User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 9

Deleting images

I have uploaded a new image for Bobby Susser (The Logo Shot, 1996), whom I work for known as The Bobby Susser Song Catalog and New Hope Records. The owner and Source are by Bobby Susser and I've tried using the license that seemed most appropriate. I am a novice at this type of uploading and I am sorry if I am creating a problem. As you must know, Wikipedia rules are not very easy to follow at all times. I am trying my best to do my job. If I have done the correct thing now, THANK YOU. If not, if you can help correct this and state that the Source and Owner is Bobby Susser and Mr. Barr, our V P at New Hope Records and The Bobby Susser Catalog has given me permission and instructed me to post this for the company, and Mr. Susser. PLEASE HELP to have this image remain on its page. I've done my best and hope I have not given you any more work. I appreciate your help. Thank you very much. Respectfully . User:Brett9 Bobby Susser

I don't edit much anymore, but it appears that you are using a script or something that leads to the deletion of fair use images that meet our criteria (since you deleted one of my uploaded images, and I almost always meet the mimimum if not more, even if they were uploaded five years ago!) File:Dum dum dugan.jpg). My guess is that that pleases you, and if so carry on, but if it doesn't you may want to adjust your script or whatever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peregrine Fisher!

Sfan00 IMG is not an admin and can not delete files. Sfan00 IMG added a template telling that the file needed a fair use rationale and some time after an admin deleted the file. If you think we need the file and want to add the relevant fair use rationale we can undelete the file. Just leave a note. I hope it takes more than this for you to quit Wikipedia :-)

Greetings! --MGA73 (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Same problem at Systems engineering process -- User:Sfan00_IMG suspected there might be a copyright issue with the images and -- 4 years after they were added -- (and long after User_talk:E.Keegstra gave up on Wikipedia) they were "speedily" deleted. Of course rather than editing the article to remove the links, this deletion just left a trail of broken and misdirected references in now meaningless sentences. This is how we improve Wikipedia (and why the project has stagnated over the past few years...) I stopped using my account several years ago, but I still IP pop in occasionally to watch the articles deteriorate. 214.4.238.180 (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

British diesel and electric multiple units

Hi. Just noticed there's a good deal of detail in the UK section of Diesel multiple unit. It would be worth considering transfer of that text to the British diesel and electric multiple units article, leaving a summary and a 'main' link behind. There's probably too much information at DMU, so summarising the UK section would be a good move.

Keep up the good work!

EdJogg (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've decided I need to take this page 'off-watch' for now as it's proving too much of a distraction! The scope of the article is such that there's plenty of available material to include, and I'm finding it difficult to stop adding/researching it. I am also rather conscious that I am being rather heavy-handed over my editing of your contributions. This is nothing personal; however, I think it would be better if I left you to edit the article in peace and perhaps reviewed it once you're done -- hopefully other editors will join in too.

Cheers. -- EdJogg (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Got your message, but I'm a bit confused by it.

Are you saying that you DO want me to continue editing that article, because you don't think you can expand it further, or was there something else?

If you think you're at the limit of what you can add, then that's fine...there are plenty of other editors here who can pick up the baton, so you don't have to lose any sleep over it.

EdJogg (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I was saying that I'd reached the limits of my knowledge, and thanks for correcting me about the DEMU development. ( I was it seems wrong on that :( ). In terms of a more general issue I can't seem to find an article on the LSWR 'HOVIS' units, which ought to have thier own article alongised the ones on the very early LSBCR units... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll take another look, but I probably won't be expanding it substantially myself as I have a large ToDo backlog to work through!

With regard to anything Southern, the Southern Electric E-group website (SEEG?) is a good source of information, and their pages are frequently used as references here.

Cheers. EdJogg (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

deleting img from cats

Hi,

What's wrong with including images in categories, even if they're transcluded from Commons? These are images used for WP articles on the topic in question. — kwami (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Julia Moulden book cover image

Many thanks for the fair use rationale. Some Wikipedia details I find challenging.Vytal (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Untagged

Hi, it's been seen that you are using the "untagged" template - could we please ask you to use the alternative as shown on the Template:Untagged page, as that template is mainly for use by the bot, which adds the date parameter to it - without a date parameter, the images don't get listed on the correct page for deletion - as you know they are deleted after a fixed time. Use of the {{subst:nld}} locks the current date and time into the templated message, and we can delete them when they have expired their time. Thanks,  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The last time I used {{di-no license|date=25 February 2011}} I nearly got banned, so thanks but I'll use untagged for now Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

But unless you fill in all the parameters for the date, you are wasting your time - the file will just sit there, maybe for weeks or months. You can use untagged - but only by adding the date - see for example File:Sinclair plate 1.jpg, where I've manually added the date - thus the automatic categorisation at the bottom now shows Wikipedia files with no copyright tag as of 23 February 2011. Admins use these categories to go through the appropriate day's deletions - no date will mean no deletion.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: File source problem with File:HexRotated.png

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Amakuru's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 — Amakuru (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

low resolution coin images

I fully understand the argument in terms of using low resolution images of bills. Can you show me any history of these arguments being applied to coins? It just doesn't seem to hold the same weight to me. No one is going to attempt to counterfeit a coin from a scan of my pocket change.—Kww(talk) 19:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, I'm not aware of a specifc argument about coins at the moment.

I'll take your view into account, re the 'specimen' marking, but in general i've tended to use a guideline that non-free images shouldn't be larger than about 600-600 pixels (ie roughly VGA res) , which for a coin image should be more than large enough.

More generally, I suggest you raise this issue on the Image noticeboard. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

FSC

Hi! I'll be out until tomorrow evening (about 8pm GMT), so please hold off on any more promotions until then. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

File Deletion

Hi, i was suprised to see the tagg for speedy deletion on one of the files related to a Wiki project. Could you pls explain the reason for tagging the commons file Akarigbo of Remo for speedy deletion. Thanks Otelemuyen 14:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's NOT the Commons File that's going to be deleted. It was tagged under G6 because it's an image thats hosted at Commons, and thus the categorisation should be on the image at Commons, not locally.

