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.
Hi. I've just seen your message at K. (dewiki, subject: User:M.). My question: are the ranges you have from a city of Heilbronn or something like that or from another part of Germany/Europe? Regards. -jkb- (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I can't answer this directly per privacy policy, but I've pointed out on your de.wiki talk some obvious IP socking on de.wiki where IPs have added images to articles right after those images were uploaded by Messina socks here on Commons. These IPs can be checked via whois, etc for location. INeverCry02:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
hi i want coomons admin help,i want to delete some pics so plz help me and delete those pics,i dont know how to msg you or contact you so i m posting here
Dear Administrator, you deleted this file: File:Ismail Kadare on Onufri.jpg. Albinfo, who requested this be deleted, made the request because he thought it was a book cover. I explained it was not. It is my photo and I understand well the rules for insertion. I am requesting you reverse this deletion. It is based on the fact that Albinfo "could not believe it was not a violation." As was shown in the file's data on the Commons, it is a framed portrait in the main Onufri offices in Tirana, Albania.
I snapped this photo with my own camera, with the enthusiastic permission of the Onufri Publishing House owner, and even the drect approval of the subject of the photo himself (though the photo is about ONUFRI, not the subject). This is not a book cover as Albinfo accused and based his deletion request on. I do not know what else can be proven about the authenticity of this photo as my own — especially since it was clear where the photo was taken. Thank you for considering this reversal. --Rereward (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC) (formerly Albaniadave on Wikimedia Commons).
I deleted this because it's a COM:DW of a black and white photo on a wall. The photo of the man is copyrighted, so taking a picture of it is a copyvio unless we have COM:OTRS permission from the original photographer and/or the current copyright holder. Please don't revert my deletion request closures. The proper procedure is to open a discussion at COM:UDEL if needed. INeverCry17:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for all your efforts, seems like every time I run into a cross-wiki problem you are standing by to promptly deal with the Commons end of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
hi, please compare from the blocked Conformaccokey with from UHU UNO. it seems to be the previous picture from his camera. same time on the clock. same persons. what do you mean? --Jbergner (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I've blocked the new account and nuked all it's uploads. I also closed the mass DR of Conformaccokey's uploads and deleted the empty categories. INeverCry17:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
some cookies for you
Thank you. And thanks for the barnstar, but you'd earn it more so...
Nah, memories of some years ago on wp en and some various issues, created a doppelganger so that someone else doesnt :|, created - will never go near again, hope that explains it well enough. Thanks for the heads up. Cheers sats (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I probably used the wrong method to stop deletion of three images P094051987fifieldchurchf3211000240x167.jpg P059070081bowerchalkechurchf80180240x311.jpg and P094131997churchblossomf401500240x180.jpg . I emailed permissions-commons@wikimedia.org for each image on 13th September 2013 about 19:24 UK time affirming copyright on the WP:CONSENT form and put explanations on Talk pages. Many photos were taken by me and some were given on a cd several years ago to Mr Roe tel. +44(0)1725519242 for the www.chalkevalley.org.uk website. Other photos have been used on www.broadchalke.info website which is my website, see copyright John Burrough at the bottom of each page which is my real name (as chalkeman email address). You should be able to see from the metadata that all were taken with the same C770UZ Olympus camera. Please undelete these images.Chalkeman (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Seeing that you've emailed COM:OTRS with permission, an OTRS member will have to confirm that permission before the images can be restored. You can ask about the email you sent, and the progress of your case at COM:OTRS/N. INeverCry16:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Request
Hi INeverCry, can you grant rollback to my alternative account, Jianhui68? It is my alternative account that was created on August. This account also has rollback rights on English Wikipedia. I would like to use that account for testing and reverting vandalism on public computers. I will also need the confirmed right too. Thanks. Jianhui67Talk14:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
And by the way, can I create Commons essays here? I would want to create the page Commons:Hat collecting to show the inappropriateness of hat collecting here and across other projects. Can I create it or I need to discuss it in the COM:VP page? Jianhui67Talk15:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
