User talk:Ww2censor/Archive13

Talk page • Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 • Archive 4 • Archive 5 • Archive 6 • Archive 7 • Archive 8 • Archive 9 • Archive 10 • Archive 11 • Archive 12 • Archive 13

Philately

Happy to assist with expanding the philately stuff. The British stuff is probably where I'm best able to help. I'll look at what you've sent and see whether I can add anything. User:Bean is a carrot —Preceding undated comment added 09:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC).

Shankill Butchers

Dear Friend, thank you for upgrading the above to "C". However, compare it to the "Loyalist Volunteer Force" one and let me know why the latter is "B"? It has fewer citations that the Shankill Butchers one and fewwer external links. I don't know anything about rating scales and would value your opinion. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Bea Gonzalez

Hi, You edited the entry for Bea Gonzalez and reverted the picture to the larger image. I am Bea Gonzalez and would like the smaller image I introduced through vonfranz to be there instead. Could you please change it for me?Mapopera (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And why would you prefer to have an inferior image? It has already been reverted by the uploader. We try to get the best quality image available on Wikipedia so your preference makes not sense at all. If you are Bea Gonzalez, then you need to be careful of any edits you make to your own article, or any requests you make about it, because you have a conflict of interest. ww2censor (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Illastr8.jpg

Just to let you know, I deleted your orphaned fair use template from the file because I had already placed an orphaned fair use template on the file on Wednesday, July 28. Aspects (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Histpop#Possible Changes

As I said at the above location, I know nothing of template design, but have brought the issue to the attention of the 'design team' there. RashersTierney (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As I just posted, these are not template, just simple tables. ww2censor (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So a general 'collapsible' possibility is a red herring! Pity. Could each table then be made collapsible by the addition of a line of code? RashersTierney (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you read my post? I already answered that question positively in my post on the discussion. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the posting ed. is going to discuss. Would you be prepared to begin a horizontal table where the data could be transcribed? You seem to know what you're talking about. It could then be individualised as you suggested. Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I can try, though my experience is not vast. Are you watching me, so I don't have to place talkbacks each time? Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm all eyes. Thanks :)RashersTierney (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Railway post office

Hi Ww2censor, You appear to have an interest in this article.

I am currently reviewing it as part of WP:GA Sweeps (see Talk:Railway post office/GA1). The article is generally compliant with WP:WIAGA, but there are sections that lack adequate WP:verify; and I think that the WP:lead is inadequate. I will fix the lead, but the article will be placed On Hold for problems with WP:verify to be addressed. Non compliances will be listed in Talk:Railway post office/GA1 later today. Pyrotec (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yearbooks

Are the photos in high school and college yearbooks copyright protected? 22:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatterworld (talk • contribs)

All photographs are copyright unless they are freely licenced or are old enough to be in the public domain. You should review Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright and WP:COPYRIGHT. Seeing that you are asking about yearbooks, perhaps the person you are thinking of using a photograph of is dead and no photo can be taken, it may be possible to use an image under the WP:NFCC with a complete Non-free use rationale guideline. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded Photos

Recieved a message from you stating that a photo would be deleted which I uploaded this evening. It is titled "minitrucks.jpg" and apparently doesn't meet copyright restrictions for wikipedia. Not sure why, since it's my picture and I clearly stated that in the description. Fairly new to wikipedia, and can't for the life of me figure out how to add a copyright tab. Your assistance would be appreciated, instead of just threatening to delete it. As well, I've also tried to upload another pic titled "bigfootmini.jpg". I'm sure you'll have a problem with that one too if you'd like to help. Thanks. Kildare2 (talk) 04:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In future please link to the file you are referring to, so I can find it easily. You have failed to add a copyright tag for the image. We take copyright very seriously because many image are stolen from other websites and claimed as uploader's own work. Click on the links in the notice to find out more about this issue. A description is not enough. If you want to release this image into the public domain and you actually took the photo you can use the '''{{PD-self}}''' template in a licensing section for the image. Hope that helps but everything you need to know about copyright should be available through the links already on your page otherwise please ask again. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but you're speaking an entirely different language as far as I'm concerned. Been sitting here for hours trying to do what you're stating, with no results. You're clear on my intentions for the image and where it came from, can you give me direct and detailed step by step instructions on how to deal with this please? Also now being told that my "bigfootmini.jpg" image is going to be deleted because it is orphaned...could this be made any harder?!?! Kildare2 (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is regarding the message I recieved from you stating that a photo would be deleted which I uploaded yesterday evening. It is titled "minitrucks.jpg" and apparently doesn't meet copyright restrictions for wikipedia. I believe I have finally properly provided a copyright tag for this image. Please remove it from deletion. Thank you. Kildare2 (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that you have provided a proper licence as necessary I have removed the deletion notice from the image and everything should be ok. Please remember that all future uploads still need a licence and you will avoid any issues, such as this, if you add the licence from the get-go. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I took that picture with my camera in a public park. what more is there to say ? do you want me to take a picture of the camera I have to verify it matches the camera details on the page ? what is the copyright information that is missing and how do I add it ?

Hey. You know that this image is a high res. satellite photo, right? I think that means it is public domain! Talk me back please Ken Durham (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In future please link to the file you are referring to, so I can find it easily. How do you know it is in the public domain? Proof is required not just you thinking it is PD. We take copyright very seriously here and try to delete all improperly licenced or sourced material. See the similar comments immediately above this post. All images are copyright to someone and unless specifically noted to be freely licenced they are copyright and unusable by us in most circumstances unless they comply with all NFCC criteria. The source you provided claims you created the photo; I don't think so, unless you are a satellite. Just because you added some labels does not give you any new copyright to the image because it is a simple derivative work. Please provide a proper link to the source so we can check whose image it is and if your PD claim is valid. I looked at the Google maps image of this area but it does not look the same as yours, so I don't think Google is the source but, just so you know, all Google map images are copyright. Hope that helps. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Source of image was msn maps. I then edited the image and did some overlays. Ken Durham (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you but just like Google maps, msn maps are copyright and not usable by us. ww2censor (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Even with the extreme edits I made to it?

You cannot call what you added as extreme edits, besides which it still remains a derivative work and you cannot claim any copyright to it. Sorry but no. ww2censor (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect request

Hey. Could you semi-protect the page "flight 29 down". Some jokers keep messing it up. Ken Durham (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is the link to the article? I cannot help you if you make it difficult for me to find. Besides which I am not an administrator, so I can't help you. Ask an administrator to protect it. You will find one at Category:Wikipedia administrators but check to see who is active. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

File:BeBig1931.jpg

Hi, sorry to be causing a problem with adding a photo to the article Be Big!. I foolishly reuploaded the image as File:BeBig1931a.jpg after fouling up the text part of the original upload -- didn't occur to me I could just edit it. I tried deleting the first attempt (the one without the "a"), but couldn't manage it. I've expanded the rationale for the "a" file and think it should work now. Obviously, I'm a first-time uploader.

This article deserves a good image and I'll do whatever it takes to get it one. Thanks for your help! --HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You really need to make it easy to find your image by linking to it. I suggest you add the fair-use rationale that is on File:BeBig1931a.jpg to File:BeBig1931.jpg. However you need to add an appropriate copyright licence but I cannot help you with that because you have not actually indicated a proper source link. The "laurelandhardyforum.com" does not bring me to the image you uploaded and therefore I cannot tell you if it is freely licenced which is what we really need unless the fair-use clearly complies with all 10 criteria for non free content. When you have done that, replace all the data in the image File:BeBig1931a.jpg file that you want to get deleted with the following tag {{delete|reason:author requests deletion because this file is incorrectly titled and a duplicate has been uploaded}}. Hope that helps you. ww2censor (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I upgraded the link to the image source (http://www.laurelandhardyforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=11831) and put all the rationale info into the original image file (File:BeBig1931.jpg) and marked the second one (File:BeBig1931a.jpg) for deletion, all as you suggested. Thanks again for your assistance. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

how to add a copyright tag grmike here you tagged at least 4 of my images for deletion

Resolved

the images are File:mr.greek.jpg, File:Scoresdelight.jpg (i edited 2 logos together, made extreme changes there), File:Mrgreek.jpg. I'm new at this and my articles filled in some huge holes on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grmike (talk • contribs)

You have already asked a question about this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and received an answer which has been acted on. ww2censor (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Pearl Jam pics

Hi. Thanks for the messages on my talk page re: the above. I'm quite new to adding pictures to WP, so hopefully I've tagged the files correctly! All pics were taken by myself on Tuesday night. Please let me know if the tags are OK or not. Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

LNER steam locomotive images

Earlier today you tagged File:Lnerbarrowhill1.jpg, File:60009barrowhill1.jpg and File:Lnerbarrowhill2.jpg for speedy deletion with the rationale that there was no information about their copyright status. This is actually only accurate for the third of these images. The other two are correctly tagged as {{PD-self}} - one directly from upload time and while the other was not tagged with a copyright notice at first, this was corrected several hours before your edit.

I've had a look at a random sample of your other recent contributions to the File: namespace, and have not seem anything else you've incorrectly tagged, so it appears to be an isolated error, but nevertheless please do be careful when tagging for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, those two look like a mistake, though the 3rd was indeed fine. I must be too tired this evening! Thanks for pointing that out. ww2censor (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I, too was tired and uploaded these images rather hastily. I have added the missing copyright notes that these images are my own work and I release them to public domain. Please contact me if I have left anything else off. Hope to have more A1 and A4 images for here. Steel city ady (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

All your recent uploads look good now. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Munster Kilronan Shahjahan Bushmills Oughterard Ballon, County Carlow South Tipperary Ballymote Tullow Dundonald Kilmore West Bawn North Tipperary Glens of Antrim Jack Lynch Tunnel Kilkieran Greater Belfast Strandhill Omagh (film)

Cleanup Counties of Ireland Hill of Tara Early history of Ireland Merge Norman Ireland Lordship of Ireland Drogheda Add Sources City limits A2 road (Northern Ireland) Glengormley Wikify Jackie Woodburne Sixmilebridge Manorhamilton Expand County Clare Blackrock College University of Ulster

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II

Thank you for your suggestion This article has been marked as needing an infobox. What type of infobox are you recommending? ClemMcGann (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not sure Clem but thought it could do with one. What about this one {{Infobox Historical Event}}, (look at the "What links here" results) otherwise I will try to find a better one tomorrow 'cause I'm off to bed now. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That template says "lasting under one year." ClemMcGann (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts? Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II ClemMcGann (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Assessment ratings

Hello Ww2censor, would you like to work your magic on the following which were never rated/I suspect may have become outdated: Domhnall Gleeson, Pure Mule, Single-Handed and John 3:7. I think that is all from checking my user pages, you must have seen the others. Thank you once again. --candle•wicke 04:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, some new and some revised. Hope you agree. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much. :D --candle•wicke 15:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Cambrai Homily rating

Hi. It was suggested on the WikiProject Ireland talk page that I might bring this to you directly. I wrote the article Cambrai Homily, and I was hoping that since you were the one who rated it a 'C', you might suggest ways to improve it. There is one source I'm not able to obtain, since my university library's holdings for the academic journal Ériu are sketchy, but other than that I had pretty much exhausted all the info I could find on this fragmentary little piece without engaging in 'original research'. Your suggestions for additional sources would be welcome. The current article deals disproportionately, it may seem, with the colors of martyrdom, but that reflects accurately the proportion of the fragment that's extant. According to the Ireland Project's standards, you see the article as characterized by substantial gaps and requiring 'considerable editing'. I have a strong commitment to quality, so it would be a great help if you could outline your concerns at Talk:Cambrai Homily. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign earlier. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

not to bug you, but …

Could you tell me when you might have a chance to respond? I'm moving in a different direction at the moment and kinda want this off my plate. I also have a related article on the Prebiarum mentioned in Cambrai Homily I'm waiting to post in case concerns are relelvant. General criticisms are fine, based on your first read that led to your rating. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I am getting ready to go away on holiday for a few weeks from tomorrow but will try to give you some guidance though you might not find very useful. Here is the deal. While I have assessed thousands of Irish articles, I do that based on the criteria set down by the assessment department. I really don't give advise on what to add or where to find it. It would be impossible because I don't know every topic I read. The C-class quality is given because it is far better than start-class article but is obviously, and by your own admittance, missing information, so it is not comprehensive enough to rate a B right now, however if it get nominated as good article, it would then get that rating. Remember to assessing is subjective and someone else might rate it a B right now and if I respect that person's viewpoint I would likely not object and may even raise it to that level myself when I next review it. The importance rating is able based on the criteria and I don't see the article rating any more than a low in the overall embrace of the total Ireland WikiProject as defined by the "Subject is notable in their main discipline." Have to read the rating and importance info at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment? Hope that helps but I really can't tell you what to add or where to find more information. You seem to have dug deep into a rather esoteric Irish topic I had never heard about/ Well done. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

'Low importance' I totally get; it's a very esoteric topic. And 'Start Class' is a fine rating for a new article — one that I wouldn't complain about. A 'C', however, says the article is not well edited and presents an incomplete description of the subject. I did say there's one journal article I know of that I haven't looked at; its contents were summarized in the material I did read, and I believe the article as it stands contains the standard information that would be expected of an early medieval text of this sort. You seem to be confusing 'importance' and 'quality'; don't you find any contradiction in saying that you don't know anything about the subject, but you assume it isn't well covered?

This isn't a big deal; I'm just stubborn about wrestling with things I don't understand, particularly things I find irrational. Bon voyage. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wallpaper images

Hi,

This is regarding the pictures uploaded to wiki page "Yushan (mountain)". Maybe I have followed the wrong procedure. Please help.

Those pictures uploaded here are for free download from the following site: http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/download/wallpaper.html

Isn't that good enough? How should I proceed next?

Thanks a lot! Stanley Guan (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed they are free to download as wallpaper for private use but if you look at the bottom of the page you will see that they are copyright, so we at wikipedia cannot use them and they are replaceable so you cannot use them under fair-use either. Go out there, take some similar photos and upload those under a free licence that we can use. Sorry ww2censor (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. I've sent them email asking for the permission. Stanley Guan (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

why the picture of Adnan Oktar is for deletion?

Hello, He is a public figure in Turkey. None of his work eg. Books,videos,articles,pictures is copyrighted and is free to download and reproduce for non commercial purposes. his same picture can be found all over Internet including News website. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0906/S00102.htm Mineral (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please give me a link to the file in question, i.e., File:Adnan Oktar Agustos2007 3 09.jpg. There is no source for the file so we cannot check if the claim you made about permission (non-copyright) is valid as you did not create the file yourself, you just copied it from somewhere else, so there is no evidence of permission. Unless an image is clearly freely licensed, then it is copyright to someone and you need to prove that. Please follow the instructions in the notice that I left on your talk page. ww2censor (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Forerunner (stamp)

Dear Ww2censor. I note that you have edited several of my references to use a template to format them in a different way. Could I ask you not to do that. From my reading of Wikipedia help no particular reference system is preferred and I don't think that your chosen one is any better than mine which is Turabian (Bibliography version). I see also that you use 'pp' even where the reference is to single pages of a work and I do not think that is correct. I have always understood that pp is just for multiple pages. e.g. p.5 or pp.5-6. You are of course correct to internally link where I have not done so. A useful guide to Turabian referencing is here: http://www.bridgew.edu/library/turabian.cfm Thanks. Maidonian (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC) P.S. Just discovered that correct use of 'page' or 'pages' in the template creates the correct p or pp formatting. Maidonian (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been trying to get editors to use the citation templates which formats all the entered data according to the presets, and it tends to encourage people to add all the relevant data which free form reference does not do. Many references are rather sparse and missing detail for this reason. One slight downside to the citation templates is that it only uses the plural "pp" which I believe you can override by writing in "p. (page #)" but I seem to recall a bot has been updating those entries and removing any stray "p" in the value field. For me the p v pp is not a big deal but using the templates is and creates uniformity throughout referencing. Perhaps you have forgotten that I gave you this same advise back in March when you stared becoming active but you don't seem to have taken it on board. In the meantime I have, on occasions, reformatted some of your references as I saw them and had time to reformat them. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am asking you not to over-ride my chosen way of referencing with your own preference. WP:CITE#HOW states "Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one. Where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected." There were no references in the article, I created some, and then you went in and changed them all to your preference. This was not justified. Maidonian (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Alma Mater.jpg

I have removed the no-permission tag from this image because it states it was created by the uploader and it is PD due to being published in the USA without a copyright tag before 1978. In either of these cases, permission does not need to be sent in. If you doubt the provenance or status of the image, the next step is listing on WP:PUF. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I sorry but I don't believe this editor. He has uploaded the same deleted images under different name and with different claims. I have been trying to keep track but he is making it difficult. I think his claims are false based on previous images that I tagged and were deleted. I don't have time for him right now as I am going away. ww2censor (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the correct forum is WP:PUF. The no-permission template is limited to where an image is uploaded, marked as freely-licensed, and sourced to a third party, but no evidence is presented that the third party has granted the purported license. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I was not suggesting your advise was not proper, just that this editor's uploads seem suspect. Of course they should be dealt with accordingly. ww2censor (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Photo request

Is Dublin Airport convenient to where you are? If so, would you mind photographing the headquarters of Aer Lingus and Ryanair? Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, as I currently live in the US and though I was in Europe for the last few weeks I was no in Ireland. Try asking Sarah777 as she does a lot of quality photography in Ireland. ww2censor (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nick Euclid

Hi, I recently upload Nick_euclid.jpg to Wiki common and from reading, apparently can upload as an original if it is in Wiki common for >4 days. Now I can't find the file. Any ideas? Sealpoint33 (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted on this en wiki because no licencing information or source had been provided. We do not keep images where we are unable to confirm the image is freely licenced. However, I did find commons:File:Nick Euclid.jpg on the commons which looks like it has all the licencing info needed. I have no idea what you mean by "apparently can upload as an original if it is in Wiki common for >4 days". Cheers. ww2censor (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The United States Trust Territory of Marie Byrd Land and Ellsworth Land Antarctica

I share your concern about this article. Something fishy about it. However, your understanding of use of the prod template is flawed. As it says on the extract below, any editor may remove it and you should not restore it. I suggest you take the article to AfD.

You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't improve such a horrible COI article myself, but you also removed the article issue tags that the COI editor removed. I have reinstated them. ww2censor (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. Thanks for fixing. I'm going to do a bit of rooting about, see if I can get to the bottom of this. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It seemed this issue was mute as the article was deleted at 16.57 but within a half hour it was recreated by the same original COI editor at 17:30. All the content seems to be rather similar to the editor's own web site and the only reference is published by him. Not one third party WP:RS seems to exist. Where do you think we should go on this one? what about an AfD? ww2censor (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I put it up for a speedy delete as a recreated article previously deleted. The criteria G4 suggests a speedy delete is permissible for recreation of hoaxes. It's gone now, so obviously an admin agreed.

It all looks like an exercise in wacky home lawyering to me. Someone got the idea they can declare themselves Governor of someplace if no-one else has got in before them. Even in the extremely unlikely situation of it being true, it is not backed up by reliable sources and not suitable for an article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Manchestermoth.JPG

Hi, thanks for your little note about the picture of the old moth, I have put some "justifying" points on now. It seems really nice to have a picture on the article but I am really not sure about image rights things and it all seems a bit complicated. Is it OK now or would lowering the resolution help or do you have any other suggestions? Sorry for having bothered you. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

When requesting help with image you really should link to the image otherwise it may be hard to find as I deal with many images daily. I have added some description as "Press release" does not describe the image. Additionally I refined your purpose and remove the deletion tag. The image resolution for a fair-use image should not be greater then 300px on the longest side, so you might want to reduce the image and upload over the existing file. There is a "Upload a new version of this file" link near the bottom of the image page. ww2censor (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not including a proper link and thanks for your help. I have uploaded a smaller image as you suggested. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

File copyright problem with File:Sofianchahedtunisia.jpg

Hi, in regards to the photo Sofianchahedtunisia.jpg - I would ask of you to extend the removal date of this picture you have put a notice on until i have an answer from the creator of this image, i have sent him an email to provide me proof of the fact that I have permission to use it for wikipedia, im hoping to receive an answer by email within the next 3 days.

Thanks for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapoontje (talk • contribs) 09:40, 11 September 2009

Thanks for asking but please sign your posts. I changed the date but don't know if there will be any problems with using a future date as I have never done that before. I am keeping it on my watchlist. Permission for use an image on Wikipedia is not good enough for us, we need to have freely licenced images, so please refer to WP:PERMISSIONS for details of what to do and how to do it. A direct email to you is not accepted but an OTRS ticket from the copyright owner will be good if you can get it. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

File:MATW1.jpg

I have filled out the fair use template for MATW1.jpg. I believe it is correct. I am still new at this so bare with me if I make a few mistakes. I welcome correction, and thank you for keeping me honest. 4bigGuy9 (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want me to comment on an image, please link to the file itself. Much better though I cannot guarantee the reviewing administrator will accept the rationale but for me it look ok per WP:NFCC. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

whats ur problem

on "File:Sergio Ramos5.jpg", u dont see the fucking source below the picture? omg

Civility please. That link is the place where you uploaded the image on Wikipedia. Please provide the source of where you downloaded the image from. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

i wrote the source (where i downloaded the picture from) under the picture.. u dont see? "Picture of Sergio Ramos. Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/Sergio_Ramos_10mar2007.jpg" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahavx (talk • contribs) 18:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course I see that. Actually that is the upload page for an image on the commons. Apparently you are telling me that you actually uploaded this image Commons:File:Sergio Ramos 10mar2007.jpg to the English wiki. There is no need to upload it again to the English wiki because it is usable by anyone as it is, so, unfortunately, your upload was rather a waste of time and effort for both of us but so be it. The file you uploaded is redundant. In future, if you find an image on the commons you just use the file name as you find it there, such as "File:Sergio Ramos 10mar2007.jpg", and paste it into the article you want where it displays directly in any articles on all the different language Wikipedias. I have replaced the one you uploaded with the identical commons image in the Sergio Ramos article which is being used by 33 different language wiki pages already, and will tag the image you uploaded appropriately because it is now redundant. If you have any image questions in future please ask. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Ww2censor. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tagging images as copyright violations

If you keep 'em coming, I'll keep deleting them, but in future, would you mind providing a page where the images was used as an URL rather than the path to the files itself. It kinda makes things easier. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 17:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I will provide the page on which it appears rather then the image's own url. Right? However in some cases that is virtually impossible but I will try to keep you happy. Hopfully I am not overworking you today; yesterday was more prolific. Cheers. ww2censor (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right (if possible), no need to go to great lengths though. Thankfully we have the bulk deletion facility, saves time. I don't think that any new information has been released in recent days re the NPG, but I would assume behind-the-scenes discussions are ongoing. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 18:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Images

i dont know how to verify the copyright information on the picture please tell me how to do it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwayneflanders (talk • contribs) 18:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the message left for me

I uploaded an image to en.Wikipedia, and asked for it's deletion. I normally upload only free images directly to Wikimedia Commons. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That fine then as the tagged image will be deleted in a week or so. Besides which it is an orphan anyway. Good luck and keep on working. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Im sorry about the Lego Batman image. You can delete it if you want....--Coldplay Expert 23:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have the same problem as the person who wrote above me.--Coldplay Expert 23:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

about my image

thanks. i didn't know which one to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldragon21 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 September 2009

Regarding the message left for me

Hi, you left me a message that I need to provide source and copyright information for the images uploaded. I selected appropriate copyright license when uploading. How do I provide more copyright information to those images to prevent them from being deleted. Also, how do I provide sources for the image? They were taken from the web. Please reply on my talk wall, where I have left a similar message.

Sincerely, --Iliasbeshimov (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)iliasbeshimov

If you got the images from the web then you know the source and must provide the URL on which the image is located, otherwise it will be deleted as not having a source. We can then determine what the copyright is but how can we verify the copyright licence you chose is correct?. In most instances images just found around the internet are copyright and not freely licenced. They cannot be used on Wikipedia unless they are specifically marked as being the the public domain. US Federal government images are in the public domain. Occasionally non-free images may be permitted if they comply with all 10 of the the non-free content criteria. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I went and uploaded sources of images, and I marked them as releasing into public domain. Author John J. Donovan, from whose personal and MIT website the pictures were taken, gave me permission to do so. How can I prove that so that images do not get deleted? Should I provide an email conversation we had about him allowing me to use, upload and mark as release into public domain those pictures?

Sincerely, --Iliasbeshimov (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)iliasbeshimov

No, you need to follow the instructions found at WP:PERMISSION and John Donovan needs to realise that releasing the images into the public domain means that anyone can you them for any purpose including commercial use. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you. --Iliasbeshimov (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)iliasbeshimov

Just done WP:PERMISSION. How long will it be before those images are tagged that they can be used? I don't want the images to get deleted. Again, thank you for being so helpful. Just started editing and uploading articles on wikipedia. Your help is much appreciated. --Iliasbeshimov (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)iliasbeshimov

That depends on how long it takes for the permission confirmation email to arrive from the copyright holder. Then an OTRS ticket will be generated and attached to each image. I will tag the images as pending an OTRS Ticket so they don't get deleted at soon as they would normally. If by chance the images are deleted they can be restored by an administrator together with the OTRS permission ticket.Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

More: I see you already tagged the images with the OPTS pending tag but you also uploaded duplicate images that are orphaned which I have tagged for deletion. Don't worry about the additional notices as they is done automatically by the tagging process script that I use for such work. Any other questions please ask. ww2censor (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There is an issue with sourcing the following image I uploaded: File:Bakyt_Beshimov.jpg. I uploaded it from my computer, and I was the one who took it. Bakyt Beshimov is my father. How can I mitigate this source problem, because I do not want the image deleted? Thank you, --Iliasbeshimov (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)iliasbeshimov

I have modified the info for File:Bakyt_Beshimov.jpg to reflect the facts you gave, so there is now no problem with this one. ww2censor (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you are awesome. Thank you. --Iliasbeshimov (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)iliasbeshimov

File copyright problem with File:D maddison.jpg

Hi, in regards to the photo D_Maddison.jpg - This photo is on display at the University of Newcastle, Australia on Level 2 of the Auchmuty Library. The Auchmuty Library has authorised all photos in this part of the library (Cultural Collection, Auchmuty) to be used freely. The picture in question is of the founding Dean (deceased). His wife gave permission for the photo to be incorporated in the Cultural Collection, and thus to be used as the library decrees. So, how can I ensure that this picture is not speedily deleted, because as far as I can see and have been told, the picture is in no way copyrighted as it is part of a public collection that anyone is able to access and use.

Thanks so much for your help (and would you mind responding on my user page?)

Shagudiga (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This image is still a problem even after you added a Creative Commons attribution licence template for which you have no evidence. We have to consider the Australian copyright law per Commons:Commons:Licensing#Non-government works which basically uses a 70-year rule (with or without author's death) no matter if it was pre-published or if the author is known. Assuming the photo was taken around the time of the establishment of the University of Newcastle Medicine School in 1975, then the image is definitely copyright to someone. Possession of a photo in itself does not imply or confer any copyright to the image itself, so his widow may not even own the copyright though she had the photo itself. The image does not look amateurish so is likely to have been taken by a professional photographer and he/she, even if unknown, still holds the copyright. Some photo libraries, museums and other image repositories practice copyfraud, where they claim copyright over images that are either in the public domain or where the copyright is still owned by others, so the Auchmuty Library, if they claim to own the copyright, may knowingly or unknowingly be practicing copyfraud. Claims of free accessibility, use and being in a public collection does not confirm the copyright status, so, if possible, we really need more information from both his widow and the library, otherwise the image status cannot be confirmed and we take copyright status very seriously. Also, you cannot claim fair-use because the image is not being used in an article about the person, but just to decorate the school article and would therefore fail the non-free content criteria. For now I will not nominate the image for deletion again for about a week or so to give you time to get more information. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks very much for your help, I'll see what I can find. Shagudiga (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Having investigated further, all I could find was that the picture was actually taken in 1954 (not 1975) before Professor Maddison became the Dean of Medicine. Yet, I assume that this does not affect the criteria for speedy-deletion as does not fall under the required 70+ year rule. Thanks again for your help. Shagudiga (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet today I was told by the library that the image was free for use - despite the fact that it is only 65 years old...? Shagudiga (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Good work. In that case you should follow the instructions at WP:PERMISSION and have the library verify the permission and licence under which the image has been released. An WP:OTRS ticket will then be added to the file to verify the permission for use and it will not be deleted. I see that another editor has now nominated it for deletion again, so if you are going to get the library to confirm their permission, please add the template {{OTRS pending}} to the image. Thanks for your patience. ww2censor (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)