Was there a special reason it needed a local categorisation? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No, theres no reason for local categorisation. Moreover, i think the commons file has issues as per its permission. Since the author seems not to be "active", it might be that the file wouldnt survive anyways. Thanks for making this clear. Otelemuyen 15:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I got a notification that my file was going to be deleted. I uploaded it and then tried to place it in the french version of a page. For whatever reason it's not getting put in. Any chance you could take a look at the page before you delete the image in question. Thanks --Ravipjoshi (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Images for use on French Wikipedia have to be uploaded to that Wikipedia, not this one which is English Wikipedia... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Categorized Files

Disregard

 – Everything has been sorted out and I now understand how the transcluded images and categorizations work! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you recently tagged these files for deletion: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I read in the discussion directly above that you're tagging these WP:CSD#G6 because they are being incorrectly categorized—rather, they are being categorized at all. I added the categories; if they aren't supposed to be categorized, why not just simply remove the categories, or ask me to undo them? I'm not sure I understand that a whole CSD process is required just to remove a single category. I wasn't aware there was a guideline against categorizing Commons images on Wikipedia. If you can show me where it says images should not be categorized that are already in Commons, I'll gladly remove them. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Ahmad Azari-Qomi-Bigdeli.jpg missing description details

This pic is cropped from pic File:Saanei and montazeri.jpg. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 18:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_March_27#File:Big5California.jpg

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_March_27#File:Big5California.jpg. OCNative (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Thankyou

Hello. I just wanted to thank you for the improvements you did on the "Eddsworld Website Header" image. It is much-appreciated. Thank-you. Zach Winkler (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Theophilus Cibber as Pistol.png

Thanks for telling me this file lacks sufficient information. I agree. It's obviously in the public domain, being ancient, but I had no idea what I was doing in 2004, and didn't keep any information about where I found it. Unfortunately, now I can't find an alternative version (other than on wikipedia mirrors) to upload over it. I guess you'll just have to delete the sucker. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC).

Manuscript images

Thank you for alerting me to the lack of authorship information on two files (File:AugsutineGospelsFolio125rPassionScenes.jpg and File:VirgiliusRomanusFol14rVergilPortrait.gif). Both of these are manuscript images from manuscripts that are about 1500 years old. Understandably, the artist is unknown. I can't at this point tell you the source of file I uploaded almost seven years ago. Fortunately, as reproductions of two dimensional works of art that are in public domain because of their great age, these images are also in the public domain, so there is no need to be concerned about the copyright status of these images. Dsmdgold (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

True , but it's nice to have as much information as possible before they go to Commons :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You can list the author as "anonymous" or "unknown". The date for Vergilius Romanus as 5th century and the Augustine Gospels as 6th century. There is no telling what the source of the digital files is other than "the internets" at this point. Note that commons already has a jpg version of this file, so transferring it may be redundant. Dsmdgold (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Images nominated for deletion

Hi recently you have nominated a whole lot of images with a G6 criterion. When ever you use G6 you should supply a reason. However for many of the church images where someone added a category there is a more correct one F2: description page for a file on commons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to have the whole debate about G6 vs F2 at ANI for the foruth time, then raise the issue there. I use G6 with an additional reason because I was told NOT to use F2 for the situation you mention. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

File talk:Hainan Island topographical.jpg

Please use the image talk page to explain your rationale for deletion. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Free Use images

Was there any point in removing 35+ di-no-permissions and replacing with free-use templates, when the images are clearly unused, which is against free use policy? It just delays the inevitable deletion.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair-use templates, Please assume good faith, someone might fix up the images concerned :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with good faith, but extremely unlikely to happen, and whether it's tagged with "di-no-permission" or "di-orphaned fair use", it's a still 7 days to termination.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Please do not remove file deletion tags from file description pages on Wikipedia, as you did to File:SWTO DontRape.jpg, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Next time, try actually reading the diffs () !! Image tagged as no-license. License added , Tag removed as no longer applicable.

I expcect an apology :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of CSD

Hi, please can you explain why you removed the CSD from File:SatyendraNarainSingh.JPG and replaced it with a slower PROD-type deletion arrangement? There is a blatant licensing problem, a probable copyright problem and the uploader is a serial abuser in these respects. Umpteen images have been deleted in the past as a consequence. - Sitush (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Went back to your tagging, Good luck in getting the uploader booted:) Thanks for the heads up Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I know nowt ... and might be coming back to you when CSD is refused! We'll see what happens but the uploader's TP mostly comprises concerns about images etc, so there has to be a point where some sort of sanction is imposed. Was blocked for two weeks previously, but this was quite some time ago. - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox VR station

In your replacement of this deprecated template with the standard Infobox station, the parameters {{{name}}} and {{{passengers}}} have the remains of an "if" template inherited from the wrapper. Perhaps you could deal with this in future conversions. Thank you. Sw2nd (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I thought I'd been checking for that sort of cleanup needed :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this some automated process, or do you convert the templates manually? We still need to retain the line break in the name for the two languages. If you can finish (Finish?) the process, I will run behind and check for some other cleanups, like moving the passenger date into the correct parameter, moving coordinates from the body of the article into the infobox, and delinking dates, etc. Minor stuff. Thanks again. Sw2nd (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Manual, And I'd appreciate some feedback on how to tidy up the ones already converted:) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If you just do the conversion from the custom version to Template:Infobox station, I will check all the articles after you have processed them. There are other minor things, not directly relating to the Infobox, that need to be dealt with. Whoops :) Just don't use the wrong template. Sw2nd (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing this - but I am still confused. You say that the conversion is done manually, but you needed to do a "Cleanup from subst" every time, to fix the same problems. Why is that? Sw2nd (talk)

