User talk:Stefan2

Archives

2006-May 2012 May-July 2012 July 2012-September 2013 September 2013-September 2014 September 2014-March 2016

Any suggestion, or reason, for requesting a move of File:Preferred logo.jpg? © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 05:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The name isn't descriptive: the filename suggests that it is the preferred logo of an entity, but leaves no information on which entity this is. Or it could be seen as misleading, if you think that it is the logo of an entity called 'Preferred'. Not what you'd usually call something, but companies sometimes choose stupid names. The file itself contains the name of two entities: Hibernian FC and Capital City Service. The image is used in the article Capital City Service, but is unsourced (I don't think that we should trust a 'PD-self' claim for logos) and the entity doesn't seem to have a website (or at least I can't easily find one on Google, and there's no website mentioned in the article), so I can't tell if the logo actually belongs to Capital City Service or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to it because it appears at Category:Incomplete file renaming requests. For what I looked up on Google, the image is not the official logo, probably it is this one. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the file name isn't only confusing but also incorrect. The problem is that the file should be renamed but that the desired target file name is unknown. Also, if, as your comment suggests, the logo is a fake, then the logo should be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That Facebook page looks more like a logo for the associated football club. Not sure about verifying that logo; one photo in that article looks like a very similar flag. I've done the file rename under the assumption that it is not a hoax; if someone can verify that it is incorrect it should be deleted.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little thank you for hiding the pictures there. Didn't knew about these copyright problems there. Is there any way they could be avoided?--Ermanarich (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. It looks like nonfree status of an image is not detected correctly if it the license tag is followed by a rationale template, as the license metadata in the two templates can conflict. I can re-run the bot and regenerate those pages once the bug is (T131896) fixed. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan2. Thanks for catching that mistagging. I'm still not sure whether two non-free of the basically the same file is needed. There is also the question of whether UUI#17 applies. Any suggestions on how to proceed from here? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• F1 requires two things: the file should be unused (it wasn't) and the file should be identical and in the same file format (one was a vector file and the other was a bitmap file).

It doesn't seem useful to have one PNG and one SVG version of the same logo. For non-free files, there is a simple solution: edit all articles so that articles only contain one of the files. The other file will then be eligible for deletion per WP:F5 a week later. If some use of the PNG file fails WP:NFCC, then an alternative option is to migrate all valid usage to the SVG file and then list the PNG file at WP:FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The svg file has a nfur for Surinamese Football Association and that usage seems NFCC compliant to me. I don't believe valid nfurs can be written for the svg for the two team articles per UUI#17., so I will discuss the png's usage at FFD. Thanks again for the clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why did you crop out the logo of Ole Miss from my user page? It isn't copyright violation, I am a student there and by that have permission to use. Κοματσουλάκης (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) @Κοματσουλάκης: Because it is a non-free logo and under the terms of WP:NFCC#9 you are not permitted to post these outside of articlespace, which your userpage isn't. Having "permission to use it" is unfortunately not enough to exempt the logo from that policy, especially when we don't have evidence of that.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello -- I'm wondering why you have flagged this image? I thought it was going through the process of being moved to Commons? I've attributed the photo to the photographer, who has given me permission to use it. Can you please tell me what else needs to be done here? Thanks! BurtWorks (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer needs to comply with the process described at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan, please take any future file discussions to files for discussion as possibly unfree files has been closed down. We're working on removing it from Twinkle and other scripts. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but until the tools have been updated, we should still accept that there will be some PUF requests, either because the nominator is unaware of the discussion, or (as happened for me yesterday) because someone who is used to sending files to PUF accidentally clicks on PUF instead of FFD out of habit. It risks creating more confusion if we move requests from one venue to another, in particular for the uploaders of files listed there. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I haven't logged onto my wikipedia for a while and found today that you had taken down the photo that I posted of Kent Smith, that I said I posted because I took the picture. The reason you gave for taking it down, was that it came from the Green Party of California Flickr Page. I run that page and posted the pic there too!!!! OMG, I can't believe you went to these lengths to take this picture down, when it was something that I took personally. How do we get it back up there? --Mfeinstein —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IOWN: either change the licence to a free one on Flickr, or send a permission statement to OTRS. Free licences on Flickr are cc-by, cc-by-sa and cc-zero. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, I'll get on Flickr and try and figure out how to do that. I didn't even know it said all rights reserved by default, I don't remember filling out anything that said that when I set up the Flickr page in the first place. --Mfeinstein

Thanks for the note - this is my own picture - I can't see how to add a source and so have added a manual narrative and deleted the tag. Where does one edit the source info? B Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 19:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that you took the photo. That's the source you were required to provide, so the problem has been solved now. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I now added the non-free use rationale for the logo you deleted on page Stadin derby. It helps readers to identify the logos of both sides involved in the football derby and the logos are presented in the same way as it is on East Lancashire derby page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joonash (talk • contribs) 13:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As you may have noticed, Marchjuly responded by listing the file at WP:FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joonash. As Stefan2 has pointed out, I have started a discussion on the non-free usage of File:HJK Helsinki Logo.svg at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 April 13#File:HJK Helsinki Logo.svg. I realize you added a non-free use rationale for this particular usage, but simply adding a a rationale does not automatically make a file's usage NFCC compliant. There are 9 other non-free content criteria besides NFCC#10 which need to be satisfied for each usage of non-free content and the aforementioned FFD discussion is about whether WP:NFCC#8 and possibly WP:NFCC#3 (No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI) are being satisfied.

