Jump to content

User talk:Whpq/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

In response to the message you just left me regarding file File:119th Field Artillery Regiment cold weather live-fire exercise.jpg. The description of the photo states Department of Defense. Do I need to change that to United States Department of Defense? All material produced by the United States Government is in the public domain. Wikipedia even says so. So I am wondering why you put up the warning. Thank you. Boston1775 (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Provide the URL of the page that you downloaded the image from. That will be sufficient for a source. You also need to provide a license even if it is public domain. For a US Army photo, you can add {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} to identify the license as public domain from from the US army. We just need to make sure the photo is properly documented as public domain. Image uploading and licensing on Wikipedia can be a bit confusing. If you have any more questions about images and copyright, you can post at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok so putting {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} and the url is good enough? Here is the thing. I went to the DIVDS website and downloaded a bunch of pictures I plan to use. However, the best resolution picture for the main picture is from a website currentops.com which is run by Richard van Baarsen from the Netherlands which he describes on his page as Open-Source Intelligence. Read that here https://nl.linkedin.com/in/richardvb However for some weird reason he puts "copyright DOD" on every picture he uploads to his site even though the pictures are in the public domain and he lists his website as open source. So I used paint editor and cut off bottom sliver that has the false copyright info. Please go take a look at this url https://currentops.com/unit/us/army/119-fa/1-bn/btry-b and also click on the 12th picture (same picture but with the false copyright in a different location) so what do I do? Also if you would like please look over the page I've been working on "119th Field Artillery Regiment" and let me know your feedback or if you see any concerns. Thank you. Boston1775 (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I forgot to add that the DoD claims it has copyright over all its work in every country outside of the united states. This is also on Wikipedia. So this the owner of the site is from the Netherlands it now makes sense why he put the DOD copyright on all the pictures. But in the United States, those pictures are in the public domain. I was going to just leave the picture with the false copyright (in the United States) but I figured that would cause even more problems. Advice? Boston1775 (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Use the {{Information}} template to document the source and permission. For the source, use the Currentops URL. The image there is clearly marked as a DoD image and as such is public domain. The licensing tag you have applied is correct based on this being a DoD image. In the additional information field, you can provide the same explanation that you posted above about the copyright if you wish. I don't think it is necessary though. If you have any difficulty filling in the template, let me now. Regard. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
ThankThank you. That was easier than I thought. Have another problem though. Uploaded this photo Postcard_from_Virgil_Cross_of_the_119th_Field_Artillery_in_Waco_TX,_during_the_Mexican_Expedition.jpeg and then realized it should have said training for WWI. I was able to change the description but not the name of the photo. Is there a way to do that? Or should I just delete the photo and re-upload it with the correct name? I probably should get some sleep :-) Boston1775 (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the file can be renamed (moved) to a new title. You cannot do it directly yourself. You will need to request the move. See WP:MOF for the instructions on how to do it. -- Whpq (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey fellow Canadian. You were super helpful with the previous image discussions so I am hopeful you can help again. Can you take a look at the talk page for the file "File:Croix de guerre 1914-1918 with a silver star and bronze palm from World War I.jpg" and let me know what you think you about the first part. (The stuff about French copyright and the bottom about #1 were not what was flagged.) I beleive I have adequately addressed the concerns. Thank you.
There is another image at "File:Croix de guerre 1914-1918 with silver star from World War I.jpg" with the exact same issue so solving one will solve the other. However, I was able to obtain an email from the blog owner in relation to the second image that gives his permission. The problem is he is from France and does not speak English so I need a French copy of Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries to use. Thanks again. And Go Leafs Go! Boston1775 (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
UpdateI found the french version and emailed it so that is no longer a concern. Would be able to comment about my responses on File:Croix de guerre 1914-1918 with silver star and bronze palm from World War I.jpg or do I have to wait for the administrator who originally posted the concern to respond? Boston1775 (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Michael Portillo at Bowes Railway – July 2011.png

Thanks for your message. I am puzzled as to what I should do given the instructions in your email as this image has not been published elsewhere but I do not have an email assigning the copyright to myself – the photo was given to me by my father with, if you like, a verbal assignment of copyright to me (although I would like him to be recognised as the photographer). I can obtain an email from him to that effect. Would that be sufficient to establish my right to upload it with the license given?? Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. I think you will need to have your father provide a consent letter or equivalent. If he assigned the copyright to you then I expect it would be needed to b stated in the letter. -- Whpq (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

I thought I should send you a small gesture of WikiLove further to our discussion at the Draft:Pendyrus Male Choir MfD. Please note that I most definitely did not mean to suggest, by my comments, that that was your or PrussianOwl's intent. You are an excellent editor, and I value your contributions, particularly to discussions since that's where we encounter each other more often. I was just speaking generally, based on past experience, and it wasn't in reference to any editor in particular.

