User talk:Ww2censor/Archive19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Talk pageArchive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

john reames

Melesse PLEASE EXCUSE MY IGNORANCE AS IM WIKI NOVICE CANT SEE HOW TO MESSAGE BACK RE A CHANGE YOUVE MADE TO John Reames article, i own the photo in question as it is my father who commissioned the photo in his capacity of owner of lincoln city football club at the time and the photos were handed over directly by the club, please reinstate the photo and article as i left it PLEASE. big thanks and sorry..didnt know where to message —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomreames (talkcontribs) 19:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Shanghai International Settlement

Ww2censor, Would you by any chance have a stamp from the Shanghai International Settlement? I seem to recall that there is one which shows the coat of arms with the flags of all the foreign powers that were involved. If you have such an image, I'd be most grateful and I'd put it into the postage section in the relevant article. David Tombe (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not a stamp collector so would only have to search the internet just like you. Have you tried searching some of the philatelic auction website? That is where I would start. Are any of these what you are looking for? ww2censor (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Ww2censor, Actually yes. Those stamps would indeed fit the bill. I may use them. But there was another particular stamp which I had in mind. I'll keep searching. But thank you very much anyway. David Tombe (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to interject but can I ask if the images in the gallery linked above are fair game to be included in Wikipedia as I was unaware that I could use an image found in that way? Thanks Maidonian (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem watching. All images must be given the appropriate copyright, so reviewing Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates and if there is no answer there then look at Commons:COM:C to see what the law is in the particular country. There is some more info at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philately#Resources. Public domain stamps should be uploaded to the commons, other stamp images may be used in stamp articles if a fully completed fair-use rational is completed for each use. However the stamp specific fair-use template {{Stamp rationale}} should be used but read the template instructions before use. The use of templates is recommended as it provided because all the needed fields are provided. Hope that helps. Ask again if necessary. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks I will review all that. Maidonian (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ireland again

Hey, how do you feel about putting that article in for GA yet? I'm getting impatient :O) -- RA (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominated it - fingers crossed! -- RA (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Good luck. Hope it passes this time around. ww2censor (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Will you keep an eye on the review page? -- RA (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Images are proposed for deletion

Hi, Im autoconfirmed user and I came across your message that you have proposed five images for deletion. While there was not any such issue of copyright, I want to know why you have proposed them for deletion? I have read almost all details given in your pages regarding this matter, but unfortunately I couldnt understand clearly. Being new user you should guide me properly. Thanks File:Hooallahm.jpg File:Darbarsharif.jpg‎ File:Innershrine.jpg‎ File:Innershrine1.jpg File:Innershrine3.jpg‎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckyaim (talkcontribs) 19:34, 1 March 2010

Talkback is to let me know there is a message on your talk page for me, not the way to sign your messages; use four tides like this ~~~~
We take copyright very seriously around here which is why images whose copyright or source are in question are nominated for deletion and the deletion notices tell you what the problem is, but let me try to help you.
There four images File:Shrinetowers.jpg, File:Innershrine.jpg‎, File:Innershrine1.jpg and File:Innershrine3.jpg‎ clearly have a watermark of the website where you found them. Those images are copyright to the website; the sultani.co.uk home page clearly states: "Copyrights © 2005-2006. All rights reserved" so unless you have their permission to use those images they will be deleted if you can't get the copyright holder to give us their permission. File:Hooallahm.jpg is a logo which looks similar to one on the home page too and belongs to the same website so unless you designed it and you own the copyright, which would be unusual, you cannot claim the image is in the public domain. File:Darbarsharif.jpg‎ is claimed to be your own photo but I cannot be sure of that, considering you also claim other images to be yours. Did you actually photograph this image?
You also need to tell me about File:Molapak3.jpg which is also duplicated as File:Najeeb Sultan Bahoo.jpg and also as File:Mola pak3.jpg on the commons. Did you take this image, or did you get it from a website, like the ones you found at the sultani.co.uk website? Hope that helps you understand. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Posta Shqiptare

