Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JYolkowski (talk | contribs) at 01:04, 18 June 2012 (→Good eye wrt the copyvio Guelph Transit images!: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

2006-May 2012

Archive

Archiving by move is absolutely fine - it is the method I use myself. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Facebook screenshot

The tag required for File:Facebook screenshot.JPG should be added by its uploader. I am not responsible for the recent changes to the file as I was the uploader of the previous and rationale file and I can't tag any. The user Jayabharat has created a screenshot under my filename. Please contact him. His screenshot is biased. (You can see his facebook user ID) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1996vishak (talk • contribs) 14:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Twinkle only notifies the uploader of the first version. I've now notified the other user too. That said, you uploaded the first version without a fair use rationale, so it doesn't seem wrong to notify you.

Non-free screenshots are supposed to have a low resolution. The version used in the article, , is very small, so it isn't possible to read the user name. Once the bot has reduced the image, maybe the user name will be unreadable, even if the reduced image might be a little bit larger. In that case, I guess any bias will be removed automatically. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Emotions

I really hate you --Dogwalkerz (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Screenshot of Neoplanet`s Grinch browser.jpg

Hi Stefan,

I see you tagged for resizing the non-free screenshot I`ve uploaded. Do you really think it needs to be done? I`ve already resized it to less than 0.2 megapixels, and even now the features` names are blurred.. if further sized down it will simply lose its function.. Both browser and company are defunct so I hardly believe this image can damage somebody`s rights.. Best regards, --Pozytyv (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It is still much bigger than the copy used in the article. The recommendations at Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old#Instructions are a bit smaller and the bot would reduce the image a bit if the reduction template stays. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

But the majority of browsers` screenshots are much larger at wikipedia.. like this File:NCSA Mosaic.PNG or this File:Opera Web Browser.png .. why this rule doesn`t apply to them? --Pozytyv (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST to me. I've tagged both for reduction. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

ok, I will refrain from providing you with other "too large" browsers screenshots, will look how the bot would reduce Neoplanet`s screenshot, thanks, --Pozytyv (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

St Michael Churchyard photo

Hi, I don't edit on Misplaced Pages much, and this is the first time I've uploaded a photo. The picture is my own which I took myself and I hold complete copyright on, which I am happy to be freely distributed via Misplaced Pages. I can't see how to add this information and would be grateful if you could point me in the right direction to tag it properly. I've looked and can't find a clear explanation of what I need to do - it took long enough to figure out how to post the image in the first place. Tizard99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

In the meantime, I see that you added a licence template saying that the image has been released to the public domain. The file information page didn't state who the photographer was, so I added that information based on what you wrote above. For future reference: if you take a photo yourself and wish to release it to the public domain, you can indicate this by adding {{PD-self}} to the file information page. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Bob Turner

Hi! Thanks for your notice. I think (I'm not sure) if it is small enough now. Just let me know if you can. Thank you!!! :-)

HappyLongIslander (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: Giglio 2010.jpg

The structure itself, not only the photo, was created by myself. It is a copy of a copy that originated in the 5th Century AD, in a town in Italy called Nola. Every year there are at least eight (8) such structures built each of which are individually created from the original 5th century structure. The photo is a picture of the completed work in 2010 build in Glen Cove, New York (USA). The structure as shown has been destroyed as they all are traditionally destroyed after the feast day of San Paolino, June 22nd and after a feast in his honor. --Michael LoCascio 15:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glmike523 (talk • contribs)

apastel, regarding Occupy Buffer Zone leaflets and pictures

Dear Stefan2, I have noticed that you have nominated a number of material uploaded by me for deletion based on copyrights. I have been part of the Occupy Buffer Zone movement for a long time, and have taken the task of enriching Misplaced Pages on the subject based on sound documentation. The material that was uploaded is not owned by anyone individually or collectively. They are shown publicly, and are under no copyrights, because the movement does not view such copyright laws as necessarily or desirable for its function. If Misplaced Pages however does not accept this statement or position as legitimate, please inform me if an online statement granting me permission on my Misplaced Pages's account name for the uploading of leaflets and pictures on the commons is enough for the copyright issue to be resolved. Thank you for your time.

