User talk:Stefan2/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Stefan2/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links to help you get started:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Kukini 13:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk

I've replied to you question on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics#Some images. Joe I 15:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

MOMS

Hi Sefan2 I Noticed that you made contributions to above mention artilce about sales tax in Scandinavian countries. Thanks for you contribution, I also noticed you used a lot of edits for some minor contributions, please consider using the Show preview button also. The short reason is the wikimedia server is storing a copy of each page history, and is taking of a lot of storage space. It is also a good idea to fille in a short summary in the Edit summary box like added a link, fixed a typo or added a new section Again welcome to wikipedia and hope you enjoy it as much as the rest of us.

Best regards Angelbo 15:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving Naoto Ohshima

I noticed that you put the {{moveto}} template on Naoto Ohshima. There doesn't seem to be any controversy about this move, and the target page, Naoto Ōshima, is open. This means that the page can be easily moved by using the move tab at the top of the page. Is there some reason why the tag was added instead of the page just being moved? Thanks. -- kenb215 04:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocking (again...)

I'm not user "Fiskmåsen", so that edit must have been done by someone else sharing the same IP address. The same thing happened a few days ago, mentioning some other user name. I suppose that this is kinda problematic, since my IP address is shared with several hundred other users... (Stefan2 11:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC))

BTW, the blocking a few days ago was mentioned not here, but on my IP address's talk page: [1] (Stefan2 11:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC))

One more blocking (sigh!)

Someone else using the same IP address I suppose... (Stefan2 11:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

Netherlands contradiction tags

I think you need to explain a bit more than just adding the tags ([2]&[3]). Tried to find the contradiction, but for me it isn’t that obvious. Could you clarify a bit, so we can resolve it? Thanks. --Van helsing 19:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

More IP blocking...

The same IP is used by hundreds of different people, some of which are vandalists... This is annoying... (Stefan2 (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

Blocking...

It seems that I've been blocked practically every time I try to edit anything... Please do something about this! (Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

You'll have to contact your network administrator and have them take steps to prevent further attacks against Wikipedia from that address. --Yamla (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

More blocking...

And this time I couldn't even add the unblock request to my talk page: I had to SSH to another computer and run a web browser remotely in order to add this template... (130.237.226.234 (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC))

Actually, no autoblock or rangeblock was found. Could you please try again?  Sandstein  20:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the autoblock, and then gave him IP block exemption. I e/c'ed you twice, Sandstein, which is why it took so long for me to post this. Here is my original comment:

The reason you could not edit your talk page was an unfortunate consequence of a (unusually buggy) feature that was recently implemented. I apologize that you had to go through this again. Since you have been autoblocked so many times, I have given you IP block exemption. If you would like to see more info about this feature, see WP:IP block exemption. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Stefan2! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 372 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Jon In Chan - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

SUL requests

I confirm that I'm the one requesting an account to be renamed at metawiki, Dutch Wikipedia, Greek Wikipedia, Polish Wikipedia, Romanian Wikipedia, Swedish Wikipedia and German Wikibooks in order to complete my SUL account. I confirm that I'm the same as "Stefan3" on German Wikibooks. (Stefan2 (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC))

Done at metawiki. Best regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Done at ro.wiki. Razvan Socol (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Done at de.wikibooks. Best regards, -- heuler06 (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 033f4f573880143e182a0b191c1d8604

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Re: Imported edits

Comments moved to User talk:Joy#Imported edits because it's easier to read a discussion if all comments are at the same place. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Fbot catch!

		Sven Manguard's "Completely Safe" Irradiated Barnstar
		Not content with distributing ordinary barnstars, I have illegally enriched several ordinary barnstars, for the purposes of rewarding others for outstanding individual achievement. Congratulations, you have just been awarded one of these rare treasures. They glow in the dark, yes, but I'm sure they are perfectly safe. Thank you for catching the problem with the Copy to Commons tagging by Fbot. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've made some changes to Fbot's blacklists so that the problems won't happen again, and other files with the same issue will be untagged shortly. Since it's just as much my fault as Fastily's that this happened, I'm breaking out my personal barnstar. I haven't given one of these out in nearly a year. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

File:137thSWSGreeleyCO.jpg

The source was clearly made, can not help it if USAF changed the 140th home page. I've been around wiki for over 6 years, I know how to source pics, especially military. There are many pics, probably hundreds of military pics with source no longer available, eg. NORAD, Clear AFB, etc etc. I've research broken links many times for other wiki editors and fixed the links instead of marking it for questionable copyright and or speedy delete; you can too, like I have. I'll try to research a new source for this pic... also, I will be driving up that way next month for goose hunting and can take my own personal pic for 137th. Cheers, Lance..... LanceBarber (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Link and access date updated.LanceBarber (talk) 06:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't sure how to do if the source is unavailable. I thought it was better to tag it as "no source" since it wasn't possible to check the source. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure its possible, I googled "140th Wing", went to the home page, found the new link to the 137th... found the orginal pic, swiped the http address, copied, went to the 137th article, edit, replaced old http with new http, changed the access date, save, done. Cheers, Lance.... LanceBarber (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:PD-ineligible-USonly

Main article: Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright § PD-textlogo; second opinions

Perhaps you could assist me with tagging more images on English Wikipedia with this; I have a lot of images listed at commons:User:Magog the Ogre/questionably PD-ineligible content that have equivalents on English Wikipedia under the exact same name. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Also there are a ton of logos at Category:All Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. I've gotten many of them, but not all. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a lot of the UK logos are more complex than the Edge logo. I've now proposed some of them for deletion on Commons and added {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} to English Wikipedia, but I think that there are more British logos which are more complex than the Edge logo and thus need to be deleted. I'm wondering about the general BBC logo which appears on one of the other British logos: it is supposed to have been made in 1997 and the white stripes between the letters might be too much. There are lots of BBC logos around on Commons and if seen as too complex, most things in Commons:Category:BBC logos should probably be placed in a mass deletion request. I don't know exactly when something meets the threshold of originality in all countries, but North Korea seems to deem calligraphy as copyrightable (see article 9 here/here), which could make some of the North Korean logos copyrightable. Germany seems to allow everything allowed in the US plus a lot of other things, so my guess is that everything you've tagged from Germany is fine. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that ruling on the Edge logo is going to cause issues. The question is: was it a rogue ruling that should be ignored (like the US 9th circuit court ruling on copyright extending 100 years, a baffling ruling that makes no sense and which everyone does in fact ignore) or is that a legitimate ruling? Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Clindberg didn't sound too surprised in the Edge logo deletion request and I have to agree that the special handling of the E letters doesn't look too different to writing your own signature on a piece of paper, so I guess it is something that we do have to care about. Still, it is going to affect lots of British logos... My idea was to propose the logos I've already proposed for deletion and then wait and see what happens. If people agree with me, I'll probably propose some more logos. I also think that Commons:Commons:Threshold of originality needs an update about British logos. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Brother can you spare a (half) dime

Hey sorry about those. Back in 2007, coins didn't trouble the copyright hawks. Pictures of 3D works of art (e.g. statues) were expressly un-copywritable back then, and I still don't think a coin is much more 3-dimensional than your average painting (surely paint layers are often thicker than a coin, and surely a head-on shot of a public domain coin is in no way unique such that artisanship attaches, in my IANAL opinion). But as I explained elsewhere, I no longer recall some 5 years later where they came from. Good luck with your (rather pointless) deletion though :) -- Kendrick7^talk 00:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The current policy states that photos of coins aren't allowed, so I don't think that there's anything that I can do. It's not fun to see a lot of articles losing pictures, though. Sorry for spamming your talk page with so many messages. The script I used places a message on the uploader's talk page, which may become a bit messy if there are many pictures which are flagged as potentially unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:PD-US-no treaty

This template is effectively a duplicate of User:Buffs/PD-Only in host country, but with less information. Images of this type are currently the subject of a Request for Comment: Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#RfC:_What_to_do_with_respect_to_the_copyright_of_countries_with_which_the_US_does_not_have_copyright_relations.3F. I agree with WP:BOLD, but it might be best to hold off on such changes until the RfC is finished. I would like to have your input on the RfC, so please feel free to throw in your two cents. Buffs (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that discussion when I created the template. I found two complex Iranian logos incorrectly marked as CC-0 and I needed a template in order to retag them. I'll read and comment the discussion. By the way, I believe that the United States does have copyright relations with Turkmenistan, so the country should probably be removed from your template. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Not according to the US Copyright Office...but it wouldn't surprise me if some govt agency had some bad information... Buffs (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep on Truckin'

Where did this dispute move to? The information I could find says it was filed in the wrong venue, but doesn't point to the right one. I would like to address the copyright concerns. My intent was to include the image as a single comic book panel under Fair Use. Maybe the resolution needs to be reduced? InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It was moved to Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:KeepOnTruckin'.jpg. The image is at Commons which doesn't allow fair use at all. If it is to be kept as fair use, it needs to be moved to English Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Tatrinote

I notice you have raised doubts about images. I am a new user and not familiar much with the references and tagging on wiki, however, all images on Tatrinote are copyright free. I was born in that area and still have connection with it. I left few comments with your comments on those images as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riztech (talk • contribs)

Please keep the discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 January 19. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

money-rates.com image

Main page: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 January 20 § File:Money-rates.JPG

Hi Stefan2,

You raised a concern about an image I recently uploaded to the MoneyRates.com page. You said I didn't prove that I have permission to use the site's image. I did seek permission from the site's producer prior to publishing, but how can I prove this in the context of Wikipedia?

