This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Archives

See also: User talk:ShakespeareFan00 User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 19, User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 20, User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 21, User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive/Archive 22

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the File:Active site of eosinophil peroxidase.gif page, your edit caused a broken reference name ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Can you please help me get the pictures restored that were improperly removed from this article? The artist is my own brother, and I have his full permission to post the photos which I took myself (with the exception of the photo of our parents). The latter is a photo of which was taken by a studio called "Tobias Studio", located in Kalispell, Montana, in 1956. I have both the original and negative for that photo in my possession. -- ♥Golf ( talk) 14:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I beleive the photo should be considered free as it is a photo that I clicked myself using a bottle I purchased. The white background was created using plain A4 paper and the photo was clicked using an MI4 phone camera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suddhadeep ( talk • contribs) 17:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Is there any way the photo can be restored, since it is not packaging artwork. Suddhadeep ( talk) 16:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Suddhadeep reply

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9mNQICjn6DibxNr

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Can you please not spam me messages over images. I could not care less what you delete. I trust your judgement. But spamming me when I've asked you many times in the past not to is disrespectful. Please programme whatever you use to not drill me messages, thankyou.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Is there some good reason for taking File:DruidHillsCourseLayout.JPG to PUF? Why not just tag it for G12/F9? It's so obviously a deletion candidate that I'd like to delete it immediately, but being generally unfamiliar with PUF, I'm not sure whether such a thing would be considered kosher. Nyttend ( talk) 11:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

If it meets CSD, you can say that in the PUF, and do the speedy. I was using PUF, mainly to give the uploader a chance to respond. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Okay, thanks; I've now deleted it and explained the reasoning. Nyttend ( talk) 11:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

As stated in original file: The image has been taken from https://slotcasinogames.com and it is a logo from the site. It has been protected by Attribution 1.0 license

Source - https://slotcasinogames.com/terms-and-conditions/ point NO 2.3

So, as you see, the image is totally free to use. Please, close the discussion and clear dispute.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.3.202 ( talk) 11:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Please provide a link that EXPLICITLY states it's Creative Commons. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks Sfan00 IMG for altering me to issues with images on the Norm Sartorius page. Being relatively new, I don't understand what is needed. The image descriptions state they are by photographer Jim Osborn. Documentation about the release user CC-by-SA 3.0 was submitted earlier to the OTRS system. What do I need to provide? For example, the NormSartoriusCollaboration.jpg image says the work is by Norm Sartorius. Photo by Jim Osborn. What other source information is needed here? The images were provided to me by the photographer Jim Osborn. Thanks. Craiger19 ( talk) 20:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Who took the actual photo?... You can mark stuff you notified OTRS about with {{ OTRS pending}} Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 22:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The photo is available for non-commercial use, as stated on the linked page, per the Wikipedia photo posting directions. The only issue I can see is that Wikipedia is expecting the older Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license.

"Group portrait of released 1916 prisoners outside Mansion House, Dawson Street, Dublin. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License."

The link is here: http://digital.ucd.ie/view/ivrla:35584

Please let me know what other issues there might be. Matt Hannan ( talk) 01:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi Sfan00 IMG - thank you for your recent attention to my uploads & please see my Talk Page : [1] in order to progress. Many thanks. M Mabelina ( talk) 03:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Was there a specific image you wanted a decision reviewed on? I tend not challange if an undeletion review progresses. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks Sfan00 IMG for your prompt reply & naturally please do not confuse matters further by involving yourself with any undeletion review processes underway (of which I hope two are being considered: namely West Hall, High Legh & The Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor's coat of arms). Given that my uploads almost in every case are being deleted, and given your recent attention accordingly, I simply thought you would be in a position to offer some insight as to what is going on and how to remedy the situation. Surely it is not to Wiki's benefit that images are deleted possibly without good reason (but maybe because that uploader, ie. me right now! has temporarily and unwittingly fallen foul of the powers-that-be)? I am merely seeking as much helpful guidance as possible to get matters straight so we can move forward. Many thanks. M Mabelina ( talk) 10:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm probably not the best person to consult on matter involving copyright restrictions on hearaldic items, as I said if you think there was a mis-tag/ bad call on something file a deletion review or request for undeletion asking for a clarification.