The Cleanup from subst, is the fixes you refer to earlier about removing the if parser stuff which is common across all the substed stuff.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly what I don't understand. If you do this conversion manually, why did you include those things in the first place? The reason I am pursuing this question is because I started the process you completed for me. In the future, I will want to convert other versions of a custom infobox to the standard station one and I had hoped that semi-automation of some kind could help me do it. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The manual cleanup is needed, because it's not possible to do the sbust, and removal of leftovers in a single edit.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

OK I've got it now. You substituted the template and paramater names using "Wikipedia:Substitution". "subst" was cryptic and unkown to me. I thought you had copied the data manually from one template to the other. Thanks. Sw2nd (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

About orphaned pic File:Penguin 1987 MartinAmis EinsteinsMonsters FrontCover.jpg

Hi Sfan00 IMG! Please do delete File:Penguin 1987 MartinAmis EinsteinsMonsters FrontCover.jpg asap. Thanks again for your message about this. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

TFD

This is probably not what you wanted to do, since you inserted a discussion in the middle of another one. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Opps! Thanks for the cleanup <embarrassed look> Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Images requiring information for Wikimedia Commons move

Category:Images requiring information for Wikimedia Commons move, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yo

Hey, thank you for deleting KisayLogo.jpg. Really, I was quite lost, I didn't know how to get rid of it. :D Geekout (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

TFD

Please add individual rationales. Rationale-less nomination is lazy. Speedy deletion should be considered first, and if not applicable, then the reason why the template should not exist should be ascertained, or if it should exist, apply it somewhere. Please don't flood TFD with such non-thought-out nominations.

(Also, you might like User:This, that and the other/Unused templates. It's a few months old, but it doesn't stop in the middle of the alphabet like the DB report does.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A template being unused is listed DIRECTLY as one of the reasons for listing it at TfD. The reason I did not speedy 'unused' templates is because a debate about the actual status of the templates concerned was needed as has been shown by the debates on TfD.

If you know of a fast speedy way of tagging a template as apparently unused without the drama of a CSD, please LMK :)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No, no, it is excellent that you are taking action. I meant no offence by the term "flood" - indeed, I have flooded TfD before (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 10, for instance), but you will notice that each one had an individual rationale. Some may have been brief, but IIRC those templates were absolute rubbish, and totally and utterly useless.

Please also note the TfD reason number 3: "The template is not used, [...], and has no likelihood of being used". The former is self-evident from WhatLinksHere; the latter must be explained. The onus is on the nominator to provide a reason (unless it's really really obvious), not on the commenters or the deleting admin to find a reason.

Consider using CSD G2 for total rubbish, or CSD G6 for articles in template space. Otherwise TfD is the only route to deletion. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be a template that says ' This template appears to be unused? If you can find a use for it, Please consider doing so. If no use can be found for this template, please consider opening a TfD disscussion.'. That would be a much better

thing to do a 'massacre' tagging with than a huge amount of TfD postings. In fact the addition of such a tag could be automated?

Note, I also tagged for speedy a load of empty categories recently, but amended the CSD notice for C1 to suggest populating the categories so tagged :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes - use speedy delete for goodness sake! Why on earth do you think it is "dramatic"? {{About plugcomputer}} was tagged "CSD G6 - useless article content in template namespace" after you had sent it to TfD and I happily accepted that. Only if you find a CSD tag removed by an admin, should you try TfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-photo-advisory

Template:Uw-photo-advisory has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at

• the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page
• the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page
• the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page
• the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page *the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop it!

Now you are just getting silly. Notifying yourself of TfD nominations that you have created! If you created these templates in the first place, then just tag them {{db-g7}}. Why on earth waste time with TfD? Please answer. — S (talk · contribs) 16:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not using CSD because I wanted there to be a debate. Also I've been told by others that using G7 on templates that HAD been edited by others wasn't good faith, hence why they were sent to TfD. The appearance of the notifications on this user page is a side effect of Using Twinkle to generate the TfD entries although I've probably overlooked an option to turn them off.

Also since when is seeking consensus via a self-nom a bad thing? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth I submitted several TFD as well from the Unused templates list. --Kumioko (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Cross-Cultural Theatre

Why are you requesting that the category Cross- Cultural Theatre be speedily deleted or deleted at all? Just days ago I corresponded with the administrator responsible for having robotically deleted this category a week or so ago only because it had become empty, and let him know about my intention of re-opening it, which he okayed. This is a category that well describes the work we do. It should be allowed to remain as is. Thank you. Mx96 18:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The cateogory was empty when tagged. If you wish to contest the speedy, feel free Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Alternative Theatre

Thank you, but how should I go about further contesting this? Also I now see that you have nominated Alternative Theatre for deletion...I contest that as well-- it is an excellent category and a large part of the work we do is aptly deeribed by it. Please advise.

I've not marked Alternative Theatre for deletion. All I've done is remove a category loop. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by category loop? As you can tell, I am new to this. Mx96 22:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

F2 rather than G6

Not desperately important, but when you tag something like File:BearApplePoop.JPG, you can use a simple {{db-f2}} rather than "db-g6|Image is Commons, Local page contains no additional information or consists soley of a local categorisation". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I really do NOT want to open the argument about G6 vs F2 for about the seventh time! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I never saw any of the previous six discussions, please point me to them. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have them to hand, sorry :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Dorothea Lange pledge of allegiance.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dorothea Lange pledge of allegiance.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the most famous photographs in existence, and its source is well known to anyone who has studied japanese internment or photography or photographic history or dorothea lange. I added the file in 2005, long before Wikipedia's policies about obsessively documenting everything were so draconian. If you want to find a better source, do a google search for "Dorothea Lange pledge of allegiance" and you'll surely find hundreds. –jacobolus (t) 14:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That may be so, but current policy is that Wikipedia images need a source, Hopefully someone will see the request and update the fields concerned :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why whoever is adding these tags can't do a simple google search. But here: Dorothea Lange, Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-17124 "Children of the Weill Public School pledge allegiance to the United States flag. San Francisco, 1942." (Here's the LOC page: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2001705926/) –jacobolus (t) 14:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

