so here is the deal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the template on Commons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stefan,

@Jffner:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Stefan2, I had uploaded logo for a magazine named sister-hood. I have received a message from you which is this ==Speedy deletion nomination of File:Sister-hood logo.jpg==

What I am supposed to do to sort this. I had received this logo from Deeyah Khan, she is the managing editor of this magazine and told me that this is a free file.--Jogibaba (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded two copies of the same file. We only need one copy of the file, so I nominated the dupe for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely sorry that I messed up too much, I was just trying to replace the older logo with a new one. Can you please sort this for me. If you need a written permission from Deeyah Khan, I can arrange that also to keep the new logo and not get that deleted. The new logo is also shown in this article and I got the copy of this logo from Deeyah Kahan. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/05/magazine-muslim-women-aims-highlight-diversity-160518050648236.htmlRegards--Jogibaba (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No, I'm not one of those complaining about their file being nominated for deletion. I'm here to ask questions.

I joined Wikipedia on 2014 and I was quite immature in my first years. I'd like to personally confess that File:Lourdes School of Quezon City, GS Grounds.png is not my own photograph, but an image from my classmate in the school on Facebook. No, he did not release the image in public domain or in a free license and is under copyright. I can't find the original post of the image, it might have been deleted.

I can't seem to find a way to nominate the file for deletion since deletion in Wikipedia is quite different from Commons. I'd like to ask if this is enough for the file to be deleted? Is there still a need to show proof that it's not my image? --J-Ronn (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed the image at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 22#File:Lourdes School of Quezon City, GS Grounds.png. You're free to comment there, or you could add {{db-g7}} to the file if you want it deleted speedily. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stefan. I added a comment on the Files for discussion page. Is it fine if I still add {{db-g7}} on the file's page when I already commented on the Files for discussion page? --J-Ronn (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(stalk), If you've found a mistake in relation to something you uploaded, and want to apply G7 you can do so in parrallel with an FDD process, as I understand it. Unless the G7 would be controversial, which this did not seem to be. Thanks for owning up BTW.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2,

Re the File permission fix at en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolie_Stahl (File:BeckmanDrawingII.jpg) the artist and copyright holder, Jolie Stahl has sent me a permissions release to use this image on her wiki page, cc'd to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Please do not mark this image for deletion. Okay?

Dear Robert Dannin, I, Jolie Stahl, am the artist, creator, owner, and copyright holder of the following images & files uploaded to my Wikipedia pages: File:BeckmanDrawingII.jpg File:Bbq athena.jpg I hereby give you permission to publish these images on my Wikipedia. Jolie L. Stahl jolielstahl@mac.com

Rdannin (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes:

• When you contact a user on his talk page, click "new section" at the top of the page. Do NOT blank all other sections on the page.
• When you contact a user on his talk page, do not mark the edit as minor if you want the user to see the message.
• Permission should be sent to OTRS, not to me. Based on the above, it looks as if it was also sent to OTRS, so I guess that's fine.
• The permission statement above appears to be limited to use on Wikipedia. This means that the permission is insufficient.
• It looks as if permission was sent for one of the files, File:BeckmanDrawingII.jpg, back in 2014 as OTRS member NahidSultan added an OTRS template at that point. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The permission statement above appears to be limited to use on Wikipedia. This means that the permission is insufficient."

What is that supposed to mean? Are there better rights alternatives, or are you suggesting another letter from the artist? It seems you're so busy policing Wikipedia, that you don't have time to fully explain yourself.

Rdannin (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It looks as if permission was sent for one of the files, File:BeckmanDrawingII.jpg, back in 2014 as OTRS member NahidSultan added an OTRS template at that point. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)"

I tried to find the template but couldn't. Please send me the direct link. I don't do this for a living. Rdannin (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've replied the author asking to provide us a license for those file. ~ Nahid ^Talk 17:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks. why wasn't i alerted about another deletion? (below)

i post new images to this site from time to time. i always obtain the artist's permission. can you please explain the proper procedure?

