User talk:Abigor/Archives/2009/March

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Would you please care to explain exactly why this public domain photograph was deleted? ˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

The image that was deleted didn't had a source link. A source link is very important because that is the only way for us to check it the license is correct, image without a source will be deleted after seven days.

That the person on the photo died a long time ago would not mean that the image is free. If the photo is taken by his sun or a other young person the image could still have copyright. Because its public domain 70 years after the author died, so we need a source to verify that.

Best regards,

Abigor talk 08:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

BotMultichillT 05:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Image:KruikenMoeder.JPG is uncategorized since 28 February 2009. BotMultichillT 05:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

[1] :-P --Eusebius (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

D I saw it on your page and was thinking I want that also :D Abigor talk 12:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm guilty too! :-) --Tryphon (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to refrain from using this fancy parameter I didn't know about... :-) --Eusebius (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "When I read the discussion, I would say it would fit the scope but it isn't free." Please tell me why you think that it is in scope. I think that it's out of scope, because it's not an educational file (and because it's a self-made artwork, but that's not the main reason). The question appeared why No Israel.svg has an educational value while Fighting Israel for dummies.png has not. My thoughts why the dummies derivative is out of scope: The Flag could for example be used in en:Anti-Zionism while I hardly can think of a use of Fighting Israel for dummies.png. It's not really en:Zionism and it is not really important for the lately war in Gaza. I don't know the english Wikipedia as good as the german Wikipedia, but if this image would get included in an article on the german Wikipedia I'm quite sure that it would get kicked out, because a)it adds nothing educatinal to the article b)Wikipedia is not the right place to post such kind of political views c)it does not fit the article.
--D-Kuru (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I did understand that the user wanted to use it on his userpage, and therefor I believed it could be fit in the scope. I can see some ways on the wikibooks projects where it can be in scope also.

Wikipedia isn't the place for political statements. But Wikipedia is our only project :)

Best regards,

Abigor talk 21:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that ABibot inserts an incomplete and unmotivated deletion request after a category move. It would be easier for all of us if it inserted {{Duplicate|Moved to category:xyz}}. --Foroa (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I will change that right away. Thanks for the notice. Abigor talk 08:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

see Commons:Deletion requests/images of Zetalion --Butko (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for the notice, I will respond there when I have a little bit time.

Best regards,

Abigor talk 21:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I just logged in and saw a message in my talk page saying that this images, sourced from flickr, had been deleted by you because of incompatible license.

My first thought was that it had been a oversight by me but then i remembered that i made the uploads, with several others with the same subject that have compatible licenses, using Flinfo, and that gives a warning when uploading images with incompatible licenses.

So the only explanation is that unfortunately the photographer decided in the mean time, when the flickreview robot was apparently offline, to change the license to CC-BY-NC-SA. It is a pity that i can´t prove, even with the Wayback Machine, that this images had a compatible license when i made the upload, but i understand why they had to be deleted. Respectfully Tm (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Its a shame that Flickr doesn't keep a log about the license change, It where nice photos :(

You could always try to contact the Flickr user, maybe he want to change the license again if we ask nicely.

Best regards,

Abigor talk 05:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Volgens mij kan ik geen fair use logo's uploaden. Ik zag dat je daar 'rechten' voor nodig hebt en die heb ik niet. Overigens is het beleid rond logo's niet altijd even duidelijk. Soms vallen ze onder fair use dan weer omvatten ze alleen symbolen die algemeen gebruikt worden en daarmee niet beschermd worden. Het beleid is voor mij igg niet helder. Dus laad ik ze gewoon op en zie wel of ze verwijderd worden, dat gebeurt toch willekeurig en zonder lijn ofzo. Het CPP logo uit de Filipijnen was ook weer typisch zo'n voorbeeld, het omvatte alleen algemeen gebruikte symbolen: een geweer en een hamer en sikkel, dus 'geen creatieve uiting'. Tcoh werd het verwijderd, en deze logo's File:NPA.png, File:ERP.png en File:Hong Kong ADPL Logo.svg blijven dan weer staan. Eén keer omdat het logo geen 'creatief werk' is, één keer omdat de uploader beweert dat het eigen werk is en één keer omdat het logo (dat gelijk is aan het origineel) volgens de uploader door hemzelf is nagemakt. Kortom: er is dus geen peil op te trekken. Het ligt er maar aan welke 'controleur' het oog op je laat vallen. Jij hebt blijkbaar jouw oog op mij laten vallen en controleert en verwijdert daarom uploads van mij. En dat allemaal door een schildje van de ANWB. Dat is jouw goed recht maar doet geen recht aan alle moeite die ik al heel lang doe om afbeeldingen up te loaden, maar goed. Mijn ervaring op andere projecten op Wikipedia leert mij dat als je eenmaal zo'n controleur achter je aan hebt zitten, dat zeer hinderlijk kan zijn en discussies weinig zin hebben. Oplossing: mijn account alhier opheffen en t.z.t. een nieuwe aanmaken. Verder hoop ik dat het beleid helderder wordt. Tasja (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hallo,

Als ik een plaatje van een machine geweer neem en daar een ander plaatje overheen plakt kan je natuurlijk nooit zeggen dat het geen creative uiting is, het logo is daardoor gewoon beschermd met auteursrecht en als u vervolgens het logo namaakt houd dat niet in dat het vrij is. Daarbij wil ik er nadrukkelijk op wijzen dat ik u niet in de gaten houdt, ik ben dagelijks bezig met het controleren van nieuwe afbeeldingen en daar komen ook jouw afbeeldingen langs. Indien u het niet eens bent verzoek ik u langs te gaan op COM:UNDEL, Ik zal dan ook mijn mening daar geven en kan een niet betrokken administrator een beslissing nemen. Daarbij staat het nomineren van de twee wapenschildjes helemaal kop van deze nominatie.

