en User talk:Infrogmation Archive July 09 - Nov 09

Archive of discussion from User talk:Infrogmation

Next older archive: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive March 09 - July 09

Next more recent: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive Nov 09 - July 10

July 2009

File source problem with File:BattleofCrecyEngraving.jpg

~~File Copyright problem~~
Thanks for uploading File:BattleofCrecyEngraving.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The source I got it from was and is clearly indicated. The engraving may well be even older, but I think my documenting it back to 1885 publication is quite sufficent to confirm PD status. Infrogmation (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avrocar images

I was the author of the book Avrocar, Canada's Flying Saucer and later technical director on the films that were derived from this work. All the images that were used in the article came from sources that were owned by me. In order to provide images, I had to alter the 16 mm film stock which I also owned to make into single frame images. The other still photos came from flight manuals that I also own, and were derivative works from these sources. FWiW, this article was one of the first in which I contibuted and may not have the correct information given for the images as I was quite a neophyte at that point. Bzuk (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

File:AlohaOe1913.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:AlohaOe1913.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:HowYaGonnaKeepEmDownOnTheFarm.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:HowYaGonnaKeepEmDownOnTheFarm.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:CollegeLifeCover1905.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:CollegeLifeCover1905.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1912EverybodyTwoStep.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:1912EverybodyTwoStep.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:PhilaTownHall.jpg

Can you indicate which postcard please? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which postcard? The one shown in the photo. That and all the others you've listed above were scanned by me from early 20th century originals in my own collection. There is no intermediate secondary source listed because there is no intermediate secondary source. For my uploads from the early years of Wikipedia that look to be similar cases, they generally are. Feel free to ask if you have serious questions, but it seems to me in most of these cases there is zero "problem" nor "missing source" with these images. They were simply uploaded long before Wikipedia was using image description templates. Thanks for your efforts to clean things up, but it looks to me that adiquate information is already there in many or most of these cases, and you can figure things out for your self by reading the description and looking at the image. Thanks. Infrogmation (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the reason for trying to clean these up, is so they can go to commons and so

it can be shown that there are not 'lifted' from some archive that claims additonal copyrights on reproductions and archiving. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:PuucChunjuju.jpg

Can you be more specfic which book this was sourced from ? Thanks :)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Infrogmation (talk)

File:MollyPitcher.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:MollyPitcher.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: George "Honey Boy" Evans

Hello. I undid your move of George "Honey Boy" Evans. He was actually known and billed under that name, so a Wikipedia-specific neologism need not be invented. Discuss at Talk:George "Honey Boy" Evans if you wish. Thank you much. -- Infrogmation (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was it a stage name that he actually used or just a nickname? An article about a person who employed a stage name (or a pen name, for example) will typically be at that title but that's not always the case with nicknames. I see both the sheet music covers pictured in the article bill him as "George Evans". The NYT review in the external links section uses George Evans too. I don't have access to the NYT piece on his death that the article cites but it uses "Honey Boy Evans", and this site seems to use all three. --bainer (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say both. Yes, historical use seems to inconsistant, with examples of George "Honey Boy" Evans, "Honey Boy" Evans, and George Evans, the Honey Boy all seen in period print. I think George "Honey Boy" Evans is a reasonable choice for the article, disambiguating him from other people named George Evans without having to construct a neologism, but if you have other ideas feel free to bring them up. Further discussion, if needed, really should go on the article talk page not here. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk)

File:InfrogmationTromboneMardiGras.jpg

Who took the photo? , It's probably commons candidate anyway :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American History

Why did you go against the American History page being the featured article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs) 03:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When, what? That doesn't sound like something I've done anytime recently. If you could provide a link to what you're talking about, I might be able to answer your question. Thanks. Infrogmation (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