In general, most artistic works are assume copyright unless it can be shown otherwise, I will note here my view that that (unless it's clearly older than 1850 or so) with some Coat of Arms, the copyright as such lies wither with the owner of arms (as reproductions thereof will in most circumstances be works of hire commissioned directly by them), or with the issuer (such as the College of Arms). This means that permission should be clarified with them. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks again Sfan00 IMG - and I can see from Wikipedia's viewpoint it is really difficult to allide copyright compliance with the law of arms, because let's just suppose for one minute that it became accepted I know what I am doing, Wiki policy however must be all-encompassing to protect against those who don't know or even are trying to subvert the system. Anyhow I can now see, having made these enquiries, what a vexed situation Wiki is in & needless to say in such situations it is much easier/better to adopt a blanket cautionary approach. Now here's one for you: File:Earl-Bishop Hervey COA.jpg has disappeared - this chap was born in 1730, succeeded his brother as 4th Earl of Bristol in 1779 and died in 1803. Much obliged if you could let me know what you think about this. Many thanks in advance. Best M Mabelina ( talk) 10:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Why was that one deleted? Based on the dates it would be PD-old, provided it was adequately sourced. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Precisely, I have no idea - but I can see that pretty much all my images have deleted so I began to assume that it became common policy for my uploads to be deleted without much thought - maybe wrong about that but one could be forgiven for thinking that! So, what to do about it? because every time I upload/reload something I get a load of earache. Many thanks. M Mabelina ( talk) 10:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Coats of arms are defined in text form ( blazon) and then people make drawings based on the blazon. We can assume that someone made drawings of his coat of arms during his lifetime. If he died in 1803, those drawings would now be in the public domain (at least if published sufficiently long ago). However, anyone can make additional drawings of the same coat of arms at any time. If such drawings were made recently, then those recent drawings may still be copyrighted, see c:COM:COA. When uploading a coat of arms image, it is necessary to identify how old the drawing is, or obtain a permission from the one who made the drawing. As the image has been deleted, I can't check whether that information had been provided. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 23:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Use {{ information}}, with a clear licensing tag, and make sure every field is filled out as fully as possible. Include relevant dates as appropriate. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi Sfan00 IMG - prior to embarking on the uploading process (which seems possibly to be my undoing!), let me show you one source for the 4th Earl of Bristol's arms immediately available, qv: lordbelmontinnorthernireland.blogspot.co.uk. I much appreciate your assistance so far. Best M Mabelina ( talk) 11:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

You'd need a clarification from the maintainer of the site, as the site doesn't seem to say where they got a copy from, I'd strongly advise having a chat with User:Stefan2. In addition I'd suggest asking User:Rodolph for possible older (and thus less likely to be copyright) sources for older "establishments". Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply
NB. after looking into File:Earl-Bishop Hervey COA.jpg I can't identify an e-mail address to write to for permission as you request - it is a blog. (I don't feel comfortable starting to blog quite unnecessarily for seemingly superfluous Wiki reasons). Any reasonable suggestions welcome - many thanks. Best M Mabelina ( talk) 00:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

You're a star Sfan00 IMG - much better to liaise with those in the know than keep paddling upstream...! Re the Earl-Bishop's arms, it should be noted that site maintainer has no right (or as much right, depending on how you view a thing) to display his arms as anyone else..... (on the proviso that they are used with regards to the 4th Earl, that is - what would be open to legal challenge is either his arms being incorrectly depicted or by being designated for the wrong person - neither of which applies here!) Many thanks again. Best M Mabelina ( talk) 11:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I saw this edit and was a bit confused — it's a good change, but it looks like it was done at least semi-automatically (judging by the edit summary), and the only way I can imagine a tool making this kind of edit is by means of a false positive. The image ought to be {{ PD-textlogo}}, so I agree with your edit, but I'm left wondering whether your tool made a mistake (nothing machine-readable indicates that this should be PD-textlogo) and just serendipitously happened to end up with the right result. Of course, if you did this manually, chalk it up to me misunderstanding your edit summary. Nyttend ( talk) 17:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

The edit you linked isn't mine, and I don't have a tool for evalauting {{ SVG-res}}. I only added the NFUR not needed tag because when I encountered the logo it looked like simple text, so I added the NFUR not needed tag so it could be reviewed.

Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oops, sorry; I meant this one. "It looked like simple text" — so it was a manual edit, and I just misunderstood something. Nyttend ( talk) 18:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Good day to you. I hope that you are doing well. I have noticed your messages on my talk page the other day. I would like to have an explaination on why my pictures of various parts of the Canadian Honours System might be deleted. These are pictures that I have taken during the "It's an Honour" exposition in Ottawa back in 2012. Therefore, I do not see how I could have violated a copyright? I have taken these pictures to that it could be shared here on Wikipedia.

I would like to have your assistance so that these pictures will be able help with the educational aspect that I respect here on Wikipedia.

Cheers Ctjj.stevenson ( talk) 22:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

The concern here is that the medal designs are not licensable under CC-BY-SA, as they would typically be held as the copyright in the medal design would either like with their designers, or given that they are "honours" more likely as a Crown copyright in Canada. I would strongly suggest you check with the "It's an Honour" people, what the copyright status of the design of Canadian honours is, and encourage them to confirm this with the permissions queue here. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Therefore, if I add a "fair use" rationale for my images, therefore would this solve the issue? Ctjj.stevenson ( talk) 18:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Definitely. You should request a review of the deleted ones with a view to converting them to fair use. I can't see anyone objecting given these are 'national level honours'. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Can we not use the same logic of other Canadian medals found on Wikipedia. Here are a few that are posted here, and for years, no one seem to have a problem with these pictures:

Extended content

File:125th Anniversary of Confederation Medal.jpg Non-free media information and use rationale true for 125th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal Description English: 125th Anniversary of Confederation Medal (Canada) 1867-1992 French: Médaille commémorative du 125e anniversaire de la Confédération (Canada) 1867-1992 Source Photo taken by User:Fdutil; copied from The Commons Article 125th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal Portion used Ribbon, obverse and reverse of medal Low resolution? Resolution is sufficient to correctly portray the medal Purpose of use The image is used to identify the following notable medal: 125th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify a medal, and assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the medal. Replaceable? As this is a creation of the Crown and under Crown Copyright no known free image exists Fair use Fair use of copyrighted material in the context of 125th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00_IMG/Archive23true Licensing This image is a derivative work of separately copyrighted work. It is, therefore, treated on Wikipedia as non-free and each use within an article must satisfy the non-free content criteria. Re-users of this content, in addition to needing a fair use or similar legal claim to use the depiction of the copyrighted work, must also respect the rights of the derivative author by complying with the following terms: This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. Attribution: User:Fdutilhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/CC-BY-SA-3.0Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0truetrue If this image is of an artwork on display in a public location in a jurisdiction that permits freedom of panorama (such as the UK), then please remove {{ Photo of art}} tag, placing the photographer's 'free' license in this section of the media description page The original work shown is under the following license: This is a two-dimensional representation of a copyrighted sculpture, statue or any other three-dimensional work of art. As such it is a derivative work of art, and per US Copyright Act of 1976, § 106(2) whoever holds copyright of the original has the exclusive right to authorize derivative works. Per § 107 it is believed that reproduction for criticism, comment, teaching and scholarship constitutes fair use and does not infringe copyright. It is believed that the use of a picture to illustrate the three-dimensional work of art in question, to discuss the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or to discuss the artist or the school to which the artist belongs on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under the Copyright law of the United States. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. Fair use //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00_IMG/Archive23 true Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons. The subject of this image is still protected by copyright. Commons does not accept 'fair-use' images. File:QE2 Silver Jubilee Medal.jpg Source page Copyright notice explicitly states: Material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. Licence This work is protected by New Zealand Crown copyright. Limitations on its distribution are defined at the original site of publication, and are not altered by its reproduction here. Those terms may include, but may not be limited to, its reproduction being accurate, free of charge in any format or medium, and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. Thus, this is a non-free license for the purpose of Wikipedia, as modification is not permitted. However, it is believed that the use of this work: To illustrate the object in question Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under the United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information. Fair use //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00_IMG/Archive23 true Non-free media information and use rationale true for Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal Description Obverse of Queen Elizabeth II's Silver Jubilee Medal 1977 Source NZDF Medals Article Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal Portion used Single image Low resolution? Yes Purpose of use Used to illustrate the medal on its own page Replaceable? No free image can be found which provides an appropriate illustration of the medal in question Other information As stated above in the extract from the NZDF site, the image 'may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission' Fair use Fair use of copyrighted material in the context of Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00_IMG/Archive23true File:Victoria Cross of Canada.jpg Copyright Governor General of Canada. The copyright held for this image is Crown Copyright, since it is a work of the Canadian Government. The licensing terms is at GG Copyright terms Fair use This work is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content § Images or Wikipedia:Non-free content § Audio clips, and it is not covered by a more specific non-free content license listed at Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates. However, it is believed that the use of this work: To illustrate the subject in question Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Copyrights. Fair use //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00_IMG/Archive23 true Non-free media information and use rationale true for Victoria Cross (Canada) Description The Canadian Variant of the Victoria Cross; the Victoria Cross (Canada) Source http://www.gg.ca/images/NewVictoriaCrossHiRes.jpg Article Victoria Cross (Canada) Portion used Image cropped by original uploader Low resolution? yes Purpose of use To show the medal itself including the changes from the original Victoria Cross Replaceable? Since its inception in 1993, no awards have been issued. Since no medals currently exist it would be impossible to photograph one. Other information All of the Canadians that were awarded the original VC have died as of 2005, and all had the British Version of the VC which differs from this VC. Fair use Fair use of copyrighted material in the context of Victoria Cross (Canada)//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00_IMG/Archive23true File:Replica Order of Canada member medal.jpg File:Replica Order of Canada member medal.jpg Ctjj.stevenson ( talk) 14:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply Possibly unfree File:CanadianProvincialOrders1.jpg A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CanadianProvincialOrders1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply Possibly unfree File:CanadianProvincialOrders2.jpg A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CanadianProvincialOrders2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply Possibly unfree File:Insignias of the Order of Merit of Police Forces.jpg A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Insignias of the Order of Merit of Police Forces.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply Possibly unfree File:Chancellor Chain Order of Canada.jpg A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chancellor Chain Order of Canada.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• The Canadian government provides copyright protection for emblems like this for 50 years from publication. How old are these? I don't think that it would be possible to retag all of these as non-free as I don't think that all of them would satisfy WP:NFCC, but it might be possible to retag some of them. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 16:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply

You sent me something about the photo which is used on the above page, but I can't see anything wrong with it. Thanks. I will be checking my mail from time to time until I decide whehter to keep editing or not. I hope you can keep the photo up. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 03:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your notification re /info/en/?search=File:IPlum-logo.png. The image is currently being used in the draft article /info/en/?search=User:Nmwalsh/sandbox/Amtel_Plum Nmwalsh ( talk) 12:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply

This logo is now in use on this draft page /info/en/?search=User:Nmwalsh/iPlum Nmwalsh ( talk) 14:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi

For some reason I cannot edit the Humanities page - but here you go: https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/ARTV00079/ Manxmania ( talk) 14:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, you missed the large part of my talk page in bold where I said I did not wish to receive any notes about political party logos I uploaded. Nickjbor ( talk) 16:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Template:!Copy to Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for merging with Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 21:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi, I saw that you tagged these fair-use images as orphaned, and indeed, both image description pages say that they are not currently in use. However, they are both in use at Martin Fowler (EastEnders), so I can't explain what's going on. Have you any ideas? They shouldn't really be deleted. – anemone projectors– 07:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