There's an incomplete sentence in the second paragraph of the "cross-wiki" section. It's the second sentence which begins with "has been known." INeverCry16:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
the images are free in internet , the authors choose them to design their works based in these pictures , but all are free, they are not from the authors , don't delete again and revert please
I said the images you deleted are under commons 2.5 license from portugal , im Br i known what im doing these images that you deleted wont give any kind of copyright problem to wikipédoia they are from commons share-alike documents ,please revert your deletions (Thepalerider2012 (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC))
See my contributions page and you can see a Category:Com/monsRoot page that needs to be deleted. I don't know why I cannot post the category page here. Jianhui67Talk16:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Are my uploads okay? I used 'Paint' to modify those images and uploaded them here. Is there anything about rollback I can still upload? I will also upload autopatrol feature images when I have the autopatrol user right in the feature. Jianhui67Talk04:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I'll create the image and upload them soon. Is there anything that I can upload for autopatrol feature when I get the user right in the future. I see that autopatrol feature don't have images. Jianhui67Talk07:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
There's really not much to autopatrol. You have the exclamation point next to non-autopatrol edits in recent changes, and non-autopatrol creations are highlighted in new pages, and these go away with autopatrol, but any illustration of those would apply to the patroller right as much or more. INeverCry07:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi INeverCry. You recently deleted the file from the subject as copyvio. Would you mind telling me were was the original found? Thanks.--Strainu (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi INeverCry. May I ask if you can give me the autopatrol user right? I know I'm far short from 500 edits, as I only have 330+ edits. So I'm not sure to request for it or not. I have a whole bunch of Wikipedia pending changes photos that I will want to upload on Wikipedia and Commons and I would want my work to be automatically patrolled. Thanks. Jianhui67Talk13:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Can you please restore this file so I can upload a new version with the copyrighted portion blurred (and you can then re-delete the original). I still don't agree that deletion of this sort of copyright violation is remotely necessary given the facts of the matter, but uploading it with that part blurred will at least retain for Commons the other historically valuable (if not unique) visual details that were otherwise lost because of this deletion, and are unambiguously free of copyright. Ultra7 (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Done. Or at least one version in the history is - my browser is never seemingly able to handle these sorts of things in real time, for some reason it's now displaying the current version as the original unblurred one, even though both recent uploads were of the exact same blurred file from my end (as can be seen by the file size). Ultra7 (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Well that's wierd. The main image is still showing the original to me, only the first version is blurred. But if it's blurred for you, I guess it's something to do with my comp. Ultra7 (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Burden of proof needs to be with the destructive editors.
What we're trying to do here is to build a great, free, online encyclopedia. When a wikipedia editor enters a new paragraph of text, they can't steal the copyright work of others. That's something that most of us would agree on. However, a second editor can't delete the work of the first editor because the original editor didn't prove there is no copyright violation. If an editor is going to do something destructive, like delete a paragraph of another editor, then the burden of proof must be with the editor who is destroying the work of the constructive editor. People who want to remove the work of other editors need to have a very good reason to do so.
The more hoops we ask editors to jump through, the fewer edits we're going to get. Over the past few years the number of editors of the English language version of has dropped significantly. If we want to reverse this, we should refrain from deleting the work of editors unless we have a very good reason. If someone has made up a silly rule that suggests the burden of proof is with constructive editors rather than with people who enjoy destroying the work of others, then thinking people should work towards getting the rule changed and not blindly following it. To what extent do you think that corporate special interests have been involved in constructing the current set of rules on wikipedia regarding image copyright?
If we successfully get the rules changed back to ensuring that the burden of proof is with with destructive editors, will you then restore all the images that you've deleted? Will you apologise to all the constructive editors whose work you destroyed?
Please don't ever again delete an image unless you have proof of copy-right violation.