You seem to have a lot of experience with images so I hope you'll be willing to help me. Two editors believe using three images in the article for Gaslight is OK because two of them supposedly are in the public domain, but I don't think the person who uploaded them (File:Gaslight 1944 trailer.jpg and File:Gaslight 1944 trailer(2).jpg) described them correctly. According to him, "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice" but he doesn't say where they were published, and his source for the images is the film's trailer. Since there's no way you could copy an image from a trailer and upload it, it had to have been found somewhere online, but he doesn't say where. It seems to me these two images are screenshots and neither one of them adds to the understanding of the article. Isn't the image of the film's poster enough? I'm very confused by a lot of the image rules but in this case I think I'm right. Thank you in advance for your help. LargoLarry (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For U.S. works before the 1970s, copyright laws were different, requiring things to be specifically registered for a copyright to go into effect, and then they had to be renewed to remain in effect. Apparently many U.S. film trailers from that era are out of copyright. If you're unsure of how an image is sourced or the copyright claim, I reccomend starting off by asking the uploader. I notice the two images you're refering to are on Wikimedia Commons; if you think the copyright claim may be false for an image on Wikimedia Commons, Commons:Deletion requests is the place to list them. Does this answer your question? Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are newcomers supposed to learn when administrators don't answer their questions? LargoLarry (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about my delay in responding to you, sorry. The time I have on Wikipedia varies. Questions which I don't have a quick answer for off the top of my head may not be responded to as quickly as ones which I do. If you have something in need of quick attention from any admin, I suggest Wikipedia:Administrators notice board and associated pages. If you're talking about something else, could you please explain what the problem is? Thanks much. Infrogmation (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Six Flags New Orleans issue

Why did you delete my edit? In the Renewed Interest section, it clearly states that investor Southern Star Amusements has lost interest in reviving the park. Besides, although the company may have taken another look with the park, it seems that it is now impossible to revive it. -- ROT9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

You changed one word, it seemed to me inaccurately, so I changed it back, and explained why in the edit summary [1]. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I only took a preliminary look of the information, and yet they still have some interests in the park. Cheers, ROT9 (talk)--RuleOfThe9th (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

I hate to ask here, but since I can't ask there, would you take a look at my Commons account? Altairisfar _talk 14:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a preliminary look. Your edit was indeed inappropriate, but given your history of constructive edits an indef block does seem to me quite harsh. I'm going to ask the blocking admin for feedback, and will look at the situation in more detail in a bit. Infrogmation (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've shortened the block to one week; see your talk page on Commons. I'm giving you the benifit of a doubt that your edit was a momentary loss of temper. However it seems to me that User:High Contrast really was personally offended, which is a reaction a good number of people will have if they think profanities are directed towards them. High Contrast was willing to accept a shorter block, but recommended it be "one month, or at least 2 weeks". Infrogmation (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Altairisfar _talk 23:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guatemala

You have changed information from Guatemala's page that I've edited. Why? [2] --Cancuen (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The English was very bad. Some was almost nonsense. I don't think "Everspring" and "Independency" are even words in English. If you do not speak the language well, please say your changes on the talk page, Talk:Guatemala. Spanish is OK on the talk page, someone can translate. Thank you. Saludos, Infrogmation (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Revill

I saw that you were the first user with a username to have edited Clive Revill. He is a good actor and worthy of an article in WP. However, since he is an old man, I fear that the notability guidelines may preclude him. I am discussing on the Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) page about possible optional objective criteria. The usual subjective criteria would remain. However, if Clive Revill were ever threatened with deletion, having objective criteria may save him. After all, he is an old man whom young teenagers probably haven't heard of and wouldn't mind killing him off Wikipedia. Finding a recent article on him is probably difficult since he is so old, well before the internet age.

People familiar with Clive Revill's work know that he has been in many, many films and in theatre. If there were an optional objective criteria, say, noting that acting in more than 25 films and/or theater productions is an optional criteria to establish notability, then Clive Revill would be assured its rightful place in this encyclopedia. People who are against having objective criteria say that we not robots and resist all objective criteria. However, having backup objective criteria is a good thing. What are your thoughts? User F203 (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no particular knowledge I can add about the subject. My only edit to the article was minor relating to Wiki-formatting years ago. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what do you think about having some optional objective criteria? I think that might save a few fights User F203 (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help Improve My Article

Can you please help improve my article so it can be notable and so i send it out to the real Wikipedia? (OMGILOVEPEAS (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Some more information might help me to know enough to answer that question. Infrogmation (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IFD

The editor who posted File:2TypeNor.jpg posted a dozen more with the same copy vio -- all of his images but one, which has a different false claim. I didn't want to just delete them myself since I've been blocking him for edit warring, and thought I might be too involved. kwami (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Johnson

Good job clarifying the Bill Johnson tangle. I agree with all of the title changes you have made. There probably are a few more notable Bill Johnsons out there in the field of Jazz.Singingdaisies (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JATP