Are you sure that national post offices are within the philately project? I removed a couple and I see you put this one back. Surely they are within a postal system project, if one is ever created. I think they are not strictly about philately due to the wide range of services post offices provide? They are company articles really. Maidonian (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was going to mention some of your project removals. Where would philately be without postal service companies or postal administrations? As far as I am concerned we should be inclusionists and anything even vaguely connected with the postal service, stamps and postal history in its broadest terms should be included. They are all interconnected because one could not exist or happen without the other and are well within the scope of the project. While some of those topics may not rate anything more than a low-importance they really should be included. BTW, I don't see anyone ever creating a postal system project; more likely it might be a task force of philately, if there was any interest. Besides, many articles are within the scope of several projects. I noticed, for instance, that you also removed the project banner from Mail truck, but on that basis, would you then also want to remove it from Postman or Mail coach, Railway post office or remove any of the Postmaster generals. I doubt it, so while I take a wide viewpoint not a blinkered one, perhaps you look at it with a narrower view. Perhaps you can see where I am coming from but there is certainly no harm in including such articles even if they are also within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies which seems inactive anyway. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, yes I would remove it from those others you mention, apart from Railway Post Office, although some may be borderline. According to the entry for philately it is the study of stamps and related items. There are large parts of the postal system that have nothing to do with stamps. If too much is any category or project it actually diminishes it's usefulness, this presumably being why the project for companies is struggling as the scope is too wide to be useful. I realise, of course, that there is not likely to be a project for the postal system and therefore I will not remove any more philately project tags but let me ask this question. If there was such a project and mail truck could only go in one would it be postal system or philately? I note also that plenty of articles in the postal system category are not in the philately project, including letter box! Thanks. Maidonian (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we should be discussing this at the project talk page but let's just finish it up here for now. The scope of the project per Wikipedia:WikiProject Philately#Scope does include the postal systems. Perhaps you think that because the project's name is Philately it should only include philatelic topics. Maybe that is so but the chosen name reflects the most common umbrella name to encompass all the different areas that make up the topics we are interested in. I doubt it was ever the intention of the project to exclusively include philately and philatelic topics and exclude everything else. In that case we really would have to exclude stamp collecting; now we are getting silly. If we were so narrow in scope we would also have to exclude all postal history that did not include stamps or their study, and all pre-stamp postal history. Personally as a postal historian I take a broad based view that anything related to the postal system is fair game for the project. Be cool, open your mind a bit and take an inclusive view. What you personally focus on contributing is up to you and we appreciate all you are doing to improve articles.
Regarding some specific topics, if there were a postal systems only project than mail truck would probably belong in there and not in the philatelic project and if there are postal system topics that are not included right now, I suspect that is just because we didn't get around to it yet. Actually I am on the fence about Letter box because it is not actually part of the mail system per se, which a mail truck is for sure but we could add it and I would not object. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, yes, I do think that a Philately project should only include Philately, what else should go in? But I fully accept that in practice it is an umbrella term. Postal history items are the "related items" mentioned in the definition. I have not argued they should be excluded from the project, far from it, postal history is conspicuously lacking from the stamps and postal history articles. Similarly no one would argue that stamp collecting should be excluded as there is a 90% overlap with philately. Despite all that, there is a line to be drawn and I stand by my original point that there are a lot of articles that really are to do with the postal system rather than any part of philately. I just use Letter box as an example. We will probably never agree on where the line is and that's OK. As for being cool, I am as cool as a cucumber on a chilly day. Thanks. Maidonian (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, cool is good; nice warm sunshine here today (near NYC) and the snow is melting, I am glad not to be shovelling 10" again right now. I think we just disagree on the exact scope of the project whose name is philately, I was just pointing out some of the extremes one could take to be exclusive. For me it is just fine as it is. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Stamp images

I have just read the notes on this in the Philately Project. Four sites are mentioned with comments on how good the images are. If I have read this right, it is saying that as long as the stamp itself is in the public domain, or a fair use rationale can be used, then the image can be used. Is this right? If this is right then as long as I can find an image of a PD stamp anywhere on the web I can use it. Seems too good to be true. Do the people who scanned the PD stamp not have copyright over the scan? Please clarify. Thanks. Maidonian (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A scan of a stamp is simply a copy of a 2D object per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. An item on which the copyright has expired cannot be copyrighted anew just by scanning it. Certainly in US law, which generally applies to Wikipedia because the servers are located here, there is no originality in making the copy that creates anything copyrightable by scanning a stamp. Fair-use is a different matter; we claim fair-use to justify its use by completing a fair-use rationale because there is a copyright on an image. You may find it useful to read some parts of my image copyright information page in which I deal with the basics of fair-use. You may also find it useful to review the Commons Stamp page and its talk page which deal with public domain stamps. All public domain stamps should be uploaded to the commons not here where the fair-use stamps should be uploaded. Then they will appear in Category:Fair use stamp images if you add the category "Fair use stamp images" to each image. Some people will claim copyright over 2D images to which they have no right; this is known as copyfraud. However remember that fair-use stamp images may, in most instances, only be used in stamp articles which I presume is the uses you are interested in. I have been trying to clean up the improper use of fair-use stamps in non-stamp articles per WP:NFCI #3. Any more questions just ask. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC) P.S. This page is on my watch list. Maidonian (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I have read those pages and the warnings when uploading. They all warn that images on a website are likely to be copyright but in fact that would seem to be something of a simplification. From your comments and others it seems that they are not copyright if the actual item photographed or scanned is already in the public domain. Logically, this means that large numbers of, for instance, eBay, Flickr, and other images are available for use as long as the object of the image is PD. I am not concerned with an image I create myself. I am clear that it either is or is not copyright and if it is it may still be used in certain fair-use circumstances. I am trying to be clear about images created by others of items (stamps and similar items mainly) and then uploaded by them to the web, possibly to a web site which may claim copyright (whether they are entitled to or not). I believe I am free to use these images. To put it another way, if I scan a stamp in the PD and upload it to Flickr, are others free to use it on Wikipedia whatever I say about the copyright of that image because I am not entitled to claim it is copyright because it is already in the PD? Hope you follow this. Thanks. Maidonian (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You have it about right. Copyright is quite complex and we take it very seriously around here but many people claim copyright over images that are in fact in the public domain, so their claim may be false, especially on Flickr (where I have not seen many good stamp images), only because they don't know or understand the issues or are misinformed. Once a stamp is in the public domain and you scan it, there is essentially no difference between that and someone elses scan of the same stamp (except perhaps resolution or quality). I'll be happy to review any images you find that you would like to use. Some auction catalogues have great images too. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
This is helpful, thanks. I am monitoring this page. Maidonian (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Admin

Ww2, I've just noticed that you are not an administrator. I had always simply assumed that you were. Would the tools not be useful to you in your work on images at the very least?