So, with that, please enjoy these wiki-strawberries. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 01:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 37

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI, ANI

Hi Whpq, just FYI, I reported NEGUS1010 at ANI, and mentioned your name in that report (as you were the main target of their attacks). Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 22:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Whpq, I think my link is very much related to this article.my linked website is very much helpful for your reader and give them more information about that topic. plz approve my link and give me a opportunity to help people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajib3843 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

If you believe that it is an invaluable resource (I don't), then propose its addition on the talk page of the article(s). If you gain consensus from other editors to add it, then the link can be added. -- Whpq (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Whpq,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Electronic Theatre Controls nominated for deletion

I notice that you had some excellent comments in its first deletion nomination so I thought you should be given a chance to comment again. None of the sources that you found were added. Royalbroil 15:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry.

Hey there, I notice that you’ve tagged a couple of my images for violating copyright or something. I just wanted to say that I’m sorry for doing so. I’m just trying to make fair contributions to Wikipedia, and in my defense, the most recent image I attempted to upload didn’t seem to have copyright attached to it. Maybe I just uploaded it the wrong way or something. I suppose it was just an honest mistake. KaiserDog21 (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft deletion help...

Hello. I left a message on the talk page of an admin, but I think you may be able to help too. I'm clueless on how to nominate drafts for deletion, especially speedy deletion, but drafts listed there are all 100% hoaxes and should definitely be deleted. Was hoping you could help out with that seeing how much you do that for other articles/drafts. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Obvious hoaxes are eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G3. Looking at the admin's page, it appears all but Draft:Template:Ilderton Blue Jays roster have been deleted already. If you feel that isn't an obvious hoax, then you can nominate for deletion at WP:MFD as it is a draft. In either case, using WP:TWINKLE can make tagging or nominating a lot easier. -- Whpq (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

A LITTLE HELP!

Hi, Whpq,

I am trying to fix the Tony Castro (author) submission on which you left a comment. I replied to your concerns on my talk page.

My question here is a about something a little different but related to the Tony Castro (author) submission. It concerns the response by a couple of other editors. They both left comments saying the article was "not adequately supported by reliable sources."

I have attempted to resolve that issue by replacing some sources with hopefully better ones. I am continuing to do so.

But here's what troubles me:

Would you kindly go to the page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Tony_Castro?

I happened to stumble on it because of the identical name to the person I've written about. To be honest, I'd not paid much attention to it until yesterday when I was wondering about how that page handled being "adequately supported by reliable sources."

When I went to that page to study the sourcing I couldn't help but be surprised. Would you look at it please? Would you agree that the page is... well... "modestly sourced" to be kind about it?

-- FROM THAT PAGE References[edit source] ^ Geneall[dead link] ^ Seen at Wicklow Sailing Club before competing in Round Ireland Yacht Race as 'The Famous Grouse'. ^ Browning, Randy (2017). "Tony Castro". sailboatdata.com. Retrieved 31 January 2017. ^ Yacht Design Awards we have won www.tonycastroyachts.com, accessed 7 November 2019 --

The obvious question is too obvious to go into.

Suffice it to say that I would appreciate your advice on what I can do to improve the Tony Castro (author) submission, especially in the area of sourcing when it would appear that the present sourcing to be far more than the "modest" sourcing acceptable for approval of ttps://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Tony_Castro.

Your help would be greatly appreciated.

AshleymchaseAshleymchase (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Comparison to other articles will always be fraught with difficulties and is usually a not a very fruitful avenue of pursuit. Wikipedia is huge and the state of other articles is usually not relevant to one you are working on. I would suggest you contact teh AFC reviewers of your draft for more specific guidance on what they are looking for in terms of sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

More sources

I have added more sources that are reliable for notability. Beatleswillneverdie (talk)

None of that establishes notability and edit warring to restore the article not acceptable behaviour. I've looked at the sources and have provided an analysis at Talk:Even in His Youth. -- Whpq (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Globaldominator

A tag has been placed on User:Globaldominator requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. GSS 💬 18:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Darren Sugg

Thanks for your speedy-deletion nomination.

I just moved that page to draftspace. The original author has overwritten the redirect and R2 deletion tag. - Flori4nKT A L K

They just deleted your speedy deletion tag too. Diff - Flori4nKT A L K 12:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I have it on my watch;ist so I will see if the speedy is removed again. -- Whpq (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Claudiopolitan Academy founding document.jpg

Hello! I have added a permission tag for the other related file, and am wondering about the copyright status of the above-linked scan. It's from 1581, so the original copyright is of no concern, and considering it is simply a scan without any creative input, it appears to be public domain. As you tagged it no-permission, I thought it best to consult you first before applying a {{PD-old}} tag onto it. Best, Vermont (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks like more like a photo than a scan as the document is crinkled. I agree the original document is PD, but the question would be the copyright on the image. Rather than relying on just the opinion of a single editor (me), I suggest you post the question of copyright on the image at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. that will get more editors discussing it and should get you a better answer. -- Whpq (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

i have a question.

which links are more important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leszy1 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Your question does not have enough context for me to understand what you are asking. -- Whpq (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Issue 38, January – April 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

  • New partnership
  • Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Robotic warning

I don't think anyone in the discussion should have been reminded of the existence of edit warring. If you would like to actually join the discussion, please do instead of "warnings". −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 19:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that as both of you are experienced editors should not need to be warned about edit warring but then I also expected you would have both refrained from reverting until you had come to an agreement. I have no opinion on the image aesthetics so you two can hash it out. -- Whpq (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Bot?

Is this account a bot? It marked a photo I uploaded for speedy deletion, calling it "blatant copyright infringement" of a linked site. The site in question clearly labels the photo's original source, claiming no ownership of it. Either there is some kind of automated reverse image search, or it's some very sloppy research. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how to contest this. The recommended dispute link leads to a page that no longer exists, I suppose because my photo was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SrslySirius (talk • contribs) 00:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not a bot account. The site in question provides the source of the photo as "instagram.com, @dougpolkpoker". Instagram photos are copyrighted. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Image tagged for deletion

Hi Whpq, I uploaded a photo for use on a biography page and have the licence for the photo’s use in Wikipedia from the copywrite holder. I noticed that the image has been tagged for deletion. Since I do have the licence to upload and use this photo please advise the steps I need to take to prevent deletion - should I re-upload the photo stating more succinctly the granted licence and if so should I use the “commons.wikimedia.org” process as I did the first time. Many Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adpb (talk • contribs) Adpb (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

RE: Image tagged for deletion

Just following up on this item - and echoing from my talk due to pending delete scheduled for tomorrow, 8 May 2020.

I understand that permission for image use was provided on 4 May 2020 under Ticket#: 2020050210002018. Please advise if the delete is still scheduled for tomorrow or if lifted? Many Thanks! Adpb (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

An administrator will look at it. There is no license applied to the image. You should apply the license that was stated in the consent email. -- Whpq (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Meghdad's profile image

Hello, this is Meghdad's official facebook page and I am in touch with his team. I am sure there is no issue to use his photo .. if its necessary I can ask them to send Wikipedia his photos with permission .. he also has an image on his verified account at Google - plz search Meghdad music — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmostaf (talk • contribs)

You should request formal permission with a specific free license. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. -- Whpq (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

MEGHDAD sent a confirmation by his official email address to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to Wikipedia right of use — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmostaf (talk • contribs)

Non-free use rationale

Hi, I have added an elaborated explanation that it is not replaceable by other media for two files. Sites from website are subjected to copyright and likely non-free. The first file is extracted from television network (EBS TV). I saw the Terms of use and doesn't have an explicit license that the content are free, their service delivery also protected. If you have an idea, help me please? The Supermind (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content identifies the circumstances under which non-free content (including images) can be used. Usages needs to comply with all the non-free content criteria. Specifically, those images contravene point 1 on replaceability. "Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people." As living people, we can expect that somebody could take a freely licensed image of them. Those images cannot be used. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your alerting. I understood that if the image is replaced by free licenced I.e by direct taking picture of the subject and replaced with free and these non-free images should be removed from Wikipedia. In fact, I know the subject who concerned about the topic and whether it has replaced or not is uncertain for potential. But there is no proof that the subject images in web search aren't free and focused in its Facebook page. The reason is I couldn't find pure image at Google. The Supermind (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It does not matter if a free image currently exists. If a free image could potentially be made even if there isn't one right now, then you cannot use the non-free image. By the way, if you are using google's image search, it has an option to filter by license. From your search results, choose "tools" and then "Usage rights" using the option for "Labelled for reuse with modification". -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Are the file will be deleted within two days if there is an free-image evidence founded? I think it's better delaying the files until the free-image can be found as you said "If a free image could potentially be made even if there isn't one right now, then you cannot use the non-free image." The Supermind (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood. You cannot use the non-free files until a free one is found. So yes, they will be deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Non-free images removed?

Thanks for not even responding to my appeal about deleting important non-free images that are practically impossible to replace with similar quality free images.
Despite claiming that one shouldn't leave you a message here, I did not receive any answer or further information from you on my talk page, nor on corresponding media pages.
Really bad, miserable experience, unhelpful (and agressive) behaviour Just486 (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not respond because I did not think there was a need to respond. Just for your information, for almost all other non-free images where somebody has added the dispute tagging, I do not respond. The reason is that the deletion is disputed, with a reason given, and administrator looks at the situation and then makes a decision after reviewing the reason for deletion and the reason the deletion is disputed. If you think the deletion is in error, you can contact the deleting administrator and if you are still unsatisfied with the answer, you can request a deletion review. -- Whpq (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind, reverted back the whole article as it was before, it does not worth the effort to improve it. I could not care less anymore.Just486 (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Captain Tom Moore fundraising walk.jpg

Hi Whpq. While I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your reasoning for tagged this file per WP:F7, you might want to check the file’s talk page because it was recently discussed at FFD and kept. For that reason alone, the rfu tag you added is likely going to be declined, with the reviewing admin possibly suggesting another FFD instead. However, since the last FFD was less than two months ago, you might want to query the admin who closed the FFD first as a courtesy if you feel they missed something or there’s some new reason for deleting the file that you think needs considering that wasn’t discussed in that FFD discussion. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've reconsidered. I'm not convinced it is actually compliant as used but it is borderline. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Once again, I'm not so sure as well; however, the fact that it was recently discussed at FFD and kept would most likely make any speedy deletion nomination of it (even a good faith one like yours) unlikely to be carried out just for procedural reasons. Just to let you know, I stumbled across this via File:Derek Chauvin.jpg, which lead me to File talk:Benjamin Crump. Civil rights attorney and founder of the Tallahassee, Florida-based law firm Ben Crump Law.jpg and then the Moore photo: same uploader with the same possible F7 issues. FWIW, the Crump photo was a good catch since there's really no way (at least that I can think of) to keep that file per NFCC#1; the uploader probably meant well, but the consensus has quite strong over the years to not allow that type of non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

  • Library Card Platform
  • New partnerships
    • ProQuest
    • Springer Nature
    • BioOne
    • CEEOL
    • IWA Publishing
    • ICE Publishing
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Removel deletation reqest

Sir i have removed all copyrights contants plaese removespeedly deletation template Shaji Thumpechirayil Louise340 (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks :-)

Sevens78 20:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Whpq,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources
  • A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
  • Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
  • A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
  • Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I am not compensated directly or indirectly by ANYONE for any edit on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calinjaxnc (talk • contribs) 17:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Well the first uploaded image speedy deletion as you said the point is after uploading the first image I've realised that image copyright violation according to my upload details that's why I deleted and replaced with correct information and second I thought I gave correct information about the image but you've your saying copyright violation and set for deletion If you think both the images are copyrighted then I ve no objection for deletion delete those two images Ktdk (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