11:27, 22 March 2016‎ CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs)‎. . (16,268 bytes) (-150)‎ . . (Removing ""…traveling_in_Asia_Minor,_be_home_soon".jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Jameslwoodward because: Per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:"…traveling in Asia Minor, be home soon".jpg.)

Rdannin (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That file was nominated for deletion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:"…traveling in Asia Minor, be home soon".jpg. The nominator, BrightRaven, notified you in c:Special:Diff/190355842. Since nothing happened, Jameslwoodward deleted the file one week later. If a permission statement is sent for that picture too, then the file can be undeleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stefan2. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. When you move a page, please remember to correct any double-redirects and make link corrections where necessary. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you are finding a number of these, is it possible to build a query that lists the images where I added {{infromation}} but where the license wasn't a self one? I'd like to review, but going through 6 years worth of Special:Contributions isn;t exactly productive. 19:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfan00 IMG (talk • contribs)

It is not possible to write a query which finds out by whom a template was added, at least not without using the text table which is not publicly available. It is possible to search for edit summaries, so I made an attempt with quarry:query/10019 for files which have {{information}} but not {{PD-self}} or {{self}} and where you made an edit with the edit summary adding {{Information}}; adding using [[Wikipedia:FurMe|FurMe]]. This apparently returned 9096 files, but a lot of the files have different variants of PD-old and PD-USGov and such things, so the query output doesn't look useful in its current state, but I guess it could be improved. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That should cacth some of them, I think some of them may have been combined summaries with an mtc style tag or a rename media. It's a start:) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pausing on this for a moment, as I'd like a second opinion on this Special:Diff/721997059. I did check the history.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My current workign version of the query is - https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/10020 really out to be a wiki link for these ?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want wikilinks, then you can try SELECT CONCAT('[[:File:', p.page_title, ']]'), CONCAT('[[Special:Diff/', r.rev_id, ']]') and then click on Download data and select Wikitable. This should give you a text file with wikicode which you can put on a page in your userspace.

Note that NFUR not needed needs to be changed into NFUR_not_needed.

Special:Diff/721997059 is not correct as you removed the GFDL disclaimer. This should be {{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}} instead, but otherwise it looks correct. The uploader clearly identifies this as his own work. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm that might present another issue to look for, but it should onyl be about 500 or so edits to scan thorugh vs 4000 Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image at Madonna (Madonna album) was supposedly uploaded by an original sockpuppet, hence I had replaced with another .png version. Will it be possible for you to delete the duplicate version? I'm asking this, if its not possible then I will revert my addition as I believed that sockpuppet additions are not allowed. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that the uploader of File:Madonna, debut album cover.png is a sockpuppet? Looking at Special:WhatLinksHere for the user page, I found Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ElPilotoDi/Archive#14 November 2014 which was reported by you, but the two checkusers decided to close the request without taking any action. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a second opinion, The uploader claims that because a now deleted item was never published in the US, it wasn't subject to URAA. Can you quote chapter and verse on what the CORRECT situation is? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, owing to certain comments made elsewhere, I am now asking you to directly justify your stance on URAA restorations. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user seems to have removed the section from his talk page.

A big problem is that the URAA issue is so complex, so it's easy to get something wrong. In the past, USA required authors to comply with copyright formalities, and the same formalities were used for both domestic and foreign works. Authors outside the United States were often unaware of the formalities imposed by the United States, and therefore most such works fell out of copyright in the United States, although a few works remained copyrighted there as some authors were aware of the formalities. Also, United States copyright law didn't contain any provisions which would allow unpublished works to enter the public domain, so unpublished works remained copyrighted in the United States. There are now provisions for unpublished works to enter the public domain, see {{PD-US-unpublished}}.