Is this a matter of choice on your part? If it is simply a matter that no-one has nominated you (and that you're too unassuming to nominate yourself) then I'd love to do the business. I cannot imagine that there would be any reason it would be anything other than an uncontroversial matter. -- RA (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking but by choice I don't want the job. I would not nominate myself but I have been asked once before, so now have two willing nominators, thanks anyway. I am not so sure it would be that useful to me and it would mean I would probably get sucked into stuff I really don't want to do, besides which my time is starting to get more valuable to me. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
If you change your mind, or feel a whim, drop a hint. -- RA (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hello, are these suitable for the now no longer stubby Adrian Crowley? I agree with the section above and would be happy to support too. ;-) --candlewicke 18:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If I may answer this (I was watching the page in relation to the post above), the images I can see on those pages forbid commercial use so we can't use them. In flickr do an advanced search and check the Creative Commons check box and the two related check boxes (commercial and modify options), the results for Adrian Crowley are here. Not many but some look good. If you need a hand cropping them removing the (c) watermark, drop a note on my talk and I'll do it for you. -- RA (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
RA has answered this very comprehensively. Unfortunately non-commercial and non-derivative creative commons licences are not acceptable to us per non-free creative commons tags. ww2censor (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

WP Ireland in the Signpost

Feel free to join the interview. The more the merrier! -Mabeenot (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be grateful to if you provided stuff. So far it's only me (I was hoping Alison would chip in too) and I'm afraid my perspective on things might colour things too much in one direction and not showcase the breadth that the Project has to offer. -- RA (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey Ww, I'm feeling very lonely here. Would appreciate it if you'd provide something. --RA (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Image problem

Was looking at this file, File:HenslowsSparrow23.jpg which says it is the work of the US Forest Service. However, it's clearly the same photo as this:

http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Henslows_Sparrow/lifehistory which lists an author from the CLO (Cornell Lab of Ornithology).

Seems one of these would be wrong, no? Saw you knew about image rights so thought I'd ask you. MDuchek (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting one. Firstly the image we have is one the commons so any action must be taken there but I can nominate it for deletion on the commons. Clearly the US Forest Service image has cropped off the attribution even though the allaboutbirds image is of smaller resolution, but it looks, and states, like some images modifications were made. While many images on government websites are in the public domain not everything is freely licenced and some government websites clearly state that. Most importantly for this image we have no source URL whereby we can check the copyright status and the original uploader has not been active for over a year though the modifying editor is slightly active. The first thing to do is try to find the image on the US Forest Service website, and this [1] looks like it was linked from this web page and this copyright FAQs clearly tells us, under the "May I copy and paste photos from any Web site?" question, that not all material on their website is in the public domain. So we can nominate the image for deletion as a copyright violation. I'll be happy to help you with that. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah it was just something I noticed and just thought if the copyright was bad the image probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Well, I do have a WC account but don't know how to nominate an image. MDuchek (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Assuming you have the "Quick Delete" preferences set in your commons preferences, go to the commons image commons:File:HenslowsSparrow23.jpg, click on the "Nominate for deletion" link in the toolbox on the left side of the window and insert a detailed reason why the image should be deleted. Keep the deletion page on your watchlist and, because commons deletions sometimes take a long time, you may need to ask an admin to review the deletion if there is no action within a reasonable time. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

my images

i do have links to where i got the image from at the bottom of the image! Youndbuckerz (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC) user:Youndbuckerz

It clearly seems you don't yet understand the difference between an image source and a image licence. It also looks like you just downloaded some nice sports images from the web without any regard for who owns the copyright to the images; obviously you don't. While you have provided a source to the actual images, you have not provided any copyright tag as required for all images, and as stated in the notices on your talk page. Besides which the source links given bring us directly to the images themselves and not to the page the images are displayed on, where we can often determine who took the photo and who owns the copyright. However these images are from news websites so their copyright will most likely belong to the newspaper, or a news agency, and you will not be allowed to use the images here unless you can prove they have been released under a free licence. Do not remove the deletion notices again even if you provide all the necessary details. That job is usually up to an admin or a knowledgeable reviewing editor. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page to familiarise yourself with this topic for the future. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Germany
South Tipperary
Stamp dealer
Glens of Antrim
North Tipperary
Poland
United Kingdom
United States
Gate Theatre
Munster
Hibernia
Manas
Guinness
Naval Service Reserve
Canada
Fianna Fáil
Postmaster-General's Department
Europe
Crumlin, Dublin
Cleanup
The Dubliners
Norman Ireland
Dún Laoghaire
Merge
Drogheda
Howth Head
Lordship of Ireland
Add Sources
City limits
Cachet
Inchicore
Wikify
Slovenia
Sixmilebridge
Manorhamilton
Expand
Derry
County Clare
Glenroe

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Postmasters General of Ireland

Updated DYK query On March 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Postmasters General of Ireland, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

El Gouna Stadium

Dear Sir,

Re: El Gouna Stadium

I don't comprehend the copy right jungle after having submitted my own photographs. I want to tag them all for deletion, which I find complicated because I can't find appropriate directions.

