User talk:Ww2censor/Archive23

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 • Archive 19 • Archive 20 • Archive 21 • Archive 22 • Archive 23 • Archive 24

"Cuba" issues.

The "Cuba" issues of postal cards and stamps I have uploaded to Commons fall into two groups:

1. Colonial Cuba where the SPANISH government printed the cards/stamps in Spain prior to 1898; and,

2. U.S. intervention period (1899-1902) where the U.S. government printed them in the U.S.

Therefore they are in the public domain. They don't fall under Cuba's current laws because they are not Cuban. Bobdatty (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

On that basis they would appear to be fine. If, in passing, I find some that don't seem to fit that criteria I may tag them. Other issues concerning non-free stamp still exist and I will continue that discussion on your talk page where I started it. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Presidents of Ireland

Sorry I thought those images were free because I found them on wikipedia. Won't happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightofni3 (talk• contribs) 16:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, you should try to understand the difference between non-free images and freely licenced images. Just because you find an image on Wikipedia does not mean it is free and the use of non-free images is highly restricted under the fair-use policy. Check out my image copyright information page as it will help you understand some of the issues. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Skyscraperman

Per your advice the copyright holder for the book-cover image at Skyscraperman sent the appropriate email to Wikipedia, receiving a confirming response from permissions@wikipedia.org (Ticket#2011040810000831) on 7 April 2011. The image was then re-uploaded per the instructions that Wikipedia provided. To date, however, the image has failed to show on the Skyscraperman Wikipedia page. Please advise. Your assistance is appreciated. mimiken 03:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Mimiken (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please provide the name of the image, per my polite request at the top of this page in edit mode. When you have the image name, you can just add the image to the article per any normal edit or ask me to do it for you. The OTRS ticket should now be on the image. ww2censor (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The name of the image is: File:Defender-of-Tall-Buildings I would appreciate it very much if you could upload. Thank you! FYI - http://skyscraperman.com/SKYSCRAPERMAN/images/Defender-of-Tall-Buildings.jpg Mimiken (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright for File:Colchester Bus route 1.PNG

Hi, I realise that I haven't yet given a copyright. This is because I didn't realise what kind of copyright is needed. I thought copyright for Wikipedia only will be fine, while it seems like it is not, so I have requested a free license from the author. I am expecting a reply later today or tomorrow. And also, could you please tell me what template is needed? This is my first upload and I suppose I may need them quite a bit, I'm planning to upload more. Thanks '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes there are issues around copyright that many user, even experienced ones, don't know or understand, so you may find it useful to read image copyright information page. To answer you specific questions, I can't tell you what copyright tag to use; that depends on the release required/given by the copyright holder. Besides public domain licences you will find all the free licences at WP:ICT/FL where the Creative Commons tags, he might choose, are listed. Because the image is not your own work we require that the copyright holder verifies his permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. He must choose the licence and will confirm it in his email to us. When that is done an OTRS ticket will be attached to the image. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am still awaiting a reply from the author of the picture. If need be, I won't stop the image getting deleted. I will upload it again, when the author replies (if he agrees). Thanks for your help. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to worry about the image being deleted because if it has been deleted by the time the permission arrives, the OTRS team will restore the image with an OTRS ticket proving the permission. You will not need to reupload the image but I have tagged the image with the {{OTRS pending}} tag which may avoid its deletion. ww2censor (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks a lot for all your help! Really nice.'''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

List of WWE personnel

I found all the images on Google. It is the first time that I do it. How can I put a source on them? Thanks for the attention. WWEJobber (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You can get the url of the images from the page on which they appear and you can add that to the image file, but unfortunately for you, most images you find on the internet are copyright and you need the permission of the copyright holder to use them here. I assume all these people are alive, in which case we regard them as replaceable, so they will be deleted. Sorry to not have better news for you. You will find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Skyscraperman2