( Apastel (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC) )

Please keep the discussion at WP:PUF. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Question

Do you have a picture of the KSMJ logo that was deleted? JoeCool950 (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope. I don't keep copies of deleted images. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

File Mover Rights

Hello Stefan, I am a file mover on English Wiki, and have frequently come across your file renaming requests, seeing your contribution here, i feel an editor like you will be more productive with the file mover rights. Please request here on Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/File mover for this and I will support it, or else i can nominate you as well. please leave a {tb}-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 00:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

File question

Hey, I noticed that you had added {{Non-free reduce}} to File:Ek Tha Tiger.jpg. Is there any specific size limitation for a movie poster, I had been thinking that somewhere around 500 was the maximum size for any non-free media. This one is 505*308, is that too large? If so, I'll reduce it further and upload it. Thanks! Secret of success (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any exact definition of what is too big, but recommendations are given on at least at two different places: Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old (which suggests that no dimension should be greater than 400 pixels) and Category:Misplaced Pages non-free file size reduction requests (which suggests that there should be at most 160,000 pixels). As this one is smaller than 160,000 pixels, I've removed the reduction request. It violates the other recommendation, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh...this makes it confusing, as till now I thought that the restriction was more or less equal to 500, not 400. User:DASHBot usually re-scales images to that extent (a good example would be this). As an approved bot, I would think it knows better. So, no issues for now. If at all it arises later, the best option would be WP:MCQ. Thanks for your help and regards! Secret of success (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how DASHBot decides how small the resized images should be, but the result always seems to be less than 160,000 pixels. This one was made much smaller than the one you mentioned. Anyway, no big issue, I'd say. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Question by User:DJ Mell Starr

dj mell starr

Hi Stefan, May 16th a file that I uploaded will be deleted if I do not get permission from it's original owner. I have sent an email to the owner asking that she email the permissions dept. Que: The owner gave/sent me the picture via email. Do I still need her permission? DJ Mell Starr (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If you are talking about File:Master of The Mix, DJMellStarrW.jpg: permission needs to be sent by e-mail to permissions-enwikimedia.org. Once sent there, tag the image with {{OTRS pending}} to prevent deletion whilst waiting for the e-mail to be processed by the permissions department. The instructions at WP:CONSENT might help you. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Falling Skies DVD

The image I uploaded is a scaled down version from the website I got it from. It is not too big - it is standard size and fits the article perfectly. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The file can be scaled down further. But never mind; the file is tagged as orphaned fair use, so it will probably be deleted soon anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

That's okay. Thanks for the extremely late reply. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

OTRS

To Stefan2 and Ronhjones

I haven't been active in PUF, but as a new OTRS agent, I realize that I should at least be watching it, especially for references to OTRS. I will begin doing that. However, I'm writing because I saw references to the backlog. I asked to join OTRS because I heard there was a backlog. When I joined, roughly three weeks ago, there were 800 or so open items in the Permissions queues. That number is down to 345, higher than it should be, but we are making progress. It will be tougher now, because much of the low hanging fruit is gone, and the remaining ones are more challenging. When I first logged on, there were a considerable number of requests over 30 days old. There are a few left, but none left are routine.