And you could have put that in the Image description page, which I've now done so :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Hannah de Rothschild.jpg

You state on the talkpage of the uploader, User:GiacomoReturned, that the copyright status of File:Hannah de Rothschild.jpg is "unclear". And yet Giacomo states clearly on the image description page that the photo is in the public domain because it's 120 years old. Meaning presumably that it's at least 120 years old, as Hannah de Rotschild died in 1890, see Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery. I can see this claim on the page; can't you? Don't request deletion of the image, please. If the PD claim needs to be in template form (in the name of god, why?), perhaps you could supply that? I don't know what it's supposed to look like, and Giacomo may not see your warning until after the image has been deleted. As to the long-ago creator of the image, that person may well be unknown; but it's still in the public domain because of age, isn't it? P.S. Oddly, the image was moved to Commons under another name, File:Hannah de Rothschild, Countess of Rosebery.jpg. These things cannot be explained. Bishonen | talk 15:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC).

The image is PD . that's not in dispute. It does however need a source. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't dispute that the image is PD then why do you insist that it needs a source? Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

For veirifcation. I'm dropping this because it's not worth the hassle. Image is clearly 'Source= Digital reproduction of public domain image' Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Templates

Hi Sfan, please don't template people like this. One brief note would suffice. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Noted Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

file move tagging

Hi Sfan, I moved many images you tagged. Please remember to use the correct file extension when tagging. 3 or 4 images had a wrong file extension (one had none) and thus would be moved to the incorrect place by somebody unexperienced... mabdul 14:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. BTW If something is GIF and static it should perhaps be converted to PNG ... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have enough to do with moving the image you tagged. Alternatively I can remove wildbot notices ^^ (or writing on my next big draft in my userspace... or or or) mabdul 14:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Please look also at Wikipedia:File_mover#What_files_should_not_be_renamed.3F. A lot of your requests are only slightly better, and that is in the reason to not move the file. Thanks, CTJF83 17:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, It would be better for all concerned if there was policy that stated EXPLICITLY what naming structure Non-free album covers should have. That way contributors like myself that are trying to improve things would not have to second guess what the guideline limits are.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm not trying to be an asshole....perhaps you could start a naming convention proposal? Wikipedia:Image file names doesn't give much, but I think as long as it is a general, pretty descriptive name, it is ok. CTJF83 18:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, WP:AGF etc.... You are welcome to open a disscussion on a talk page. In regard to album covers the thought was that as album cover fur should already give the Artist and Album names the naming should be something like {{{artist}}}-{{{album}}}-{{{media}}}.jpg/.png (apolgies for template speak. This means that the full file name

could be constructed from the metadata, perhaps semi automatically. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I see. CTJF83 18:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Part of it is I just got file mover recently, and I'm trying to be extra cautious, so an admin doesn't say, well File X,Y,Z were all poor moves, so we are taking the right away from you. CTJF83 18:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Cautious? Just you wait until you've been using it for 2000 moves ;) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL, can't wait! CTJF83 18:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

(snap) Hi again, we original wanted to create something like a new policy for album - articlets.extension thing as you remember. I looked at Wikipedia:File mover and this would fallen into category 7 in the table, or? *g* mabdul 09:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not criteria7 for the Artist-Album naming convention, at least not in the version of the page you link that I'm reading Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh I mean criteria 6: "harmonize file names of a set of images" --> "to ease their usage in templates". Maybe by this "we" can create a automatic way of inserting images automatic... Would be interesting for a proposal.(and a large bot renaming part ^^) mabdul 11:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh and I removed the rename atg at File:Fuse.png. To what or why should this image be renamed? mabdul 19:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined

Hi Sfan00 IMG. Thank you for tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Category:Cities, towns and villages in Malaysia, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, under criterion C1 because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. It was an category redirect and that is an exemption to C1. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but the categories still been deleted :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The deleting administrator restored it because it was an mistake. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 16:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Wikipedia files with non-standard/non-templated rationales

Category:Wikipedia files with non-standard/non-templated rationales, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Steam locomotive and tender nomenclature.jpg

I'd like to move this to Commons, Any chance you could include a key stating what the numbered parts are? Thanks. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I searched, but unfortunately I think it was among the books I got rid of during my last move. Sorry. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Bother, Right Do you know any old-timer engineers that be able to help write a key? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Frank Farrell Aust RL.jpg needs authorship information

Quite so. The author of the shot is unknown. The source is noted on the upload page. It's rl1908.com and the specific link is http://www.rl1908.com/Rugby-League-News/bumper.htm There is no question that the shot was taken pre-1955 and thus in PD under Australian copyright law since the photo is extracted from a Newtown team shot and the player's career with Newtown ended in 1951. It's a shame the shot is orphaned and I will rectify this. :Sticks66 09:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Put in a temporary Author line saying 'Unknown photographer' - No contest that it is PD though , thanks for responding :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Vermapriya1986 and image lacking description

Hi, you recently posted a notice about an image lacking a description at User_talk:Vermapriya1986. Perhaps you were not aware that (a) that user is an indef blocked POV pusher & sock master; and (b) numerous images of the same subject which were uploaded by the user have been subsequently deleted as copyvios or lacking truthful permissions. Might it be easier just to request deletion of the thing? I'm not that familiar with images on WP & would be reluctant to do it myself as I'd probably get the rationale wrong. - Sitush (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It might, but I was being cautious... If you want to nominate that users images for CSD.
If you nom, don't be too bold, if you are bold don't bite.. If you nom , are bold and bite don't be suprised.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

FfD as orphaned images? - Sitush (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at MSGJ's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Category:Tragedy plays