I did not hear from you nor did the desired image show at Skyscraperman so I went ahead and tried to upload again. Because Wikipedia was indicating a file with the name: File:Defender-Of Tall-Buildings.jpg did not exist, I attempted to upload that file again. However, I was told I was uploading a duplicate of a file already in existence. Baffled by these conflicting statements from Wikipedia, I changed the file name to: File:New-Defender-of-Tall-Buildings.jpg then uploaded that file (now online at: File:New-Defender-of-Tall-Buildings.jpg Though all shows to be consistent with Wikipedia standards, the image still does not appear on the Skyscraperman Wikipedia page. If you can assist I would be most appreciative. Mimiken (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The original image of the book cover File:Skyscraperman-cover.jpg got the OTRS ticket attached to it and it is in the article Skyscraperman, which I presume is what you wanted, so I saw no need to hand hold you anymore because the image is being used properly. There was nothing else you needed to do. Anyway just forget about the upload conflict. There was also no need to upload another one; now it has to be deleted. I don't know why you are concerned about that image not being in the article when there is one there already. I will tag all the duplicates for deletion, so ignore any deletion notices that might come to your talk page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The image that's currently at Skyscraperman is incorrect, thus the reason for all this. (FYI - The correct image can be found at: http://skyscraperman.com/SKYSCRAPERMAN/images/Defender-of-Tall-Buildings.jpg - Please note the change in sub-title.) On 8 April 2011, the correct image File:Defender-of-Tall-Buildings.jpg was released by Dan Goodwin, the copyright holder - [Ticket#2011040810000831] permissions@wikimedia.org - via Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0. Regardless, uploading efforts failed to resolve, thus our continuum... Suggestions? Mimiken (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if we can fix this. All the images are so small that the difference are hardly noticeable. I had to look at all the versions of File:Skyscraperman-cover.jpg very closely believing one of them was the same as the file you sourced at http://skyscraperman.com/SKYSCRAPERMAN/images/Defender-of-Tall-Buildings.jpg. So it looks like that later one was uploaded as File:Defender-of-Tall-Buildings.jpg but I tagged both it and File:New-Defender-of-Tall-Buildings.jpg for deletion because they looked identical to the other one which already had an OTRS ticket. I will ask someone to restore whichever one had the OTRS ticket. In that case there will be really no need for File:Skyscraperman-cover.jpg even though it has an OTRS ticket. All in all this seems like a real waste of time for everyone because I see no beneficial reason for uploading a different so similar edition instead of the 1st edition because reader's will not get any increased encyclopaedic knowledge by the change. ww2censor (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright for File:Lauren-oliver.jpg

Thanks for bringing to my attention the fact that my uploads missed data. The thing is, this is my very first time using Wikipedia to write an article, and I have no idea how the Image Tagging works. I've read the articles about the subject, but I still don't know how to properly tag my image so it won't be deleted. I'm thinking of taking the image out of my article and letting someone more experienced upload it later. Ella Press (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Read my image copyright information page for a better understanding of the issues. Just ask me if you have any questions. ww2censor (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:Comeswiththefallpromo.jpg and File:Soulbenderpromo2.jpg

If these images do not meet the criterion you highlighted, feel free to remove them as they are replaceable. Shaneymike (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not an admin so don't actually delete image but an admin will likely do so in due course. We only accept freely licenced images of bands that are still active, though defunct band photos may be acceptable under the fair-use claim, so long as they fully comply with all 10 non-free content policy criteria. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for the information. I'll be sure to look it over thoroughly so that next time I'll be sure any photos I upload meet that criteria. Shaneymike (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help. Just ask if you need assistance any time. ww2censor (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Photo upload issue

I am having difficulty uploading a snapshot type photo which has no licensing / copyright to it. It was released to me - how can I get this to be loaded properly. The image is of a live person, but the author of the shot is not a professional photographer and does hold a copyright on the image. Please help I've been going in circles! Thanks The Chickenz The Chickenz (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Image: File:David Shalleck.jpg for Article: David Shalleck — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Chickenz (talk • contribs) 10:17, 6 April 2011

Let's see if I can assist. First there is no image File:David Shalleck.jpg but there is File:David Shalleck.JPG (precise links are critical so other editors can find what you are talking about) that you claim you give full permission to use but you attribute it to Sarah Fearon. You can't actually do that, because you cannot assign, or claim, permission for an image whose copyright belongs to someone else. So you need to get Sarah Fearon to give us her permission directly by having her email us by following the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION. Then an OTRS ticket will be attached to the image that verifies her permission, and even if the image has been deleted it will be restored by an OTRS volunteer. We prefer this method over forwarding an email sent to you because these can be faked, though I am sure you above such shenanigans. For the future you may find it useful to read my image copyright information page so you stop going around in circles. Good luck and just ask if you have more questions. ww2censor (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Okay so I understand, please walk me through - Do I send this copy in an email directly to her? to Sarah the person who shot it is? Does she attach the image again? And Where does she send this email? Thanks - sorry just want to get this done properly. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Chickenz (talk • contribs) 02:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Simply ask the copyright holder to send the permission text found at the page WP:CONSENT to the email listed, i.e., permissions-en‐at‐wikimedia.org with the highlighted text filled in appropriately. There is no need to send the image again, even though it may be deleted by the time the permission arrives. Make sure she notes the file name File:David Shalleck.JPG in the email. If you do that, you can add the {{OTRS pending}} template to the image to let others know that permission is on its way. Hope that works. BTW, please sign you post by adding four tildes, like this, ~~~~ to the end of each message. ww2censor (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much!The Chickenz (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have two questions. What should the Subject line of the email be? I do not see that in the instructions unless I am missing something? And does the copyright holder include the Wikipedia page that the photo is intended the used on? ThanksThe Chickenz (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Andy Summer's Head-shot Image

Regarding the Andy Summer's Headshot Image that was tagged as unverifiable source. I have permission from Andy Summer's himself to publish and license that photo. How do I prove that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplycreative (talk • contribs) 23:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