Ik kan volkomen begrijpen dat u het zonde van u tijd vind als de afbeeldingen hier op Commons verwijderd worden, alleen het beleid is kwa logos heel duidelijk: Text logo's in een normaal type letters zijn publiek domein evenals logos met simpele vormen, een hamer met een maan met daar achter een machine geweer valt in mijn ogen niet onder simpel. Een makkelijke regel kan zijn : als je het logo binnen 5 minuten kan namaken in een editprogramma is voldoende om het in het publiek domein te plaatsen..

Aangezien ik nog steeds achter mijn verwijdering sta wacht ik het verzoek om COM:UNDEL af.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Abigor talk 08:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How? We're implementing a new system that will allow users to ask for assistance in judging the status of an uploaded work. ViperSnake151 (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know about a new system but the problem was that somebody on IRC told that this template was placed on images without a license, but it doesn't put the images in a category so the could stay on Commons for ever. I have no problems with withdrawing the nomination, but could the template place the images in a category like no permission and no license.. So the will not stay on Commons for ever...

Best regards,

Abigor talk 12:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Abigor, If you have the time, please see if you can mark these images. There is even 1 by Kanonkas of a model:

• File:Shiraz Botanical Garden.jpg
• File:Federer 2009 Australian Open.jpg
• File:Frederick Albion Ober, The Cathedral, Monterrey.jpg
• File:Janne Nielsen.jpg
• File:Golestan palace.jpg
• File:Pyramid Tower Sydney 01.jpg

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I have those images, did you ever thinked about becoming a trusted user yourself? I believe its easy for you to review the images your self :)

The backlog is huge so all help is needed, I did 250 yesterday and 100 this morning and there are still 600 images waiting....

Best regards,

Abigor talk 12:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• I thought about becoming a trusted user but I am very uncertain about Common's procedures...which is why I often contact Lupo. I also have a job in real life and am busy (like everyone else) As an Aside, I did contact Bidgee (a trusted user) and he marked some images too in the backlog here...which were not on my list to him. The list I compile above are always licensed freely and are good pictures...not p*rn or unencyclopedic. Thank You for your help Abigor. It is always appreciated. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand how you think, we are all busy in our lives and trying to keep Commons on of the best volounteer projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. If you don't think you have the time for trusted user you don't need it, like now we have a lot of trusted users but only a few are really active. Its a shame people ask and voulonteer to help with reviewing and when it is most needed not help.

If you ever change your mind and want to become a trusted users, you will have my complete support. Until then feel free to always step by to ask images to get reviewed. I am busy in my normal life also, but I will always try to help you and others that need help as soon as possible.

Best regards,

Abigor talk 21:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Today you notified a brazilian user so I felt free and did this portuguese version. I hope there is no problem. And if you have other templates and want me to translate them to portuguese just ask me. Cheers! Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much :D Abigor talk 05:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hola Abigor, las fotografías: Rebollar en invierno1.jpg, Rebollar en invierno2.jpg, Rebollar en invierno3.jpg, Rebollar en invierno4.jpg, Rebollar en invierno5.jpg y Troncos de melojo1.jpg que me has retirado cuentan con el permiso y la autorización de su autor Vicente Miquel Llop Molés que es mi amigo. Así consta en un email que os envié donde me dá su permiso para utilizarlas en Wikipedia. --MambaVerde (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Yes I see that the license on Flickr have changed, I will restore them. :)

Best regards,

Abigor talk 05:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Abigor. Thank you, but also pendents restored: Rebollar en invierno4.jpg and Troncos de melojo2.jpg. Thank you again. --MambaVerde (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Abigor talk 21:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was going through Category:Copyright violations when I came across this image, which you tagged as a copyvio; but later, you reviewed it on flickr and tagged it as okay. So I don't know which is right (it is cc-nc-sa right know on flickr, but it might have changed since you reviewed it). I commented out the copyvio tag to avoid it being deleted before you had a chance to look into it. Thanks. --Tryphon (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha, that image is hunting me for the last two days :)

First the image was all rights reserver on Flickr and I tagged it as Copyvio and deleted it, after that the user came to my talkpage (see the header above) and the license where changed in a free license that could be used on Commmons, So I undeleted all five of them. I think I forgot to remove the Copyvio tag and therefor you saw it as Copyvio, thank you for removing the tag :)

Abigor talk 03:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I didn't even notice it was part of the files discussed above. Thanks for the explanation. --Tryphon (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Can this image of Kiefer Sutherland either be approved by you ...or deleted:

• File:Kiefer Sutherland2.JPG ? It is not used on wiki I notice. But the copyright is certain because it is actually a crop of this image which passed flickr review: File:Kiefer Sutherland.JPG As usual...some people on flickr don't like their images used on Commons and they delete them. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done I tagged it as reviewed. Abigor talk 12:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. This is the first time I came across a situation like this where another approved image exists. So, I don't know what to do. Thank you for including the oher image of K. Sutherland in it. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Abigor,

the situation probably won't arise again, but I though magazine covers were covered by fair use policy as long as the article cited or reviewed the subject. I wasn't sure at the time anyway, but if you can share a little detail I would appreciate it.

