User talk:Springfieldohio: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:18, 1 February 2010

Hello, Springfieldohio! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! DuncanHill (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Referencing

Hi there, I noticed your contributions to Luther Alexander Gotwald. Please try and keep your writing to a neutral point of view and try and make it comprehensive. The trial seems to be an important part of this man's life, and as such information on the trial needs to be included to make the article comprehensive. All content needs to be verifiable so we need references to sentences. This means adding the external links within refernence tags. Citation templates can be used for this. Please do not introduce external links within the article text itself. If you have any questions, then please reply on my talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Your question has been answered at Wikipedia:Help desk#Adding photos to my article. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 19:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Image:Ferncliff -- King Mansion Side 5-20-07.jpg is...

You need to release the image under a free license. Read my summary of these here: User:Megapixie/CopyrightFlowChart/ImageAnyLicense. Add one of tags (like {{GFDL-self}} to the image description page. Megapixie (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:King, Col, David 4-20-07.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:King, Col, David 4-20-07.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. § Lights talk 19:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:King, Sara Jane.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:King, Sara Jane.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.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

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 17:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Ort, Samuel Pres Close.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Ort, Samuel Pres Close.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Springfieldohio (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC) I wanted to add a photo of a very public monument in a very public park, where anyone can go and take a photo of it. However, that park is a long way from where I live. I e-mailed the local historical society and asked them to e-mail a photo of that monument to me. I gave them a link to my article. They did e-mail me that photo and made a lot of commentary about the article itself. I e-mailed them back, thanked them for their comments on the article and told them I was going to add the photo to my article. I revised the article in rsponse to their comments. However, when I uploaded the photo and inserted it in the article, the photo just vanished overnight. I cannot even find in the History who removed it or when it was removed. I used as the my copyright information that it was being used with the permission of the owner, which it was. Why was that photo removed? Who removed it? What is the correct copyright designation for it to stay? Why wasn't I given a chance to defend its propriety?[reply]

Hi, what was the image you are having problems with? Was it Image:Brady, John Mounument3.JPG? DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Springfieldohio (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Yes[reply]

As far as I can see from your contributions, after you uploaded it you didn't actually insert it into any article. The image is still on Wikipedia, so if you want to include it in an article you can. DuncanHill (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Springfieldohio (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Thank you very much. I did try to reinsert the photo after it disappeared, and it did not reappear. However, after learning from you that it was still there, I tried again and this time it showed up. It was obviously something I did wrong in saving its insertion and then trying to get it to show up again when I discovered its absence. Again thank you for your very helpful advice. Unfortunately, as I am sure you know all too well, learning all the subtlties of doing this takes a while and is learned on the back of many, many mistakes.[reply]

I'm glad I was of help - you are quite right of course, learning how Wikipedia works takes a long time! DuncanHill (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about deleted image

69.210.208.233 (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC) This time there is a note in the history of the article that my image was, in fact, deleted. It says I was given 48 hours notice, but I do not see where I got that notice. Anyway, I have been interested in the subject of my article for a long time. So, a long time ago I downloaded an image of a plague to him that is on display in a public park. Unfortunately, I no longer remember where I found that image. I have had it for years. I recently went to that public park and took a lot of photos (two of which I used as photos I had taken myself, which I did), but I did not take a photo of that plaque, because I already had one. Since this plaque is on dispay in a public place, is there any aceptable justification whereby I can upload it again and insert it into my article? If so, what is it? It would make a nice addition to the article, if there is some way I can use it.[reply]

Springfieldohio (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC) This time there is a note in the history of the article that my image was, in fact, deleted. It says I was given 48 hours notice, but I do not see where I got that notice. Anyway, I have been interested in the subject of my article for a long time. So, a long time ago I downloaded an image of a plague to him that is on display in a public park. Unfortunately, I no longer remember where I found that image. I have had it for years. I recently went to that public park and took a lot of photos (two of which I used as photos I had taken myself, which I did), but I did not take a photo of that plaque, because I already had one. Since this plaque is on dispay in a public place, is there any aceptable justification whereby I can upload it again and insert it into my article? If so, what is it? It would make a nice addition to the article, if there is some way I can use it.[reply]

Hi again, if you mean Image:Brady's plaque.jpg, I can't see where you were given warning either! I think the best thing to do is to ask at [[ Wikipedia:Media copyright questions where there are volunteers who specialize in this kind of question. DuncanHill (talk) 07:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Springfieldohio (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks. I did that. They list "fair use" as a justification, but it never seems to be acceptable when I try to use it. It will interesting to see what they say.[reply]

Springfieldohio (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC) There is a note on this article that says it relies on a "self published source." The article has two references to the writings of Belle Swope, who wrote a lot about this church in 1905. I am not a member of this church. I have never been in this church. I do not even live anywhere close to this church. I do not cite any source I wrote. The article says nothing about its present day activities, other than the fact that it is still there. I did make a link to the church's web site, but that web site was not my primary source of information about it. The Belle Swope historical books were. My principal interest in this church is that it was attended by historical figures Major John Brady, Captain Samuel Brady and Major General Hugh Brady. Further, the parents of John Brady and the grandparents of Samuel and Hugh Brady are buried in the cemetery there. The church has its own historical signficance, because its 1736 founding makes it one of the oldest churches in central Pennsylvania. There are only two substantive references, because it is a short article.[reply]

What do I have to do to get that "self published" note off of this article?

DYK

On 27 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Ward King, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Well done! You don't often find a newbie landing a dyk! Americasroof (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to David Ward King has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Miquonranger03 (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:King, Mary Wylie Widow 1920.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:King, Mary Wylie Widow 1920.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 14:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the source as being my personal family photo album. I own the photo. I released it to the public domain. Does that solve the problem? This is a 1920 photo. The lady in the photo died in 1945, more than 50 years ago. Does that solve the problem?

Springfieldohio (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste the license you have at Image:David Ward King c.1915.jpg. They get picky if there's any leeway. Americasroof (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Does that solve the problem?

Springfieldohio (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should do it. They get nervous if there's no license template. Americasroof (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The licensing has changed a little. I'm not quite sure how to cover it. They are asking specifically who took the photo (it used to be simply if it was published before 1920. All of your photos may run into trouble). You might ask the help desk. Americasroof (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put the published before license. See if that works. They get picky now that it's been flagged. That would probably be a better license to upload your photos.Americasroof (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I very much appreciate your help.

Springfieldohio (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Horton photo

Possibly unfree Image:HORTON.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:HORTON.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Audemus Defendere (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note on the PUI page - I tagged this so someone more hostile to its use wouldn't. I hope to get good info back from the UMKC site. In the meantime, you obviously have several books on the topic. If you can find copyright info from them on the photo (if it's used in them), and contribute that info to the PUI entry, that would be useful. Also, if you can cite us to other books or websites using the pic, there could be a case made for abandonment into the public domain. And don't worry, with the note I put on there, it won't likely be deleted anytime soon, at least not until I update with a reply from UMKC. Also, as to the possiblity of fair use, it might help if you can detail reasons there are no other pictures out there. Do you know of one taken or published before 1923? Audemus Defendere (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick progress. I heard back from someone at UMKC. He thinks the photo was used in Dan Carter's 1969 book. If you have a copy, see what it says about the photo's copyright or permission. He also thinks it may be in the collection of trial photos at the Decatur Public Library. If they seem to have the copyright, maybe you can get them to follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT. Or, if the picture is owned by the Judge's surviving next of kin, they can do the WP:CONSENT procedure. As another alternative, has the photo been used in the Carter book and other publications without clear identification that a rightholder has reserved rights? (e.g., "Used with permission of Decatur Public Library" or "Used with permission of Horton children.") If we don't do one or more of the above, sooner, rather than later, some copyright ayatollah (who may or may not know what she or he is talking about) will want to do a speedy delete. That's why I interposed a tag in the first place. Audemus Defendere (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not upload that image. It appears in the article for Judge Horton and seems to have survived inspection there. I just used it. Before you delete it, I suggest you take a look at the Judge Horton article and give the author of that article the chance to defend that photo. I cannot. I do not have any idea where it came from, other than what the person who uploaded it has to say.

Let me observe that there are all kinds of photos pertaining to that trial readilly available on the internet without any kind of copyright notice. I have resisted the strong temptation to use them, because I do not like to defend photos. Any idea how using some of those photos without copyright notices might be justified? The only photos I have used are ones that I took myself of Scottsboro today. However, those are certainly a very poor substitute for the wealth of stunning photos that appear in every account of that trial I have seen, except this one.

Springfieldohio (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Wittenberg Presidents House

I am 100% sure the picture you had was of the second house, which is not the presidents house, and indeed is a house of a Witt employee. The presidents house is on the corner, and more information can be found on the presidents house, including pictures at this site: [1]12.171.239.226 (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fair use photos of public buildings

Hi,

Sorry you where not properly notified, but I'm afraid you are mistaken. If you take a second look at the upload form you will find that "Fair use image of existing building" is listed under "Unacceptable fair use" and that the template text that come up says the image uploaded with that justification will be deleted within 48 hours. Why have that option at all you might ask? Well unfortunatley a lot of people upload images without reading all the relevant policies first so by having it as an option we can at least filter out such images rater than have them misrepresented as something else. The reason behind this is that Wikipedia is a free content project. Non-free material is only allowed when there are no other options available and in the case of public buildings the obvious option is to have someone take a new photo of the building and have it relased under a free license (even if it's not an option for you to take such photos the posibility for someone to do so exist). As to it beeing taken from a uncopyrighted website I'm not sure what site you refeer to since there is no source info on the image page (another reason for speedy deletion), but I did a bit of searching and looking at for example http://www.judicial.state.al.us/supreme.cfm it clearly says "©1999 - 2008 Alabama Judicial System Online", so that seems copyrighted to me. Same for sites that might have been the source for the other image (things like "Copyright © 2008 Iowa Judicial Branch"). Besides even if there was no copyright notice on the page you used remember that by law everyting is copyrighted by default unless explicitly stated otherwise these days. One exception is works by the Federal US government, but local state governments and courts are not part of the federal government and generaly do retain copyright on their works. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Non-free content for more details. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I confess you have a better eye for copyright notices than I do. I also apologize for asking the question on the help page without giving you a chance to respond. I was so sure I was right. Here is why I thought I was right. The last time I ran into this problem of a photo of a public place (a plague displayed in a public park) and put it up as a question on the help page, the consensus was that photos of public places cannot be copyrighted and thus can be used. Is there anything to that justification in this case?

14:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A sufficiently straight on photo of a plaque might be close enough to a straight copy of the plaque to not attract a seperate copyright on the photo itself, and while IANAL I'm not aware of any laws saying photos of public places can not be copyrighted. Not sure about the details of the discussion you mention, but I think they might have meant that the architecture itself not beeing copyrighted. However the photo will be copyrighted by the photographer, so if you didn't take the photo yourself you need to get the photographers permission before you can release their photo under a free license. --Sherool (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now I know. Won't do it again.

Springfieldohio (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Caldwell, Hamlin.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Caldwell, Hamlin.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 04:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 72.90.66.94 (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brown, Joel Bascom.jpg and File:Knight, Thomas.jpg have the same problem. Source information is needed so that the license can be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.66.94 (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That photo was taken in the 1930s. Jessie Cave and her cousin, Daisy Caldwell included it their uncopyrighted Caldwell family geneaolgy which they wrote in 1959 and contributed to a number of libraries. It was clearly released to the public domain before 1978.

Springfieldohio (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Williams, G. Mennen.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:Williams, G. Mennen.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Williams, G. Mennen.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:Williams, G. Mennen.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Williams, G. Mennen.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:Williams, G. Mennen.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to say that I do not know what the problem is. I went through and covered every fair used criteria I could find. to be thorough, I did some more looking found a few more and added them. I also added a link to the article on Governor Williams where I had added it and which article discusses that photo. Did any of that solve the problem? If not, please let me know what is lacking and I will do my best to correct it. I am doing my best to do this right.

Springfieldohio (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

18:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Jetmore

Thanks for your edits to Jetmore: no complaints about the nice new history segment. It's really too big for the intro, so I've separated it into its own section.

However, please don't characterise my edits as vandalism — you're surely aware that I removed it because I believe that it was unacceptable due to sourcing. Whether or not I should have done that, it plainly didn't fit the definition of vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It was a knee jerk reaction when I say everything I had posted had been deleted without any chance to defend it. I have been contributing extensively to the article on the Scottsboro Boys and every other day someone deletes huge portions of it or adds a bunch of four letter words somewhere. Undoing those in that article has gotten to be like weeding a garden. After I reversed your edit, I read it more closely and saw why you had done it. That is when I cleaned up my authority for the posting. My reason for my original link to that Jetmore forum is that there is a lot more about him there, which I thought was interesting. Having said all that, I think you should have challenged that authority for the posting on the discussion page, which would have given me a chance to defend it or clean it up, rather than just summarily deleting it. My two cents worth.

I have no problem with where you moved it. In fact, I suggest you add more to that section.

Springfieldohio (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Rosa_telling_Flor.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Rosa_telling_Flor.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. feydey (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Si te casas En.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Si te casas En.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ZooFari 03:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia mentions promotional material as a proper fair use, which is what that photo was. I notice you deleted that promotional material tag. What was the problem with that tag? If that tag is not appropriate, is there any tag for it that is proper? In the meantime, I did delete it from the article, which does discuss that play. Springfieldohio (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of fair use tag

Hi. I have added a comment to the discussion page for File_talk:Leibowitz,_Samuel_&_Scottsboro_Boys_1932.jpg I think you might be using the wrong fair-use tag there. It might be that this is why STBotI complained about the Williams, G. Mennen picture too. I think you have a good reason to use the pictures, but I don't think that they are historic images as such; I think that template is intended for images which are notable in themselves. Thank you for taking the time to make the Scottsboro Boys article so comprehensive. --RolandYoung (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving me the chance to defend or change the justification for that photo. However, my lengthy contributions to that article, based on considerable knowledge of the topic, drew so much fire and so many insults, that I am no longer contributing to it. I see it has picked even more critical headers in the many months since I last looked at it. I have moved on to less contoversial topics and do not see myself contributing to that article any time in the foreseeable future. Feel free to do whatever you think is right with respect to that photo.

Springfieldohio (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:María Victoria Llamas.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:María Victoria Llamas.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. Skier Dude (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Pablo and Flor.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pablo and Flor.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. Skier Dude (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Infante, Pedro Pablo's idea 13-3-47.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Infante, Pedro Pablo's idea 13-3-47.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. Skier Dude (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Romulo Lozano Escuelita En.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Romulo Lozano Escuelita En.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. Skier Dude (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]