Finally, the fact that similar files are being used in a similar manner in other articles is not always a good indication of non-free compliance. Non-free usage is required to be contextually significant to the degree that removing it would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of a particular subject so what may be acceptable for one article is not always the same for other articles. Moreover, lots of non-free images are being used incorrectly in articles: the two used in the "East Lancanshire derby" example you gave also do not satisfy NFCC#10c and, thus, have been removed. You're welcome to add any comments that you think are relevant to the file's non-free usage in Stadin derby. The administrator who reviews such discussions will take everything posted into account when deciding on what to do with the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan2. The file is being used in the article Legends of Callasia, but it is currently moved to the draftspace and I am waiting for a moderator to approve it after making the necessary edits. Monikazapper (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, the image is not used in any articles; the image is only used in Draft:Legends of Callasia, which is not an article but a drafts. Drafts may not contain non-free images, and you may not upload non-free images for use in drafts until the drafts have been approved. See WP:NFCC#7 and WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. It was an article when I originally added the image, so I will just wait until it is approved again. Thanks. Monikazapper (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan2, I was wondering why you have edited and removed the Elite logo from my new category (Userbox) page:- User:D Eaketts/Userboxes/Elite: Dangerous. Did I breach a rule? D Eaketts (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NFCC#9. You can't use non-free files in userboxes. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok thanks, Will remember in the future. D Eaketts (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if there is a way to use non-free files without breaking rule 9?D Eaketts (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to flag a non-free image which had previous uncopyrightable versions, particularly so that your bot doesn't retag them? (Example: File:Mah e Mir.jpg.) I know about {{split media}}, but that seems like overkill unless someone wants to use the PD version independently. —Cryptic 03:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just my opinion, but if the files are different enough to have a different copyright status, Split Media may indeed be the solution. Otherwise, does {{Nobots|deny=Stefan2bot}} work?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I'm reluctant to tag it as split media is because I'm specifically trying to avoid creating busywork for anybody. —Cryptic 06:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bot scans files for certain categories which suggest that the unfree status possibly is disputed, and refuses to tag those files as it is better to go through such files manually instead. My bot writes a list of such files to a file on my computer which I try to check once in a while. For example, my bot skips files which have been tagged with {{split media}} as it is possible that some of the files under this file name do not have the same copyright status. If you don't want to add {{split media}}, {{bots|deny=Stefan2bot}} should work too. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stefan2, My question is to all my files you included the same request: Here for Pantocrator, but the same for another files: What else I should add if the files contain copyrights info, Author, and licence under CC BY-SA 3.0 which is free. What else should be done?Toreeva (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder should follow the process described at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stefan2, would you check again, what is going on with the pictures, and specially with "The New Beginning"? I submitted long time ago with the copyright info, and still they don't move anywhere in the process. These files are:

• "The New Beginning", 1992. File num: 2016042210018206
• "The Pantocrator", 1992. File num: 2016042210015932
• "The End of USSR", 1992. File Num: 2016042210016815
• "The Song of Songs", 1997. File num: 2016042210017118
• "The Song of Songs", 1999. File num: 2016042210017369

All docs already submitted with the copyright info. I don't understand why you moved all files for review, and I don't see the end of this process. Please verify, and help me with these files. They should be OK to use. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, ive no idea who to delete the one in question as i uploaded a much smaller version afterwards.

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 23:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) @Nuro Dragonfly: You can add {{Db-g7}} to the image page you uploaded if it's the whole image you want to have deleted.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the image that could be deleted, I will have to start a gallery section in the Mario Kart 8 article. It will start as a stub, but it will have more images. DatNuttyWikipedian (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This guy reverted my gallery creation on the Mario Kart 8 Article, I think that is hindering me from keeping the image to stay. DatNuttyWikipedian (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) @DatNuttyWikipedian: Making galleries of non-free images is generally frowned upon; see WP:NFGALLERY and WP:NFCC#8 the policy that they usually violate.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, it's from Mario Kart 8..... DatNuttyWikipedian (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @DatNuttyWikipedian: Please take the time to read WP:NFGALLERY and WP:NFCC#8. Screenshots of most games, including Mario Kart 8, are non-free. Thus, we should only select and include images that are of most value to the reader. Free or not, images such as this and this don't enhance the reader's understanding of Mario Kart 8. A screenshot of two Peaches doesn't tell us anything except that the game has a glitch, which is seldom notable unless it has received coverage from many reliable sources. The screenshot of the menu doesn't tell us anything about the game either except that it has a menu, which most games do. Both images are thus inappropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia, and I support the deletion of both of them. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @ThomasO1989: and @Jo-Jo Eumerus:,the first one Im going to release it into the Public Domain. DatNuttyWikipedian (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was from here that image I uploaded, I put in the wrong Copyright. Here's the link to the source of the image: https://nookipedia.com/wiki/File:6_Princess_Peaches%3F!.jpg DatNuttyWikipedian (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DatNuttyWikipedian: You can't release screenshots from copyrighted works into the public domain. You don't own the copyright. Please become familiar with Wikipedia policies around copyrighted images before you continue further. Even so, like I said before, both your Mario Kart 8 screenshots are not appropriate for Wikipedia. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ThomasO1989:, I misspoke about releasing it into the Public Domain. Instead refer to my second part of the paragraph Comprende? DatNuttyWikipedian (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh about forgot, the source is the one with the link to Nookipedia. DatNuttyWikipedian (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DatNuttyWikipedian: Please refer more importantly to the second part of my paragraph too. Your screenshots simply aren't appropriate for display on Wikipedia. Understand? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I've done a transfer. Thanks for facilitating. Levdr1lp / talk 20:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has about 500 images, any assitance in reduction of this much appreciated. I've found in going through that it still finds unsourced items. :(

https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/5647

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced the list a bit by moving a lot of locator maps to Commons and tagging some images as no source, no permission and other things. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, No objection to the query being run on a regular basis. It should ideally have less than 25 rows returned whent he backlog is cleared. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from removing useful templates (Vector_version_available) on files such as OSSTF logo.png. The proper procedure is to set nonfree to equal yes in the template. See: Template:Vector_version_available — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolCanuck (talk • contribs) 18:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page File:OSSTF logo.png violated WP:NFCC#9 as it is a page outside the article namespace which used to contain non-free images. The proper procedure is to remove the non-free images from the page, and the easiest way to do this is to simply remove the {{vva}} template instead of trying to figure out what parameters the template has and what they are called. The template wasn't useful anyway as the same information was already duplicated in the {{di-orphaned fair use}} template. Also, the file currently violates WP:NFCC#7, so it's probably going to be deleted soon, making it useless to waste time on including certain templates on the file information page. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan2, I'm new to wiki and was having a hard time with copyrights to a harmless gif. I've taken them all down but I don't know what else to do if i have already deleted it off the page.

