User talk:Ww2censor/Archive14

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

About Sciama image

Hi, in continue to your answer on WP:MCQ I found myself a bit confused about whether this image [1] answering all non-free content criterions. I have no idea whether it can satisfy criterion 7. You help would be appreciated.--Gilisa (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#7 means that a non-free image must be used in at least one article, so if it is orphaned, or becomes orphaned, for whatever reason, it will be deleted. Of greater concern would be WP:NFCC#1 - are you really sure there are no freely licenced images available and the rather subjective, WP:NFCC#8 - is it detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topicif the image were omitted? Remember that the burden of proof is on you to justify its use in the article. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Seemingly I can't use this image as an image is not required for better understanding of autobiographies except in unusuall cases and this is not one. Thanks a lot any way. cheers.--Gilisa (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Re File:Zheng He's tomb, Nanjing.jpg

Hi! Thanks for pointing out the lack of details in the description of this image. I am not sure what sort of information is required - I have added some - but could you please check it and let me know if it is appropriate and sufficient? Many thanks indeed, Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet another image quiery

Sorry, but I know next-to-nothing about images. Is there any way I can stop this File:Lego Batman DS.PNG getting deleted? Do I have to add something like;

   # It illustrates an educational article about the entity that the image represents.
   # It is a low resolution image, and thus not suitable for production of counterfeit goods.
   # The logo is not used in such a way that a reader would be confused into believing that the article is written or authorized by the owner of the logo.
   # It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

Yes I just copypasted most of that, but I wouldn't do that in the real thing. Or does the uploader have to do that (User:Coldplay Expert is the uploader)? Or does it have to be a low resolution? Basically I have no idea, it's quite important for the article because it displays a lot of stuff that's useful etc. Any help would be appreciated, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 18:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 08:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Kazi shamsul hoque.jpg

Dear editor, I have added a proper tag there. So please remove the notice. Thanks. (Mizan1947 (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)).

Done, but you could actually have done it yourself so long as you provided the appropriate information. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion request for File:Stamp Italy 1917airmailC1.png

Hi, As there were no objections I closed the request, undeleted the image and tagged it as Anonymous-EU. Regards, Sv1xv (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW I fixed the name problem with File:Boyle 72 numeral.jpg, I renamed it to File:Boyle 70 numeral.jpg. I also replaced the filename in Postage stamps of Ireland. Sv1xv (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks indeed for resolving both issues so quickly. I have applied for renaming rights on the commons but am waiting patiently as it could be a useful tool to help out with. You could, of course, have left this note on the commons for me. Do you mind if I ask you to review some commons issues I have? I will do it over there if you prefer. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

About other issues, yes, contact me on my talk page there: Commons:User_talk:Sv1xv. Sv1xv (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Yak17 RD-10-1.jpg

Sorry!!!, I had a brain fart.Petebutt (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. That happens sometimes; even a real one can put you off! ww2censor (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

File:To Koritsi me ta Mavra.jpg

Thanks for the deletion of the postage stamp related license from the picture. I still have no idea how this was included with the the original FUR when I uploaded it. I must have pressed an extra license button somewhere. This is a first and of course slightly embarassing. And to think I did not even see it all this time. Anyway thanks again and take care. Dr.K. logos 23:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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

File:NogginStamp.jpg

Dear Ww2censor,

Hi. I am sorry to see you might be deleting the noggin stamp picture. In my view the Noggin stamp picture is being used to illustrate our text which says "Noggin has received an accolade achieved by very few Norse characters - he appeared with the Ice Dragon on a British 'greetings' stamp (SG1804) in 1994." The picture is therefor used for identifying the stamp (not the subject). In accordance with Acceptable use/Images/Stamps and currency.

Would more text about the stamp like

"Peter Firmin also produced a series of illustrations for the advertising campaign to publicize the new stamps"

referecing http://www.smallfilms.co.uk/noggin/stamps.htm

prevent it from being deleted?

I might be a bit confused about this - was it just because I had a link on my user page?