Thanks, Psuedomorph (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I think your right about the fair use policy but the fair use policy isn't allowed on Commons. If you want to use fair use you have to do it on the English Wikipedia. I don't really know all about the policys on En.wiki but you could ask Kanonkas he is a English Wikipedia administrator and he can answer your quistions about fair use better than me.

Best regards,

Abigor talk 20:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Staat nu op User:Abigor/Editnotice. Elke gebruiker kan het nu doen. Multichill (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hoi,

Bedankt, ik was ook van plan om dat te doen je was me alleen voor. Bedankt voor het aanpassen van de MediaWiki pagina en het verplaatsen van mijn editnotice. Abigor talk 20:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

here when you have time. Thank you, Anrie (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I did notice it on my watchlist before you posted the message here. I moved the page to Kaapstad but I didn't remove the move-protection, I need to be sure that there will be no move war again. I am sure you understand.

Best regards,

Abigor talk 21:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Anrie (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I heard a while back that you had some concerns about my behavior one day? I've been trying to reach you for a while now, but you have always been offline when I tried. Might we set up some time to talk, by any chance? NuclearWarfare (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I will try to contact you when I am on IRC. I am a little bit busy the last week, I wasn't that much at home and spend a lot of time traveling around.

Best regards,

Abigor talk 05:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I notice you deleted all images listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan. I and other commenters there noted that the situation seemed not to be identical for all images, including stating that File:X-Files Dana Scully Cosplay.jpg seemed not to violate any copyright. I have therefore filed an undeletion request for that image at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:X-Files_Dana_Scully_Cosplay.jpg. Thank you for your attention. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded there. Abigor talk 15:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

you have substed a couple of GFDL 1.2-only templates on his uploads prior to Jan 15th. These should be corrected to plain GFDL. Thanks for taking care of that issue nonetheless. --Dschwen (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ow thanks for the notice, I think I fixed all of them now :) Abigor talk 19:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You guys have created a mess. I would appreciate if I was informed before people barging in on my personal templates. The image pages are cluttered and so much more difficult to edit, with all the contents of my original templates being pasted there. I have created a template with plain GFDL here and GFDL 1.2 only template here and I expect the mess to be cleared --Muhammad 07:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, We didn't make a mess, we fixed the mess you made. I will try to explain. You had two license templates one in your userspace with a cc-by-sa license and one in the template space with gfdl, because that is a personal template it is moved to your userpage. The main problem is that you are not allouwed to change the license after you uploaded the images and all your images before 15-01-2009 where under the license gfdl after that date you changed it in gfdl-1.2 and that is okay but non of your templates where subst: so on the moment you changed your template you changed the license for all your images and that is not allouwed. So I subst all your image from the period that your template was gfdl in the old version. And the other in gfdl-1.2. I didn't change anything, I only placed the old license back. (You can't revoke a license.) Abigor talk 08:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the currently cluttered image pages. I'm sorry I was pretty harsh with my comment above but I was quite pissed :( Could you please substitute the current clutter with the appropriate new personal templates I have created? --Muhammad 11:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That I had to fix 205 beautifull images wasn't making me very happy also, if I look at File:2009 Anti Israel Protest Tanzania.JPG I think the templates look very nicely under the description template (I first tryed to paste it in the description template but that doesn't work) But I don't think I am going to place 205 time a extra text above the template :( We could better ask somebody with a bot or awb. It took me 2 hours the first time, I am not going to do them all again knowing it will take 2 hours again. Abigor talk 16:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? Its a work like this. --Oltau (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

You can't just take a picture from other photos, because you are now releasing the rights from a photo that has other photos on it, you don't have the rights from the other images so you can not release them. Derivative work is the name for that. I have nominated the other file for deletion also.

Best regards,

Abigor talk 18:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wie ich oben sehe, sprichst Du auch deutsch. Das Foto stammt von Sarang. Ich habe es nur bearbeitet. Die kleinen Fotos sind Beiwerk auf einer Karte des GR 221 und befinden sich auf einer öffentlichen Informationstafel. Sind sie damit nicht „public domain“? Gruß, --Oltau (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I gonna react in English I hope you don't mind. The question is: Is the billboard there permanently or is is temporary, Because it will be free is it is there permanently. (There where some difficult words in here I couldn't do in German so my english reaction) Abigor talk 19:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Is o.k. ;-) , Sarang can give the answer ... --Oltau (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Undeletation request. Hello, I notice you deleted all images listed at Idalberto Chiavenato. I work at Instituto Chiavenato de Educação and i'm doing a job for this institution. My name is Lucas Chiavenato (lucas@chiavenato.com.br). Please, i'm asking you to keep this images in this article. Sorry about my english, i'm from Brazil and not so well in english. Thanks.