• File:21jumpstreetrdioactivespider.gif
• File:21jumpstree.gif
• File:Radioactivespider.gif

thanks lots, JAguayo18 (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The files were copyright violations as they were taken from some random website. You can normally only upload images created by yourself. The main exception is images which are more than a century old or so. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I found that out after I had uploaded the gif. what can i do now to fix the mistake? JAguayo18 (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should refrain from uploading files from random websites. See c:COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan2, you requested a split on a picture I uploaded about a week ago: File:Kramer Logo.png besides this Version on Wikimedia there is an old/other version on Wikipedia available: File:Kramer Logo.png Regarding these files I have a few questions:

1. Why did you request a split?
2. Can you delete the version on Wikipedia?
3. Would it be better to upload a new file and replace the old ones in the articles?

--Minga (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should not overwrite old logos with new logos. Old logos and new logos should be uploaded under different file names so that people can use both logos. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do me a favour and kindly refrain from drilling me messages. Five in as many minutes is excessive. If you think images should be deleted, then do it. Don't bother me, please. Thankyou.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Twinkle doesn't allow you to set up different notification rules for different uploaders, and it takes too much time to check who the uploader is. Notifying everyone is much easier than to selectively notify only certain editors. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, for me a checkbox does show up asking if I want to notify the uploader when I tag an image for deletion... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the checkbox doesn't reveal who the uploader is and there's no way to have different default status (checked/unchecked) depending on who the uploader is. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone replaced the logos which I had put on those articles, so there is no reason to keep them. They are just different versions of the same logos.Rudy2alan —Preceding undated comment added 2016-04-28T16:10:35‎

Then simply wait for a week, as stated in the deletion template. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Thanks!Rudy2alan

Hello! Please don't delete the two cover I uploaded on that page. I uploaded the same cover twice just because I want to change the files' name. U990467 (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to rename a file, then you should request renaming instead of uploading a new copy of the same file. If multiple copies have been uploaded of the same file, then we should normally delete the most recently uploaded file so that the original file history is preserved. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All four covers were uploaded by me. Can you just keep the new one and delete the old one? U990467 (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French version of the song peaked at number 11 on French Singles Chart while the international version peaked at number 10. It has significant coverage and doesn't fail the policy you have indicated.

It's actually attached to a major commercial release of the song. U990467 (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do not put galleries of non-free covers in articles, and there is no sourced critical discussion about the covers. One cover is enough. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French version of the single has received several live performances and entered the record charts. It has enough coverage that it shouldn't be removed from the page. You can remove the Italian version cover since there's no chart position and live performance for that version. U990467 (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan2. I see you have just removed an "Utne Reader" cover image from my Sandbox, and pointed me to the relevant rule for non-free images. Please clarify - the objection is that I used the image in my Sandbox, is that correct? Once I complete the article I'm working on there and publish it on Wikipedia, I can then re-enter the image, is that correct? Thanks so much for your help here. - Babel41 (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image is a non-free image, and the rule is that you can't use non-free images in sandboxes. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be undone.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Please refer to:

* Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue  * Wikipedia:When to cite * Wikipedia:Common knowledge * Wikipedia:The Pope is Catholic * Wikipedia:Paris is in France 

Kilo-echo-lima-victor-india-november (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The rule is that files need sources which can be used for verifying their copyright status. See WP:F4. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? you are the one who is a wannabe and trying to gain power Kilo-echo-lima-victor-india-november (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Wikipedia has copyright rules which you are required to follow. See WP:C and WP:NFCC, for example. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When a file is moved, my understanding was that translcusions of it should be updated to the new name.

Hence the following query (I've limited it for the moment to media with 1 transclusion)

https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/9443

I'm slowly working my way through a VERY long list of entries, (something that probably should be done by a bot, as it is on Commons.).

My understanding was that the redirects themselves don't meet criteria for RfD on their own and thus unless they have invalid targets they can stay indefinitely. ( Checking for non existenet targets is a query I wasn;t sure how to do though.)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FMV/W says that After moving the file, please replace all uses of the old file link with the new one. I'm not sure why the page says so. There doesn't seem to be any problems with using a redirect instead of the current file name. There are reasons to avoid using a Commons redirect to a Commons file as the file usage then doesn't show up in c:Special:GlobalUsage, but this problem doesn't apply to locally hosted files. Maybe the sentence was copied from Commons without determining if it was relevant to Wikipedia or not? It seems to me that it is a waste of time to go through all redirects and update the file targets, except in the odd situations where the redirect shadows something else on Commons and thus needs to be deleted.

