User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 16

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

Archives

>>

Hi Stefan, issue resolved with permissions of luiz depalma photo: Solved the issue with the photo in this article, luiz has put a re-use comment / tag on the page where the photo is pubished: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1904448390915&set=pb.1832936238.-2207520000.1375042614.&type=3&theater kindly do not delete, and remove 'delete' tag. Thank you and kind regards all . Art. <<

ile permission problem with File:Doug Turnbull (author).jpg== Thanks for this message Sfan00, I sent an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on Sunday, July 14, 2013 10:21 AM Bides time (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2013

File:FAMACHA chart.jpg[edit]

Don't know why this file was listed as 'possibly unfree'?????? I took the photo myself. Burnmeister (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you take the photo's present on the card? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Priestley in National Assembly (Sayers etching).jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

Phil Cantillon photo[edit]

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)[reply]

Stewart Hase photo[edit]

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)[reply]

Declined rename[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Dali[edit]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

Rainbow Dash/Twilight Sparkle[edit]

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

Re: File:Tomorrowlandentrance Cd637 (crop).jpg[edit]

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).

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

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

MickieJamesKnockoutsChampionLockDown.jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

File:Constantine andreou - geisha.jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

korean symbol[edit]

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)[reply]

File:Paula Seling- 2009.jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

File:Singapore_Dengue_Cases_May_to_June_2013.png[edit]

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)[reply]

Liquified natural gas[edit]

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)[reply]

Source not needed for PD-ineligible[edit]

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)[reply]

Roy Harper album covers[edit]

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)[reply]

Roy Harper album covers[edit]

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)[reply]

File:Extreme Talk logo.png[edit]

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

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

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

File:SiteScout Logo.jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

Discussion closure[edit]

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)[reply]

In response to Pembrokeshire flag image[edit]

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)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

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

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

Image licensing question[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What does this mean?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Ulster Defence Regiment - memorial images[edit]

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)[reply]

NFCR[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please check again[edit]

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)[reply]

Mitsubishi Fuso logo question[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

File:Schwergewicht.png[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've stumbled on Template:Non-free use rationale. Please have a peek and let me know if I's still need dotting! Sparafucil (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Why's (Poignant) guide to Ruby.pdf[edit]

From http://mislav.uniqpath.com/poignant-guide/book/

Why’s (Poignant) Guide to Ruby is released under the Attribution-ShareAlike License. So, yes, please distribute it and print it and read it leisurely in your housecoat. In fact, there will be a contest at the end of the book for Best Housecoat. It’s a coveted award and you should feel honored to even read about it! (Especially if you are reading about it in your soon-to-be-prize-winning housecoat.)

Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for the confirmation Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File: Kovan double murder map view.jpg[edit]

Hi, I didn't know that taking a screenshot of Google Maps for Kovan double murder was deemed as copyrighted as well because I have seen some others taking screenshot of maps and adding their own point. As such, may I have your advice where should I get an image of a map? Do I have to composite the layers myself?

Yienshawn (talk) 09:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try OpenStreetMap , and doing a mashup yourself :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so if I just upload a screenshot of OpenStreetMap over my current file with the same name, will it be okay? Or should I upload it up as a new file name? Yienshawn (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same name should be OK :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a new OpenStreetMap over it already. Possible for you to remove the permission tag? Yienshawn (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NMR Logo Rights[edit]

Hi the File:Nmr logo.png is explicitly stated on the website as "fair use". I did provide the only direct link which is: http://www.newmediarights.org/. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and it clearly states: "Unless noted otherwise, content on this site is openly licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License. Icons created by Missrivs under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike No Derviatives 2.0 License

Creative Commons License" so what is the problem? Did I not properly tag it? Tyros1972 Talk 10:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ND license is not 'free' Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will send them an e-mail and have them grant permission, as I don't understand. Thanks. Tyros1972 Talk 10:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:FrancisLaking.jpg[edit]

Please delete, see file, I added comment there. Kraxler (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:HWallaceKnapp.jpg[edit]

Could you please check why this appears as deleted? It was "transferred" to Commons; other images which were "copied" to Commons, still appear on en.wiki. Kraxler (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure.. Was it renamed on transfer? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't noticed, but the file was indeed renamed as "File:H. Wallace Kanpp.jpg" on Commons Kraxler (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:DyingAnimal.jpg[edit]

When I originally uploaded this image, I tagged it with the proper fair use rationale. Other editors incorrectly placed a public domain license on it. Please pay attention to the edit history when disputing a copyright tag on a user's talk page. The page has been reverted to reflect the proper legal notices. D Monack (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you tag it is lacking evidence of permission when it was a public domain claim, not a licensing claim? The painting is public domain (and is hosted at Commons here), and the remainder of the book cover is purely PD-text. You can respond here or at D Monack's talk page, where he is strangely claiming that all book covers are automatically copyrightable regardless of their actual content. postdlf (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged as lacking permission because it was a 'book cover' in entirity. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your answer. The fact that it was a book cover image has nothing to do with permission, as the image of the book cover was labeled as public domain, not as having been licensed. postdlf (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're obviously not interested in this any more, so as I've already cleared up the confusion with the uploader here, I'm going to revert back to the public domain tag. Any questions? postdlf (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. postdlf (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:NIA - Mirza Shadaab Beg.jpg and other NIA photos[edit]

I first uploaded this photo, File:NIA - Abdul Subhan Qureshi.jpg, on July 9. You have reviewed and flagged it to be transferred to Commons. After this, I then began uploading the remaining photos from July 10. All the other photos that you have stated have a file permission problem come from the same site, all linked from the same page.

