User talk:Ww2censor/Archive18

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 • Archive 14 • Archive 15 • Archive 16 • Archive 17 • Archive 18

pre 1925 images in public domain

Hi WW2Censor. I've read your informative pages and other links but what I can't find is a reasonable reason to delete the image I recently uploaded File:Car 697 1913 Princess Rd Depot.jpg.

• It's in the public domain - I don't know that
• It's older than 75 years (taken in 1913), - I don't know that
• It's of public interest, - That may be true
• It's of historical relevance, - That may be true
• It's of a public vehicle, - That is irrelevant to copyright
• It was taken for public use (local government in UK) - I don't know that

...also I made several personal changes to it so it could even be argued as my copyright... absolutely no-one is going to be bothered if it is used on Wiki...in fact anyone who notices will be happy that it is there....I really cannot see what the problem with it is?

I fully appreciate (and agree) that Wikipedia needs to be thorough about copyright infringement but there is no-one alive to infringe here! And I can fully understand your thorough scrutiny of images and the serious issue copyright violation but I do wonder if perhaps you are being a little overly strict here!

Any thoughts? Suggestions about what I can do to clear the image?? best wishes, Mark --Mapmark (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

All of what you wrote above may well be true but perhaps you did not understand the deletion notice otherwise you would have realised that you did not add a copyright tag to the image and because this is missing we do not know the copyright status that you might claim for the image; that is not being overly strict. What tag, if any, are you going to add to the image? The image looks like a scan from a newspaper or magazine and this would mean it was previously published, also you have not revealed a source url, where we might see if there is any author information. Both of these affect UK copyright per commons:COM:L#Ordinary copyright. Let's see where we go from here if you can provide some additional information; the source will be a good start. BTW the burden of proofis on the uploader to provide the proof of copyright status. ww2censor (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah right! See where you are coming from now! I'm such a plonker. Yes indeed the image was scanned from a book which probably means that it will not pass the test. OK we better delete the image (at least from the page) until such time as I can get hold of the people who made the book. I'm guessing the image is OK if it comes from the original soucre, but yes of course I do need to check the book publishers first. Have to wait until a weekday of course. OK my mistake, and thanks for being so eagle-eyed and helpful. Wikipedia is safer in your hands!!--Mapmark (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the book and when was it published? Even then, the image may have been published previously, so some digging may help us determine if it really is a public domain image in the UK or not. I haven't heard anyone use the term plonker for quite a while, maybe I will hear it again when I go to visit my son in London! ww2censor (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Anne Murray photographs

I am the photographer who took the several Anne Murray photographs in question. I have full copyright privilages on all images and have the right to post them to Anne Murray's Wikipedia page. These images were taken as promotional photographs for Anne Murray, and have appeared in a variety of media previously. However, I hold the copyright for each and every image. Thank you, AnneFan1 (talk) AnneFan1 AnneFan1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC).

However, as mentioned in the notice on your page you did not tell us what specific copyright licence you are releasing the images under. Promotional or not, you must add a copyright tag to each image you upload and it must be freely licenced, which means that anyone can use it for anything otherwise it will be deleted. Generally promotional images are not freely licenced and only used under a fair-use rationale except that we don't accept fair-use images for living people. ww2censor (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ww2censor. You have new messages at Od Mishehu's talk page.
Message added 07:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of image Myflower.png and Myflower2.png

Hi,

I have provided the source from which I took this image and I have uploaded its different sizes to look nice in my article. The source from which I took it has public domain images free for use. So kindly restore it from speedy deletion category. Thank you. Viralthoughts (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Viralthoughts

Deletion of image File:IAF-IFA map January 2010.png

Hi, I noticed you flagged this image for deletion, I would like to edit it to include the necessary copyright details but I'm unaware how to do it, sorry for the trouble, but if you could help, or direct me to where I can learn how to do so, I'd be very grateful. Thanks in advance! Libleft (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2010 (GMT)

It looks like this image is a derivative work of this image: File:BlankMap-World-Subdivisions.PNG, in which case you need to say so, and as a derivative work with no significant artistic interpretation/addition you can only licence the new image with the same copyright status as the original. You don't have any greater copyright over the image than the original. All you have to do is login, click on the edit button, add a link to the original source file and add the appropriate copyright tag to the image which I think is {{PD-retouched-user|username}} in which the original username must be added. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

New Hamburg Fire Department Page

ww2censor, you marked my pictures for not having a copyright. I took the pictures and it's my understanding I documented them correctly. You may have noticed they're the ones off the website because I took them and added them to the website! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhfd147 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of you guys really make it difficult to help you because you don't provide any links to the images you want help with, per the clear instruction at the top of this edit page, and you failed to sign your post making it even more work to find you. Anyway, let's see what the problem is. The deletion noticed left on your uploaded images indicate they are missing copyright tags, a specific requirement for all images. File:NHFD5345.jpg and File:NHFD5399.jpg have this problem and even though you are the photographer, you have not told us under what copyright you are prepared to release the images to Wikipedia. Many editors uploading their own images add the {{PD-self}} template.