There is a bot which deletes any redirects to deleted and non-existing files, I think. Is this what you mean with "non-existing targets"? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. possibly.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will note many of the earlier entries seem to be 'short' names, so the possibility for a name collision is higher.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if we get a collision, then we can update the file name when we get that collision. I don't think that there is an urgent need to do this immediately. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you tagged the File:Frontier Communications Corporation logo 2016.svg article with the {{Opaque}} template. Inclusion of the background was deliberate. Did you read the discussion on the file's Talk page before you did so? If the background is removed, it would constitute defacement of the logo and it would no longer be an accurate representation of the logo according to Frontier Communications Corporation logo usage guidelines. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 17:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The company seems to use a transparent background. See for example [1] which the company uses on its website. Why should Wikipedia change the background from transparent to opaque? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because Frontier Communications, like many companies. publishes acceptable use guidelines for its logotypes and logomarks. Such guidelines typically specify the background, the precise colors to be used, minimum size, spacing from adjacent graphics, etc. If we're going to blatantly violate or ignore trademark owners' restrictions on the use of their intellectual properties merely to satisfy a bureaucratic urge to conform to some ill-conceived Wikipedia MOS entries, written by small cliques of editors without benefit of input from legal counsel or the wider Wikipedia community we might as well remove them from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons entirely. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 14:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are those guidelines and why should we follow them considering that the company itself doesn't seem to follow them? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

→ You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Kilo-echo-lima-victor-india-november (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The one who's vandalising is you. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. the one who is vandalizing is you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilo-echo-lima-victor-india-november (talk • contribs) 2016-05-03T20:07:21‎

I'm not aware of having made any personal attacks. Please be more specific - and remember to sign your posts. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Subsisting_copyrights seems to say that UK sound Recording have a 50 year term. I think this was recently (in the last few years) changed to be 70. Would you mind checking up on this? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article 3.2 of the Copyright Duration Directive says that the copyright term of a sound recording expires after 50 years. However, a few years ago, some other EU directive (not sure which one) extended this to 70 years. As an EU member, Britain is required to follow these copyright terms, so I assume that what you are writing about Britain is correct. I don't know whether this second EU directive restored any expired copyright to sound recordings.

Note that WP:NUSC mainly is concerned about the copyright status in Britain as of 1996, when Britain used a 50-year term. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you left me a message concerning an unfree image I had uploaded thats now not being used and therefore deletion fodder. Before I decide on my next course of action, I need to ask two questions of you: 1) do you why the image was removed from the article(s) it was in, and 2) do you know which article the image was removed from? I need to find out if this was a consensus thing, a casualty of a page merge or redirect, or just the usual loss of retention of material as we shrink the encyclopedia down. If it was an accident, then I'll readd it, but if it was intentionally removed then it may be time to let it go. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) @TomStar81: It was removed from Command & Conquer: Tiberian series (found the article from the NFUR rationale which says it's used there) by @Izno: for violating WP:NFCC#8.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @TomStar81: I removed the set of images because they do not convey any understanding above and beyond what text can (or should) convey. Certainly, all of the images (save the one that went undeleted--showing the architecture of the alien race) are decorative rather than attempting to explain something about the games from the real-world perspective. This means they fail to meet WP:NFCC#8. They are also used more broadly than is necessary, and there are more than necessary, meaning they also fail WP:NFCC#3. Their ability to meet WP:NFCC#5 is also questionable. --Izno (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• User:TomStar81, I agree that the file violates WP:NFCC#8 in that article. If you dispute this and prefer to have a discussion about the file, then the best solution is probably to list the file at WP:FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks all. And no, I have no interest in disputing the charges. I learned the hard way a very, very, VERY long time ago never to mess with fictional material deletion because its unproductive and no one ever listens to anything I have to say on the matter anyway (and in one particularly memorable case couldn't even classify the fictional material correctly). It was for this reason I swore off creating fictional pages here and avoid editing them as much as possible: Wikipedia simply isn't an encyclopedia where fictional topics can be discussed with any kind of accuracy. All the same I thank you for your replies, and especially for the notification of the impending deletion. I never understood why it was so difficult for editors who removed the images to invest an extra 20 seconds to notify the uploaded that they were gone. I mean its not like they can't figure it out, its information right on the image page for crying out loud... TomStar81 (Talk) 21:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For taking an extra 20 seconds to notify an editors of an impending deletion where so many others have preferred to let the editor find out about the deletion ex post facto I hereby bestow upon you this Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. Going the extra mile is always hard, but its these little things that ultimately make the biggest difference :) TomStar81 (Talk) 21:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you left me a messages concerning what's specified in the header of this talk. Right now the situation is linked to this: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DJ_Balli I guess it won't be sorted within seven days. What to do? Djscaphandre —Preceding undated comment added 07:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the picture appeared in Sonic Belligeranza, but this page was redirected to DJ Balli by User:Czar, who claimed that the article Sonic Belligeranza fails the notability criterion. I see that User:Czar thinks that DJ Balli doesn't meet the notability criterion either and therefore listed that article for deletion.

The outcome of the article DJ Balli will be determined by the deletion discussion. If you disagree with the claim that Sonic Belligeranza is a non-notable subject, then the solution would seem to be to revert User:Czar's edit which turned the page into a redirect, but you should then assume that he probably responds by nominating that page for deletion too. The outcome of the file File:VecchioLogoS.B..jpg really depends on the outcome of the article Sonic Belligeranza: if the consensus is that we shouldn't have an article on this subject, then the file shouldn't be on Wikipedia. If you think that the article Sonic Belligeranza needs further discussion somewhere, then what we could do is to extend the waiting time for the file so that it isn't deleted while the article is still being discussed. I should add that I have not read any of the articles and I have not read the deletion discussion, so I do not have an opinion on whether the articles meet the notability criterion or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so clear! The extension of the waiting time for the file is the best thing to me, in fact I'm really busy with job stuff right now, but I'm going to find time to give further proof of notability as requested by User:Czar and then, hopefully, improve the page. Djscaphandre —Preceding undated comment added 19:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Separate from the thread above, this edit indicates I should not have removed the rationales. I made a number of similar edits. Should those also be reverted? --Izno (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If you dispute the use of a non-free file, then you could remove the file from the page and tag it as orphaned by adding {{subst:orfud}} and notify the uploader, but it is typically better to leave the existing text on the file information page alone. If it's likely that someone will dispute the removal of the file, then it's better to start a discussion about the file at WP:FFD. In that case, you can leave the file on the page, and a bot will remove the file if the closing admin decides to delete the file. There are also a few delayed speedy tags you can use, such as {{subst:dnfcc|8=yes}} and {{subst:dfu|fails WP:NFCC#8}}. If you use one of those tags, then it is also typically appropriate to leave the file on the page until an admin has decided if the file should be kept or not. Generally speaking, I tend to prefer to use some deletion tag instead of removing the file from the page if it makes the file orphaned, but other users may have other preferences. Doing this is wrong: you removed the information that the file is unfree, and then the file won't be discovered by the bot which tags orphaned non-free files for deletion. I happened to find the file because it didn't contain any templates. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, that makes sense. I've tagged a couple of the other images as f5 (==orfud), so I'll sit and wait on those. --Izno (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A backlog resulting from licensing tag changes a few years ago. :-