So I presume your are talking about File:Andy Summers Headshot.jpg. You removed the deletion notice without fixing the problem and now a bot has tagged it again, so I suppose that is why you are looking for help. We require that each and every image has a free copyright licence attached to it, otherwise it will be deleted. The image is attributed to "Jay Takemitsu", so firstly you need to find out if Jay, as the photographer, still holds the copyright, or if Andy owns the copyrights, as might be the case of "work for hire", or was Andy just given copies for his own use. Possession of a photo does not confer any rights to the person in whose possession it is. Whichever person owns the copyright must verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION, just like the previous post above this one. You will find it useful to read my image copyright information page. BTW, the initial notice I left on your talk page gave you all the info you actually needed to fix the problem and when you leave a reply to posts left by others may not be useful as those editors may not be watching your talk page which is why I leave a "talkback" notice, so you know there is a reply elsewhere. In future please follow the instructions at the top of the this page when you edit it because you did not link to the image, nor sign your post, that means I have to dig around for your talk page and the image before I can help you! Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"Regarding the Andy Summer's Headshot Image that was tagged as unverifiable source. I have permission from Andy Summer's himself to publish and license that photo."

I removed the notice (on File:Andy Summers Headshot.jpg) because I have exact permissions, sitting in emails from the photography and Andy Summers. I have the right to publish this image as Creative Commons, which is allowed by WikiMedia. That was my understanding. So with permissions from both parties, I uploaded that image, but when I initially published the image, I forgot to tag the license. My mistake. I wish for that image to stay active and not be deleted since I have met the requirements. I do apologize about the lack of details attached to my initial comment, it has been years since I was an active moderator for Wikipedia.(Old account, awhile ago). J. Canfield (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2011 (MST)

As a previous editor not active for a while, it is likely not so easy to remember all the nuances of copyright which are more strictly enforced in recent years then heretofore which is why I pointed you to my image copyright information page and the notices did tell you what is needed. However, you simply removed the notice but unfortunately did nothing to fix the problem. While you may have the permission from Andy, he has not verified his permission and you have not added an appropriate copyright tag to the image. While these things are missing the image remains nominated for deletion. These are requirements and you telling us you have permission does not verify the permission nor fix the problem, though years ago this may have been an acceptable procedure. Additionally, I asked you to confirm who actually owns the copyright but you didn't respond to that question, you just claim permission from both parties but only one can be the copyright holder. Can you tell me which one is it? ww2censor (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"Regarding the Andy Summer's Headshot Image that was tagged as unverifiable source. I have permission from Andy Summer's himself to publish and license that photo."

The original copyright owner was the photographer then sold to Andy Summers (And as a side-note, two people can both own the same copyright -- http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html Yes. Copyrights can be owned jointly. If two or more people create a work with the intent that their individual contributions merge into the final product, they will be joint owners of the copyright. The determination of joint ownership is a question of the intent of the participants. Joint copyright ownership can sometimes create difficult situations because joint owners become equal partners of each other with respect to their joint works. Each joint owner can deal with a joint work as if he or she owns the property independently of the other. Unless otherwise agreed, the only responsibility one joint owner has to the other is to share any money that is earned from exploiting the joint work. Unless otherwise agreed, neither joint owner has a right to control to whom a work is licensed or for how much. Furthermore, one joint-owner can sell or assign his or her rights to a third-party without notice to the other joint-owner. For collaborators such as musicians and lyricists, joint copyright issues may be of little consequence because both participants usually intend to create a single unified work. However, if an art director creates a very detailed layout for an advertisement that is executed by a photographer, the art director may assume that a joint copyright was created. However, unless the parties intended otherwise, the photographer generally owns the copyright.). Andy Summers owns the rights to that image, which is now removed, and I have multiple emails from him (very upset we have to go through this) giving me permission to publicly publish that image. Since that image has been removed there is no problem now. Thanks for your time. Josh Canfield 02:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplycreative (talk • contribs)

Shahab Mahsud

Remember User:Shahab Mahsud? See User talk:Shahab Mahsud

You probably took the right approach in not allowing posting of unverified stuff. He contacted the media And now the Greg Mortenson article is changing rapidly WhisperToMe (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I had to review the October and November 2010 edits and see that Sahhab Madsud's last edits] did suggest there were some untruths in the book, which is what is now alleged too. Had those edits been made now, we might need to verify that editor's statement though we might have taken it more seriously. Where do you see that he contacted the media? ww2censor (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, his last name is "Mahsud" - the entire Mahsud family is involved in the anti-Mortenson movement, and one of the Mahsuds spoke on 60 Minutes. I'm not sure if this particular person spoke to the media, but his family certainly did. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I give up

I am sure it has nothing to do with you, but I give up trying to work through this one. I spent a heck of a lot of time finding the right image, getting permission from both the publisher and authors of the image, and then trying to upload it. If you have any influence, you may want to make the process more user friendly. Maybe a few years from now someone else will take this one on. Not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.109.246 (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask to provide link to an article or image, as I politely ask in the edit window? So I have no idea what you are talking about as you were not logged in ad all I see for the anonIP who posted this, is edits to an article talk page and no uploads as mentioned above. Log in or tell me what you need help with. Did you read my image copyright information page? That might have been helpful. ww2censor (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across as harsh. I was not upset with you. I am more annoyed by the process. It began with finding the image, emailing and receiving permission to use, trying to figure out the process for uploading (took me hours), then trying without success to resize and reposition the image. WP should consider an improved user friendly dashboard for working with images. Thank you for your help, sorry if I bit the messenger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Examinership Article

Many thanks for your helpful suggestions regarding my substantial rewrite of Examinership. I have hopefully resolved almost all of the issues that you raised and have now removed the Lead too short tag myself.