Hello,

I can't undelete the images right away because we need to verify that you have really the rights to make those images free, please remember that your images are now free to be used by everyone for personal or commercial use and that the permission cant be revoked.

The are some things you need to do before we can undelete the images:

Please send a email to OTRS with the announcement that you are releasing the rights from the images, its very important that you do that with a email address that can be verifyed as a company address. After your done with that you will get a email back from our OTRS team telling you that everything is okay and that the images will be undeleted, or the ask for more information.

Please note that you can email to OTRS in your own language, it doesn't need to be in English.

I hope you understand,

Abigor talk 19:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i just send and e<-mail as requested for the OTRS. My e-mail is: @chiavenato.com, so i belivie they can verifyed as a company address. Sorry about these problems. I'm "fish" here in wikipedia, so i don't know some things, mainly in pictures. One more question: i need to send an e-mail for each image i wanna put in this article, or one e-mail is enough?

Hello,

One email is enough for all images, but please wait with uploading untill you get a respond back.

Best regards,

Abigor talk 20:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. Have a nice day!

Your welcome Abigor talk 20:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It is somewhat impolite May I have had to undelete a file that was ostensibly properly closed without giving a few hours for the closing admin to comment. -- 10:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you are going to be consistent, are you going to undelete everything from Commons:Deletion requests/2009/03/05 that wwas transcluded into the "ready for deletion" section? -- Avi (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't take this personal. There was a undelete reqeust because there was more discussion needed, there was also support for te undeletion. So I undelete it so the discussion could continu for some time. It has nothing to do with your closing. See my first reaction in the undeletion reqeust. Abigor talk 10:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Understood. By the way, the request on COM:UNDEL was closed (I restored the tags before Tryphon edited). It must have been an edit conflict. -- Avi (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Op welke grond heb je deze verwijderd? Er was een duidelijke discussie richting keep aan de gang en zelfs Mike Godwin geeft aan dat deze foto's geen inbreuk zijn op het auteursrecht. Multichill (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

De verwijdering was op basis van inhoudelijke argumenten in de discussie, daarnaast heb ik de tekst uit de email van mike ernaast gehouden, overlegd en toen besloten om het te sluiten als verwijderd. Dit mede met de reden dat afgeleid werk en copyvio niet precies hetzelfde zijn. Daarbij heeft de tekst uit de email maar een beperkte waarde aangezien het uit zijn verband getrokken kan zijn. Maar zoals ik gisteren al op irc aangaf voel vrij om de verwijdering ongedaan te maken indien je denkt dat het een foute is. Abigor talk 11:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Het is meer dat je een gevaarlijk precedent schept. Die AnimeFan had weer een hele hoop plaatjes op de speedy delete gegooid. Op het laatst mag ik geen foto meer maken van iemand in een zwart pak omdat dat dan teveel op James Bond lijkt ;-) Multichill (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ik was me niet helemaal bewust dat ik nu een gevaarlijk precedent schep, maar je hebt gelijk. Abigor talk 16:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Commons talk:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I already responded in the undeletion request. Thank you, Abigor talk 05:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You said, "bad quality is no good reason for deletion..."

Um, ok. Well according to COM:D, "Redundant or low quality files only get deleted on a case by case basis after they are listed at Commons:Deletion requests. At deletion requests you will need to provide reasons why a particular file is inferior to the alternative version. If it is agreed that the image should be deleted after the normal time for discussion at Deletion Requests has passed you will need to replace all instances where the image is used with the superior file." (emphasis mine)

Commons policy says bad quality is a reason for deletion. Plus, you closed the DR after one other person voted. It must be nice to make up your own policy when you're a sysop. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I am not creating my own policy, we host here free images so the can be used on any Wikimedia Foundation project and on many other internet pages. Its not up to a Commons users or a Commons administrator to decide if a wiki can use a image, all 700 wikimedia projects have a own community and can decide for them self it the need a image or not. Deleting one images because there is one better image will mean that we decide what images will be used on a project. The image is free and that is most important. If the image was a duplicate or almost similar to the other image I can understand that you want to delete it, this is a complete other image. We are here to make a image database not to destroy free images.

Best regards,

Abigor talk 23:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why you deleted this. The file - [2] - is marked "All sizes of this photo are available for download under a Creative Commons license." - [3], which is this one: [4] - which states that "You are free: to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work" Under the following conditions: "Attribution. You must give the original author credit." and "Non-Commercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes." This conditions were met. Your deletion stated "non commercional", which I assume means that you felt that by using the photo on Wikipedia it was somehow breaking the Non-Commercial rule. As Wikipedia is a non-commercial site, I am not clear on your thinking. SilkTork (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

All images on Wikimedia Commons need to be free for commercial use. (See Commons licensing) And when you look on this flickrpage you can see that there is a dollar sign what is used to say that the image isn't free for commercional use. When you click on the sign you get this page, on that page you can read the image isn't free for commercial use.