• Category:Images with an unknown US copyright status

As you seem to have a 'desire' to clean stuff up , I was wondering if you could take a look at these and related categories.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with such files is that it's very difficult to differ between {{PD-URAA}} and {{Not-PD-US-Subsist}} files without additional information which tends not to be available on the file information pages. Take Category:PD-Japan-oldphoto images with unknown US copyright status, for example. The category reports that Images in this folder have an unknown US copyright status. If an image here was not in the PD in Japan as of the URAA date (January 1, 1996) then the US copyright has been restored and the image should be tagged {{PD-Japan-oldphoto|restored}}. If a file has been correctly tagged with {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}, then it means that the copyright term under the 1899 copyright act expired before the 1970 copyright act was implemented. This means that all of the files in that category were in the public domain in the source country in 1996, but a subset of those files might have been hit by {{Not-PD-US-Subsist}}. This should mainly be the case with photos which were not published until a long time after they were created. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to suggest new categories, I would welcome the assistance, also I won't object if someone updates the template you mention, based on better understanding :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Category:PD-Japan-oldphoto images for review is where most of the above will now be categorised, but I'd appreciate you cleaning up the language on the template and the category.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That image was supposed to be a Personal Image before it was deleted. Thanks in advance. DatNuttyWikipedian (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Man that image being deleted is like losing a Friend..... from a sad DatNuttyWikipedian (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean File:6 Princess Peaches?!.jpeg? That's a non-free file. We can only keep non-free files if they are used in at least one article, and you can't put non-free files on your user page. See WP:NFCC#7 and WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be okay to reupload it from Nookipedia? DatNuttyWikipedian (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @DatNuttyWikipedian: To upload it again here on Wikipedia? No, non-free images cannot be used as personal images.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Expressiontable.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". I do want to delete this image, but I am not sure how to find contest the nomination. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Penal007 (talk) 9:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Expressiontable.png. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan,

You renamed File:Oldcoatofarms.jpg to File:"De Beus" Coat of Arms.jpg. But it's now a different file to what used to be at the original name: look. What's happened, and how can the old file be restored? The De Beus image is now appearing wrongly on three articles.

Thanks,  — Scott • talk 16:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was one File:Oldcoatofarms.jpg on Wikipedia and one c:File:Oldcoatofarms.jpg on Commons. The one on Commons was renamed and the one on Wikipedia was deleted. See Special:Log. I've removed the "De Beus" coat of arms from the three articles on English Wikipedia as it isn't supposed to be in those articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...I see your point, but I do not agree with the entire template being restored. The template should be set up as a wrapper for Template:Ffd2 with multi=yes as well as allowing 1=, Uploader= and Reason=. I may try to figure this out here in a few, but I recall you tried to do the opposite of this merge, so maybe you may be able to brainstorm how to do this as well. Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this edit resolves both of our concerns in a "middle-ground" sort of way. Steel1943 (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Users expect {{subst:ffd2a}} to work, so you should not break the template until a wrapper exists.

I think that the code would be easier to maintain if the merge is done the other way around instead. That would give us two shorter templates instead of one huge template: {{ffd2}} would contain a few lines implementing the header and reason parameters, while {{ffd2a}} would contain various links to the file. For the moment, {{ffd2}} begins with a large chunk of template code, and I think that it would easier to find the things you want to edit if it is split up in two templates. Also, {{ffd2a}} gives you better output than {{ffd2}} if no uploader is specified. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are not required to be made for non-technical editors to be able to maintain easily, so I don't share your concern regarding "...two shorter templates instead of one huge template...". However, regarding your concern about the Uploader parameter: Visually, the only differences I could see between the two is that the error doesn't appear when Uploader= is empty in {{Ffd2a}}. If this needs to be replicated on {{Ffd2}}, the Uploader parameter on {{Ffd2}} could be encapsulated with another parameter to completely blank the text generated by Uploader that could be exclusive to {{Ffd2a}} as a wrapper. (Personally, I don't support encapsulating the Uploader parameter in the multi parameter that would cause the Uploader text to be blanked when multi= is populated since sometimes, grouped files could have different uploaders.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That, and I failed to find how else the previous state of {{Ffd2a}} different from {{Ffd2}} in regards to the displayed links. I looked through the history of {{Ffd2a}}, and I have to assume that the changes you referenced disappeared over time via edits to the template, but then again, I may be not seeing what you are talking about for some reason. Steel1943 (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are not required to be made for non-technical editors to be able to maintain easily – but that's not a reason to deliberately make it difficult to maintain a template. The easier it is to maintain a template, the better. If a template is difficult to maintain, then it's more likely that you will make a typo when adding large sequences of ending } signs. Should there be a sequence of six or seven of them, and how many have been added? If you have to count signs like this, you will likely end up making an error, and then you need to spend more time on debugging the code. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you just said "...If a template is difficult to maintain, then it's more likely that you will make a typo when adding large sequences of ending } signs...": You just explained the very reason why the template editor user right has such strict requirements, and that entire sentence backs up my point. Templates aren't designed to be easily editable; they are designed to be functional. Anyways, unless we can discuss a resolution to resolve the concern regarding the Uploader parameter as discussed above, I'm probably not going to discuss this anymore since this discussion has now taken a tangent that has essentially nothing to do with how to resolve the issue with transitioning {{Ffd2}} and {{Ffd2a}} to a less redundant amount of code in each other. Steel1943 (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was very inconsistent that {{ffd2}} had a mandatory "uploader" parameter while {{ffd2a}} had an optional parameter. PUF didn't allow specifying an uploader at all, if I remember correctly. I would suggest making the parameter optional everywhere. Does the current sandbox look acceptable to you? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see what the difference is. Looks good to me as it seems to completely suppress that text in certain situations. Steel1943 (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steel1943, this has now been implemented together with another change: if you click on the "notify" button, then the file name will be automatically filled in. Previously, you had to insert the file name manually.