The NIA website has a disclaimer that states, "NIA accepts no responsibility for and excludes all liability in connection with browsing this Web site, use of information or downloading any materials from it, including but not limited to any liability for errors, inaccuracies omissions, or misleading or defamatory statements. This Web site is provided “as is” and NIA expressly disclaims any and all warranties, express or implied, to the extent permitted by law, including but not limited to warranties of satisfactory quality, merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose, with respect to the service or any materials. The information on the website www.nia.gov.in does not, in any way, constitute legal or professional advice and www.nia.gov.in cannot be held liable for actions arising from its use. In addition, www.nia.gov.in cannot be held responsible for the contents of any externally linked pages. NIA hereby excludes liability for any claims, losses, demands, or damages of any kind whatsoever with regard to any information, contents, or services provided at our Web site, including but not limited to direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential loss or damages, compensatory damages, loss of profits, or data, or otherwise."

I have deleted some parts, the full disclaimer can be seen in the link. I'm not sure if this qualifies as a file permission, but I am quite confident that these photos wont be under copyright. They are official photos of wanted fugitives (some dead) released by a government agency. They have been published on multiple media sources and blogs. You can do a Google Image search for the images and see those links, or I can do it and provide them if you need me to. BigJolly9 (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You would need the NIA to send a copyright release to the WMF see WP:COPYREQ Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent an email to them requesting permission for the images. I hope they reply before this is deleted. Regarding the File:NIA - Abdul Subhan Qureshi.jpg image, I dont get why this did not have the same permission problems. As I stated earlier, it comes from the same section of the same site. Also, just in case they reply in the negative, I think we can use some of these images as "fair use", similar to the permission on the image File:Ilyas Kashmiri fair-use.JPG. This is under copyright but qualifies for fair use since it claims that "Ilyas Kashmiri is deceased and was a very low profile al-Qaeda operative". Coincidentally, I uploaded the same picture (also tagged as having a problem) of him, named File:NIA - Illyas Kashmiri.jpg BigJolly9 (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirly plausible that the specfic image you mention was thought to be OK on a cursory scan, but subsequent ones were checked more thoroughly. On the peremissions side, I can't see why they would refuse. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dion Mosaic2.jpg and File:Dion Mosaic1.jpg[edit]

File:Dion Mosaic2.jpg File:Dion Mosaic1.jpg

These photos are entirely my own work and I took them with my phone camera during my visit to the Dion Archeological Site on 12 July 2013. I don't understand why I got such a warning. The only other place I uploaded those pictures is my Facebook profile named "Stergios Zorg".

Please don't send warnings. There may be other similiar photos since anyone that visits Dion captures those stuff. But that's my work and only mine! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilemperorzorg (talk • contribs) 19:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right to be concerned, Both were mistagged entirly. Tags and warnings removed Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I only want to improve the article about Dion :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilemperorzorg (talk • contribs) 20:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sinopec Corp in Maoming.jpg[edit]

Why did you flag File:Sinopec Corp in Maoming.jpg for moving to commons? It was claimed to be sourced/authored/permission authorized to 'en.m.wikipedia.org' , that's English Wikipedia (mobile edition). I find it highly unlikely that Wikipedia created this image of a chemical plant in China. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 13:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Stefan2 (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ramanujan image[edit]

You reviewed File:Ramanujan the mathematician.jpg for upload to commons. It appears to be a derivative work from an Indian postage stamp that is still within copyright. See http://www.indianpostagestamps.com/gallery/1962.html down at the bottom. See also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pi/archive1 that has a discussion about Ramanujan images.

I'd mark the file for a copyright violation, but I cannot find the link that does that on the page. Glrx (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oldcap.JPG.[edit]

This is one of the images I uploaded before the Upload Wizard was invented. I'm not sure where I got it, and the image isn't really necessary anymore; I found a much better one, perfectly sourced, and I'm exchanging the images now. Please have this file deleted as unsourced and redundant. Kraxler (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post any more messages about this on my talk page, I consented already to have it deleted. Just for the record, the image was published during the 19th century in the US, so it's not any copyvio. Kraxler (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded posts[edit]

Would it be possible for the BOT to state it's a "superseded" type of deletion when posting to user talk pages? I had no idea why the image was listed, and you can't "find" on an iPad, so it was more difficult than you might imagine to find out this was a triviality! Or, meta, maybe all these superseded deletions should go to their own page? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All are reasonable suggestions, WP:VP would be the best place to start a disscusion Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I hope Technical was the right page… Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick thing regarding NFCR/TOO[edit]

If you come across an image that 100% you believe should be marked PD-ineligible or PD-text and made a free image, just go ahead and make the change; you don't need to report it to NFCR. If it is the case you have doubt, then certainly post, but you can help save a bit of time to do the clear cases yourself. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time I refer them , because TOO rules differ between jursidictions.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File Permission problem: Muhammad_Asad_representing_Pakistan_in_the_United_Nations.jpg[edit]

Hi,

I have changed the description/tag of the file (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Muhammad_Asad_representing_Pakistan_in_the_United_Nations.jpg)adding proof of its free usage permission given by the author of this image. You can have a look.