Sorry about this and best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

You were given a deletion notice because, according to the history, you uploaded the file in question. I can tell you from experience that stamps are generally only used in stamp articles under the fair use claim. This has no such claim for the Noggin the Nog article but it appears that you made a fair-use claim for this stamp in Regional postage stamps of Great Britain in which it is not being used. You are of course quite at liberty to dispute my claim but in that case I will nominate it for deletion discussion at WP:IfD. I am starting a new sweep (June last was the previous sweep) of improperly used fair-use claimed stamp images and call tell you that even if they are taken to WP:IfD, they are generally deleted because they fail one or more of the criteria, most often because they are only being used to decorate the page without any critical commentary about the stamp itself and adding a little text about its existence, who published it, some production details, what it shows, or such, is not sufficient to pass WP:NFCC#8 because removing the stamp is not to the detriment of the reader's understanding of the topic. The stamp itself should have been discussed in third-party WP:RS. If you are actually interested in reading some similar stamp deletion discussions, you can link to them from here. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear . I added the stamp because I was reading the article and it said "Noggin has received an accolade achieved by very few Norse characters - he appeared with the Ice Dragon on a British 'greetings' stamp (SG1804) in 1994." And I thought that it would be nice to see the stamp. I have added another line about the stamp and Nogbad's letter and something about the art work and made a section about the stamp. I think the picture of the stamp clearly increases readers' understanding of the topic of the section (The Noggin stamp) and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. It would seem to me odd to remove the picture of the stamp and leave the text about the stamp. I have also added a reference to a reliable source. It seems clear that the picture of the stamp is illustrating the stamp (which was in the article already) and I wanted to see what it was like and not merely a picture of Noggin. This seems to be at the heart of why many stamps have been deleted.

If this is not acceptable and you have no suggestions as to how you might be satisfied I would like to contest the deletion. I would be glad if you could let me know about the procedure for contesting the proposed deletion.

PS: I am not sure how or why I a fair-use claim for this stamp in Regional postage stamps of Great Britain. I don't know anything about that page - I can only think I might have used something from there as a guide to how to do formating or something and certainly had no intention of claiming that the Noggin stamp could be used in that page. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

Someone else has removed your speedy delete thing. I guess this was all just a misunderstanding caused by an error on my part because I didn't link the picture to Noggin's page but to that Regional postage stamp page. I should be more careful in future. I am really sorry about this. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

Indeed someone has removed the speedy tag but I still claim that the fair-use rationale is inappropriate for this use, so unless you are prepared to remove it by agreement, I will nominate it for deletion at WP:IfD where it can be discussed in a wider forum by a group of image experienced editors. ww2censor (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ww2censor,

yes I would be grateful if it could get a wider hearing before being deleted. My reading of the links and policy seems to me to indicate that it is OK to keep it. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

Deletion of File:Taurus394.PNG

Hi, This file is based on the Wikimedia Commons file Sicily.Map.gif - I though these could be modified, as the file licensoing says. Furthermore, I have followed the usage direction given with the file. If I have made a mistake in following them please let me know and I will get things in line with Wikipedia copyright policies - including deletion. Maglorbd (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The file name (file Sicily.Map.gif) you used to make this, possibly derivative work from, is not sufficient for me to check the original file for its source or copyright. We need to see how much work you have done. Is it really enough creative work for this to be considered a new work and therefore can be licenced by you as you want, or does it still retain the original copyright licence of the original image. Please provide a fully working link to the original file and I will review it, but until the copyright can be confirmed the deletion notice must stay. Hope you can provide the necessary link. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The link to this particular file is http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sicily_map.gif or http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Sicily_map.gif The file is also linked with the following articles: Sicilian Wars, Alcibiades, Heraclea Minoa, History of Carthage and Hamilcar I of Carthage by various authors.Maglorbd (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Maryan Street

Regarding your comment on [talk page], I have followed your link to the license page and it says "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)." I believe I have followed that process, do you need to say the source where the picture is placed not just on the picture page itself?? It also says "You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.", Which I haven't. Are these pictures not allowed on Wikipedia, the other Labour Party Pictures I have uploaded have passed the check. tshiels1 (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I.m sorry but the licence you have added in not the same at that at the bottom the source page the Maryan Street source page, which I found. You just gave labour.org as the source which is an invalid website and not even a proper link to the page where the image could be found. Anyway, the creative commons licence is a no derivative licence and we don't accept those per Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Deprecated#Non-free Creative Commons licenses, because that image is not freely licenced. Even though you say that other uploads "passed the check", it seems likely your other images have incorrect copyright tags and no one seems to have picked up on the difference or maybe even checked the source which has no URL. If they are similarly licenced, they will be tagged for deletion too. Sorry, unless you can convince the NZ labour party to release the images under a free licence you are out of luck but right now this one is no good. ww2censor (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am reviewing your NZ labour party image uploads and they all look bad, so I am tagging them for deletion. Sorry, but we take copyright violations very seriously and I am sure you did not add the free CC licence to the images to fool us into thinking these were freely licenced when in fact the copyright owner's CC licence is not free. ww2censor (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

re: advice / information - Thank you!

In future, when you want a file deleted, just add the {{db-author}} tag to the file and it will deleted because it will be listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user that administrators review regularly. ww2censor (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That's VERY useful to know! Thank you very much. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Leo Grillo with Willy

Thank you. That was an error. The current file has a copyright attachment. 37Celcius (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Shannon McNally pic

I added the copyright information that was missing. But I noticed there is still a warning "not to use photo" in the discussion section/page. Can you remove that?

I think the problem I got into was adding a photo directly to the Wikipedia page for Shannon McNally, rather than to Wikimedia Commons like I usually do. I think I got the coding fixed. Maybe you can check me so the photo will not be deleted? Thanks.

Ron Baker

Austin, TX

Username = Crawlin Kingsnake

No link to the file in question and no signature link. Come on, help me out here, I don't have time to be searching around for your contributions or talk page. Did year read the note on the top of the page? ww2censor (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

RE:Image problems

Could you please point out the particular image files you are referring to? As far as I all the images I have uploaded have a fair-use rationale with them, so I don't really see what you are talking about. Thanks. --Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That's very bizarre because when I was checking images that had no rationale purpose completed I saw several of your images listed and as I did not want to post lots of deletion notices I only posted one for File:Sphinxposter81.jpg and since I did that another editors has fixed it. Now going through your contributions, I don't see any images where the purpose is missing, so I don't know how that happened or if I made a mistake in leaving the note for you implying there were more. One way or another it seems that all your images have properly completed rationales and copyright tags. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

deleted images

I'm trying to upload artwork for Philip Burke's page. it is his original artwork, not copyrighted.````lbmadison —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbmadison (talk • contribs) 05:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Every image has some copyright status and must have that status indicated by the use of a copyright tag as indicated in the notice on your talk page. If you own the copyright to any image you can release them into the public domain by adding the {{PD-self}} or perhaps {{FAL}} template to the image description. Remember that by making your images freely licenced that anyone can use it for anything, even commercial use. If this is not acceptable then don't upload them and don't add those tags. The Mike Jagger image has already been deleted as this is clearly a copyright image and, if you are the author of that image, you may not want to make that a public domain image either. Being an artist you should probably familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's copyright requirements that are stricter than most others. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Josh White image

Please take a look here: File:Josh White Stamp.jpg. Does this meet your requirement? Let me know. JJ (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, a copyright tag is not a rationale which is still missing. Read the copyright tag that you added which clearly states that post 1977 US stamp images are copyright. The image is being used to show a stamp of the subject which fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and the prose does not pass WP:NFCC#8 either, so I will send it to WP:IfD. Sorry. ww2censor (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why was Tai chi softball page deleted?

If I could find out, I would be happy to correct the problem. It is a good page.

William DuBay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdubay (talk • contribs) 05:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. ww2censor (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Don't template the regulars

WP:DTR SpinningSpark 06:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:TTR. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I did not mean to piss you off, just remind you to complete the necessary details and besides which a manual note takes so much longer to do. Do you suggest that the images should not be tagged or you just don't want to get the template? But you responded by fixing File:Impedance balance.svg so it does not appear on any of the image categories/lists that require attention. Will you not be more pissed when the image is deleted without any notification? There is good and bad on both sides of this coin. BHG thanks for the link. ww2censor (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really pissed off, and I do appreciate the reminder (thank you) that I have forgotten to licence the work. I just felt a less "in your face" message would have been appropriate without the warning graphics (two of them in a row taking up a lot of space) which make me look like a copyvio criminal. A glance at my history will show I have created hundreds of such diagrams for Wikipedia and this instance was just an obvious oversight. SpinningSpark 17:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Following your comments I do attempt to review the uploader's contributions to see their editing extent and will try to be a little less obtrusive where I think it warranted. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Veils image

The Best Awful: I've uploaded an image on The Veils page. I have the copyright owner permission to use the picture for that purpose, how can I state this and avoid any other damage of deletion? Please answer on my talk page and give a clear and simple proceedings to follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Best Awful (talk • contribs) 14:42, 30 September 2009

You need to sign you posts and give a link to the image in question File:The Veils Haarlem 12 9 2009.jpg. You need the copyright owner to email their permission to us. Do they realise that providing a freely licenced image means that anyone can use it for anything, even commercial use? Follow the info on WP:CONSENT and if they verify the permission the image will be tagged with an OTRS ticket indicating the permission. If my any chance the image has been deleted by the time the permission arrive, the image will be restored by an administrator. If you intend to follow this procedure then you can add the template {{OTRS pending}} to the image. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Best Awful: wouldn't this form filled by the copyright owner enough? {{Information}}.

No because how do we know that the person filling in the form is the copyright owner. Someone can register as a wiki user with their name, so how can we rely on that? Filling out the {{Information}} template only claims permission, it does not verify the permission. I have already told you what you need to do. ww2censor (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you review my article?

Hello

Thank you for the note about my authoring the article about my wife's upcoming novel, Veracity. I just recently made some final edits and additions and would very much appreciate your input so that this article remains live and posted. Please take a look at Veracity_(novel) and let me know what you think. Please also let me know actions I can take to make sure this article does not get deleted. Thanks. Sincerely,

Eric Bynum --Eric f bynum (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not my area of interest. You would be better of asking someone here Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature#Members. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Kilbride/Manor Kilbride

Sorry about that. I got onto this because a known vandal IP changed an article reference from Kilbride to Manor Kilbride; since all other edits from this IP were vandalism, I checked maps of Co. Wicklow (the map linked from County Wicklow and Google Maps) to see whether the change was justified. Both have Kilbride, but Manor Kilbride only shows up on Google Maps at one resolution, seems to be the same place as Brittas Big, and when switching to satellite view there doesn't seem to be anything there, at least if it's pointing to the right place (the corner of Blessington and Lisheen roads). But if you've been there I believe that it exists :-) -- Zsero (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to rub it in but there is a shop, church, several house, a pub and it used to have a post office. I lived just beside the river Liffey outside the village and my friend lived in the village by the old mill. Info is sparse but here are two refs Russborough robbery and Liffey flow by. It is also on the Ordnance Survey Ireland maps of County Wicklow. Some people confuse Kilbride with Manor Kilbride and locally Manor Kilbride is usually referred to as Kilbride! In fact MultiMap lists it as such. ww2censor (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. On the online Ordnance Survey (linked to from the article) I could find Kilbride, but no Manor Kilbride. Where exactly are the two places? And in which one is the Goldenhill quarry? -- Zsero (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Manor Kilbride is just east of the N81 about 3km from Blessington and south of Brittas, Dublin while Kilbride is off the N11 about 1/3 way between Wicklow and Arklow. Actually now I look at the MultiMap they have Manor Kilbride wrong. Now you have me thinking. Golden hill quarry if near Ballyknocken where most of the quarries are/were, before the Poulaphouca Reservoir was made, per a google book. Perhaps this book might be useful to you. ww2censor (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno if this is relevant, but here is another Kilbride in Co. Wicklow, just east of the N11 near the intersection with the R117. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, three Kilbrides in the same county! And none of the maps cited call Manor Kilbride; they all call it Kilbride. Google Maps has a label for a Manor Kilbride but it's at the corner of Blessington and Lisheen roads (which is not where the village you're talking about is), and only appears at one resolution. The Ordnance Survey has no Manor Kilbride, just Kilbride. And MultiMap has the same. And you say that the people on the ground call it Kilbride. Have you considered the possibility that they're all right, and it is just Kilbride? -- Zsero (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Look at the bottom of page 55 of the book you pointed me to, and you'll find that the place you're talking about is called Kilbride, not Manor Kilbride. Incidentally, the only other Kilbride in Co. Wicklow listed in the book is neither the one in Bray nor the one between Wicklow and Arklow, but rather one two miles from Arklow, which seems to remain today in the form of a street called Old Kilbride near Killiniskyduff and Templerainy. -- Zsero (talk) 11:50 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

