and removed an F4 tag in that case). It is strange that the deleting administrator didn't spot this either.

Works by NASA are generally {{PD-USGov-NASA}}, while works by ESA normally are unfree. Works by the University of Arizona are presumably also unfree. The article about JPL states that JPL is funded by NASA but managed by the California Institute of Technology. Employees of the California Institute of Technology do not seem to be employees of the United States federal government, so pictures created by such people are presumably unfree. This page states that anything on JPL's website may be copyrighted, but refers to this page which suggests that most of JPL's images are freely licensed as {{attribution}}, with the exception of non-JPL pictures and certain non-copyright restrictions. I don't know if that permission applies to JPL images not hosted on JPL's website.

If an image is credited to "ESA/NASA/JPL/University of Arizona", the copyright status would appear to depend on the employment status of those who created the image. If the creation of the image involved ESA and/or University of Arizona employees, the image is unfree. I don't know if all four organisations necessarily were involved in creating the image, or if that byline simply is used for a large number of images without bothering about details. It may be better to list the image at WP:PUF. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The photograph was taken by the unmanned Cassini orbiter rather than directly by an employee, so it seems this isn't going to be simple it seems! I'll take this to WP:PUF as you suggest, thanks for your input so far. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The file must be undeleted while it is discussed at WP:PUF (or a dummy image could be uploaded in its place). Otherwise, a bot will immediately close the discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The bot got there before I saw this message, but I've undeleted the file for the discussion and undone the bot's close (I hope correctly). Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:JessicaMarais.jpg

I've changed the license to what I think is the correct one, Stefan2. Please take a look. (File:JessicaMarais.jpg) PatTheMoron (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Based on the information at either of the URLs given. The source URL to the picture does not give any information about the copyright status of the image. The page you've linked to for the permission field says "Wallpoper collect free wallpaper ("Content") from the internet and provide the user to filter them by keyword, color or screen resolution. That mean We are not the author of these Content, so do not ask us about permission to use.", which means they just found it somewhere on the internet and do not hold the copyright and so are unable to license it appropriately for Wikipedia (in fact their hosting is almost certainly a copyright violation). Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright and File:Licensing tutorial en.svg are not bad places to start to understand this. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've now deleted the image as a unambiguous copyright violation (speedy deletion criterion F9). For reference the original image URL was http://wallpoper.com/wallpaper/jessica-marais-426994 and the Wallpoper Terms of Service page used as the permission link is at http://wallpoper.com/tos-and-privacy-policy.php.

Wikipedia does accept some copyrighted images under fair use provisions, but subject to strict conditions. These conditions mean that this image could never be used as fair use, specifically images of living people are always deemed to be replaceable with free images (criterion 1). The original photographer and source would also need to be identified. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Where do you recommend I look for an appropriate photo next? PatTheMoron (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The easiest way is often to take a photograph yourself. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Um... okay. Funny thing is, I have actually MET Jessica Marais, and I DID get my picture taken with her. However, the images predominantly features me, while Jessica's wearing sunglasses. Any other recommendations? PatTheMoron (talk) 05:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The easiest alternative solution is to wait until 70 years have passed since the death of the person who took some photograph of her (or in some cases until 95 years have passed since a photograph was first published). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Still not the most helpful advice. I'll run any sites with images that could be used by you when I come across them. PatTheMoron (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk to me

Can somebody please tell me WHAT TO DO ABOUT THIS FILE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is getting silly.Wikirictor (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok i just read your comment about the sculpture...so it is about the rights to publish photos of artwork? Did not know that. Can you send me a link to the relevant page, please? ThanksWikirictor (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

See c:COM:FOP#Cambodia. Cambodian law prohibits publication of photographs of sculptures without permission from the sculptor. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

INTENTION

it seems as if you are not here to upload image in WP:FFU .you have been only declining and i don't see your any accept.stop this or i will report you.Jojolpa (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

What is the problem? If someone asks for a copyright violation to be uploaded, the request has to be declined. Also, I have uploaded many files upon request, for example File:Adelaide Post Office architectural detail.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: File:Hill 60 Australian Recruting poster 1915.JPG‎

Hi Stefan, I noticed that you changed the licensing on this file whereas this image, that came from the same source, is licensed differently. I am just curious about why - it's no big deal but it might help me get it right next time. Cheers, --Bye for now (PTT) 16:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You added a copyright tag to the file claiming that the copyright has expired, but didn't specify why it has expired. I clarified this by changing the tag to a better one. I have added the other copyright tag to this file too. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks, --Bye for now (PTT) 23:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Nueva2014 (talk · contribs)

STEFAN2 , Carlotta Montanari 's images are my own work , I work for Carlotta Montanari, and all these images are legitimate which we own rights and copyrights. These Carlotta Montanari's photos do not require deletion. Same thing for the other that you for some reason are trying to have deleted: 1) File:Carlotta Montanari hosting "Note D'incanto", telethon TV show.jpg; 2) File:Carlotta Montanari attends Los Angeles Film Art And Fest.jpg 3) File:Carlotta Montanari, hosting "STELLE e NOTE di NATALE" TV event telethon Gaslini Children's Hospital, Italy, 2006.jpg 4) File:Carlotta Montanari interviews for Save The Children.jpg

I really would like to know what is your purpose of this? Please explain. Thank you!  Nueva2014

The pictures seem to be television screenshots. You can't take screenshots of copyrighted television programmes. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Stefan2, I am the co-producer of that TV show and apparently from Italian TV Stelle e note di natale and same for note di incanto! yes, they gave me the OK to use them for those are the stills from the only TV version ever made, if you want give me your email address and I will give you details and contact of RAI TV to ask that in person yourself. Or please cancel your deletion request for there is NO infringement of COPYRIGHTS in this matter. Nueva2014

See WP:IOWN. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Non-free Reduce

Main page: File:Latest version of Uplay.jpg

Hi, you tagged my a file uploaded by me ([[File:Latest version of Uplay.jpg]]) with {{non-free reduce}}, so I resized the image and re-uploaded a new version. After that I removed your tag as well. But you re-added it without providing a proper explanation. Do I have to reduce the resolution further?. Please point out what's need to be done. Thank you --Chamith (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The file still seems to be unnecessarily large. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Own work

Photo you queried GLORIA is own work, over 50 years old therefore no copyright exists.08:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norwikian (talk • contribs)

Then why did it say "Commissioned photo" in the source field? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Feedback on RfC wording about non-free SVGs

Greetings, I am leaving you this notice because you participated in the discussion about non-free SVGs at WT:NFC. I have received a response from WMF on the matter, and they told me that this is a decision that has historically been left to the community. In order to get some clarification, I would like to run a widely-advertised RfC, but since I obviously have an opinion on the matter, I would prefer it if other editors could give me some feedback on the neutrality of my wording before I actually make the RfC. You can comment on the proposed statement here. Thanks! 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 17:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Average claridon home.jpg

Thanks for the correction; it's beenf orever since I nominated a file for deletion, so I didn't remember the procedure. Nyttend (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Stefan2 (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of wikipedia event media?

Hello, why did you delete the poster from the topeka wikipedia meetup? Do you not support local wikipedia efforts? can you please explain your reasoning? thanks mike 12:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdupont (talk • contribs)

Since you uploaded the file twice under different names, the most recently uploaded copy was deleted. See the notification on your talk page. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)