User talk:Jmabel/Archive 5

Your questions at Commons:Sexual content

Thanks for your input. The answers to those questions are quite easily derived, however due to the current chaos I am no longer able constructivly contribute to the proposal. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Odd category addition

File:Seattle - Uwajimaya Village 01.jpg: I removed Category:Japanese gardens, which you added to this photo. I see nothing in the photo (which I took) that can reasonably be called a "Japanese garden". - Jmabel ! talk 20:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. It was because Category:Stone lanterns was in the category Category:Japanese gardens, but I deleted it because I moved all photographs to Category:Stone lanterns in Japan, except a few ones that were "Japanese stone lanterns, not in Japan" to which I reported Category:Japanese gardens by pure logic (without having a closer look to the photograph). I agree with you that there is no Japanese garden on this photograph; in fact, it may lack Category:Japanese stone lanterns one day... Regards, Jack ma (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

De-sysop Request

I would like to suggest that you request that your administrative privileges be revoked. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Excuse me? Why would you suggest that? I'm unaware of anything inappropriate in my conduct at any time, and, indeed, I'm unaware of anyone, including you, ever having suggested that there is anything inappropriate in my conduct. - Jmabel ! talk 15:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • That seems quite strange to me... I'm relieved that you are an admin here, and the current heady discussions would be far less civil without your participation. –SJ+ 16:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Your description of the topics in question is quite accurate and to the point. Thanks for all the work you invested. Kind regards, Nemissimo (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you. - Jmabel ! talk 00:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Intention

Thanks for pushing forward with this, which is the fundamental question that will lead to a resolution. I think there are many different intentions that need to be teased out before we can find a good collaborative solution -- and perhaps identify some subintentions which are at odds with one another and need compromise. –SJ+ 16:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

L'origine du monde

Hi Jmabel, of course I was sarcastic, or rather: I was angry. In fact, I still am. I am a steward and admin on several projects. In those roles I have stressed many, many times the importance of reaching consensus first before carrying out controversial edits. What do I say the next time now, when I advise somebody to strive for consensus and they reply: "Ah, you mean like Mr. Wales did?" Wutsje (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess you reply, "And that all turned out so well, didn't it? We only lost, what, a dozen or two excellent contributors over something that if correctly handled would hardly have caused a ripple. Great model to emluate."

Sorry I didn't know your work, so I didn't know whether you were serious. You'll note that my response included "assuming you are serious" or words to that effect. - Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Broken hand

I broke a bone in my right hand in a bike accident yesterday. Expect limited participation from me the next several weeks. - Jmabel ! talk 15:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Bicycle road signs, Category:End of bikeway signs

Category discussion notification

Category:Bicycle road signs, Category:End of bikeway signs have been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which they should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--ŠJů (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ...

for this clarification [1] - I did not read the text carefully.... the business to find categories for uncategorized files has some problems from time to time. Best wishes Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• You're welcome. - Jmabel ! talk 20:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Polar bears

Given your comments at the CFD for Category:Animals at the Philadelphia Zoo, you might want to take a look at the subcategories of Category:Ursus maritimus by country. Clearly most of those are not countries in which polar bears are actually found outside of zoos or museums, but categories like Category:Ursus maritimus in Italy nevertheless exist, in that case to categorize a single image of taxidermied specimens at an Italian natural history museum. And even more troubling, it's categorized by Category:Animals of Italy... These were created by User:Teofilo, who had also nominated the Philly category for deletion; I've left a note on his talk page. I'm used to dealing with these kinds of issues on Wikipedia; much less so here, where I tend to focus on just uploading and organizing my own content. Your help is appreciated. Postdlf (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Murals of Santa Maria Ahuecatlan

According to Mexican law, there is freedom of panorama even if the work is indoors. A church is considered to be public space.AlejandroLinaresGarcia (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Good. I didn't know that. - Jmabel ! talk 18:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello

question about page Arthur Sarkissian you have deleted the paintings from that page from that page and I would like to know how I can fix that problem I understand that I wrote "My own work" it was mistake and I was new in Wikipedia. please help me fix that problem I wrote "my own work" because I made that photos. please give me some advice. and also I have permission to use that photos because I asked Arthur Sarkissian to use that. PLEASE HELP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendrixmorisson (talk • contribs) 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I am guessing that the page in question is en:Arthur Sarkissian since there never has been a page Arthur Sarkissian. Those images were deleted by User:Wknight94, not by me, so he is more likely to know the specifics, but my guess is that they were photos of copyrighted works by Sarkissian with no evidence that he had granted an appropriate free license for these images. I had nominated one of them for discussion on that basis, and wrote a note on your talk page to alert you to that discussion; you never responded; Wknight94 followed up accordingly, and apparently extended my concern to numerous additional images you had uploaded. If you do indeed have Sarkissian's permission, please see COM:OTRS for how to make that clear, and then the pictures can be restored. - Jmabel ! talk 17:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Green Lake Aqua Theater

Hi Jmabel, it appears the Built in 1923 and 1938 categories were for File:Seattle - former Hollywood Theater 01.jpg, and then accidently copied and pasted to the three Green Lake Aqua Theater photos.

The en Wikipedia article Green Lake Aqua Theater says built in 1950. It has no mention of 1923, which is why I deleted that category. Benchill (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oops. Sorry. - Jmabel ! talk 02:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Lithographies

It is an english word Why do you say it isn't?--Darwin (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Replied at User talk:DarwIn. - Jmabel ! talk 03:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I replied you there as well. Please try to confirm if lithography really can't be used as a noun, apparently some people use it as such. If it is indeed incorrect, then it would be better to place a bot changing everything, there's a lot to change already. :S --Darwin (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Guilty as charged, though I wasn't the first to frenchify that word, it seems. Please accept my apologies for the mess I unwillingly caused. Can SieBot be back on business? --Darwin (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Furs

After I have categorized your pow wow, you could look for some nice pictures of furriers or fur sellers for me?! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Furriers_in_Seattle. Hopefull, in anticipation, best regards, the German furrier --Kürschner (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition

I've just followed this list, feel free to revert. Nemo 17:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

Just to clarify: you describe File:Magistrat hradec kralove.jpg as your own work. Are you, indeed, stating that you drew this yourself? If so, you may want to indicate some information about your background on your user page, since this is clearly the work of someone with professional training.

As posted on my talk page.