Hi. You added a notice requesting population of that category. It should be deleted. There's no such thing as a "tragedy play". Have a look at tragedy if you want further information. "Tragic plays" is dodgy too. "Tragedies" is the most common form. You could, I suppose, use "Tragedies (theatre)" if further disambiguation was required.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 13:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Fell free to C1 then Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Without wishing to upset anyone, my experience of categories for discussion has taught me that's it's a quagmire of idiocy unrelated to actual use in the real world (i.e., most discussions seemed to be a vote on editor's opinions, rather than a discussion of reliable sources). It's a black-hole of energy and there are far more important things to take care of in the encyclopedia. I'm happy to remove the category from articles that have been added to it, but will leave its existence to others to take care of if they wish. The sources in the tragedy article should provide all the information required for an assessment. Kind regards,  • DP •  ^{huh?} 16:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfree images

Hi,

I just received a message informing me of the Possibly unfree use of several images I have uploaded. I have now recently acquired written confirmation granting me copyright of these and other images from the artist and will be filing that letter with wikipedia (I am still reading up on how this is done!) In the meantime, thank you for your patience while I get this sorted out. All the best Chaosandvoid (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the rapid response - Don't forget to mention you've got ORTS pending in the PUF disscussion :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Image information

Dear sir. Regarding the image File:Sealtemplarsbarrech2.jpg the file description states that the file was created by the uploader Cristian ChiritaCristianChirita Seal Barre updated.

The file was created before the actual files template description. even when the Awb is used, it is maybe necessary to read the file description. I'll put on the file the own information, still , it is reccomended to read the file description. kind regards. CristianChirita (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it was the authorship of the 'original' seal I was concerned about. I.E Who made the Seal Design on which your work is based? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

going overboard

You are asking for copyright info on pictures, not internet files, but pictures. These pictures are all works of the US government, Dept. of the Navy. They are public domain. They were listed on wikipedia as public domain years and years ago, when 'public domain' is all that was needed. They no longer exist. If you delete them, the best alternate source will be old versions of Wikipedia.

You are going overboard with your mass info search. Narrow your scope or you are harming the encyclopedia. User:Pedant (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

So please indicate that information on the File description pages, It's not that hard is it? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Each file needs a link to its source so that the licensing is verifiable (in cases where the uploader did not create it). Sfan00 did nothing wrong. Killiondude (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Non-free physical media image

Template:Non-free physical media image has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Webcachedlinks

Template:Webcachedlinks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Timothy Titus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 10:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfree image

Hi, you placed a note on my page that File:Firefighters 3.JPG was an unfree image. I took the photo at Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY on July 4 2004 and this is reflected in the statement that I am the copyright holder. I am therefore curious as to why you think copyright is in dispute. Thanks Phil aka Geotek (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read the entry at WP:PUF which is linked in the notification you got. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

as it is used in two articles where there is no substitute image available, fair use would apply and therefore surely that is fine ? Geotek (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

OK , But you will need to add a suitable rationale, and switch the license to {{Non-free 3D art}} Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Changed to fair use with rationale Geotek (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

CSD G6

Hi today, you have tagged about ten files for speedy deletion (CSD G6). Can you please state your rationale ?Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Images are Commons, and thusly any categorisation should be at Commons, not here locally.. The images themselves aren't being deleted (as they are on Commons), just the local page which has the category. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep Local

Please stop tagging for deletion files that have the {{KeepLocal}} template. SpinningSpark 23:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please advise the writers of the tools that look for Commons Duplicates to re-write their tools to exclude such entries as well :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you should advise them. I will leave that to the users of the tool. In the meantime please stop inappropriate tagging for deletion. If the tagging were merely a mechanical process of tagging every item the tool detected, then the tool could do that itself. As a human editor you are responsible for the edits you make, regardless any advice you get from any tool. Please take more care in the future. SpinningSpark 16:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Now resolved :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphan

I am aware of 13 orphan files, no need to let me know on each and every one. --Muhandes (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification error

Something went wrong with your notifications on my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Omkar1234's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Omkar1234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC).

File:Jekyll-Hyde Page.jpg

Greetings. I saw the tag you added for the above file. It might well have the wrong tag. Perhaps you can tell me what the tag should be? I took a photo of a page from a 2005 (I think, I'd have to pull it off the bookshelf again) printing of the book. Since the text is not of the preface or introduction, and of Stephenson's text itself, the image of the words should be fair use—I think. He died in 1894. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the edition , it might be PD , but there is the issue of typographical copyright in the arrangment.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

All right. I'm not familiar with what cases the typographical arrangement might constitute a copyright, although I suppose in various countries that might be an issue. What policies cover this at Wikipedia so I can research them? If this file is not acceptable here, I can substitute another, but I'd like to familiarize myself with the relevant WP. Thanks again! --Airborne84 (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried asking on one of the noticeboard? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have not. If you can point me in the right direction, I'll do that. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ask here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions ... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

RE:File:BornThisWay-Deluxe.png

You may delete this image. I was planning to use it on the Born This Way article. However apparently, that would fail Wikipedia's non-free content policy as discussed on the talk page because it is merely a close up of the normal cover art. --WIKIPEDIAn Penguin ^(♫♫) 11:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Darul_Uloom_Deoband

Hi, on this page Darul_Uloom_Deoband there seems to be a person who is persistently making ridiculous changes. I have informed him many times to make the edits in a manner that preserves the links but he is not listening. It is really irritating to clean up everytime; is there any solution to this? Thanks. PratikMallya ☎ 12:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Consult an Administrator, WP:AN , unless urgent in which case WP:ANI? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand

I put a license on the File:Cena2011.jpg image that it was a poster, what am i supposed to do to make the image acceptable? I couldnt understand your previous explanation. Saimcheeda (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Which previous explanation was this? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Image associated with article per your request..completed

Hello, Thank you kindly for the head's up that I forgot to link my image description page to the article to which it is associated. I have (hopefully correctly) linked this file image to the associated article. Again, thank you kindly and should anything be incorrect, please feel free to let me know.

