User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 5

Conflicted licensing on image File:BMI logo.svg

bsd as you may have noticed, i did originally upload it as non-free, like i do for any logo. however, somebody else changed the license later, being that this particular logo is only simple text, it's not original enough to be considered non free. as for the conflicting template, it's main purpose is to point to the original vector file at brandsoftheworld.com and to add it to the same category. IMHO, the conflict is no major issue,as it's quite obvious. regards --Ben Stone 11:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request

In this edit you added a reference called Discogs to File:Justapoke-cover.jpg. Could you please fill out that broken reference, or tell me where it can be found. Thank you, Debresser (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it mentions in the instructions for the notices you are filling my talk page with that if you plan on making lots of them, you might want to colsolidate them. It would be nice if you just game me a list of pages to fix, not filled my talk page with dozens of repeating notices. Thanks. Mathewignash (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing info on robot chemist

Hi, you have prodded a pic as without evidence of permission and a thread has been opened on the BLPN unconfirmed claim to be the subject and the copyright owner, please see and comment , here thanks Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mark eden bust developer.jpg

This is the third time I've had to revert your scripted editing's addition of a "non-free reduce" tag to this image. I've explained why the generic non-free media paranoia doesn't really apply to this image, an advertisement for a defunct product; and why reducing its size would render it useless, several times already on the file's talk page. All of this has been predictably ignored, and the script just keeps on rolling.

If I see this tag pop up again, I shall block you. Get it off of your list. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping clear that up. I do get rather frustrated when I add explanations of edits to talk pages, and see them go ignored. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hey, is there any remaining problem with File:DominusVobiscumChant.jpg and File:JubilateDeoIntroit.jpg? I don't upload a whole lot of media (and Special:Upload doesn't provide a lot of options), so I've tried to fill in fields as appropriate, but I hope you'll let me know if anything vital is still lacking. I'm not super-committed to these files or anything, I just thought they'd spice up their respective articles a little. Thanks— Glenfarclas (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photos in the Robert H. Schuller article

Just to let you know, the images you tagged as candidates to be moved to Commons, are already there. [[1]]

(Image is a candidate for moving to Wikimedia Commons.) File:6207-GardenGroveCommunityDriveInChurch.jpg‎;

(Image is a candidate for moving to Wikimedia Commons.) File:6207-RevRobtSchullerGrdnGrvChurch.jpg‎;

(Image is a candidate for moving to Wikimedia Commons.) File:6207-GardenGroveDriveInChurch-Choir.jpg‎; Sfan00 IMG (talk | contribs)

I think it is now appropriate to delete those above, from en.wikipedia, correct? EditorASC (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting License

Is this another bot? If so, you might want to fix the thing so that instead of complaining about 'conflicting license' to the original uploader it complains to the person who added the conflicting liccense. Mark Grant (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antonino Giuffre.jpg

Thanks for the notice. Any advice? It is a mug shot but the date is not clear. - DonCalo (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicted licensing on image File:ApolloLunarEscapeSystemExample.jpg

Er, why can't it be both free and non-free? As the Template:PD-Pre1978 says, it's in the public domain in the United States. It might be non-free in other jurisdictions; I'm not certain enough to remove the other notice. (If you are, feel free.) 71.41.210.146 (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it has ANY non-free component that it cannot be tagged as PD, but if you can prove it was first published in the US prior to 1978 then only the PD-Pre 1978 is applicable...

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easily enough done, as the image description links to the original source as a scanned PDF, which is dated June 1970 and does not bear a copyright notice. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About file source problem with File:UTV logo.jpg

Hi

When I uploaded this image, I had clearly stated that this is a logo image for the UTV Corporation. I had filled in all the necessary info. Someone after me has modified the file information, as you can see in the history. I am really getting frustrated of this - it seems to be happening quite frequently. Please make uploading images and adding the copyright status an easier process, or else you are putting off contributors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaypadiyar (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHOA!

Whats with the invasion of all my stuff, man? ~Darth Starbo 22:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RA Butler photo source info

Hi. You tagged File:RA Butler cropped.png as lacking source information. I can't really rectify this: it is cropped from File:Churchillcabinet1955.png, which is licenced GDFL-self, indicating that the uploader of that image owns the copyright to it. If source info is not in order, that is something to raise with the uploader of that image, rather than with me. Even if the group photo is not licensed correctly, I would argue that an extremely low-resolution image of Rab Butler can be kept on English wiki (not commons) on fair use grounds, because there is no other licensed photo of him. BTW the same is also true for:

I would argue for retention of all these images (which are all cropped from the Cabinet group photo) on fair use grounds, because no other licensed image of these individuals (all senior Cabinet ministers) exists, and they are all very low-resolution. BartBassist (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use rationale

Hello! I was thinking to add a fair-use rationale to File:Alexandru Vaida Voievod.jpg, because you recently warned me about it. It is a historic photo of a Romanian politician, made in 1938; the subject has died in 1950, but the photographer died in 1996, so we cannot claim "PD-Old".