You might take a very quick look and let me know what you think, especially if you believe that it now has sufficent reliable citations.

Many thanks,

FrankFlanagan (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Joshua James

I don't fully understand your question regarding my recent upload.

Thanks Seansasser (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC).

The source you gave for File:Joshua James Gold Life-Saving Medal, USLSS, obverse.jpg is "bostonshipwrecks.org" but that in insufficient to find the page the actual image is on, so we can check the copyright status of the image. I doubt you have permission to use that image, or even took the photo, but, being a 3D object, it may even be copyright due to its age or even a derivative work, which is something we would need to know about the medal itself. Most images found on the internet are copyright and not acceptable to us. If you can answer these questions it might be possible to keep the image but I suspect it will have to be deleted. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Please reply here and I will see if we can fix this with you but we take copyright status very seriously. ww2censor (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Stamps as educational tools

Since NFCC#8 is typically used to delete stamp images, under the premise that it would not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, this book section in Miniature messages is interesting. It states that the "American Philatelic Society has begun an initiative aimed at using stamps as teaching aids." (Publ. by Duke Univ., 2008)

I also came across some material in the U.S. law that states that the U.S. Postal Service has chosen not to enforce their post 1978 copyright for stamp images used for "commercial purposes," such as philatelic magazines and stamp catalogs. That would obviously imply that a reasonable "fair use" by WP would certainly not be a problem. Isn't there room for some flexibility when it comes to U.S. stamps? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting comments and indeed stamps are an educational tool, the author, User:Jack Child is a long time inactive wiki editor and that view is unlikely to change our WP:NFCC. You should know better than to claim that just because an organisation does not take legal action to enforce its copyright that it will affect our non-free policy. Having had stamp images deleted for several years, as I can see some from 2009, for the same reasons, I am surprised you still make the same claims that they pass WP:NFCC#8 when used in non-stamp articles the way you use them, so no, I don't see any flexibility. If there is no critical commentary about the stamp itself, there is no reason to display the stamp, other aspects of a stamp can be explained in prose without needing a non-free image. I find it extremely boring to see your same failed arguments repeated over and over in both stamp and other image deletion nominations. My view is that you really need to appreciate what is acceptable under WP:NFCC#8 and comply with that rather than trying to weasel around it as often as you can, however, that appears an impossibility based on the posts you make defending your non-free uploads. I'm done here and will continue to oppose any non-free stamp image, your or others, that fails any of the 10 NFCC criteria. ww2censor (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Uploaded photos from same permission (source)

Thanks for getting back to me so fast. I'll follow your advice and contact VernoWhitney on the tags!

Best regards, Robert Sinclairindex (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Glimmer man

I note your comments about the article. I was moved to write the article because on my first day ever in Ireland (1973) someone I was talking to mentioned the "Giimmer" and "Glimmer man". It was a sotto voce refrain that my foreign ear picked up time and again over the subsequent years. Anyone (including Irish high school students apparently) not familiar with the term would have difficulty in understanding its implications. The article tries to remedy that. It's a phenomena that's hard to define. It has to be referenced in the context of the "Emergency" and rationing and poverty. How do you do that otherwise? I don't think the topic can be done any justice if it was subsumed into another article. Your comment that the article is about the gas companies but what else could it be about given that so far as I can find after a extensive search of the literature that no-one has ever put their has ever put their hand up for having been a latter day gombeenman? But the article is also about the ingenious way Lemass handled the matter of shortages during the difficult years of the European war. The "A Low Lingering Flame" section title is a bit of whimsy. Cheers "No so Silent Billy (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Daum Studio

Dear Ww2censor - Wiki's pages can be a little daunting to a techno-ludite (older-women person). I'm sorry that I didn't realize uploading to a too-short article was a problem. Maybe I'll write an article about "Daum Nancy," which is actually more appropriate for this type of vintage Daum. Albest JG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloverpark (talk • contribs) 21:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The use of too many images on pages where there is little prose just looks bad and is discouraged by Wikipedia:IUP#Image queuing. Images are intended to complement the prose and adding a second tall skinny image does it no favours. Also, there is little point in starting a new article because Daum Nancy is the continuation of the Daum studio. Just expand on the article with new sections; it really needs it. Don't forget that whatever you write must be sourced with reliable sources as reference, similarly to the Moser (glass company) article much of which I contributed. I was hoping to get my hands on some books that cover Daum through the years, such as Clotilde Bacri's Masters of French Decorative Glass or Daum Nancy by Katharina Büttiker but I don't have either. Do you? I'm happy to help if you need it as I too am now mature though definitely not a ludite. I understand that getting ones feet wet without understanding the policies and ways to do thing here can be a bit daunting at first but we all learned by doing, reading help and other pages and talking to other editors. BTW, please sign your posts by adding 4 tildes to the end of your posts like this ~~~~ . Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture question