My current plan is to regularly visit PUF, and look for any entries where OTRS is mentioned. For example, I just added a note to the WO! album cover.jpg item. I also see one where the uploader has claimed that an email has been sent, but I see no email in the system, so I will follow up with the uploader, to make sure there is no confusion.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

NON-Free reduce

These two files, File:Teletype Model 28 Tape Punch Set.jpg and File:Teletype Model 28 Receiving Selector.jpg have already gone through this process once. Please see the history files. Also note that these are press release photos from a defunct company.Wa3frp (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, they have been reduced once, but not sufficiently. If you read the fair use rationale, the purpose of the files is to use them in the article Teletype Model 28, where the files take up 62,700 pixels. However, on the file information pages, there are links to versions with 277,800 pixels. It looks as if the total pixel count can be divided by approximately four. See Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old#Instructions: "The resolution should approximately fit the intended use in the article." --Stefan2 (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, constructively you have stated the obvious reason for posting information..."...The resolution should approximately fit the intended use in the article..." Looking objectively at File:Teletype Model 28 Receiving Selector.jpg please relate to me the three speed options, in operations per minute, based on the information that you find in this already very reduced information. Yes, I can reduce files to the point where they are unreadable if the sole criterion used in file size in pixels. However, I see that the underlying objective is to convey accurate information to the reader. Please see Misplaced Pages non-free content - image resolution "...images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale..." Should I further reduce this image to obliterate the text or should I follow the intent of the policy and increase the image resolution to be able to unambiguously read the text?Wa3frp (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the purpose stated in the fair use rationale: "For visual identification of the object of the article. The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work." The article is dedicated specifically to the Teletype Model 28, not to the Teletype Model 28 manual. Thus, the only interesting things in the images are the photos of various part of the device, whereas the text is irrelevant. Since the text is irrelevant, there is no need for it to be readable. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point. The file has effectively obliterated the textual content of the page, leaving only the image as the intelligence. Since you mention manual, a manual for the Teletype Model 28 Receiving Selector would require tens of pages, not the critical technical data as a snapshot, something that this file could convey to the reader if the file were slightly larger. The technical data originally displayed in this file is a synthesis of the technical manual and not the manual in totality. Further, a reader of the article could be interested in the technical data, especially since this particular technical device is little known as it was not largely deployed.Wa3frp (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Margrete Heiberg Bose

Hi Stefan,

Can you help me understand why you deleted the file margrete.jpg. I imagine I did not specify the correct permissions. Thanks. Jorge. Pullin —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC).

I didn't delete it; the file was deleted by Explicit. Based on the deletion reason, it was deleted because it didn't have any fair use rationale. All non-free files need to have a fair use rationale. See WP:FUR for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Jorge Pullin —Preceding undated comment added 13:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

just wondering something, please comment. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:FoP-USonly

Template:FoP-USonly has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 9carney (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

GREY2K USA logo

Hi Stefan,

We are new to wikipedia and wondering what we are doing wrong to have our logo flagged for removal by you. Could you please explain? This is a logo our company owns copyright of. We followed the template as the HSUS has for their logo.

Thank you,

Danielle, Communications Manager, GREY2K USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfesta (talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The file had no licence template. Never mind, I've added one now. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hanja help

Hello. Should you know Hanja, please fill it here (Onew and Key's name). Thanks in advance--Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

ko:Key (歌手) says: 중국, 대만, 홍콩 모두 Key로 쓰고 있다. (中國, 臺灣, 香港 모두 Key로 쓰고 있다. = In all of China, Taiwan and Hong Kong, is written "Key".) It even looks as if the han'gŭl 키 might be a transcription of the English word "key". Thus, I'd assume that there is no hancha for Key's stage name.

ko:온유 (1989年) says: 중국에서는 温流, 대만과 홍콩에서는 溫流로 쓰고 있다. (中國에서는 温流, 臺灣과 香港에서는 溫流로 쓰고 있다. = In China, is written as 温流 and in Taiwan and Hong Kong is written as 溫流.) The article Onew lists the hancha as 温流, but this looks wrong: 温 is a simplified character/new shape. Korean is only supposed to use traditional characters/old shapes, i.e. 溫. Thus, I'd assume that 溫流 is correct, so I'll fix both articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I like k-pop but I don't know Korean language at all :-). Your language skill is excellent, I think. Btw, do you consider being admin here. You've done many good work about images here as well as significantly active on Commons. If you agree, I will make a nomination. Regards Morning Sunshine (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts

The staff at the Kauffman Center for the Perfoming Arts has repeatedly tried to add images to our Misplaced Pages page and the images have been removed each time. On our last attempt we included rationale for why the images can not be replaced as they are the photos taken by Tim Hursley, who is the official photographer of Moshe Safdie, the buildings designer. We were given permission to use these images freely and for that reason meet the requirements of the Misplaced Pages content agreement. Can you please explain to me why the images are still being deleted from the page? Kauffman1601 (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply; I forgot about this question. The building, Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts, still exists, so it is possible for anyone to take a photo of the building and publish the photo under a free licence. The photos uploaded by you were listed under an unfree licence, and photos under unfree licences are deemed as unacceptable if it is possible to create a free replacement. See WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFC#UUI §1 for details. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Moving files to Commons

One category down and Category:User-created public domain files from October 2005 is almost also empty :-) And Category:Misplaced Pages files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons is also almost empty... What do you think. Should we look for more files that shadows Commons or should we find some other categories to work on? The reason I ask is because it is more fun to work on categories when you are two or more and categories with 100.000+ files are not as much fun as categories we can empty in a few days. So if you have ideas just let me know :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently a bit busy and will probably not have the time to move any files at all for a week or two. Currently, I'm just trying to stay up-to-date with the current file discussions. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem... You know where to find me if you get more time and have ideas. --MGA73 (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

For your information, there are now more files in Category:Misplaced Pages files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons. However, most of those have been proposed for deletion. Maybe I could try looking at the user-created public domain categories, but it seems easier to look for categories on a specific topic since all files on a specific topic tend to get similar Commons categories. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yogo photos

Thanks for responding at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Yogo sapphire/archive1. To me photo licensing can be sooo confusing. What should I do, find the earliest publication of each? PumpkinSky talk 21:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

These 4 pics are all over the web, often with no date on the web page. Makes it all the more confusing and frustrating. Places I found them are in their source line on the commons page.PumpkinSky talk 21:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that you would have to identify an early publication of those photos, if such a publication exists. United States copyright law is a bit annoying in that sense in that the copyright status depends on when and whether a photo was published. File:JakeHoover1894.png is claimed to be a wedding photo, and such photos are usually private photos which are typically not published. It says that the photo was published in a book published "circa 1985", and if that was the first time the photo was published, then the copyright will expire on 1 January 2048. Anonymous 19th century photos first published between 1978 and 2002 always enter the public domain on 1 January 2048, which is another annoying feature with United States copyright law: the copyright term may be ridiculously long (possibly several centuries) if a photo remains unpublished for decades but then is published somewhere at the wrong time. See Commons:COM:HIRTLE for more details about US copyrights. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

ARGH!! So Hoover isn't free as far as we know. This is weird. Someone publishes a private photo and gains a copyright? WEIRD!!. So I can't claim it as free. What about the Ringold and two old mine ones? Sorry I'm so clueless here. I find photo licensing confusing to the max. PumpkinSky talk 14:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

What you should do is search pre-1923 materials in archive.org or books.google.com (set to "free e-books only"). Use the names of the people and places as search terms, if you can't substantiate those, you may find others. Also, you can call historical societies, use images.google.com to search for other usages of the image on the internet (some may have an original publication), or do without. I don't think any of the questioned images are crucial for the FAC's success and are thus expendable.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

But they're neat! And a 1894 photo being under copyright til 2048 is just ridiculous. They could all be changed to FU too.PumpkinSky talk 14:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you'd successfully argue that how some guy looked on his wedding day leads to a significantly greater understanding of Yogo sapphires.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

He's key to the story ;=) PumpkinSky talk 20:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

One photo proposed for deletion. Unless an early publication of the other photos can be located, I suppose that they also should be proposed for deletion. Unfortunately, some countries grant unusually long copyright terms for unpublished works. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the copyright to works by a known author expires at the earliest 50 years after publication, which means that all unpublished works by a known author (regardless of age) currently are copyrighted in the United Kingdom (with some exceptions for photos and government works). --Stefan2 (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The whole thing is batshit insane! Yes, it's all ridiculously long, but thanks for helping!PumpkinSky talk 20:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