There are some alternative pictures that are marked public domain: commons:File:AlVaidaVoievod.jpg and ro:File:Vaida-Voevod.jpg. For both of them, we do not know the author, we do not know the date when the picture was taken, but we assume that either the photographer died before 1940 or that the copyright of picture falls in the jurisdiction of Romanian laws, which (between 1956 and 1996) had a short protection period, of only 5 years.

I'm not sure if those photographs are really PD, but if they are, we cannot claim fair-use for this photo, because we would have a "free equivalent".

However, if they are not really free, then this photo has a better quality (although it is still low-resolution compared to the original source), has a known date and it is clearly attributed to the photographer, so it is preferable to the other two.

What do you think: should I add a fair-use rationale to this photo, or should I let it be deleted? Razvan Socol (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free media: File:ThreeLions.ogg

Hi. You placed a {{Non-free reduce}} template on File:ThreeLions.ogg. What reduction would you suggest? The duration of the sample is 23 seconds (10% of the source file). matt (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Galarina.jpg

Hi. You put a notice on my talk page that File:Galarina.jpg isn't compliant with Wikipedia fair use practices. The message says I should add a fair use rationale, while there are already two of the Wikipedia canned fair use explanation templates on the image description page; these used to be considered adiquate in cases like this. Could you please be more specific as to what is needed but is currently lacking, and if possible make suggestions? Thank you much. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Attribution-path

Template:Attribution-path has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database reports/Non-free files missing a rationale

Go go go! Recently updated to weed out the false positives. I thought you'd be interested in this report. Killiondude (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beelzemon b.jpg

What exactly needs to be added?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at WT:DBR.
Message added 04:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I responded Tim1357 (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PD question

Would a title screenshot of a film with simple text font/typeface, like File:gcths.png, be in the public domain because it is not original enough? serioushat 11:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loreal HQ

In regards to "Conflicted license - Can't be non-free and CC-BY)" - In France there are two licenses (one from the photographer, and one from the architect), so it IS both non-free and CC-By - however the image must be treated like a nonfree image, so we cannot use the CC-By template. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:911 09 James Pavitt.jpg

The image has the statement "Used in James Pavitt. A low-res photograph of historical significance, not available otherwise." Perhaps you did not see it. kgrr ^talk 14:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 images that I uploaded

I received today "fair use" queries for:
Each image file, below its "Licence" box, has a line explaining why it is needed.
- Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate how use of the images meets the WP:NFCC in detail :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done: "No free equivalent". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agar Rodney Adamson.jpg

Numerous times this image has been questioned in regards to its use on Wikipedia. Numerous times it has been saved from being deleted. Rather than repeating this silly cycle again, why don't you do something more productive like give a rationale as to why it can be used on Wikipedia. Requesting it be deleted is counterproductive. Trying to save it from being deleted is productive. NorthernThunder (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images

The images already have explanations stating that there are no other similar images available and cannot be replaced with non-free images. What more is needed?XavierGreen (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:080818-Sparvagnskarta.jpg

That issue has been solved a few weeks ago, so I removed your notice. Norum 19:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfI

Hello. You recently re-tagged an image for deletion with the same rationale as before. Can you please elaborate on the rationale for the proposed deletion? Thank you. —Eustress ^talk 17:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Navy pictures

My bad, I though I had added the source to the File:Useagle.jpg and File:Ussyorktownpg1.jpg. I tried to find the original source for the Eagle, but only came up with this site. The copyright notice says someone owns the picture, but considering the age of the picture (the Eagle was launched in the 1890s and decommissioned in 1920), I figure it has to be public domain by now. I somehow doubt anyone old enough to take a picture of the ship would still be alive. As for the Yorktown, I'll just let that one go, since no one is using it and I'll leave the Eagle image's fate up to you. :)--Kross ^Transmit? 19:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [2]

Sfan, I uploaded that image over five years ago. Can YOU remember the source of miscellaneous images you uploaded five years ago or more? I doubt it. I suggest that as the picture is over fifty years old, any copyright would have reverted to the public domain. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Serin

Hello Sfan00 IMG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Serin, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: although the article has been blanked without explanation by an IP, there was a useful redirect under than in the history. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Jenner was another - have a look at the history before tagging, especially for a blank page. Even what looks like a G7 may not be, if anyone else has made a substantial contribution; and quite often a page that looks hopeless has been vandalised but has a good version somewhere back in the history. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8255 files uploaded by me

Hello Sfan00 IMG. I thank you for telling me the rules for uploading. I will surely add the url of the page I downloaded the image from, but one thign couls u please instruct me as to how to go about doing it. There seems to be no "edit this file" kinda option when I open the image. I would also be glad if u could tell me how to go about seeing the files I've uploaded. Thanx. Regards Abhishek191288 (talk)

Thanx for the instructions. I've added the source of all the three files. Pls check it. Pls lemme know if anything else is needed. Abhishek191288(talk)

I couldn't find any license for those three files. Actually, there are a lot of free downloadable material (I think that it could also include these files) regarding various hardware in this website: http://www.sharpmz.org. Regards Abhishek191288(talk)

File:SCTitlePage.jpg

Hello,

Regarding File:SCTitlePage.jpg

Source: I am not sure how to list source on the public domain image. I scanned and uploaded this 1912 image of the title page which was published before 1 Jan 1923 from an original book. Any help appreicated. Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary photographs of WWI British aircraft

In relation to your tagging of

Of these it can generally be said that:

This photograph is over ninety years old

It is of a service aircraft, and was taken during the 1914-1918 war - at a time when all photography of service aircraft except by service personnel on official duty was strictly forbidden. There is therefore a strong legal presumption that any original copyright belonged to the British Crown - which copyright has long expired.

It has been published many times in various source during the past ninety years.

It may well be difficult to specifically demonstrate the "free" status of these photographs where their possession of an official Imperial War Museum number is doubtful, and the original provenance is unknown, but it would seem somewhat unproductive to "pursue" images in this category. What do you think, really?

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons showing thru

Hi Sfan00 IMG. Just for future reference, the appropriate tag to use would be {{db-f2}}. Regards, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon, but locally, these pages are empty images. Although, if you really are a stickler for exact wording, {{db-g8}} will serve the same purpose. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, please don't tag files for speedy if they're featured or valued; a file such as File:Beethoven Moonlight 2nd movement.ogg should have a local page. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deutsche Zeppelin Reederei flag.jpg

You have added a "Requesting speedy deletion" tag to the image file "Deutsche Zeppelin Reederei flag.jpg" but have stated no reason therefore either in your edit summary or the file's talk page. This image is of the embroidered version of the flag used by the Deutsche Zeppelin-Reederei GmbH (1935-1937), the company which operated the German passenger airships LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin and LZ 129 Hindenburg. It was not uploaded for any political purpose, but only to illustrate the article on the Hindenburg which that company operated from March, 1936, until the airship was destroyed by fire while landing at NAS Lakehurst, NJ, on May 6, 1937. It is nothing more than an historically accurate representation of the design of the flag that company used as it's logo and under which the Hindenburg and the Graf Zeppelin flew between 1935 and 1937, and is used on Wikipedai for a purpose no different than what the illustration "Flag of Nazi Germany (1933-1945)" is used for in literally hundreds of pages in 53 different Wikipedia projects (listed here) worldwide.

As was the intention when uploaded, this image is being used on Wikipedia only for the purposes of education and information, and for NO other reason as the "Nazi symbol" tag that appears on the image file's page so states. If there is some other reason that you have proposed to delete this image (which has existed on Wikipedia for sixteen months without any previous objection) please tell me what it is. Centpacrr (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phenol red - acid base equilibria - 2.gif

I'd have thought that the source doesn't matter since it is pd-ineligible. Oh well. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

thumb|right|175px|. I think I have worked out the copy right, it was made in 1903 or 1902. [[3]]1 atlas (xiv, [2], 156 leaves of maps, 133, [1] p.)--82.11.81.195 (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC) [[4]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.81.195 (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serin

Stan, please check the article history before adding a speedy deletion tag. This was originally a proper article, later moved to Serinus but leaving an important redirect at Serin. The reason you found it to be empty was because it had been blanked by an IP. An admin has declined the speedy request and restored the blanked content, so no harm done, thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What???

None of these images are corrupt or unused. I don't get the proposed deletion. Plus, they are hosted on Commons, not Wikipedia, anyway. Ingolfson (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation on my talk page - I did kinda wonder afterward whether that was the case, and yes - the use of that template is misleading. Sorry for raising a hue and cry about this, but it just seemed very weird. Ingolfson (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some images hosted on Commons, but used on Wikipedia are part of WikiProjects, and Wikipedia's categorization scheme. I've removed the speedy deletion tag from at least one image that was being used in this manner, as users have found this grouping and categorization useful to this project (despite the physical images being hosted on the Commons). If there has been discussion in the past regarding not categorizing images and tagging them in various Wikiprojects just because they are hosted on the Commons, then I'd like to see that. If not, then maybe we should have that sort of discussion before you tag such pages for speedy deletion? -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas images

I received a bunch of deletion notices from you for images that I didn't upload (I merely added them to a category). Secondly, the tags you've added say they are corrupted, but they are not. What's up? Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archives