Awhile ago I asked if I could upload a pic from a proposed film project called King Kong vs Frankenstein (here's the link User talk:Ww2censor/Archive21#Picture Question) that was published in a book from Steve Archer in the early 1990s. You mentioned without permission it wouldn't be possible and that it would infringe on copyright. Anyway I came across another pic from that proposed project. Its a screencap taken from a 1984 newsbit on Willis O'brien. The screencap is not in the greatest condition. Is it possible to upload it since its a low resolution scan and that it was taken decades ago from a TV newsbit? Would that make it possible for uploading purposes or would that still coflict with the Wikipedia's policies in regards to copyright for uploading pictures? Here is the screengrab http://i55.tinypic.com/wj8im9.jpg and here is the newsbit I'm referring to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGs07BleFeA&NR=1.Giantdevilfish (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but unfortunately the issue is still essentially the same. Who created the image, when was it created and or published and who is the copyright holder? A "low resolution scan and that it was taken decades ago from a TV newsbit" are not good enough reasons to upload an image without the above mentioned details. Copyright lasts in many instance for 70 years after the death of the author, and sometimes longer. I believe you pointed me to the fact that O'Brien only died in 1962, so without the image being verifiably freely licenced you are still out of luck. Sorry. ww2censor (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh well. Thanks anyway.Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

List of climbers etc

Hi Ww2, Just wondering what you meant by "we don't place article in both the parent category and an immediate sub category". I am well aware of that, which is why I removed it from the parent category, (ie Cat:Mountaineering), and put it where it belongs, in the sub-category Cat:Mountain climbers (it's a list of mountain climbers). Over the years I've been slowly removing dozens of superfluous items from Cat:Mountaineering and putting them in their proper categories, many of which I have created for the job (eg M + health, + history, + techniques etc). Could you clarify which one of us is being dim here (I concede it could easily be me). Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think either of us is dumb here. I see what you were trying to do but by making that move you now placed the article in both Category:Mountain climbers which is a sub-category of the parent Category:Climbers which happens to also be a sub-category of Category:Mountaineering. Yet Category:Climbers is not a sub-category of Category:Mountaineering. There maybe no simple solution to this one other than perhaps to remove it from Category:Climbers and only place it in Category:Mountain climbers instead and not in Category:Mountaineering at all. Does that make sense? ww2censor (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong. I was being dim. I hadn't realised the thing about Category:Climbers; in fact I didn't realise it existed at all, and certainly didn't know about its relationship to the other cats. Sorry. You do what you think is best, it makes my head hurt thinking about all these nesting cats. Ericoides (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed nested categories can be a pain and, at times, confusing. As I suggested perhaps just place it in Category:Mountain climbers but not in Category:Mountaineering at all. That's my suggestion. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that what I did in the first place before you reverted it? Anyway, I wrote this below before your comment above and an edit conflict, but I'll repost it within inverted commas. "That said, there are plenty of people in the list (ie all the pure rock climbers), who aren't mountain climbers at all, so the list should be included in Category:Climbers. The problem lies in the list lumping everyone from all the various disciplines together. Oh, and having a Category:Climbing in the first place. There should be separate cats for bouldering, ice climbing, rock climbing and mountaineering. Category:Climbing is a wishy-washy non-category, really, sort of like Category:Sportsmen and women or Category:Wet things. Can we get rid of it completely? That would sort out the problem you allude to above; then all the four categories would exist on the same level and there would be no nesting (unless one were to consider bouldering a subset of rock climbing, which it both is and isn't). Rock climbing could then perhaps contain sub-categories of trad climbing and sport climbing, but that would be that." Ericoides (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix Park

Hi, the silly IP actually reported me to the ANI! He got short shrift there and the Phoenix Park article is now semi protected for 2 weeks. Perhaps now we can have a civilised discussion with other editors, who actually listen to reason and have original ideas rather posting the same bluelinks to policy shortcuts all the time! Snappy (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi there. I wanted to say thanks for the helpful advice you posted on User:Skier Dude's talk page regarding the deleted File:TLC Inwood Staff.jpg image in The Library Corporation (TLC) article. I thought I had attributed it correctly but obviously I was wrong. I have decided not to restore the image because the photo could be mistakenly construed as marketing for the company in question. However, as a new user, I do appreciate your guidance as my struggle to learn Wikipedia's guidelines and policies continues! Jessdfacts (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page that I wrote to explain some of the issues that newer editors, like yourself, may not be familiar with. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Joshua James Gold Life Saving Medal Image

Sorry I have not responded earlier, slothfulness on my part. The exact URL where I got the pic is here:

http://bostonshipwrecks.org./content/united-states-gold-lifesaving-medal File:Joshua James Gold Life Saving MedalUSLSS reverse.jpg

Retrospect I'm not happy with the photo in general, or its potential copy right issues in particular, so I'm OK with the deletion.

Thanks Seansasser (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want to delete any images you should add the following template to the image: {{db-author}}. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Killers

It seems that one editor went through and replaced the original free use images with non-free ones he/she uploaded. I found the same issue at the FL List of awards and nominations received by The Killers. I removed the image and replaced it with the original free use one. Since this looks like it might be a common problem-having free use images already on articles replaced by users' uploads of non-free images, would it be considered good policy for anyone who notices this to simply remove the non-free image(s) from the article and replace them with the original free use ones? Thanks, We hope (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted. I did not actually check the GA diff but have now replaced the non-free image with the previous free one in The Killers. Thanks for doing List of awards and nominations received by The Killers. Checking if a free image has been replaced somewhere along the line can be a hard issue to discover because it is often difficult to find out if many edits have been made and when a replacement was made and editors didn't leave a clue in their edit summary. However, doing something like a 6 month diff check may show such replacements have been made; then, if possible, you have to narrow it down. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

From now on, when working on backlog files, will be replacing those found which are non-free that originally were free use files. Will also make it a point to check all GAs, FAs and FLs for things like this when there are images for them in backlog. Thanks again, We hope (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Journey to the Soviet Union.png

I restored File:Journey to the Soviet Union.png and worked the information from the summary section into a template to better insure it does not get nominated or deleted again in the future for that reason. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Kindly Calmer Waters 21:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers

You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers. A discussion is going on there about that editor. Ecphora (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

Have you thought recently about the possibility of adding a few more tools to the top of your screen? Calmer Waters 05:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I have been asked before and declined. Thanks anyway. ww2censor (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt about being asked in the past. I often follow the posts at the Media copyright questions page and often see your sound advice there and elsewhere regarding the image space. Heck, I still remember you were the editor to first warn me about my first image upload 2 years ago when I first started editing :) Just had to ask. Take care. Kindly Calmer Waters 05:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Goodness, I don't recall what I did 2 years ago here without looking it up but I am happy you appreciate my advise to you and others, and you have a good memory too. I'm here 5 and a half years and in just two you became an admin. I like you username; very good for an admin. To be honest I am getting a little burnt out these days with image copyright violations and am not spending enough time improving and creating new articles though I have a few on the boiler. If you find it useful I wrote a image copyright information page you may find useful to refer people to. If I need some admin help I'll ask. Thanks again for the thought. If I change my mind I will let you know. ww2censor (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just good mentors ;) Sounds great. Thanks for the link, It will be very useful. Good luck on the articles and maybe even drop them off over at DYK, we always need interesting new material. Kindly Calmer Waters 06:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

My picture needs copyright and licensing information. Does this mean I just need to add the tag?

I just got a message about my picture which says:

"Thank you for uploading File:2011 Director Chair Close-up.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem."

I'm very new to Wiki. Does this mean that I just need to add the copyright tag that is appropriate for my photo? If not, can you please clarify what information I need?

Thank you, CassieCalypso (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi CassieCalypso. I thought I had explained the situation very clearly on WP:MCQ#How to get to page to add photo copyright information?? What did you not understand in that reply? Just follow what I said there. You cannot just add a copyright tag to the image because you are not the copyright holder. ww2censor (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Help, please

My thought was that one could use book covers or portions of them only when the book was a topic of discussion and that the cover had to be tagged as such. Have the following in Publicity Photos with non-book licenses from the same uploader:

File:CMKdj.jpg

File:JBrunnerQS.jpg

File:Jfrancismccomas1954.jpg

File:KLaumerEB.jpg

File:Rosel George Brown.jpg

File:Mlesser1953.jpg

Wanted to make certain before I started tagging them. Thanks, We hope (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Added another one to the list. We hope (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

All these images are of dead people, so unless you can show there are freely licenced images available which would make them fail WP:NFCC#1, these uses appear to be ok. If you read point #9 on Quadell's copyright page it may be possible these images are in the public domain, though it may be impossible to find out who is the real copyright holder of the images used on the book covers. It could be the publisher, the subject, or the photographer though it is likely the publisher. As such the use of book covers are generally only allowed under fair-use for the specific book articles but these are not the book covers per se. You could always take the question to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content‎ if you would like some wider community input. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Have no problem with it now that I've seen your explanation. I had stayed away from using book covers like they were contageous, even if the person was deceased, because of my previous idea re: book covers. One image problem I had solved itself with more research finding a free use image of the person at Library of Congress. (Think the eBay seller of a copy of the photo believes it got here via his auction. Shortly after I uploaded the LOC image, he/she started using "copy guard" software on auction images.) :) You've made both backlog work and the sometimes never ending search for images easier for me, so once again, a big thanks! We hope (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget about tineye. BTW, I see you are a filemover. How useful do you find that right? Happy to help. ww2censor (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I try to have the images I'm uploading titled with some type of (I trust) descriptive name before they go to upload. File mover comes in handy at backlog for images that have no descriptive names. Have to say from what's seen at backlog, most editors have taken care of that. When I do need to move files, it seems like they come in spurts and are mainly album covers that may have a numeric name. Thanks again for curing my book cover "phobia"! :) We hope (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeffrey M Dean