In 1989, USA joined the Berne Convention. Other countries argued that USA hadn't implemented article 18 of the convention correctly. This was fixed in 1996 when USA restored the copyright to numerous works ('URAA restoration') if the work hadn't yet fallen into the public domain in the source country. This is regardless of whether the work has been published in the United States or not. Works which were still copyrighted in the United States prior to the URAA restoration remain copyrighted in the United States for their full United States copyright term, regardless of whether the work was still copyrighted in the source country in 1996.

There is another part of the Berne Convention, article 7 (8), which has not been implemented by the United States. Article 18 explicitly permits countries to choose not to implement article 7 (8). This means that there are lots of works which are protected in the United States but not in the country of origin, and this confuses a lot of users. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than clog up FFD , I ve started tagging image like this as {{Presumed self}}. I won't object if you subsqeuently FFD refer them though. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the uploader on production EdChem (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the statement on the talk page implies that all files uploaded by that user are own work by the uploader. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re. your edits to "Vector version available" tags - they damage the code and result in displaying garbage, like they did at File:Ryanair logo 2013.png.

If you want to hide the thumbnail of a non-free image, just add to the template code:

| nonfree=yes

More info here. — kashmiri ^TALK 15:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the file simply is going to be deleted, it doesn't really matter if {{vva}} 'displays garbage' or not. Commenting out the file name is the fastest way to fix the WP:NFCC#9 violation. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you do the same with other images (sorry no time to go through your contributions). No need that Wikipedia displays garbage code even for a week, so tried to help. — kashmiri ^TALK 15:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Cloudbound (talk) 21:41, 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]

Can I trouble you to do a quick review of my efforts with respect to https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/10225? I am trying to be reasonable where I find items that are almost certainly own work (but not labelled as such.), by asking the uploaders to "claim" the media concerned. (See my contribs history) 11:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfan00 IMG (talk • contribs)