Thanks Fasi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasi100 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User:Golax[edit]

Hi Shakespeare Fan. Both these files File:Moltopera-2012.jpg and File:Agoston Laszlo.jpg should not have been nominated for deletion, as the source blog shows the material has been released under a Hungarian cc-by-3.0 compatible license. I am declining these two nominations. Regards, -- Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mentors from the United Kingdom in D.B.M.S English School.jpg[edit]

First of all I'm new to talk page and hence unable to understand where and how to reply to your talk message. The said voilated image is from the link http://dbms.edu.in/gallery/category/20-uk-delegates which is the official website of DBMS English School maintained by 3rd party. The link clearly provides with the ability to download the image in full resolution, ofcourse the licensing to free use the image is never mentioned anywhere on the website since in India unlike United States we do not emphasize on licensing their images. However I still did contacted by the school to make the necessary changes to the website to mention about free usage of the images but the school only has ability to make changes in the Calendar and the Announcement page only http://dbms.edu.in/school/announcements and all other links remain under the 3rd party access whom my school is unable to contact as of now. From the Contact page of the website http://dbms.edu.in/contact you will notice the school has no official online contact info so they cannot email to Wikipedia to allow the use of images. Under such circumstances what is the solution since I have mentioned the source of the images and the lack of ability to insert any sort of license. Verbally on phone I have been assured the image can be used on wikipedia but the same in writing cannot be provided since wikipedia needs an official email address which the school don't even have one. Since this image is part of The UK India Education and Research Initiative (UKIERI)http://www.ukieri.org/index.html the image has it's own importance, and images of such projects generally comes under Public Domain and for unknown reason there is no wikipedia article on UKIERI so far. Ashok Inder Kumar (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File Rename[edit]

Hello sir/mis. What is the reason that File:Admeworks modelbuilder.png shal be renamed? Have a nice day :) --Simeondahl (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need to remove the request if I can't get a reason :) --Simeondahl (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rename is to distinguish between the logo and the screenshot of the software. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Thanks, I can see you are a file mover, but please next time give a reason :) Have a nice day sir --Simeondahl (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information template[edit]

It is fine, welcome in fact, that you added the {{information}} template to files such as File:Garrigues Arms.png that predate that template, but when you don't separate out description & source, the result is that I (or whoever is the uploader) get a bot notice about a 9-year-old file not having the source line filled out in the template. I happen to be still around, but how many users from 2004 are? - Jmabel | Talk 19:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that many sadly :( , Your concern is noted. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you in an apparent edit war with ContinuityBot over such files as File:Flag types gallery.png?[edit]

If you look at the edit history of the page, it certainly gives that impression... AnonMoos (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to ask the operator of ContinuityBot why it's de-tagging stuff that a human feels is valid for Commons.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an easily answered question: it can't move to commons because it's already there, just like the bot said. What you want to do is update the commons version, and that isn't accomplished with a transfer.—Kww(talk) 08:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image at Commons is NOT the same. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely what I said: you want to update the commons image, and the transfer process won't do that.—Kww(talk) 08:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's not what ContinuityBot actually said. Trying to decipher what exactly a bot is trying to say isn't easy. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awards[edit]

		The Copyright Barnstar
		Thank you for helping me with my images! :) Techdude3331 (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright: File:Hollow Bodies Album cover.jpg[edit]

I just saw that you tagged File:Hollow Bodies Album cover.jpg for transferral to the Commons. That image clearly had an inappropriate public domain claim because it's more than just "typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes". I'll remove the transfer tag. Huon (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Starz.png[edit]

Seeking your input on this file. Below TOO? Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 08:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure, has FUR so no immediate issue. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Extreme Talk logo.png had FUR. What's the difference? And do you think I should nominate File:Starz.png for review? Levdr1lp / talk 08:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel justified, do so. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. File:Extreme Talk logo.png had FUR. What's the difference? Levdr1lp / talk 09:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Girl Guides Association of the United Arab Emirates.png[edit]

File:Girl Guides Association of the United Arab Emirates.png is in use at Girl Guides Association of the United Arab Emirates but the use is not showing on the file page, even after a purge. -- Gadget850^talk 00:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Baton Rouge Bombers Logo.gif[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Baton Rouge Bombers Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Below is the rationale behind why the Baton Rouge Bombers logo should be allowed to be used. It is used in the Baton Rouge Bombers article. It shouldn't be deleted according to Dravecky (talk).

1. EISL Logos[edit]

Saw that we were both working on the EISL page. I wanted to add the logo of the teams to their individual pages. I found the webpage where you pulled the Huntsville Fire logo, but I can't figure out how to correctly add them to wikicommons to upload onto wikipedia. How would I be able to add the logos making them: Non-free media information and use rationale – non-free logo for Huntsville Fire? Of course, this would be for all other teams not the Hunstville Fire. Thanks in advance, User:spatms (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to upload them directly to Wikipedia since Commons only accepts free media and these are the (theoretically) copyrighted logos of organizations. In the left-hand menu, open "Toolbox" then choose "Upload file" and follow the prompts. - Dravecky (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Greatly appreciated. - User:spatms (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

2. Non-free media information and use rationale – non-free logo for Huntsville Fire Description This is a logo for Huntsville Fire.

Source http://www.logoserver.com/EISL.html

Article Huntsville Fire

Portion used The entire logo is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image.

Low resolution? The logo is of a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company or organization, without being unnecessarily high resolution.

Purpose of use The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing Huntsville Fire, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey.

Replaceable? Because it is a non-free logo there is almost certainly no free repesentation. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary.

Other information Use of the logo in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy, logo guidelines, and fair use under United States copyright law as described above.

Licensing[edit]

Copyrighted This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. Certain commercial use of this image may also be trademark infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Logos. Use of the logo here does not imply endorsement of the organization by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, nor vice versa. Attention To the uploader: This tag is only for use on images of logos. This tag is not sufficient on its own. Please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. For an example fair use rationale for a logo, see here. Template:Non-free use rationale logo may be helpful for stating the rationale.

Please do not use this template to tag non-free icons of computer software. Such items should be tagged with

true This image is a copyright-protected computer icon of a computer program. It is believed that the exhibition of icons to

illustrate or identify the computer software in question
where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information,
on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as non-free use under the Copyright law of the United States. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Copyrights.

To the uploader:

Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.
For example non-free use rationales, see Wikipedia:Use rationale examples.
Please do not use this tag on uploaded copyrighted logos. Non-free logos should be tagged with {{Non-free logo}}.
Template:Icon rationale may be helpful for stating the rationale.
This tag should only be used for computer icons, do not use for other purposes.