Another thing: If you use {{subst:ffd2|multi=yes}}, then it seems that the template inserts an extra empty line at the top which shouldn't be there. Any suggestion on how to get rid of this line? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out that I was working on this the same time you were. I'll see what you put into the sandbox and compare. Either way, I may have discovered a solution that could hide the space, provided that {{Ffd2a}} doesn't break in the process due to having to go through 2 wrappers to verify parameters. (If I recall, going through multiple wrappers breaks a template, but I don't remember right now.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steel1943/Template:Ffd2/core essentially looks like a recreation of {{ffd2a}} as a standalone template, so the code might as well just be moved there if you are moving that code to the template namespace. However, that page, as currently designed, doesn't work (and {{subst:ffd2/sandbox|Example.svg|multi=yes}} currently includes two copies of it).

Note that {{ffd2a}}, as written before you turned it into a wrapper, didn't have the problem with line breaks. We could check in which way that template differed from the current template. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just tested {{Ffd2/sandbox}} here, and I also noticed that "multi" returned duplicate entries. (I probably missed a couple of }}s somewhere.) But to your point about why {{Ffd2a}} did not need duplicate code in its previous revision: That is because its previous version had the bulk of its code on "line 1", whereas in {{Ffd2}}'s current state, "line 1" is a header trigger and "line 2" is the bulk of the code. My thoughts are that if the "bulk of the code" is present in both line 1 and line 2 (and "line 2" can be blanked when "multi" is active), that could resolve the spacing issue. (However, then the code would probably best have a central location to avoid redundancy, so I see what you are saying about {{Ffd2a}} now.) Yeah, I seem to be going in circles myself now. But either way, yes, with this idea, the future "Template:Ffd2/core" page would look similar, if not identical, to what {{Ffd2a}} looked like in the past. Steel1943 (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special:PermanentLink/719631464 works if multi=yes is used. However, if it isn't used, then a line break is missing. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because the blank line is the blanked line where the header would be if "multi" was not used. My idea is that if "line 1" is somehow set up to run the code in "line 2" if "multi" is populated but at the same time blank "line 2" if "multi" is populated, that would resolve the spacing issue since the code would be in "line 1" instead of "line 2", making the space disappear when "multi" is used. Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(On a related note, if the solution was a simple as adding a <br> after the equals signs that are part of the header, I would not be trying to do this code duplication. See here.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Right, because the blank line is the blanked line where the header would be if "multi" was not used. Doesn't seem to be correct. In that case, Special:PermanentLink/719626705 would have worked, but it didn't work.

Note that {{subst:#ifeq:yes|yes|:test}} automatically inserts a line break if not placed at the beginning of a line. I suspect that this somehow has something to do with the problem... --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the space. At this point, I'm out of ideas and I'm throwing in the towel. Steel1943 (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a final note, the only other idea I have would be similar to how I found a way to remove the blank lines when "Reason" is empty, but since the same resolution here would require code to be added after the section header on the same line as the section header as well then making the first line have only that line of code - ( ) (see text since I do not know how to disable this code), it wouldn't work anyways. But, maybe you have an idea that could form out of that information since I'm not coming up with any. Steel1943 (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Also, migrating some code to a different template (like {{ffd2a}} or {{User:Steel1943/Template:Ffd2/core}}) won't work if we want to check that the file name isn't File_name.ext, something we should check because new editors sometimes copy the code from the documentation without realising that the file name should be replaced. I suspect that the old {{ffd2a}} only worked because the template didn't search for this file name. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't add   on the header line because it breaks the header. You can't add it on the following line either as it makes the colon display as a normal colon instead of indenting the line. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, (which is essentially why I'm now out of ideas.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so here is the deal.

An editor for a PR firm who I am helping get oriented here, originally uploaded the logo to the commons and said he owned it. He doesn't. So i tweaked the categories to set it up for speedy deletion. Then I changed the name and uploaded it again just to Wikipedia with a fair use rationale, which is what I believe is correct. I anticipated that the upload on the commons would soon be deleted.

I don't know know if that is helpful, but that is what I was doing. I wanted there to be a fair use version left for the draft article.

I don't know what your goal is but hopefully it ends up at the same place. But this is not accurate. It is not a plain text. Jytdog (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks simple enough to me. If unfree, as suggested by you, then it can't be on Wikipedia since it isn't used in the article namespace, see WP:NFCC#7 and WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I exactly copied the rationale used here: here so you should delete that as well. Whatever. Jytdog (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who insists that the logo is unfree (although I don't agree). I the logo is unfree, then it simply can't be used in the draft namespace. File:Bristol-Myers Squibb logo.svg is unrelated as it is not used in the draft namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for editing filename, I could see how to do that. Here is another small problem. This photo can be deleted, i couldnt see how, can you do that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BMW_engine_production_in_mianyang.JPG this was my first upload of the same file to the wring place and is now redundant.