Yes File:Magistrat hradec kralove.jpg is indeed my own work. Its an HDR photograph. It is most certainly not drawing as I have no artistic talent at all. Feel free to look at other HDR photographs in my Picasa Galery. It is really easy to make them, anyone can do it. --Cz-David (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 16:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:consent

Thanks for your edit at Template:consent. I meant to do more with it last night... anyway, I've brought it up now to a barely usable state. Wnt (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin inactivity

Hello Jmabel, you might be interested in this discussion: Commons_talk:Administrators/De-adminship#Activity -- A9 (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Logos up for deletion

Hey Jmabel,

I've been wondering this upon seeing so many, can we move File:FMTalk1037.jpg (and the majority of nonfree logos in article use) to Wikipedia under proper licensing? - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As I remarked, I don't necessarily see a problem with that logo: it at least borders on being too simple to copyright. If the decision is reached that it is above the threshold for being copyrightable, certainly it should be moved to any Wikipedias that want it and that allow fair use justifications, rather than being deleted. I'll remark to that effect in the discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 16:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Got it, it seems like this comes up a lot, is there a process or bot, or is it done manually? - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's done manually. At least that's how I've done it the couple of times I took it on. I don't think the tool for interwiki transfers of images will transfer out of Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 18:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Please look at en:wp

After deleting en:University Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), I thought of its picture and wondered — do you know if this church is in a National Register-listed historic district? If so, could you undelete and merge the content to the respective district article? Nyttend (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a listed building. It quite probably is worthy of an article—it is one of several rather notable congregations in Seattle's U. District—but it looks like the stub you deleted was no great loss. - Jmabel ! talk 04:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Good catch

Thanks for spotting the problem with the "any time any purpose" text I added. Hopefully my revision will solve this... if not, your input is welcome. Wnt (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleting categories

I see that, presumably after failing to get a response from User:Gödeke, you deleted Category:Cafés in Washington. The same editor created a number of inappropriate subcategories in Category:Restaurants in Nebraska. I moved the files back to their old categories, but the (empty) new ones are still around, and I'd like to get rid of them. Could you tell me how to go about this? I can't figure out the procedure for it. Thanks, and apologies for bothering you with newbie questions. --Ammodramus (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Woodlands

Not sure what I was doing with Category:Woodlands Philadelphia rather than Category:The Woodlands Cemetery. I have now changed all the categories from Woodland Philadelphia to The Woodlands Cemetery. This leaves the question (as above) of what to do with the empty category? Thanks Smallbones (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll clean it. - Jmabel ! talk 03:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop

{{Stop}} is for CommonsDelinker, not Siebot. As far as I know as soon as Siebot starts working on it the only way to stop it is to block it (I've tried changing/removing requests after I saved and it didn't work). I think putting {{stop}} on there stops Delinker until Byran starts it again. as it doesn't seem to be working now. (The same goes for blocking blocks, unblocking them won't make them automatically resume their work.) Rocket000 (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, but someone should make that a lot clearer on the delinker page! - Jmabel ! talk 14:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Nisqually quake

Thanks for the note. I encountered the categories at the photo you uploaded of the damage at the Cadillac Hotel, which was in both categories; this made me think that it was a Seattle earthquake, since I'd never before heard of it. Nyttend (talk) 11:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#PD-Italy_restoration_request

Okey, please, help me with restore campaign! Yes, im not native english user, but in current globalisated word is english dominated language. And im need PD-Italy restore, becausue im need do my best --77.48.153.172 18:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Bucharest_Iuliu_Maniu.jpg

File:Bucharest_Iuliu_Maniu.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Curious as to how you've handled commercial requests for your work

Hello,

I’m curious as to how you’ve dealt with commercial requests to use your work, as I am trying to get some ideas on how to handle these types of requests. I have received a few myself but have deferred to the licensing terms of the CC/GFDL and now realize that I have probably left some money on the table. For example, what has or hasn’t worked for you, what kind (s) of licensing do you use for, and what else you can think of that may be helpful. If you feel it’s more appropriate, we can continue this discussion via email. Thanks. BrokenSphere (Talk) 20:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly glad to discuss it publicly.

First, let me say that for obviously low-budget, non-commercial uses of which I approve, I am always extremely accommodating. As long as they don't want me to sign away anything absurd - e.g., no, in a transaction where I'm receiving nothing, I won't indemnify you against someone else suing you over personality rights - I'm usually fine with just a photo credit.

For me, the division isn't whether they are commercial or not. There are non-commercial entities I'd treat the same way as commercial ones. For example, a photo of mine was recently used for the cover of a university course catalog. I certainly considered that to be in the same class as commercial use. But let's stick to the term "commercial use" as a shorthand, understanding that the term is meant loosely.

First, I always make it clear that they are free to conform to the terms of CC-BY-SA (or, in theory, GFDL, but it's much less convenient), and I explain what they'd have to do to conform.

Second, I explain to them that the reason I free-license my photos is primarily for the benefit of others who also work in a "copyleft" mode, and that since that is not what they are doing, and since they are doing something for which it would be normal to pay for photos, I basically expect to be paid, just like any other essentially professional-quality photographer. Again, they are free to conform to the "free license", but if they don't want to do that, then we should discuss this just like any other rights negotiation.

Often as not, at this point they walk away because they only want something they don't have to pay for. Oh, well. Otherwise, they typically offer their standard contract if they have one or, if not, a less formal statement of what they are willing to pay and what rights they want. I've found that the degree of formality varies widely, as does the degree of room for negotiation.

The rare times that they don't make the first offer, I'll make a fair guess based on what they are doing. The number will be higher if they are obviously working with a large budget; the per-photo number will be lower if they want to use several shots. I usually also want a copy of what's being produced, or at least bibliographical information I can add to the photo's Commons talk page.

Hope that helps. Feel free to ask further questions. - Jmabel ! talk 20:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response, I appreciate your insight. This is one of the unintended results of contributing a lot of my own work to the project. It's encouraging for me to see that I don't need a fancy camera (as I primarily use point and shoots) in order to generate these types of requests. I will let you know if I have further questions! BrokenSphere (Talk) 21:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that from me too. I appreciate it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have read this before and I enjoyed re-reading it again just now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

San Diego museums

Thanks for contacting me. I removed the categories from the Old Town images as the Old Town San Diego State Historic Park category is contained within the main Museums in San Diego, California category. Leaving the main category in there causes the images to show up twice, once in the main category and again in the sub-category. Please let me know if this makes sense. I've changed categories for hundreds of San Diego images recently and I'm sure I've made mistakes (fortunately I've caught some quickly). I'm also creating new sub-categories to help remove the large number of random images located in the main categories and improve the searching process for readers. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'll research it further this weekend to see if there is a better category that can be created since there are several historic landmark locations throughout San Diego which could be better categorized. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Seattle_B'way_Mambo_02.jpg

File:Seattle_B'way_Mambo_02.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Ship's messes

Category discussion notification

Category:Ship's messes has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Geo Swan (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Los Satelites