You are right that Wikimedia isn't commercial but all images here can be used for commercial purpose, that is something that makes Wikipedia and all other project so great. But that is also the reason why we can't allow non commercial images.

I hope you understand my anser, when you still need help please ask again.

Abigor talk 13:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I see it now. SilkTork (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, feel free to come back when you have other questions. Abigor talk 13:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Abigor -- sorry I'm new at uploading photos. What more do I need to add to make the image Theodore-kaczynski-portrait.jpg have a proper source? It is public domain from the FBI. Thanks for your help Jrtayloriv (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

A proper source is very simple to get. I believe you found the image on a internetsite owned by the FBI. If you give a direct link to the pages where you have the image from you give us a way to verify the license..

If you need any help just asked,

Abigor talk 10:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually -- I found it on a site that had the photo along with photos sourced from the FBI -- I didn't look carefully enough, and assumed this was too. The image is copyrighted, so feel free to delete it. Sorry for the hassle.Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I will delete the image, no problems by me. We are all humans and I am sure we all make mistakes. Keep up the good work. Abigor talk 22:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't bite anonymous editors. It is not commons policy, as far as I know, to block anons from editing; especially when they are adding interesting information to their own or a friend's userpage. If i have missed important relevant policy, please point me to it. And if you are going to revert good-faith edits to someone's userpage, please do not delete them. +sj + 20:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for your message, it made me think about it. :)

I don't really believe I was trying to bite a newbie. I see a ip user create a userpage with a little bit of text, but I can't see if the ip user is also the user that ownes the userpage so I decided to delete the page with the notice please do again logged in..

If I wasend assuming Good Faith I could have choose to warn the ip or block him, but I used assume good faith in my eyes when I deleted the page, placed a welcome template on the talk page of the user account.

But could you please point to me where I did block a ip user for a good faith edit? I use the block button I think less that once in the week and used it 25 times in 3 months, I really hate blocking users. If I blocked a ip user for a good faith edit I will unblock him right away.

Best regards,

Abigor talk 21:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why have you removed this file? It of 1919 that is PD-old. Сдобников Андрей (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my Russian reading is non-existing, but here's the case: the uploader uploaded a lot of pictures that where unfree and apparently he agreed on the deletion of all his pictures here. Any idea if more of his stamps are considered PD-old in Russia? We can restore them. Ciell (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry. Yes, I believe there were some other images that contained PD tags:

1. File:Ukraine rizn001.jpg
2. File:Ukraine rizn002.jpg
3. File:Ukraine rizn003.jpg
4. File:Ukraine rizn004.jpg
5. File:Ukraine rizn005.jpg
6. File:Ukraine rizn006.jpg
7. File:Ukraine rizn007.jpg
8. File:Ukraine rizn008.jpg
9. File:Ukraine rizn009.jpg
10. File:Ukraine rizn010.jpg
11. File:Ukraine rizn011.jpg
12. File:Ukraine rizn013.jpg
13. File:Ukraine rizn014.jpg
14. File:Ukraine rizn015.jpg
15. File:Ukraine rizn016.jpg
16. File:Ukraine rizn017.jpg
17. File:Ukraine rizn018.jpg
18. File:Ukraine rizn019.jpg
19. File:Ukraine rizn020.jpg
20. File:Ukraine rizn021.jpg
21. File:Cover Russia 001.jpg
22. File:Cover Russia 002.jpg
23. File:Cover Russia 003.jpg
24. File:Cover Russia 004.jpg
25. File:Cover Russia 005.jpg
26. File:TUVA Nadpechatki124.jpg

Can you also restore these files, please?

Additionally, there were some other files that contained PD tags, but I have to look at them again at first:

1. File:Post Stamp HONG KONG.jpg
2. File:Post Stamp Nantes.jpg
3. File:Post Stamp Nelson.jpg
4. File:Post Stamp Egypt.jpg
5. File:Timor.jpg
6. File:Newfoundland.jpg
7. File:Post Stamp iZALCO.jpg
8. File:Victoria FALLS.jpg

Thank you. --Michael Romanov (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done sorry for the trouble. Abigor talk 23:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's VERY kind of you. I am so pleased to collaborate with you. All files but File:Post Stamp Nelson.jpg and File:Post Stamp Nantes.jpg are PD tagged. So, please feel free to delete the latter two files. Appreciating your assistance, --Michael Romanov (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

@Abigor: Are you sure about this? Stamps are not exempt from copyright in Ukraine or Russia (let alone postcards), and although one could argue that a few of them show state symbols (and are thus exempt from copyright), most of them certainly are copyrighted. And we still have no date for most of them. As an example, I sincerely doubt this is PD. –Tryphon^☂ 23:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

 Keep. I agree with Michael Romanov. Just look at this and this. Stamps of Russia and Ukraine are in PD as a subjects of government authorities. Nickpo (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Tryphon I don't know a lot about post stamps and deleted it because [[user:Ciell|Ciell asked me, If you think those files are not free could you please make a Deletion Request? I deleted yesterday 300 stamps because people told me the where unfree, I undeleted 36 and now deleted 2 again. It starting to look like a wheelwar with myself. So you probely know more about those stamps than me, so you can make a better deletion request than me :)

Nickpo: Hello, welcome op my talk page, its not a vote here about the images, are the free the can stay are the unfree the have to go.