Kindly, MistressToHorrorKid (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Templated message on my user talk page

Hi Sfan00,

Whilst I appreciate that you are notifying me about the speedy deletion nomination of the image, please Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars in the future.

Thanks,

The Helpful One 10:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

So how would you prefer to be notified in the future? Hand-written postcard? Telegram? Just ignored and let the image be deleted? "Don't template the regulars" is a wish to not hide behind impersonal boilerplate messages in a confrontational situation, but sometimes an automatic alert is just an automatic alert, no more than that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Your notification to delete a file redirect

Hi there. About your message regarding File:Patd4.jpg, please note that there is currently no consensus to speedy delete such redirects. In fact, one of the developers, Brion Vibber, explicitly said that such redirects should not be deleted and in one post to the mailing list (iirc) stated that he will personally block any admin doing so. That said, I would advise you to start a discussion about it at the relevant village pump first before continuing with such taggings. Regards SoWhy 11:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Request Image Help for IRC Entry

Hi Sfan00,

I'm having a "bot" problem loading 3 images into an article I'm writing on a last century independent film distribution company (IRC) at User:Sinclairindex/Intercontinental Releasing Corporation. I am certain the problem is me but less certain about what to do.

1. The first image is the IRC Company Logo at [[7]]. I thought I had the correct license info, tags, etc., but it seems not. While I uploaded from an original source, the logo is on quite a few net sites. The company was dissolved in '96 and I believe the use would fall under "fair use".

I thought it important to show images from a several different films that the distributor carried. I selected two of their earlier successful releases (Chino and Call of the Wild) and uploaded images from posters that I had. I'm awaiting permission before loading the final one. The two posers I am having trouble with are:

2. The Chino poster at; [[8]] and...

3. The Call of the Wild poster at:[[9]]

I thought that I was using licensing and information similar to other wikipedia images re: posters, logos, etc., but I've obviously missed something. I know that you are busy but I would appreciate any help you could provide when you have a chance.

Thanks for your help! Best regards Sinclairindex (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

ShouldBeJPEG

Any particular reason why you are adding a deleted template to image pages? Or was this a mistake? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know it was deleted, Do you want me to inform the TWINKLE/FURME integration project as well? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright of image Cervix2.jpg

Please see my post [10] at AN/I. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

File

The files were on the "Italian Socialist Party," but were removed because the files did not comply I do not know what criteria. When I was told to dishorpaning files, I did it and I put them back into voice. But they were deleted again. Now I ask, for the third time, what should I do to ensure that these logos can be: they are like all the logos of other parties, but at least tell me what I need to specify further. Please tell me why you are saying different things from each other.--Pelusu (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)If you mean File:PARTITO SOCIALISTA (2008).png, File:LA DESTRA - FIAMMA TRICOLORE.png, and File:755.jpg (User:Sfan00 IMG cannot see what has been deleted - I can) - they were deleted because they were orphaned (i.e not used in any article). A fair use image must be used in an article to qualify under the fair usage scheme - see WP:NONFREE for full details..  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Fly on the wall

as I do? not understand help me --Staay (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Did that do it?

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Greg L's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Orphaned Images

are no longer orphaned and are linked to the page User:Rudyryan/Sigma Chi Omega Rudyryan (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Steam locomotive and tender nomenclature.jpg

I'd like to move this to Commons, Any chance you could include a key stating what the numbered parts are? Thanks. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I still have the source book. I'll check.—RJH (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I no longer have the source book. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for image added

When I uploaded this image File:Brenda-Wootton-All-of-Me-album-cover.jpg, I thought I had supplied all the necessary information, I am a new user and there is a considerable amount of information on this site, not always easy to understand on first reading (or even second) I have now completed the fair use rationale as you suggested. Thank You. Jasonkaywiki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC).

Say what? Fair use rationale for a non-free image?

Look, I uploaded that image a long time ago but I know I didn't upload it as non-free. Maybe there was a database hiccup that changed that, MediaWiki certainly isn't the most secure software out there. But, whatever. It's been my experience that wikipedia staffers are unreasonable and do pretty much whatever they want anyway. TigerC10 (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Look at the history. You uploaded it with a template {{Software-screenshot}} that has since been moved to {{Non-free software screenshot}}. This was done with a reasonable precautionary principle that we hadn't previously split screenshots into free and non-free, and that once we started doing that automatically, we should assume non-free unless confirmed otherwise.

If this software is free, you might be able to manually change it to {{Free screenshot}}.

Sfan needs to be aware that many, many screenshots will be affected like this. They should not be deleted, there is no reason to delete them, there is no reason for an adversarial process against their uploaders. A more useful piece of bulk image review would be to go through those uploaded in 2007 or before and now tagged with {{Non-free software screenshot}} (or even better, that were tagged with {{software screenshot}}) and to review whether they're actually non-free or free before seeking their deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I ask for some assistance with that 'review' Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The software IS free, but it was released under EULA as opposed to GNU. The {{Free screenshot}} template isn't appropriate. And that is the overall problem, I think - requirements which get so specific without allowing for every single possibility that could be encountered. TigerC10 (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Then I think that's just cause for a new template: in the general case, one that can be applied clearly and unambiguously to free output of non-free programs.

I can also sympathise that this would be a far from trivial task to work through all of these images. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

See Also - Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Software_Screenshots Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

As a favour...

Could you please not post non-fair notices on my page. If you think there's something that needs to be fixed, just go ahead and do it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't want to get warnings? Noted Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Automated warnings, exactly. I worry that automated tools are making one person's work very easy and the others very difficult. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Javier2.jpg

Query: In case the rationale that I posted isn't sufficient to prevent deletion, would an image such as an album cover suffice to illustrate the subject: Javier Solis? Would that qualify as free content? If not, have you any suggestions? Wishing you the best of the day,--Lyricmac (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This Moment images

Hi. You tagged two images I had on the article about the album This Moment. Both images are alternate covers of two Special Editions. I re-edited the summary and the non-free rationale of each, removing any reference to stores or any other business (Wal-Mart or Amazon) from where I got the image, and verified it with the summaries of similar images (like These Days and ...Baby One More Time). Let me know if that was the problem, so we can remove the tags and reinstate the images to the article. Thanks! Thief12 (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Box-Art Rationale

You recently contacted me about the box art for Jak and Daxter: The Lost Frontier that I uploaded a long time ago needing a free use rational, so I tried to do the template, but there were some parts I did not understand. I did not know whether it meant what part of the game cover (in which it would be the front) and I don't know how to find the resolution. Thunderstone99 (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved by another user... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Free rationale for File:WRQN logo.png

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at JeffBillman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:TSR logo.png

Hi Sfan00 IMG, any ideas of what File:TSR logo.png could be renamed to? I assume it would be better using the full name of the company. :) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It would Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:SWLOGO.JPG

A tag has been placed on File:SWLOGO.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ftclogo.png

A tag has been placed on File:Ftclogo.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious, why did these appear on your own page? Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Because I did some file moving/retitling , and forget to turn off the notification in TWINKLE when I tagged the redundant redirect for CSD :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This is my concern about tools like these. Let' me wax inelloquently for a moment...

Posting anything on the Wiki takes a lot of time. It generally requires a collection of media that sort of gels together into a whole, and that collection may be temporal. If I return to articles I wrote 1/2 a decade ago, it takes a while for me to wrap my head around the topic again. This is true for images as well as articles.

The images you posted about on my talk page were posted a very long time ago. Yet with a single button click (I assume, having never used Twinkle) a number of otherwise time consuming steps are carried out that place the image in a queue to be automatically deleted, and deleted quickly. Had I been on vacation, that material would have disappeared forever, all because I didn't post a tag that didn't even exist.

Getting that image back out of the deletion queue is not as easy. First we have to go back in time to try to figure out where things came from, then manually edit the description page to add that information while at the same time removing the tags that would cause it to be removed anyway. If I fail to do any of these steps correctly, the material is deleted anyway.

So my concern is that we have automated the easy part, and failed to automate the hard part. The result is a dramatic asymmetry in favour of deleting old material.

So the reason I bring it up here is because a minor technical issue caused a problem. Because of the high level of automation involved, there appear to be no checks and balances. I see many PRODs that are clearly wrong, but the people that go around and delete them never bother to look. The same is true of images. That strikes be as a Very Bad Thing Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Two things

1. I know FurMe is down, and that causes a great deal of angst among the file gnomes, but please don't tag files for deletion for not having FURs (as you did with File:Ivanillich.jpg) when it is just as easy to put a FUR in yourself.

2. Recently you tagged for resizing several 30 second sound files. I'm really not sure why you did that, and I removed the {{non-free reduce}} templates from them. Please note that DASHbot does not resize sound files, someone would have to do that manually, which explains why the speed run video has been tagged for resize for several months.

Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 04:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

In relation to the sound clips, they may have been tagged for being over 96 Kbps, as opposed to an issue to do with the length.

However, I don't recall tagging many sound files for re-sizing within the last 2 weeks, Can you link to some examples?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:415 Records logo.jpg

Hi Sfan, this file was in an article that is currently being considered for a copyright problem with the text, for which I submitted the complaint. I noticed you put a deletion article on the page of the image's submitter, (because I left a message there regarding the image earlier this week, so it's on my watchlist). I included the image from the original copyvio article in a replacement article for that copyright problem article (which is where it was last orphaned from). The image was then removed from the replacement article because that replacement article is not (yet?) in mainspace. We are currently awaiting action from the Copyright Problems Investigation (Day2), whereupon the image will either be added back to the blanked article or needed for the new one, in the infobox. The article is/was 415 Records and its proposed replacement is Talk:415 Records/Temp Could you hold off on deletion for a moment while we get that part settled? duff 21:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. The matter was settled yesterday. The original article has been restored, with proper copyrights, and is now in mainspace with the image. Thanks for the pause. If there's any other trouble with that image, or anything else that needs to be done about the proposed deletion, please advise.duff 15:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Justice League Dark image

Hi Sfan, thanks for pointing this out for me! I'm still a bit of a n00b when it comes to images, so I hope this is sorted. If you want to have a very quick look at my template on there and let me know if anything else needs done, please do! Any assistance is much appreciated. Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 08:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Breadwinner

Hi. You tagged the image Thebreadwinner.jpg as needing a rationale. I have provided a rationale for that I hope satisfies. Please let me know otherwise so I can edit accordingly. Mark^Dask 11:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Aftab Iqbal

Added a better description for File:Hasb-e-Haal3-115x115.png. Please have a look and remove your LABEL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srkamal (talk • contribs) 15:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

When you add a rationale, the tag will be removed, not before.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added the rationale buddy - Srkamal (talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

Please see WP:NFCC, adding a rationale includes providing an explanation of how it meets all the criteria. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

UPDATED the rationale. Please Check and remove LABEL. --Srkamal (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Help me cite this photo please. --Srkamal (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback: Problems uploading File:Independence Missouri.jpg

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Eric567's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reponse to your message

I am beginning to get sick of people tagging every noble article i create for deletion (some of whom later changed their minds and untagged it) and everything image i upload, Whats the problem this time..... Goldblooded (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Good try, but...

... Instill get the "you have a new message". Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Tagged for Deleting Image

Hi Sfan00, I have seen that you placed a tag for deleting the image: Sree Narayana Gurukulam College.jpg stating that license details were not given, in spite of specifying the permission as free. Could you remove the tag for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.162.39 (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Already flagged as FAL by another contributor Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Images

You're verging on being disruptive with these continued drilled messages. Do you think you could maybe just give me a list of images needing rationales at the end of the day instead of spamming me incessantly?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Noted, but I use TWINKLE to tag which doesn't at present have a 'Collate Warnings' issue. Perhaps this is something I should take up with it's developers? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. More productive to sum them up and then leave one post instead of a full warning every time. As for images needing information generally if the author is not given then it is very likely unknown. I don't know who took photographs back in 1912 or whatever.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm in the process of trying to building 2 consolidsated lists at the moment. 1 is the FUR concerns, the other is 'free' images that might need additional information, but your point above is noted. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Virtually all the Argentine cinemas ones are PD. Most are photographs taken on set are of the actors and are easily PD given Argentina's 20 year policy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

OK Well I'll stop listing those, and let you update them :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm completely confused

You're still posting warnings on my page, but then removing them. I don't get that. Moreover, all of the images in question have clear free use rationales on the page. Am I missing something here? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Do they have clear rationales? Could you consider expanding the rationales so it's more obvious how they meet the relevant criteria? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and they're obvious. This is precisely the concern I noted above. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If the rationales were in the {{Non-free use rationale}} form they would be even clearer.. Detagging to allow update Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Likewise; and ignoring questions about your claims on my talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You responded on your talk page, when I was expecting a reply here. This is something that is noted.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Need a reply

Theres no point deleting the picture i uploaded, what do you want me to do about it? Goldblooded (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Non-Free rationale for File:Lastpic 4comp2PPLeg Radom-Kielce Jan45.jpg

For the umpteenth time, please ask the people who decided that ww2.pl's permission to use their gfx in Wikimedia projects as PD is not enough and then to delete most of them, and switch the rest of them to "fair use". See the history of Template:PolandGov for details and ideas who to ask. Hint: not me. //Halibutt 00:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the TWINKLE notification, works on the original uploader. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Image

So what do i need to do concerning that image, i havent been doing HTML for long so please describe public domain etc. It cant be copyrighed because you can find it in the archives and ive seen many other sigs images on here like it. Goldblooded (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Public domain is where an image has no copyright (either because it's too simple or because the copyright has expired). However just because an image is on a website or in some archive doesn't make it automatically public domain.

The image in disscussion seems to be an archive document used to support a biographical article? Then you need to state that on the image description page.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

After all the requests for "Renaming Media", I believe you are tired. Here's a cup of coffee to keep you lively. Keep up the good work! Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, BTW Don't forget to update the image links in articles, I've been manually updating those as you renamed them in some cases. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Maybe this happened only in the File:Al-lv.jpg case. It was because you added a massive 19 files for rename (good work though), and I had 19 tabs open in IE. So I moved each of them first and later planned to remove the template, but found you had beat me to it! Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Armbrust has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appétit!†

Important stuff

I'm quite sure I've asked before, but I'll ask again.

I will not nominate anyone unless I believe they have a firm commitment to improving Wikipedia. I also believe that you have a good shot at this, and that you'll be successful in both RfA and adminship. Please consider. Wikipedia needs more admins like you. All the best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

File redirects

I notice you're tagging a lot of file redirects for speedy under G1. While I agree that unused file redirects can be speedied, G1 isn't a valid rationale (since these aren't files, they're redirects). I think G6 is the way to go for these; maybe use {{Db-g6}} and as the reason just say "unused redirect created by file move" or whatever. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Noted, I've updated the tags :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW you can also use {{db-r3}} Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 22:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer it if Retitled images got an R4 so it's specific. Sfan00 IMG (talk)

File:LookandLearnCover.jpg

Hello I see you left a message on my user page regarding the above image, stating that it did not explain a fair use rationale and would be deleted unless one was added. As far as I can see the fair use rationale is self-evident because it is a small image of a magazine cover used as an example of the format of that magazine for the article about the magazine. As such the image could not be replaced by a free one - because any image of the magazine will have the same status, and it is used legitimately in an article about the subject of the image for identification. This being self evident, I do not see why you chose to tag the file for deletion, rather than yourself correcting the image information. It was some time ago that I uploaded the file and I rather suspect the rules about such things would have been different at the time. So rather than fixing a problem which has arisen, you have simply created a different one. The article now lacks an image.Sandpiper (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Image is now restored Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

File move

Thanks for requesting a file move. I have performed the move to the filename you specified. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any problems :-) Regards, ..George Sorby • Talk • Contribs .. 10:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Mfd nominations

When you see a mainspace talk page for which the corresponding page does not exist, just tag that talk page with a CSD G8 tag. There is no need to do a formal MfD listing in such cases, since CSD G8 obviously applies. MfD listings in such cases are redundant and they only needlessly clog the WP:MfD page and do not serve any useful purpose. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason these were sent to MFD was because there has been concern expressed about the USE of CSD tags recently. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I find this very strange. Could you point me to some specific instances where concern about CSD tags was expressed? Was it about G8 cases or other CSD criteria cases? For something like CSD A7 a certain amount of subjective judgement is involved in deciding if a page qualifies for the A7 criterion. But CSD G8 is pretty much cut and dry, and very straightforward... Nsk92 (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It was mainly to do with CSD tags generally (and images in particular) , I don;t have a specfic instance to link to Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Since 10.28.2010's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Fair use rationale for File:Dekemvriana 1944 SYNTAGMA.jpg

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Sperxios's talk page.
Message added 11:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination for deletion of Template:County of Isle of Wight

Hi there. The template, County of Isle of Wight, was originally a duplicate template that I made when I was making edits to the original Isle of Wight template and I was having technical problems when it came to hyperlinking the civil parishes page. Soon I got it all sorted and there was no need for two Isle of Wight templates, the current template is alright to use and I can safely say that there's no need for the formentioned County of Isle of Wight template so go ahead with the deletion. Thanks. JAU123. JAU123 (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)