Thanks for the previous job, but I´m affraid to say that there is a new version of the same pic in Los Satelites.jpg. Can you added the template also? I don´t know how to do it. Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Western European music

You're right. It makes no sense. In fact the category makes no sense. And one can go mad trying to organise it according to any sense at all. Any ideas? Man vyi (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Mehnaz Hoosein respectively Category:Manooghi Hi

moved to your page: May I ask why here and elsewhere you removed Category:Female vocalists from India from photos of Mehnaz Hoosein? She was born in India and her career has been mainly in India, where she has had at least one major chart hit. - Jmabel ! talk 01:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You may. That and imho six other files have been categorized by you each other as Category:Female vocalists from India and Category:Manooghi Hi (all showing the same artist/lady). That's why Category:Female vocalists from India was added to Category:Manooghi Hi to provent "overwhelming" of Category:Female vocalists from India with images from the same artist ... i.e. removed from your series of files (from the same concert showing the Ms. Hoosein), one you've mentioned. BTW: According to Facebook, Ms. Mehnaz Hoosein is member ("lead vocal") of "Manooghi Hi", that's why that re-caterisation imho seem to be "correct". Please re-cat p.e. Category:Mehnaz Hoosein if wrong, thx. Please do not hesitate to create new categories for files showing the same (p.e.) artist, p.e. as "sub-category" of the band ;-) Roland 01:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Why ?

Please, can you explain me why do you do this again? These are so simple requests! Thank you. --DenghiùComm (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I moved them to the project page. That's the next step in getting them done. - Jmabel ! talk 16:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is this necessary? Is Delinker not sufficient? And then, where is this "project page"? Thank you again. --DenghiùComm (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As a non-admin, you have to put your requests on the talk page. An admin (that's me in this case) reviews them and moves them to the corresponding project page (User:CommonsDelinker/commands) to be acted on. - Jmabel ! talk 16:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Slashes

Hello. I just used the name used in the image descriptions. I have never heard that we aren't supposed to use slashes. If that's the case, I can move it. Have you seen that rule somewhere? I haven't come across it, but that doesn't mean anything. Best regards, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I moved it anyway. Regardless of whether there is a rule against slashes or not, a Google search (which I ought to have checked in the first place) shows the monument appears to most commonly known as the Pioneer Monument. Thanks for picking up on the odd categor name. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The image

It was a fusion of two images, one being this with the girl. The other was this. They're all freely licensed. It was of course to prove a point, but also to put some common sense in hard skulls that were showing up at the Commons:Sexual content page. Also, wonder if this image in question is useful for an encyclopedia. I think it isn't but opinions are just opinions. Also, what do you think of Photographs that would be illegal to host because the individual did not (or could not) give the necessary consent as required by law? Children can't give consent, and many people who are photographed haven't given explicit consent to be photographed and put on a site. Arbeforth (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

One half of the image

1. In the United States, at least, no explicit consent is required for photographs taken in public places, and the definition of "public" is very broad.
2. What's with the multiple accounts with similar names? It looks to me like an effort to evade a block. I personally am not going to block you again unless I see a second comparable incident, but I sure as hell won't defend you if someone else blocks this account.
3. What you did is about as blatant a violation of COM:POINT as I've ever seen.
4. It's a pretty damned long jump from the rather innocuous, tasteful nude pictures of adult women to which you have recently been objecting to the borderline legal, clearly useless, absolutely disgusting montage you uploaded.
5. Commons images are not necessarily "useful for an encyclopedia". They merely have to be useful for some educational purpose, and "educational" is construed pretty broadly. If you look at my own work, I've taken a lot of pictures of Seattle and vicinity that are clearly not useful for an encyclopedia, but would be very useful for anyone a few decades from now who needs documentation of Seattle in the early 21st century.

Certainly your image violated the moral rights of the child depicted in the photo. Your intent was pretty unclear except if you were trying to show that you could create a disgusting and inappropriate image. If so, congratulations, you've proved yourself capable of being a successful troll, whoop-de-do. If your intent was to somehow suggest that we shouldn't have any images of erect penises, or of children, because one could be used inappropriately, you failed miserably. You could just as easily have montaged pictures of leading Nazis with leading figures of the British Labour Party to make an image just as inappropriate (if less disgusting): does that mean we shouldn't host pictures of Tony Blair or Adolf Hitler? - Jmabel ! talk 16:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

May I ask you to please explain?

Hello Jmabel, I really have problems comprehending what you are trying to say here. As far as I'm concerned my comments were pretty much directed at the abstract, too. And do you think I am one of the people who liked Jimbo's rampage? Confused greetings --Dschwen (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion sprawled over several pages and about six months, so I could easily have forgotten one person's remark, I have no sane way to find it, and so I don't think that is good use of my time to try. I don't remember you having been involved in the discussions at all, but perhaps you were and I have mis-remembered. I more than once suggested, during the half-year effort to hash out a policy, that despite Jimbo's rampage administrators should have discretion to speedy-delete an obviously useless sexual image. I got almost no support from anyone, except the uncomfortable "support" from people who thought that administrators should do more or less what Jimbo did. Many different people asserted that "out of scope" should never be grounds for speedy deletion, and that as long as an image was legal and proper rights had been granted, any judgment of it being "useless", "inappropriate", etc. came down to a judgment that it was out of scope. If you weighed in during that discussion and I've forgotten, my apologies. It was a long, complicated discussion with probably over 100 participants, and it is possible that I overlooked someone's participation, especially if they were not one of the people participating in a large way over time. - Jmabel ! talk 00:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I was not looking for an apology though ;-), I really jut needed clarification. I misunderstood the scope of discussion you were referring to. Indeed I did not participate in the sexual content discussion much, since it got so darn heated up in the beginning. But from what it sounds like we share very similar views. You are most welcome to notify me if you need any back up anytime on this subject. --Dschwen (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Stereo cards of Washington, D.C.

