User talk:Werieth

Deleted with extreme speed

Hello ! You never gave me any opportunity to contest the speedy deletion of the three pictures. Regarding "Sonny Johansson scores at Sandvikens IF in 1970" (picture is already gone) , I would like to argue that althow I may have been wrong in putting text ON the picture, I would argue that the picture is a historical moment of great significance whithin the scope of Landskrona BoIS article. And there is no possibility of showing that moment elsewise. Boeing720 (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Placing the spam in the picture is absolutely uncalled for, and we dont accept for Wikipedia only pictures. It was tagged and then deleted by an admin according to policy. If you want to illustrate these events and you have someone willing to donate the pictures to wikipedia its not that difficult to properly explain our mission and goals and to get the files released under a copyleft license that is acceptable. Werieth (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But like I have attempted to explain, (regarding Sonny Johansson scores in the very importaint qualification to Allsvenskan game, in 1970) I have first contacted the copyright owners, Landskrona Stadsmuseum ("Landskrona's Town Museum") and their archive, called Minnesbanken ("The Memory Bank"). http://www.landskrona.se/Landskrona-museum/Minnesbanken.aspx I then asked for permission to use a few Landskrona BoIS - related pictures. They answered "just chose some photos and their number" and so I did. And through e-mail from Ingmar Sund (ingmar.sund@landskrona.se) I recieved the four pictures (in larger versions), this took almost two weeks, but included Easter. Anyone may obtain this picture for free by

go to http://www.landskronaminnesbanken.se/Foto.asp
(since I already have found the archive number) just wright 3663 below "Bildnummer" (Picture number) at the top (all other search help must be blank, I think) and press "Sök" ("Search").
Then (for unknown reasons) three blue link numbers appears in the upper part of the right column. And just press at "1970" (followed by Swedish text "Landskrona Bois. Sonny Johansson gör 2-0 i den all" the text is truncated, and full last words ought to be "allsvenska kvalmatchen mot Sandvikens IF in 1970" or something like that.
Then look down and right of the picture, and below the blue picture number b3663.jpg , ther is a "link-line" labeled as "Beställa bild" , which mean "Order Image". Unfortunatly the information is only in Swedish, but I presume that by wrighting in English to "Janne Jönsson" (which I did), You can use English and ask for the photo in question, and for what purpose.(I explained for use at English Wikipedia for Fair Use)

I did it in a different way, not knowing how things worked. I e-mailed Janne Jönnson after a phone call to the museum. He then directed me to "Minnesbanken" ("The Memory Bank") and I didn't need to use the fourth step, as explained above. I just wrote up the picture numbers, and mailed him back. And about a fourthnight later, a reply came from Ingmar Sund (at behalf of the museum) which included the pictures in large size. (But the proper way is to do as explained above. Their search engine is quite demanding to learn. However pictures may even be used comercially, but then for a fee. Likewise, if You want a physical picture, some charge naturally must be payed, and if wanting the image in frame, the price gets higher, and then there are postal charges and VAT-tax added. But for private use, and through e-mail digital pictures are free. But You have to explain why You want a certain photo. Especially (I imagine), if asking for many photos. In my case, I wrote that the pictures was intended for use at English Wikipedia as Fair use, not becomming Public Domain. (Just as already had done with the photos from locally well-known photographer Bertil Persson, but after his approval, the photos came from another archive http://www.arkivet-landskrona.se/ Bertil Persson gave me permission to use "some photos", and they were chosen by Björn G. Chebrell, the archiver at that archive.

Regarding the Spam ON the pictures, as You state, I did this only since Bertil Persson and later the Museum also wanted their name in the Image text. And such names in image texts, are often removed, have I noticed. And "pure users" of Wikipedia (excluding us, editors) rarely reads the summary, that's atleast what I reckon. The part "for use at Wikipedia only" is entirelly my fault, also in the summary. I just wanted to ensure that my uploadings didn't cause the pictures to become Public Domain, since I had promised both Bertil Persson and the museum of that. And as You may have noticed, I have found this matters to be rather complicated. One only want's to make the best possible improvements to the articles