This appears to be a unforseen glitch. If you;ve found them to actually be in use (and the admins responsible for doing the actual deletions should be checking anyway), then the tags can reasonably be removed. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Cool, it's just that it's not something I've ever seen before. They're showing up as being used in the article now. Thanks! – anemone projectors– 14:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Used in draft of article, will be released soon. VjacheslavWolski ( talk) 22:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello SfanOO

Along with the site https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/ARTV00079/. I have found that site very helpful. This site copyright expired and is in the Public Domain. The poster "Will you fight now or wait for this" was part of the first World War Australian Government recruiting kit. ^[1]

Other sites which were found from the National Library of Australia ^[2] Lindsay, Norman. & W. E. Smith Ltd. (1918). Poster "Will you fight now or wait for this". http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-136425581. The Library has the original drawing located at: PIC Drawer 3698 #R8763. Author W. E. Smith Ltd

[3] published by Sydney : Govt. of Commonwealth of Australia, [1918] Contributed by Libraries Australia ID 1416601.  Frinakat
Frinakat (
talk) 01:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply

If you can update the image page, This should be a good Featured picture Candidate, for a few days time ... Hmm... Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 01:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Hi Sfan, please note that the tags did not conflict. As clarified at the bottom of the page,

According to the copyright law in effect in Indonesia at the time of the URAA, copyright on this image expired on 1 January 1993 (25 years after publication). It will not be out of copyright in Indonesia under the current copyright law until 2018.

I have added a clearer notice to the bottom of the page you tagged:

According to the copyright law in effect in Indonesia at the time of the URAA, copyright on this image expired on 1 January 1993 (25 years after publication). As the new copyright law which extended copyright on photographs to 50 years after publication was enacted in 2002, after the URAA, copyright was not extended in the United States. Under the current Indonesian copyright law, copyright in Indonesia expires in 2018.

If you see any similar cases, please use this notice instead of tagging the page as having a conflicting license. —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 13:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the clarification Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Thanks. When I upload other images which are in a similar copyright situation, I'll use the new clarificatory text. I have a fair amount of image-heavy books from the late 1960s which have yet to be digitized. —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 13:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

So the new law copyright law worked retroactively in Indonesia but not the US. Complex  :( Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Could you please explain this edit? Earlier today, I removed the images from that list article under WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFCC. We do not include per-entry images on list articles like this. It is really no different than a discography. It might be ok to include one image at the top of the article as demonstrably representative of the series, but I don't think that's the case here. Having the pd-text logo at the top is sufficient for that purpose. Re-including the image as you did simply violates WP:NFLISTS. Can you explain please? -- Hammersoft ( talk) 18:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

OK, Thanks for the pointer, I'll remove it. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Thanks! -- Hammersoft ( talk) 18:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the warning about File:MJB TLS.jpg, but I have just provided a source for it. I know fairly used images without sources violates the rules. It was such a big mistake I made, but I hope I wouldn't make the same mistake again. Thanks, Sfan00 IMG. Please get this when you are on your talk page. DBrown SPS ( talk) 12:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi Sfan00 IMG, I notice that you have been tagging a number of images as F5 (orphaned fair use). It is no longer necessary for humans to do this - B-bot ( talk · contribs) will automatically do so. -- B ( talk) 01:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Mostly I've been manually checking because of a glitch in relation to the usage links, meaning that I've sometimes been able to resuce images, by purges. Is your bot capable of doing the rescues? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

As long as there is a fair use rationale on the image, yes. My bot purges any articles linked in the fair use rationale template (resolving redirects as needed) and then re-checks the links. So the only case where I'm not going to find an image in use is when it is missing the rationale (or the correct article name is missing from the rationale). Then, the night before images are due to be deleted, I redo the purge and re-check the links so if someone has re-added the image to an article (or if its removal was vandalism and that has been rolled back), it will be caught. I'm obviously not going to find anything where the rationale points to the wrong article (e.g. the rationale is for Virginia, but the relevant image has been moved to History of Virginia). But as long as the rationale is in place with the correct article name, my bot will handle it correctly. -- B ( talk) 22:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

User:B: You might wish to use something like this when purging pages, instead of the code you currently are using. That purges all articles linked to from the file specified, without any need for you to scan FUR templates or resolve redirects. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 16:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Sometimes, I've had to do a null-edit to get the links to fully update, but OK Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 22:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

The image File:Logo of Children's Film Society of India.jpg needs to be deleted as it was uploaded by mistake. I could not figure out how to delete it. Srucreate ( talk) 16:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Non-Summit.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 22:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

The logo /info/en/?search=File:IPlum-logo.png is now in use on this draft page /info/en/?search=User:Nmwalsh/iPlum Nmwalsh ( talk) 11:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

File:MurqubMonument.jpg

the memorial has been built by the goverment in the early years of gaddafi regime (around 1970-74), i took the picture in 2013...

File:ItalianlibyaHoms.jpeg

as for this picture i found in an old album in some library، i was told it's not copyrighted as it's owner is unknown. i think i have chosen the wrong license when i uploaded it.

Thanks.. In response to both images

(Of the monument) Commons says that Libya doesn't have a Freedom of Panorama exception in it's copyright rules so, you may want to look further into whether the subject of the image is something that can be freely photographed.