Good night! I would like to inform you that the author of the image has already sent a permission to use this image to OTRS. Could you direct me what to do now? (Excuse me for my English, as it is not my primary language) Thanks! Luidje (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you have deleted this picture, without addressing any of the counter arguments that I presented. As far as the guidelines on Derivative Works go, it's OK. Brigade Piron (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a photo of a poster which contains a copyrighted photo. From my reading of COM:DW, this is not ok. My reading of German FoP tells me that this was not intended for permanent display, and isn't covered by that either. If you disagree please feel free to get more opinions by posting at COM:UDEL. INeverCry17:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I went to bed after the hassle of changing passwords, so I might as well wake up to some other problem. INeverCry16:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi INeverCry, just looking for some clarification of your reasons for deleting this logo: threshold of originality? It's copyrighted and I can provide proof of such if necessary. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
If you want the image to be hosted on Commons, a quick email to COM:OTRS providing permission for hosting the image under a free license is all you need to do. When it's confirmed, the image can be restored. INeverCry16:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry for [1], but I'm happy that you took this step sooner rather than later if you didn't manage to downscale your work (something I totally understand). Sometimes we tend to forget what consequences excessive work can have on our project colleagues and friends... Get well! --Nemo07:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
We'll miss you and hope you'll come by at times to let us know how you're doing. You really got things done here! We hope (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for all the work that you have done and get well. I have sincerely appreciated you as an administrator and a colleague here. --Eleassar(t/p)20:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Well it is very sad to see one of the greatest and helpful admin leave Commons. You have supported me since I came here. Take care of your health and get well soon. We appreciate all the work and deletions you have done here and on English Wikipedia. Good luck in your future and thanks. I see that there is no bot to do archiving of Commons:Requests for rights requests and you have been doing the archiving. Don't worry, I'll do all the archiving. Jianhui67Talk04:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with people with the people above me. Thanks for everything you've did in the past and I only may hope you return in the future. --Wiki13talk20:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear INeverCry, though I am shocked and sad to hear about that, I fully support your decision, as you (and your health) are more important than Commons or whatever website. We tend to forget that and to self-exploit ourselves. All the best for you. --Túrelio (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I hope you will soon recover from these health issues and have some great time in the real world. The experience you collected here can be certainly of use in some situations. Thanks for all the work you did and your kindness. It was a pleasure working with you. Best regards -- Rillke(q?)19:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry to hear about your health issues, and I hope you return to good health as soon as possible. You will be missed here and I hope you know that you always have a home among us. Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
You never cry, but I cried, when I saw, that you have left. Now I understand, why you said to me this. Unfortunately I am not able to take over you position, because I have no bot. Taivo (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I got rather shocked :( ,when I saw your Retirement message on the Home page,You were a Great & helpful Editor,Get Well Soon and Return Back Soon.May the Blessings of Noble Triple Gem Be Always With You!!! / May God Bless You !!!
With Kindness.MediaJettalk15:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for all your work here, INC. It's been a pleasure working with you, and I hope you one day find your back way to Commons. Take care my friend, FASTILY23:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I hereby award INeverCry the Commons Barnstar – for your tireless work. The community can be proud to have you as a member. --Jean11 (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I hereby award INeverCry the barnstar of dilligence for being a good admin on both English Wikipedia and Commons, and also all your work here. Good luck and thanks. Jianhui67Talk04:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi INeverCry, you had blocked socks of Shivamevolution (talk·contribs) per your CU finding and also deleted the flickr washed image, now another image from the same flickr account has been uploaded by a new account RevengeTimeComes (talk·contribs), can you take a look again, please? There's no doubt that the modus operandi is the same -- same flickr account and same OTRS email, but there's serious doubts on the veracity, especially after the my upload, not mine case earlier. I've blocked the earlier sock set of four accounts on en.wiki, haven't blocked this yet. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff17:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Nah, I don't patrol edits with my mobile phone. My mobile account does not have the patroller right. I'll try it out tomorrow on my main account when I have time. I just need any administrator to grant my mobile account the autopatrolled permission. Anyways, thanks for your help. JianhuiMobile (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Possibly no great loss that you deleted this, but the discussion of it was apparently scattered over a number of places, and I certainly think that my edits to the file page had adequately addressed the issues in question. In particular, do see Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2013/11#help_with_uploading.2Fattribution. The uploader said, "If no one is willing to make the needed changes, then I'd rather just delete it than waste hours on trying to figure it out myself." It seems to me that, given that I made the needed changes, the file should have been kept. - Jmabel ! talk04:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi INeverCry, I left 2 autopatrolled requests for my alternative accounts on COM:RFR 4 days ago but no administrator have attended my requests. I also see quite a lot of requests pending for a long time, and as long as 20 days. Will you please take a look? Thanks. JianhuiMobile (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
"I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation
License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts,
or back-cover texts)."
You closed this as delete but only deleted a redirect to the file (probably because someone decided to move it while the discussion was going on). Could you take a look at this? --Stefan4 (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
"From: Permissions - Wikimedia Commons [2]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 8:58 PM
To: januszcedro@********.***
Subject: Re: [Ticket#2013111410018259] Declaration of consent- Janusz Cedro . Występ zespołu poezji śpierwanej Ponad Nami.jpg
Dear janusz cedro,
I have made the necessary modifications to the file page.
Thank you for your contribution to the Wikimedia Commons.
Yours sincerely,
Aubrey Jett"
I'd like to understand, why this file has been deleted anyway... Thank You.
Hi I never cry hope you are doing great. This is with regard to the picture/page you deleted from the article Gopichand Lagadapati .Prove me wrong but what I am just feeling is that You have missed the basic rule of being a constructive editor by deleting the page/picture with out opening a discussion .I would have been more than happy to answer your quires if you had opened a discussion. The film is yet to release so I decided not to put most of the pics for public use..You wont find any of the pics uploaded by me in google images as they were maintained as pvt albums. .Now i have edited the pic in google Picasso before i uploaded.Hope you understand .ThanksRock (talk) 8:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Upon uploading this image, you indicated it was your own work. When questioned though, you stated: "I got a permission from Gopichand Lagadapati to use this pic. Who is the photographer? INeverCry03:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Its quite complicated to say ..He stays far from media which is when i convinced him that i would represent him till i take this article to a certain level.Provide me an email address, for your convenience I would get video from him that he don't have any objection to use these pics. provide proper wiki email to send you the pvt link as the pics i am using are from his pvt social networking album.I can't compromise his privacy.Offer me best solution. out of two so both of us need not waste time on one article. ThanksRock (talk) 8:59am, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello , I Never Cry! I Have forwarded the mail of Mr.Gopichand Lagadapati granting me his permission to use the photographs that were facing copy right issues .He also gave his consent to use all these photographs under free licence category. Kindly look into the mail at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . Also do let me know if i can upload the pictures or wait till i receive further instructions or notice from wiki. Thankyou Rock (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
All you have to do now is wait for an OTRS member to process the email/permission and take care of everything (I'm not an OTRS member myself btw). You can ask about progress at the OTRS noticeboard. INeverCry19:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Let me join the throng in welcoming you back -- there's certainly plenty to do. If we had known you were back, Trinjstel and I would have invited you into the discussion that led to our nominations. I saw your votes there -- that's where I first saw you were back. Thank you for your support. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
It's good to hear from you Jim. I've got rid of a few DRs, but we definitely need reinforcements. Where such people are to be found, I don't know. As for the CU noms, both of those guys look good to me. meta:User:Abuse filter might still be a decent idea though. INeverCry00:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
It sure is, but we need community consensus for that. Maybe I should create a RFC when I have time (no idea when that will be). Trijnsteltalk21:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Let me know if/when you do an RFC. I can comment as needed and support it. You have "pro" spammers on the internet advertising XRumer runs of 10000+ spambot accts, and they never stop hitting Commons, so why not have an automated answer of our own? I was doing 1000+ checks per month on spambot accts alone; that's a lot of work. Taking some of that load off of checkusers would allow them to focus on sockmasters and admin/other work. INeverCry22:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Anika. I've "slowed my roll" a little bit. If people knew how their bodies would feel later on, I think they'd learn to enjoy their teens and twenties a lot more (or they'd drink and party a lot less ). INeverCry21:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
File:1999. Stamp of Belarus 0307.jpg is {{PD-BY-exempt}}. This template was standing there, but you still have removed even without discussion. I think it's negligence. Eleassar requests to delete files in very large quantities, administrators quickly removed them without discussion. People who care about this images more than you, just do not have time to deal with such a flow. And all the less we want to upload something to Commons. Please be careful and responsible.--Хомелка (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Хомелка. I'm sorry I've upset you. I really do try to be as careful as I can. I deleted these because the DR was 2 weeks old and uncontested. I've closed several hundred like it since I returned from my break. With my volume of work, I know errors happen, but I try to keep them to a minimum. If you can address Eleassar's argument, and provide a reason for restoring this image, I'd be happy to do so. INeverCry21:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Could you take a careful look at the deleted file at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dipepb_mar_15.jpg? The blogspot image you link to is strangely blown up, making it visibly pixelated and I believe the original version on Commons was less cropped on the bottom of the portrait. I can also find no date on the file which seems odd too. --Fæ (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, from google search I can't find anything that pre-dates the copy here. But a 35kb professional portrait, with no EXIF, the author given as "roberto rodriguez sauceda", the single upload of a user whose name isn't really a match, gives me pause. INeverCry21:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Could you then correct your deletion closure? The image on the blog you have referred to is unlikely to be the original image and it seems misleading to leave it looking like that. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Done I have undeleted this file because we have now a valid source that this image is really not copyrighted. philmarin is twisting facts - he did never mention this. If he would have given this link before, this file wasn't deleted. --High Contrast (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi INeverCry, This picture was deleted by you yesterday. According to the template there are 7 day to send a permission. A permission was received several hours later. I would appreciate if next time you will Wait the 7 days before deleting. Thanks Hanay (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I may have been mistaken with that one. I'll talk to the uploader. In future, fyi, you can use this to nominate multiple files for deletion at the same time. INeverCry19:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted file: PS Dausenau.gif
Hello,
you deleted the above named file last night:
22:37, 2. Dez. 2013 INeverCry (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite File:PS Dausenau.gif (Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing) (global usage; delinker log)
I don´t understand why. In my opinion there is no copyright violation. The file is a scan from my pilgrim´s passport of a German Way of Saint James.
I would like you to reconsider your decision. At Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Romania, the last paragraph clearly states: "These terms [from the previous laws] were not extended by the new law for works that were already in the public domain, putting the work of any author who died before January 1st, 1946 in the public domain.". At the talk page I brought considerable evidence that this indeed is the case, including a decision by a court that confirmed this.--Strainu (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your understanding. While this might not be of any significance for all the DRs you go through every day, for me it is very important to have as many free pictures as I possibly can within the limits of the Romanian law. Thanks again.--Strainu (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, could you take another look at the pile of DRs from The Photographer that you processed in relation to this DJ (I think all on 15 Nov, such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:DJ Gerardo Sanchez 3.jpg)? I find he has a healthy internet footprint and articles such as this indicate that a selection of photos from him would have distinct educational and re-use value and the rationale "Commons is not Facebook" may be misplaced.
...After a bit of fiddling about, I managed to pull this list of 36 deletions.
Google search doesn't show anything that would indicate real notability. I usually look for someone like this to atleast have a wiki article in their native language. I know we have articles on notable DJs on en.wiki and ru.wiki, and with images. Those could fill the role of stock images if needed. I think The Photographer does a good job with these out of scope DRs overall. I think the above images are definitely out of scope. INeverCry19:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This viewpoint does seem close to mixing "real notability" with the idea that photographs on Commons are intended to support the English Wikipedia definitions of notability. Personally I see a footprint that includes significant impact on the music scene, and I don't expect to have to provide a Wikipedia article with multiple reliable sources before considering a portrait photograph to be in-scope for this project. --Fæ (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It's difficult to draw a line on notability of people as it pertains to Commons scope. My take on it is that there are numerous DJs with wiki articles who we can be sure are notable. There are of course many more who have no article, but who might be close to having one, and even more who just aren't there yet. At what point is someone notable enough not to make Commons uploads seem like promotion? I just always figured a wiki article was a decent enough or safe gauge. In any event, 36 images of the guy seems a bit much. INeverCry21:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Vi que eliminou as fotos que estavam no commons, embora tenha feito alusão a que o autor das mesmas iria enviar um email de autorização das fotos. E que, de facto, foi enviado.
That's certainly something nobody's ever said to me before. I try to use my keep button every once in a while to stop it from freezing up. INeverCry20:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Your health
Hi there INeverCry, I hope you are well now. How's your health? I saw you putting up that 'user health inactive' notice on your talk page. If you really cannot overwork, then don't overwork. Your health and fitness is the most important of all things. Good luck with your recovery! Jianhui67talk★contribs04:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I just can't do it like I used to. Hopefully we can find more new (or old) admins to take care of deletions. INeverCry20:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Porque as fotos foram removidas se o autor as autorizou??????
Responda-me por favor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlucimar (talk • contribs) 09:33, December 6, 2013 (UTC)
I don't speak Spanish. You can ask a Spanish-speaking admin, or you can ask me in English. You may want to link whatever file or files are at issue. INeverCry17:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Shenyang J-31
Hi, you've already deleted the pic, while i was busy checking it. It seems to be a crop from 20120916050427503.jpg, but there are some details making me curios. First - the uploaded pic is larger than the supposed original. Second - it shows brighter colours and even the grass in the foreground looks more detailed. Third - whereas none of them contains some Exif/IPTC data, the pic at the website has an strange comment "CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 80". This is not what i would expect from an original. So think theyare basing both on the same, not known original pic. rgds, --Markscheider (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I do not think the commons-compliant license available on Flickr for these files is fraudulent. Both images had the author's handle on them, and prior to uploading I did a good faith Google images search and did non see any examples of uncropped versions that did not have the author's handle. The author's Flickr page, [4], appears to contain other original works as opposed to clearly copied/stolen images (please note that neither of these two images is the actual copyrighted logo of the US Republican Party). Can you please have a look, and undelete if you agree? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I guess there is an opportunity for some learning here then on my part. The images I uploaded were clearly inspired by the Republican party symbol, sharing a stylized elephant shape featuring stars and a blue on top, red below motif. But they are also clearly different images. For relatively simple graphics like the 2d image, how different does a work have to be to avoid being a copyright violation? I would image this has come up before; is there a guide or something similar available on commons to help with this sort of evaluation? VQuakr (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not aware of an exact guide here, but I usually deal with speedy deletions like the above where the case is clear. If someone told me the above 2 logos had been created by the GOP themselves, I'd believe it, they're that close to the original. You could ask about this at COM:VP - someone might know where to find more detailed info on this. INeverCry07:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
File:CocaCola C2.jpg was not a copyvio. If you had looked at the history, you would have seen that it was previously nominated for deletion and kept. To be fair, a previous admin did not properly add the {{Kept}} template to the talk page, so I can't fault you for not realizing that immediately. I have undeleted the file and created the talk page to hopefully prevent future deletion attempts. Thanks. —howcheng {chat}19:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
As long that guy does nothing harmful here, you should not block him. Although many of his files have an incorrect by file format, he uploads often pretty interesting and hard to find images. I'll monitor his uploads, as I am interested in that topic. As there a page with a list of his sockpuppets?--Antemister (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Looks like Zscout blocked him originally. He may have had a chance at an unblock before he began socking, but now I doubt it. His socks are here. INeverCry22:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I second this (some pun intended), your contribution to the project is fantastic and valued, but your well being is more important. Liamdavies (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Jim and Liam. I guess that me "cutting down" is still a pretty insane ammount of work, but I'm really doing much less than I did in the past. I'm a bit compulsive of course, but I'll try not to overdo it. INeverCry20:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Clarification of Deletion Nominations Requested
In a recent deletion request, I voted to keep. Your reasoning for deleting it was "The above keep vote doesn't actually give any reason that the file would actually be in scope." While I agree 100% with your statement, I was under the impression I didn't have to.
Maybe I'm way off, but I thought the person doing the deletion nomination had to give the reason it was out of scope. If this reason was then refuted and shown to be invalid (as I think I did do), then the deletion nomination was incorrect and hence there was no reason to for the file to be deleted.
I've seen and closed many DRs in which the nom was simply "out of scope". I take such DRs, and the above DR (in which the nominator referred to the uploader's other uploads as racist garbage, and merely expressed general doubt about the image in question being in scope), to mean that the image has no educational value. In order to keep a file where doubt of scope was raised, I would ecpect that educational value would have to be demonstrated. INeverCry05:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, I guess that's where we differ in the iterpretation of the nom. Because the nom mentions "other uploads as racist garbage" I believed the reason for the nom was it might be offensive to someone and should be censored, which is not policy.
While the nom does say out of scope, it does not say no educational value. There are other reasons for a file being out of scope, such a copyvio, or not being a media file. When I do a nomination which I feel has no educational value, I state that. I guess Magog was in a hurry that day. --Rsberzerker (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. He is a new user in he:wiki and he is still learning how to do things. He promised me that in the future he will upload pictures that were never published before. Hanay (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by HDM820Zx
Hello, you have removed my pictures uploaded by me. These pictures I use for page that I created.
These are my shooting. Can I ask you to restore them. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HDM820Zx (talk • contribs) 06:48, December 12, 2013 (UTC)
These were deleted via deletion request. Since these are professionally done pics, you'll have to contact COM:OTRS to confirm permission for them. If everything checks out, an OTRS member can restore the images. INeverCry18:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for granting me filemover status. I just wanted to say too that I also have health issues, and don't get back to this place for days or weeks at a time. You sure seem to manage your energy well! Best wishes. Laura1822 (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to ask you for a detailed explanation of the reasons for which you have recently deleted several files, mostly maps of the Czech Republic, uploaded by User:Mapového náložník and in existence here for several years. Some of those maps are quite crucial for the Czech Wikipedia, e.g. background for the clickable map used for Wiki Loves Monuments in the Czech Republic. I cannot find any archived deletion proposal nor any reasoning for it except for the assertion that it was a copyright violation. I am not the original uploader, but the community has believed that those files are original work by the uploader based on PD sources – a belief that may be supported by the fact that the uploader has later further improved those maps and uploaded the updated versions to Commons. Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that they are copyvios -- for example, File:Administrativni cleneni CR.JPG was lifted directly from [5] which has an explicit copyright notice. File:Kraje okresy.PNG was taken from [6] which is on the Masaryk University Information System web site. There is no copyright notice there, but, equally there is no free license. Under those circumstances, speedy deletion is required.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for trying to help on behalf of INeverCry. As I happen to work at Masaryk University (and can understand Czech), I know the teachers often use foreign content under provisions of the legislative exception for educative use, and I could easily find the document that encorporates the second image and in which its source is given as "ČSÚ", i.e. the Czech Statistical Office (CZSO in English). Indeed, CZSO uses that map and many derivates of it across their publications, such as [7] and [8]. For the data on their website, CZSO applies quite a permissive licence, which is not PD, but which, in my opinion, might be pronounced compatible with Wikimedia Commons license scope. I would need to ask more knowledgeable members of the Czech community for details, but according to my knowledge, consensus was reached in the past that this map is allowable. Therefore, our community has been surprised by this swift and unexplained move, giving us no time to either defend the present image or to get ready for its deletion (such as to produce an OpenStreetMap replacement, for which there is still no straight-forward solution, I'm afraid). Because of its difficulty, I am convinced that this particular case did not qualify for speedy deletion and that INeverCry acted without considering these facts. Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
My reason for deleting these is as Jim says above. I would suggest posting a request at COM:UDEL so that these cases can be given more detailed consideration. INeverCry22:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. To sum: Up I withdraw my appeal, as the deletion has allegedly been requested by the uploader itself (although using another user name today), who has acknowledged to have uploaded the files without seeking for permission from the copyright holder.
The only thing that keeps puzzling me now is why the deletion was so sudden and no traces whatsoever could be found for the reason of it, particularly if it is really the case that the deletion was made upon someone's direct request. I feel little discomfort over Wikipedia when I see that a file that has been uploaded for several years and is currently in use in a quite prominent location may get deleted immediately and without any notice nor even trace of explanation. Next time this risks disrupting Wikipedia quite seriously (imagine that this would have happened in September while Wiki Loves Monuments was still runing) and it requests permanent attention from the users who have initially volunteered their time to construct something (i.e. I am currently more or less the only editor of Czech Wikipedia who can fix the map template when it is broken). Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Khalsa.jpg
your symbol is not the same symbol as my symbol. let us keep good faith and remember the tatary. yes? what seems immortal can last seconds. let us not get excited. the british want siberia and moscow, it can happen. i am here to help, be mature, calm and respectful,— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.224.165.54 (talk • contribs)
We'll see how these look after a week, when I go to close them, or someone else does. I can't override keep votes unless they're unreasonable. Not everyone's a deletionist like me. INeverCry18:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm done for now, thankfully. You might want to ask at COM:VP or COM:AN about adding an option to preferences that would hide log entries from recent changes. As for hiding the talkpage edits, you could temporarily hide patrolled edits on recent changes if you see me or someone else working on the daily DRs. This particular case was just a big restore job from UDEL. INeverCry18:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
This looks like a standard courtesy deletion request. Unused image, requested for removal by the uploader (and presumably photographer; and according to him, on req. of the subject). Only 3 people weighed in on the topic; is it okay with you to reopen the discussion?
I think it's important for us to weigh the desire of the contributor, for photos with no evident value - and especially for photos of themselves. The alternative is simply mean, and discourages future contributors. --SJ+21:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I do courtesy deletions if someone's face is showing, or even an identifying tattoo, etc, but those factors were absent here. Considering this was the 3rd keep, and re-opening it will likely end in a 4th keep, I'd say let it go. But it's up to you. I would never stand in the way of re-opening a DR I've closed, unless it was done as abuse, which clearly isn't your intention. You may want to check with Leyo though. INeverCry21:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has been discussed the third time already. It does not qualify for courtsey deletion (Commons:Courtesy deletions is only a proposal anyway). Hence, I would consider reopening as disruptive. Sorry to be so clear. Since only uploads of the user date back to 2011 and he now wanted to have all remaining uploads deleted, it is unlikely that we risk to loose many quality future uploads. --Leyo09:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC) PS. Unused applies to Wikimedia projects only. Other uses or references to the Commons page may not be seen.
Hello to you both. I see now the 5 images that were all proposed for deletion by the uploader. It is true that most of them have been proposed for deletion before -- not by the uploader. But I'm interested in how to respond to uploaders who request removal of their own work. These were the first DR requests by the uploader for all five photos. My understanding is that a user request to delete their own unused image is usually honored. Is this not the case? (and if not, what are other examples of such requests being rejected?)
@INeverCry For identifiable photos of people, that's more than courtesy; that is primarily a personality rights concern. Courtesy deletion as I understand it covers any contribution whose deletion is requested by the contributor.
@Leyo Yes, reuse is possible outside of Wikimedia projects. This is still a useful measure of value. Could you explain why you don't think this photo qualifies for courtesy deletion? It looks like a personal photo, replaceable, of middling quality, that is not in significant use on any project. --SJ+10:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
It may be worth bundling the DRs and addressing these as a series, so long as doing this is not thought to cause harm to the photographer and model.
Though a face may not be visible in the photographs, there is a lot of other data published with them. I did not want this on record in the DR, but having played around with EXIF data and traceability for a while (link to metadata with API here), I am concerned that back in 2008, the uploader cannot have been expected to know how much information this makes public, or just how easy it has become over the last few years to trace the images in the same sequence, dates, camera ID, through other websites. Running this as a 5 minute exercise this morning gives me an obvious candidate on a photo website giving real names and identifying photos, yet does not actually contain/publish the nude photos, which appears to be a serious outing risk.
I suggest that DR closers are a bit more aware of this as an real and increasing problem with ever improving internet search tools and itself should be a reasonable justification for courtesy deletions for photographs with nudity or might otherwise have obvious potential for distress or damage.
If the images were considered valuable for education we might discuss this differently and there may be steps suitable for reducing any outing risk (such as renaming and removing EXIF data); but these are discussions for other DRs. --Fæ (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Removing all the EXIF data, particularly anything that could be used to to support copyright, may be considered illegal under DMCA. (I say this acknowledging many websites like Instagram and Facebook are still doing this as a matter of course). Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not that familiar with the replacement process. Delinker has already removed these from the article they were in. I don't want this to just sit in DR, etc, as they already did with no interest. If someone's ready to replace them, they can post a request at COM:UDEL. INeverCry18:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Delinker action can be undone and DRs can be closed as kept for this time. These images were by new user unfamiliar with wiki buraucracy and it's DR/UDEL processes. It's more user friendly to let more experienced users to do the replacements in future like any other needed cleanup, instead of just deleting the content that needs to be cleaned up. 90.190.114.17218:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
INeverCry 17:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
INeverCry 19:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
from the blocked Conformaccokey with 
from UHU UNO. it seems to be the previous picture from his camera. same time on the clock. same persons. what do you mean? --Jbergner (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
uploaded by Conformaccokey
uploaded by UHU UNO
Done Re-deleted. INeverCry 17:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
sign.jpg){kind=link}
sign.jpg){kind=link}
sign.jpg){kind=link}
). INeverCry 21:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Delete for them... Sven Manguard Wha? 19:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
INeverCry 20:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
INeverCry 18:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
![[5]](http://www.gjs.cz/vedy-o-zemi/Ruda/mapy/CR-okresy.JPG){kind=link}
![[6]](http://is.muni.cz/do/rect/el/estud/pedf/js13/geograf/web/pics/obr01-07_full.jpg){kind=link}
Trijnsteltalk 18:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