Greetings Infrogmation! I'd just popped in at the jazz project page to request advice & as I saw your name there, I thought it might be more effective if I came straight to you (I've also just noticed you're an admin., so it couldn't be more opportune and maybe I can drag you away from your more mundane admin. tasks). Point is, I recently got involved in a revert over at the Norman Granz article and the party of the third part now seems to be making peace-pipe noises to me over at the Jatp talk page. The guy/gal obviously knows what he/she is on about re. Jatp, but I suspect, because of previous form, that he/she is not particularly IT-literate, as in an older person, and I think it's a pity to "frighten" off the newcomers if they can contribute to Wikipedia. The upshot is that I've left an unorthodox welcome on the Jatp talk page as I know he/she visits it 'cos that's where they left the message. Where do I go from here? Can you or any other friendly admin. take the matter on? Sorry for ramblin' on. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gottlieb photos

Okay, I Emailed Mr. Gottlieb, how do I confirm he gave permission to the Jazz photos of Willie "The Lion" Smith?--Morahman7vn (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC) And how do I prevent the ImageRemovalBot from deleting the re-uploaded images?--Morahman7vn (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying. It looks to me that the images were deleted for not having proper licenses. (They weren't deleted by a bot, though a bot removed the image links from articles after the images were deleted.) I see that File:Willie The Lion Smith.jpg was deleted by User:Tnxman307; you might wish to ask them for details. It looks to me that you need to have the permission on record (see Wikipedia:OTRS) including information what specific free licese the copyright holder granted, and that license needed to tagged on the images. That's my first impression of the problem; I'll look in more detail but probably won't be able to get to it until tomorrow. Thanks for your work, Infrogmation (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

An article of yours is in AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superheroes (band). Joe Chill (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the mistake. I just noticed that you only made a redirect. Joe Chill (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:StatesRecord.jpg)

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello Infrogmation - not sure if this is the way to reply to your question - I, Blake Nelson Boyd, hereby confirm that I am the owner and copyright holder of the following images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons today, September 6, 2009:

Warden Burl Cain St Francisville.jpg Leah Chase.jpg Mayor C Ray Nagin.jpg Brad Pitt 2008.jpg Brad Pitt Make it Right 2008.jpg Desmond L Venables.jpg "Tears of a Clown.".jpg Garland robinette 2008.jpg etc from my series "Louisiana Cereal." as featured on my web page blakeboyd.com

I use my fiance's e-mail and account with Wikipedia as we share a computer. Each image is attributed to me, Blake Nelson Boyd, as owner and photographer. I have model releases, signing rights to me from each individual on file for the purposes of publication.

sincerely

Blake Nelson Boyd c/o britboneBritbone (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:StatesRecord.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:StatesRecord.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. εω (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:GeorgeWJohnson.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:GeorgeWJohnson.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Club

I have just found the photos you posted of The Olympic Club. My great-grandfather was Walter J. Wright who was once the treasurer of The Olympic Club. I was so pleased to see that he was the signer of the check to Jim Corbett after he defeated Sullivan for the heavyweight championship. Can you plese let me know if there is any way I can get a sharper image of this check? Also, wondering if you can tell me any way to get more information on Walter in regard to his participation in this club. This information will mean a lot to my family. I have just returned from a trip to NOLA where I photographed places of personal interest regarding my family history. Emily Whitley eaw1@charter.net EmilyWhitley (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting! I got the images from microfilm copies of the period newspapers as mentioned on the individual image descriptions. I photographed them from microfilm at either the New Orleans Public Library or University of New Orleans Library. Yes, the Olympic Club was quite important in New Orleans history and sporting history-- I couldn't find any images of it on line so I checked some microfilm of illustrated newspapers of the era hoping to find something, and my hunch was correct. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TempleIIILintelMaudslay.jpg

I came across this file while expanding the Tikal wikipedia article and saw that you had added a note regarding its identification. According to The Ancient Maya 6th ed, Sharer & Traxler 2006, this lintel is not from Temple III at all, rather from Temple IV and depicts Yik'in Chan K'awiil. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll add that to the image description page Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest?