Best regards,

Abigor talk 05:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, here it is: Commons:Deletion requests/Stamps by Anizotropia. I think the Ukraine stamps are okay, but Michael, you should use {{PD-Ukraine}} instead of {{PD-UA-exempt}} or {{PD-old}}. –Tryphon^☂ 08:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• :@Abigor: Thanks you for cooperation.
• :@Tryphon: Excuse, so you well know the legislation of Russia and Ukraine what to doubt?

According to the Federal law of the Russian Federation from 07.07.2003 N 126-FZ "About communication" the stamp is the state sign on post payment.

According to article 1259 to point 6 of the Civil code of the Russian Federation the state signs are not objects of copyrights. Сдобников Андрей (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't pretend I know everything about Russian law, I'm just saying it's not an obvious situation. Anyway, in this case, the scan shows the whole postcard, and I don't think a postcard is a state symbol. –Tryphon^☂ 08:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC) PS.: Please comment on the DR instead of here.

What Andrei wanted to say is that there is a difference between state symbol and state sign. Let's continue this discussion here. --Michael Romanov (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for agreeing to take this on. However, unless I've missed something, it looks like you forgot to then implement the change. Was there a problem? Best regards, --skeezix1000 (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I forgot to save the change. It should be fixed now. Thanks for the notice. Abigor talk 13:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Abigor. Thank you for renaming my video so fast! I'll try to pay more attention next time. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Your welcome :)

You know if you ask a rename on my user talk it can be even much faster :)

Best regards,

Abigor talk 19:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Abigor, how are you? I don´t think you remember me, but there is little time you delete some images that I posted because I had not the license to publish, even worked at the brazilian author in question (Idalberto Chiavenato). I sent an email to <<<permissions-commons-pt@wikimedia.org>>> as requested, but not yet received reply. I wonder if I can go publishing images like that? I would enrich the article of Professor Chiavenato and i can´t do that because everyone delete images I post. Can you help me? Thanks and have a great afternoon!

Hello,

I remember :) I think it is for the best that you wait until you have a answer from our OTRS team, otherwise your images will be deleted again. But if you really want to upload it there is a way. You can upload your files on Commons but please make sure you paste this: {{OTRS-pending}} on it. That way it can stay on Commons until you receive a answer.

Best regards,

Abigor talk 19:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A little bird told me you were disappointed that I did not send thankspam after my successful RfA, so I want to thank you personally, as I thank everyone else. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i am kind of new to this and i need a little help. I work for SouthPeak Games aka SouthPeak Interactive and I wanted to put our logo up on our site. I had attempted to this once but i believe i didn't fill out the form correctly. How should i fill out the form when it asks me about the licensing and so on? Thank you for your help and i look forward on hearing from you. ~ Fa1thus

Hello,

Thank you very much for your interest to upload images on Commons.

We have a clear policy about logos on Commons so you can't just upload a images, before you can upload it you have to send a email to OTRS saying your name and function within the company and saying that you have permission to release the logo into a free license. It is off course important that you email with a company address so our OTRS team can verify that you really work for the company. When you have emailed it you will receive a answer and in that email there is also a ticketnumeber, when you upload the image you have to place that number into the permissions field.

Please note that when you upload a image to commons you release it under a free license, this will mean that everybody can use your logo for personal or commercial use, and that the license can't be revoked.

When you have any questions, feel free to ask, I will do my best to answer them.

Huib talk 17:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Na overleg met User:Coyau, zie hier, heeft hij me aangeraden eens contact met jouw op te nemen.

Mijn vraag is waarom Wikipedia geen mogelijkheid biedt om foto's, vrijgegeven met een "non-commercial, scientific and educational purposes" licentie op te nemen. En of dit er misschien wel zit aan te komen? En zo niet waarom eigenlijk niet?

In het Wikipedia:Auteursrechtencafé meen ik eens te hebben gelezen dat die hele GFDL licentie sowieso vervangen wordt door een CC licentie, zie hier

Ik zou het op prijs stellen, als jij daar iets meer over zou kunnen vertellen. Alvast bedankt. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hoi Marcel,

Het bestuur van Wikimedia heeft vroeger besloten na een globale stemming dat alles op Wikimedia helemaal vrij moet zijn voor zowel commercieel als educatief gebruik, dit heeft ervoor gezorgd dat Wikimedia zo gegroeid is omdat iedereen het materiaal kan gebruiken. Als een tweede gevolg is het helaas wel zo dat we heel veel mooi materiaal mislopen omdat heel veel mensen willen dat hun materiaal niet commercieel gebruikt word. Ik kan bijna met honderd procent zekerheid zeggen dat het op kort termijn ook niet mogelijk gaat worden om zulk materiaal te gebruiken.