That query finds files in Category:PD other reasons, Category:Files from freely licensed external sources and Category:Files licensed by third parties. Those are almost certainly not own work by the uploader. If you want to find files which are probably own work but not labelled as such, then maybe it's better to search for files which transclude free licence tags like {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}, {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}} and such things without transcluding {{self}}, {{own}} or other 'own work' tags? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've certainly found several that ARE own work in a tweak to your query, I've marked them as {{Media by uploader}} and put {{subst:uw-imgclaim1}} on the relevant uploaders talk page, so that they are moved somewhere more appropriate File:Savage110fp.jpg being a recent example.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My query is meant to find files which are not own work by the uploader, although a number of files are own work by the uploader but mistagged. If you want to focus on the mistagged own work files, then consider including only one category (Category:Copyright holder released public domain files) as more or less all of the mistagged own work files I've come across seem to be in that category. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, BTW There's nothing to stop you FFD'ing Media by uploader files if they fail to meet other criteria or are out of scope. I was merely being pragmatic :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right I've done a batch, and would appreciate someone more experienced such as yourself reviewing the wording/logic of the template {{Media by uploader}}, the two categories it populates (felt it reasonable that the tagging should be tracked somehow), and the wording of {{uw-fileclaim}} that gets put on User pages. I'm sorry this like I'm forcing an issue, but referring more obvious "self" but not marked as such to FFD was a waste of FFD's time.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instead just removing pictures, you could use your energy as fixing them and finding alternatives, you do more harm than good in wikipedia, every time you "edit" something someone has to fix that article -->Typ932 ^T·C 08:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain how to fix the problem, then? You seem to be complaining about this edit. The file was removed from the article since there was no valid fair use rationale for that article. Since the file violates WP:NFC#UUI §17 on that page, there is no way to write a valid fair use rationale for that article, so the only remaining option is to remove the file from the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could fix the problem eg by adding other image, you could do that by using same energy as you do those deletetings. Every time you delete something someone else has to fix it because you are too lazy to edit articles properly. -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. The file violated WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFC#UUI §17 on that page, so it was necessary to remove it from there, which I did. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what I mean lol? so everytime you edit something you destroy one article, you are like some bot only removing something, instead you could do articles better and if you find error replace images with valid ones, I dont know what are you even doing here in Wikipedia, just destroying others work-->Typ932 ^T·C 11:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any article which I have 'destroyed', so it's not possible to tell what you are talking about. The edit mentioned above did not 'destroy' an article. It is not clear what other image you think that I should have replaced that image with. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dont speak any specific article, but all of your edits, you dont really edit anything here, you just remove,delete and nominate pictures here like some wikipedia bot, INSTEAD that you could start do something more usefull here, like editing articles for example if you find unsuitable picture go and find proper alternative. It takes only some more time if you start editing instead acting like some bot. -->Typ932 ^T·C 11:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan and I have had some disagreements over the years but I never witnessed him destroying anything. The task that he has taken on, and pursues with vigor, is an essential and thankless one. And in a discussion such as this there is no not speaking of "any specific article." Everything on wikipedia is specific articles. Carptrash (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thankless indeed and righteous. I'm not sure how essential it is but he certainly won't get any thanks from me regarding how he goes about his "vigorous task".-Sticks66 10:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/723745588 is something I left on User talk:Kelly explaining some of the new templates that were recently created. Apologies if seemingly pinging every single image uploader about 10 year old images is seeming like overkill, but the issues concerned where going to force themselves eventually. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edit and like to ask, why? Don't get me wrong, I'm not angry, but would like to know what the exact problem is. It's a picture from a Wikipedia page that stayed in Wikipedia, so... I'm limited by a white-list that also blocks Wikimedia-pictures and this is the only way for me to make them visible. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 15:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file is non-free, which means that its use on Wikipedia is restricted, see WP:NFCC. In particular, WP:NFCC#9 says that the file only can be used in articles. A user sandbox is not an article, so the file was removed from your sandbox. You can also read about this at WP:UP#Non-free images. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got the message, thanx! OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 17:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there's a number of files in this list you added {{Ffd}} to, but didn't create a nomination for.  