About file uploads

The recent files that you have added reduce templates to are already fit for articles! Please remove these templates because these files do not need to be replaced with smaller versions, they are fine where they are! ~ RomeAntic14 16:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The resolution of your images is still way too big. See Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old#Instructions: "The largest dimension should be at most around 300–400px." and "The resolution should approximately fit the intended use in the article." Take File:Bridgit-mendler-summertime.jpg, for example. Only 48,400 pixels are used in the article but you have uploaded 250,000 pixels, which is more than five times as many. Besides, all sides are longer than 300-400 pixels. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

The Illusive Man 21:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Four fair use images of the same "statue" in one article?

Is that not a bit much? See Are_Years_What?_(for_Marianne_Moore)#Gallery. What do you think? You are welcome to send to Ffd if you agree. --MGA73 (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This definitely looks too much. SIRIS tells that the work was made in 1968 but it seems that it wasn't installed at its present location until 1999. It seems that the work has been exhibited at multiple locations. Would some of those count as publication, or would it be something else due to the work not being permanently installed there? If it was first published in the United States, it would need a copyright notice for each publication, including publications outside the United States (I think). There is of course no problem with the images if the statue is in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you... Not sure I feel more safe about the thingie now :-D Anyway I'm trying to find a way to tag files that is on Commons but does not have a {{NowCommons}} template. So I created Category:Media not suitable for Commons to make it a bit easier and I noticed the 4 similar files in there. --MGA73 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Asked at Commons:COM:VPC#Complex statue case since I'm not sure about the copyright status. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Image DR

I made a comment here that you may wish to see about Denmark's copyright policies. Thank You. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Hankyoreh

Moved back to User talk:Tyrannus Mundi#Your edit to the article The Hankyoreh. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Commons

Hello, you recommended that I load my images to Wikimedia Commons. I'd be happy to do this, and I'm sure it only takes a couple of key strokes to set it up, but I am not willing to waste my time reading a bunch of procedure pages that invariably leave me horribly confused. If you can provide me with a link where I can load my photos, then I will load them to Commons. Otherwise, I'll continue doing what I've been doing. Thanks.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Try using Commons:Special:UploadWizard or Commons:Special:Upload when uploading files. Hopefully, either of those pages is clear enough for you. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll give them a try; many thanks.Sarnold17 (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Equinox picture

HELP! You flagged this picture. File:Mount-Equinox-Viewer-Center-Construction-2012.jpg I have forwarded the email I received from Paul for use on the web. (Pointed to where I published it on my own personal website, along with the original email.) What do I need to do next? NECRAT 08:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have sent permission to OTRS, you are supposed to add {{OTRS pending}} to the file to indicate this. I'm adding this tag now. If the photographer's permission only applies to the necrat.us domain name, then the permission is insufficient. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Tagging ICFR logo photo as possibly problematic

Hi Stefan2. I received your message on my talk page regarding the photo File:Israel Council on Foreign Relations (ICFR) logo.jpg, which you listed as a possibly unfree file. I have full permission of the creator of this work to distrubite it, so could you please explain to me why you placed it in that category and what I could do to further clarify the fact that it is a free file? Thank you. Intrepid Reporter (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Permission should be sent to OTRS. The file information contains no indication that permission has been sent to OTRS. For instructions on how to send things to OTRS, see WP:CONSENT. Once permission has been sent to OTRS, please tag the file with {{OTRS pending}} so that other people know that permission has been sent to OTRS.