File:NewHamburgFireDistrictLogo.gif is a different problem. Is the New Hamburg Fire District releasing this into the public domain, if so we must have verification of this by having you follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT because the term "free use" is unclear. If this is not the case, the image might be usable under a fair-use claim if used in the infobox of the organisation's article, so long as a fully completed fair-use rationale is completed and it complies with all 10 non-free content criteria.

I advise you to read my image copyright information page which I wrote to assist editors who have copyright problems and this post might not have been necessary if you had read it first, as suggested at the top of this edit page. Hope that helps you fix these image, if not please ask. ww2censor (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please follow process and be more careful

You've tagged one of my images for a speedy deletion. In your message on my talk page you said that it had no copyright information. In fact it had a copyright tag, source and a fair use rationale. Your message on my talk page was wrong. And you did not follow the correct process, please see WP:CSD F7: "Invalid fair-use claims tagged with subst:dfu may be deleted seven days after they are tagged, if a full and valid fair-use use rationale is not added."--Anon 00:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you got the wrong end of the stick on this one. I did not tag this image for no copyright information but for an invalid licence. While I review many images for copyright status, I very infrequently nominate images for speedy deletion based on invalid licences. If I got this wrong I am sorry, but I seem to recall there was no reasonable fair-use rationale attached to File:Hexley.png when I tagged it, neither based on a template nor on a text version similar to those mentioned at WP:FURG. If there had been one, as I see there is now, I would not have tagged it thought if the rationale was missing information, I would have tagged it as such. I also recall there was some prose that tried to justify its use based on the text on the http://www.hexley.com page though the licence text here clearly shows copyright and only a fair-use would be acceptable. The deleting editor, Fastily knows his stuff and I doubt he would have deleted it if I was wrong, as he has previously refused an occasional speedy I improperly tagged (due to a misunderstanding of a different reasoning). Anyway everything looks fine now. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Image tag

Unfortunately, my original version (which was one-ninth the size of the tagged version) was since superceded by what Darius uploaded. That being said, I am going to replace it with a scaled-down version just the same, given its fair-use rationale. --JB Adder | Talk 07:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The 300px size of File:Olive-extravirgin.jpg looks perfect and complies with fair-use, so all is good. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No problems, censor. --JB Adder | Talk 03:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

New section

Attention ww2censor

I have re-set the permission/licence. I have been having problem setting the license permission to the photo top right of Femi Fani-Kayode and to all the photos of Remi Fani-Kayode. Please check if the permission is set properly this time around.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tebsala (talk • contribs) 14:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

All images you uploaded to the English Wikipedia have been deleted but you have uploaded them to the commons. Honestly the images don't look like they were taken in Nov 2009 as claimed. In fact seeing as how the subject died in 1995 that statement is clearly untrue. Did you really take these photos yourself at some other time or did you find them somewhere on the internet or in a book? The out-of-focus image File:Remilekun-Fani-Kayode.jpg is basically a useless image and should not be uploaded in the first place. I would be ashamed to say this was my image. ww2censor (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Dais6556.JPG

Sorry but I'm a bit unsure how to go about this but I took the File:Dais6556.JPG and am the copyright holder, Thanks Hilda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilda777 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I added an information template to the image. You need to fill in the missing details, better description, source (you), author, (you), date (per the metadata) and most importantly you must add a copyright tag. As you took the photo yourself you may want to release the image into the public domain by adding the {{PD-self}} template to the image if that is what you want. There are other tags available in the link above, but you must choose a freely licenced one, otherwise we cannot keep the image. Hope that helps. If you complete that you can remove the deletion notice or tell me you are done and I will review it an remove the notice at that time. ww2censor (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How does that look now? Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilda777 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That looks fine now, but please sign your post by adding four tildes, like this ~~~~ otherwise people can't find you easily. ww2censor (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Britannia_Stadium_2010.jpg

Thanks for deleting the photo that I took, uploaded and inserted into the info box for the Britannia Stadium page. I was unsure of its merits so it's always good to have the benefit of an unbiased opinion. In the light of its removal I've now reinstated the photo that was there before. Keep up the good work! Russ London (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Image for infobox

Thanks for the message; there seems to be no opposition to the idea, so I've added the feature and have left a few notes on it on the template talk page. Warofdreams talk 15:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Republic of Ireland postal addresses archives

Thanks for tidying up Talk:Republic of Ireland postal addresses and for ensuring that the aftermath of the recent disruption was dealt with calmly and effectively. — Richardguk (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You may want to add the archive pages to your watchlist just in case comments are added or removed. I have too large a watchlist myself. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

For once, I am ahead of you. — Richardguk (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