(Of the photo). What people are told about the copyright of any image and what the actual status is can differ greatly sadly. I'd advise doing a little bit more research. As the image is from the period of Itallian occupation it can be not later than 1943? If so then the copyright will most likely have expired. I'd suggest asking User:Stefan2 for assistance as well. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 04:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply Send Diwali wishings by adding {{ subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Hi Sfan00 - thanks for the recent query about "self" vs. "public domain" copyrights on some files I uploaded. I've replied my talk page. Please feel free to continue the conversation or set me straight if I've done something amiss. Andersem ( talk) 18:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

You tagged this file for deletion for not specifying the creator. As this image was produced pre 1923, I understood it was out of copyright and such information was not required. However it is there anyway. If you actually check the notes you'll notice that not only is the creator specified (Mr E Pannell of Hove), I also gave the year of publication (1905) Fork me ( talk) 21:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I've just noticed that although your message on my page says that it is the creator that is missing, the tag on the page said the source was missing. I have now added the source. Fork me ( talk) 22:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, Sfan00 IMG. Was your Rename media tagging of File:Mountain Rhythm Poster.jpg a mistake? The file name is descriptive and appropriate, and does not conflict with any other file name or article name. Regards, Bede735 ( talk) 23:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

At the time it was tagged it was simmilar in name to a poaster for a different film, the two rename request add the year so the posters can't be confused. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 00:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Ah, I see Mountain Rhythm (1943 film) and its poster. Thank you for your quick response. Bede735 ( talk) 00:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'm the author of File:Kahler tremolo system.JPG. Why have you nominated the picture for speedy deletion? -- Mecanismo | Talk 15:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Because the file was at Wikimedia Commons, it's only the local description page that was removed. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 15:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Please don't delete the pictures I uploaded. I meed to keep some of the infoboxes updated. So please don't delete them. If you do, I'll contact an admin and have him restore the images. -Matthew250

So provide the correct licensing, and a fair use rationale :) Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

If you want to, please take a look at this weeks TAFI selected article, Marie Serneholt. Regards.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 21:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Under Russian law, per {{ PD-Russia-2008}}, why should an anonymous photograph from 1930 require deletion? Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Because my understanding was that it needed a source. Do you have one? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 19:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I have reverted your removal of the 'no source' template. A source is needed both to verify that the picture is from 1930 and to verify that the photographer is anonymous. Without a source, we can't determine if the copyright tag is valid or not. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 19:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Dear Sfan00, the photo you have referred to on 11/13/95 is from private albums and is not sourced anywhere else. Appreciate your understanding. I'm completely open to any questions that you might have. Thanks much. Axshah95 12:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axshah95 ( talk • contribs)

I have responded to your concern on this page. Please advise if there is anything else I need to do, to validate that this file is properly sourced and will not be deleted. Thank you. Rdb112 ( talk) 13:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply

This file's origin is from my family archives. This individual is my great-grandfather. There is no copyrighted to the photograph. Anything else I can do, pls advise. Jayraghavan ( talk) 23:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your valuable work at WP:FFD. You've tagged many files for move with appropriate criteria - should you consider becoming a File mover so that you could perform these moves yourself? Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 08:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I resigned file mover over competence issues, besides I like 2 step moves, ensures I don;t suggest batshit crazy stuff. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 15:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the QRpedia page, your edit caused a URL error ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 03:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello Sfan00 IMG: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Use {{ subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Hey, I just created/copied ( from Commons) the above template as we seemed to be lacking it here on Wikipedia. I have never created a PD template (or anything remotely similar) and was wondering if you could take a look and see if I missed anything? Thanks, Salavat ( talk) 15:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• (Non-administrator comment) You should link the template to the one on Commons using Wikidata. I have created d:Q21857831 for this purpose. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 16:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks Stefan2 for doing that. I'm not going to lie, I have no idea how wikidata works. Salavat ( talk) 04:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I m always like a cup of coffee in summer of winter. Shubhamgiri7800335547 ( talk) 06:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi there, i hope you can help me out please. A user has uploaded this file as an official logo for an organisation I work with and a league I control social media for. I would like this file deleted please as the copyright information that user provided about it is not accurate. I'll explain it in detail. I am the administrator for this organisations social media account on Facebook, I created the account and maintain it and am working directly with this organisation. This logo was created by a designer named Ross Carpenter and he created this design for use with the Facebook page only and gave me permission to use it on Facebook only and the graphics he generates for me to use. Basically he created it as a favor and I give him the credit for the work on the page. There has been no transfer of rights for this image from the designer, Ross Carpenter, to the organisation for broader use or as an official logo that they own - yet. I actually only started that conversation last night to prepare it for an approval process with the board. We may potentially use the logo officially as the branding for this league in future and are headed that way but that actually hasn't happened yet in terms of copyright, so for now this logo needs to come down and not be used by anybody yet. Thanks, I hope you can help me out. I am in constant communication with the creator of this image and he is not upset but I just want to ensure we follow the correct process for the use of the logo. Orion 2012 ( talk) 13:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