Perhaps you might want to create a nomination, or remove the Ffd tags? Regards, FASTILY 03:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that a number of the discussions exist but have been closed without removing the FFD tag... --Stefan2 (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you posted here but including the speedy delete template effectively tagged the talk page for speedy deletion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stefan2: I have responded to your comment regarding the logo of the Pratt School of Engineering at Files for Upload talk. I believe my answer is responsive to your excellent question. Thank you for replacing the image on Pratt School of Engineering with the preferred version of the logo. -- Meschreiner (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reopening the discussion for deletion of File:Newyork albumcover.jpg. You mentioned in the FFD of how it vanished with this edit. I don't know how that happened. Anything I should do to prevent this from happening in future? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You listed File:Newyork albumcover.jpg for deletion (edit 1), and three seconds later, you listed File:Dil-bole-hadippa-new-poster-fly-or-flop-14074194404a79f31608cdc1.88565044.jpg for deletion (edit 2). If "edit 2" is too soon after "edit 1" and both edits were made by the same user, then Twinkle accidentally reverts "edit 1" when making "edit 2". You can avoid this by waiting a little bit between each nomination. If I nominate multiple files for discussion at the same time, I try to wait until Twinkle has completed the first nomination before submitting the next nomination, and this seems to solve the problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for the help. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you notify bots about XfDs? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I try to make selective choices for when I notify a user, there's a risk that I forget to notify a user when it's appropriate to notify a user. It's safer to always send a notification, no matter who the user is. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request to cease vandalism of User:Rctfan1999 —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rctfan1999 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Impossible. It's only possible for a user to cease vandalising a page if the user previously has started vandalising the page. I haven't started vandalising the mentioned page, so it is not possible for me to cease vandalising it. However, I see that you have vandalised the page several times by repeatedly violating WP:NFCC#9 on the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time finding the speedy deletion nomination. Does that mean it finished? Everything appears to be working properly. Was a better redirect put in its place? McKay (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are redirects on both Commons and Wikipedia. In this situation, the software does a couple of strange things, so it's difficult to find the local redirect, and this also makes things confusing. Both redirects are still there. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop notifying the bot about proposed deletion of cross-namespace redirects, neither I nor the bot care. Only post there if you think there's something that I would need to update the bot for. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 22:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See #Bot notifications above. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not sufficient reason to spam the bot's talk page with useless notices. Please stop. Anomie⚔ 23:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like bad practice for users who nominate stuff for deletion to maintain lists of users who are not to be notified when something is tagged for deletion as that would be a source for errors where notifications are not given although they should be, so maintaining the simple rule that everyone always is notified, no matter who the user is, does seem to be sufficient reason to put notices on bot talk pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is just disruptive. It's pretty simple: if the user is a bot, don't notify unless the deletion is because the bot screwed up somehow. This seems to be common practice among everyone else who nominates things for deletion. If you can't handle it yourself, convince the Twinkle developers to have their gadget avoid auto-notifying bots or honor some other opt-out mechanism. Anomie⚔ 13:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WT:TW#Notifying bots. In the mean time, just uncheck "Notify page creator if possible" in the XfD dialog. 24.205.8.104 (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you mass nominate redirects, please try to group those for which you're just going to copy-paste the same deletion reason (e.g. unexpected typo in redirect from mainspace, foreign-language redirect, etc.) into one nomination section. Doing so makes RfD easier to close. Thanks, ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got your boilerplate about this, and have tried to comply, though it is very difficult to do so, given the opaque and technical instructions in the boilerplate. IMHO it's a bit much to ask me for a copy of an email that is ten years old. Your patrolling of images, while understandable at some level, is a great reason behind the abandonment of Wikipedia by existing editors. It's not enough to drive me away just yet, but it's another straw on the camel's back. I'm wasting tens of minutes of my precious life, trying to correct something that was done in good faith and was probably legitimate/compliant with procedures ten years ago when it was first uploaded. Lou Sander (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were required to contact OTRS back in 2006 when you uploaded the file. It's unfortunate that mistakes sometimes aren't discovered after a decade, but some files are missed for a long time.