To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template.

template.

Regarding uses other than in the original article: A detailed non-free use rationale is required for every article the logo is used in. Check the non-free use criteria and do not assume that existing rationales can be simply copied and pasted, as they may not necessarily apply. To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an 'appropriate' rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template.

File history

spatms (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Logo Diversey.jpg[edit]

Hi your bot tagged the File:Logo Diversey.jpg. Now at the moment the image is being used in the Diversey, Inc. article, yet the File usage info at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_Diversey.jpg page, doesn't seem to mention this. Can you tell me, am I missing something? -- Mdd (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it. -- Mdd (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mocert logo.jpg[edit]

hi, I received your message about the removed of File:Mocert logo.jpg. The image is currently used for article Macau Computer Emergency Response Team Coordination Centre. Shall we keep the logo for the article? Thank you. Frankietou (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned images that are not really orphaned[edit]

I found a number of images you tagged as being orphaned and the file usage does state "No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file. (Pages on other projects are not counted.)" but the images are in use in their respective articles. The images are from the 21 July category: File:A la Primera Persona - Single.JPG, File:CF Granma.gif, File:Christmas variations (2000).jpg, File:ConservativeHome.png, File:Dinah Shore Chevy Intro.jpg, File:Dixie Beehives.jpg, File:Dosburg Online KS Album.jpg, File:Film poster Crusade in Jeans.jpg, File:GoneAKit.jpg, File:Goochan.jpg, File:Heartbeattragedy.jpg, File:Jet Airliner single.jpg, File:Logo St Barth Commuter.png, File:Morten Harket - Vogts Villa.jpg, File:Nanking movie poster1.jpg, File:OGAP.jpg, File:PincherCreekPanthers.png, File:Searchlogo.gif, File:Seinfeld3.jpg, File:Seoul Semiconductor logo.svg and File:TheCityXM.png. I remember the bot having the same problem before it was shut off last month. I thought it might be a problem with a particular infobox but there are too many templates being affected: single, football club, album, website, television, hockey team, film, book, airline, company, television season, and radio station. Aspects (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of interest would be a section started at ANI about Hazard-Bot also having this problem at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hazard-Bot false positives flood. Aspects (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fix is to make a null edit to the article where the image is used. -- Gadget850^talk 10:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern is noted :) I would suggest raising this at AN and VP. Do you have a full list of wrongly tagged images? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 120#Images showing as orphaned when they are not. -- Gadget850^talk 13:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion nominations[edit]

I see you are tagging many images for deletion and even though you appear to always notify the uploader, who may or may not still be active on this wiki, you don't tag the image caption with the template {{deletable image-caption}} which is supposed to be a deletion nomination requirement as indicated in the nomination template added to images. This is rather useful as article watchers may notice and fix the image's problems, otherwise they would need to be watching FFD or RFC pages or looking at categories such as Wikipedia files missing permission, etc. I seem to recall that some years ago Twinkle did this for us but that function, under "xfd" and "di" has broken and is unlikely to be fixed, so placing the notification manually is a great courtesy that you may want to consider even though it takes a little more time but it more likely gets noticed. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Sohambanerjee1998's talk page.
Message added 12:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

---$oHƎM ❊ আড্ডা 12:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to the File:Coat of Arms of Archbishop Rufino Santos.jpg., of which you offered to me some observations. The said file is not anymore in use in the Article about Rufino Santos, and was already replaced by a more suitable one. If you wish, you can delete it.

It is okey to delete this message after you read it. --Sulbud (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sir-charles-cameron-dublin.jpg[edit]

Hi Sfan00 IMG, you reverted my removal of {{Copy to Commons}}. As stated in my comment, it is not a good idea to move files to Commons which get instantly deleted at Commons. Without a proper source, it will not stay there for more than a week. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File transfers[edit]

Do not transfer to WikiCommons files like File:Jammu-Kashmir-Maharaja's-flag-1846-1936.gif. Drawings of flags in PNG have no value, because rasterization of SVG produces the same result. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I transfer stuff in good faith. If you would rather the PNG versions are deleted outright, FFD is the correct process, rather than telling me what I can and can't do. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I advised you to stop touching superseded PNG files that lie at rest, do not make problems, and sometimes provide attribution. Which word do you not understand now? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain which images are problems, I always act in good faith. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you read commons:User_talk:ShakespeareFan00 with all its red links? Now it is brought to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #User:Sfan00 IMG and Wikimedia Commons. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you actually READ the disscussions those redlinks refer to. Many of them seem to be ~~my nominations of content from other uploaders or transfers,~~ nominations of material that was at the time moved in good faith and which were deleted due to subsuqent discoveries or debate. I am still willing to assume good faith.

Your concerns seem to be : i) Attribution - I've been checking through recent transfers manually, so far I'm NOT finding any issues concerning this (other than the one already noted). I ask again which images do you consider problematic?

ii) Where did you ask me to stop moving superceed PNG files? I don't recall you asking at Commons, or here? Can you provide a diff please? 19:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, this was null and void. Who reads pages at WP:Files for deletion? Nobody human, their purpose is to drive scripts only. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~OK, so let's be clear because I moved a file~~
of which you were not the uploader

for which you had a vector replacement (not yet uploaded),

which was moved to commons in Good faith, given another contributor suggestion,

and your comment in the FFD, related to what action to take on that file alone,

~~You've apparently reached a decision that I am somehow not competent? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Update : Thrashed out what the issue was with the user concerned. There is an issue of 'attribution chains' but it's more of a technical one, not one of Competence. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jenni Falconer This Morning.jpg[edit]