I'm stumped when it comes to saving Al Smith! What is your sensible solution (not suggestion)?--Tilden76 (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the link on the LOC page notes, not everything on the LOC is public domain, and that particular photo of Smith says "Rights status not evaluated" meaning the LOC staff hasn't determined the copyright status. You need to look for images that say "No known restrictions on publication" or similar phrases. Safe harbor by date for U.S. work is first published in the USA before 1923. If neither of those apply, you need a specific reason stated why it is PD -- eg, official work of a Federal agency like NASA, the WPA, the White House, etc; that the copyright has expired from non renewal (a refence showing this to be so should be included), or some other specific reason it is out of copyright. Sorry, Wikimedia policy doesn't go for "may very well be public domain, though we don't have proof one way or another". "Fair use" generally doesn't fly if there are free alternative images, even if the non-free is better quality. So I'd just reccomend not getting too attached to any image that can't be demonstrated to be PD or free licensed. With Smith we're fortunate that there are several free images on Commons that are pretty good (much better situation than with some other notable people), and there's good reason to hope that more hunting will turn up additional pix. With my years working on images in Wikimedia I think I've gained some experience and ability at figuring out the two sets of red tape that are U.S. copyright law and Wikimedia free license policy and how they interact. Feel free to ask if I might be of help with something you're having trouble figuring out. Thanks for your work! I hope this answers what your questions? Best wishes, Infrogmation (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You helped a New User

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		You were gentle and kind to a new user 2 years ago, and made a suggestion so nicely that she was encouraged to follow it. Reynardo (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carl vs. Charles

Hello there Infrogmation (is there a diminutive form?)!

I hope you can give me some advice about how/whom to approach (on) a subject that I have been putting off for some time because its prospects for long drawn-out battles (which I do not care for) scare me half to death.

Anyway, here goes:

Strong arguments have been made in the 20th and 21st centuries that the name Carl in our times has become as much an English name as Charles is and that it is an obsolete practice to use Charles when referring to royal men of Sweden, Norway and German states (all of whom are Karl or Carl at home). The arguments have gained momentum and, in my opinion, decisively persuasive motivation since King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden took office in 1973 and his court discontinued such naming for all the Swedish Carls (ref: their list of their monarchs in English) and now only ever use Carl or Karl.

I strongly feel that the main name of the en.WP articles for the Swedish kings and princes should be given as Carl. Dare I initiate such a thing, and how do you think I can try to get it done in the smoothest possible way? Regards, SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about the details to say exactly how this should be resolved. I agree that "Carl" is common in modern English, and "Karl" not so unfamiliar as to need Anglization. The Anglizing of names as "Charles" in English was common centuries ago, but this sort of thing seems to be less and less common. For historical figures where there is a large amount of literature in English calling them "Charles", I think that should at least be noted with a redirect and a mention in the article. As to moving an article from "Charles" to "Carl", I would tend to think that's fine IF there is a good amount of published material in English in the last 10 years (for example) calling them "Carl" rather than Charles. If that is still rare in English, maybe not-- Wikipedia should reflect modern scholarly usage, but not be on the cutting edge against traditions, even when a change seems more logical. I hope these observations might be of some help. I suggest a discussion on the talk pages for any relevent articles. If after a time is allowed for discussion there seems to be general consensus or lack of objection to a move, I'd be happy to help with the mechanical procedure of doing an article move. Thanks for your work. Infrogmation (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this kind and considerate reply! I have started a move request today at Talk:Charles XII of Sweden to begin with. Best regards, SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonse Mucha

Hi, Many thanks for your guidance on this, and pointing out my error re:Ivančice. Once the name to go by is agreed, I would suggest ammending Commons too. I'm still feeling my way around wikipedia a bit. Many thanks Sargentprivate (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons uploads

New data is available on users who have uploaded to commons (in bytes). You're still the top non-bot there. Raul654 (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Infrogmation (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question on BeachBoulevardGalvestonPostcard

Hi,

A reviewer recently asked me about an file you posted: File:BeachBoulevardGalvestonPostcard.jpg. You listed this as a pre-1923 public domain image but, though the postcard is not dated, the description says it was postmarked in 1943. Is this image actually legal for use?

Thanks. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As the description page indicates, it was published in the USA with no notice of copyright, thus is public domain per U.S. law. There is no claim that it predates 1923. Note the "PD-US" tag is correct. However I will change the tag to PD-US-no notice, which is more specific as to the reason why it is PD-US. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what

I got a message saying something of mine has been reverted? I didn't do anything 74.178.138.73 (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Kibology

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Kibology. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kibology. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peerless.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Peerless.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:File:Peerless.jpg)

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Society Records

I have nominated Society Records, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society Records. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:AlHirtStatue.jpg)

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Zoo Fari 22:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete that, thanks. Good to see there is a free licensed image for Hirt available. Infrogmation (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]