I will upload again once I get the hang of the copyright aspects. I want to publish and do not want anyone to copy and use them. I have no idea what to choose from the complicated menu.

Finally, please remember to sign your message with StrangelyDevoted (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC).

You ask me to sign my message with StrangelyDevoted (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

???

Yours Sincerely StrangelyDevoted (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There was no need to sign three times! Anyway, you may find it useful to read my image copyright information page to get a better understanding of copyright. Regarding your images, they are already tagged for deletion, so if nothing happens they will be deleted shortly by an admin in a few days, but you can upload another version, without the copyright watermark, over the same image by selecting the "Upload a new version of this file" link near the bottom of each image page. However, if you really want to get them deleted quicker, instead of replacing them, you can add the template {{db-author}} to each file but I would not even bother. Your images show a copyright watermark and in such cases we assume the person indicated to be the copyright holder who must verify their permission per WP:CONSENT. If you took these images and you want to provide them to Wikipedia you must tell us who took the image, when they were taken, what they show by adding and filling in the information template as shown below, and under what copyright licence they are being released, by selecting a copryight tag from this page. Please remove the copyright notice from the images.
{{Information
| description = (what the image shows)
| source      = (where the image comes from, such as "own photo", "website address")
| date        = (date image was made, not upload date)
| author      = (who took the photo)
| permission  = (must be a [[freely licenced]] copyright licence)
}}
Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You commented?

This picture you commented on here same editor has re uploaded it here back into the public domain and he has reinserted it to an article. summary... Image taken from a camera gifted to me over a decade ago. Printed from my camera, hence I own it. Off2riorob (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds just as iffy to me as the original justification. He just seems to be evading the virtually inevitable deletion here. Now this needs to be nominated on the commons. Cheersww2censor (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Shall I nominate it, or will you do it? Could you tell me what is wrong with this declaration and this pic that I uploaded to commons that was nominated for speedy and which I resisted but today it has gone, I can't see the admins name or comments as to the reason they appear to have speedied it' deletion discussion is here and this is the statement issued by the copyright owners.... "The British National Party has issued a high resolution picture of Rajinder Singh and his BNP membership card for copyright free use by the media on the condition that the party is credited for the image." This statement appears to me to be a clear declaration that they with to make it available? I think I tagged it with a CC attribution 2 but I can't see it to be sure, is there a correct template anf if not what more of a declaration would be required to allow it to exist on wikipedia? Off2riorob (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
You can nominate commons:File:Sarkar (608).jpg for deletion when you are ready. The original one File:Sarkar Ra (627).jpg looks well reason and will likely be deleted.
Regarding commons:File:Rajinder Singh BNP Membership Card.JPG, log show the deleting editor. You need to understand that many organisations release their work for use by the media, but that is not sufficient for our use here. We require freely licenced images and that image was not clearly licence with a free licence such as a PD licence or an acceptable Creative Commons licence. They phrase is not clear for our use. Sorry but that nomination is closed and you lost out. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page to better understand some of these issues. The only way this image could be restored is if you can get the BNP to give their permission per WP:CONSENT when an OTRS ticket would be applied to it on restoration. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I will have a look, what pisses me off is that there was a clear desire on the picture offered to the media for use, copyright free and there was no big problem with that file, not really, not totally correct but a clear comment releasing the file and only because someone doesn't like it, it was deleted the next day and yet files like these that clearly have no permission at all even when they are nominated no one is bothered, the file is re uploaded and sits again in mainspace. It is not so cut and dried is it, no worries. Thanks for commenting.Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but general media use is not free enough for us to use and is not copyright free. It was not clearly released; it was released for media use and it is not just that someone does not like it. Unfortunately, on the commons, some nominations seem to take forever while other are processed quickly. You are of course correct that some images exist that have not yet been nominated for deletion and should be and that, plus the lack of sufficient people to deal with then, means that images will continue to exist on the commons whose status may be uncertain. Here on the English Wikipedia, things tend to get processed faster but even so some images only get nominated years after they were first uploaded. ww2censor (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
No worries, I am getting the picture, so to speak, thanks for taking the time to comment, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Kerlogue

First: thanks for your words on the Irish Oak. I will shortly return to the Kerlogue. (after Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II. In that context, may I avail of your offer of the " postally censored cover from one of the injured German survivors who was taken to the military hospital in Cork before being transferred to the Curragh. " - thanks ClemMcGann (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