Thanks,

Renoeditorial (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Read Commons:Commons:OTRS and please keep all discussions at the possibly unfree files discussion page. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

File:MegaUploadFBIBanner.jpg

Main page: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 January 20 § File:MegaUploadFBIBanner.jpg

Since this is a banner used by the US government (FBI, DoJ etc) I'm assuming it's common use, they don't copyright things like notices right, aren't they public domain? Y12J (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Please keep all discussions at the possibly unfree files page. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Armenian dance image

Main page: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 January 20 § File:ArmenianDance1.jpg

• 
  Image uploaded by me
• 
  Image uploaded by User:Frost778
• 
  Image uploaded by User:Frost778

I didnt get your reply from my latest comments in the discussion in the possibly unfree files page. We have always had atleast 1 Armenian dance image on wikipedia. I need atleast 1 valid excepted Armenian dance image to upload here. The previous ones were also removed from the site. The image is in a few main Armenian related pages, and I need atleast one valid image. Can you help me out on this? The images.google.com has tons of Armenian dance images here [4], can you find me one to use a PD or CC tag?? Thank you. Frost778 (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Images found on Google are usually not free. I searched for images on Flickr with usable CC tags and could only find one image, which I've uploaded (see right). --Stefan2 (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading an image from flickr with a CC tag, but this dance image is not the specific type that I was hoping for. You notice the one I currently have uploaded? And if you look in google images most of them are in this type of group circle dances. I have contacted someone (owner of armeniapedia.org site) who will soon send you a message in your talk page to give permission to use his Armenian dance images. Also, how do I contact the user at flickr who I currently uploaded the dance image? Do I need to sign up for flickr to contact him? I'm going to get permission from the user at flickr who has this Armenian dance image in case the other user doesnt get it on time or something. Can you allow time for me to get his permission? It might take long I dont know how long, but not too long. Is it possible you can ask permission from the flickr user? Do you have an account there or? Frost778 (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you understand my above message? Frost778 (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright I got the photos from Raffi at armeniapedia.org, here are the photos [moved to gallery above]

These are under CC tag owner is Raffi from armeniapedia. Frost778 (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Flickr user permission

I didnt get your reply yet. I was asking if you can contact the Flickr user to get permission from him to use his image that you have tagged possibly unfree. How do I contact the Flickr user? Do I need to sign up there? Ok, I figured out how to contact the Flickr user, but I have to wait until he replies and hopefully knows how to change it to "some rights reserved." What is your email so he can email you to give permission to use the image? Frost778 (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any Flickr account and I don't have time to contact him anyway. Please do it yourself instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Hyacinth (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Main page: File:SRDas.jpg

Thank you for bringing the S. R. Das photo to my notice. I will do as suggested! Merlaysamuel (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Nehru image for Doon School

Please take a look at the revised fair-use rationale for File:Nehru in Kashmir House, Doon School.JPG and remove the deletion banner. I will be very grateful. Thank you. Merlaysamuel (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Hitler mercedes.jpg

Main page: File:Hitler mercedes.jpg

See also: User talk:Biker Biker § File:Hitler mercedes.jpg

Hi, is there anywhere where deletion suggestions such as yours at File:Hitler mercedes.jpg can be discussed? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I added a somewhat slow deletion template because the image lacks a licence template. This is an uncontroversial thing; images must have a valid licence template. Unless a valid template is added, the image will be deleted. A bit later, User:Biker Biker added a speedy deletion template because the image is unlikely to be free, and I have to agree on that: the image is unlikely to be free. It was presumably first published in the 1930s and is thus presumably copyrighted for 95 years since publication in the United States and for 70 years since the death of the photographer in Europe. 95 years since publication has not yet passed and 70 years since death of the photographer is unlikely to be true either. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't object after Biker Biker changed his justification, but I was concerned about AFP actually being the copyright holder, I wanted to discuss that. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at JBChristy's talk page.
Message added 21:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

logo

Main page: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 January 28 § File:Logo of the National Progressive Unionist Party.png

I actually did create the logo myself based on the party's logo. I even wrote the words in Arabic myself. The proof is that it's a png file and you can check that the words I wrote are editable in any program that edits png files. Also the rest of the logo I did make it myself. I'm not sure I understand why this is a problem. --B for Bandetta (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Jaselyn_Blanchard_01.jpg

Main page: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 January 10 § File:Jaselyn Blanchard 01.jpg

See also: User talk:Skier Dude § Jaselyn_Blanchard_01.jpg

On 10Jan2012, Kristen Hoberman, the copyright holder, submitted to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, a "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts), giving permission to use the photo. Jpbfcgsat (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You are supposed to indicate that permission has been sent by adding {{OTRS pending}} to the file information page. This template was not there when I tagged it as possibly unfree and you never commented the PUF discussion, so an administrator deleted the file two weeks later. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I included the suggested tag in the summary and tried to re-submit the photo..no joy. I am not sure what I need to do to get a deleted photo uploaded again and incorporated into the article. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Jpbfcgsat (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the file has been deleted, I think that an administrator needs to undelete it instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

How do I request that the file be undeleted?Jpbfcgsat (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Try WP:DRV. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license was submitted to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org by the copyright holder on 10Jan2012, the same day the subject photo was deleted. The copyright holder received an acknowledgement email from permissions-commons@wikimedia.org that the license had been received. How to I get an administrator to undelete the photo. Jpbfcgsat (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

File:American Bullnese Breed Standard.jpg & File:American Bullnese Original Pair.jpg

Main page: File:American Bullnese Breed Standard.jpg

Main article: commons:File:American Bullnese Breed Standard.jpg

Main article: commons:File:American Bullnese Original Pair.jpg

Main article: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by LibbyJax

The above two images were released to the public domain by the American Bullnese Association and its creator, Robert Rice, to help illustrate the wikipedia article on the American Bullnese. I worked hand and hand with the breed creator to develop the article. These images are not copyright of Dogbreedinfo.com. As is stated on the dogbreedinfo.com site, the images came to them courtesy of the American Bullnese Association. If we could work together to get these images undeleted and restored to the article, that would be very much appreciated. Please let me know what I can provide that would help clarify that the images are now in the public domain via the American Bullnese Association. Thank you, Libby - American Bullnese wiki article

The file information pages didn't specify that you had any kind of permission, and after a Google search, I found the images on a web site specifying very restrictive conditions for image reuse. If you have permission, you need to send the permission to OTRS. More information here: commons:COM:OTRS

You may also want to take a look at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by LibbyJax. If you do not take any action there, three more of your photos may end up being deleted.

If you wish to appeal to a deletion, I think that commons:COM:UR is the place to do that at. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Scuttle's Scooters.jpg

Main page: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 3 § File:Scuttle's Scooters.jpg

Seriously, I don't get what's wrong with the photo Scuttle's Scooters.jpg. That was really taken in that exact place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickA.Tagle35 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion at the possibly unfree files page. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Where's that? PatrickA.Tagle35 (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It's linked to from this section and from the message posted on your talk page when the image was tagged... --Stefan2 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned image

Main page: File:Betelgeuse Resolved IOTA.jpg

Some contributors objected to the use of the image and I was able to find a replacement, and have already revised the article around the replacement. It's ok to delete the image any time.

OperaJoeGreen (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Logos

Main page: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 January 30 § File:Reform & Development.jpg

There are so many logos of other Egyptian political parties that no one has objected to, like File:Freedom and Justice Logo.png and File:Nour Party.png and File:New Wafd Party logo.jpg. Why are the ones I upload the only ones that upset you? --B for Bandetta (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Please keep discussions at one place. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

silent movie poster copyright

Moved back to User talk:Loginerupdated#Possibly unfree File:SL-poster.jpg. No thread splitting, please.