You will need to speak with an administrator, as normal users such as myself can;t actually delete content. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Sfan00 IMG (and Stefan2), I have corrected the non-free mistake and released it under PD-Self, with proper credit to the author of the image. Out of force of habit, because I typically work with radio logos, I marked the image as a logo. I asked for and received permission to use the image. So PD-Self, with proper credit, should suffice. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply

The licence on the Twitter page is not {{ PD-self}} but {{ db-f3}}. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Stefan2: Since I don't feel like replying all over Wikipedia, I'm just going to reply here. How about instead of templates, you try and be helpful. The permission was given to me (redacted) by the author (redacted). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Image has been db-author'd. WAAAY too much annoyance over an image of a radio station's studios. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi. Occasionally I look over your collection of black & white and public domain images tagged for transfer to the Commons. Tried to transfer the two Albert Einstein photographs to the commons but they were rejected so I removed the 'move' tags. I tried, albeit being aware that in most likelihood they will be rejected. ALL materials relating to Albert Einstein are owned by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem as the inheritors and guardians of his legacy.— Ineuw talk 04:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Which images, So I can send them to WP:FFD if needed? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 14:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi. Hate to bug you, but I saw you tagged an image I recently uploaded locally, FightingFatherDunne.ModernScreen.July1948.jpg, as being eligible to be added to Commons. First, thank you, I've moved it to Commons. Second, since you have more knowledge of images than I do, I was wondering if I could bother you to help me out on another article. I nominated Edward Cronjager for GA status. A question came up regarding the images on that page. So I have two questions for you. First, the 3 images in the body of the article were all "harvested" the same way I captured the Father Dunne shot, from the same database. However, I noticed that one of them, KingVidorEdwardCronjager1932.jpg, was tagged by another editor as perhaps not having the right license. What did I do wrong there? I was going to move all 3 to Commons, but don't want to if there is an issue. Second, the shot I used in the infobox is a promotional headshot of Cronjager. It's perfect for the infobox, and I'd like to keep it, but the source was Find a Grave, so there's no CC attribution on that site. At some point over the last 2 years, I remember seeing a promotional photo of someone and it was tagged with something along those lines, and therefore there was no copyright issue. Are you aware of any such rule? If so, what PD tag should I use? Thanks for any help you can give. BTW, I've uploaded a few dozen pics to Wikipedia from that same database, so over the next week or so, I'll be moving them over to Commons. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC) reply

I got a speedy deletion notice for File:Bananas and plaintains Fruit and Spice Park Homestead Florida.jpg but don't see the delete notice on the page and don't understand the explanation for why it would be deleted. Help? jengod ( talk) 15:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Don't worry, The image is on Commons, and it seems an admin has already handlled the issue :) Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 15:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Groovy. Thank you! jengod ( talk) 05:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Was is really necessary to leave 87 WP:F2 deletion notices for Robert Brukner in a span of 15 minutes? One with a list of other files also being nominated would have been sufficient. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 10:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC) reply

I agree, but TWINKLE doesn't do mmultiple nominations at present. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC) reply

I have added a rationale. LR Guanzon ^{( t| c)} 04:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Stop tagging my images for transfer to Commons. Also, if you want to follow me around and delete everything I've uploaded, maybe use a multi-nomination so that the discussion isn't copied to a dozen places at once. And maybe it'd be nice if you used your real account? -- Jakob ( talk) aka Jakec 17:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, but this is declared alternate, and your views have managed to convince me that it isn't worth the hsassle of contributing here. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Sorry, my comment about your account was out of line. Anyway, it's great that you found a use for the new template. -- Jakob ( talk) aka Jakec 19:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Any assistance you can give in https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/5647 finding image in this that don't meet policy appreciated. Thanks Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 19:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi Sfan00. All images which have the {{ ShadowsCommons}} tag are already marked for renaming, being in Category:Wikipedia_files_that_shadow_a_file_on_Wikimedia_Commons (which is a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia_files_requiring_renaming). There is no need to additionally tag these with {{ Rename media}}. Cheers, -- LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I use rename media to suggest a new name, something that I can't do with ShadowsCommons. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 14:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC) reply

OK. If you wish to rename these files yourself, you don't need to become an admin. Editors can apply for file-mover rights separately through a far less burdensome process. -- LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Noted, but I resigned file-mover rights a while back due to competency concerns, and I like a second person checking the susgested new names. If you can implement a new-name field in Shadows Commons.... :) Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 14:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Also the template ShadowsCommons actually SAYS to use {{ rename media}} locally. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 14:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Template:Non-free biog-pic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. damiens.rf 23:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Source info provided as requested. Thanks. Roundtheworld ( talk) 19:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello. I wanted to ask you that why is the file that I uploaded was in discussion? ~ RainPearl ( talk) 12:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The problem is the snoopy charcter. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi, I see I have kept you fairly busy with my files! PD-India as understood by me did not require NFCC, and I don't understand US-India URAA deal/agreement. Though I've been on Wiki for nearly three years I'm still not comfortable negotiating it. Perhaps you could have a look at File:Husna in Bhookh (1947).jpg and let me know if that is the way it should be done, then I can correct the rest of the files. It will be a great help. Thanks. Kaayay ( talk) 12:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi, I have fixed the sourcing information for images that I uploaded over 10 years ago (!), but it wasn't very nice to spam my talk page with templates. I understand you probably used an automated tool to do this, but this shows disrespect toward the editor, especially considering these files were created before Commons was directly linked to the other projects (i.e. it wasn't possible to upload to Commons and use on Wikipedia like today). Please consider that when you trace a certain problem to an established editor, it might be better to craft a short manual message for the editor notifying them of the problem. — Ynhockey ^{( Talk)} 09:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Hear, hear ! - Sticks 66 13:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