Discussions at User talk:Jmabel/Stereo cards of Washington, D.C.. - Jmabel ! talk 02:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Great Northern Frieze

Hi Joe, I saw the image of the Great Northern Building roof frieze on your Wikimedia home page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seattle_-_Great_Northern_Building_04_-_cropped.jpg

The size was perfect for a Firefox Persona image, so I tried it out today. Is it OK to put it up here? You are credited and it includes a link to the Wikimedia file: https://www.getpersonas.com/en-US/persona/360354 I just uploaded a purple variant which should be visible from my list of Personas in a day or two: https://www.getpersonas.com/en-US/persona/360400 Let me know and I can take them down ASAP. Thanks for the great images! Ken--Kenmayer (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

As long as I'm credited, that is more than fine. - Jmabel ! talk 20:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Relocated buildings in Ballard

What's the substantive difference between the property you mention and the Blackman House Museum? All buildings in question were built as houses, and none are used as houses now; we generally put structures built as houses into house categories, even if they're no longer used as such, so I don't understand why you disagree with placing the Ballard photo into a house category. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• The Blackman House Museum is precisely a "house museum". It's laid out entirely like a house in use; it's just that no one lives in it. The buildings in Ballard were repurposed as part of the move. I don't think it's wrong to have some sort of house category attached to them (as well as an office building category); I just think that when something is referred to as a relocated house, there is a suggestion that the house structure remains more or less intact. In this case (unlike, say, Ward House in Seattle) it wasn't even the moving of a single building, it's two houses combined into an office building. Not a big deal, and I certainly won't fight about it, it's just one of the rare cases where I think your edit went in the wrong direction. - Jmabel ! talk 03:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could come up with a parallel situation, but the closest I can think of is HMS Zubian, and both original pieces as well as the finished product were the same kind of boat. I just see it as useful to say that, because they were houses and because they've been relocated, they're relocated houses. Curious, is there a process here that's parallel to en:wp's Third Opinion? Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Not that I'm aware of. And I don't think it is either a big deal or a particularly important image. - Jmabel ! talk 03:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"Mandarins"

One is ancient Vietnam offices and the other is ancient Combodian office. I'v changed. --Fanghong (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 15:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Fremont_Solstice_Parade_2007_-_naked_couple_03.jpg

File:Fremont_Solstice_Parade_2007_-_naked_couple_03.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

24.17.238.3 20:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been speedy kept. - Jmabel ! talk 01:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

French connection

I take your point. I have two suggestions: Category:French bakeries in the United States as a subcat of Category:Bakeries in the United States, and/or Category:French culture in the United States as a subcat of both Category:French culture and Category:Culture of the United States (in parallel with Category:Chinese culture in the United States). But there could well be other and better ideas... – Mu (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think both are good ideas, with the bakeries category as a subcat of the culture category. Another subcat would be Category:Bastille Day celebrations in the United States. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the deed is done. Feel free of course to make any further changes you see fit. All best. – Mu (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

ro-speaker needed

Hi Jmabel, as you are labeled ro-2, could you eventually take care of User:A.Catalina? This user has a lot of questions and important notifications of the talkpage, but his/her ignores them totally, eventually due to language problems. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I did my best at User_talk:A.Catalina#Discu.C5.A3ii. I'll keep an eye on that user talk page. I hope I managed to express this competently: I read Romanian well, but write it a bit poorly. - Jmabel ! talk 06:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Baltimore

Sigh. You are absolutely right. I got distracted by a phone call and never finished it. Thank you for catching my mistake. I apologize. I will review my edits around that time and make sure I didn't leave others incomplete. Nice catch, and thanks again! --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to hear this was an error rather than a disagreement. - Jmabel ! talk 16:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

RO skills needed for old DR

Hi, could you have a look at this old DR? Jcb (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Commented there. - Jmabel ! talk 02:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh?

Please . I want pictures to abdulhussain abdulredha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.150.201.241 (talk • contribs) 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what this has to do with me (or really with anything) and why it is on my user talk page. - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI: This user has been spamming around Commons on over a dozen talk pages appending the same message. –Krinkle^talk 00:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Replied

on my page. Wow, I'm redlinking all over ... :)Djembayz (talk) Your photo's fixed! Djembayz (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Boston

I noticed that you opposed the move from Category:Boston-> Category:Boston, Massachusetts] at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, Foroa has rm'ed the move request (and your comment), you might want to participate in the discussion at Category talk:Boston.

I think this case highlights a couple issues Commons ought to handle: First is disambiguation should be tackled at Commons:Naming categories, and primary topics are part of that.

Secondly, I'm worried that the move process consists of "keep discussion active until the page is moved", and there's a presumption that once {{Move}} is added the category will be moved in the end. The phrasing of the template suggests that to me - see Template talk:Move#Phrasing of template. We should be able to close discussions as "not moved" and "no consensus", not leave them floating for months.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hotlinking

Regarding this, it was already taken care of before you asked your question, nothing further was needed. “* I'd guess it is. User:Nashville Monkey, what (if anything) is your issue with this person's site?”. You guessed wrong, wasn't me. As to my “issue”... was already taken care of and remarked as such in my edit comments. But thanks so much for your time. ·· —N·M— ^talk ·· 20:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Translation confirmation

Could you please confirm my translations here? and do you agree that they are legal threats? Dahn 18:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I put in my 2 bani. - Jmabel ! talk 20:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Especially given the promptitude and the support in such a potentially damaging case. Dahn 06:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"Plaque is PD-ineligible"

Your comments about the plaque at File:Boeing Field terminal 01.jpg and File:Boeing Field terminal 02.jpg intrigue me: where's the plaque? It makes me feel somewhat like I'm doing a Where's Waldo, except I always know that Waldo's there somewhere, but I'm not 100% sure that the plaque is :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably accidental cut-and-paste from File:Boeing Field Maple marker 01.jpg and other images taken on the same occasion. I'll clean it up. - Jmabel ! talk 02:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Burton Masonic Hall

I just added your second picture of the Burton hall to its stub. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Another DR

The nominator who asked this to be deleted (you made a comment) has now filed a more serious DR here. Personally, the flickr upload bot evidence for the 4 images is clear. The license was 'CC BY Generic' at upload...but I doubt this nominator, who is also the flickr account owner in the DR, will take anything but image deletion for an answer from the tone of his arguments and his anti-wikipedia flickr page. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment: The issue has been resolved for now. But it may continue in future. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Canada Building at World's Fair, 1962.jpg

Thanks for the note. The category pertains to anything pertaining to Canada in 1962. I would have named the "year in location" categories the same way that the "location in decade" categories are, so that people don't read them so literally, but that's the naming were are stuck with, and this is the category pertaining to the Canadian experience in 1962. The parent category, Category:Century 21 Exposition, is located in Category:1962 in the United States. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• OK. Seems an odd choice, but not yours. - Jmabel ! talk 02:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I replied

I replied at my talk page and wanted to let you know.

These cars sure are pretty, aren't they. I tend to get nauseous in them and have ruined at least one of this companies vehicles forever from riding in them :)

Pretty is as pretty does. Perhaps with this research I will be able to identify the suspension that causes my consistent illness from them.

Photographs of them are very nice because I can see the pretty with out feeling the nausea from the pretty ride. -- Queeg (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! El Vez - 2009-07-25 13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments crisp... --Mbdortmund 02:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

.