Note that a permission which only allows you to distribute the image is insufficient. The permission must allow anyone to use the image for any purpose (including using the image commercially) and people must be allowed to modify the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Computer Lib cover by Ted Nelson 1974.png

I don't think this qualifies for reduction. It isn't a substitute for the original work, it isn't a high-resolution copy, and the words in the subtitle ("You can and must understand computers NOW") cannot be read at a lower resolution. Furthermore, this particular cover is considered iconic and historically important in the history of personal computing, and the size of the file is no different than any other average book cover on Misplaced Pages; comparing its size and resolution to featured articles, tells me there is nothing wrong with it, and if anything, it is of a lower quality than those found in featured book articles. Viriditas (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. I uploaded a reduced image and it looks OK. Viriditas (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson Stamp

Message for you on Files for deletion' page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Yeh hai Bombay meri jaan.ogg

Hi, i'm not getting reason you gave at this place. "the song is not critically discussed in the Bombay article." What this means ? 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Quinton.jpg

Thank you for bringing up the issue of the image with the nomination. I posted the source which dates the image 1911. Now, I think that it would be great if you looked into the image in "Commons" with the same file name. The image is found here: File:Quinton.jpg, of claims to have been self-taken which is highly unlikely. Thank you and take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I asked for a publication before 1923, but you only provided a publication in 2000. If a photo was taken in 1911 and first published in 2000, then it is still copyrighted. See Commons:COM:HIRTLE: if created before 1978 and first published between 1989 and 2002, then the copyright expires at the end of 2047 or 70 years after the death of the photographer, whichever is later. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The publication states thet the image was taken in 1911, therefore since copyright laws did not apply when the image was taken it is PD and the publication (a government publlication) and anyone else who may desire to publish it may do so. Such is the case for example when you come upon an image of Abraham Lincoln in a history book. Image of a historical person pre-1923. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Ross-castle-drawing.jpg

Not sure what you are looking for regarding permissions for this image. I sent and email to permissions-enwikimedia.org on June 11, 2012, stating the museum staff indicated the drawing on the wall was in the public domain and that I was the holder of the photo copyright. Can you be specific on what you would like me to provide? I'm a low time contributor and not exactly up on all the acronyms or procedures. Rackmount-guy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:James Hawkins Artist 2012.jpg

Hi Stefan Thank you for you message regarding the copyright of the images I have uploaded. I am new to editing on Wiki and this is my first article. The images are of my father so I have added {{OTRS pending}} and asked him to email his permission to permissions-enwikimedia.org Is there anything else i need to do at this stage? Thanks for you help LucindaCasual (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

All you need to do is to add {{OTRS pending}} and ask your father to send an e-mail to permissions-enwikimedia.org. I couldn't see any {{OTRS pending}} tag on one of them, so I added one there. Now we just need to wait until someone reads that e-mail. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Non-free rationale for File:Sandman.jpg

In regards to File:Sandman.jpg I have never seen this image before and have not used it anywhere on Misplaced Pages. I think you have mistaken me for someone else. I only don't even know who Sandman is! Feathery Sunshine (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There were two files with the same name. Another user moved your file to File:Mr Sandman (Chordettes) .jpg and added a fair use rationale. I understand that this might be a bit confusing for you. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Soonchild Cover.jpg

Hello, Stefan2. What size would you recommend I reduce this image to? Just let me know what parameters would be acceptable and I'll be happy to oblige. (Or is this just a matter of waiting for an automatic process to take place? This is my first image upload, so feel free to clarify if I've misunderstood what happens next.) Greencoracle (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a bot which reduces images automatically. No need to do anything. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Greencoracle (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

File: Theatrical Poster for The Secret Friend.jpg

Hi Stefan, How are you? I don't know why you called my poster (file: Theatrical Poster for The Secret Friend.jpg) a "dubious own work." I imagine I did not specify the correct permissions. I designed the poster for the film the Secret Friend myself and I hold complete copyright on the art work, which I am happy to be freely distributed via Misplaced Pages. I have already uploaded the poster to the film's official site for FREE download. I probably have done something wrong but I would be grateful if you could point me in the right direction so that I can give it the right permission.

Thanks --Michael Seto (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks, Stefan2 Dexter Bond (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Good eye wrt the copyvio Guelph Transit images!

Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 01:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)