In het auteursrechtencafé op de Nederlandse Wikipedia lopen ze een klein beetje te hard van stapel, zeer binnenkort gaan er officele mededelingen komen en een stemming over de GFDL licentie, iedereen kan in principe daar hun mening geven en er staat ook nog niks vast. De stemming gaat trouwens niet over het afschaven van de GFDL, het gaat erom of we straks GFDL gebruiken gecombineerd met CC-BY-SA of of we blijven met alleen GFDL. Maar pas na de stemming is er bekend wat er gaat gebeuren, er is dus geen enkele zekerheid over de toekomstige licenties.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Abigor talk 07:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Bedankt voor je heldere uitleg. Voorlopig weet ik nu genoeg. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Kun je me ook iets uitleggen van de documentatie bij File:Pieter Brattinga.jpg. Over een vergelijkbare situatie heb ik met enige regelmaat een conflict als ik weer zelf een plaatsje upload van de Duitse Wikipedia. De situatie is eender als bij de File:Pieter Brattinga.jpg, dus zal ik het aan de hand van dit voorbeeld uitleggen.

Ik vindt de documentatie in het informatiekader volstrekt onduidelijk.

• De informatie richt zich hier primair op dat de foto verplaatst is
• Het lijkt er nu op dat Dolph Kohnstamm, die foto gemaakt heeft en vrijgegegeven
• Maar de fotograaf is Ferry André de la Porte en hij is volgens mij de enige die die foto kan vrijgegeven.
• Volgens mij zou je voor de duidelijkheid de eerste zinnen tekst en de tekst tussen de haakjes moeten omgedraaid, om het voor buitenstaanders duidelijker te maken.

De vraag is dus waarom de primaire informatie over de foto (maker, oorsprong) zo wordt weggemoffeld? Kun je me dat nog eens uitleggen? Alvast bedankt. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hoi,

Ik denk niet dat het moedwillig gedaan is om informatie te wegmoffelen. Als je een bot een bot gebruikt om afbeeldingen over te zetten van een Wikipedia naar Commons geeft de bot deze uitput standaard, normaal gesproken word dit na het overzetten netjes afgewerkt wat in dit geval niet gebeurd is.

Je hebt helemaal gelijk dat de informatie nu onduidelijk is, en het is belangrijk dat de auteur altijd vermeld blijft. Ik heb het nu een beetje opgeruimd dus het zou nu duidelijker moeten zijn. Maar nogmaals ik ga er van uit dat de gebruiker vergeten is om het netjes weg te werken en het niet moedwillig heeft gedaan.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Huib talk 17:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bedankt, kennelijk zitten we hier op een lijn. Een ander voorbeeld waarbij, volgens mij, de informatie wel moedwillig wordt weggemoffeld is bij de File:Hierarchisches Datenbankmodell.png, zie hier. Dit informatie zoals die er nu uiteindelijk staat is volgens mij de normale standaard text van de verplaats bot. Het lijkt wel alsof dit alles grote voorbeeld is gaan gelden. Wat vind je daar dan van? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Een andere discussie die ik hierover gevoerd heb een tijdje terug kan ik helaas nog niet vinden.

Hmmm,

Ik zit even te kijken maar ik denk niet dat er echt informatie word weggehaald, er word wel informatie toegevoegd. Bij de source word erbij gezet dat het verplaatst is vanuit de Duitse wikipedia, en de auteur is aangepast dat als je op zijn naam klikt je op zijn Duitse userpage uitkomt. Eigenlijk zou ik zeggen dat deze gebruiker er nuttige informatie bij zet, maar waarom het onderste gedeelte erbij moet (log) is mijn volkomen onduidelijk.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Huib talk 18:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ik heb ook al enkele malen discussies gevoerd over het overzetten van Wikpedia naar Commons maar al deze zijn tot nu toe zonder resultaat geweest.

Het gaat me vooral om de source beschrijving: het selbst erstellt wordt weggemoffeld en de beschrijving "Transferred from de.wikipedia" wordt voorop gesteld. Is daar een juridische reden voor. Dat zou ik graag willen weten. Wederom bedankt. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry voor de lange wachttijd maar ik heb eerst even overlegd op irc en gevraagd wat andere mensen er van vonden. De afbeelding is afkomstig van de Duitse Wikipedia dus een bron link naar de plek waar het bestand oorspronkelijk stond is een officiële bron want het is de locatie waarvan de afbeelding vandaan komt. Hoewel ik het met je eens bent dat het niet helemaal duidelijk is, een een link naar de Duitse hoofdpagina geen enkele meerwaarde heeft zou ik persoonlijk liever zijn dat er op een manier zou staan dat het toch duidelijk is dat het verplaatst is vanaf de Duitse Wikipedia, maar dat het ook nog steeds de orginele bron tekst weergeeft. De vraag of het een juridische reden heeft waarom het zo gebeurd kan ik niet beantwoorden, hiervoor kan je het best contact opnemen met Mike Godwin deze meneer is de General Counsel and Legal Coordinator van de Foundation en die kan daar een antwoord op geven, ik durf geen opmerkingen over juridische punten te maken. Huib talk 21:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok bedankt. Maar daar ben ik het dus niet eens, met die officiële bron. In mijn ogen wordt de afbeelding binnen de websites van de Wikimedia foundations om administratieve redenen verplaats van het ene webadres naar het ander. Als ze dit gaan doen, moeten ze niet gaan rommelen aan de file beschrijving en zichzelf ineens een officiele bron noemen. Als de provider van mijn eigen website van naam en webadress zou veranderen, dan zijn ze ook niet ineens de oorspronkelijke schrijvers van mijn website... maar ja, misschien gebeurd dit niet. Of is dit gewoon een van de GFDL excessen. Any way, misschien zit er een redeneerfout in deze gedachten en dan zou ik dat toch graag willen horen. Ik stel het al heel op prijs, dat je dit op irc gevraagd heb (daar wil ik zelf ook eens een kijkje nemen). Ik hoef dit (nog niet) op te spelen naar Mike Godwin, maar ik ben wel benieuwd, wat jij (en men op irc) hiervan vind. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's OK Abigor. Most people would think it was vandalism. As an aside, I notice there are 100+ images in the flickr review needed category I hope this is just a temporary problem...but flickr seems to be marking only a few images today. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Its now 130+ photos. It looks like the Flickrbot review isn't working properly. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I will take a look and start reviewing later today, my day will start with a meeting so I can't do it right now.