Licensed in Flickr. What was your problem? I may not have entered the information correctly - so fix it! Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did not enter the correct license Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said. You fix it - not just stick a stupid tag on it! Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. [{WP:BURDEN]] Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I missed the NO DERIVATIVES bit of the license. You got it - thanks. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brandon Burlsworth Foundation logo.jpg[edit]

I would like to appeal the deletion of this images. While it is a copyrighted image, I belive it is fairly used in the entry on Brandon Burlsworth to provide identification of the Foundation. Additionally, I am working with the Foundation to maintain the entry. Are there additional details I can provide to substantiate fair use and/or copyright holder's permission? Brandon (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COPYREQ , you need to get the BB foundation to send certain paperwork. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I will sort through the information you linked and will follow up with Foundation. Thanks! Brandon (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The three TMIJ photos[edit]

They had already made a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA [...] at the site of the original publication and I added the links almost a week before you tagged them with CSD F11. Please don't make this process even more tedious, confusing and frustrating for new users than it already is. --illythr (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cosphi not IEEE 1459.jpg[edit]

I am a bit unfamiliar with moving images to commons. Does an image having a disputed/POV description preclude the move, or is approving the move only about copyright, scope, etc. none of which are disputed?

I was planning on waiting a few weeks to see if anyone responded to my objection and then nominate this for deletion as violating Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Would moving it to common interfere with that? I just want to do the right thing here. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well ideally the description should be fixed before the transfer.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to be WP:BOLD and just fix it. No problems with it going to commons now. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Piandcompany's talk page.
Message added 13:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jason Spriggs ^chat 13:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Peter J. Armacost Building of Forman Christian College, Lahore, April 2013.jpg[edit]

Hi, i had sent an email to the owner of the photo according to the guidelines given in your message about three days ago. He has replied today and i have forwarded that mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Should i remove the {{Template:OTRS pending}} link on the picture or will the administration people do it themselves? Thankyou. Shayanshaukat (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC+5)

The admin people here, will sort out the updating of the {{OTRS pending}}Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images with copyrighted or trademarked elements[edit]

Hi. Please don't mark images for transfer to Commons which contain commercial logos or other copyrighted or trademarked elements, as you did with this one. These images cannot be accepted at Commons without being licensed by the copyright holder under CC-BY-SA or GFDL or an equivalent license. Since this is the case, the proper procedure is to obtain the licensing agreement from the owner of the intellectual property first, report it to Commons OTRS, and then transfer it to Commons, or leaving it here with a fair-use rationale. Anything else risks the image being deleted from Commons after being transferred, with no image left behind on en.wiki, thus losing a usable image. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Turkish Gendarmerie.jpg[edit]

Is Commons:Template:Attribution-TRGov-Military sufficient of a source? It can be moved to commons. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to show it's from an 'official' source as well Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Copyright is owned by the military which of course extends to all of the derivatives regardless of who created it. A very small resolution image is on http://www.jandarma.gov.tr/ if you really want to take a look at it.

You should never nominate files for deletion if they are covered through an OTRS ticket unless you have OTRS access. Even then COI would suggest the aid of another user with OTRS access. If the OTRS claim is bogus file(s) can of course be deleted.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 02:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You asked[edit]

in a very casual manner, who the third man in this picture was? Good question for which I have no answer. There were dozens of what I will call "honor guard" types standing around Petry & Crandall, so he was likely an ex-military person of high standing or status in that world who was granted the honor of standing there. Another picture from the same day gives a bit more of a sense of what was going on at the time (I was there for the statue - I do a lot of sculpture editing) and a wider angle than that would reveal even more flags and retired military personal. I notice that you slide a lot of my pictures over to Commons, probably a good thing. I have had, in the past, very bad luck loading things to Commons and have given up trying. Perhaps it is time for me to try again. Unless you are happy with this arrangement? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, If you can put stuff on Commons , Thanks Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the barnstar. It is much appreciated. Ethan Doyle White (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:President's House Philadelphia.jpg[edit]

My website is down for maintenance. Wikipedia's upload pages suggested a link to an image's publication on a Facebook page, so I was thinking of linking to our Facebook albums. Can you help me with how to edit the image file so I can list that album and remove any possible deletion action on it? I wouldn't want it to get deleted, and I think that's a better option than the ticket system. Thanks in advance. --JC1008 (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BOOSA2.jpg[edit]

The image has been uploaded by the secretary of the Bradford Ophthalmic Optics Student Association. The secretary is the sole creator of the image and has full rights to the image. Therefore there should be no question that the image is breaking any copyright laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvyas94 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK then Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Boswell[edit]

Thanks for messages re two photos of Eric Boswell on his wiki. Neither have been published previously online or otherwise. They are both from family albums and would have been taken by his family members. Please advise how I should tag to prevent deletion. Thanks. OnTheDustyRoad (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tag them as OTRS-pending and file the paperwork with OTRS :) (See [{WP:COPYREQ]]) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sfan, I confirm above done. Thanks for your help. OnTheDustyRoad (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing book cover[edit]

Hello Sfan00,

Recently you tagged the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slurping_Sarah_Children%27s_Book_Cover.jpg as a candidate for deletion as it was an orphaned non-free image. I was planning to write an article using the image, but unfortunately, the article was removed from Wikipedia. As a result, feel free to have it deleted as there is no longer a use for it as I originally hoped.

Best regards,

Stebbesa (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Stebbesa[reply]

File permission problem with File:Shawn Kemp Concord High School 1988.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Shawn Kemp Concord High School 1988.jpg, which you've attributed to Concord High School. 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.

Hello, I noticed that an image which I recently uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged for deletion as a result of missing "evidence of permission". However I was under the impression that permission is not necessary since the image falls under the category of PD-US-1989 (the yearbook was published in 1988 without a copyright and to my knowledge a copyright was not later registered). Could you please clarify this in the future, so that my future uploads can comply with Wikipedia policy. Thank you.Djrun (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, should be more cautious Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting out categories[edit]

Why are you "[o]rphan[ing] sexuality related topics from mainstream ones"? Trivialist (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't think they need to be included side by side. I don't object to reverts,

barring the one on contraception :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Club (magazine) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[{Category:American pornographic magazines]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Price Index Of HDB Resale Flat Singapore.png[edit]

In reference toFile:Price Index Of HDB Resale Flat Singapore.png , I have read through the entire page under Wikipedia:File copyright tags. Unfortunately, it is too technical, complicated for me to understand. Kindly proceed with the deletion. I will think of a different way to explain the article. TQ.Garyt45 (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at IbrahimNemsi's talk page.
Message added 14:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

File:Kellie Torrey modeling pic for ad.jpg[edit]

Hi Sfan00, I'm not sure how to go about this. It was a cutout that went from her parents refridgerator to a scrapbook. It was torn so I scanned it and fixed it to make it look better. The was taken so long ago it has unknown origins of the source so the risk is zero. Please do not delete the photo and tag it as such. Thank you. Davisj1359 (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving images to Commons[edit]

Greetings. I appreciate that you've been moving orphan images to the Commons (such as File:Mazama collapse phase 2.jpg, among many other examples), but I notice you usually don't add any categories. Can I talk you into categorizing images when you port them over, so that others will have a chance to find them and use them? All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend not to categorise them as I have no idea where to start on Commons category tree. 80.176.129.180 (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is, by moving an orphaned image to Commons -- especially one that has been nominated for deletion as not useful -- you are demonstrating your opinion that the image may be useful to other wikiprojects. (Otherwise there is no reason to move it to Commons.) That's why Commons:Commons:Categories says "It is essential that every file can be found by browsing the category structure." By declining to categorize the image, you are ensuring that it will not be useful, since it won't ever be found. It may be beneficial to move the image to Commons at categorize it, which will at least give it a chance to be used. Or it may be beneficial to allow the image to be deleted, so as not to clutter up the horribly backlogged list of uncategorized images on Commons. But to move them and not categorize them is the worst of both worlds. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, If that;s how you feel, I can always restart the process of FFD's locally, which was also criticized. If they can be categorised on Commons, Do so, rather than complaining here :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition at one point I was asked to leave categorization details to more experienced contributors. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"obsoleted by vector version"[edit]

Please be aware of Wikipedia_talk:Files_for_deletion#.22obsoleted_by_vector_version.22. Your comments are welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion discussion that I can't find[edit]

You left me a note about a deletion, but searching for the filename on that page doesn't come up with anything. I suspect the file in question has been obsoleted by a vector version, but I'd like to see the actual discussion -- can you point me at it? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Letter to Russia with krokozyabry.jpg[edit]

Just asking you (along with all other participants) to check back at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 28; after voting on this image deletion discussion, I proposed an image crop with the goal of satisfying the objections of the delete voters. Would you please return to the discussion and comment on my proposal? Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Deadbeef's talk page.
Message added 09:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dea db eef 09:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pilot Cosby Show tv guide 1984.jpg[edit]

This is under discussion. Don't try to tag it for speedy deletion yet. --George Ho (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can vote on two images, one currently in Pilot (The Cosby Show), in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 4. --George Ho (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Single cover additions to I Love Rock 'n' Roll[edit]

I noticed that you recently added the single covers of Joan Jett and Britney Spears's versions to I Love Rock 'n' Roll. Currently there is a discussion at the talk page of the user that reverted you about deletion of notable cover version single covers, including the two images you added to the article, at User talk:Werieth#Notable cover version single covers that pass WP:NFCC. Your opinion would be appreciated. Aspects (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission for File:Ayaan CHawla.png[edit]

Hello Sfan00 IMG, I have mailed the permission details on permissions-en@wikimedia.org and i requested Ayaan Chawla also to email on permissions-en@wikimedia.org if he can so please check....

Regards

Ron Gates —Preceding undated comment added 12:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cabe6403image.jpg[edit]

Hi there, you tagged this image, which is of me, to be moved to commons. I'm not too familiar with the policies regarding images so I wonder if you could clarify: this image is of me and is only intended for use on my userpage and my profile at DRN. Would it not be better to remain here on en.wiki if that is the case? Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blood Sweat & Tears Definitive Collection.jpg[edit]

Sfan00 IMG, thanks for the message. The file listed above was not named correctly on my desktop and therefore this image was entered into the infobox in error. The file above is no longer associated with any article and should be deleted. I was not sure how to request deletion. Thanks for all of your help. --CaniacD (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your editor review request[edit]

Greetings. Your editor review request has been reviewed and archived. Cheers! Alex Shih ^Talk 04:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Chinwe Chukwuogo-Roy Self Portrait in Light.jpg[edit]

Hi Stefan, I'm a bit confused by your message as the image is being used in the article "Chinwe Chukwuogo-Roy". I did have some problem initially with uploading and I'm now wondering if I might have uploaded the image twice, but I'm not quite sure how to check. Kiredoryor (talk) 08:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Stefan. But I'll take a look.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I saw that name on the 1st message of your talk page..... Thanks for looking into this. Kiredoryor (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at File talk:Trudeau signature.png.
Message added 19:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Rrburke (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: PUF on Nexus tablets[edit]

That is stock Android which they run. Not a non-free skin or UI layer. Base Android is Apache-licensed, and that is a free license.

I see no issue (aside from the de minimis icons). ViperSnake151 Talk 23:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

State that in the PUF disscussion. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Meetze images[edit]

You tagged File:Jay Meetze in his office.jpg as {{Copy to Commons}}, accepting the uploader's GFDL/CC claim, but tagged File:Meetze in the office.jpg as {{di-no permission}}. But except for scaling, they are the same image uploaded by the same editor making the same claims of source/licensing. I'm not sure what's "right", but they should at least be consistent (and the smaller one presumably deleted as {{duplicate}}). DMacks (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK noted, Need more coffee :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use the wikilove gadget, but feel free to visualize a giant mug of your favorite brew here ---->

Enjoy:)DMacks (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wallyscar Izis.jpg[edit]

Although you cleared this for a move to commons this mornings it was a clear copyright violation including a visible identity from the source, I have tagged it for deletion, please take care. MilborneOne (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also another dubious image File:Youssef msakni.jpg from the same uploader. MilborneOne (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And File:Saber khelifa with the tunisian national team.jpg which had a AFP copyright tag in the metadata. MilborneOne (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding source information for File:Portraitofsn.jpg[edit]

Hello, Sfan00 -- I received a notice from you on 8/10/13 of no source information for File:Portraitofsn.jpg and have added the information. Permission has been granted by the file copyright holder Stephen Nowlin, Vice President of Art Center College of Design. Do you require this permission in writing by Mr. Nowlin? Thank you, Luther Hathaway (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COPYREQ will give you the details of where to send confirmation Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flavour's Uplifted.jpg[edit]

I removed {{Copy to Commons|human=Sfan00 IMG}} from File:Flavour's Uplifted.jpg because of the uploader's history on the Commons of claiming that professionally-taken photographs were his and not using the OTRS process when requested to do so. It is highly likely that if this is transferred to the Commons without going through OTRS first, it will be deleted outright. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Photographer's Barnstar

HI; A message was left on my uploaded photo (a photo that I myself took in Feb 1989) of the Charles Rinaldo Floyd Monument, Fairfield Plantation site, Floyd's Neck, Camden County, Georgia -- URL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charles_Rinaldo_Floyd_Monument%2C_Fairfield_Plantation_site%2C_Floyd%27s_Neck%2C_Camden_County%2C_Georgia%2C_Feb_1989.jpg). The message said that I must copy the photo to Wikimedia Commons. Can you help me do this? I am an older person and I am so sorry that I do not quite understand the intricacies involved. Also -- once it is on the Commons can you please give me the URL so that I may then upload the photo to the Charles Rinaldo Floyd segment on Wikipedia? Thank you ever so much -- I really appreciate any help you offer. New user, CamdenSeniar CamdenSeniar (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a suggestion not an order, and if it meets the criteria, Someone will move it and fixup the links :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. CamdenSeniar CamdenSeniar (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads of User:Ramanujan Das Patra[edit]

Hello. You have tagged most of the uploads of the above editor for transfer to the Commons, while in fact most of them should be tagged as copyright violations or as F11- no evidence of permission. For example: corporate logos: File:Delllogonit.jpg; File:Sonyericnit.jpg. Could you please go over this uploader's images again and double check your work? Special:ListFiles/Ramanujan Das Patra Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PD-text/PD-texlogo and your F4 nominations[edit]

Why are you repeatedly nominating for F4 deletion PD-ineligible files that do not require sourcing? You've already been informed of this situation per User_talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00_IMG/Archive_15#Please stop -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could have taken the time to provide the source rather than complaining Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source is 'not needed' -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well don't say you weren't warned when Commons complains..Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with Commons ? This is Wikipedia -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you moving files to Commons to get them deleted, when they can't be deleted on Wikipedia? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you saying Commons will delete them, when they're on Wikipedia? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So why would Commons be complaining about files on en.Wikipedia? I made the assumption that a complaint would lead to deletion. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd previously had concerns from Commons, about poorly sourced files being copied over, It seems reasomable to attempt to resovle those issues first? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how making invalid deletion requests does anything except make Commons look like it's trying to take over en.Wikipedia. Perhaps you should implement a new image cleanup template for cleanup necessary before transferring to commons. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was done previously, and I got yelled at, for NOT using speedy deletions.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that for files not eligible for deletion under the criterion you select, then you can't use speedy deletions, so, it seems, that a new image cleanup template for preparation for Commons is in order. Anything PD-ineligible doesn't need a source on En.Wikipedia, so shouldn't be tagged for deletion that way. If Commons requires a source, you could always tag it as {{do not move to commons}} instead, and use the general cleanup template {{cleanup}} with the rationale filled in as to what is missing to make it commons compliant. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside opinion here. Commons deletes PD-ineligible images without a source because different countries treat very simple images differently. In India, for instance, many signatures are copyrighted. Commons requires that an image be PD (or freely licensed) both in the U.S. and in its country of origin, but en.wiki only cares if it's PD in the U.S. If we don't have a source for a PD-ineligible image, then we don't know its country of origin, and Commons won't know what standard to apply.

It seems to me that a PD-ineligible image with no source should not be deleted here, but it should not be moved to Commons either, at least until the country of origin is determined. Do we have a template for that? – Quadell ^(talk) 10:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is {{do not move to commons}} ; there is also the USonly templates, but that's for when you know it's only PD in the US. I tried to get a discussion going before within the various license template talk pages, and WP:MCQ on a similar issue. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the file is eligible for copyright in the source country, use {{PD-ineligible-USonly|name of country of origin}}. Maybe you can use {{PD-ineligible-USonly|unknown}} if the source country is unknown. However, it should usually be very easy to identify the source country as it usually says what the file shows (e.g. "logo of company X"). It's typically not very hard to identify in which country "company X" is located. If there is no way to tell what the image shows, then the image is typically unused and out of scope, although there may be exceptions. In most cases, the uploader added the image to an article shortly after uploading the file, and there is a useful link in {{orphan image}} to check what the uploaded did immediately after the upload. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly tagged as OK to move to the Commons[edit]