I thought you might not be aware of this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Jeff_Dean_returning_to_edit:_editing_restrictions Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. ww2censor (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Dw.ca.PNG

Thanks for editing the page File:Dw.ca.PNG so that the license would be correct.

--Techno31 (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Everest Timeline post and removal

I am not very computer literate and did the best I could on the Everest timeline edits...I tried to follow the previous edits and used their formats. Somehow the last cite to the year 2010 is not right because I was told it was in the wrong place...not sure what to do. In addition, I posted another edit for year 2011 and was told in wasn't note worthy...not sure what that means and read the suggested reason, but disagree and would like to have that posted and I have several cites for it that I will include, but I guess need to be told what I am doing wrong on previous cite attempts. "108.0.114.79 (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)" Many thanks, Dr. Dahlem

Unless a person is notable enough to have their own article there is little justification in adding them to a timeline article, unless they actually happen to be well known but just don't have an article yet. If such a person is notable, it is suggested that you write that article first (see WP:WTAF) because, if an article can be written supported by reliable sources, then they can certainly be added because their own article shows they are encyclopaedicly notable. I don't know if you are trying to add things about yourself, in which case you should leave that to others because you would clearly have conflict of interest. You can always ask me, or anyone else to help you, or you can look at the WP:HELP area. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Need some help...

Could you help me with this File:Canadagoosejacket.jpg to make it look more Wiki official, thanks.

--Techno31 (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You cannot make an image that has a restrictive licence acceptable unless the copyright holder changes the licence on Flickr or confirms his permission to our OTRS team by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Currently on Flickr this image has a non-commercial, no derivatives licence but we don't accept that licence. No one except the copyright holder can help you with this and writing I am allowed to use the image but Nelson Wu does not endorse on the image page means nothing, because you have no way to confirm you are allowed to use the image. Only the author can do that. Sorry. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for telling me this info. Could you please delete the File:Canadagoosejacket.jpg I don't know how to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techno31 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment on Skier_Dude's talk page about weatherTAP image.

(talk page stalker)} According to the terms of service page http://www.weathertap.com/guides/tos.html, WeatherTAP retain all copyright to their images, so there is no evidence the Creative Commons Attribution licence is proper. If you disagree, please provide evidence of the free licence. ww2censor (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

According to weatherTAP's Terms of Service (http://www.weathertap.com/guides/tos.html) 1.6 The images, text, and other information available through the service are created by WeatherTAP from raw information gathered from multiple public and private sources. WeatherTAP images are copyrighted and may not be redistributed without prior written consent. Explicit consent is granted for educational, documentary, and/or journalistic purposes subject to the following requirements.

Users may republish or reprint individual WeatherTAP images for educational and/or journalistic purposes subject to the following restrictions:

a) No continuous and/or automated redistribution of images is allowed.

b) Images must be at least 1 hour old prior to publication.

c) No lightning data or images may be republished without prior consent.

d) The images may be cropped, annotated, etc, however, the actual content of the images may not be altered.

e) The user must credit WeatherTAP as the source of the image along with the words ("Used with permission") placed close to the image.

f) All WeatherTAP copyright notices must remain unaltered. In the event that the copyright notice is cropped from the image the text "(c) Copyright WeatherTAP.com" must be placed close to the image.

g) If an image is reproduced on a web site, a link to www.weathertap.com would be appreciated (but not required).

You will see that is says "Explicit consent is granted for education, documentary, and/or journalistic purposes". Wikipedia is considered documentary and journalistic; therefore, the images are available for use without the written permission of the author/webmaster.

--Counts ak (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are ill informed, Explicit consent is granted for education, documentary, and/or journalistic purposes is not sufficiently free for Wikipedia use. That means non-commercial use is forbidden but Wikipedia requires freely licenced works. See WP:NONCOM and WP:CFAQ#Educational licenses which Jimbo Wells has forbidden. Unless an image has specifically got a free licence we cannot use it. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Written Permission has been granted

I have received an email from an official at weatherTAP giving me permission to use the image weatherTAP-Timeline.png. Please inform me how I may get this image released, so that I can use it on the article weatherTAP. I will be emailing the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Counts ak (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is better to get them to email their permission directly. In the meantime you should add the following template {{OTRS pending}} (with the brackets) to the image file to indicate that permission is coming. If the permission is confirmed an OTRS ticket will then be added to the image verifying the permission. Good luck. 23:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