Thanks for the notice.

Huib talk 08:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

When I just checked the category there where 40 images left so I am thinking the bot is fixing again :) Huib talk 17:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hopefully, it is only a temporary problem. I guess we'll find out soon. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Puting a bandage over an amputated head isn't going to stop the bleeding. A single admin is yet to address the issue of tongless edit warriors. VartanM (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I know a protection isn't going to stop the editwar when both users aren't discussion it on the talk page, but a edit war isn't accepted on Commons and I am afraid this images will stay protected for ever if we don't find a solution and talk about it on the talk page.

Best regards,

Huib talk 05:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And what do you, an administrator, intend to do to find a solution? Because as of right now the edit war is set to resume as soon as the protection is lifted. May I suggest you trying to find out what Baki66 and Azeri don't like about the modified map? VartanM (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, It turned out the optimum time to close was either immediately, which'd be indeterminate (0/0) or 22:39, 21st of March, where the ratio was more favourable than when you suggested. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I noticed, better luck next time :) Huib talk 05:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar Abigor. No one ever gave me anything before on Commons. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome Huib talk 05:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you Flickr-reviewed this enough. Can you do it again? Rocket000 (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

LoL

I don't know what happend to than image, it was on my startup page for Opera, I am afraid that every time I open Opera he reviews that images.

I have cleaned it up now, thanks for the note,

Huib talk 05:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I wondered how you did that. I thought maybe some script you had went crazy, but then I saw some were weeks apart. :-) Rocket000 (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, why did you speedy delete this one, what's the rush? According to this page, it's quite plausible that the image is in the public domain, and I think we should be very careful before deleting such historical images on a very sensitive subject, especially given the avalanche of DRs regarding documents related to the Armenian genocide (which Turkey still doesn't recognize, as you certainly know). Would you consider restoring the image and reopening the DR? Thanks. –Tryphon^☂ 19:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

O.o I am so sorry I wasn't in a rush. If was doing some dr from 19-03 but I nominated also a image and so I came on the DR page with images nominated today. I have reverted myself after your message... A dr needs to stay open for 7 day's thank you so much for your message. Huib talk 20:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much. –Tryphon^☂ 20:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Abigot. I don't understand why you removed this photography. On the source I've indicated ([5]), it is written "Licence Creative Commons" and the type is "Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported". Please, explain me, because I've upload another photography with the same licence, but you didn't intervene on that. --Eric Bajart (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

The file is deleted because Commons don't accept non commercional images (see this page). If you move images from Flickr to Commons you need to make sure it has a cc-by-2.0 or a cc-by-sa-2.0 license. I hope you understand it better now, feel free to ask more quistions or when you need help.

Btw my name is Abigor or Huib :)

Best regards,

Huib talk 18:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you for your response, Abigor. So, for the same reason, I must remove Ogoh-ogoh 9.jpg and Ogoh-ogoh 11.jpg too. But I don't find how to do It. How can I do It myself ?--Eric Bajart (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted both of them, you could paste {{Speedy}} on it and a admin would deleted a.s.a.p. Feel free to remove the copyvio note from your talkpage. Keep up the good work here on Commons. Huib talk 19:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank your help. Bye.--Eric Bajart (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This image was passed by the flickr review bot (according to the image history) but it doesn't show on the photo. Do you know why?

• File:Jungle Jim hot sauce.jpg

Strange. First time I've noticed this. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I fixed the problem, I am not sure what is was but I think that this was the reason:

The template that the bot uses to see that a images needs to be reviewed was inside the {{Information}} template and when the bot has reviewed the images and marked it as checked he placed template again in the {{Information}} template. The only problem is that the {{Information}} isn't created to display that information so it will stay hidden.

If you see it again it is easy to fix. Just move the template that says the bot reviewed the image. If you place it after the last }} it will show up again.

Best regards,

Huib talk 09:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)