T11 image

Hi, sorry about not providing the info on the copyright! I can verify that the image is from www.classicandperfomancecar.com, and is published by the Dennis group, which has reserved rights. however, I was able to save the image from the browser, so I believed that there was no problem (i.e. a blocker). There are no warnings about using the image, although i am not incredibly well-versed in law, etc.. Also, how do I change the copyright status, bearing in mind the computer here has a blocker that stops downloading, etc.Aubs 400 (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I've think I've done something right, but i'm not sure; could you ok it for me? Cheers. Aubs 400 (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well you added a source but that only links to the homepage, not to the page where the image appears. The website clearly state "All right reserved" at the bottom of all pages. This looks like the image page linked from this page which clearly shows the photographer attribution to Paul Bussey. Unless you have his permission to use the image under a free licence we cannot kept it. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Even when an image does not state it is copyright does not mean it is free, it must be specifically noted to be free for use to confirm its copyright status. Sorry. ww2censor (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but my internet prevents me from e-mailing the website to ask for permission. Shall I just ask them to delete it?--Aubs 400 (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The current tag will mean it will be deleted in due course by an admin, probably within a week, or you can add this template {{db-author}} to the image if you want to gone sooner. ww2censor (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and advice; i'll do that and try and get things going again PROPERLY when I have a decent connection at home. --Aubs 400 (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Monckton-washington-09.jpg

Erm, massive confusion here This pic was given to me by jo nova who took the pic. I have forwarded the e-mail from her to permissions-enwikimedia.org, why is this image being deleted? I went to a lot of trouble to get it, from mailing lord monckton to jo nova. What is the problem here? mark nutley (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Bugger, i think i sent it to the wrong addie, I sent it here <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>, I have now sent it to <permissions-en@wikimedia.org>, is this the right one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 15:25, 29 January 2010

The email permissions-en‐at‐wikimedia.org is for the English Wikipedia, while permissions-commons‐at‐wikimedia.org is for commons images. I hope you mentioned the image title. Forwarding emails is not the best thing, it is better to get the copyright holder to email them directly but remember that the OTRS ticket system is handled by volunteers and is often backed up. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The image title, buggeritmilleniumhandandshrimp, i said whic hone i had used but not what i had named it, will that cause a problem? Once they have seen the mail and approved it will i get a link to the image (I assume they will use the name on the image) so i can link it to Lord Moncktons article? thanks man. --mark nutley (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Postal convention states of India

Was planning to develop them further. Getting some stamp scans & hopefully some books. Let me work on it awhile. We can always redirect it/reform it later. Request a week to ten day's time. AshLin (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Just sayin'

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For your ongoing and persistent attention to copyright issues. You do your Wiki good service. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Keeping Track of My Uploaded Pics

I have uploaded many pictures as Cstevencampbell but can not find a nice list of them and when I search only one earlier picture comes up. I have no problem linking the pictures to the pages/entries I am working on. Can you help me with this? Please place you comment on my talk page. Any help would be appreciated. Craig Campbell Cstevencampbell (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean all these images that you uploaded to the Commons? ww2censor (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Wascana Lake.JPG

Thank you. Now attended to. Masalai (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Important

Hello,

I read the notices that were posted to me and I know that this is the wrong place to be saying this, but I was not sure where to pose this question, because I have not been actively using wikipedia for very long and my knowledge of it is still rudimentary.

I apologise in advance for any inconvenience or irritation.

Having made an effort to edit and improve the article entitled "Adel Osseiran" (a deceased Lebanese politician and statesman), I was asked by wikipedia to provide a picture of that person. Accordingly, I did so, after conducting a google search which brought up a number of images of him. The picture I uploaded was captioned: Courtesy of Al Nahar Newspaper (a Beirut daily Newspaper), and I stated that when I uploaded it on wikipedia.

Yet, despite this precaution, I have been informed that the picture was labelled as lacking copyright permission. But the fact is that Al Nahar had this photo in its archive and allowed it to be published online, something that could not have happened without the consent of the periodical concerned. To prove this, the picture can be found on the website on the website of the American University of Beirut, which has published it with an interview with him Circa 1970. The link is as follows: http://ddc.aub.edu.lb/.../adel_osseiran/index.html

If you or the administrator concerned will take the trouble to check the link, you will find that the picture was published online with the consent of Al Nahar Newspaper, which had it in its archives. Therefore, it deserves to remain on wikipedia.