File:WEW.jpeg

The photo you marked for deletion File:WEW.jpeg was created, digitized by, and stored in the the library at Saint Louis University, where I work. It's probably public domain, but if not it belongs to SLU, and people are welcome to use it however they wish, though we would like to be attributed as the source if anyone uses it. Did I do this right? (Sorry, I'm new at this, and just wanted to make sure I'm doing this right before I add anything else.) SLUdigitization (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually if the image was created by the university, as stated by the source, then we we need to have their permission because the source does not show it to be a public domain image and 1933 is likely too new for it to have fallen into the public domain due to age (complex subject!). Wikipedia only accepts image that are clearly freely licenced, so perhaps the best thing to do would be to change the source page to include a Creative Commons attribution licence {{cc-by-3.0}} which we accept. Otherwise have the university confirm their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT and also review donateing copyright materials or WP:IOWN. As it stands the copyright tag is not verifiable from the source. BTW, in future please link to the image by using the full title prefixed by a colon. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page that I wrote for editor's like you. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Post Office Packet Service#Falmouth Station

I agree with your placement, but hasn't there been a user, or a bot, running around shifting the {{anchor}} tag onto the same line as the header? I just thought I'd save it/him/her the bother. Here's just one example, but there have been lots. Boosts its/his/her edit count, of course, but otherwise I can't see the reason for such a change. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You may well be correct but I had not noticed a bot doing this job. Your edit placed the anchor at the end of the section header, not within it, i.e., within the equal header equal symbols, and in doing that demoted the header to plain text with three equal signs on either sides like this, ===Falmouth Station===. Revert of change as you think necessary. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops—I hadn't noticed that. I'm glad you did. As it was invisible, I didn't preview. Sorry. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Tronic

You deleted almost my entire article including the pictures even though I sent several emails to Wiki regarding my right to use those images that was given to me by Vivian Rosenthal, the founder of Tronic. I even asked her to send Wiki an email saying that I was given the right to use the images. I wrote the article because I've known Vivian for several years and was shocked that Wiki did not include an article on this incredible agency that does amazing artistic work. I don't understand how you think this article sounds like advertising, considering EVERY other article I read in the marketing subsection is far more biased. I only describe what Tronic does using facts, I did not take any liberties in promoting them in any way that would be considered advertising. Please review your comment and let me know what specificaly about my article strikes you as advertising. DBelozersky (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You should check your facts before making accusations. According to the edit history of the Tronic Studio article, I have never edited this article. It is clear that neither you nor the copyright holder of the images you uploaded ever provided an satisfactory permission for the images. This was all clearly explained to you by User:Moonriddengirl back at the beginning of May per this edit to your talk page. Obviously your perception of what is promotional or advertising is different from our. We use a neutral point of view and support the article with reliable sources not a load of self links. If you can't write articles that comply with our encyclopaedic standards, perhaps you are not cut out for editing Wikipedia or you just need to learn the way we do things here. You could work with a mentor to help you develop better editing skills. ww2censor (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Moonriddengirl reviewed my article back in May and did not find anything wrong with it. My sources are all from external places where Tronic's work has been displayed, even the links to the Tronic site are attributed to the INDEPENDENT articles from which they were extracted. Simply clicking on the links would have made that clear. Your review process is incredibly vague, considering that after my last talk with User:Moonriddengirl I was assured that all permissions had been received and I had no need to edit this article. Clearly your views and that of User:Moonriddengirl are different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBelozersky (talk • contribs) 17:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

PROTEST: Deletion of the Picture of Plassey Monument

Sorry to say gentleman....but the photograph in question was clicked by me using my own camera. The monument is a free public monument "owned" by the Government of India. What law have I violated? What prompted you to delete it?

Should I send you the original photograph? Your action does not make sense. --Shantanu2806 (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty old deletion and I did not delete it, I just warned you it was missing details and might be deleted. No, you did not violate any laws, you just failed to provide the information necessary for all images on Wikipedia; vis., there was no source and no copyright tag provided. That is what the notice on your talk page told you 18 months ago. You can ask for a deletion review by posting a request here but first you should discuss it with the deleting admin User:Fastily who may revert his decision if you provide appropriate details. If you did not already read it, per the suggestion at the top of my edit page instructions, you will find it useful to read image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Leila Esfandyari

The version you tagged does not clearly show notability, but might possible be regarded as an indication of importance; the version so greatly improved by the original contributor is, however, clearly not an a7, and, in my opinion, has a fairly good chance of surviving AfD. Of course the author should not have removed the speedy tag themselves. I would probably in the situation have restored the tag to make the point, and then removed it to recognize the improvement. AfD is up to you, of course, but there is so much worse to deal with. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Since I originally tagged Leila Esfandyari, it has been improved with decent sources though it may now possibly be ok. I only refactored the tag with the comment that an admin should decide, and you have done so. AfD is indeed an option; I too have enough other bad stuff I deal with, like improper non-free images. Thanks for the comment. ww2censor (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

sure. When I decline a speedy by someone I respect, I try to remember to to say why. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)