If your all evidence of the permission has been lost, then the file effectively is unlicensed unless new evidence can be created (for example if the copyright holder confesses that permission has been granted) as you can't win against the copyright holder if he decides to pretend that no permission was granted. Normally, you can't delete a permission statement until ten years have passed since the file was taken down, or something like that. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More reasons to abandon editing. Too bad. If you are not an attorney, you might want to stop giving legal advice (I'm just trying to help). See HERE Lou Sander (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fix this as you are better at this sort of thing than me? I've removed the audio clip from three pages and the usage is not now excessive. It could be trimmed back to one appearance if necessary.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems to have been deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader of this album cover claims to have made this in Photoshop CC, but I suspect it is non-free despite the claim, and should be tagged with {{Non-free reduce}} and given a fair-use rationale. The user also uploaded a different image, which I suspect is non-free as well. Feel free to keep me in the loop. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Andy M. Wang, I retagged the first one as fair use and nominated the second one for deletion per WP:F9 as I was able to find both images elsewhere on the Internet. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a little proposal at Template talk:RMpmc#Appearance, and since all this is still so new, I'd like your input.  What's in your palette? Paine  17:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan2. Since you were the editor who originally nominated File:Hockey Canada.svg for discussion at WP:NFCR (for reference, it was moved to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 30#File:Hockey Canada.svg by Steel1943 as part of the post NFCR/FFD merge clean up), perhaps you can comment on or further clarify your reason(s) for doing so at User talk:Djsasso/Archive 10#File:Hockey Canada.svg. A year has passed since you nominated the file was first nominated, so it's possible the circumstances related to its non-free use have changed. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say delete the article since it's a redirect and the actually a template of Template:Jets2015DraftPicks is here. Pmaster12 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan2. I've noticed that you removed FC Masr's logo from my userbox due to violating WP:NFCC#9. Could you please tell me what i'm supposed to do to to put the logo in my userbox again? Thanks in advance. Ben5218 (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Ben5218: You can't. WP:NFCC#9 is clear: "Non-free content is allowed ... only in article namespace". User pages are not in article namespace, they are in user namespace. More at WP:UP#Non-free images. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want to move a false category. Please guide me.--Samək^Talk 07:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "false category"? If you tell me which category you are talking about, I might be able to help. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The name of this football club is Gostaresh Foulad F.C. but his category called Category:Gostaresh Foolad F.C. players. false in category, Foolad → Foulad.--Samək^Talk 22:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Samak: See WP:CFDS, and when you add your request, I suggest using criterion C2A or C2D - perhaps both. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64 & Samak: I listed this at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 9#Category:Gostaresh Foolad F.C. players as it seems that the article has been moved at least twice. Note that there is also a comment about the article title on the article talk page. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64:, @Stefan2: Thanks for solving problem.--Samək^Talk 09:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you removed seven of the free images along with the non-free images in my sandbox ?.--Charles Turing (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to me that this was the easiest way to fix the WP:NFCC#9 violation. Also, it may be confusing for readers if a table column mostly is empty, and it can give a non-neutral impression if a small number of list elements get an image while other list elements do not by making it look as if the writer thinks that the illustrated list entries are more important than the other ones. I guess that some of the arguments might not hold outside mainspace, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I just asked over curiosity. Declined from that rehashing anyway. The previous one is the best without prose inside the table. --Charles Turing (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the Consolidated Communications page one my edit didn't meet the criteria of revision hiding. It was just to fix what a blocked user did inserting false info, and I put the true info back in there but my revision was hidden for no reason, all of my edits helps Wikipedia, not harms it. Thanks and please unhide the revision or ask a B-crat to unhide it. DatNuttyWikipedian (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa removed some text from the page and hid a few revisions of the page. According to the edit summaries, the text was removed because it violated copyright. Since the revisions have been hidden, I can't tell what they contained or when the copyright violations were added, but I'd assume that the copyright violations were added to the earliest revision which was hidden and that the copyright violations still were present on the page when you edited the page. In such situations, the standard thing is to delete all revisions which contain the violating content. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When a user adds a copyright violation and we have to do a revision deletion, all edits from the point where the copyright material was added to the point where it was removed have to be revision deleted in order to properly hide the violation. Unfortunately this sometimes means that harmless edits by other people have to be revision deleted as well. Sorry about that. — Diannaa (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @DatNuttyWikipedian: Your edit was to alter one infobox parameter, from |num_employees=1,900 to |num_employees=2,000 - and if you look at the page as it stands now, it still shows 2,000. So your edit, although hidden, was not actually undone. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do this every time I update new cycling jerseys. I'm fully aware of every of everything, so don't need link thanks. I really can't be arsed to go over it any more... You better deleted all jerseys Category:Cycling jerseys. BaldBoris 18:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do this every time you update new cycling jerseys since you make the same error every time you update new cycling jerseys. It's not my fault that you keep uploading pictures of cycling jerseys which fail WP:FREER. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just told you I'm fully aware of all image copyright right policies and don't need links, yet what do you do. This has been discussed and a consensus was reach that it's acceptable. I can't find it right now, so give up. P.S. don't give me more links and make sure you delete them all Category:Cycling jerseys. BaldBoris 18:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You recently tagged File:Clara Ikemba.jpg for deletion, I want to notify you that I fixed the broken link. I was also wondering if you could kindly add a verification tag to the page, just incase of broken links in the future, or even deletion of the image or page from facebook. The same applies to the following files: File:Mildred Okwo and others on set of The Meeting.jpg, File:The Meeting Cast and Crew.jpg, File:Linda Ejiofor.jpg. Thanks.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan2, do you have any idea what might be going on with Quarry returning so many false positives for orphaned files lately? It seems like the list has just been constantly growing. Previously, once I purged something properly and had it update the links, it dropped off the list, but nothing has dropped off the list in a long time now. Any ideas? Is there a new way I should be purging? You can see User:B-bot/Event log for how the list of things that are not orphaned just keeps growing. --B (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be an issue with Labs' DB cluster, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Edit count reduced. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B & Redrose64: My bot has reported a few strange messages too. For example, my database query tells that File:Yesterday's Gone - Chad & Jeremy.jpg has old revision(s), but my bot discovers that the old revision has been deleted. Another file with the same problem is File:Coldplay, Up&Up, Artwork.jpg.