Image Acclogogif.gif

Ok so I'm new here and maybe I'm missing something but I thought the use of a copywrited logo (File:Acclogogif.gif) as part of the description of said company on wikipedia when no free image was available constituted non-free fair use? I don't understand exactly what you're getting at to be honest regarding the possible deletion of my image. RumBuddy (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The non-free logo licence tag clearly states: "To the uploader: this tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. You must also include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed non-free use rationale." You have not provided any of that; just because a free image is not available is not enough. See WP:NFCC.
The source must link to a page from which the image was copied, it does not. In addition to the copyright tag you must provide a fully completed fair use rationale, otherwise it will be deleted. Add the template shown below to the image and fully fill in all the fields, otherwise it fails thenon-free content criteria and will be deleted.
{{Non-free use rationale
| Description       = 
| Source            = 
| Article           = 
| Portion           = 
| Low_resolution    = 
| Purpose           = 
| Replaceability    = 
| other_information = 
}}
You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page, as suggested at the top of this page before posting a question. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Posts to My Talk Page

I am a little confused on what you are asking for. According to your posts, you are wanting FURs on File:WHLF-FM 2010.PNG and File:WTGD-FM 2010.PNG, but both images have FURs for the pages they are loaded on. So, what exactly are you wanting? - NeutralHomerTalk • 04:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed it but the fair-use rationale field "Purpose of Use" has the red text: "No purpose specified. Please edit this image description and provide a purpose." Giving a reason for use is one of the main justifications for claiming fair-use of any image and because these images don't have it they fail WP:NFCC#10c. I'm sure you can fix it easily. ww2censor (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you are going to have a hard time convincing other that that qualifies as a violation of CSD and no FUR (when there clearly is one). I think you could easily add where the image is used to the FUR, instead of nom'ing a shitload of them for deletion. - NeutralHomerTalk • 05:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been reviewing newly uploaded images for a long time and while there is fair-use rationale for these images, it is incomplete. Each fair-use claim must be fully justified and these don't have any justification for their use under the fair-use claim. I can tell you that many images have been deleted for the same reason but if you don't want to fix it that is of course your decision. I'm trying to help you fix it. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Never said I didn't "fix" it...what I am saying is you could fix them just as easily (kinda doing a favor for those who forget) and adding in the "purpose" field. It is obvious in most cases where the image is being used. Just 7 little key strokes to enter in "infobox" for mine. Would have saved us both alot of time and made this whole conversation moot and unnecessary. My point is, there are alternatives to nom'ing for deletion. - NeutralHomerTalk • 05:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that is a different point. With the amount of bad copyright and fair-use images uploaded every day, I really don't have the time or energy to fix other peoples mistakes, errors or omissions. I used to try and do it but have mainly given up as it does take time, no matter how little. Maybe I will reconsider per your suggestion. Perhaps you missed it but just adding "infobox" does not get rid of the red warning text it just changed it. ww2censor (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Then I don't understand what it wants. Cause the line in red doesn't make a damned bit of sense. Plus, it says it is used for the infobox in another entry, so I am not sure why it is needed twice. - NeutralHomerTalk • 05:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I figured it out, but it is now listed for "infobox" in two different sections, which is just goofy as hell and completely unnecessary. - NeutralHomerTalk • 05:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick stamp question

You probably noticed that I knocked a few redlinks off the list a few days ago but didn't add the fact that they were on stamps to the bio articles, although undoubtedly the correct people, as the only source (surprisingly) I could find was this from Stanley Gibbons, although I found this article tonight. I would prefer better sources, and if you have them fire ahead, but I presume the two together would be enough? (But with the proviso that there must be better sources out there.)

Actually, I think I could knock at least one or two other red links off with a bit of source searching : I'm pretty sure Bríd Ní Neachtáin is the same person as Bríd Ní Neachtain, for example. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Good job. I have the 2002 Hibernian catalogue but from 2005 you can download the An Post Collectors News from here for newer information. I should really redesign the whole list using a wikitable rather than the current format because changes are rather difficult to make. I have copies of TWTYTW, That Was the Year That Was, by Brian Warren, published by FAI, IPC and ÉPA, going back several years if you need me to look up any missing info. Bríd Ní Neachtain might be correct but page 10 of this Collectors news gives little detail. ww2censor (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Definitely the right Bríd Ní Neachtain.[2] [3] The bio article needs expansion and sources of course; I'll take a look at it tonight. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 09:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Well done, especially finding the Galway Advertiser reference. ww2censor (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Errr, yes, when I said "at the weekend", I really did mean last weekend, but any time I sat down at the computer, something would come up. I have a pile of stuff on various BLPs to add so I'll get around to that article over the weekend. Just taking a look at the list page though: apart from a few people, who are essentially representative members of organizations and bodies and really shouldn't be red-linked, there are only a few red links - I make it about seven - for people or groups that should have an article. (One of these days, the Ayatollah Ceilí Band Tulla Céilí Band definitely should get an article). FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
If you think any of the redlinks should be removed, please do so. Mother Mary Martin and J.P. "Paddy" Saul are obvious by their redlinks. Others I am not so sure about. Whatever you can do to help will be appreciated. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Cuban stamp from 1951 of Clara Maass

Please provide a link to show that the image of the 1951, pre-Revolution stamp File:ClaraMaassCubaStamp.jpg used in the Clara Maass stamp is in violation of Cuban copyright law. I will admit that I am not familiar with Cuba's copyright laws and I would appreciate clarification on this issue. Thank you. Warrah (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You, as the uploader of the image, made a claim under fair-use, which we have to presume means you knew it to still be a copyright image, otherwise you would have provided a free licence. Unfortunately the burden of proof is on the uploader to provide that evidence. While I cannot point you to a specific Cuba copyright law page, the very last entry on the commons stamp templates page states that stamps issued by all countries not having specific exemptions are copyright for 70 years (until proven otherwise) and neither the public domain stamps page nor its talk page show any proof that Cuba's copyright law is different or shorter. Even if they had a 50 year rule, which some countries have, the stamp would still be copyright until next year. If you have other proof, I will be very happy to add that to the existing data and withdraw the deletion nomination. Please post any more comments or questions at the deletion discussion Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining this. I have removed the image from the article. Warrah (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. You should consider running for adminship -- you would be very good in that role. Warrah (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
You are not the first to make this suggestion. That is something I am not interested in nor have the time for, but thanks for the support. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Fred J Strain pictures

I did read your ww2censor/IfD page. However it does not address my situation. Fred J. Strain is my great grandfather. On the Fred J Strain page there are currently 2 pictures. I plan to add 4 or 5 more. But for now, I will focus on the one that is already there that you marked. This picture is: FredJStrain.jpg.

This picture was clipped from a larger picture that was taken of Fred J. Strain standing in his store in Shelby, Nebraska. It was taken by a family member, probably by my great grandmother though I don't know for sure, and passed down to me by my mother. I have the original in my hand. There is no way on God's green earth that we can figure out who took the picture or exactly when it was taken -- although my mother guesses that it was taken sometime between 1928 and 1932.

So in terms of "ownership" -- that is me. Period.

I do plan to upload some other pictures of his store. Back in the early 20th century many photographs were taken and made into post cards. I have two that were passed down to me by my mother and one that I purchased recently. Again, I own these. These were antique real photo post cards issued by the US Post Office. Again, there is no way to precisely date these -- although we estimate they are sometime between 1912 and 1930. There is no way to identify who took the photograph.

In addition I have another photograph of the interior of his store that was passed down to me -- probably taken about mid to late 1930s. I have the original in my hand and I "own" it. There is no way to know who took the picture with my great grandfather in it or precisely date it.

I have placed these photos on the Fred J Strain page as well.

Bottom line:

Wikipedia picture policies do not have any provision for uploading historical family photographs that I can see. Clearly the policy needs updating in my view to make provision for situations where the one who uploads the picture owns the historical picture and has it in his possession and there is no way to determine exactly who took the picture and sometimes exactly when.

So what now ??? Personally I would appreciate your leaving my uploads alone. They are mine and I can do with them what I want -- which includes allowing Wikipedia to display them. That's my view. Drmissio (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC).

So, let's start with some misconceptions. Once you make any edit or upload any image to Wikpedia you don't own it (see WP:OWN, so asking me, or any other editor, to not edit uploads you made is inappropriate. Any editor is entitled to edit them. When an editor sees problems they are entitled to add any maintenance tags that seems necessary and removing such maintenance tags, as you did, is disruptive especially if you do not fix problem first but I assume you did so in good faith.
The next problem is that you appear to be confusing ownership and possession of an image with copyright. Ownership of a photo does not confer any copyright rights to the image. The copyright is usually owned by the person who took the photo and possibly their estate, or if it was a work for hire, to the person or organisation which commissioned the photo. This may or may not apply to some of your images. When the author is unknown and the date of the photo is in doubt we tend to err on the side of caution because we take copyright status very seriously for all images, which is why we try to review them and not just accept the claims made by uploaders because many false claims are made. That is why the images were tagged, because you did not provide any verifying information.
One of the issues that old US photos pose is whether they have been published or not. A good page to review is User:Quadell's copyright helpfile. Point 6 seems to cover most of your images "If an "unpublished work" is by an anonymous or corporate author, or if the year of death for the author is not known, then the work is in the public domain if the work was created before 1885" or possibly 1915 according to commons:Commons:Licensing#United States. Quadell's point 8 may apply to the post cards based on: "If a work was first published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1977, and it was published without a copyright notice, it's in the public domain" also mentioned in the image at: commons:Commons:Licensing#United States.
Before we look at the images I will be adding an information template, which has the necessary fields for the image to be filled in as well as possible, to all the images. In edit mode it looks like this:
{{Information
| description = (what the image shows)
| source      = (where the image comes from, such as "own photo", "website address")
| date        = (date image was made, not upload date)
| author      = (who took the photo)
| permission  = (must have a [[freely licenced]] copyright licence tag: see [[WP:TAGS]] - <br>if providing a licence just add "see below")
}}
File:WatkeRobert.jpg - looks like a proper licence.
File:FredJStrain.jpg, File:FredJStrain-store1930s.jpg and File:FredJStrain-store1930.jpg - CC licence applied but likely public domain and should use this copyright template {{PD-Pre1978}}.
File:FredStrainFamily.jpg - no information given, copyright claim is 100 years plus.
File:ShelbyNE.jpg - is this a post card or a photo? I assume the former, in which case means it was published. Is there a copyright notice or not? What year are the cars? This may assist if it was taken before or after 1923. This may be wrongly licence but still PD. We need some more info to decide which licence to apply.
File:FredJStrain-store-1912.jpg and File:FredJStrain-store1915.jpg - claimed to be work of the US Post Office, actually this might really be the Post Office Department but I have never seem such items issued by them. Can you provide the information about what the reverse has printed on it? If the years are accurate, as published works they should be licenced with this copyright template: {{PD-Pre1978}}.
Please fill in the blank information on each image to the information templates I have added.
I don't mean to be so long winded or a pain but there is no short way to discuss this. This explanation may help you in future. Please let me know about the post cards you say were published by the post office. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Ireland

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ww2censor. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Help with copyright

Hello you recently tagged the files File:JeffRouseLive.jpg, File:MikeSquiresLiveBarrowlands.jpg, File:GeoffReadingLive.jpg, File:IsaacCarpenterLive.jpg for deletion, now I'm not disagreeing with that because (after rechecking) I obviously used the wrong copyright licensing tag. I thought what I tag was the best one for its use but obviously I was wrong, however I don't know which licensing tag would be better. I have permission to use the pictures for wiki (as stated in the link) but can't find a suitable license (there may be one I keep overlooking), is there anyway you can help with this?

If this isnt the right place to ask, I apologize in advance HrZ (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, sorry to tag them twice but until you placed a copyright tag I could not tell you that you did not show evidence of permission. We take copyright very seriously and get too many image uploaded under false copyright claims. There is no tag you can use until you get the photographer, Ann Kellacher, to email us her permission stating under which copyright licence she is giving her permission per the details found at WP:CONSENT when an OTRS ticket will be applied to the images, even if they have been deleted, so long as she releases them under a free licence. If you are going to get that done, we can tag the images as "OTRS pending" but have her refer to the current image file names. Let me know. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, I contacted Ann earlier about emailing about the photos, and just now sent her a message about the WP:CONSENT details. She said earlier that should would do so when shes home from work, so it should take that long (certainly be sent before 5th April). Thanks for explaining, ill remember that info for any future uploads HrZ (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
On that basis I will tag the image as OTRS pending. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok she messaged me back saying "I've sent the email, hopefully I've completed the text correctly! Fingers crossed." so I hope its all good, if you dont handle the emails, sorry for messaging you again. Thanks for your help though HrZ (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an OTRS volunteer but when the email arrives it will be applied to the images to confirm the permission but it may take up to a week or so as they are very backed up. Be patient. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Are these postal images okay to run?

Hello again. Since you are the expert on postage stamps, I wanted to see if the images that another editor uploaded here [4] and here [5] and here [6] do not fall afoul of Wikipedia's image policy. Thank you. Warrah (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

They all seem to be good. You may want to refer to these two commons pages: stamp templates and public domain stamps. Thanks for asking. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

WP Motorcycling in the Signpost

WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Motorcycling for a Signpost article to be published April 12. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Template help

Hello Ww2censor,

I'm sorry I can't help directly with this one - most infoboxes and complex templates are beyond my capabilities. However, I can recommend a few good editors who could help:

Again, I'm sorry that I can't help directly, but hopefully one of these can. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

BCR Open Romania

Hello,

I'm writing because I found the article pretty much as it was before I added up all the text and visual. I perfectly understand the reasons behind the speedy deletions of pictures and text. The situation is that for most of the material I added to the page I cannot certify the source because I own all the information and picture. I am the organizer of the BCR Open Romania tournament held here in Bucharest, Romania. My name is Liliana Ivascu, the current Executive Director of the tournament. You can find me on the event's website [7] or at a more precise link [8]. I want to assure that all the information I put in the article is 100% true, and that all the pictures stand under my copyright and they originate from the tournament' materials that are in my possession or my access. I put a lot of effort in creating the page. I wanted it to be more close to the reader, more catchy with all the visual galleries and of course more complete in the information delivered. I truly hope that you can help me bring the page back to the format I added.

Thank you for you time!

Liliana Ivascu Executive Director BCR Open Romania

Tennis4u (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You really need to help me by providing a link to the article in question. It took me several clicks to find what you were talking about. Let me assure you that I did not remove any content from the BCR Open Romania article, I did however fix an image link, add an unreferenced tag, and fixed the website link. Someone else removed the edits you made, I presume because they were not verified with reliable sources such as national newspapers or books. This is an encyclopaedia, not a blog or social network site, so we don't just add information to make it catchy. The other issue for you is that it would appear you have a conflict of interest and you should read WP:COI. You could discuss the deletions with the editor who remove them and see what they say. You may know what you wrote is true but we don't know that and we don't see any verification of it.
Now to get to the images that were deleted. I tagged them because they did not have any indication of the source or any copyright information; both of these are required. No indication or claim that the images were yours was made either and that is enough to get them deleted. Who took the images and who owns the copyright? All the content found at the BC Open Roumaia are copyright according to the copyright notices seen on pages, so there is no evidence any image found there is free. You have two ways to fix that. You can verify the permission, if you actually own the copyright, by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT or WP:PERMISSION, otherwise there is no proof of permission. We take copyright status very seriously which was the reason the previous images were deleted, but, they can be restored if a free licence is given. Have the website, or the photographer, refer to the specific image names in their email. A second way to deal with this is to make a specific "free photo gallery" on the website, which says that the photos on that page are released under a free license such as {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} or released into the public domain and use that page link as the source to verify both the source and copyright. Any non-free licence is unacceptable to us. ww2censor (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Ireland and the food section

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ww2censor. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

x2. --RA (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Buy yourself a drink and say it was from me, I'll do the same "from" you. Thanks for your help and experience. --RA (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, happy to help move an article up in quality. Maybe if you are in Ireland, as I will be in about 3 weeks time, I can buy you that drink in person. Let's move on to the next one; perhaps re-featuring one of the delisted articles such as, Samuel Beckett FAR, History of Limerick FAR or President of Ireland FAR to name just three candidates I know of, would be a good idea. ww2censor (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
If your travels take you around Cork give me an email and we can have a pint in town. I think tackling one of those article would be very good idea. I would feel most confident (personally) about hitting the president next (not literally) if only because it is that topic that I would know most about from that list. --RA (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Dublin and West Wicklow will be as far south as I will be going in Ireland, so no pints this time. My son, who lives in London, has just been in Innishannon for Easter with his family at his wife's parents. Cork will have to wait awhile but if you want to work on President of Ireland we could maybe drum up some support preferably after I return from my trip in mid-May. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Pity. Although, maybe a WikiProject meet up in general would be a good idea (in which case Dublin would be the natural choice). As you may know, I've been trying (with little success) to drum up support for a Wikimedia Ireland too.
I'll take a look at the president article in the mean time but won't do anything too drastic until you come back. --RA (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

REcovering photos

hi again, I'm not sure whether to write to you or the other person who notified me about the 3 photos which were deleted from the Le Moyne College pages.

i tried to forward our staff photographer's permission to the email given by the other person, but it didnt work so can i just send it to you?

here is what he said (i took out his phone numbers for privacy)


"you have my permission to use any and all of the images I take for Lemoyne College. Charles Wainwright Charles Wainwright Wainwright Photo

3957 Howlett Hill Road Syracuse, NY 13209 Phone: xxx, Cell: xxxx

email address "

Can you please undelete these 3 photos now? i would appreciate it.

thanks Mitchell.166 (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't restore these image because I am not an administrator and your permission request must come from the copyright holder and be sent to the permission email clearly stated in the notices left on your talk page. Unfortunately simply copying an email you were sent does not verify the permission. Please follow the outlined procedure mentioned or look at WP:CONSENT and all will be well, but make sure the copyright holder understands that a free licence, which is what we require, means that anyone can use the images for anything, even commercial use. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

OTRS?

Hi. We have a perpetual backlog for image permissions in OTRS, both for Commons and the English Wikipedia, and when I was glancing at the list of current OTRS volunteers, I couldn't help but notice that your name was not on it. :) Since you're so up on copyright issues, I did wonder if you might like to raise your hand. Meta:OTRS/info-en recruiting says that they are looking for people who are sysops on one or more projects, but I asked User:Bastique (our volunteer coordinator), and he said that this is not hard and fast. Applicants are reviewed to see how well they fit the requirements in general. Primarily, working the permissions queue involves looking at a letter, looking at the image or article and deciding if the permission is sufficient. If it's clear on the licensing terms and it's clearly connected to the point of publication (and plausibly the copyright holder; sometimes photo subjects send this rather than the photographers), we send them a thank you and drop a template on the image/article indicating we have permission. If it's not, we send them a form letter (usually) pointing out where the problem is and asking them to fix it. I'm not an admin on Commons, so once in a while I need to run down an admin there to resurrect an image that's been deleted, but most of the time that isn't an issue.

Anyway, if you're interested, you might drop your name in the hat at Meta:OTRS/volunteering. I'm not entirely sure what they look for — the OTRS admins make the call themselves without discussion with the volunteers — but it did seem to me that you'd be ideal.

And if you should happen to already be a volunteer, please forgive me for not knowing. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not an OTRS volunteer and I can't really afford the time as I am already spending too much time here, but thanks for the links. If things slacken off I might consider but I also see that being a sysop is a recommended requirement and quite while ago I decided not to go down that path even though I have been asked that too. Thanks anyway. ww2censor (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's recommended, but as I said Bastique assures me it isn't required. But I certainly understand not wanting to overextend yourself! There've been a couple of projects on Wikipedia that I've considered taking part in but held back just because there's already quite enough to do in the areas I'm dedicated to. Thanks for considering it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)