I'm sorry for not have knowing how to deal with these pictures. I've also been alerted on a public domain photo, that I had uploaded incorrectly. However a user at Wikimedia was kind enough to help me. And now I think I understand the essential parts of how to make Public Domain uploads at Wikimedia. But since You state " a copyleft license that is acceptable " I get the impression that it may, after all, be possible to use this picture (from 1970) as Fair Use somehow. But to be frank, I cannot manage this without some help. What is a "copyleft" liecence, is the first obstacle for me to come across. I mainly care for this single 1970-picture, but for use in the two articles Landskrona BoIS and Sonny Johansson. So all possible help would be very much appriciated. I'm not very familiar with this kind of issues. So, should I for instance return to the museum (?) and ask for which liecence ? I assume that everything but Public Domain could be accepted from their perspective. But I really am keen to know what kind of liecence You would recommend. I only know Public Domain and Fair Use (and a little about NFCC's and the Swedish 1967-rule for Public Domain). But if I just could get help with one single photo, I would learn from that, for the future. There were no other demands from Ingmar Sund (the plausible manager of "Minnesbanken", The Memory Bank at the museum, who e-mailed me the photos in larger size). The museum isn't a commercial institution in itself (but runned by the Municipality of Landskrona Town). Or perhaps I just did an error at the upload ?. Or is the problem only about the spam, now that I've explained how to obtain the shot ? Once again - I humbly ask for any kind of help, directions or other hints. Best Regards Boeing720 (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a copyleft license is a copyright license which allows others to re-use and modify the work freely as long as you properly attribute and license the subsequent work under a similar license. (See the CC-BY licenses except for the NC and ND clauses for one example).
When communicating with a copyright holder, if you can properly explain the mission and goals of wikipedia, along with the pros, cons and trade offs of the different licensing and why Wikipedia wants freely licensed material (Which PD is only one of dozens of acceptable licenses) most copyright owners are more likely to release the media if we give them all the facts and provide both sides of the case. Often copyright holders misunderstand what rights they are giving up and which rights that they can maintain. Because of this confusion most copyright holders choose the easier solution and keep all the rights. But if you can make a proper case they are more likely to give us a freely licensed file.
As for embedding text spam into the image itself, if we are claiming fair use (IE under WP:NFCC) adding that text is obnoxious and spam.
Given that what you want to display doesnt meet the criteria set forth by WP:NFCC we cannot use them under a non-free license.
commons:Commons:Licensing, commons:Commons:Copyright tags, and commons:Commons:Choosing a license are a good place to get started understanding the differences between the licenses. Werieth (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First thanks for Your reply and explinations. I fully understand the spam question, no text on the image. A copyleft licence gives other users possibility to use the picture, as long as they give credit to [in this case] "Landskrona Stadsmuseum" ("Landskrona's Town-museum") - and everyone that there after may use the picture (or changed picture), must also give credit to the copyright holder. Users may change the original, but the credit to the copyright holder always must remain. I've actually heard something about such licences before, but can't recall from where. I will study your suggested pages thoroghly, though. May I also ask what "pros & cons " are, shortening of what [sorry to ask this, but shortenings are often a main obsticle when attempting to learn something new from scratch] ? I will attempt to do my best in explaining this matters to the museum, and then ask for only two of the four pictures. I assume it will take me some time, and then also some time at the museum to reply. So if You could correct me if I'm all wrong about copyleft [so far], and possibly the shortenings aswell, then I hope to be able to first learn it good enough in order to explain it. Thanks Boeing720 (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a procedural point, and in fairness to Boeing720: these items probably should not have been tagged and deleted under the WP:CSD#F3 criterion, because in addition to the Wikipedia-only permission they also had an explicit claim to NFC status, so their deletion should stand and fall according to their compliance with NFCC. I do agree though that the ones I saw would have ultimately failed the criteria, so the end result is right. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File & Media

Hi Werieth,
I see you changed "Media" to "File" on my userpage,
I was just wondering - What's the difference between them both?, I assumed "File would've actually shown the images hence why I put Media,
Anyway thanks for amending them :) ,
Regards, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: There are three ways of linking to a file, [[File: [[Media: and [[:File:. The first two result in file uses being created. Prefixing it with : turns it into a wiki link. Werieth (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh right, Thanks for that :),

Thanks, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of living Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients

Sorry I just recognized that the Picture was already removed after I already changed it. But I still do not understand why the picture of Waldemar von Gazen should not be published here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_Knight%27s_Cross_of_the_Iron_Cross_recipients you can already find it on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldemar_von_Gazen so what is the differnce? You wrote "WP:NFC" but under NFC "Images" there is nothing said about this content, probably you mean WP:NFTABLE "Non-free image use in galleries or tables" ..."the use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered." So it is not strictly forbidden to use it, I think this is an exception, cause like Czolgolz said:"this edit screws up the formatting". And he is already dead and the last living Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords recipient from the Heer. --Nikolaus27 (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

screws up the formatting is no where close to meeting WP:NFCC. Non-free files have very restrictive usage, for the most part they can only be used in the article about the person. Given that the person has their own stand alone article the file should be used only there. Werieth (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information page ?

Hello again and sorry to bother You this soon again. I hope You did accept my appology of the word combination "Bertil Persson, old photographer and insult" it just became an unlucky formulation. But I've been thinking of the "sales man"-issue and persuation. It just hit me, that the archivists may ask something like "How can You be sure of this ?" or whatever. I think that an information page just for plasible or possible donators may be of help. Please don't take this as me being lazy. I just know that in Sweden , peple often want to see things at paper whatever a sales man ever is saying. I can take myself as an example - a female sales man phoned me about an offer that sounder fair and OK. (It was someting about digital cable-television) And they usually do tape the calls. But I said approx. "It sounds OK, but I always want to read the small letters before I can agree to Your offer", and asked her to mail me the entire contract physically. But this she "couldn't do" (probably due to her pay-check is depending entirelly on the number of contracts she sells by phone only), and I told her "that's the only way" but she still "coul not do that". So I'm still using analogue cable-TV. I only say that an informational page for possible photo donators could make a difference. All the best Boeing720 (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials is one place to start, but without knowing the specific objections and what direction the discussion is going its hard to provide one page with all the needed information. I could point you to quite a few different links but the odds are it would be information overload as 80% of the material wouldn't apply. Werieth (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (You were quick indeed, I noticed some horrible spelling errors. And was about save corrections. When wrighting articles I always use a dictionary, but not always at talk pages) But I assume You got my general idea, anyway. They way a discussion is taking, is of cource not possible to know in advance. I was mostly thinking of a very general page, which essentially may give the "donators" a brief information, and that there are advantages in it also for them. Boeing720 (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above page is a good place to start, otherwise I can point you to commons:Commons:Licensing Werieth (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween Havoc

I dont have the link handy for the WP:NFCR discussions but this was discussed and it comes down to the basic issues of WP:NFLIST and WP:NFC#UUI#14 we only need the primary logo, not logos/artwork for every year. Werieth (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it also says that if each event has a different logo (which each HH PPV does), it's permissible to have an image for each. TJ Spyke 01:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]