Cool. First one of these I've had. - Jmabel ! talk 17:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Solstice cyclists

As far as I am aware- the cat was becoming bloated, and these images were already in subcats. Just a bit of tidying- not important to me, if you are looking after them. :) --ClemRutter (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Responding where discussion started. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:DiscursoItaloTomaMando.djvu

Hi Jmabel, would you please take a look at this file, it seems to be scan of an Spanish book and possibly copyvio. thank you.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 23:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• It is Spanish-language, but it's Venezuelan. Offhand, all of this user's uploads may be copyvios of Venezuelan-related political stuff. I'm in the middle of work - I clocked out to take a look at this - and I don't have time to investigate too much more closely right now, but I'll try to contact the user, and if I don't have an appropriate response in a day or so, I'll suggest that all his uploads be deleted as copyvios. - Jmabel ! talk 23:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
• If I haven't followed up appropriately within 24 hours, please do remind me so this doesn't fall through the cracks. - Jmabel ! talk 00:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 00:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it seems the user didn't reply neither to your comment nor the deletion requests.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 14:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

{{NRHP}}

I don't understand what you mean. If I understand the VP section correctly, you believed that the categories should be tagged with the template, not the images; since the categories are tagged, the images shouldn't be. Am I missing something? Nyttend (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

[Answering on his page, where I asked the question, so discussion doesn't get scattered] - Jmabel ! talk 01:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback. Nyttend (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Language question

Hi Joe, as a native speaker of English, could you advice us, whether a definite article should be used in titles like Castles in (the) Moravian-Silesian Region?

I. e., should we use:

• Castles in Moravian-Silesian Region,
• Castles in the Moravian-Silesian Region,
• or both the variants are correct (preferably in the standard British English)?

Thanks, --Petrus Adamus (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'd use Castles in the Moravian-Silesian Region. I think "region" pretty much demands "the". I can't think offhand of an exception. - Jmabel ! talk 02:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  What about Category:Churches in Pickens County, South Carolina or Category:Doors in County Londonderry? "Region" does demand "the", and "County" doesn't? How districts? Should we rename also all categories "... in ... District"? --ŠJů (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  I can't really give you any rational basis for it, but, yes, "region" pretty much demands "the" and "county" doesn't. In fact, for "county" used this way, "the" is pretty much impossible. The only county I can think of where "the" is used is the Bronx ("in the Bronx"), but if one uses "county" then it's "in Bronx County", never "in the Bronx County".

  "District" usually gets "the": "in the Lakes District" in England, "in the University District" or "in the International District" in Seattle where I live. But if it's a numbered district, it's different, like "in District VII". - Jmabel ! talk 05:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In general, I have a good feeling for it, but I have no idea about a precise rule. I tend to push it in the good direction when I am harmonising structures that have two camps. Bear in mind however that it takes one or two years to get it right (such as "The" cantons in Switzerland, "The" provinces in Italy). It seems to be easier/more natural when the name is "canton/district/province of xxx" than "xxx Canton/District/Province". I never understood why people try to drop the "the" in Category:Caucasus. In short, I only move to it when I see that many people are trying to use the "the" correctly"; I don't think that it is wise to push that as a one man action. --Foroa (talk) 07:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Foroa: The is probably the most elusive and mysterious word in English... at least for yours truly. The rules of the are never formulated in a concise manner (if it's possible at all), they are absolutely counterintuitive - drill and rote only (e.g. why "the Caucasus" but not "the Africa"?). I gave up looking for any logic there (and I'm speaking English for almost 40 years). Anyway, if you guys plan a global assault on districts-without-the, please tell the world before pressing the button. NVO (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as I can see anew, national languages are absolutely unsuitable for international communication, as foreigners cannot learn all the exceptions and use them correctly without extreme exertion and a period of life spent among native speakers, which is impossible for most of us. If only a neutral language was put into worldwide practice soon… --Petrus Adamus (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't worry about it. Commons grows now at one new category per minute in an organic way. We have to do only 5 % of the harmonisation moves than we did 3 years ago. People are kind of auto-adaptive (basically, they copy from a related category). And there is a big difference between reading a language and writing it correctly. We try to use simple language constructs without inflections or conjugations, as those are a source of complexity and interpretation. Nevertheless, I would be happy to see a "The" rule in English. I would say that the The is needed if it concerns a collection (United States, Netherlands, "canton/district/province of xxx" ...) but there is more than that. --Foroa (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

cat sort - Building interiors

Hi Jmabel - I'm sorry my earlier response today (@ (Look2See1 talk) & @ Commons:Village pump#Sorting) did not directly address your specific question about [2]. I just re-clicked the link and was reminded. The Category:Building interiors in the United States has an alphabet full of subcategories of 'interiors by type' - and the specific example categories were lost among them. I had seen the cat. sort " |~ " used by other editors before in similar sub-cat/specific-cat. separations. If it is not an accepted wiki organizing technique I will not reuse it. Again, I'm sorry for the delay in addressing this.

• (P.S. - was posting this on my talk page when your posting there momentarily 'blocked' it - proceeded and will read yours now.)

Thank you—Look2See1 (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for 01:04 & 01:28 ideas. With Category:Building interiors in the United States " |~ " cat. sort, unless hear from other editors I will add the names after the ~. I've yet to learn how to do a gallery page, but it is a clear solution. -Look2See1 (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Egyptian revival parade

Hola Jmabel. ¿Está mal categorizado?

• Egyptian revival parade
  • Summer Solstice Parade and Pageant 2007 Ancient Egyptian motifs
    • Anubis Fremont Solstice Parade
    • Eye of Horus Fremont Solstice Parade

Si ves una clasificación mejor, coméntamelo. Un cordial saludo, --JMCC1 (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Gracias por avisarme del error. Un saludo desde Madrid, España. --JMCC1 (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

DR

Hi. I want to open a DR for this. It says "Juan Pablo II copy" and supostly is the face of a futballplayer, but it´s pretty much obvious for me than it´s a joke or fake. I'll delete the article in es:WP, and try to open a DR here but I don´t know what I´m doing wrong. Here says "add {{Delete}}" but when I do, a message appears saying "deletion request incomplete, add subst:Delete motive" but is also a dead end. I open several DR in the past, but now I´m not sure what I´m doing wrong. Can you help me, please? --Andrea (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you did & what went wrong. There should be a button on the left panel to nominate for deletion, which is how I usually do it. I'll follow through on your behalf. - Jmabel ! talk 16:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don´t have any gadget install even when in es:WP I´ve got Monobooksuite. I´ll put a comment in the DR. Cheers. --Andrea (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

File:The Ghosts Project, Jill Tracy.jpg

Hi! Thanks for explanation. I took this date stright from the source description -> http://www.flickr.com/photos/paukrus/4137758378/ and it was looking so old... Regards Electron ツ ➧☎ 01:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