Thank you for your kind assistance Best Ameroffsky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameroffsky (talk • contribs) 09:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you read my instructions at the top of this edit page before posting? I ask this because you did not do 3 of the 5 things asked; no link to the image, no link to the article and you did not sign your post. I want to help you and these make it easier for me to do that. Also, did you read my image copyright information page which explains all of this for you? Now regarding the image, you did not add a copyright tag, a necessary requirement, you just claimed it to be from a newspaper circa 1970. There is no verification, just your claim, this is a freely licenced image, besides which Lebanon copyright law protects images for the life of the author plus 50 years, or if it is anonymous, for 50 years, per Commons:COM:Copyright#Lebanon, neither of which make this a free image. The link you provided does not work, and we are not obliged to check out the status of your uploads, the burden of proof is on you to provide the necessary information. Because Adel Osseiran is deceased, it may be possible to use this image under a fair-use claim, so long as it complies with all 10 non-free content criteria, but again my image copyright information page explains this for you. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ireland

Hi Ww, do you think the article is git(fix: I think that was meant to be a word between "good" and "fit") enough to put to GA? Also, did you centre all of the captions? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not quite and no. I am not sure about the centred captions which are not seem often elsewhere and I have not finished with the images yet. Will try to do so in the next day or so. ww2censor (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I had thought not. It looks strange. I think if they were "supposed" to be centred then the thumb code would do that. Thanks. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll remove them next time I do some image editing, unless you get to it first. ww2censor (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your reply. My bad. AmeroffskyAmeroffsky (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleting image File:Front1212.jpg and File:Qeeen.jpg

Hi, you marked my images as those for deleting. I dodn't know how to show you in more efficient way that I just took the images from our own database. I took the images myself and store them in my database, I allow myself to use them in amy context I want to. So please explain me how to ipload them properly or how to edit the copywirte section while they are uploaded. It took me 3 hours to upload them so I hate seeing them deleted. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhukvita (talk • contribs) 16:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you bother to read my image copyright information page? Obviously not as it explains most everything you are asking about. Anyway, let me help you. If you had filled in all the information in the fields when uploading the image you would have stated where the image came from. If you took the images then you need to say so, if someone else took them then you need their permission. If they are from a website you need to say where and link to it, and they are such small resolution images that they look like they came from a website though they do have metadata, which makes me ask the question as to the source. You also need a description, the date the image was taken and most importantly you must add a copyright tag to the image to show under what copyright it is released. PLease fill in all the information in the template I will now add to the images for you. Many photographers use the {{PD-self}} template and you may want to use that. If it took you 3 hours to upload such small images you are doing something wrong' 5-15 minutes for an inexperienced editor would be my estimate. In fact why would you put such low resolution images online for us anyway? If you have better quality image than these, upload them over the same image by choosing the "Upload a new version of this file" button near the bottom of the image files. You should also choose better image titles as these titles mean nothing to other editors searching for useful images; someone looking for a good photo of a queen size bed will not find it. Hope that helps, if not ask again. ww2censor (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for advice. I tried uploading the footprint as you suggested, and wrote the description to the images to the best of my ability. We don't have any bigger images right now, as I shrank those to upload them easier. I deeply appreciate your help uploading the images and the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhukvita (talk • contribs) 14:21, 29 January 2010

All I see is that you unnecessarily uploaded the images again but did not fill in the missing information in the template as suggested. Just click on the edit button and fill in the details. I don't know what you mean by "footprint". ww2censor (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I edited the images, put new description, {{PD-self}} capture to verify me as an author and 16:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC) at the and to sing the post. That is the top of my ability right now. Please, let me know if that is ok to post the article like that or if more changes are required. Thank you

Please don't start new section when one already exists, just continue adding to the same section by clicking on the edit button on the right of the section header; do not click on the + button at the top of the page. I don't know what you think you are actually doing, maybe English is not your first language, but you don't seem to understand what I thought were very clear instructions. You still have not added the required information that is missing. Nowhere does the copyright tag appear because you did not edit the file itself, you just uploaded the image again with some different summary, though one is nice a bigger. So let's do this in baby steps. You have to click on the edit button at the top of each image file and in the template, where it says "description", add a description of the image, where it says "source", tell us where the image comes from (scan, camera image, and by whom), where it says "date", don't do anything because I already added that from the image metadata, where it says "author", write in who took the photo, where it says "permission", add the template {{PD-self}} if you took the image and want it to be released in the public domain. And please sign your posts. ww2censor (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help again, I appologize for brinning so much trouble. I hope this time I added description right. Zhukvita (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference

Hello AGAIN. What is wrong with my references? I added "Lithuanian artist's association database, also from artist's official website" as a reference. What else can I do, so then you'll leave it alone? I can also add "General Lithuanian Encyclopedia". Would that be fair enough? Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Germantas (talk • contribs) 12:48, 3 February 2010

Re:User redirect

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

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

References

Hope these references will be enough. Regards, Germantas (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ashurbanipal.JPG