Tangray-nick (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Tangray-nick (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The file has been tagged for deletion, so an admin will probably delete the file soon. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I find more info about the statue, which is at the New Mexico History Museum, in reliable sources, that means it can be moved to an appropriate section, right? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you mean? The file currently violates WP:FREER. Pictures like this need two copyright tags, see {{photo of art}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I took this photograph myself that means I would simply add a public domain (from the photographer) tag. therefore there would be only one real copyright tag (from the sculptor of the statue) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "photographer's license" of public domain to File:AngelicoChavezStatueSantaFeNM.JPG WhisperToMe (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan2. Not suggesting keep or delete, but I just thought you should know about c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Commons:Deletion requests/File:EU Passport Cyprus 2016.JPG -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

198.39.100.21 (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit(s) and which page(s) are you talking about? --Stefan2 (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re post on my talk page. My camera, I set it up, set up the shot, handed it to someone nearby to release the shutter. Not that the wiki needs this photograph, but I'm interested in how WP sees the creator role in this situation. --Pete (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder is normally the photographer, in this case 'someone nearby'. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Normally. But when the shot is taken with my camera and I provide all the technical and creative input to set up the shot the way I want? This is not a new situation, I trust? --Pete (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm by no means an expert on the subject, and I'm just randomly waltzing by, but if it's your camera and the photo is taken at your suggestion, Pete, I'm sure you would qualify as the "official copyright holder". If I ask a stranger to take a picture of me and my girlfriend next to the Leaning Tower of Pisa while on vacation, I don't think that this random individual would be the final decision maker regarding the potential use of that particular image; I would expect the copyright laws to be somewhat relaxed in such an event, but again, I'm no expert. Regards, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 14:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Again, I'm not wedded to this particular image being in WP, but my own investigation informs me that it's not something cut and dried. If we're handing out image deletions, then we should have a reasonable idea of the basis for the action. I remember the infamous "monkey selfie" a while back, where we found that the photographer had no copyright over the images snapped by the ape, but nor did he have any creative input, apart from making the camera available. --Pete (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hellow I am the admin of FB page Jayadev galla. I added this picture to wikimedia for public use. svsreeram0 jaygalla.jpg. If you still have questions Please go to www.facebook.com/jayadev.galla page and send a message I will reply with permission to use for wiki. If you still want to delete...I have no answer...i noticed you guys removed my earlier upload also. If you don't like to keep media even without any copy rights of our own work and want to keep wiki ugly without pictures. i will leave that decision to you. svsreeram0

Hellow I am the admin of FB page Jayadev galla. I added this picture to wikimedia for public use. svsreeram0

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Svsreeram0 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]  

• See WP:IOWN for the correct procedure. Also, there does not seem to be a way to send messages at www.facebook.com/jayadev.galla without creating an account on that website. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AS I am administrator of the page.. I can send the email to you or any email that you request here from facebook page if that helps to confirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svsreeram0 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:IOWN for the correct procedure. Evidence that you are the copyright holder (photographer) should be sent to OTRS, not to me. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frenc Tal-Gharb.JPG	Appreciation
	Hope that matter has now been rectified. Thanks & Regards Mewga (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no evidence of permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding use of the civil service logo - fair point, well made. However, a polite message would have been a more courteous route to take as it is still in my Sandbox getting constructed. I totally concede to your point and I am grateful as I am still moulding the article. I just think that it's bad form. What-ho; hope you are having a nice Sunday relax. Best wishes. The joy of all things (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can I prove that, it was taken from my friend's mobile.Imahesh3847 (talk) 08:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer should comply with the process described at WP:CONSENT and prove ownership of the Facebook account. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Always glad to be proved wrong, but can you explain why in this instance? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also can you update the advice here so I, others and Commons are workign to ONE interpretation please, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:PD-India_images_with_unknown_US_copyright_status&diff=next&oldid=720364575

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the template on Commons:

“

Anonymous works, photographs, cinematographic works, sound recordings, government works, and works of corporate authorship or of international organizations enter the public domain 60 years after the date on which they were first published

”

Wikipedia's template does not list 'works of corporate authorship', so there is an error in one of the templates, not sure which one. The Wikipedia template uses {{contradict-other}} because it differs on this point and on a few other points.

When {{PD-India}} says that the copyright expires 60 years after an event (death, publication or creation), it means that the copyright expired 50 years after the event if the event took place before 1941. This is also stated in the template documentation. This is because of a copyright term extension in the 1990s. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK So it seems someone is wrong here, So I won't be doing any more cleanup in the category.

It would be helpful in the template was more explicit, about the above situation.

Can you point me to the EXACT "saving" concerned?, because the links from Copyright law of India doesn't on a first glance seemingly say anything about existing works having a shorter term, merely because there were published prior to the passage/commencement of the (ammended) Copyright Acts. When was the term extended?. (By comparison when the UK extended from 50 to 70 in 1988, earlier works that were still in copyright got extended. 1996-50 would be 1946, not 1941, so it depends on what precisely what any saving actually said. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's because of section two of "Act 13 of 1992", I think. It changed "fifty" in to "sixty" at various places (effective 28 December 1991), but didn't affect the copyright status of works which had already entered the public domain before 28 December 1991. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Sfan00 IMG, Britain switched to 70 years in 1996, not 1988. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, as written in 1988, says 50 years. Britain changed to 70 years in The Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995, effective 1 January 1996. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but It seems I was right about the 'revived' copyrights thing :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem to have re-jigged the advice on the PD-India category: Can I aks you to figure out the dates on the various other PD-<jursdiction> templates? PD-Australia seems to be the biggest category, but the license template has an advice block concerning the URAA issue. PD-Canada doesn't seem to ( Will check commons.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the below can be used for most files:

• Photos created before 1949 (Canada) / 1954 (Australia): The copyright expired 50 years after creation.
• Works other than photographs published during the lifetime of the author: The copyright expires 50 years after the death of the author. In Australia, this is increased to 70 years if the author died after 1954.
• Works by anonymous or pseudonymous authors: The copyright expires 50 years from publication. In Australia, this is increased to 70 years if the work was first published after 1954.
• Government works: 50 years from publication, regardless of whether this is longer or shorter than the above. Australia sometimes uses 50 years from creation (not publication) for government photographs, but Canada doesn't use this I think.