NRHP tagging

You might be happy to see that one of my bots is filling up Category:National Register of Historic Places with known IDs. The tagging is based on the usage of the images in lists at the English Wikipedia. This will result in about 34.000 images in this category (based on these statistics). Multichill (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged several thousand more or less by hand in the King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties in Washington. Most of these presumably would not be caught by that bot, because they are not in en-wiki. - Jmabel ! talk 23:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion moved

A discussion you were involved in has been moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Please continue the discussion there. Thank you. Rd232 (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Queen Anne Ave N, near Republican, Seattle 1997.jpg

That explains why the spot didn't seem to match in Google Streetview. apparently the scene has changed much less than I assumed when I was trying to piece together from memory, where I took the pic in 1997. Thanks for the clarification RalfHuels (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wedgewood Rock (sic)

Simply a typo, but I see you've fixed it. Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Canned beverages

Good evening Jmabel and happy new year! Pourrais-tu s'il te plaît donner ton avis concernant la question que j'ai posé au bistro? Merci d'avance. --Bohème (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Seattle Public Library ref desk 2A.jpg

You wrote me:

I have now reverted you twice on an incorrect change at File:Seattle Public Library ref desk 2A.jpg. Category:Computer art is there for the artwork near the top of the picture, as mentioned in the description of the image. You have now twice removed that and added Category:Interiors which is redundant to Category:Library interiors. If you have some reason for the change you are making, please explain either here or on the file's talk page. However, please do not simply make the same change a third time.

Thank you for connecting joint with me. A few days ago I visited category 'Computer art', looking for a suitable picture. Category was like a garbage bin. There was everything: simple drawings, geometric figures, spirals and other mathematical curvies, photo-portraits of scientists and sculptors, pictures with rendering effects and photo effects, digital impressionism, digital mosaics, electronic musical instruments, computer generated images, icons, textures, inscriptions, diagrams, graphic scales, screen shots, pictures of old type monitors, software menus, broken files and etc. Several hundred images and nobody can find anything he wants. Hardly anyone will be able to navigate and find what needed. I placed the most files in the appropriate categories. But of course there were some images that I couldn't find suitable categories for them.

If you appoint me to an appropriate folder or an appropriate title for a new folder, I will surely locate the above mentioned picture there.

But if I leave the picture in that folder, it will soon be filled with pictures of all sorts and it will still look like a garbage bin; and the files placed there will be again 'unfindable' and unusable.

That is the meaning of the categories and the categorization - to find suitable images more easily and faster, and to use them more often.

What would you advise me in this case? --Gabriel VanHelsing (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Gabriel VanHelsing. - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Gerb kineshma ivanovskaya oblast

respected Jmabel!

not agree with you. This work is not an object of copyright according to Part IV of Civil Code No. 230-FZ of the Russian Federation of December 18, 2006.

Article 1259. Objects of Copyright

Paragraph 5

Copyright shall not apply to ideas, concepts, principles, methods, processes, systems, means, solutions of technical, organizational and other problems, discoveries, facts, programming languages.

Paragraph 6

Shall not be objects of copyright:

official documents of state government agencies and local government agencies of municipal formations, including laws, other legal texts, judicial decisions, other materials of legislative, administrative and judicial character, official documents of international organizations, as well as their official translations;

state symbols and signs (flags, emblems, orders, banknotes, and the like), as well as symbols and signs of municipal formations;

works of folk art (folklore), which don't have specific authors;

news reports on events and facts, which have a purely informational character (daily news reports, television programs, transportation schedules, and the like).

with respect Yurii

--Юрген1986 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph 5 is presumably irrelevant. It's not an idea, concept, principle, method, process, system, means, solution of technical, organizational or other problems, discovery, fact, or programming language. It's an image. The only potentially relevant passage I can see here is in Paragraph 6: "state symbols and signs". I have no doubt that the design of the coat of arms is not copyrighted, and that anyone would have a perfect right to do your own drawing or other rendering of the coat of arms. The question is whether once someone does such a drawing or rendering, that actual drawing or rendering is subject to copyright.

In other words, I have no doubt that we can host an image of this subject. I'm just not sure we can host this image.

May I suggest that you either take this to Commons:Village pump/Copyright (where copyright experts, far more expert than I claim to be, generally hang out) or consult Clindberg (talk · contribs), who is the most knowledgeable person on the topic I've encountered here? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I am a journalist from the city. I handed over the coat of arms spokesman. I agree with the position on its use. Inconsistent use of items not found. But I follow your advice and turn to a specialist. Thank you very much! P.S. sorry for my bad English :) --Юрген1986 (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Restaurant Week Logo Undeletion

Thank you very much for your help with the Restaurant Week logo undeletion. Appreciate your help.Varunr (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:WikiProject Romania

Hi! I created the Commons:WikiProject Romania as a sister project to the multilingual WP:ROMANIA versions (currently en, fr, ro and ru) to better organize, categorize and improve the quality of media and galleries related to Romania and the Romanians. From your contributions, I think you might be interested and maybe you wish to join and support the project. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU

Hi Jambel,

Thank you for following up. My problem has been resolved and I have also mentioned it on the Village pump.
Inlandmamba (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Early Barbie doll en suite 01.jpg

And also:

• File:Early Barbie doll en suite 02.jpg

Yours sincerely Stefan4 (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Orthodox

As I am in Russia, where that Church was created 1000 years ago, I can't be an expert about American new organizations. But I think we should create main cat. Orthodox Christianity in the United States and put there Eastern Orthodox Christians from the United States and the particular Church. But you know, the words Orthodox Church it is the global word, like Catholic Church, but as we hadn't main pope, only many patriarchs, no one from Orthodoxes churches can't own the title of main and right. It just the battle of jurisdiction. E.g. exists such thing en:Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia and American buildings of en:Russian Orthodox Church who was enemy for an age - both Orthodox, and the only difference that second was Bolshevik's. So, just know that the particular Church isn't the only one who has the right for the name. Shakko (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"Eastern Orthodoxy in the United States" or "Orthodox Christianity in the United States" absolutely would not be specific to that Church. But "Orthodox Church in America" is: it's a proper name, and there is little space for confusion because we don't normally use "...in America" categories, we have "...in the United States" categories and "... in North America" categories (the latter also including Canada and Mexico).

This is far from the only problem in the hierarchy around Eastern Orthodox churches. For example, en-wiki does a much better job in its category hierarchy of distinguishing Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy; also (as you allude to) there are several separate Russian Orthodox bodies operating outside of Russia (mostly split by the different attitudes they adopted during the Soviet era), and our category hierarchy here seems to have been put together by people who were largely ignorant of these distinctions. - Jmabel ! talk 09:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Contrast

My intent was to make as readable as possible the text, written in ancient Romanian Cyrillic alphabet. Excuse me for doing it in an inappropriate manner, an thank you for your friendly help. My best regards, --Miehs (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, now you'll know in the future how to do it right. - Jmabel ! talk 07:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer

I am thankful for you having taken the time to answer my question.DinkumEn (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sobre mi tema en el Village Pump

Hola Jmabel.

Como vi que dominas el español, te dejaré el mensaje en mi idioma.

No creo que este asunto requiera perder tiempo en otra delete request, porque ya hubo una previamente y se determinó que son banderas inventadas por un usuario que utilizaba varios puppets para subirlas. Las banderas son falsas, así que pido sean eliminadas bajo la política de speedy deletion. Saludos--Inefable001 (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Por favor, trata con el asunto en Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#.22Alert_about_user_puppet.22. No hay tiempo ahora para hacerlo. - Jmabel ! talk 20:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Seattle U Fountain 03 A.jpg

File:Seattle U Fountain 03 A.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

GrapedApe (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• I went ahead and withdrew my DR for these images. You made a good argument. --GrapedApe (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 12:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:2000 Fremont Solstice Parade - Lenin Square.jpg

And also:

• File:Fremont Lenin statue 01.jpg
• File:Fremont Lenin statue 02.jpg

Yours sincerely Stefan4 (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Elmer Scott

So who is, or was, Elmer Scott and how does he come to have a memorial bench in front of the school in Carbonado? I was looking for a few photos of Carbonado to append as a gallery in the Esperanto Wikipedia article on the place, and wondered what makes this one notable. PS Glad to see that the Fremont Lenin statue is apparently not going to become invisible. --Haruo (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no clue. I was passing through Carbonado for about 90 minutes (maybe less?), snapped a bunch of photos because Commons had almost none, and had to guess more or less arbitrarily what would be useful beyond the obvious public buildings. I figure pretty much any time a public memorial is erected that is of at least some significance, if only for someone who might be writing at length in the future about the specific town. - Jmabel ! talk 15:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be at an Esperanto convention in Enumclaw/Mt. Rainier NP this September, maybe I'll remember to ask locally. --Haruo (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Seymour (Metro-North station) artifacts

Do my eyes deceive me, or is there an abandoned platform across from this image of Seymour (Metro-North station)? ----DanTD (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes. I've got an otherwise uninteresting photo that shows it a bit better (one of the many frames that went into a panorama I plan to upload in the next few days, though the abandoned platform was largely clipped from the panorama. If you like I can upload the "otherwise uninteresting photo", just let me know. - Jmabel ! talk 21:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey, stick it in the gallery once you get it loaded. We can always use it as a reference for the article. ----DanTD (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Not sure what gallery you have in mind, but here is the photo, do what you will with it: File:Seymour, CT - abandoned train platform.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 00:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Question

Use of images - can items be used if the owner is attributed (i.e. using a copyright symbol with the owner's name and year of creation) ? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by N1geD (talk • contribs) 2012‎-04-28 (UTC)

Can you please give me some context here? If you are asking whether attributing the copyright is sufficient to upload an image to Commons, the answer is no. Commons only accepts public domain materials and certain free content. See Commons:SCOPE#Must_be_freely_licensed_or_public_domain.

If you are asking something else, you'll need to be more specific. - Jmabel ! talk 17:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Supermarket?

OK. Sorry. Best regards, --JMCC1 (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC) ;(((

Category:Outdoor stairs in Central and Western District

Category:Outdoor stairs in Central and Western District has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JuTa 12:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Moore Theatre

Just to let you know: http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=3852, Photo Credit: Joe Mabel. I think I've heard this name before, somewhere ;-) Well actually, I stumble over your nice pictures all the time, thanks for your work. --X-Weinzar (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, Town Hall (Seattle) too. I guess they really like you ;-) --X-Weinzar (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. I cite them a lot in Wikipedia. Thanks for letting me know. - Jmabel ! talk 15:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

VP

Hi Jmabel,

I responded to your comment at Commons:Village_pump#Categories:_the_primary_way_to_search.2Fnavigate_Commons. --  Docu  at 03:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Bucharest Victoria Palace 2.jpg

File:Bucharest Victoria Palace 2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

128.250.5.245 07:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you add this to COM:DR?

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dave cumming during masturbation..JPG 68.173.113.106 01:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Did so, and notified uploader, but I have no idea why you asked me to do this than to do it yourself. I would rather not have had to look at this image page to identify the uploader and notify him. - Jmabel ! talk 02:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 02:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Dateiproblem

?

Hallo Jmabel, ich habe eine Bilddatei in der deutschen Wikipedia hochgeladen, die den Anforderungen der Panoramafreiheit entsprach. Nun hat ein rumänischer User diese Datei auf Commons übertragen (sh. nebenstehend), leicht nachbearbeitet und "verkauft" sie in der angegebenen Lizenz als Urheber. Da ist doch einiges falsch. Ich habe die Datei bewußt nur in der deutschen WP veröffentlicht – aufgrund der Problematiken mit der Panoramafreiheit. Die Panoramafreiheit wird in der Kopie auf Commons auch verfälscht, weil das Bild nachbearbeitet wurde. Das ist zwar nur sehr geringfügig (an einem Tor wurde das Wort "Nordtor" entfernt), aber es geht doch auch um das Prinzip. Denn ich kann ja in diesem Sinne dann alle meine abfotographierten Bilder so nachbearbeiten, daß sie in meinem Sinne "perfekt" sind. Außerdem ist die Lizenz falsch. Was ist zu tun? Mediatus (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my replying in English; it's a bit of a struggle for me to write in German, but let me know if there is anything you don't understand.

It looks from de:Datei:Weißenburg_Rekonstruktionsversuch.jpg that you released your image into the public domain. That would make it permissible (for example) for someone to claim the work as their own and not credit you at all, with or without that other person making modifications, so you really don't have any claim here at all. At least Saturnian chose to do you the courtesy of acknowledging you.

You could certainly add the information about Panoramafreiheit to the Commons page. You could even replace the image with what you consider the better version using the link that, in English, is called "Upload a new version of this file" (I don't know what the wording is in German). Or you could upload your original as an alternative version, and link the two using the "other_versions" field in the {tl|information}} template. But that's about all you could do.

I personally don't see much to choose between the two versions of the image. Saturnian was probably right to remove Nordtor for an inter-language version. Your image has, in theory, higher resolution, but it seems to me to have a resolution exceeding its actual level of meaningful information.