BHG is referring to the Kilbride on the east of the county that I already mentioned above as being: "off the N11 about 1/3 way between Wicklow and Arklow" above, so there are only two in Co Wicklow. I see that the mapping seem to be inaccurate in positioning Manor Kilbride. I have several Irish government references which are at variance with one another; using both Kilbride and Manor Kilbride for the village in west Wicklow. I will list them later. ww2censor (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, BHG was not referring to the one you mentioned, 1/3 of the way between Wicklow and Arklow, but to one in Bray, near the R117. And the dictionary you linked me to lists neither one, but does list one 2 miles from Arklow. -- Zsero (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

MultiMaps is inaccurate placing the name on the Lisheen road when it should be. This Google map with an overlay places the centre of the village accurately but still uses the name Kilbride. This Get-a-Map uses an accurate placement. The N11 Kilbride shows well on this Google map.

Now on to the name issue. I have several copies of Eolai an Phoist, Post Office Guides,, issued by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, from 1923 through 1982 and without exception, they use Manor Kilbride. In 1969 Ainmneacha Gaeilge na mBailte Poist which lists; Kilbride, Wicklow and Manor Kilbride, Blessington. Following the early 1970s Irish Language Commission the government issued a Statuory Instrument Place-Names (Irish Forms)(No. 1)(Postal Towns) order, 1975 that lists two entries for County Wicklow: Kilbride and Kilbride (Manor Kilbride). Those uses by official documents are pretty convincing to me. ww2censor (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that the Statutory Instrument lists it as Kilbride, and adds Manor Kilbride in brackets; that would seem to mean Manor Kilbride is not its real name, but merely a way of distinguishing it from the other Kilbride. As for the Post Office, is it possible that this was just the post office's name, rather than the village name? -- Zsero (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Several other organisations use Manor Kilbride as do Coillte Teoranta choose Blessington (an odd url bracket will not allow me to link properly), Wicklow County Council pdf map #1, pdf map #2, the The Farmer's Journal, government debates 1926, 1976 2008, Department of Defence Oireachtas reply in 1969. This Wicklow Council map from their development plan shows the use of the name as Manor Kilbride while at the same time using an ordnance survey map that uses the name Kilbride.

The Ordnance Survey of Ireland are at variance with official publication by the Irish Stationary Office because my circa 1970 1/2 inch map sheet 16 shows Manor Kilbride as Kilbride, as does my 1 inch map of Wicklow District. The latest Discovery Series map 56 also shows Kilbride. All these are in the location I stated and not per the Google map you are seeing. As far as I am concerned it is Manor Kilbride and even though some people call it Kilbride that is to disambiguate from the other one on the east of the county or just to shorten it. Where do you want to go from here? ww2censor (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Lewis' Topographical Directory p55 (you can read it even better here) is Manor Kilbride and it seems quite clear that geographic related sources use the name Kilbride while official documents use Manor Kilbride. Remember that Lewis' was published in 1837 and a lot has happened in the last 150+ years particularly the nationalism movement. I can't comment of the Kilbride near Arklow that: "seems to remain today in the form of a street called Old Kilbride near Killiniskyduff and Templerainy" biut will look at my maps and see if I can clarify it any better. ww2censor (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Could it be that Manor Kilbride was in fact a country home outside the village? In that case, perhaps the post office was named Manor Kilbride meaning "the Kilbride with a manor, not the one without one", and that the naming of the post office led to an informal habit of naming the village and general area that way too? -- Zsero (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: I have no dog in this fight. I've never even been to Ireland, and never heard of any of these Kilbrides before this morning. Following up on a bit of suspected vandalism led me to this; it now appears to me that the edit in question was probably made in good faith, even though all other edits from that IP were vandalism. I still haven't unreverted it, though, because I'm not convinced that it was correct. (At the very least, it appears that at the time the stone was mined from Goldenhill, the area was called Kilbride, even if it's now called something else.) -- Zsero (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Viçosa 034.jpeg

Hi!