Image tagged for deletion - permission obtained

Dear Stefan2,

You have tagged the following mage for deletion earlier today: File talk:WordLensLogo5Feb2012.png

I have uploaded these files under CC-SA 3.0 license yesterday. The copyright holder for these files is Quest Visual, Inc. Your tags mention that there is no evidence that the copyright holder gave permission to use these file under this license. However, I have obtained permission for the company's president Otavio Good, who has sent an email for the I uploaded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org yesterday.

Please, let me know whether you can check if those emails were received. I would reapply appreciate if you could let me know how to avoid deletion of these files. Alternatively, I would appreciate your advice on how to do file upload properly. I am still a relatively new user, and I thought I have followed the rules correctly by obtaining permission from the copyright holder before uploading the images.

Thank you in advance, ~Zina~ (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not an OTRS member so I can't check messages sent to that address. You will have to wait until an OTRS member checks the message. I'm sorry that I didn't notice the statement on the talk page, but there was no {{OTRS pending}} template on the page. I have removed the "no permission" statement now. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Stefan2! The image now has the OTRS ticket number and should not be tagged for deletion any more. I wouldn't submit the OTRS request if you didn't tag that image, and someone else could tag it for deletion. Now the image is safe - I'm glad it all worked out, and thank you for your response. By the way, should I put up a tag "OTRS pending" for all images whose authors send an email granting permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org? Thanks! ~Zina~ (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, {{OTRS pending}} should always be used if permission is sent to that e-mail address. Otherwise, people might end up tagging the image as lacking permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Stefan2! Happy editing!! ~Zina~ (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

New article and photo copyright status

Main page: File:Hugo laborice.jpg

Hallo Stefan2,

Thank you for your message and I will try and establish the photo ownership. It is my first article crwation attempt so thanks for your cooperation and assistance. Immediate--Immediate 17:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immediate (talk • contribs)

Image tagged for deletion - permission was granted at time of upload and was noted then -- they're my images and I uploaded them.

See also: Commons:User talk:Ronhjones

I am the creator of this photograph. The boar in the photo is one on my farm. I took the photo with my camera. I am the one who uploaded this photo. I give permission for the use of this photo. -Walter Jeffries

---

I am the creator of these photographs. The boar and tusks in the photo is one on my farm. I took the photo with my camera. I am the one who uploaded this photo. I give permission for the use of this photo. I already noted that when I uploaded the photos and do not understand why people keep marking the photos for deletions over 'copyright issues'. I have clearly stated that I have given permission.

I hereby affirm that CHOOSE ONE: I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of files:

File:BigUnTusks6184w.jpg File:BigUnBedHeadSnow0428w.jpg

I agree to STANDARD CHOICE; SEE BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION ON TYPE OF LICENSE: [publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).]

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Cheers,

Walter Jeffries 2012-02-07 Sugar Mountain Farm, LLC Orange, Vermont http://SugarMtnFarm.com/blog a.k.a. http://Flashweb.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pubwvj (talk • contribs) 12:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that you should send the above text by e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. After that, mark the images with {{OTRS pending}} so that no one else tags them as lacking any source of permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

When I uploaded them I indicated that they were mine and gave permission. Why all this hassle now? -Walter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pubwvj (talk • contribs) 16:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems to have been solved: the files are now marked as having a valid OTRS permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at Cloudbound's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

No response required. Cloudbound (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You've got a reply

Not sure how you're meant to use this talk page. In case you don't notice, I've replied to your message about an image I uploaded here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RobinLovelace#File_permission_problem_with_File:Violent-crime-rates-UK-1981-to-2007.png

Robin — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinLovelace (talk • contribs) 09:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Blue (LeAnn Rimes song Lady & Gentlemen).ogg

I've read the fair use policy and the song is at least 10% or less then 30 seconds long. There was no reason to mark it as needing a smaller version. ??? I'll see what I can do though. Swifty*^talk_contribs 16:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your message

Main page: User talk:Mercy11 § February 2012

Why are you writing to me about edit summaries. In case you haven't noticed I've provided the edit summaries whose lack you are accussing me. Please make better investment of your energies and check before you accuse. [5], [6]. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

I'm not aware of any messages about edit summaries. I posted a message about not deleting deletion tags. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Look buddy, don't get smart with me trying to build up a no <good faith> argument against me. So don't play dumb, you know perfectly well what I am talking about. And don't harrass me again, or I will report you to the police. That's a promise. Make better use of your energies and you won't get in trouble. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Name change

Hello, I see you changed the name of Kinpōzan Prefectural Natural Park; per this Japanese government site it is indeed Kinpozan (they don't use the macron that is the norm for Wikiproject Japan articles); presumably we should prefer this to the reading per ja wiki. Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, I have moved the content back - please could you delete the now redundant Kinbōzan Prefectural Natural Park as I don't think I have the permission to do so... Thanks a lot, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Never ever perform a copy & paste move! It was now necessary to request speedy deletion of your moved version so that the page can be moved properly. I was not aware of the Japanese government page. As Japanese Wikipedia uses Kinbōzan, I assumed that this would be correct and that you had misread ぼ as ぽ. In many fonts, the two dots look very similar to a ring, in particular in low resolutions. I see that ja:金峰山 (熊本県) lists both Kinpōzan and Kinbōzan, so I take it that both variants are valid. In that case, it doesn't matter which spelling we use, but the other variant needs to be a redirect and the article should probably mention that both spellings exist. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Normal 0005.jpg

Main page: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 9 § File:Normal 0005.jpg

I'd noticed that the description as well as the photo seems to have untrue copyright info. I have credited the author as well as the URL after finding a tab that displays information about the still. Just hoping to lift the deletion request off the file. I am still relatively new to Wikipeda and I'm learning the copyright criteria. File:Normal 0005.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by RSari95 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 9#File:Normal 0005.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Underworld (film logo).jpg

Main page: File:Underworld (film logo).jpg

I saw the message you left, so I uploaded a new version. Hopefully, that's good enough.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

what do you say about that I changed the fair-use/purose in File:Netanyau bakum.JPG

Is it good enopugh? i'm not a great expert on image licences - can you help? --Midrashah (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File upload wizard

Hi Stefan2, it seems I keep running into you about file upload matters these days :-) Since you're familiar with file upload problems, would you be interested in reviewing my new proposed Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard? It's now in testing stage. Cheers, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 8

Hi. Due to what seems to be a technical glitch, your semi-automated Twinkle edits to this project page caused some of your nominations to disappear (example). I've restored the three that were lost - hope you don't mind. SuperMarioMan 00:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Strange bug. Good that you noticed it. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

赤い鳥文学賞

Moved back to de:BD:Elmo rainy day#赤い鳥文学賞.

Possibly unfree File:SacredHeartCathedralOfShenyang.JPG

I already add comment. Please check here: Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_February_1#File:SacredHeartCathedralOfShenyang.JPG roscoe_x (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale

Main page: File:Pol-Fra-radioint Cadix 40-42.jpg

Please ask those who decided WP cannot use the pictures from ww2.pl (in spite of them explicitly allowing us to use them), deleted most of those we uploaded and rebranded the rest as "non-free". I'm not the person to do that as I have no idea why were they branded as non-free in the first place. //Halibutt 01:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a very clear non-free statement on the source web site, so there is no doubt that it isn't a free image. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what non-free statement you are referring to. Anyway, I added free use rationale to the image.VolunteerMarek 02:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this nom and the other one you made, it looks like you're just tagging these images because they don't explicitly use the "fair use" rationale template. But the template is OPTIONAL, as long as the information itself is provided, which is the case here. This is being silly.VolunteerMarek 02:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Stefan, ages ago I contacted the Polish ministry of foreign affairs (owner of that site) and received their written permission to use pics from that site for any Wikipedia project. Then we uploaded tons of them. The copyright paranoids decided pics are not good although we did receive explicit permission, for one reason or another. And then went on to delete those pictures en masse. I don't care for Wikipedia enough to fight for every picture as there were literally hundreds of them.

And finally, ww2.pl is not the source of the pictures. Polish National Archives is, from which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs obtained them. Hence the disclaimer at their site is bogus, as they don't own copyrights to majority of pics at that site. AAMoF most of them are probably PD, as they were made by and for the Polish Army under pre-war Polish copyright. Their claim to copyright is... well... based on what the webmaster thought is the proper way to do it. But this is probably OT here. //Halibutt 03:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Permission to use for any Wikipedia project is not enough as the images need to be released under a free licence in order to be considered as free on Wikipedia. The statement on the source web site says that the images may be used for "institutions for the promotion of Poland", but that's not really a free licence (limited to institutions and to promotion of Poland). What is the OTRS ticket for your written permission? --Stefan2 (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It was waaay before the OTRS system was introduced in Wikipedia, I believe it was 2003 or 2004. I should still have the emails somewhere, but I do not wish to enter that swamp again if what you mean is re-opening the case. I spent considerable amount of time getting the permission from the ministry and uploading the pics to Wikipedia, only to see 99% of them deleted. Enough of my time has been wasted on that. //Halibutt 01:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Polyspace.gif

I added fair use rationale for this file. Please review and let me know if it is OK. Jabraham mw (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Brazilians 000.JPG

Main page: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 14 § File:Brazilians 000.JPG

I tried to read yor message and I saw the file and I still wasn't able to understand what exactly is wrong. Please, be more precise next time. If you're talking about Carlos Gomes' photo, then you're talking about a picture taken by Alberto Henschel, who died in 1882. --Lecen (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 14#File:Brazilians 000.JPG. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I made you a question, are you capable of answering it? Plus, you shoulh have asked me the author of the photo before asking for the file's deletion. --Lecen (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion at one place. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't Ffd orphaned files

There's no need to take up a vote for these files. Simply speedy them. That will give editors time to focus on the nominations where discretion is needed. __meco (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Imboden_movement2.png

Main page: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 15 § File:Imboden movement2.png

This file is an adaptation of File:Juniatamap.png by Karl Musser, a free Wikipedia file. According to his terms of adaptation, I have cited (at Colonel Jacob C. Higgins) his map as the underlying basis for my adaptation without his endorsement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldecoho (talk • contribs) 2012-02-15T02:03:37 (UTC)

NowCommons reviewer

You do a very thorough job of checking files, so if you wanted, I would add you to the whitelisted users for User:OgreBot. When you'd review a file with NowCommons reviewer (Template talk:Now Commons#User:MGA73/nowcommonsreview.js), I would then later run the bot, and any files uploaded under a different file name would have their transclusions fixed to the new name. Then I would delete all the files you've tagged by hand; when it is under the same name on Commons, I could do this very quickly with Twinkle. The result would be that your tagged files are deleted more quickly, and frankly it would save me a lot of time too. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to add me to that whitelist. I tried the script on a file and it seemed to work fine. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Reasons to be cheerful

Thanks for your checks and vote of keep. It has stayed at keep consensus and been saved today - what a nice valentine's present. From, CathMontgomery (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy valentine’s day. Buckets of WikiLove to you

File:Alternative_wine_closure_1.JPG

Main page: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 14 § File:Alternative wine closure 1.JPG

If it's already unused, it's ok to delete the file. roscoe_x (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Carlo Burton image

Hi Stefan2,

I hope I am posting this message in the correct location. I am new...

Please see the attached file as well - signed and dated by Carlo Burton. Please let me know asap if there are any issues. refer to User talk:Wikiname1234 for error logs. This is getting crazy. This is the 4th time the images have been taken down, and I believe i have submitted everything you need.

Please advise, and see the following :

Sent To: permissions-en@wikimedia.org, permissions-commons@wikimedia.org :

I hereby affirm that Carlo Burton is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following three images:

1. A poster for 2010/I South Africa, Aids, Rape and Women's Rights (documentary)

image location: http://makeadifferencefilms.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/SouthAfricanTrailer.159105325_std.jpg

uploaded today to: File:Southaf.jpg

2. A poster for 2009 Science + Dharma = Social Responsibility (documentary)

image location: http://makeadifferencefilms.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/ernst.289131321_std.jpg

uploaded today to: File:Scienceanddharma.jpg

3. 2009 Space Travelers (documentary)

image location: http://makeadifferencefilms.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/SPC_TRVRS_06_09_2009_12x17_72dpi.30635841_std.jpg

uploaded today to: File:Spacetravelerscb.jpg

I agree to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

(name ommited) ka90046 (wikipedia)

Appointed representative / personal assistant of the copyright holder, Carlo Burton

2/15/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ka90046 (talk • contribs) 2012-02-16T01:56:00 (UTC)

You are supposed to add {{OTRS pending}} to the pages so that people will know that a permission has been sent. I have added this tag to the three images that you mentioned above. Someone will later read the e-mail mentioned above and determine if the permission is valid. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Images uploaded by User:Dmitri1999

Main page: File:Dmitri-Markine-Wedding.jpg

Main page: File:Dmitri-Markine-Hamer.jpg

Main page: File:Dmitri-Markine-Mursi-Lip-Plate.jpg

Main page: File:Mursi-DmitriMarkine.jpg

Seriously, WTF?!

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 August 9#All files by User:Dmitri1999 Please don't bother me with this shit anymore. How many times do I have to waste my time and prove my identity. Where's a fuk**n thank you for the images?? Above is already info that was verified. Bellow is more info. Anything else???!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmitri1999&oldid=444044031 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmitri1999 (talk • contribs) 2012-02-16T01:57:27 (UTC)

The files were tagged as having no source of permission because there is no source of permission on the file information page. There is only a link to a base URL which does not contain the image and which does not contain any licence information or evidence of permission. Furthermore, the file information pages contain no links to any of the pages proving that you are the owner of the web site, so there is no way to determine whether the images are allowed or not based on the file information pages. By the way, the file information pages still show no proof of permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, remove *ALL* the files I've uploaded, there's no permission on them either. Have a good day now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmitri1999 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The text below was placed on my user page, but it looks more appropriate to have it here instead. Attribution: User:Dmitri1999 & User:Jobberone

Possibly unfree images

Main page: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 16 § File:Movses Khorenatsi Matenadaran.jpg

I think it should be said that the year found next to the names of the statues are referring to the date they were erected, not when their respective photos were taken.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The only thing which matters is whether the sculptor died before 1942 or not. The year when the photo was taken is irrelevant. Normally, sculptors die after the statues are erected, so if the sculpture was erected in 1942 or later, it can always be assumed that the sculpture is too recent. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think you are cutting your nose to spite your face over this? These silly copyright laws are unenforced and completely unenforcable. In almost all countries modern public sculpture in the open air and external views of modern buildings are free to be photographed and reproduced without permission. Nobody would care if you were not tagging those images that are taken in the small minority of countries which do not have reasonable and workable copyright laws. Why are you doing it? I think all you are doing is hurting Wikipedia's articles for no reason. Meowy 21:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

And who has decided that obscure laws of Armenia should be obeyed on Wikipedia? If China makes a law that it is forbidden to take pictures of Tbetan protestors will any such images be removed from Wikipedia? Meowy 21:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

See foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. English Wikipedia only cares about what is free in the United States, but since these statues aren't free in the United States either, they must be marked as non-free and used under the conditions of WP:NFCC, which are very restrictive. Anyway, the best way to fight stupid laws is to follow them without exceptions. If people notice that List of tallest buildings in Germany has a lot more pictures than List of tallest buildings in France, people may start wondering why and realise that they need to vote for better politicians. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The statue is free in the United States. For the US equivalent law on public artworks (quoted from the Wikipedia page) "However, public artwork installed before 1923 is considered to be public domain, and can be photographed freely. In addition, any public artwork installed before 1978 without a copyright notice is also in the public domain (unless the copyright owner actively prevented anyone from copying or photographing the work until 1978)" - so under US law this particular artwork is public domain. The statue is from the 1950s.Meowy 21:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The statue isn't free in the United States. What you quoted is only true for statues in the United States, but it is more complex with non-US statues. An Armenian statue is free in the United States if:

1. it was erected before 1923, or
2. the sculptor died before 1950 and the statue was erected before 1978 and without a copyright notice, or
3. the sculptor died before 1950 and the statue was erected before 1964 with a copyright notice but without a copyright renewal with the United States Copyright Office, or
4. the sculptor is anonymous and the sculpture was erected before 1950 and without a copyright notice, or
5. the sculptor is anonymous and the sculpture was erected before 1950 with a copyright notice but without a copyright renewal with the United States Copyright Office.

Assuming that no statue in Armenia has a copyright notice and that no statue has had its copyright renewed with the USCO, it is probably safe to assume that all statues by sculptors who died before 1950 are free in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Such a detailed knowledge of copyright law suggests that something more than just "best way to get rid of stupid laws is to follow them without exceptions" may lie behind your actions. Of the many things that are wrong with Wikipedia and need correcting, removing all images of 20th-century public statues is the least urgent to correct! Meowy 22:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am curious, if this file (or others like it) were on Wikimedia Commons would that make a difference? From my own experience a few years ago of trying to get an image removed from Commons that had been created by myself and had been uploaded to Commons without my permission, I got the impression that Wikimedia Commons generally don't care much about images having correct copyright tags and give a great amount of leeway towards retaining images. Meowy 16:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons is more picky. In order to be on Commons, the photo must be free in both the United States and Armenia, whereas English Wikipedia only requires that it is free in the United States. Commons:Atomium states that any image of Atomium (in Belgium) will be deleted on sight. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting, thanks. I had thought they were less picky. In the case of the image I was talking about (a scan I made of an old out-of-copyright photograph I owned, and which I had then spent several hours despecking and removing blemishes from, and then cropping and sharpening and sepia-tinting it) it is still, I think, on Commons, complete with the original file name that was used for it on the website it was stolen from. Meowy 19:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not delete my image

Hi Stefan2, I appreciate your work to prevent unlicensed images getting onto Wikipedia. So I've taken steps to licence this image File:UK-GHG-emissions-by-sector-1990-2010.png. The image was actually saved by taking a screenshot in Ubuntu of a graph produced using ggplot2. This is all open source GNU licensed software, so I think I'm justified in licensing it in this way. Please confirm or communicate otherwise so this does not happen again. I plan to make many graphs available for Wikipedia.

--Energy is the master resource (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you please verify the File:Berhampur-University Logo.png's license?

Dear User:Stefan2, Thanks for notifying me, can you please check the license, I have changed as you have guided. --Subha^Utter2me! 09:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Neelum River.jpg

Hello sir, I had uploaded a flickr image File:Neelum River.jpg to be used for an article of the same name Neelum River, with a reference and attribution to the flickr user, I also have contacted him for the license issue.. But within 5 hours of upload it was deleted. You should have given me time at least 24 hours to fix the issue. Please restore it and I will make it so that I can fix the license issue. -- User:Mehrajmir13^{User_talk:Mehrajmir13}18:51, 22-02-2012 (IST) —Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC).

Since the file has been deleted, there is no way for me to check why I requested deletion of it. However, since it was an image from Flickr, I assume that the reason was that it had a licence incompatible with Wikipedia. The only valid Flickr licences are presented here: Commons:Commons:Flickr files/Guide#CC license search. When uploading something from Flickr, consider using the Flickr uploading tool since it will ensure that the image has a valid licence.

If a photo is under a disallowed licence on Flickr but the photographer has approved a relicence under a valid licence, you need to mark the file with {{OTRS pending}} to prevent it from being deleted and follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT or Commons:COM:OTRS. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

MEBEA Fox file

Hello. I saw your message in my talk page regarding the file File:MEBEA Fox.jpg

This is an old ad, published in my own book, and an extremely rare depiction of the car (maybe I should choose another licensing option). I think that based on the above it should not be deleted. Skartsis (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

All fair use files should have a fair use rationale, or else they should be removed. This image currently doesn't seem to have any fair use rationale, so if you feel that it fulfils WP:NFCC, I suggest that you add and fill in {{Non-free use rationale}} on that page. In this case, I fail to see how it would fulfil WP:NFCC#1 on replaceability since I think that it could be replaced by any other photo of the vehicle (or deleted altogether since there already are plenty of photos). --Stefan2 (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Image rationale

Hi Stefan I have been adding images of Marc Quinn's artworks on the Marc Quinn page to help explain his work. I am an employee of Marc Quinn sio they are our copyright. Please do not delete them!! thankyou, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janewilson3142 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Stefan -i don't understand - there is only one work in permanent public display in the UK. Please can you email me with what i should do : (e-mail address removed to prevent spambots)

many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janewilson3142 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page, not at the top of it. Because you added it at the top, I didn't notice it for a while.

People associated with a specific subject risk writing a biased article on the subject, so editors are encouraged to avoid contributing to such articles. See WP:COI for information. It seems that many of the changes that you did to the article were reverted.

It is generally accepted that files on Wikipedia should be available under a free licence (meaning that most people can do most things with the files without having to as for permission) and that files not available under a free licence should be kept at a minimum. Take a look at the article on Einar Jónsson, for example. He was an Icelandic sculptor and has made many different sculptures. Since the sculptures in Iceland are copyrighted, Wikipedia does not display any photos of them. He made a sculpture in the United States, and there is a photo of that statue on Wikipedia since its copyright has expired. The copyright terms in Iceland are not the same as those in the United States, so a copyright may expire earlier in Iceland than in the United States or vice versa.

In some cases, it may be impossible to find any items which may be used under a free licence, so some images are used under a fair use claim, but such images should be kept at a minimum. The article on Marc Quinn contained way too many fair use images, so many of them have to be removed. There is also the issue that the British copyright law differs from the law in Iceland and the United States: you may take a photo of artworks permanently located at a public place, such as statues, and use the photo without having to ask for permission. In the case of Marc Quinn, there seems to be at least one artwork located at a public place, so the obvious free image here would be a photo of that artwork. However, this also requires that the photographer doesn't require additional incompatible terms.

There is also the issue that you included way too many images: there seemed to be more images than text, making it cumbersome to read the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

File:WanderersLogoFeb1975.jpg

Hi Stefan2. Hope you're well. A user recently contested the deletion of File:WanderersLogoFeb1975.jpg on my talk page. Since you were the editor who nominated the file for deletion, your input would be appreciated. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 10:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Stefan2. Thank you for your reply on Fastily's talk page. I agree with you, if Wikipedia's purpose in this context is to reduce the use of non-free content to a minimum. I don't agree, if the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide interesting information, connections and analogies to the "knowledge seeking" user and links for others to contribute to an article. What are the priorities at Wikipedia?

The second sentence of the "Adaption - Film"-section of the article makes no sense without the image. So it should be deleted as well. And without that sentence it makes no sense at all to keep the remaining image. So that one should be deleted, too. The article itself does not suffer that much from omitting the image, but the section does.

And I'd appreciate, if - in future - you gave reasonable explanation why you nominate an image for deletion, like you did on Fastily's talk page. The reason you gave in the nominated for deletion discussion was not reasonable at all. And a deletion based on that(!) discussion is really hard to follow. Otherwise one might easily get the idea that Wikipedia is not for the world's community, but more a private matter of a few individuals. No offense :-) Thanx for taking your time. Nikoskla (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree: the original explanation was not very good. The policy of the Wikimedia Foundation, wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, is that non-free material should be kept at a minimum, and English Wikipedia policies are written to reflect that point. Some Wikipedias, such as the Swedish and Spanish ones, don't allow any fair use at all, whereas the Japanese Wikipedia only allows fair use of outdoors artworks (such as statues). --Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Dadra and Nagar haveli Map.jpg

Please give me one reason why this has been marked for deletion. I have clearly stated the source name and also that the source allows to use the image freely. -AJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.160.10 (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 26#File:Dadra and Nagar haveli Map.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 26#File:Dadra and Nagar haveli Map.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

RfA?

Hi Stefan. What about a RfA? You might want to use a similar rationale as MGA73 or me. --Leyo 01:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll think of it. It could be interesting and useful. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Watchlisted :-) --Leyo 13:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW: Also Commons would be an option. --Leyo 14:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "smaller version"?

You tagged the Lotus Improv financials image with a statement suggesting a smaller version be posted. What does this mean? An image of a smaller window? Or one with less resolution? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Fewer pixels. There is a bot which resizes images automatically, so you don't need to do anything. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Is this something I can invoke with a template on the page or something? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

To request resizing, just add {{Non-free reduce}} to the file information page. The Lotus images you talked about already have this tag. It seems that the bot is currently not running because of a server error, but the images would be automatically resized once the bot resumes its duties. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Ciaran Farrell - Howth - Dublin, Ireland.jpeg

Hello Stefan, I refer to the image, Ciaran Farrell - Howth - Dublin, Ireland.jpeg ,which has been tagged for deletion. Permission for use of this photo was granted by direct e-mail from the copyright owner as suggested and forwarded on to wikipedia permissions-en. I am unsure why it is still set to be deleted? Any further suggestions or advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Pook2000. Pook2000 22:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pook2000 (talk • contribs)

It often takes some time until e-mails sent to that address are processed. I have now removed the deletion templates and added the {{OTRS pending}} template which tells that permission has been sent but not yet processed. If you upload other images in the future for which you need to send in permission, try to remember to use that template to prevent unnecessary deletion before the e-mail handling has ended. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Stefan. I'm still learning how to do all of this properly and appreciate your input. --Pook2000 10:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pook2000 (talk • contribs)

Hello again Stefan. I am just wondering why the following line still appears with the previously discussed image? 'This file is a candidate for speedy deletion. It may be deleted after Saturday, 3 March 2012'. Perhaps this will be removed once the newly applied ticket is seen?

Pook2000 09:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pook2000 (talk • contribs)

I don't see any deletion notice on that image. On the other hand, it is suggested on the file information page that the permission only is for fair use of the image, which is not enough per WP:NFC#UUI §1, so I'll propose it for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012 Move-to-Commons drive

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Images and Media at 07:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC).

Wikiwriter786 files

Main page: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 28 § File:Bollywood director kabir khan.jpg

Main page: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 28 § File:Ek tha tiger,film,cuba,havana.jpg

Moved from User:Stefan2 (source, attribution: Wikiwriter786)

In order to upload photos here, they normally need to be available under a free licence. It seems that your files already have been deleted, so I can't check why they were deleted, but based on my comment on the possibly unfree files page, it seems that there was something wrong with the licensing terms. Normally, a notice would be posted on your user talk page so that you can participate in the deletion debate, but it seems that something went wrong this time. I have fixed those notices and you can also use the "Main article" links here on this page to get to the deletion debate. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at Kiko4564's talk page.
Message added 18:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kiko4564 (talk) 18:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at Sven Manguard's talk page.
Message added 21:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sven Manguard Wha? 21:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

File:"Dodgy Kong" (game screenshot) on the HYDRA game development kit.gif

This is an open source video game for the Hydra that someone created after the hardware was released. I myself captured the screen image (along with the other 3 game images for the Hydra Console, Xracer.gif, Dr hydra game.gif, and Hydra a invader.gif) and uploaded it to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtcook (talk • contribs) 19:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 1. If open source, it is necessary to know under which open source licence the game is licensed. --19:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Dakota Goyo.jpg

Hi. Thanks for notifying me about File:Dakota Goyo.jpg. However, I don't really appreciate the warning template. I am quite familiar with uploading files on Wikipedia. It is dull to notify me that there is a free image equivalent without doing a proper search yourself for free images on Google. The licensing and non-free media information template is properly filled to meet Wikipedia's non-free use rationale guideline and respective policies. For that reason, I've contested your deletion on the file and file talk page. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Now moved to files for deletion. Consider reading WP:NFC#UUI --Stefan2 (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It's actually free content, I just accidentially copied the template from another image (see File:TriotechLogo.jpg which I uploaded as non-free), so I've made the comment on the applicable FfDs and put it under Creative Commons licensing for each of the images. I apologize for that, however, I find it completely inappropriate to pummel me one after another on my talk page, I don't think that was the suitable way to go about satisfying Wikipedia's policies. I was updating the images as I found that it was a mistake. Consider giving some time before looking through all of my file uploads and tagging them for FfD. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Now tagged with a "no permission" template. You wrote on the image talk page that there are no free images of this person, and if there are no free images, this means that this image isn't free. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I appreciate your efforts :). Perhaps, I was overreacting a little bit as I was just overwhelmed with these notices. I've made it simple for Dakota Goyo and Troye Sivan, I've blanked the pages and tagged it for G7, they should be deleted soon. As for the Markham Ward Map, I'm awaiting OTRS. Once again, thank you for knocking some sense into me. :P Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 02:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Watson Jeopardy.jpg

I'm not sure where you get that there was no rational. Copied from the image page; This low quality, still frame from a television show illustrates the subject of articles to which it is linked without substantially competing with the owners' usage. It is not possible to replace this with a free image as it documents an exhibition which is irreproducable. Darker Dreams (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Where does the fair use rationale contain a list of all article(s) to which the fair use rationale applies, as required by WP:NFCC#10c? The section "file usage" is not enough to comply with this. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? The section that you point to that reads "file usage" lists the one (1) page on which it is included. If that was insufficient; correcting the problem and, to be complete, leaving me a note that explained what was wrong would have taken no more work than what you expended before I made any effort. Darker Dreams (talk) 11:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The fault was also that I didn't check well enough before the tagging. Sorry about that. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Response

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at Boston's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:Pruett Dennett 1917.png

I'm interested to understand your comment "is there a proof that the work is PD in the US in the first place? There is no proof of publication which is a requirement for anonymous post-1891 works to be out of copyright" The description states where the photograph is from and the records of the Royal Aero Club can be seen at the RAF Museum in Hendon and are available online through Ancestry. Is the question "what constitutes publication?" It's correct to say there was no commercial publication but the records would have been available for inspection by members of the club and presumably others if they asked. That by many definitions would suggest publication has taken place.

In any event I would suggest that the requirement about proof being needed for anonymous photos should be added to the template documentation so that others don't fall into the same "trap". NtheP (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I misread the source. Based on what you wrote, it sounds as if there was indeed a publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the bit about 1891 etc still needs adding to the template doc. NtheP (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

US copyright status is a bit complex and there are a lot of special exceptions which may affect the copyright status. Most importantly, it is necessary to know when, where and if it was published. For example, ancient (several centuries or millennia old) works could be copyrighted if they were first published between 1923 and 2002. There is Commons:COM:HIRTLE which aims to describe US copyright rules and hopefully is complete. If you're trying to figure out whether something is in the public domain in the United States, you could check that page. The template names in the chart are for Commons and the corresponding templates on English Wikipedia sometimes have different names. The {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} template says that a requirement is that the work was published before 1923, but some people sometimes mix up year of publication with year of creation. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Useful link, thanks. NtheP (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sixto Escobar Stadium, Gaia (artist), and other photos

Main page: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 March 5

Main page: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 March 6

Stefan2,

I reviewed your deletion nominations and I agree that the Sixto Escobar Stadium and Gaia (artist) photos have a problem. I noted that in their deletion discussions, and I added that I agree with their nomination. For the other photos, I believe there is an allowable use under WP:NFC#UUI.

Please note that WP:NFC#UUI defines the following as an allowable use:

1. Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).

In every case, I used these photos in conjunction with critical commentary, multiple newspaper quotes, and in-line citations. I did this for every book, and every film, that was illustrated by a photo. I noted this WP:NFC#UUI language in the deletion discussion, and I hope you are able to consider it.

Thank you, Nelsondenis248 (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Stefan2, I just placed additional commentary in the deletion discussions in response to your Walt Disney question, which was a good one. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

So You Think You Can Dance (United States) - images

Hi Stefan,

I saw you stuck up a tag on the "So You Think You Can Dance (United States)" article. I wanted you to know that I removed it, but not because I'm disregarding your concerns. I only removed it because I'm pretty much the only one whose been refurbishing the page for some time now, so I didn't see the need to add yet another distraction to an already too-busy page, if you follow my meaning. At the same time, I appreciate your interest in keeping the page in concordance with Wikipedia policy, so I thought I'd broach the subject with you here and if you have any thoughts, please share them with me on the talk page for the article, which I review from time to time (or on my talk page for that matter).

So here's my rationale for the use of the images. As I'm sure you know, the rules for the English Wikipedia with regard to use of fair-use materials are a little more flexible than are those for the Commons. Wikipedia does allow the use of certain types of non-free images so long as they 1) (first and foremost) follow the policy guidelines and 2) also conform to standard fair-use guidelines. One of the exceptions specifically examined in the policy outlines is the use of screen captures for a television broadcast, which can be used if a number of different criteria are met, including, but not limited to: 1) Foremost, that there is no non-free equivalent available. We seem good there as any other picture of a broadcast that would fit the uses we have would have the same issues. 2) That the image is relevant to the article and generally helps illustrate its content. I think we're good there. I tried to pick images that reflected valid content and tie them appropriately into the main content through the captions and placement. 3) The images should be used in a sparing fashion (that is, not used in more articles than is appropriate. I intend to use them only on the current page. Now the flip side to that is that I could perhaps use less images. I suspect this is probably why you added the tag in the first place. Again, give me your thoughts on a talk page on that. I have an idea of which two I'd choose to axe if we need to scale it back. I also think shrinking the images a bit further to smaller resolution might be appropriate as well, in this case. There are other policy guidelines, but looking at your talk page, I get the feeling you are fully familiar with them. And those are my thoughts on the main issues anyway. I didn't want you to think I was removing the tag arbitrarily and wanted you to know the issue was being minded by the editor who added them images in the first place. edited to add: By the way, any impressions on the page as a whole? Talk page there has been dead for days. Snow (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: File:Exide Band Photoshoot January 2012.jpg

Hello Stefan2. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:Exide Band Photoshoot January 2012.jpg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not likely to be copied from that site, considering the very high resolution of the Wikipedia image. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Request

Main page: File:Overton Park birds eye view.jpg

Hi Stefan2: Would you please take a look at the copyright of a map I created by putting labels on satellite imagery from the USGS. The map is in my sandbox. I looked around for similar examples so I could follow their lead but found none. I wanted to make sure the copyright stuff was OK before I put it on the article's page. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't answer earlier. I meant to look into this earlier today, but at that time the source web site was down for maintenance for two hours. The location appears to be approximately lat 35.1475 long -89.9872 (needed for finding the location on the map again). It is true what the department says here that "There are no restrictions on the use of data received from the U.S. Geological Survey's Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center or NASA's Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center (LP DAAC), unless expressly identified prior to or at the time of receipt." However, the problem is that the Google Earth functionality on the web site is not received from any of the aforementioned centres; the government web site includes information from Google, which is instead subject to completely different rules, and you are receiving that information directly from Google. You might see that there is a minor notice on the map linking to Google's terms of use, and those are not free enough for Wikipedia. The problems with Google's images are mainly described in section two, "Restrictions on Use," which restricts copying, modifying and other things required in order to use the information on Wikipedia. Google gets its satellite images from various sources and if a specific image has been obtained in its entirety from the United States government, I would assume that the image would be free to use, unless Google has made substantial changes to the image, in which case Google would earn copyright to the changes. When looking at the location provided, there is a notice at the bottom that the information comes from various sources, and only some of them belong to the United States government. Thus, I would assume that the image which you have uploaded is unfree and that it would unfortunately need to be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your advice and time, Stefan2. It just boggles my mind that USGS would have Google on their web site! I guess that issue would have to be bumper to some high ranking Washington official.

I did discover aerial imagery thru an all US government web site--the National Resources Conservation Service. My problem is that NRCS does not include urban areas like I need. But you might pass that web site along to other editors needing imagery.

Again thanks, Pinethicket (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Shadi.com AhmediSeparate.JPG

Thank you for the concern you have shown with regard to the above cited file in the discussion forum. This file is marked as nonfree with the source ab initio. Our friend Dougweller has wrongly marked it for deletion and referred it to the forum. I request you, in your capacity as admin remove the deletion tag and also re-insert it into the article along with the removed text as such a move from my own side may amount to editwarring. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC).

Note that I am not an admin. I am not an expert on the subject so I would prefer if someone else decides what to do here. If the topic might, as you are suggesting, be subject to editwarring, I prefer to avoid editing articles unless I am very certain that what I am doing is correct. I merely pointed out that the image was being discussed at the wrong place – I am not sure if the correct thing to do is to keep it or to delete it. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Tag removal

File:Dacom DFC-10.jpg The uploader has removed your tag. Not sure if you want to re-tag or take it to FFD. We hope (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I should since I assume that you could dig up a copy of the machine somewhere and create a free replacement photo, but WP:NFCC discussions tend to take so much effort so it might not be worth it. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

My issue is sort of with the uploader's removal of tags; when he believes he's done with a discussion, it's over and he removes the tags. :( Will pass it as having rationale (and certainly reduce it). We hope (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

tag

You tagged an image that I uploaded, which I have full right to use, because it is my own image. Mind elaborating on this? DreamFieldArts 02:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The explanation was given at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 12#File:DreamFA.png yesterday when the image was tagged. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Coppacarnevale.jpg non-free rationale

Hi, I added the requested information as someone else did for the new version of the logo here. Hope it's fine now Gp37 (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at JGreenaway27's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File permission problem with File:Michelle Olley 2.JPG

Moved back to User talk:Affable Familiar#File permission problem with File:Michelle Olley 3.jpg.

Non-free rationale for File:AppriseSoftware-logo.png

I've included some information on the logo, but am unsure what else I need to do to make sure that it doesn't get deleted. If you could help me I'd appreciate it. Mpete510 (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good except that the article is still at "articles for creation" which I guess technically means that the file counts as unused. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the article is still getting created. I'm hoping that it would get used within the next few weeks. Mpete510 (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Bill Le Page & Meher Baba 1954.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia

Stefan2, I have to post here because the file is gone, hence no defence was capable. I read the guides Hmmm...this file was deleted before I could defend it, not long after being tagged. Can you explain why this image from the same film, on the Meher Baba page, which has the same defence stays up? File:Meher baba car.jpg. Im trying to understand how wikipedia works re pictures because it seems so random. Im trying to understand why say its allowed on the page above but not when I used it. Can you help answer this?--No-More-Religion (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It was deleted under criterion F1, meaning that there were two copies of the same file on Wikipedia. There should only be one copy of each file. I remember seeing some dupes among your files and I think that the other copy was something uploaded by you, but since the dupe has now been deleted, I can't check what the other copy was called. Take a look at your uploads and see if there isn't a second copy of the file there somewhere. The file File:Meher baba car.jpg only exists in one copy, so it wouldn't be subject to immediate removal. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

On a closer look, I see that it says that the other copy is File:Meher Baba and Bill Le Page.jpg. Use that copy of the file instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at No-More-Religion's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ok that make sense. F1 duplication. I accept that but the file was a different picture from the movie...it was a few frames further on. Different shot. It wasnt the same file at all, same people yes, same setting, thats all. Different frame, so someone made a mistake. Can I have it reinstated please. I appreciate it superficially looks the same, but its not. However to save this happening again I request this file of mine, the other one that looks like it, be deleted please. If you cant do this can you direct me to where I can request this , thanks in advance. Here is the file I request for deletion Meher Baba and Bill Le Page.jpg . I uploaded this. And then if you dont mind, this one File:Bill Le Page & Meher Baba 1954.jpg with all the justifications attached, put back. Id appreciate it, it took a lot of work to justify its use. I admire Wikipedias goals and based on other files like this, this one deleted is OK as its the same use as one on Meher Baba's page. Last thing if it cant be reinstated because its gone for ever, so be it, then can you delete this file Meher Baba and Bill Le Page.jpg as I put the wrong info on it, being new to uploads. Once its gone I will start afresh --No-More-Religion (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I tagged something incorrectly – that was not my intention. In the meanwhile, it seems that the other file also has been deleted and that you've now uploaded File:Meher Baba giving Darshan to Bill Le Page 1954.jpg which looks the same (I think), and it seems that there currently only is one copy of the file on Wikipedia. Is everything correct now, or is there anything else which needs to be corrected? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. Some of the blame is mine because I put wrong information on the first screenshot from the film as I was new to uploads and didn't see the screen shot radio button. That led to the F1 issue when I uploaded another image. I'm happy now that the file is correctly licensed. No ones born with the knowledge of how Wikipedia works. In fact when I was born the net didn't exist. How far we have come! BTW Wikipedia is a great endeavor and I appreciate the free work you editors do --No-More-Religion (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

File tagging

Hi Stephan. it seems you regularly take a lot of criticism for inaccurate tagging of files. May I suggest that you either brush up on our image policy or tag a little bit slower, and then remove the deletion tag from the File:GreatMalvernSign.jpg which I uploaded and correctly licenced - I took the photo myself. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You took the photo, sure, but the photo is a derivative work of the sign, as explained in the discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Photos

Yo, undelete those photos.

They are both mine and I have free reign to put them on wikipedia. I will list the correct licensing.

thanks MorrisS (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

In the discussion, it says that one of the images was taken "circa 1890." Are you saying that you took the photo yourself? If so, please provide some evidence that you were already born "circa 1890." There are not many 120-year-olds editing Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that I took the picture, but I own the picture. My grandfather gave it to me (with a bunch of others) when he passed. His father took it when he attended Hampden-Sydney in the late 1800s. I thought that licensing it as my own was fine since I own the original. Furthermore, I want to give it out to others for free use. MorrisS (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the photo hasn't been published before it was uploaded here. If your grandfather's father died before 1942, the photo is in the public domain, so it can be freely used. If he died after 1942, it is still copyrighted. In that case, the copyright holder would probably be one of your parents (if still alive) or you (if your parents are dead). If the copyright is held by one of your parents, I assume that your parent needs to send in permission, see WP:CONSENT. If you want the images undeleted, I think that you have to go to WP:DELREV and request undeletion there, since the deletion was the result of a discussion at WP:PUF. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted image

Main page: File:Diagram of University of Exeter Cornwall Campus.jpg

I was warned that the image I'd uploaded was tagged for deletion in a week's time.

So, as requested, I forwarded to the specified address the creator and copyright holder's express permission to use the diagram; can you tell me why it was then deleted? There is now a detailed, numbered key to the left of the page explaining a graphic which doesn't appear. Thanks. JpESI (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It says that the file was deleted as F11 which means that there was no evidence permission. Did you tag the file with {{OTRS pending}} after sending the e-mail? It sometimes takes a while before anyone reads messages sent to the permissions e-mail address, so {{OTRS pending}} is used to prevent deletion while waiting for someone to read the e-mail. You could try asking at WP:OTRS/N if they have received the e-mail and if the permission is sufficient. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

File:MDST Destinations Map 2012.JPG.gif

Hi there! I just edited the image according to the terms of use in other sites marked here: http://www.gcmap.com/faq/other#embed, a part of gcmaps that I haven't noticed since today. I think this may be quit enough to let the image stay in Wikipedia. Please let me know if something still missing. Karl Swartz have sent an email to permisions which I think would be helpful, in its ways.. Thanks in advance! ChezSant (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The page http://www.gcmap.com/faq/other#embed says that the maps only may be used on non-commercial web sites, but Wikipedia requires that images also can be used on commercial web sites. Does the permission from Karl Swartz allow commercial use of the map you've uploaded? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

He said at the email He sent to me You may NOT claim that you are the sole creator of the file.. That the copyright to him and his page are required to publish any image in other site. He also said that they have a section for wikipedia uploaded images (at the link above) that refers to use the same terms and conditions that I followed. Thanks for replying! ChezSant (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If that was what he wrote, I'm very uncertain if it could mean that the non-commercial requirement doesn't apply, but it is for the person reading the e-mail to decide. I've added the template {{OTRS pending}} indicating that an e-mail has been sent so that no one else proposes it for deletion before the e-mail has been read. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay! Thank You! Let me know if You need Me to send You the emil that Karl sent to me just to verify. Regards. ChezSant (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Drd tbw files

Main page: File:Mr. Thomas Bell-Wright CEO & CTO.jpg

Main page: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 12 § File:Thomas Bell-Wright International Consultants Logo.jpg

Copied from User:Stefan2[7]. Attribution and history section as required by the licences:

• Date: 2012-03-13T04:45:51‎ GMT
• Attribution: User:Drd tbw

The address quoted above contains a typo: you need an @ sign in the middle of the address. Try if this address works: permissions-en@wikimedia.org --Stefan2 (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated comment by Tariq.Imran

Main page: File:Mona depot by Tariq Imran 2.jpg

(Tariq.Imran (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)). hey hello plz check the talk page of the image now

TB

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at Sven Manguard's talk page.
Message added 01:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sven Manguard Wha? 01:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at Nikthestoned's talk page. --16:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop leaving messages on my page, particularly if they repeat themselves. I have an account on Commons but the files I am adding at the moment are part of a complicated multimedia article and geared to the en.wikipedia and subject to alteration. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is the reason for not uploading images like File:Raising-of-Lazarus-Mariawald-Abbey.jpg or File:Christ-at-Emmaus.jpg to Commons? --Leyo 16:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Whenever I notice that someone is creating a backlog on Wikipedia, I add a message about it on the person's talk page. There were no such messages on your talk page when I added one yesterday. What's the purpose of uploading them here anyway? They look like exactly the kind of files that people move from here to Commons everyday. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Re:File:Avengers-2012-film.gif listed for deletion

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at TriiipleThreat's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Bad faith hounding

Your tagging is wandering into bad faith hounding at this point. You don't like that I oppose you so you go digging through my edits to try and find a problem. I highly suggest you find your way over to WP:AGF and give it a thorough read.--Crossmr (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You won't stop, so I've taking this to AN/I.--Crossmr (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

image upload help

Hey dude. I've tried to find the template for placing attribution, etc and needed tags for image uploads and have had very little luck so far. Due to my tight schedule, can I get your help in fixing the said file's missing info? Would be great if you could write the needed tag on my page so I can just paste it on the file. Basically it's an old government portrait from the Philippines which is under public domain. Thanks! Object404 (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 27#File:PabloAngelesDavid.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Permission Sent

Permission by the copyright holder (Dorothy Koppelman) has been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.com for the following works:

File:Combat.jpg
File:Intaglio Angel.jpg
File:TwoSmoothies.jpg
File:The Kind Messenger.jpg
File:Napoleon-Meeting.jpg
File:Self Portrait.jpg

Can you move the files to commons or do you only tag for deletion? Thanks. LoreMariano (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I often move files to Commons, but it may be better to wait with that until the your e-mail has been read and processed. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The last files I uploaded were deleted even though permission had been sent. It appeared to me that work tagged for speedy deletion is automatically deleted on the delete date without anyone reviewing the OTRS Pending notice. The group of volunteers that move files to Commons have quite a back log. LoreMariano (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

File:New Coke can.jpg

I'm so unfamiliar with NonFree images, is two fair use requirements on one image allowed? File:New Coke can.jpg -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The image appears in two articles (Coca-Cola and New Coke). If a non-free image appears in multiple articles, it needs a separate fair use rationale for each article. There's nothing wrong with that. Both rationales include a description for the image which is superfluous, but the duplication of information isn't a big problem.

Apart from having a fair use rationale, the fair use rationale needs to be valid. It says that the image is a logo, but it shows a can. As such, I would say that the fair use rationales are improperly formulated and need to be corrected.

There is also point 2 at WP:NFC#UUI which states that album covers can't be shown in discographies. The section at Coca-Cola#Brand portfolio looks very similar to a discography as it is a table with lots of images and a listing of bottle and can types. I would say that this is invalid use of non-free material in the Coca-Cola article and that a number of images should be removed from it.

One could argue that the can is very simple and possibly ineligible for copyright. It is also largely a derivative work of an older can and it is possible that the older can also might be PD because of age (not sure when it was first used) so it is possible that the can might be free, although I can't guarantee anything. There is a deletion request where a number of wine labels were kept and this might be applicable here too, although I try to stay away from packaging since it seems complicated. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well. Basically methinks it is too complicated for me to even try to figure out. Shrug. Thanks for the information though, although I don't think I'm smart enough to completely understand it, and definitely not use it properly. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, looks like a complex case. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Community Fingerprinting.pdf listed for deletion

I uploaded this file by accident and couldn't figure out how to remove it. I have no problem with it being removed. The work is my own and there is no reason for you to insinuate otherwise. Ilyanassa (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Based on the above statement, I've added a speedy {{db-g7}} tag to it. Someone will probably remove it soon. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:A montage of Omaha.jpg

• The montage itself was made by me. As for the photos used, these are images of locations, structures, etc. that are for practical purposes public property and should not be restricted from being used for non-profit and educational purposes, such as this website. Furthermore, I certify that these images are not watermarked, nor otherwise marked copyrighted, nor did I crop or edit them in such a way as to conceal such markings. The fact that they are free of such markings and that they are online implies that they are royalty-free and that the so-called owners of the images have a reasonable expectation that their images may be viewed, downloaded and used by anyone. And again, I created this montage and uploaded it to Wikipedia for the non-profit and educational purpose that Wikipedia stands for. BY EVEN THINKING OF DELETING THIS IMAGE, YOU IMPLY THAT YOU ARE IN DISAGREEMENT OF WIKIPEDIA'S PURPOSE. A copy of this comment will appear on the image entry, as you suggested. Redcorreces (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Next time, before you start your nonsense policing of a supposedly non-profit and educational platform, review the difference between a valuable contribution and a vandalization. OK? Redcorreces (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't take accusations lightly. Redcorreces (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Please keep the discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 28#File:A montage of Omaha.jpg. For the record, you have not addressed any of the concerns in the discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Done. Happy now, Nazi? Redcorreces (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Question about non-free image uploads

Hi there. I see you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's non-free image policies so I have a question for you. I noticed Wikipedia has started deleting old versions of non-free images within the last couple of months (which I can understand), but it leaves me curious about something. For example: When I upload a file that was distributed for publicity (such as a cast photo for a well-known television series), I usually upload the entire image to show the network/cast/date information (or sometimes a side-by-side version of both front and back for the same reason), and then I immediately upload a "cropped" version of the image to appear as it should within the infobox/text of the article. Should I keep doing this in order to provide the information provided by the network (in case anyone has any questions about the image)? Or should I now skip this step and just upload the final cropped version as it should appear in the article? --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Abdulla Nass Profile Photo.jpg

Thanks for the tag on the copyright. I had the permission but forget to send the email to the permission group. I have since done so and placed a tag on the image stating that the email has been sent. You can view the tag here: File:Abdulla Nass Profile Photo.jpg and hopefully you can find it and move it to Commons with the appropriate permissions as I am not a OTRS volunteer and cannot do so. . If you need any additional information please let me know and I will obtain from the person granting the permission to use the image. Thanks again. --Morning277 (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)