And what's with having your bot drop in on my talk page, spam me about your fallacious URAA concerns but then never answer on my talk page a conversation you initiated ? - Sticks 66

Hi, I believe I have added all the necessary copyright information for my image file. Please let me know if there is anything else I need ~~PressReader Team

Hi, User: Markalexander100 is me: same account, just the name changed many years ago. (I don't propose to add that to three separate discussions -- really, you could have just asked.) Cheers, Henry ^Flower 05:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the confirmation. You just need to respond in one of them, Probably should have done a grouped notification. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I was going to leave a note at your main account's talk, but seeing that you've made more edits with this account in the last six hours than you've made with the other account in a month, I guess this page would be more useful.

Aside from the spelling error, I don't have any immediate suggestions for improvement. What were you looking for? Just some historical background, or additional explanations in general, or something else? Nyttend ( talk) 22:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Mainly for someone to add the historical background, the cutoff dates ( for when files HAD to have tags), advice on what the uploader and other contributors should do in more depth, and some general tidying up and formatting. No objection to you seeking the consultation of other admins on this, as they'd typically be ones having to eventually make a judgement call on some of these as to Commons suitability. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 22:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The categorisation , should probably be tweaked so it gets linked in with the usual mantainance/tracking for files and Commons candidates etc.. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 22:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks! I'll probably just do it myself, but once I've done the work, I'll ask others' opinions before using the template or putting it into any categories. See my newly added note at FFD regarding the date. Nyttend ( talk) 23:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Just found when it was added to WP:CSD. This will be useful. Nyttend ( talk) 23:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Any suggestions for further work on the template? I think it's done, ready to go up for approval, but any additional ideas from you will be helpful. Nyttend ( talk) 22:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Only the categorisation and advice need to be expanded I think.. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 23:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Please see WP:VPM, section "Old licenses". Nyttend ( talk) 22:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Dear Sfan00, THanks for your message. I added a copyright tag to File:CantataB.jpg. I hope it's in order now and won't be deleted. Could you check it, please, and let me know if it's OK Ronny Cohen ( talk) 16:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Template:Media by uploader Template:Presumed self

which I'd like you to review..

The first is intended for use where it's reasonably obvious the media would under current terms be considered {{ own}} or self because the uploader either says so or there's other compeling reasons like EXIF, OTRS etc..

The second is for dealing with the sitauon where a 'third-party' other than the uploader has added {{ information}} and has assumed that's it's self work, even though the file information doesn't say so, and there's not other compelling reason. (I unfortunately did this a lot a few year ago, in good faith based on an IRC discussion.) Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

You put this on your own talk page, as well as mine :-) Could you supply some images where these templates would properly be used, either current revisions or old revisions? Nyttend ( talk) 12:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

In respect of {{ Presumed self}} - File:Kerr-lens Modelocking.png - See Special:Diff/3902196 , Special:Diff/564413711 . No where does it actually say {{ own}} work or a simmilar claim, and there's nothing in the history.

In respect of {{ Media by uploader}} - File:Artists Palette.jpg , [{Special:Diff/3902209]] and Special:Diff/564491912 (where I added information).

I made these tags so I didn't clog up FFD with obvious examples, which is what the previous approach had been. ideally there should be some form of uploder notification attached to the latter (and to {{ Assumed license}}, but wasn't sure how to get that automated. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 12:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I don't see the benefit of the latter, since it's just a restatement of what's already stated explicitly on the page. Let me think about the former a little while. Nyttend ( talk) 13:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

{{ Media by uploader}} is also partly to make it easier to filter them with Catscan and Quarry (such as in this query:

https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/10020 which I was using to review my older efforts, and was how I found the "Presumed self" issues.) Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Also, with some earlier images the license tags didn't yet have self variants IIRC, {{ Media by uploader}} thusly provides a means essentialy of marking material where a self variant of the relevant license would have been used if the image had been uploaded under more recent policy standards. If you are saying it should be tweaked to say the license tags need changing to a relevant self variant, I've got no objections to it being tweaked in that direction. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I never use automated querying, so the latter template's usefulness for this purpose didn't come to mind. No complaints, even if it's really useful only for automated querying; it's not going to be harming things. On the former, my only hesitation is overuse. Consider the original revision of File:Indian Mission.jpg — would you be planning to use this template on such an image? The statement of Picture taken by "nyttend" on 7 July 2006. is already an unambiguous statement of authorship, not something that would somehow warrant an uploader notification; if I saw someone uploading an image like this nowadays, I'd suggest using {{ information}} because it's more common, but I wouldn't be giving some automated or semiautomated notification, as if there were a mistake or a policy infringement. Nyttend ( talk) 22:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I already add {{ information}} where I can. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 00:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply

In a situation like the one you mentioned the image would be tagged as {{ Media by uploader}} (see the recent changes I made to it.) , you'd get a talk page note {{ uw-imgclaim1}} or {{ uw-fileclaim}} depending on when it was uploaded, and once claimed, the tag gets changed to {{ Media by uploader|claimed}} which has a different wording. Naturally the tag won't get moved over to Commons. I think you might need to ask other people for opinions though, one aim here is to ensure media is to ensure self work really is "self".

Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 00:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The photo I have was taken from a public domain photo on the website I mentioned and the tags totally confuse me. I can find others but we'll have the same issue as I have absolutely no understanding of the image policy or tags at all and the links to help files you gave me just confuse me more and most of the other sources are places like KLOV (www.arcade-museum.com) which provide photos to the public domain in the same way as Wikipedia. I wish I owned the Nintendo Super System cabinet so I could take my own photo but I haven't been able to find one in three years of collecting. I have a few other things to improve the article that I am trying to research before posting the information but not having a photo of the cab wouldn't help the improvements. Some of this is why I haven't done many edits here in years Darkcat1 ( talk) 12:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply

can u pls see my talk page once where u left a message for me saying to add copyright info on my uploaded image. I have added all the required info pls check it once and tell me wherther it is correct or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunFEB2003 ( talk • contribs) 11:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Any reason why you marked File:Faculty of Science Chemistry East Wing Building.jpg as "not eligible" for relicensing in Special:Diff/599106876? Wikipedia:Image license migration#Media file relicensing criteria says that files uploaded to Wikimedia projects before 1 August 2009 are eligible for relicensing. The file is sourced to Japanese Wikipedia, where it was uploaded on 11 September 2008 (that is, prior to 1 August 2009), so it looks eligible for relicensing and I marked it as such on Commons. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Oh.. I was using the local upload date. If it's OK for relicensing, Feel free :) Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 20:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the File:Malaika Vaz Greenland.jpg page, your edit caused a cite error ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi user:Sfan00 IMG,
I'm sorry, but having the requesting permission info I am uncertain as to how to proceed with this. Included in the file info at /info/en/?search=File:Demonstration_of_%27Normal%27_lens_print_superimposed_on_wider_angle_view_of_original_scene_for_discussion_of_Normal_lens.jpg
is a copy of the Twitter exchange between me and the image owner explicitly giving permission for use of the file and also its URL.
Is that not sufficient permission? How do you suggest I proceed?
Thank you for your vigilance in copyright checking...I aim to comply with WP regs as closely as possible. JamesMcArdle 10:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@ Jamesmcardle: I would suggest reading the link in the notification you were sent., I am well aware of the permission note in the file, but generally this should be followed up with a more formal e-mail from the copyright holder to the permissions queue. I appreciate this maybe a bit tedious, but is no different to clearing photos for say an academic paper or

for publication. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi, I noticed you are going on renaming images, especially logos by adding "(logo)" to the image name. Can you point me to the policy, AFC or consensus requiring this please? — kashmiri  ^TALK 10:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I was fixing up redirects, won't fix anymore as you've queried this. I was updating the links in good faith. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I always uploaded the main logo for an institution using the same name as the main article: HMRC - HMRC.svg; HSBC -> HSBC.svg, Citibank -> Citibank.svg, and so on. (Sometimes used its commonly used acronym for brevity, like in DfID.svg). Have uploaded dozens of logos and really liked my system, hope you don't force renames. Regards, — kashmiri  ^TALK 11:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Admins, and file movers are expected to have common sense. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 12:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

What's the rationale for your changes to this template this morning? Nthep ( talk) 09:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I can revert, but the basic rationale is that given the UK exit vote, it's no longer reasonable to apply EU rules to the UK, when UK ones exist (granted that for the most part they are the same.) Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I'm not going to dispute the logic but until such time as the UK actually leaves the EU rather than expresses an intention to do so I think the change is premature or at least deserves wider discussion both on en:wp and Commons (for consistency). The other thing is that you haven't, at least on the two files on my watchlist, added any template that marks the images as being PD in the UK. I'm not going to edit war over this, I have too much respect for the incredible effort you put in on image files, the huge majority of which is positive but I would ask you here to self-revert and initiate a wider discussion. Nthep ( talk) 09:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I will consider this, but I'd been migrating the UK images to PD-US-1923-abroad where they were old enough, or PD-UK-Unknown which was broadly similar to the PD-EU one. I'm not sure a mass revert is something a normal user can do, but won't object to a AWB revert...

In respect of Commons the disscusion has already been started, and it's probably best if the disscusions takes place there. Only 1 or 2 images were Brexit re-licensed on Commons, which I am about to revert. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• (Non-administrator comment) You should not use {{ PD-EU-no author disclosure}} for British works created before 1996 as Britain has special rules for unpublised works. Instead, {{ PD-UK-unknown}} should be used. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 09:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Stefan 2 , Please comment at Commons. I'd been migrating images I could identify as UK to either {{ PD-UK-Unknown}} or {{ PD-US-1923-abroad}}, where it's pre 1923. In many instance there isn't necessarily enough information to be definitive about anythign other than a likely date.. I sent one to FFD because the information didn't agree with a noauthor-disclosure in any event.

Nthep - I now have 2 conflicting views.Perhaps you can thrash out a common position? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The commons thread is commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_Public_domain Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Well I seem to recall that this loop i.e. is PD-EU-no-author disclosure usable on UK images has been discussed before. I suggest we agree a moratorium on altering any more until it is settled. Going to look at the commons thread now. Nthep ( talk) 10:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I am however, still adding {{ information}} Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply