Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Sorry, I know nothing about this subject and do not have access to any of the sources so I am not able to help you. -- Dianna (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Request for orphaned non-free revisions deletion
Hello Diannaa! How are you? After a long gap i request you to delete the Orphaned non-revisions for the below file :
Thank you for granting a 2 week semi-protection for Vehicle registration plates of Malaysia. It is much appreciated, however inadequate it may be. :] The IP-user has not responded yet, but I will let you know if things get out of hand again in the near future.
It says that File:Coneycombodns.png is up for deletion because it doesn't have any licence. However, it also says that it was copied from Misplaced Pages. Does it have a licence on Misplaced Pages? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
No, the deleted file on en.wiki did not have a license attached either. It was deleted as an F8 by Schuminweb on November 12, 2010. -- Dianna (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I just wanted to check in case a tool had missed something during the transfer. I've sometimes seen CommonsHelper removing {{Information}} and {{PermissionOTRS}} templates, so you always need to verify the result. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I know. There's tens of thousands of them that have never been properly reviewed. You have to be an admin on this wiki to check them, as you have to be able to look inside the deleted file. -- Dianna (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
That's do-able; there's ony 503 in the category (on this wiki; probably more at the Commons). I have been going through the daily lists at User:Multichill/Free uploads and examining each photo. There's too much to do, we need more people helping in this area. -- Dianna (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I go to Special:ListFiles once in a while and check the latest 50 uploads (thereby also finding NFCC violations), but there is also a category on Commons for files uploaded using the Misplaced Pages file upload wizard, and that category also contains lots of problem files. Also, it takes more time to verify the NFCC violations than it takes to verify the free photos. More people are definitely needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Obvious sock is obvious
This user is obviously the same as this indeffed user . I thought about submitting a SPI but it's so obvious I almost don't want to bother.Volunteer Marek01:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Mr Marek. I have been editing the article, and am thus too involved now to block. Would you mind filing the SPI? Or I could do it, if you are busy. -- Dianna (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
You changed this to fair use, but Misplaced Pages only uses USA law, which uses the USA threshold of originality. We have a specific template, {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, for cases like this. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello Rapture's Sander Cohen. I reviewed the images when you posted here on April 3, and my opinion is that all of them contain non-free elements such as background pictures, icons, or both. So though the Android software is freely licensed the images were protected by copyright and were thus correctly tagged as fair use. Having so many non-free images in one article violates the fair use criteria, and that's why they were tagged and deleted. I don't agree with undeleting them, so please go ahead with DRV. -- Dianna (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Let me try to explain further. Take Special:Undelete/File:Android_4.0_on_the_Galaxy_Nexus.png: the background wallpaper here is called Phasebeam, and it was added to Android under the Apache licence here. This is just an example but the same applies to all the other backgrounds, and even Stefan2 agress with this. So that just leaves icons. Yes, there are copyrighted icons on some (not all) of these images, but it would be trivial to blank these out to create a free image similar to what they did with File:Chrome_OS_21.0.1172_Aura_Dev.png. This is why we want the images restored, to fix these minor issues. Rapture's Sander Cohen (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the awards! I do have a question though... You presented me with three, but I believe there should be five. Could you check on this please? I don't want to seem greedy, but I do have them coming, I would like to get them. If not, sorry to be a bother. Buster40004 Talk04:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Banana Fingers! Here's the details: (1) There's been no evidence presented that the logo is fan-made as claimed. (2) The logo is present on the team's Facebook page and official page, so whether it is fan-made or not has become immaterial; it's widely used and widely recognised. (3) This FFD was opened only four days after the previous discussion had ended as Keep. (4) This was the third deletion discussion for this file, all of which have ended in a Keep result. So I feel pretty comfortable that Keep was the right decision. -- Dianna (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I added the source. Hope it's okay now! I've always wanted to expand the Health section of his article. I just read the diaries of his doctor and there is so much information in there. Thismightbezach (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. David Irving is not really considered a reliable source, so I will be opening a discussion on the Hitler talk page. By the way there's really no room to expand the Hitler article as we are already at 11,314 words and the upper limit is about 10,000 words. If you have a lot of material, please consider starting a new article instead. -- Dianna (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
GFDL/GNU Free Documentation License Question
Couple of questions;
If something else has a GFDL license (say a site for example), does it mean you can copy from that site if you also have a GFDL license?
If a site changes its license to CC-BY-SA, does it mean you can take content from it before the change of its license?