This is my own original picture and it greatly contributes to the Ashurbanipal article. Sometimes I wonder why bother if other editors delete my work that was done in good faith and hard work for improving an article. John Hyams (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Good faith has nothing to do with copyright. If you don't understand freedom of panorama you should read commons:COM:FOP#United States which tells you, as I already noted on the deletion discussion, that YOU do not have the right to distribute images of a copyright statue. Any photograph you make of this statue is copyright of the artist and you cannot obtain a copyright to such an image, even if you think you can, or think it is unfair that you can't. You can discuss this at the deletion discussion page if you wish. That is the law. Sorry. ww2censor (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The law does not say that exactly. If a statue is placed publicly outside on the street, it becomes part of the street. The street is not copyrighted. There's a difference between taking the picture inside a museum, or taking it on the street. This applies to all the statues in the world placed on open streets or in public places. YOU may have studied some law, but it does not mean you interpret the law correctly, nor does it mean you are a judge. John Hyams (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. I am not a judge and I have studied some law, however unfortunately you are completely wrong because some countries have a freedom of panorama exemption and some countries don't. As I suggested read commons:COM:FOP carefully; the United States and Italy do not have an FOP exemption but Venezuela and the United Kingdom do allow such use. Statues, even in the street, are still copyright, if new enough like this one, and any photo you take of it is a derivative work which obtains the same copyright as the artist has of the statue and not of you, the photographer. It is inaccurate to state that: this applies to all the statues in the world placed on open streets or in public places, because it does not. As I suggested previously you should make any of your points at the deletion discussion page if you are so inclined. ww2censor (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Human remains in Wicklow Mountains

Hello WW2censor,

In ref. to my addition to the Wicklow Mountains page, please let me know what link would satiate the requirements for what i added? An article from the RTE website concerning 'intermittent' finds of human remains, or something to that effect? please let me know as i feel the topic is worthy of mentioning on (as far as i'm concerned) the definitive web page on the subject of the Wicklow Mountains. For non-Irish English-speaking readers browsing the subject i feel it my duty to inform about what would potentially be a darker side to our culture that had been hitherto unknown.

Or failing that request, would you yourself be able to find the relevant link and post it on the Wicklow Mountains page yourself in the manner expected of an editor. Succeeding where i had failed perhaps. After all, is it not the spreading of truth that Wikipedia is all about? And is the subject of occasional human remains being found in that area not a sad yet blatant truth in the times we are living in?

Thank you in advance 86.46.63.78 (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources are required for statements that may be questioned. I removed your edit because the source provide, while regarded as reliable, did not support the prose you added. The burden of proof is on you to provide the source for such additions. If you cannot do that then don't add it or find the source first before you do so. I cannot find one source to support what you wrote. So as such we regard that as original research and being an encyclopaedia we deal in verifiable facts. Pleas be more careful what you add to articles as some of your other edits seem not to be of a WP:NPOV. ww2censor (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, I read that you are Irish. As am I. Were you not intrigued as to why there was not so much as a sentence regarding the infrequent yet important findings of human remains in the [[Wicklow Mountains] on said page? As a member of WikiProject Ireland, are you not (as is your mission statement) "dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Ireland." The improvement of Ireland related topics isn't a pick-and-mix affair; either you add relevant information to every Ireland related topic or you don't. My point is, why haven't you yourself (as a Wikipedian of some standing) added a concise paragraph and relevant link to the Wicklow Mountains page (succeeding where i failed)? A response would be appreciated. Thank you. 86.46.63.78 (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I already answered that question. I cannot find a reliable source for the claims you made. Improving the encyclopaedia is bout facts supported by reliable sources not original research, personal opinions and we are not a crystal ball either. Good luck. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright thanks, still seems to be spaghetti logic to me. something we all know is true yet can't be written on Wikipedia. very odd. i'll keep trying though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.78 (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I say it any other way? SHOW ME THE SOURCES THAT PROVE IT. ww2censor (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"WHUTEVA" article marked for deletion

Hello Ww2censor,

I am new to wikipedia and needed help correcting my page. The information is definitely accurate and I have sources. I received a deletion marker on my page. how can I work this out so my page will remain?? Your help is appreciated. Thank you. There are also pictures that I posted on a couple of pages. These pictures are my own property so I have absolute permission to post them (Innertainment (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC))

Please remember that you don't own any articles. WHUTEVA has lots of problems but I am not the one to help you with that as musicians is not my area, however your images, which I tagged for deletion, were clearly tagged because their copyright status was not clear. You failed to add a copyright tag to the images and we take copyright status very seriously around here. If you took them yourself you may be happy to add the {{PD-self}} template to the images and you should also add an information template which allows you to fill in the other necessary details such as, description, source, date and author. You can do this by copying the following to the image files and then filling in the details.

{{Information
| description = 
| source      = 
| date        = 
| author      = 
| permission  = 
}}

There are some instructions here if you need them. Did you bother to read my image copyright information page? It would have answered most of your question. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

U.K. < 1922 < U.K.