At some point, Britain decided that the copyright to literary, dramatic and musical works and engravings expires 50 years after the death of the author or 50 years from publication, whichever is later (thereby giving perpetual copyright to unpublished works). I think that Australia and Canada have imported modified versions of the rules and implemented a number of cut-off years where the countries switch from one system to another system, so the rules appear to be very complex. Consider ignoring works which were not published during the lifetime of the author for the moment. There can't be many of them on Wikipedia anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bsd. While i understand the purpose of NOGALLERY, in some maintenance categories like Category:Images that should have transparent backgrounds it makes it really difficult to work. In said category, besides for easily seeing files that don't belong there, it really helps to know which image to choose before opening it. Many images are inappropriately converted to PNG, and therefore are bad to begin with, so you just skip them. Also, you can check images which are text only, and change their license, among many other maintenance tasks. Without thumbnails, you have to open each one individually, it's just a needless pain. Please consider an exception, as this is for maintenance purposes only. Thank you --Ben Stone 20:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a potential candidate to be included in Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions (thus allowing removal of NOGALLERY), but according to the category page, you can only add subcategories to Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions after a successful request at WT:NFC, so I suggest making a request there. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Ben Stone 21:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan,

@Jffner:

(Regarding File:Western Power logo.png and File:Western Power New.svg)

I know there has been some discussion about the use of SVG files for logos. I apologize for not recalling where that discussion occurred or what the resolution was. I suspect you are likely to have been involved so I'm hoping you can point me to it.

At the risk of revisiting issues which may have been resolved, I note that our licensing statement prominently states:

It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under Copyright law of the United States. (Emphasis in original)

While SVG images have very attractive properties, one of those attractive properties turns out to be problematic. SVG images scale nicely, which means we can no longer accurately state that we are using a low resolution image.

In the case of free images, I agree that an SVG version is almost always preferable. However, when a perfectly acceptable low resolution PNG version exists, I see the SVG version not as an improvement but as a problem. Has the community decided otherwise?

(I'm leaving for a 3 day trip shortly, apologies if my responses are delayed).--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free SVG files may be used provided that the files comply with WP:NFCC#3b. However, it is unclear how to determine if an SVG file complies with WP:NFCC#3b or not.

The pixel count can be a good measure for the resolution of bitmap graphics. However, SVG files work differently. It's maybe useful to use the vector count to measure the resolution of an SVG file, but it is not trivial to reduce the vector count if there are too many vectors. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: The purpose of the "low-resolution" requirement is that we're not trying to be a gallery or repository of high-quality (restrictively) copyrighted images. When the New York Times takes a nice high-resolution photo and publishes it on their website, they are doing that to attract visitors to their website. If we use that photo under a claim of fair use, we are detracting from their ability to enjoy the fruits of their labor. With an SVG, none of that is remotely applicable. (Western Power does not sell ad revenue from people going to their website to gawk at their logo.) Most large businesses even make available vector or large camera ready copies of their logo because they want you to use a high-quality official logo. There is every technical reason to prefer SVG and, so long as we are going to continue to accept any images under a claim of fair use, no good "free content" reason not to use SVG. --B (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to what you cited on my talk page it can be used for identification and is marked as fair use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUSConservative (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a non-free file, meaning that its use is restricted. For example, it may only be used in articles but not in userboxes. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look? The uploader claims there's an FUR there already, but I don't see it.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan2. You provided comments on a photo I uploaded to my submission on Halvard Storm, specifically on the use of a photo of his gravestone. The photographer has provided a permission statement in accordance with Wiki guidelines. Can I now upload the photo? Thank you, Kurzenhauser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurzenhauser (talk • contribs) 03:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan2, the picture in question was taken around 1905 in Syria, a time and place where photo copyrights were non-existent in the said country; moreover the person who uploaded the picture is not related to the subject and does not own the picture, because the same picture has been used by other journalists. So, the picture is more than a century old, how can I rectify the permission part, when the 110 year old photo has been used by different journalists and historians? George Al-Shami (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that the image comes from the website www.syrianhistory.com and that the copyright holder^[who?] has released the picture to the public domain. Since I couldn't find any evidence for your claim, the file was tagged for lack of evidence of permission.

If the picture was taken around 1905, then it is possible that the copyright has expired, but there is currently no evidence that the image was taken around that time, and there is also no information on when the picture was first published or in which country it was first published. More information is needed in order to determine if the copyright has expired or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of this file. It's free of rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudre (talk • contribs) 03:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bored now. You're no longer welcome on my talk page. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it's now at ANI, since you're refusing to comply with policy. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I ever find myself as thoroughly disagreeable a person as you, I will overdose on something and self-solve the problem. HalfShadow 19:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically no source but it's old and probably anlisted self by the uploader..Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file has a source. The description says map created from outline map from Morris County website. Morris County lists three counties with this name. I suspect that the websites of all three counties normally host unfree maps. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting in the way of your efforts am I? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean things like the files you listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 21, then no.

I've discovered and been checking three categories where many of the files seem to have problems:

• Category:Copyright holder released public domain files: Many files are missing source and/or permission. Also, many files should have a different PD tag (for example PD-self or PD-old). I think that User:Kelly also has been going through this category lately.
• Category:PD other reasons: These are tagged with {{PD-because|some reason}}, often with an invalid reason.
• Category:Files from freely licensed external sources: These are often missing evidence of permission.

To make it easier to find problem files, I've excluded files with deletion or OTRS tags. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW The reason, I was being a bit more paranoid in sending things to FFD was because you'd listed some oness i'd applied "presumed-self" work to a few days ago. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been going through Category:Copyright holder released public domain files after finally finishing up with Category:Files requiring attribution. That actually took a couple of years believe it or not! Kelly ^hi! 21:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are quite certain that the world will be a better place if the above file is deleted, go right ahead. Nankai (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is that there is no evidence of permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]