So you're saying that it's okay to use some of content with GFDL license if your place has GFDL license, correct? It has to be as long as if you're writing documentation in your own words. Licensing can be confusing... Gaz and Gaming Fan (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
If you give me a specific example of what you want to do I will try to assist you. I am not going to give general legal advice on copyright matters. -- Dianna (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Say there's a wiki with the GFDL license, right? And it later changes to the CC-BY-SA license. Would it be okay to take content from the wiki in like 2006, 2007 revisions before the licensing change to CC-BY-SA like, say in, 2009. A reason is that I want to borrow some content from Wikia and take it to my wiki while I change some of the text to match the wiki's standards. The wiki I have is a Video Game Wiki on ShoutWiki under the licensing of GFDL 1.3. Wikia used to have a GFDL license until about 2009 or something. Oh and why can't you give out legal advice? I hope I said it in the best non-legal advice way possible. Gaz and Gaming Fan (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not interested in answering your legal questions, so sorry, as I am not a lawyer. Please ask your lawyer. -- Dianna (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Diannaa. You have new messages at File talk:1920 cub logo.jpg. Message added 00:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi Dianna. Can you do me a favor and send out the WP:VG newsletter again? It just needs to be the following:
== The ] Newsletter, Q1 2013 ==
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20130403}}
Our former newsletter master seems to be essentially retired, so this will probably be quarterly request. :) Thanks! —Torchiestedits02:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I wanted to notify you of a change I made to MediaWiki:Deletedtext for image deletions since I know this will affect you ... I don't know if there's anyone other than you and me that are doing a whole heckuva lot of these. 65.92.180.137 (talk·contribs) has taken to adding Wikiproject tags to images nominated for deletion, which, when you're trying to delete a large number of images gives you pointless extra mouseclicks. I have changed MediaWiki:Deletedtext so that if you are deleting an image, it does not initially hide the transcluded talk page text. That saves the mouse click of needing to either visit the talk page or show it before clicking delete. --B (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks B. By the way, if you have time, could you take a look at WP:PUF? There's old discussions dating back to January that I cannot close, either because I was the nominator or because I commented. I posted at WP:AN a few weeks ago, but nobody responded. Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated. User:Explicit used to do a lot of this work, but they suddenly quit editing in mid-February, and SchuminWeb quit in December, so yeah, there's not a lot of admins active in this field right now. Thanks, -- Dianna (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
No permission tags
Hi, I've been going through Category:Misplaced Pages files missing permission as of 24 March 2013 and I'm finding some of the tags you've made to not be in the spirit of WP:F11. Some examples: : Uploader claims copyright, you link to an external website which uses the image in your tag. Should go to WP:PUF. : Uploader claims copyright. I have no idea why you tagged this. : Uploader claims copyright, you link to an external website which uses the image in your tag. Should go to WP:PUF. : Uploader claims copyright, notes it's a "Drawing made from measurements in my laboratory". States it was published in a book, so could probably be sent to WP:PUF. Anyway, you get the idea. I don't think you should be tagging things with "no permission" that should be sent to WP:PUF for discussion. Thanks. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The tag has already been removed from File:Figures of Light First Concert Poster.jpg, as I was in conversation with the uploader, and an OTRS ticket is on the way. I can move the other ones to PUF if that's what you think is the right thing to do. I don't have time right now though, as I have to go out in half an hour and will be gone for most of the weekend. -- Dianna (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
With respect to File:Bulgarian Telecommunications Company logo.jpg, an extended discussion here reached a consensus that having one of the previous logos was acceptable. Would you mind restoring it to the Vivacom article in the "Mobile and fixed phone services" section? I mean, the consensus was that the image didn't fail the non-free content criteria. Diego (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa! I was hoping you could help me with a little issue I came across. I was wikifying this article when I noticed its use of "military time", or whatever it's called. I think it's a bit confusing to the reader, especially when reading quickly. Is there a standard way of styling these times, or is it ok to leave them as they currently are? Please advise, and thank you for your help. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I was wondering if there would be any peculiar MOS addendum for battle articles and such, but that's good to know. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Monterey Bay Area Council CSP.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Monterey Bay Area Council CSP.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The image does not need to be reviewed by a journalist; what's needed here is knowledge of copyright law, which is something I have. You have no proof that the file is in the public domain as claimed, and thus the photo was deleted. Sorry. -- Dianna (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
"The result of the discussion was: converted to Fair Use" but the file was deleted. Either the deletion or your closure comment appears to be wrong. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this? It looks like a publicity photo improperly shown as released to the public domain. I'm not sure what the procedure is for that, since it seems like it should be removed ASAP. —Torchiestedits01:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
For designing a new userbox, adding it to my userpage and then tidying things up while you were there. Thank you! Dweller (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I have had uploaded files deleted due to lack of permission, but I have forwarded the email from the author to the email address at WikiMedia as proof. Can you help in restoring these files as I do have permission to use them on Misplaced Pages. I8189720 (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi I8189720. Once the OTRS team receives and processes the email, the files will be restored by an OTRS team member. Please be patient; this process could take several weeks, as they have a backlog of material to get through. -- Dianna (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello Tommy Tipper. There were a couple of problems with the image. At first, the image did not have a non-free rationale. That was added on the 4th of April, but there's a second problem: book covers are only permitted in an article about that book, not in an article about the author. Please see the Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria and Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Copyright as places to get started on Misplaced Pages's copyright policy as pertaining to image uploads. -- Dianna (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Could you take a look?
Hey there. I randomly found Arctic Spas in the copy-edit backlog, and I just... um... did stuff to it. It ended up being more of a major rewrite/wikification/reference-hunt than a copy-edit, but I did copy-edit it, and I was wondering if you could take a look and see what you think about that (i.e. can I take the tag off'n it, please). Thanks a bunch! —Ignatzmicecontribs01:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ignatzmice. The language, MoS, etc are all nicely done. I tweeked the dashes and a few layout things. The "references" section looks like it's a duplication of everything in the online citations and can therefore be removed. You did a nice job! copy edit tag can be removed. -- Dianna (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I didn't feel like going through the References to see what I didn't need anymore, but I suppose I can just take it out, yes. As I've got everything I can in-line/online. —Ignatzmicecontribs01:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not easy to find a barnstar you don't already have. I just thought I'd stop by and give you this in appreciation of your CSD work (here and on Commons). It's nice to have someone whose noms I can comfortably click on, and not have their creator clicking on my talk to complain about it soon after. INeverCry01:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Done. -- 
Thanks for uploading 
-- 
){kind=link}