I see you talk about an irritant being that the U.K. had a different name before 1922. My impression was that it was called the U.K. both before and after 1922 (since the 1800 Act of Union), but that the meaning of U.K. changed. So, before 1922, U.K. meant the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, whereas afterwards, the word Northern was inserted to yield the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But the initials U.K. remained the same. No? --O'Dea (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In some instances it makes for clarity to use the full formal titles depending on the time period. Indeed United Kingdom, or its abbreviation UK, is the common version and the meaning has not changed just the jurisdiction. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Since "the meaning has not changed just the jurisdiction" then one can say "U.K." and the temporal context of the conversation or writing will be evident to anyone with a passing knowledge of the historical narrative. So, if we're talking about the nineteenth century Land War and I say "U.K.", you know the territorial extent I refer to, but if I mention the "U.K." while talking about the hilarious euphemism, the Emergency, you also know where I mean, so, like many words with multiple meanings, the meaning is clear from the context, so why be upset? That's the part I don't understand. --O'Dea (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Afterthought: The territorial extent and boundaries of many countries (e.g. the United States, Germany, India) have shifted to and fro, and no doubt the phenomenon will persist, yet those places continue to bear the same name throughout. People know that the shape of a country is not carved in stone in perpetuity and they hold different images of its shape in their minds depending on the time under consideration. India is still known as India after the loss of Pakistan and Bangladesh. --O'Dea (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

However, I don't believe the countries mentioned have actually changed their name despite territorial changes but the United Kingdom did change its name in 1927 after the territorial boundaries changed per the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 and the United Kingdom is still just a common version of the legal name. The Emergency is not a good example because it is only clear when you know the context.ww2censor (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Richo Image

File:Richo 1.jpg -- you thinking what I'm thinking? You CSD a previous image with the name "Richo" late last year. Is it the same one? —Aaroncrick (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It could well be, but I am not an admin so cannot view the deleted image but this one was uploaded the day after the other one was deleted with a slightly different name. You could ask an admin to have a look. I also found a source here but unfortunately no evidence of copyright status though the author of the site claims copyright only over the text per http://www.fullpointsfooty.net/copyright_notice.htm. You could email him to find out where the image came from. Also this image has no metadata which you might expect for an image uploaded by the author, so there is certainly suspicion. You could prod instead of csd. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support

Ww2censor - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.

PS: I really need to get back into a few Philately articles.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Chris Adams & Bernardo O'Reilly

Dear colleague, unfortunately I'm not that strong in american copyright law. We (russian,ukrainian wiki) have completely different routine. So it's really complicated for me to sort it out. Would You mind to help me in this situation, and rewrite its copyright status in proper way? Thank You very much. SerdechnyG (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Image licensing Issue

Plz refer to these images of mine, I've added their licensing tags.

Hopefully it'll resolve the issue. —fahadeng (talk)

They look properly licenced now but I would add a better description of what the images show. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. —fahadeng (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I would still prefer to see a better description of what the images actually show, so other users know what they are looking at besides you. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments on user essay

ww2Censor - I’ve just completed drafting my first WP essay in my user space: Creating A Better List. As of yet it is not linked anywhere except through the {{Essay}} template. My ultimate objective is to move this essay to the project space, but at this point, that is premature without some feedback from fellow editors. As such I would appreciate your opinion on the essay, especially on two points. 1) Have I made any statements contradictory to WP policy or guidelines? 2) Are there additional examples that could be included to demonstrate my points more effectively?

Thanks in advance for your review and feel free to make any editorial changes you think would enhance the essay. Please provide comments here, as I am asking several editors to comment and would like to keep them all in the same place--Mike Cline (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

— ξ^xplicit 06:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi

teach me please, how can I upload photos? Do you have an MSN please? Why will you delete this photo?

Tina Thompson and also Shay Doron how can i prove the license? and also, can I upload photos from a site if I say the source? teach me pls —Preceding unsigned comment added by Florin.mihulin (talk • contribs) 00:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There is only one photo, File:Sala sporturilor traian.jpg, you uploaded that actually looks like it was taken by you even though all the images are claimed to be your own work. Were you at all these games and took the photos? I doubt it. None of the images show their copyright status by the addition of a copyright tag, as mentioned in the deletion notices left on your talk page; this is a necessity. If you just copied the images from a website they must clearly be listed as freely licenced otherwise they will be deleted by an admin. Did you bother to read any part of the notice at the top of this edit page before you posted here because, if you had, you might have got all the answers you need, especially when you read my image copyright information page. I have tagged all the other uploaded images for the same reason. ww2censor (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I am the admin of the site of "Oltchim Ramnicu Valcea". The pictures from there are mine. I will try to upload another one, ok? There are my own work just to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.73.6 (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As I already explained above, you have not told us under what copyright licence you are releasing your photos and you do that by adding a copyright tag to the images. I explain all this quite clearly on my image copyright information page if you read it. Even if you took the images yourself you must add a copyright tag to the image otherwise it may be deleted and uploading another version, over the existing images or under a new name, does not solve the problem. We take copyright status very seriously around here, so please just follow the instructions. Read the page I linked to and if you still don't understand please just continue this post with a question and please sign your posts. ww2censor (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, pal, I will try to follow all the rules and to learn well. You know, I just want to help here as you see... But if there are rules, i will respect them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Florin.mihulin (talk • contribs) 15:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hindhead Sailor's Stone

File:Hindhead_Sailors_stone_front.jpg

Hi ww2censor. My apologies. I inadvertently omitted to include the copyright information tag. Now done.