Another oddity: I renamed File:Stream unconference logo.jpg in April. However, the Labs database still thinks that the file is under the old name in both the image table and the page table, see quarry:query/11153. My guess is that some changes weren't replicated in the Labs database for some reason. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Twinkle adding "Orphaned non-free revisions" twice. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for proposing some of my forgotten redirects (Anatomical terminology series and WPANATOMY-barnstar) for deletion. I've forgotten that I've even created them (accidentally I'm sure) and hate to leave clutter around the place. So thanks for clearing these up and I'm sure your other RfD work :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have experience editing a license template? See commons:Template:PD-Leslie Jones. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan, does this really make sense when {{Non-free reduce}} was already added to the page? Once it gets reduced, it will be changed to {{Orphaned non-free revisions}}... I've noticed this for awhile now and have been meaning to comment here, but I kept getting sidetracked and forgot about it. Is this something that can be fixed? Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:Mehran.jpg. Since you had some involvement with the File:Mehran.jpg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

There is an ongoing discussion about the use of files on Wikipedia that are not protected by copyright in the US because there is no copyright relations between the US and the country of publication. You commented in a 2012 discussion on the same topic that resulted in no consensus. You are invited to share your views in the ongoing discussion. AHeneen (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this blog post: http://www.publicdomaintreasurehunter.com/2010/08/07/when-u-s-works-enter-the-u-k-public-domain/

I've updated {{PD-US-not renewed}}, accordingly. It would be much appreciated if you would consider reviewing other templates that might be affected. ( Such as PD-US-no notice for example. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, interesting, so if the blog post is correct, then the UK didn't follow the rule of the shorter term for a period of 40 years, and because of a wording in the Copyright Duration Directive, this means that the rule of the shorter term isn't followed in a lot of situations.

Also note that the rule of the shorter term isn't used for works by British citizens living abroad. For example, was Charlie Chaplin a British citizen when he created films in the United States? The rule of the shorter term probably isn't used if the work was published in the UK within 30 days after publication in the country of origin. For example, famous press photos may have been published in multiple countries shortly after they were taken.

There are probably lots of additional countries which could be added to the disclaimer in {{PD-US-not renewed}} if more research is done. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrote this to accomodate some concerns about works that hadn't epxired outside the US.

However it's not yet fully complete because it uses author death year, and doesn't take into account rules for (coporate works) 95 from publication (or 120 from creation).

Could you amend it accordingly? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sfan00 IMG, the template seems to be complex, and it's not fully correct. For example, {{ady100|created=1800}} produces code which says that the file can be copied to Commons. However, if the work was first published in 1977 (unlikely but still possible), then the United States copyright expires 95 years after publication if the work was published with a valid copyright notice. The 120-year rule can only be used if the first publication was in 2003 or later, or if it is still unpublished. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems the logic will need to be more complex then.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you amend the logic accordingly? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternativly can you write a series of decision questions so that the IF statements can be coded accordingly? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A tag has been placed on File:Baku012.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image." Təəssüf ki, bu şəkli poza bilmərəm, çünki şəklin müəllifi deyiləm və o şəkli mən əlavə etməmişəm. Səhv etdiyinizi qəbul edirəm. Hər kəsin səhv etməsi mümkündür. Yəqin ki, belə hal təkrarlanmaz. Sünbül (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sünbül, since you were the one who was notified, the local file information page was presumably created by you. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]