User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive7

Please add new messages at the bottom of this page !!

Archives

• User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive
• User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 1
• User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 2
• User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 3
• User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 4
• User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 5
• User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 6

Talk Page

Hello sorry for the misuse of the licensing, it was an accident!

How do I properly reference a company logo? They own it, so it is their copyright?

Advance thanks for your help in this matter.

(Suzy Huber (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC))

Daniel Fignole image

You tagged the photo I uploaded for [Daniel Fignole] for potential deletion. I added a rationale for why it's fair use to the file page. Hope that's satisfactory, let me know if it isn't. Thanks. Mediahacker (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page

hi, i just have taged my pic, it is ok? please let me know, im just learning :). Afgaviria (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of new in Wikipedia

I'm kind of new in Wikipedia I know how to add images and license copyrights and permission; in the Skal vi danse? (season 5) image I did not know the license so I'm sorry; if I want to upload it again I will get the right license copyrights and permission. Thanks!! Dungcamed2010 (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see a message on your user talk page

Hi. I left a message for you at User talk:ShakespeareFan00. Can you link to a discussion regarding deleting categorizations of Commons images under F2? These have traditionally been allowed. --B (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Why are you placing speedy deletion tabs under CSD F2 on so many pictures ("because they are either corrupt or missing") when in reality they aren't? ^The World 15:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Read the wording of CSD F2, ".. or local description page for image on Wikimedia Commons...' , All the recent CSD F2's come under this definition. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No because you created a page on wikipedia that solely consists of the deletion notice. None of these files exist whatsoever on Wikipedia, they are on commons and the description page here mirrors that on commons. I've undone your change to File:DVP from Midtown.png, as it is pointless. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Retagged,(local description page existed when it was tagged http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=File:DVP_from_Midtown.png&action=history, albiet with 0 bytes content). If anything the correct fix would be to delete the local description page, and let the one from Commons show thru, which it will do if the 'local' page doesn't exist.

Blanking a page doesn't delete it BTW.

I expect an apology for the tone of your message.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

True, it doesn't, but blanking it puts it in a category that is essentially the equivalent of a CSD, as that category is watched and generally remains cleared. No tone on the internet, calm thyself. The one from commons showed through anyways. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A CSD F2 template is rarely used for images that do not exist or can not be openned. I think you may be having issues with your internet browser in loading these images, because they do exist on commons. Please stop adding these templates ^The World 16:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said before READ the wording, what's being tagged is the local description page, NOT the image which is obviously on Commons. I expect an apology, because using F2 is precisely what I've been TOLD TO USE for the situation concerned many times previously, including by administrators who should know about this sort of thing. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Klemmer jpg

I uploaded a new version of the COL Klemmer JPG on the article 142nd Field Artillery Regiment (United States). I included the source, author and license information. Please remove the immediate deletion tag. Thanks 15:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Damon.cluck (talk)

Done, thanks for letting me know :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A message from (Aerowikipedian (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC))

Please delete the photo File:Kim Jong Il Hu Jintao-X170106.jpg now please because I did not mean to put the photo up, I was just testing. PS Yes I do know about the sandbox. Thank you, (Aerowikipedian (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC))

ANI thread

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Image_tagging_by_User:Sfan00_IMG. --B (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Athletics video games is empty?

Yes, I created it, because I hadn't seen the category Category:Olympic_video_games, which seems to be enough. You can delete the empty category right now. --Micru (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Middlebush Brook.JPG

How would you add the copyright data to it? Please respond on my talk page as I may have forgot on another file; see my contribs for the rest of the files. Thank you.--Chemicalinterest (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved, Thanks :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hummelstown Library Images

The Hummelstown library has given me the rights to all of these pictures which I then scanned up on the computer and uploaded for the sole purpose of expanding the wiki page for it all.

What do I need to show for this? The Rypcord. 14:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:COPYREQ, that should help answer your query Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

HMS Amphion badge

I'll get back to you on the actual source. It was a private website. However, I'm puzzled by your query. The badge is a UK government artwork that has been in use at least since HMS Amphion was launched around 65 ago. I thought that such works over 50 years old were in the public domain. So what's the issue? Do we have to cease use of all UK Govt artworks? Folks at 137 (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue here isn't one about the licensing , so the image isn't going to get removed anytime soon. Even if the image is public domain, per established policy it still needs a source so that it status is verifiable. Also it helps those that want to make use of the image (and the archive it comes from) make better use of it if it's sourced. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I should've sorted that. The source is [1]. I'll try to update the badge's page, but plz check my efforts. Folks at 137 (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding File:Btown83.jpg

I originally got e-mailed permission from the copyright owner to use File:Btown83.jpg on Wikipedia, but it didn't stand up for File:Btown36.jpg so I guess it won't for this one either. Sorry. -Etoile (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:COPYREQ Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Coondapur.jpg

Thanks for contacting i have updated copyrights information --RNM 10:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neinsun (talk • contribs)

Regarding Atay_grave.jpg

Yeah, I had forgotten to licence it, but I have put an appropriate licence. Thanks.. Tamburello (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright

Hello. You recently flagged a couple of my uploaded files as 'possibly unfree' (namely: File:Audient8024.jpg and File:Audientzen.jpg). As a representative of the company who own the copyright of these files, how do I make this obvious? Ta sfc1885 (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:COPYREQ Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

re: fair use rational for File:2010-07-Reby-Sky-Playboy-card2.jpg =

Hi, I'm a little confused why you added the non-fair use tag... I've provided the fair use as promotional material. How is this not fair use?

because it is part of promotional material provided to the subject of the photo, Reby Sky. if this is not a valid fair use reason, why is there a template for {{Non-free promotional|1=http://www.urlofterms.com|image_has_rationale=yes|image_is_of_living_person=yes}}? after doing additional research on Wikipedia, I found this template, after you marked it for deletion. This image is published by a company, and indicates the person's membership in that company's reward system, as annotated in the article. It also is published proof of the subject's personal statistics.

I apologize that I didn't first use this template instead of the generic non-free fair use rational. Is there still a fair use issue here?

[11:40pm] removed delete tag. added non-free promotional and added more rationale. is this sufficient?

Please read descriptions. it's pretty obvious, and I'll refer you to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/Advice_for_admins#Investigation_process

Thanks! -Vorik111 (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

OK - Now tagged as {{Short-Rationale}}, You need to explain in detail how it meets each of the points in WP:NFCC,

filling out a {{Non-free use rationale}} will help. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So how many templates do I need to use? I need to post the 10 reasons in the copyright notice, then all of that gets replaced by the {{Standard-rationale}} by an official WP admin? Thanks! -Vorik111 (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You just need to explain how each of the NFCC are met Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

re: File copyright problem with File:Jolts.JPG

Sorry about that, the photo was taken by my wife (I have full permission to use the image), what copyright tags should I use? J0lt (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:IMAGE, which should help :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a question-

Does a screen shot that was only needed for trouble shooting really need a description? They probably can just be deleted. Mr. R00t ^Talk 01:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You can request deletion under CSD G7. And yes even debugging images need a description, sorry.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No Sources

You've flagged some of my pics as no source. One didn't which is corrected. The other two did, but on the page not on the template. Can you tell me how to add to template? hjuk (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Use {{information}}, and fill out the fields.. Thanks for adding the source... would also be useful to have the date and catalogue numbers if possible :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Added copyright tag to image

I added the copyright information to the image you notified me about. Please let me know if this is adequate. Thank you! Wikibench (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Added free use rationale to image

Hello I added the free use rationale to the image file. Please let me know if this is adequate. Thanks! Wikibench (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

COpyright information

Hi, i uploaded a new version and added copyright information of file "value driven maintenance value drivers.jpg". Can you let me know if this addition is sufficient? thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaspah (talk • contribs) 09:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Added copyright information

All the photos indicated that needed copyright have now been appropriately tagged with licenses. Please confirm these changes are adequate. talk —Preceding MFAH archives (talk)

re: Possibly unfree File:Where Do I Go From Here (5th Printing) Zac Poonen.jpg

• I am new to different Creative Common licences. I am uploading on behalf of the image owner. Will using the Creative Common Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 India resolve the issue? --Cfcr (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No it will not, because NC licenses are not 'free'. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have switched to using CC Attrib license for this image. I hope this addresses the PUF issue for this image.

I am also using the same CC Atrib license for the following files that I also uploaded on the same day. File:Beauty For Ashes (1980) Zac Poonen.jpg File:One Body In Christ Zac Poonen.jpg File:Radiating His Glory (1982) Zac Poonen.jpg Thanks . --Cfcr (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Requesting that you review the changes in the image licensing. Thank you. --Cfcr (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Queen_Victoria_Albert_1854.JPG

I found this image so long ago, I do not remember where I found it. However, since it obviously qualifies under the copyright code as "It is a photograph created by the United Kingdom Government taken prior to 1 June 1957"... is it not simply in the public domain, and thus, it requires no source? It was also updated by another wiki user recently who may remember where he/she found it. Mactographer (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

/* Speedy deletion of Ercan Arslan_rankings_Eskisehirspor... */

Actually, I did and uploaded of that pictures other version what you were asked... But still you are asking me some another rights.. All image's detail has been done in my computer via my MS Excel. I dont know what you want more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eraslan71 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Re Scott Williams SFAI.jpg This file was taken from the artist's book agent page with permission from artist: http://www.booklyn.org/artists/%3Ch2%3EScott%20Williams,%20San%20Francisco,%20CA%3C/h2%3E.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleshne (talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright information

Thank you for your interest about the file I had uproaded. So I uploaded a new file and add a license, descriptions of "금감원양해각서 체결.JPG".

Please check out agian. ^^ Shineyoi27 (talk) 09:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shineyoi27 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My green X nuvola

That's fine and all that it got selected to be a candidate to go to Commons, but what about my blue and yellow ones? Thanks, RoryReloaded 00:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

I own the copyrights to the material about Angelo Keder which I have put up on Wikipedia. I hope that you can be kind and please put up all of the things I wrote about Angelo Keder on Wikipedia again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.233.135.68 (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the links aren't fully removed, but are commented out, and could be reinstated by you if needed.

Secondly, please consider publishing the resource concerned on a more credible site than Zippyshare.

Thirdly, If you are indeed the copyright holder please speak to an admin who'll be better able to advise on how to avoid having the links flagged again. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Angelo_Keder&

Please could you explain this diff to the user asking on my talk;

Please see User_talk:Chzz#IP_user thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The article about Angelo Keder

Dear Sfan00 IMG,

I have now changed the linked site in which the pictures are shown, to a more serious one. I hope you find this better and that you can hopefully help me to change back the text so the sources appear. By the way, the sources are also in the text.

Best regards 90.233.202.130 (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Le Moyne College photos

I thought I had done the right thing, sending a copyright statement to the permissions-en email that is given. Now, of course, the photos I carefully tried to upload are going to be deleted. What the heck does it take to do this right, for gods sake? Why are you people so ridiculously overzealous. The college has given permission for these photos to be used. sigh. Mitchell.166 (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

File:CatilineTragedy.jpg

I conjecture from User_talk:DionysosProteus#Fair_use_rationale_for_File:CatilineTragedy.jpg that you may have initiated the process that led to the deletion of this image? Unfortunately, it seems to have been mislabeled as a fair use image. In fact, it was a scan of a page from a book printed and published in 1692 and thus satisfies Template:PD-art with flying colors. Is there any way to reverse the deletion? If I had been aware it was coming (for example, if you had posted the same notice on the talk page of the play's article), I would have changed the licensing template and, presumably, that would have been that. Any suggestions? Wareh (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please consider a Wikipedia:Deletion Review , Especially if you can prove it was actually PD Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I will, but I'd like respectfully to suggest that you familiarize yourself with the basic notions of PD yourself. The image was clearly presented on Wikipedia as a scan of a page of a book published in 1692. Any book published by 1922 is PD, and any 2D artwork whose creator has been dead for a small fraction of that time is PD. In my opinion, if you can't check yourself before deleting images of 2D things that are obviously more than 100 years old, you will be doing more harm than good. Wareh (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is not ANY work prior to 1922, There are some important exceptions to that. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Files that are present on Commons

Just so you know, you can use the criterion-specific tags {{db-f8}}, {{db-nowcommons}}, or {{db-nowcommons|name of file on Commons.ext}} for any files that are also on Commons. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

re: File:Thumb cfalcon-running.jpg

I was only doing a test upload, it serves no purpose now, so if you could delete it accordingly, i'll appreciate it. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Image Copyright information

Thank you for your reminder. I am new to wikipedia and need all the help I can get.

I will update the copyright information on all the images.

Thanks,

Rmmawiki14610 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

Hi my friend,

I just wanted to talk to you about the pictures in the article "IKCO EF Engines". I took those pictures from some websites and i put a reference from those websites for the images. But two other pictures which are the first two ones, i got them from a PDF which one of my friends in IKCO have send them to me. Those PDFs are not published to public and their sizes are about 50 MB to 110 MB! So, what should i do now? btw, i don't know how to change the license information of an image. Could you please guide me how to do that?

Thanks so much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsi Warrior (talk • contribs) 13:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi I just have a quick question. I am writing an article on my user page, and I am brand new to Wikipedia, so I noticed my image was marked for speedy deletion. I tried to upload the image, Joyce Bender Photo, to the Commons area and go through the proper licensing, but it still caused a problem. It is an image from her company, which I believe one of her leaders took. I am not sure if it is copyrighted, but it is what the company uses for all of her press releases and radio show, etc, and I have permission from the Cheif Operations Officer to upload the image. Basically the image is owned by the company. How can I ensure it is posted correctly and does not get deleted.

````Thanks Benderwiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benderwiki (talk • contribs) 19:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Joyce Bender Image

Hi I just have a quick question. I am writing an article on my user page, and I am brand new to Wikipedia, so I noticed my image was marked for speedy deletion. I tried to upload the image, Joyce Bender Photo, to the Commons area and go through the proper licensing, but it still caused a problem. It is an image from her company, which I believe one of her leaders took. I am not sure if it is copyrighted, but it is what the company uses for all of her press releases and radio show, etc, and I have permission from the Cheif Operations Officer to upload the image. Basically the image is owned by the company. How can I ensure it is posted correctly and does not get deleted.

````Thanks Benderwiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benderwiki (talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:BrowserChoiceA.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:BrowserChoiceA.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:BrowserChoiceB.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:BrowserChoiceB.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:BrowserChoiceC.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:BrowserChoiceC.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

All three had a rationale when they were uploaded. Change the wording if you wish. --Rumping (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

[First/Second/Third] of three screenshots of BrowserChoice.eu ballot screen for use on that article to illustrate the choice offered; different users were offered the screen with the list in different orders. Screenshot includes commercial logos of various browsers offered for Microsoft Windows as a result of the European Union Microsoft competition case. There is no prospect of a free version being available. {{Non-free web screenshot}}

Possible misuse of speedy deletion for images

I am not expert in this area, but I am concerned that you have been nominating fair-use images for deletion, claiming there is something defective about their rationales, when in fact there might not be. (This happened to me too).

In my case, your message said "the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required"; in the cases above, it said, "there is not a suitable explanation or rationale." But in my case, my rationale was there and did meet the criteria, and likewise in the cases immediately above, there is a rationale offered on the image pages, which appears suitable to me (and you have certainly not explained what is not suitable about it).

I am considering raising my concern about this pattern more formally in an appropriate community forum, because it seems to target images with satisfactory rationales under the false pretense that there is something wrong with their rationales. But I wanted to give you an opportunity to explain clearly if you think there is some legitimate justification for continuing to make such CSD nominations, which I may have failed to understand. Wareh (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't flag up images for defective rationales without checking them, so I find your suggestions that I am mis-tagging of concern as well. My understanding was that the FUR's had to be IN DETAIL, something that the images flagged above did not have. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there some official definition of "in detail" you're using, where Wikipedia policy countenances deletion? Because Rumping wrote a 61-word explanation of his/her rationale, which includes several relevant details--in fact, as far as I can tell, all of the necessary details.

Moreover, when I called you on your mistaken assertion that my rationale did not meet Wikipedia's criteria, you switched to Template:Standard-Rationale, thus effectively backing off of your claim that my FUR was inadequate. Is that right? If so, doesn't this contradict your claim, "I don't flag up images for defective rationales without checking them"?

A more moderate course would be to make wider use of Template:Standard-Rationale, instead of Template:di-no fair use rationale etc., the first time, for every image that already has a viable rationale, if the only real objection is that you'd like to see the satisfactory rationale converted to a standardized format? I think it is proper for your behavior always to conform to the higher standard you use when your deletion nominations are watched and confronted. In any case, your messages are not informative about what missing details make these images, in your view, eligible for CSD.

I have taken pains to indicate that I don't think I know everything, and that I'm open to explanations from you. The point of airing this question more widely is that it feels wrong to me, and without better explanations from you, I'd rather the image tagging be reviewed by those who really do understand the spirit and letter of the "details" requirements. Wareh (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, I do appreciate that you detagged the images I mentioned. You also acquiesced to my reversion of you at File:CSLEmperorRiverbank.jpg in early July, and I appreciate that too. But I don't want you to take these actions "to avoid a row" (as you put it in your recent edit summaries). I want assurance that, in any of the cases I've pointed out to you, there is a Wikipedia policy under which these images should be condemned to deletion. Could you please educate me by pointing out, specifically, which policy you believe justified targeting File:CSLEmperorRiverbank.jpg and the screenshots at BrowserChoice.eu? Better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish: if I can understand the policy, I can follow it by improving worthy images' FUR's so that they are no longer ineligible for deletion, and I will certainly stop seeking a "row" if my belief that these images have good FUR's can be corrected by you. But if I can't understand the policy that justifies your actions, I still think it's a better idea to seek expert opinion about whether your entire image tagging campaign is proceeding under a mistakenly exaggerated idea of what a FUR has to have to avoid an image's tagging under CSD. Wareh (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Try considering the points at WP:NFCC for starters. A Good FUR will provide an explanation for each of those, as well as pargraph explaining the specfic context of use. An excellent FUR will be a mini-stub for the image, placing it context as well. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. To make sense of your actions, I need to add another premise, "An article without a Good FUR as I have defined it (all ten points explicitly addressed) may appropriately be tagged for deletion according to Wikipedia policy." That's the part that trips me up: I don't see a clear endorsement of that at WP:NFCC, so I'll bring up my question at the discussion page there. Wareh (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's one old upload...

Hi. I'd uploaded that movie poster ages ago under the fair use rationale of the time. I've added the newer template, but if it still doesn't meet the requirements, please feel free to delete it. I'll try and find a suitable replacement and do it through Commons. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

CSD tagging

I've added a new section to the discussion at WT:NFC that I'd appreciate your thoughts on: WT:NFC#CSD_tagging. Thanks, Jheald (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Candidate for moving to commons

Just wondering. When you tag files as candidates for moving to commons do you do a sort of a review? ALL PD-self files are candidates for moving to commons unless they are copyvios or really crappy. So a tag is only needed if there is some sort of review.

If you do a review perhaps we could join forces because I move images to commons and plan to do a mass transfer. There is however some difficulties when transfering. First you need to decide if image is worth moving and then you have to find the right categories on commons. So it takes some time.

My thought is that if we pick a category (example Category:User-created public domain images from August 2010) to work on both of us then it would go faster (one looks for bad files and nominate them for deletion (no mtc is needed) and one moves files that is not nominated for deletion). And if you know anyone else that would help also that would also be super. --MGA73 (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oki. Thank you for your note. Personally I do not care if mtc is on the images. I transfer if license is free etc. --MGA73 (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Took me long enough

Hi Sfan00 IMG. Like promised, I finally got around to emptying out this. Thanks for suggesting it in the first place. Regards, FASTILY <sup>(TALK)</sup> 22:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Can File:Bugdom 2.jpg be restored?

On August 17th, you posted a warning on my talk page about the file Bugdom 2.jpg not having a fair use rationale. Because I am a college student and do not have time to regularly edit Wikipedia (as noted by the "Wikibreak" tag at the top of my talk page), I didn't receive your message until the day after the file had already been deleted. Is there any way that it can be restored so that I can add a suitable fair use policy? -Thunderforge (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ask an admin to file a Deletion review on your behalf :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:UND is easier if it's "uncontroversial" - that worked for me, though I have no idea if it suits your image. (Pardon the intrusion on your talk page, Sfan.) Wareh (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

USCYBERCOM logo

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rbcwa&curid=2117191&diff=381116740&oldid=380714375#File_source_problem_with_File:2010-05-14-USCYBERCOM_Logo.jpg the source information is included on the talk page, the source is the Defense.gov website. The owner is the DOD. If there is something wrong with the way it is done, please explain it rather than just leaving boilerplate messages. COntanct me on my talk with any problems, Thanks! Sephiroth storm (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: File copyright problem with File:Stretford End Clock Banner.JPG

I've sorted out the license information for the photo. Sorry about that, I just forgot to add it when I was uploading the photo. Thanks AndrewvdBK (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Image page deletions where the file is on Commons

Hey, I saw your speedy deletion nominations for a number of image description pages where the file was on Commons and no local image. So you know, those types of nominations fall under speedy deletion criterion F2, since technically, they are "empty images". I can understand choosing G6 as you did, but F2 is "more correct". SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not according to the last ANI dissucssion concerning that :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Bot edit going nuts again File:Maudgonne.jpg

This is fairly obviously a public domain picture of Maud Gonne. The subject was born in 1866, and she doesn't look a day over forty in the picture. When I uploaded this six years ago, I think I scanned in that image from a plate in Mary Greer's Women of the Golden Dawn, but I will have to check the library to be sure. At any rate, I have removed your "unsourced" tag from the image. This can be copied to Commons, I think; it was just getting started in 2004. If you are unsatisfied or wish to continue to pursue deletion of the picture let me know. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wolyn

Mate, it's been almost 7 years since I uploaded the file. Entire epoch in the history of WP (and WP's copyright policies). Surely you don't expect me to remember where was the file taken from... Anyway, you can safely delete the file as it's been long deprecated (and abandoned). //Halibutt 00:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Buck trails2.jpg

I own the book, but there is no copyright or copyright holder. The book was copyright 1936, but the copyright was never renewed and the book, its cover and contents are now public domain. I have done a copyright search with the copyright office and have verified this fact.

Schmausschmaus (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Greatrepublicclipper.jpg

I took this photo of a pre-1922 book with my phone. Same for Flying Cloud. What do I need to tag it as? Thank you, Djembayz (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Have tagged these photos. Directions on how to do this are not particularly clear. Perhaps you could write up a few examples of suitable tagging for home-grown photos of public domain books? Or link to them, if such examples already exist? Djembayz (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

if you're going to mass-tag images as deletable...

You really should let the original authors know. Some I uploaded 4 years ago I don't watchlist anymore, and they would have been deleted without simple fixes that would save them.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The method used to flag them SHOULD be informing the original authors, if it's NOT can you please provide specific examples? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: File:Barry Stevens in 2009.jpg

FYI - full form permission has been emailed by owner to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. :-) Pbgiv (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback from Dr. Lords

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Dr. Lords's talk page.
Message added 17:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: File source problem with File:Thebillnewsequence3-1.jpg

Hi

Please look at the file history. I DID include copyright with the file but the copyright was deleted by one of the sysops, I think on accident. I have re-inserted the copyright. Thanks for notifying me --5 albert square (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Just as a further note if you look at the history you will see that the admin tagged the image saying that it was not subject to copyright. I have asked the admin to confirm things but I'm wondering why it was tagged now when there was something in place from admin stating why it didn't need copyright --5 albert square (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

OK apparently the image should be sorted now, the admin says to go to their page if there's any questions :) --5 albert square (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the source :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: File:Castelletto_Ticino_S_113_575BC.JPG‎

Why did you tag this image for deletion without giving any reason since there is an existing fair use explanation ? What in your opinion is wrong with the existing fair use explantion for this file ? I emailed Dr David Stifter asking permission and he gave it for use on the Wikipedia. The whole email is pasted in the fair use explanation. I will remove the tag while I wait for your explanation. If necessary, I can contact Dr Stifter again until this is resolved. Jembana (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Triangle-blue.svg

Hi, I have rolled back (AGF) your second addition of {{di-no source}} to File:Triangle-blue.svg. I assume you are using some semi-automated script (Wikipedia:Twinkle?) for these and not noticing that these triangle images are all public domain and therefore need no sources. I have asked for clarification at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#pd-ineligible should be exempt. -84user (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite being ineligble for copyright, they still need a source when transferred to Commons, that's why got tagged. Rather then clarifying if they actually need a source, adding a basic source would resolve the issue. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether it needs a source or not is something you can discuss on Commons or on the talk page. But please do not tag it with {{subst:di-no source}} because that places it in CAT:SD where it certainly does not belong. Regards SoWhy 14:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

map for MNCS

Do you know any maps I can use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph507357 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Use the USGS maps, or OpenStreetMap :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

...

Please see [2] – ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 10:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Druu.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Druu.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, How can I do with this image to prevent being deleted? It's an scan from the comic book, and is partial. Thanks for your help Arussom (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Maybe you can indicate me an example, I mean, a image that suit the "fair use policy"... Thanks again Arussom (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

See the links in the warning message you received :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but the warning message I received is just the above one (I copied it)... can you, please, show me an image that suit this criteria? I had upload several pictures and most of them are like this one, so I think that I have to get better all of them, so please, help me.

Thanks again Arussom (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The changes you made to the fair use rationale of File:Druu.JPG look good. Please continue adding fair use rationale data like you did at File:Druu.JPG to all and any uploads you make of copyrighted content. -FASTILY <sup>(TALK)</sup> 19:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will make a "round trip" of my uploaded files for checking :) Arussom (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:List of iPod models

I reviewed the license for all the images you commented out. All are good with the exception of the nano 6G, shuffle 4G and touch 4G, which I have removed. Acps110 <sup>(talk • contribs)</sup> 02:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Coronet / Leon Lazarus

You're right, now that I think about it. I can see it belonging in the Coronet article, but I'll remove it now from Leon Lazarus. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

French Quarter Image

The uploaded image was a photograph that belongs to the daughter of the artist. The original was donated to the Louisiana State Museum (LSM). I included the reference on the Joseph Allworthy page. Since it was a photograph belonging to the daughter, i thought it would be public domain, as long as I included the reference of the LSM. If it is not public domain, can you please direct me to where I can change it or can yyou change it? Thank you very much for you help. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC).

OK, Firstly you will need to check what the copyright status of the image is with the LSM, but if it was taken prior to 1922 it should be public domain.) 62.56.112.112 (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Allen photo conflict

I am not a tech savvy person and have been going CRAZY trying to figure out how to resolve your copyright concerns so my uploaded pictures do not keep getting deleted! My aunt was actress Elizabeth Allen, and I just want a photo of her to appear in her bio page, but you keep deleting every single image I upload, even when I clearly state that I have taken the photos myself and own the copyight. What more can I do to solve this problem? The Wiki site is very unfriendly to common users, and I cannot figure out where I need to address the fact that the images I am uploading are fair use, in the public dfomain, and NOT infringing upon any copyrights. Please help !! You can e-mail me directly at thegreendog@aol.com. Thank you. Patrick Gillease —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreendoggie (talk • contribs) 02:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Coats of arms of Romanian cities

As stated in the Romanian copyright law, these images are not eligible for copyright, so they are not protected by copyright regardless of who created them.- Andrei (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That may be so, but they still need a source. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Image Description

Thank you for reminding me on the description of the image Inside View 2.jpg.Ive been trying to resume to my wikipedian activitie sincerely after that ban and please notify me if you find me again overlooking things such as this.

A.arvind.arasu (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

ConnecticutMarriageGlenCove 1 original.jpg

Hello, I see that this image is scheduled for deletion. I believe it comes under the Fair Use doctrine. What do I have to write in order to prevent its deletion?Eyespy4you (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Eyespy4you

I'm not sure what free license to use if my recent explanation does not suffice. What do you recommend?Eyespy4you (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Eyespy4you

Hello again, does this work? "The purpose and character of the use is for nonprofit educational purposes. It is not possible to to use a free license since it is not an official government photograph of the assemblyman."Eyespy4you (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Eyespy4you

Works for me... Although ideally, if you can find an official photo, that would be better :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi! When you tag file description pages for deletion in cases where the file is located in Commons, could you leave the page content there along with the speedy tag instead of blanking the page when you tag it? It takes a lot more time to evaluate whether the page needs to be deleted if I need to go to the page history and click edit to view the contents of the page. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Fauré-by-paul-mathey.jpg

Thank you for your note on my talk page. I thought I had made it clear that the painting is by Paul Mathey, whose dates are stated on the image page. Is that not what is wanted? - Tim riley (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to say what 'license' the image is, AND where the digital reproduction was obtained :)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! I thought I had! Now fixed - apologies! Please ignore me. - Tim riley (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

New header

How do I add copy right information to already uploaded/ existing image ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmitabhPatra (talk • contribs) 11:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You click the Edit tag, and add the relevant information in the form that loads -> Once added click Save! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Cosmicrift.jpg

Please enforce the policy correctly. Wikipedia:Non-free content states:

"For a file in use in an article that was uploaded before 13 July 2006, the 48-hour period is extended to seven days."

Thank you — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 13:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please take that up with the writers of the template concerned. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Connie3.jpg

Regarding the Connie Francis image used on the Connie Francis page, you repeatedly put it up for notice of deletion but fail to look at the actual page to see that it already was put up for deletion and the consensus in December of 2006 was to KEEP the image until another official image can be found.Artemisboy (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can change, Provide an FUR or it will keep getting tagged. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

When did this new policy take effect?Artemisboy (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a policy change, If there was a vote to keep it, you should be able to provide an FUR Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

New Header

How to add copyright information to already uploaded image (Owned by me)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmitabhPatra (talk • contribs) 09:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I refer , the honourable contributor to the answer I gave previously Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Images from NOAA

All NOAA images are public domain, and both the Wet, and Dry Microburst image pages reference images from NOAA. Both images were also easily sourced within the first 5 results of an image search, pointing towards versions hosted by NOAA. While I understand the desire to clean up images where the source and status may be questionable, it is probably advisable to do a bit of checking before marking them for deletion, for images which are almost certainly public domain, such as those marked as being from US government agencies.

While I suspect it's not overtly against policy to mark these images, it is much more valuable to do a quick search to see if you can source them, first, when it appears that they may come from an obvious public domain source. Otherwise, this is simply creating work for others, for very little gain. Theastromutt (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to echo those concerns and while I appreciate your enthusiasm for cleaning up images, I'd remind you of the spirit of WP:BEFORE, which requests "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist". I know that the context there is article space, but there is no conceivable reason why similar diligence should not be exercised for images. For the File:SEALAB III.jpg it took me about two minutes to search the NOAA site for "SEALAB" and find the source. --RexxS (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Cover Art

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Crystal_Warriors_Cover.JPG squarely falls under fair use, and simply needed the template added to reflect this. Much like the situation with the NOAA content I brought up above, files like these (cover art) are very easy to confirm a fair use exception for.

I don't think any of this is explicitly against policy, but I don't believe batch marking files like cover art, or the NOAA material falls within the spirit of the Speedy Deletion system, because of the trivial ammount of work required to determine their status, and the risk of accidentally removing material with an appropriate license, or fair use exception, reducing the usability of Wikipedia itself. The trend of doing this creates a situation wherein other users must track your changes, simply to be sure that nothing that shouldn't be deleted is, simply because the minute or two of research and editting required didn't occur. Theastromutt (talk) 04:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You tagged File:Command Decision (front cover).jpg as not having a FUR despite the clear note on the page "Fair Use: Identification and commentary on this specific book on the page Vatta's War" which was intended to be such a rationale. Rather than simply restoring the file, I want to see if you dispute the statements status as an FUR and ask if you have any ideas about improving it so that this doesn't happen again. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

An FUR has to be on the image description page and has to be 'IN DETAIL', It has to be more than a 2 line stub.

Consider looking at the uses of {{book cover fur}} Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I copied the rationale from the history of the image description page. It certainly wasn't blank. I am simply surprised since there are three other pictures with identical FUR's on the page Vatta's War (the others but not this one were uploaded by me) and their adequacy has never been particularly questioned. Not that it's relevant to this per WP:WAX, but you live and learn. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind the FUR image scan (and to some people purge) had only reached 'C' so far... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Move to commons

Hi Sfan00 IMG! I saw you adding a template to File:Gadget-revisionjumper1.png. Would be nice if you could do that (with your script?) for related files too. Thanks! If you're not using a script, I'll manually do it on my own. :-) Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) —DerHexer (Talk) 14:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hi Sfan00 - You tagged an image at (Notification: Deletion of File:Jonah_Schein.jpg. (TW)) for deletion for lack of copyright, etc. I did not include this image in the wiki entry and now my entry is totally gone as is it's history or any explanation of where it went - Is this related to your tag? Linsey MacPhee (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Linsey MacPhee

When an image gets tagged for a copyright issues , that doesn't get resolved it eventually gets deleted. This means that it's description page and history cease to be visible. However, you should at the very least have got a box explaining wy it was deleted,

typically giving which CSD reason was used. If you haven't seen one of those when trying to find the image concerned please speak to an administrator or check Special:Logs for your image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Relevant Log entry reads -" # 00:18, 2 August 2010 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Jonah Schein.jpg" ‎ (Deleted because "F4: Lack of licensing information". using TW) "

Please read WP:COPYREQ, should you wish to have the image restored, Typically all it needs is the copyright holder to send a note to a special email queue confirming the permission, the email address being given in the page I've linked Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm... Hi.

Um... Hi. Sfan00... like i really don't know how to do the copyright stuff... so do you mind to do it for me? I found it on the school website... so can you help me do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Florencelau (talk • contribs) 13:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You made a mistake in tagging an image with a clearly stated fair use rationale.

Hi. You recently tagged File:Death_race.jpg as not having a fair use rationale, but you are mistaken. That file had a clearly stated fair use rationale that contained all necessary information: it indicated the nature of the usage (non-commercial), the portion of the copyrighted work used, the quality of the reproduction, whether or not it was replaceable, the source of the work, the article it was used in, and the purpose of using the work in the article. It did not use a template to provide that, but Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline does not mandate the use of templates, only suggests it. Are you using a bot to find these? Because, if so, it is not functioning properly.

If, on the other hand, you were doing this by hand, simply made a mistake and didn't read the rationale that was there, then that sort of thing happens. However, please be more careful in the future. Thanks. Nandesuka (talk)

David H Goodell

At one point I was under the impression that any picture which was the property of a government entity within the United States was public domain. I thought all of the pictures I had uploaded had been eliminated, but apparently I was wrong. I'm not aware of a fair use rationale for that picture. --YixilTesiphon <sup>Talk</sup><sub>Contribs</sub> 14:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Star Tours 2

Greetings. I saw that you tagged an image for Star Tours: The Adventure Continues as not having the appropriate copyright and fair-use documentation. I have helped the uploader before, and I'm kinda surprised that the lessons didn't take. Just the same, I did append the image file with the necessary copyright and fair-use rationale templates. I also asked them to provide me with the source for the image, so it can be added. I did remove the no-copyright tag, but if you feel it should be added back, to at least prod the user into getting the needed info, I couldn't argue with that. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, and thanks for keeping an eye out on potential infringements! --McDoobAU93 15:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

GSLV Mk2D3 Cryo Engine.jpg

Hi, I just found out one of the images I uploaded is under threat of deletion. The reason is that there is no "rationale". I have provided what I believe is a fair statement, which I added under 'permission'...

"Image can only be obtained from the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and there is no possibility of a free version"

The fact is, this is a govt only area and only pictures provided by the state can be used as no others are available. I was told by a colleague at wikipedia that the explanation above is sufficient. Please get back to me.

Thanks LogicDictates <sup>(talk)</sup> 21:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. I've added the description as to why it is relevant (and removed the tag as required). In addition, I will try to source more info on this section of the GSLV. Could you please have a look and let me know if this is adequate. Thanks LogicDictates <sup>(talk)</sup> 22:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Picasso-Necklace.jpg

Re. your post on my talk page.[3] The edit on the image page[4], immediately before your edit on the image page[5] where you tagged it for deletion, was a vandal/test edit which removed the copyright info. I trust this was an isolated carelessness. Ty 01:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Comet Queen Issue

I removed your message because you are not read my way in my talk page that your message supposed to not under my photograph gallery, it should be in comments area and I do not think you are very fair and respectable so I deleted your message. If you want to leave the message, leaving it under "comments" area. I do not like Wikipedia admins/moderators who are dolts by disrespecting, unprofessional, childish, and abusive of the power. I have filed a complaint that demanded you to be removed for your poor work. I checked Comet Queen fair rationale and I don't see any errors by the subjects you gave me. Maybe you need to go back to Wikipedian school of laws.

There is your message back:

Fair use rationale for File:Cometqueen-Legion304.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Cometqueen-Legion304.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If you want to repost same messagem do it under comments area, not under photograph gallery. I appericate some Wikipedians who did do right by placing messages under the comments area. Remember the Wikipedians are respecting each others. --Culby (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for the message to be reposted, someone else subsquently added a rationale. However, I expect an apology for your comments saying I need re-educating. When tagged the image was tagged using TWINKLE, which it seems added the message at the end of the talk page, rather than at the end of the comments sections, How a semi-automated tool is supposed to realise a User talk page has a non-standard format is something you should raise with the developers of TWINKLE.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rock 'N' Roll Band - ABBA.ogg

Regarding your message on my talk page. Can you please do me a favour and have a look at the article Rock'n Roll Band and either confirm or deny whether the above mentioned file is actually used? <sup>Talk</sup>/♥фĩłдωəß♥\<sup>Work</sup> 19:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

William Coaker Image

Picture is dated before 1949 and is therefor not subject to any Copyright in Canada, becoming public domain. Also, Newfoundland was not a part of Canada prior to 1949 and had no formal Copyright law. Cheers Rwoodford (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sfan00- Copyrighted Uploaded Images

Sfan00 IMG, I've already rectified the problem of adding the proper copyright/owner attribution tags to the images which I've uploaded. There were some typos on my behelf, so I guess that's why they didn't register(sorry about that). Every image that I've down/uploded from FlickR I make sure that permission by the owner(s) to be share, modified, and or adapted into other work. Please let me know if everything is alright.

Thanks, MealMachine MealMachine (talk)

Note

Hi, you recently tagged an image I had uploaded as disputed non-free image... I'm not sure if you actually read the description, but there was an explict grant of permissions made by the copyright holder to OTRS legal. Therefore, tagging the image for deletion was inappropriate. I reverted. Thanks, ⇒SWATJester <sup>Son of the Defender</sup> 20:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for getting the School Choice International logo in the box. I appreciate it. Lplamond

Rome Colosseum inscription=

Your request to speedy delete File:Rome Colosseum inscription 2.jpg has been declined. This is a valid image that is linked to in several valid Wikipedia articles. Perhaps if you could better explain why you tagged it for speedy deletion, we might be able to help. Truthanado (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: BDL JULY 2010

Thanks for reminding me. I forgot to place the license there. Fixed now Tofutwitch11 (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned image File:Austin book cover scan.jpg

A licensing email under CCA-SA-Ver3.0 was sent today to permissions-ed@wikimedia.org along with authenticaion of the copyright holder. Additonally, an editor has recently replaced the book cover image with a lower quality version to make it now useable under Wikipedeia stgandardds re book covers. See talk page on File:Mcconico.jpg Is there anything else I can do until it is needed. The article to where it goes is at User:Milowent/Donald G. Martin. But because of a conflict of interest WO:CIO I cannot add the image to an article myself (since I am the author and copyright holder). Austex • Talk 17:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Pakhal Tirumal Reddy ..images ...these photo was taken by me on my own camera and its free image from me ....

Files on commons

Hi, instead of tagging with a G6 the correct code is F8 for files on en. that are on commons. Or if there is only a description page on en.wikipedia and the commons image shows through use F2 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, now I'm really confused. Did you intend to have two talk pages? I posted a nearly identical notice at User talk:Sfan00 IMG just a bit ago. [6]. I think you may want to move this stuff to your actual talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hans Sachs

Hi, sorry, I only now discovered your mail. However, I'm not aware of having uploaded the picture in question. Can you check? TIA, --wpopp (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop being such a douche

And get a life

File:Bobby_Tench_wikipedia_copyright.jpg

• Please note that I applied the copyrught info to MY image. Please let me know what needs to be altered on the file description page. I will also added similar comments to the relevent discussion page. Thanks. --Flyingstrat (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

DC Minner

File:DC_Minner.jpg has been changed to GFDL-self. Let me know if that's not OK. Nfarrow(talk)

Help with retrieving deleted image

A while ago, I received an image delete message from you. I was AWOL, and I thought I had set Wikipedia to email me whenever I get a new message. Anyway, the image was originally created by me, and afaik, was crucial to the article -- and, I don't have it anymore, since that was years ago -- before the advent of half a dozen hard drive failures. The image link is now dead. For the hope of not adding you to my personal list of mean-spirited content destroyers, I was wondering if you might be able to help retrieve it. (Yosofun (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC))

Fair use rationales for two audio files

As you required, I have added the fair use rationales in for both File:Jungle scatching.ogg and File:Qbert hiphop scratching.ogg from the article Scratching. I have also expanded the summaries of both files and reduced their bitrates from 128 to 64.

The files now conform to wikipedia's policies for non-free content and as such I have remove the "di-no fair use rationale" from both pages. Torqueing (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate marking of my image files for speedy deletion

Hello Sfan. I am a fan of Shakespeare too. However I find it problematic that you have marked many of my image files for speedy deletion, causing me to have to rework my image pages, and this has cost me a lot of time. If you read through my image pages, you will see that I am the holder of the copyright of all the images you have tagged. They are not being used through fair-use (although others can use them through this provision), but I see no other way to tag them. Thus they need not be reduced and I do not have to provide licensing information. And they should not be marked for deletion. Perhaps I have the wrong tag(s) on the images. Or the wrong terms on my image pages. This is my first article. It would be much more helpful if you could suggest a better way to tag and/or describe my images. I will appreciate your help with this. E. S. V. Leigh (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Diorama image

• If you can show me how to use the Wikimedia Commons source for this Olla in the article I would appreciate it. I used the techniques which I have learned on English Wikipedia, and have never used a Commons image. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Your tagging of the Griswold signal photo

Hi. This photo has been up for years under a rationale permitted by this site. I have worked with that site's webmaster before regarding photos and such. There is no way for me to replace that photo since I live nowhere near San Jose and that signal is the last of its kind in use in California. It is utterly unique and I would argue properly attributed. PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

So provide the FUR detailing what you've explained above, ' Image is required to show unique example of installed equipment, and could not be replaced..'

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I was under the impression this may have been from a bot gone wild. PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I've fixed the problem. Thank you for your diligence.  :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:HarmonicMaths25.jpg

Hi, Sfan. I don't understand the tag on this file, as the comments are too general. It's used in one article with permission of the creator. I adjusted the summary slightly. What else do I need to do about it? Please be specific. Pkeets (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to do what the warning you got tells you to do. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

So it's a guessing game? Where does the rationale go? Do I just post it on the page at random? Under the summary? There's nothing on the file's page that says "rationale". Do I need to post anything more about the copyright or permission for use? The file was supplied by the creator for use in this article only, and it illustrates the process described in the article.Pkeets (talk)

Fair use rationale for File:Grimjack_1.jpg

I've added the rationale. The "non-free comic" tag isn't sufficient? It seems as though the content of that tag explains the non-free rationale very well.

Popefelix (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:HardestWayPossibleSample.ogg

Hello Sfan00! I just added fair use rationale for File:HardestWayPossibleSample.ogg. Thank you for bringing this to my attention!--Dr. D (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Alaungpaya.png and File:Anawrahta.png

Hello, updated them with the rationale. Let me know if it's sufficient. Thanks. Hybernator (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

regarding

File:HalBlaine&the-WreckingCrew.jpg, I was under the impression that book covers were usable on wikipedia. This one has been here for 6 years, a pretty good run for any image on wikipedia, and since I no longer get into these arguments - what is postable, why, why not etc, - thanks for bringing it to my attention, but please feel free to remove it. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

imminent deletion of goodson.jpg

Clearly, this is a matter of great importance to you but not to me and its deletion will be the poorer for wiki. The picture is a photographic copy I paid for of a painting by this artist. I obtained the picture from Stoke-on-Trent Museum and Art Gallery in 2005. That's about it. Do what you have to do. Peter morrell 20:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Template that you use to post these notices on talk pages

I'd like to know the location of the template that you use to post these deletion notices on talk pages. I'd like to suggest one or two changes to the wording. Thanks. Esn (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, as I tag with TWINKLE mostly, You;'d have to ask the authors of that tool which templates they are using.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: AGyHM-P_Gala_Dinner.jpg‎

Dear Sfan00 IMG,

Thanks for taking the time of watching all wikipedia articles; in the particular case of the file: "AGyHM-P_Gala_Dinner.jpg‎", it has been taken from the "Anuario" (annual) of the "Academia de Genealogía y Heráldica Mota-Padilla". Please, read the file's source:

"Source: Anuario 1954-57 by Academia de Genealogía y Heráldica Mota-Padilla, Guadalajara, Jalisco, (México), 1957"

If you read the article, you can see that the "Academia de Genealogía y Heráldica Mota-Padilla" was a Mexican institution that got extinct in 1983 and also, that this institution published only three volumes of "Anuario"; then:

1) The image was taken from an academic publication, not a newspaper--as you wrote.

2) The institution was based in Mexico, and it got extinct in 1983. The Mexican copyright law says that after 50 years, all published works will pass to public domain (unless the owner of the copyright renew those rights, and/or transmit those rights to a third party through a legal documment); so far, the "Academia de Genealogía y Heráldica Mota-Padilla" became extinct in 1983, and there's no one that holds the copyright of the institution's "Anuario" (I've checked it before sharing the image here in Wkipedia).

3) Therefore, the institution's "Anuario" (and all its content--even the image which is the subject of this conversation) belongs to the public domain, because it was published in 1957 and no one holds it's copyright since 1983.

Many thanks for your kind attention to this message.

Best,

--Hyperspeed2000 (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I suggest adding the above summary to the image- Before it goes to Commons :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Update to vintage postcard scan

Thanks for catching that. I've updated the rationale in the same manner as I updated the last one you alerted me to. I'm on "wikibreak," but I'll be popping over to my talk page every now and then. Please alert me to any other old uploads and I'll take care of them. PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Ggenov.jpg

You may wish to familiarise yourself with WP:BEFORE. There is no reason at all why you couldn't have sorted this image out yourself, without tagging it unnecessarily for deletion and causing more work for other editors. Although this image indeed doesn't have the rationale we would require today, it was uploaded in 2005 when standards were less stringent. The lack of a rationale on such an image is no indication that deletion is an appropriate response. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

What matters is NOT the situation in 2005, what matters are the current rules, and who is better placed to resolve the lack of a rationale? Some random user trying to cleanup the wiki or the original uploader?

I expect an apology for your outburst above. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You tag vast numbers of images for deletion, on the most trivially fixable (albeit strictly correct) of grounds, yet you appear to do nothing to resolve these issues yourself. Why not? WP:BEFORE does still apply to you. Look at File:Harry Ricardo.jpg - a significant image of a significant engineer, with a fair-use issue that's no more than a filing exercise to update our records format from how it was handled at time of upload. It's also the work of an editor who's no longer active, certainly not in the timescale you've set for deletion. Why couldn't you have organised this very simple and obvious FUR yourself, rather than only doing half the job? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

So you admit that the tagging is correct then? Wikipedia is group project and most often the tagging in respect of FUR's is

so that other users more experienced in adding FUR's can respond. On your apparent basis it would be better for inexperienced users to add weak rationales (which will get disputed), then tagging and waiting for experienced users to put strong ones in, That is NOT good for the project. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course tagging images for deletion is "correct", it's just not useful. Do you appreciate the difference? One is helping to build an encyclopedia project, the other is an opportunity to feel as if you are. Look at your past contributions history and the number of files you've caused to be deleted. Yet these weren't copyvios or unencyclopedic files that ought not to be included, they were useful files where their paperwork just wasn't straight. You could have remedied that by doing the necessary work, without any need at all to tag them, and most importantly without the risk (which is obviously sizable, just read your logs) of resultant deletion.

Does your para above really explain this on the basis that you're not competent to write a FUR?

Here's another one: File:Group Captain Percy Charles Pickard.jpg. A clearly notable subject on several counts (DSO++ DFC, film career in Target for Tonight, and also the leader of Operation Jericho the highest precision bombing raid of the war) - yet your actions are to delete the image, which you recognise is acceptable for use here, unless we're lucky and an editor from five years ago happens to see it within the next week? Do you really think that this is a useful way to act, not merely correct? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sfan00 IMG mentioned that other parties might helpfully respond here. I do not consider myself a copyright expert in fair use, though I have been involved in these issues as an OTRS volunteer and briefly discussed these issues with others today on IRC.

I believe that in such a situation WP:BEFORE#11 has priority over the many considerations of WP:ATD. Should you wish to challenge such a deletion notice then this should be on the basis that the deletion criteria have not been met rather than demanding that anyone raising a deletion to have extensively researched the image and done everything humanly possible to write up a FUR. This point is unambiguously covered by the policy statement "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof" included in WP:FUC. My crude understanding of policy is that where there is any claim of copyright violation, we would rather have to undelete an image than fail to be seen to take reasonable action to protect the copyright of others. Fæ (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The question is what "We" means. "We" the project obviously have to respect copyright and follow our agreed policy to do so. This should though, for the benefit of the project aims, include the total of that policy, both removing what must be removed and also defending what should be defended. The problem here is that Sfan00 IMG clearly only wants (read the logs) to engage with part of this process, the deletions. That's a fine copyright-observing behaviour to the outside world and stops us infringing what we shouldn't, but at the same time it's harmful to the project by removing content that doesn't need to be removed. Sfan00 IMG can't be seen under the same "We the project" if he's only interested in doing half the job, where doing half the job is harmful to the project.

WP:BEFORE #11 (deletion by other routes, when warranted) would have to be respected, but that's not relevant here. These aren't images that warrant deletion at all, let alone under those terms.

All that needs doing is writing a simple FUR (and for biographies that's pretty simple), yet Sfan00 IMG would rather have images deleted than dirty his hands doing this. Correct for the observance of copyright, yes. Constructive to the project, no. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please try to WP:AGF. Again, read the policy; "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof". I note that you have spent a large amount of time arguing that Sfan is wrong rather than "dirty your hands" doing this. Ironholds (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course we need a valid rationale. Do you dispute that these images meet those requirements? - because that's quite a different question. Proof isn't the issue here - no-one, not even Sfan00 IMG, is claiming that the images don't deserve keeping under FUR, it's merely a question of who has to do the legwork of providing them with rationales. So far, despite your implication that I wouldn't "dirty my hands" in doing so, I'm the one who's having to sweep up after Sfan00 IMG and do precisely that. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)