By the way, are you able to give feedback on the page it was uploaded for?... Unknown Sailor BTP51 (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all, it looks good now. No to be a pedant, but we don't give feedback on pages; this is not eBay! I presume you actually mean would I review it; I'll have a look but it not really my area of interest. BTW, don't use ibid because if another editor puts a new reference in the text between two existing references, the later one will now look like it refers to the new inserted reference. ww2censor (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah....good point about ibid...hadn't though about that. I'll reinstate the full references.

Actually... being a pedant back at you, the tag on my page does mention feedback...

This page is a new unreviewed article. This template should be removed once the page has been reviewed by someone other than its creator; if necessary the page should be appropriately tagged for cleanup. If you are the article's creator, you can seek feedback on your new article. (February 2010)

BTP51 (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh, you are good. I never got one of those notices, so never noticed "feedback" being used here. Sorry. ww2censor (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. BTW I tried to create a smiley at the end of my last post (to show it was just in jest) but I think Wiki uses the colon for a tab.

Also, thinking about your point on 'ibid' - if I put ibid and then the author's name (e.g. ibid Peter Morey) then no ambiguity would result even if another ref was interpolated because the reader would go back to the ref with that author's name (unless, of course, the interpolation was by the same author which would be unlikely in this case). I just think ibid looks more professional. What do you think? BTP51 (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Usually where we are referencing differnt pages of the same book in many citations we don't even put the full citation in the notes area, just "Morey (year), p. #" and put a full reference to the book in thew sources section. I'll look later. :)> (I have a beard!) or :) ww2censor (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah right....that would be more compact. I'll try it. Thanks. :)

BTP51 (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

NAPW Image

Hi, I uploaded the image on this page: File:Napw.jpg

Where exactly do I need to insert a rationale for uploading the image to Wiki? Should it be right after the {{di-no fair use rationale}}?

Thank you AugustWind (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you did it already except you did not add an appropriate licence, in this instance {{non-free logo}}, which I have added for you. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Groves And Whitnall

HI, i started a page regarding Groves And Whitnall and i understand you blocked it due to possible copyright relating to www.grovesandwhitnall.co.uk, I am the owner of said website hence why i copied the content over, if you need to confirm my ownership of said website please feel free to contact me via the website.

Many Thanks & Take Care —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toryboy2000 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have just labeled this page as a possible copyright infringement, please add the following to the bottom of Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2010_February_19

• Groves and Whitnall (history · last edit) from http://www.grovesandwhitnall.co.uk/index.html. Toryboy2000 (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not block anything, I followed procedure, whereby obvious copyright violations, with no evidence of permission, are edited with a notice entitled Possible copyright infringement that provides clear instructions. The source website has a clear copyright notice at the bottom of the main page with no evidence the text is freely licenced in any way. So far you have chosen not to do any of the things asked in the notice on the article page nor in the one left on your own talk page. When suitable permission is verified, either by changing the copyright notice on the source website, or sending your permission to us by following the procedure in WP:PERMISSION, an admin will remove the copyright notice and restore the text or delete the page if permission is not forthcoming. That is not too difficult, is it? You might find it useful to read my copyright information page. BTW, I don't know what your point is of copying the notice left on your talk page to here; it serves absolutely no purpose. Hopefully that helps you decide what to do. ww2censor (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Canadian threepenny beaver stamp

Hi Ww2censor, Thanks very much. That is exactly the image that I was looking for. It will serve as an excellent illustration of a period when Canada was using a pounds, shillings, and pence system. Interestingly however, those Canadian pounds were not at parity with the pound sterling. It's already explained in the Canadian pound article.

I've just inserted it at Canadian pound, but somehow it doesn't look right. I'd be obliged if you could take a look and see what needs to be done. I'm not familiar with how to insert images. David Tombe (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done You needed to add the "thumb" code but will find it useful to read WP:IMAGES. ww2censor (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

OK Thanks very much. Postage stamps and banknotes can often speak more than a thousand words in a history section. David Tombe (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Gibbons

Any advice on how to handle the repeated vandalism of Stanley Gibbons? This is clearly someone at the company deleting any information they do not like and including links to their product catalogue. Thanks. Maidonian (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It is also on my watchlist and right now there is not really much we can be do, though I have reverted to your last good version and also left two warning notices (advert & coi) on their talk page. It would seem this is a static IP though I cannot identify it specifically to SG, that would require a Checkuser request and simple reverts will work for now. When they add the same, or similar, text again we upgrade the warning until they either back off or get blocked following a level 4 warning. You might find WP:Twinkle useful tool for such instances as it implements much of Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace which is a great resource too. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have more on their corporate history from The Independent to add soon once it has calmed down. They seem to want to surpress some of their past which is odd since it is all in the public domain. Maidonian (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

All properly sourced information is good, we are not advertising here. BTW, I don't watch your talk page as my watchlist is around 700, so missed your reply to my Malta question and you did not leave me a talkback so I did not know you had answered; besides which I see you blank your talk page quite often. Many editors archive their talk pages (automatically) and even index them as there may be interesting posts others can utilise in the future, well maybe! I occasionally refer back to previous discussions and finding those is much harder without an archive. I can help you set that up if you wish. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought that you had read it and had nothing to add. Sorry but I have no idea what a talkback is. It might be a good idea to set up the archive of which you speak if you can suggest how to do it. Thanks. Maidonian (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Postal convention states of India

Knowing that you have interest and a good collection of postal history, could you direct me to any material that can build up this article even more? AshLin (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any specific sources for you but maybe you should search around some of the stamp auctions who might sell such material. You could start at Stamp Auction Network. Did you ask Fconaway, who worked on the Indian stamps article? ww2censor (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on that site and talk to Fconaway too! If you have comments on how to improve the article, they are very welcome. AshLin (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Keeping an eye on the Stamp Auction Network won't help you much; you need to search around both existing and old auctions, and follow any possible leads. During a quick search I found several stamps but no covers. The article name should conform to the usual naming convention as Postage stamps and postal history of the postal convention states of India even though it is a rather long winded name. ww2censor (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, your user talk page and now that of Fconaway's are on my watch list. Secondly, I moved the name as suggested. Thirdly, I'd appreciate suggestions to improve the article. Lastly, my boss (who has already provided all the images for the article till date) has promised me that he will load at least at least four to six images of selected stamps of each convention state so we can have six galleries (one per princely state). I'm thinking of a subsection on watermarks and overprinting and another on errors and variants. AshLin (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Trinidad and Tobago Dollar

Ww2censor, I have these two links here.

• 1920 Trinidad and Tobago banknote (obverse)
• 1920 Trinidad and Tobago banknote (reverse)

I'd like to have actual images, because these banknotes tell alot of history, and I want images to use in an article about the East Caribbean dollar. These images are snorters because they show the direct conversion from the Spanish Dollar unit of account to the circulating sterling coinage, and they also show the presence of a Canadian bank in the British West Indies. Do you know how I can legally get images of these notes? I know absolutely nothing about the copyright.David Tombe (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Currency copyright is not really my area and banknotes are rather more difficult than coins, usually being issued by governments, while banknotes are often issued by banks, like your examples. These specific images have been linked in Royal Bank of Canada (at the bottom of the page) but not displayed, so perhaps the editor who added the link had some copyright concerns. In many instance banknotes are used in articles under the fair-use claim using a completed fair-use rationale template. According to Commons:Commons:Currency#Canada such currency is copyright but that only applies to Bank of Canada but that only came into existence in 1934, so I don't see this an applying and not being issued by the government they are not covered by Crown copyright, which applies for 50 years, either. I think the general Canadian copyright laws apply per Commons:COM:L#Canada which say that life of the author plus 50 years applies if we know the author, and 50 years from first publication for anonymous and pseudonymous works. Do you have any knowledge of the author, other than the Bank itself? I think that {{PD-US-1923}} would apply but you may have to also add {{PD-Canada}}. Perhaps asking another editor's opinion, like User:Skier Dude or User:Stifle but neither of these users seem to be active right now. You can always ask at the media copyright questions page where I also hang out. ww2censor (talk)

Ww2censor, thanks for that information. The problem is more about the copyright on the photograph of the banknote rather than on the banknote itself. And yes, it would probably be perfectly acceptable under 'fair use'. But the problem is that the 'fair use' clause is not cut and dried. The 'fair use' clause merely provides a defence that does not have to be accepted by the judge. Eventually, I'd like to get some of these educational banknotes prepared for inclusion in wikipedia articles. David Tombe (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

About my images...

These images were from my friend he said he got them from his website that he owns with other people i didn't know if it was copyrighted i'll ask him thanks... Wikipedian7878 (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately neither ownership nor possession of an image confers any copyright; the author, the age and the country of origin generally are what dictates the copyright status. We need to know who took the photo, when it was taken and if permission was given by the copyright owner. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. If all your image uploads come from a website and not specifically yours then they will have to be deleted. We take copyright status very seriously, so I hope you can provide suitable documentation. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for you're information i will try to do my best...

FYI... I was saving the user page for my user info. I'm not stupid or anything i just think it would probably be better on the talk page.

Wikipedian7878 (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)