Thanks for letting me know of such problem with the image I uploaded a few days ago. But could you please help me on how can I determine the license and the source of the file? I have just created an account on Wikipedia and I am not acquainted with the proccess of editing yet, so I am having a lot of trouble figuring out how to fix the issue. The photo is of the university where I study and I took it myself about a year ago. What am I supposed to do in such case, concerning copyright? If you could please aid me to avoid that image is deleted soon I would very much appreciate it. Thanks sorely much for your time, I await anxiously for an answer. hugovsky5 (talk) 7:27, 01 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a lot of userboxes you have! It seems from the author field and comment name that you made this photo yourself. If this is the case you can wikilink to your username in the author field and write in the source field something like: I hugovsky5 took this photo. If you did take the photo and you want to release it into the public domain you can add the template {{PD-self}} in a new licensing section and all will be fine, or you may prefer to choose a different copyright licence from WP:TAGS. In the description field you should describe what the photo is and wikilink any words that link to articles. If you found the image on the internet, it is most likely copyright and cannnot be used unless it is clearly marked as being freely licenced. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Thank you so much for all the help! It surely assisted me greatly. But I still would like to ask you, if it isn't too much, to go and see the image once again to check if everything is alright now. I did some changes and I think there is no more problems with it. I'm sorry if I am still too ignorant when it comes to editing Wikipedia, but I hope I can improve my knowledge on that soon in the future. I also have to apologize if there's any grammar mistake in my messages, because, after all, English is my second language, but I can assure you that I will only edit and write on pages when I am thoroughly certain that the text is flawless. And yes, I do love userboxes! I think it's a nice way to display what my personality is like. Thanks again for the help! Hugovsky5 (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, your English is very good. I modified the image info a little but all is really well now. Ask me any questions and I will try to answer or point you in the right direction. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Marking of Holly river.jpg and Mountain Parkway.jpg

Dear Ww2censor,

I'm writing to you concerning the two images that I uploaded (File:Holly River.JPG and File:Mountain Parkway.jpg). Those images didn't have copyrights at all. Those images came from a powerpoint presentation that a friend of mine game me. Hopefully this will make sense to you

Sincerly Todd Schoolcraft (AKA schoolcraftJT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchoolcraftT (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on your statement that means you don't know who owns the copyright or took the photos. Unless you know for sure, it is likely the images are copyright to someone and that person needs to release them under a free licence otherwise we cannot use them. If you live anywhere near these places, the best thing you can do is go out and take some photos yourself and release them under the a free licence. ww2censor (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert Bates (loyalist)

Dear Friend, thanks for adding this page to Ulster Volunteer Force members category but it should appear there under "B", not "R". I don't know to to fix this: can you do so and point me to a tutorial for future use with categories? Thanks, Billsmith60 (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

How's that? Add the "DEFAULTSORT:last name, first name" template from the bottom of the edit window listed under "Wiki markup" in the drop down menu below the save page button or add it manually with double curly brackets. ww2censor (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Image-OngHockThyeChiefJusticeofMalaya.jpg photo tag

Okay, hold on please. I don't know how to tag it. I have referred this to ThaddeusB whom I am approaching for help in the matter. Thanks.

3 Oct 2009

To avoid to-ing and fro-ing, I have asked ThaddeusB, whom I have explained everything to, for help with the tagging.

However, just so you know... check out the date when he was elevated and the date when he died and do take note that the photo was taken in Malaysia.

Nevertheless, a tag is needed and I am waiting on ThaddeusB for help in that regard.

You said "we do not accept images whose use is restricted to Wikipedia only." does that mean that anyone, myself included, can freely use any image we find on Wikipedia without fear and further that we can feel free to delete any image that is posted on Wikipedia which is only meant for use on Wikipedia?

I trust curiosity is not mistaken for anything other than what it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefferyseow (talk • contribs) 02:59, 3 October 2009

Please sign your posts. I am going to post this on ThaddeusB's talk page too: Here is the problem, according to Malaysian law per Commons:Commons:Licensing#Malaysia copyright subsists for 50 years after the death of the author, or for 50 years after first publication. If we assume the image dates from 1968 then it will come out of copyright in 2018 but if it was never published before (now) then 2059 will be the date. Your only possibility is to claim fair-use so long as you can comply with all ten non free content criteria as a historic image which might be possible seeing as he is dead.