In the future, if you make a mistake in the licensing for an image, you can edit the file description, and correct the licensing instead of uploading the same image again. But if you do upload a second copy of the image, you can request the deletion of the first image by tagging it with {{db-author}}. If you are the original uploader and no other editor has made any edits of significance, that should get it deleted quickly. As for the licensing on the second image, it is not a copyright violation, but rather an issue with meeting Wikipedia's non-free content criteria (specifically point 1 on replaceability). Non-free images of living people are almost never acceptable as a free image could be expected to be made. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Then what I should do know Ktdk (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
If you do nothing, the file will be deleted in 2 days. -- Whpq (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Both the files Ktdk (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I am guessing you mean File:Rajiv Gandhi International Airport Terminal.jpg. That is a clear copyright violation and I have tagged it for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok I don't know the above mentioned file mentioned file is copyright violation could you please assist me how to upload images Ktdk (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

And delete both the photos of Gaitri Issar Kumar which I have uploaded and please assist me how to upload images with correct information Ktdk (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image use policy provides the information about image use. If you have questions and need help, you can post at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Hello Whpq! I'm a little puzzled by the speedy deletion request for this picture uploaded by me today,

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Dimash_Kudaibergen#/media/File:Dimash_Kudaibergen_Arnau_Moscow_20.jpg ,by accusing me of "blatant copyright infringement" and seemingly claiming that this FB page here is the copyright holder: 

https://www.facebook.com/DimashARGENTINA/photos/a.1094422294033158/1848353758640004/?type=3&theater

That's the FB page of the Argentinian fan club of Dimash Kudaibergen. Yet neither this fan club nor Dimash Kudaibergen are the copyright holder of this photo. As you can see, this Agrentinian fan club just shared the photo on Facebook that had previously been shared by Dimash Kudaibergen on his Instagram page, namely here: https://www.instagram.com/p/CBqaF8BA2aE/ You can even see in the link you shared with me that this Argentinian fan club simply uploaded a mobile phone screenshot of the IG post of Dimash Kudaibergen (see bottom right corner of the pic). However, Dimash Kudaibergen is not the copyright holder either, he just shared the picture because he apparently liked it. As you can see on their watermark "MosDears", this photo was taken by "MoscowDears", "MoscowDears" is the photographer and copyright holder. The original publication of this photo was on the Instagram account of MoscowDears, namely here: https://www.instagram.com/p/CBpOCOyg2zK/ I contacted MoscowDears, the copyright holder, a few days ago and asked her whether she would be willing to have the photo published under free license in order to make it useable for me on Wikipedia. And she agreed and sent me the original, not yet published version of the photo. Otherwise, I would not have a HD version of the photo without the watermark. Please let me know, what I can additionally do in order to prove that I have the permission of the photographer/copyright holder to publish this photo on Wikipedia. You can, of course, also contact MoscowDears, if you want to. I am looking forward to hearing from you, Jasmin Ariane (talk)

Also hello Fastily! I did not infringe any copyright, please see explanation above. Best wishes, Jasmin Ariane (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You will need to have the copyright holder provide their permission via WP:OTRS. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. -- Whpq (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Whpq. You have new messages at Whpq's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you very much for your answer! The copyright holder will send such a confirmation letter via mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . However, with all due respect: there's a factual problem with the suggested procedure: It says I shall first ask the copyright holder for permission (which I did before uploading) and then upload it (which I did) and THEN the copyright holder needs to send you a permission letter. Yet, when I uploaded it yesterday, you instantly falsely accused me of "blatant copyright infringement" with the remark that I'd need to press some button to prevent my upload from being deleted. I instantly got up from bed again and went to my computer, and started it while reading the suggested procedure, and even though I was really quick, the photo had already been removed, with no possibility of activating said button. My upload immediately got removed and I got imemdiately falsely accused (because of a social media share by a fan club that was more than obviously only a mobile screenshot by a fan (of another share that was not made by the copyright holder either) and not an upload by the copyright holder) without giving me the possibility of clarifying the situation. According to Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, the photo must already be uploaded before the copyright holder sends you the permission letter (including the Wiki image link I assume). If I re-upload it again, how do I know that it won't immediately get removed again? I was even threatened to get blocked, if the alleged "blatant copyright infringement" happens again. How can I re-upload the not copyright infringing photo without the risk of it getting immediately removed again or even me getting blocked from editing? Btw, it is not your fault at all and I aaabsolutely respect your amazing work for this complex platform, but being publicly falsely accused of illegal actions is not really fun. Best wishes, Jasmin Ariane (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Add {{subst:OP}} to the file description. That identifies that a permission email is pending. -- Whpq (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