Here's some files which you recently tagged as being okay to move to the commons, that sould have instead been nominated as F11 speedy deletion, as we have no evidence of permission of the original photographer. Please be more careful in the future, and ensure that the uploader is actually the copyright holder before you accept the image and burden the Commons with it. This is some examples, and there are many more such:

File:Stuart Robert MP, from aph.gov.au.jpg
File:Untitled Disaster.jpg, and everything else by that uploader
File:Screenshot of Style Jukebox on Galaxy Nexus.png
File:Sheikh Khalifa delivering a sermon at the ICCUK.jpg
File:Dr. Henry Buchwald image.jpg
File:Bostrom-2012-Figure 2-Qualitative Risk Categories.png -- Diannaa (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, I'm not planning on evlauting for Commons for a bit as I seem to be loosing my competence. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also above Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You also tagged File:Autumn hurlbert red carpet nobody loves you 2013.jpg, File:Autumn red carpet Nobody Loves You 2013.jpg and File:Hurlbert nobody loves you.jpg. Duplicates should be deleted as F1, not moved to Commons. The files are additionally copyright violations (now nominated for F9 deletion), but that's harder to discover. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding false info[edit]

Hello. I wonder why you keep adding false info to File:Falstaff-Leslie.jpg. Please stop. Tim riley (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, Tim. What do you think is a false statement? All Sfan's edits did is put the existing information into an {{information}} template. He didn't add any info at all. So what's the issue? – Quadell ^(talk) 19:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I keep getting a note on my talk page that the image (which I uploaded) lacks author information. It doesn't – but someone keeps changing the information and falsely stating that it does. Tim riley (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's because Sfan00 IMG wasn't filling in the {{information}} template more fully with the information you already supplied, and leaving the author parameter blank. That trips the bot. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

owned a small percentage of the Rangers as part of a large group of collective owners</ref> <ref>{{Notes On A Native SonHarper's Magazine, Feb, 2000 by Joe Concson, Kevin P. Phillipscite book</

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STOTTPILATES Studio.jpg[edit]

Hello, Stefan. I found this image in the Commons when I was editing a WP page. I've followed the link from the speedy deletion that you put on the image, but it does not yet have the 'contest' button on it. The only reason that I'd contest is that I can 't see the exact problem you see with the image. It is not missing nor corrupt (it loads just fine for me), nor is the image description page in the Commons empty. So, I'm at a loss to see why it would be deleted under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Could you be a little more specific about the reason you'd like to delete this image? Thanks. Trevor Jacques (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im not Stefan, But the reason for the deletion under F2 is that the description page here is not required, BECAUSE the Decription page at Commons is adequate. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for getting your name wrong. I had tried to determine it from previous posts. :-/ I now understand what you mean about the description. I guess I'm still sufficiently new to all this that I mixed up Wikipedia and WikiCommons. Sorry about that. Trevor Jacques (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10 questions[edit]

User talk:Kiko4564/10 Questions User talk:Kiko4564/10 Answers

File:Smallman Label.jpg[edit]

What's your thinking here? I am dubious that the uploader owns the copyright to the label, even if he or she took the photograph. In any case, there's no rationale for that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's PD-text (ie it's too simple to have it's own copyright) in my view Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

are the grey parts part of the design? Also the licence page should reflect that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bot task[edit]

Hello, could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Hazard-Bot 25 and leave a comment? Thanks. Hazard-SJ ✈ 02:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Falsifying file details[edit]

As requested above, will you please stop falsely claiming that files have no authors named when their names are perfectly clearly given? It is a nuisance having to go round cleaning up after you. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Now you are being annoying, I don't add False details, and I expectyou to apologise forthwith.~~

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is an indefensible statement. I added author info and you added later info denying that there was any author info. I ask you again, please desist. Tim riley (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were getting messages from an automated notification, which wasn't seeing that the author information already existed, in a different field of the information template which was added in good faith.

If you have a problem with the wording of the {{information}} template, or the bot which is sending you notifications, take it up with the maintainers of that template or the the bot which is sending you notifications. Don't come here making accusations that I am adding false details when I am not doing that. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above noted, I've reviewed the few images you've raised as a concern, and attempted to expand upon the author field in some cases. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That, plus your most thoughtful addition to my talk page, comes under the heading of magnanimous, and I send my warm thanks. Tim riley (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging dup images from commons[edit]

Some of your last reports at WP:NFCR like File:Yuilop logo.jpg don't need to be there: if the file exists at commons too and there, not under any pending deletion review, then the file on en.wiki meets WP:CSD criteria F8 and can be outright tagged as such; there's no debate necessary for such cases. (There might be overlap cases where an image on commons is about to be deleted and the editor has moved it as non-free to en.wiki to save it but that's the only time where such overlap is appropriate). --MASEM (t) 14:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basic Battle Skills - front cover.jpg[edit]

Why did you remove {{Non-free Crown copyright}}? The article about the book is clear that this was made by the British Army. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was replaced by ir-Crown-UK which has the same whording and categorisation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I missed that. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your comment to me about copyright.[edit]

I do not understand it. (Hernanday (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The work is very old over 150 years old. I thought that makes it exempt from copyright under wiki rules. It was taken on my wife camera.

OK , You need to say that on the image page Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a modern photo taken using a modern camera. It is unlikely that the photo was taken over 150 years ago. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a modern photo of an ancient thing. (Hernanday (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

OK Move to The Commons[edit]

I have reviewed the advice notice on the images. I am all for the move. I am not confident about my skill with wiki scripts, templates and rules, and could not even see the results of adding "|human=Bo Basil" to which template. So I hope Wiki is an automated batch system and with one paste can move those files. I value your time. --Bo Basil (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]