Indeed one of the reasons for the strict copyright policy is that any freely licenced image found on this wiki or the commons, you can use such images based on the licence they have, which may require attribution. See Wikipedia:C#Reusers.27 rights and obligations. ww2censor (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

speedy deletion

Dear editor, The file Bertjanssen.jpg was removed because of alleged copyright infringement. That surprises me, because the photo is actually mine. I can show the original uncropped version. I can show the photos that were taken before this one and after (in Volendam, the Netherlands). 97.124.3.13 (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Bert Janssen, 2 October 2009.

The image File:Bertjanssen.jpg was identical to one from a web site which indicated the website was copyright. We take copyright violations very seriously, so we delete obvious copyright violations. The problem lies in the fact that you failed to make any claim that the image was your and taken for or by you. You also did not provide any copyright licence tag making a copyright claim that was different to that on the website when you uploaded the image. If you want, you can confirm your consent to allow this image to be released as a freely licenced image which means that anyone can use it for anything, even commercial use, but the question is: who owns the copyright, you or the photographer? If it is you, please confirm your permission by sending your consent as detailed at WP:CONSENT or for fuller information on permission requests see WP:COPYREQ. Also see: WP:PERMISSION. If the photographer owns the copyright they need to send their consent. Then an OTRS ticket will be issued and the image restored by an administrator.

On another point, we do not redirect our user page to an article about ourselves in the main space but you an certainly link to the article Bert Janssen from your user page. That page is a major conflict of interest and editing ones own article is discouraged. If you are notable enough, someone will write an article about you. Also this article has no third-party verifiable reliable sources which may put this page at risk of deletion. I presume this is where you wanted to use the image. ww2censor (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Question on renaming file

How do I go about changing the name on the File:Completion Photo Resized.jpg. There is not a move option and I am unable to edit the files name. It appears I saved it with file name on my computer. Do you believe I need to upload another version just to change the name of the file. Thanks in advance ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 05:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do, though you can ask an admin to rename the image, is reupload the image adding all the same details per the current one and then tag this one for deletion by adding the template {{Db-author}} to this image file and confirming you have uploaded a better named image in the edit summary. BTW, in making a better description you didn't tell us where this took place; more detail would be great. Hope that helps. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That really does help and appreciate your time. I thought we were suppost to leave just a brief discription, but if that isn't the case I will be much more descriptive from now on. I understand that correcting these kinds of mistakes take valuable time away from accomplishing the tasks you signed in to do, so I really thank you for responding so helpfully. I will continue to read the policies and help on downloading images further and hopefully won't be showing up on your 'uggh again?' radar as much. Thanks ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 22:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. Indeed the better your description are the more likely they might be used by other editors, so whatever you can do to be accurate without being verbose, and linking to appropriate articles all helps. The more editors do themselves saves others the need to patrol and try to fix stuff, but if you need to ask anything, please do so. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bad speedy

I'm sorry, but as an admin I have to obey by the rules. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion F9 states: "Images (or other media files) that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case [can be speedily deleted]" Unfortunately images uploaded without licensing cannot be deleted under this criteria, as no copyright claims have been made -- so they are tagged as needing a source/license. Please read the criteria again. Thanks for Your work anyways, best wishes, feydey (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

TB

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

Licence for Images

Dear Ww2censor, I have a trouble about knowing the right describing of the Licence of the photos I want to upload because of many reasons:

1. The source of image an old public magazine or bulletin.
2. They are family images.
3. It's impossible to contact some Images producers.

However, it's expected, probably, that these producers won't mind in using them, because I present them in appropriate way. Moreover, I mention the source. Please help me--Maher A. A. Abdussalam (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You claimed the use of this image under a fair-use claim but it has two major problems; it is not being used in an article and must be in an article for the fair-use claim to be valid, and no purpose of use has been made. The purpose field must be completed because a fair-use rationale's main basis is that you justify the use of the image in a particular article. You have not done that and can't until it is added to an article. Until both of those happen, the image will be deleted. Your additional reasons above are reasonable enough though the magazine info could be better; date of magazine, publisher, article it is in, etc., if possible. You might be best to review {{Non-free use rationale}} for a better understanding of the requirements. ww2censor (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)