IUCN category in infobox

Hi. I see that (a while ago) you created articles such as Arrowhead Provincial Park and put an IUCN category in the infobox. That information doesn't appear elsewhere in the article and it's not clear where it's been sourced from. Do you recall where you got the IUCN category from? DexDor (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

My rather hazy recollection is that the Ontario Parks site listed the IUCN category as part of the park information. Looking at the current site, it looks like they simply state "Park Classification: Natural Environment". So either my memory is faulty or they have changed how they list the park. A good source for IUCN category information is Protected Planet. -- Whpq (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

KDKA News

I have updated the Fair use article on the new KDKA Open Picture. It was from my video of the same topic that I use for my other news opens throughout Western PA and eastern OH. All of my videos fall under the Creative Commons license so I can use them on Wikipedia articles. The Stations are aware I do this and it helps their brand recognition. Bbabybear02 (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You explanation makes no sense whatsoever. You are not the copyright holder so the material is not under a creative commons licenses regardless of what license you put on the material. And in any case, the image in question is being claimed for use under non-free content guidelines and not under a free license. -- Whpq (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I am aware I'm not the copyright holder, However my Pictures qualify as fair use because they are only being used to show what the news open for each station is which is a subject of public interest so they should remain. Other station pages have been doing this for years throughout the country from many other users from the WikiProject Television stations task force. This should be a non issue. Please take down your discussions about these pictures because I am only doing what others have done on this site for years.Bbabybear02 (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
If you believe this meets all of the non-free content criteria, then you will need to make your case at the discussion. As for other article, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- Whpq (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I have put this up on the discussion page as requested. Bbabybear02 (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
There are multiple discussions created, and you will need to make your case at each one. BTW, saying that this is just like other uses without explaining why non-free usage for each specific instance won;t be very persuasive. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello, Whpq. I would like to invite you for the NFUR review for File:Indera Paul Singh (anthropologist).png & File:Stephen Fuchs (anthropologist).png. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

They look okay. What specifically are you concerned about? -- Whpq (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, no one has done this yet, and soon, I will go on a wikibreak for a couple of weeks. Possibly, a reviewer could have questions, and I might not be available to answer. This is concerning. So, that's why, I wrote to you in the hope of getting a NFUR review, so that I could take a break, peacefully)) Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
There is no need to worry about those small details. -- Whpq (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
OK)) Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File: San Francisco de Asís Mission Church (Multiple Instances listed in the body of the reply)

Thank you for your feedback. I have added as your requested {{|Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} to each of the listed images.

NOTE:The multiple images uploaded are for use on the Wikipedia Page "San Francisco de Asís Mission Church". A unique architectural monument. It is possible that I am not assigning the correct allocation to the upload by using "Fair Use"? (Please advise?) As these are images by my own hand (The USER) in study of and with specific goal of documenting the architectural detail of this particular building. For which photographs have been embedded with Creative Commons Attribution via XMP Metadata. ""This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.""

I have followed your instructions and place the reason, which is that these are unique architectural views photographed and under a creative common license at my own hand. They are a unique and detailed architectural examination of the subject.

Please also note that --B-bot has sent notifications that the images are not currently in use. "Orphaned non-free image File" It takes time to arrange and post these images correctly on the Wikipedia page!

Replaceable fair use File:San Francisco de Asís Mission Church Building Detail Grade Buttress.jpg Replaceable fair use File:San Francisco de Asís Mission Church Transept Sacristy.jpg Replaceable fair use File:San Francisco de Asís Mission Church South West Nave Window.jpg Replaceable fair use File:San Francisco de Asís Mission Church North East Transept Aps.jpg Replaceable fair use File:San Francisco de Asís Mission Church Bell Tower.jpg Replaceable fair use File:San Francisco de Asís Mission Church Main Facade.jpg

{{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<These photographs are architectural details showing the various architectural components that make up this historic building and are unique viewpoints of the building taken by and for the explicit interest of the architectural nature & construction & design of the building. Photographed by the USER and licensed under Creative Commons which is embedded in the Metadata of the image This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.>}}

JKETA STUDIO (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Use of non-free content is governed by non-free content guidelines and must meet all of the non-free content criteria. Although you have disputed the deletion, I do not believe your challenge will be successful. WP:NFCC#1 specificies "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created". Somebody could take eqivalent photos and release these under a free license. If you choose to provide these images as free content, please note that Wikipedia only accepts images under an acceptably free license. A Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License is not one of those licenses as no derivatives is not sufficiently free for Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback I have replaced the the Creative Commons attribute with one that is listed as "acceptable" and described on "Wikipedia:File copyright tags/For image creators page":-"Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike"

JKETA STUDIO (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading your images. In the future, you might consider uploading to Commons. That is the preferred location for freely licensed media. Using images uploaded to Commons is available to all the various language wikis and not just the English Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Fair Use Image Kyung-wha Chung and Ji Young Lim

Hello Whpq! Thank you so much for your messages with above two pictures. I am an artist representative from Music and Art Company, an agency for both Kyungwha Chung and Ji Young Lim. I was requested by the artist themselves that the pictures that are being currently used in Wikipedia are not a correct representation of them visually, and any copyright-free material also do not meet that requirement. Since these are the photos of the living individual, I understand that their own intent is highly valued. Specifically, the photo being currently used for Kyungwha Chung in all language Wikipedia pages are actually taken in "situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed" which is against Wikipedia regulation. Unfortunately, I'm not well versed in technology (and my artists as well) and don't know how to delete those photos themselves so I request your help. I would also be okay if you need to share this in some editing conversation/debate page. Thank you so much for your help and consideration. Nyuad2020 (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the copyright issue in the Juilliard website, the agency owns the photo and provided the photo to the Juilliard School. In the website, you can check the resolution of the image file is much higher. == File:Kyung What Chung Portrait.jpg == {{Autotranslate|1=File:Kyung What Chung Portrait.jpg|2=https://http://mnac.co.kr/}} Nyuad2020 (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Nyuad2020 (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I request this image to be deleted in the Wikimedia Commons as it is not freely copyrighted and to be uploaded under "fair usage" in Wikipedia in English and Korean Wikipedia page for Kyung Wha Chung (정경화). [1]Thank you so much. Nyuad2020 (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%A0%95%EA%B2%BD%ED%99%94

Regarding Paid Work for Client

I am currently an unpaid/uncompensated (except for experience) internship for the agency, and mainly doing all the translation and interpretation related work as a volunteer. If I get paid later on by any chance, I will make sure to disclose that information on my profile. However as of now, the truth is I am doing this for a goodwill and my personal passion for Kyung Wha Chung's artistic expertise and legacy. Is this enough as an explanation for this discussion or do I need more information on this? I wish I can disclose the financial statement for you.Nyuad2020 (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Nyuad2020 (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Answered at user's talk page -- Whpq (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 40

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020

  • New partnerships
    • Al Manhal
    • Ancestry
    • RILM
  • #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
  • AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 40

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020

  • New partnerships
    • Al Manhal
    • Ancestry
    • RILM
  • #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
  • AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Creolefamily and other images

You removed images from the Sierra Leone Creole page which were original sources in my private collection and possessions. I have a copy of the Creole family image which was not taken from any online source but is from my private collection and should be reinstated. --Wikiaddict6989 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. You need to make your appeal to the deleting admin. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You have nominated for deletion several photographs from my private collection - bearing in mind, I am directly in contact with the families whose photographs were uploaded. I suggest in future you complete research on this area, which is outside your purview before proceeding to delete private files.

--Wikiaddict6989 (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The licensing states that you are the copyright holder. However, being in possession of a photograph does not necessarily make you the copyright holder. You also state "I am directly in contact with the families whose photographs were uploaded". So are those photographs from somebody else? -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. Essentially most of these photographs are from private family collections that now form part of my own private family collection - directly given to me by family members of these respective Wiki entries which is what I was trying to say. But I support the work you are doing in cleaning up photographs - I just sought to introduce photographs without copyright risks.

--Wikiaddict6989 (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

This is the second time Whpq, that you have attributed a private image that is in my possession and which was given to me directly by the family which operates the Leone Preparatory School and you have wrongly attributed the photograph to a ridiculous website that probably sourced the photograph from the family that operated the Leone Preparatory School!

This appears deliberate and willful on your part and is very frustrating.

--Wikiaddict6989 (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wikiaddict8962: You need to provide evidence of a free license from the copyright holder when uploading works that are from somebody else. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If you need help with copyright and media, a good place to post is Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --Whpq (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Judy bernstein portrait.jpg rescued

I found off-Wiki evidence of a proper CC license and have updated the file's description page and notified the uploader. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

donovanruddock2015.jpg

Excuse me @Whpq, what will be the consequences if I upload a blatant copyright picture again? Sorry for the inconvenience, I am new to wikipedia, and can't identify if an image has violated the copyrights of the english wikipedia, sorry again for the inconvenience. DSbxgMMA (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I also won't contest the deletion since I think you know better than me. DSbxgMMA (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Answered at user's talk page instead. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Kerri Green image

The deletion tag shouldn't be there. Why are you adding it back?????? What power trip are you on??????? STOP. Skcin7 (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The deletion tag is there because I believe it fails WP:NFCC#1. You are allowed to dispute this, but you are not allowed to remove the deletion tag. The deletion tag provides that direction and I pointed that out to you. -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay well it doesn't fail WP:NFCC#1. The deletion tag shouldn't be there. No idea why you added it, but I'm removing it. Thanks. Skcin7 (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Skcin7 it absolutely fails NFCC because she's still alive. Praxidicae (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

"‪Speedy deletion nomination of File:Pedisukkah.jpg‬"

Hi Whpq, I wanted to thank you for pointing out my error in uploading this image. I wen to reply on my talk page to your comment but I hit edit and then I am not sure what I did to mess up your input. If you could fix that I could put in my reply there so it is on my page. In regards to this image, I actually took it from hereand not the page you mentioned. I misread the bottom and thought it was ok to use for this educational purpose. Thank you for pointing this out and I apologize. I have delted the image. StrohDa (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

hey

can you help me upload the image with proper license? im not good at wikipedia Suicideboi (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Most images you find on the Internet are copyrighted and not under a free license needed for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Image use policy provides you with information on what you need to do to use images on Wikipedia. If you have specific questions about images and copyright, Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is a good place to ask them. -- Whpq (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of File

Good Evening,

I received a message stating that the picture I uploaded would be deleted. I am presently completing an assignment which requires a photo (part of the rubric) of the individual you are researching and writing about. I thought I had gone through the correct upload measures on WikiMedia to have the picture uploaded. The picture is currently in the info box on the page. Is the picture still going to be removed or the entire page? I can not bare if the entire page is deleted as it is for an assignment due in the next few days.

Can the photo stay?

User:STNMGill — Preceding unsigned comment added by STNMGill (talk • contribs) 01:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that the images are under a free license. The images you uploaded were not under a free license. Most images you find on the Internet are copyrighted and that includes the ones you uploaded. You will need to speak to the person who gave you this assignment and explain why there is no image. -- Whpq (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice About File

Hi. You reverted putting a deletion tag on an image. I gave my statement on the talk page and explained why I think I should keep it. Please have a look at the talk page. Thanks. LocalContributor281 (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Photographer's Barnstar
Your uploaded files are good and I think you are one of the best uploaders on Wikipedia. Keep it up! Cupper52 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Diogo-Jota.jpg

It was not my intention to remove the template, but how can i put the right license?

Best Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TiredAsF12 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no right license. The image is copyrighted and not under a free license. I cannot be used on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

File:DiogoJLiverpool.jpg

Sorry it was not my intention to upload a copyright image, i tought this one also didnt wasnt copyrighted, of i course i dont want to be block so dont worry i wont be uploading another image.

Thanks, best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TiredAsF12 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


The Copyright Barnstar
Thank you for helping me understand rights and perms on Wikipedia and WikiCommons. Nigetastic (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Denesh Ramdin.png

Thanks for reverting my copyright infringement. Sir if you don't mind, please tell me the steps to upload an image or use image in wiki pages. I already read the wiki image upload article, but I can't understand the procedure like which level of cc sa for which type of image. Accidentally I added that copyright image.

It will very useful for me in upcoming edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirubar (talk • contribs) 14:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

You cannot upload images you find on the internet unless the copyright holder has made the image available under a free license acceptable to Wikipedia. If you have questions about media copyright on Wikipedia, Media copyright questions is a good place to post your question. -- Whpq (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Whpq/Archive_14&oldid=1079139449"