In the future, if you want to keep credit for your images, I'd recommend using a Creative Commons license that requires attribution instead of releasing your work into the public domain. Even then, though, Commons (and de-wiki) only allow licenses that allow others to freely create derivative versions of the image. - Jmabel ! talk 17:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I do not know, that you do not speak German. Sorry for me. My problem is, that I have made my photo from a table at the roman castle. In German I can upload it at the German Wikipadia with the word "Panoramafreiheit" (=en:Freedom of panorama). Freedom of panorama means – in German –, that you can photograph a objekt like this table, but you may not modify this object in a graphics program etc, because the rights are by the person, that made the table. Mediatus (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Ich kann Deutsch ganz gut lesen, aber ich schreibe es ganz schlecht. Ich habe es nür ein jahr in die Universität studiert, seit 40 jahre.

I wasn't aware of that particular limitation on Panoramafreiheit under German law, and I'm quite surprised. If your interpretation is correct -- that one cannot make derivative works -- then photographs whose rights are based on Panoramafreiheit should not be eligible for Commons at all. That has certainly not been the interpretation I believe has been used here up to now, and I'll bring the matter to Commons:Village pump/Copyright, with a cross-reference from Commons talk:Freedom of panorama. You can feel free to comment further (in English or German) at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 19:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I mean it is a problem with "Panoramafreiheit" at Commons. I and my friends at the German Wikipedia, upload this pictures only at the German Wikipedia. But I hope you can help. : ) Mediatus (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for answering my question about wikimedia commons. I didn't know how to write thank you there. (still new at this). Meitalklachuk (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for volunteering at Commons:Wikitravel_Shared_transfer_task_force. I hope that this project results in a lot more people photographing their cities just as you did for Seattle. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I've actually go this under control (to my surprise). Part of the WLM-US contest. Potentially copyrighted statue. I contacted the sculptor who I'll be sending an OTRS request to. Smallbones (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Bucharest_Grand_Hotel_1.jpg

Hi Joe. Are you sure this file is actually the "Grand Hotel du Boulevard"? Comparing it with your other picture of the same hotel, you can see that the roof has different decorations. If you are sure of the location, perhaps you can let me know what side was this picture taken from? Thanks.--Strainu (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• No, looking at it now I'm not sure at all. It's more the windows than anything else that raise doubts. Perhaps someone who knows Bucharest well could give us a correct identification. - Jmabel ! talk 15:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

he looks dangerous

Guda42 05:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer Parkway

Here is a link in the Seattle Municipal Code to the official boundaries (search for Volunteer Parkway): http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?d=CODE&s1=15app1.snum.&Sect5=CODE1&Sect6=HITOFF&l=20&p=1&u=/~public/code1.htm&r=1&f=G

Here is a link in the Seattle Municipal Code that more or less shows the map: http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~codepics/volunteer_parkway.gif

Jmabel - thanks for creating this topic, and the excellent photography. My apologies if I have added these notes on the wrong page. Reddog81 (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Ah. Interesting to see that there is now an official name. The name "Millionaire's Row" has been around for a century or so and is strictly a colloquial designation. Maybe we should change the topic to the same name. What do you think?
• And I guess whether it is roughly two blocks or four depends on whether you consider the minor streets that come in from the east and T-junction into 14th (E Ward, E Valley) count as blocks. - Jmabel ! talk 19:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

File:FLMM - Saddam's head 01.jpg

File:FLMM - Saddam's head 01.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Túrelio (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Category redirects

Thanks for the information. It was really unclear to me, even after reading through everything, how to get that accomplished. I'll get everything listed there. Thanks again, Mackensen (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Dead men

You've left a notably productive remark at the discussion page, why not come-and-talk it on as the discussion has been evolving. Orrlingtalk 08:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Hotel Vancouver plaque.jpg

And also:

• File:Vancouver - Christ Church Cathedral plaques.jpg
• File:Vancouver - Gastown Steam Clock plaque.jpg
• File:Vancouver - Greenshields Building plaque.jpg
• File:Vancouver - Mole Hill 31.jpg
• File:Vancouver - Orpheum Theatre plaque.jpg
• File:Vancouver - Power Block plaque.jpg
• File:Vancouver - The Manhattan - plaque.jpg

Yours sincerely Stefan4 (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Port Gamble, WA Olympian Ave NE 01.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Port Gamble, WA Olympian Ave NE 01.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Dealt with. No idea how that got lost. - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Plesase, choose expressions & be more attentive

Plesase, choose expressions

What does it mean: «Please don't mess with someone else's choice of how to state permissions unless it is actively wrong»? [3]. Please, be more polite & attentive: I didn't change any license terms - I've just lifted into the description file table license terms had been put under it. See: isn't «GFDL, CC-BY-SA-3.0 granted by photographer; photographer must be credited and license terms complied with» synonymous with template «Self|GFDL|Cc-by-sa-3.0|author=Joe Mabel»? Scriber en (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

My point is that those who upload our materials have a complete right to state quite a bit about requesting that license terms be conformed with. My statement is actually one of the briefer ones to this effect from those who choose to do this. I am telling you, as an admin, that you should not be removing such phraseology unless it is actively wrong. That's it. - Jmabel ! talk 19:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• OK! But don't blow on the water, buning with the milk. Have there been any claim from the authors (concerning the license)? And answer the question above (isn't that synonymous?). Is my variant actively wrong? Scriber en (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • No, what you wrote is not actively wrong, and you are more than entitled to word things that way on your own uploads. Everyone uploading their own material is pretty much entitled state their licensing terms their own way, as long as it is clear, and as a rule other people shouldn't change it once they do. - Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• So, my action «was't actively wrong». Besides, template «Self|GFDL|Cc-by-sa-3.0|author=Joe Mabel» had been in file description before it (it wasn't my «invention»). There haven't been any claim from the authors (concerning the license). So, what was wrong? What rules are you based on? Scriber en (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• What was wrong was the removal from what I had in the "Permissions" section. Again: we allow people a lot of leeway as to how they state their permissions. You should not be overriding this on someone else's upload of their own work unless they are actively wrong. In this case, I'm not even consistent about how I do this, and it was no particularly big deal, but since you are apparently making edits to other people's files, it is best that you know that this is something not to do. - Jmabel ! talk 01:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• So, be correct, please: that was not deletion - that was substitution. (I could understand you if it was deletion.) But, what you had in the "Permissions" section was totally identical with that, what you had in the "Licensing" section (it's your temlate, isn't it?). Could you explain what's the difference between them? Again, you said: «we allow people a lot of leeway as to how they state their permissions» but didn't link with the rules are you based on - why twice(?), may be you should state your permission third time at one description (I don't know). And, of course, you should link the rules if you said: "it is best that you know that this is something not to do" (is it your personal /even though administrator's/ opinion "what is something not to do" and "best me to know"?). Scriber en (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• I choose to restate my permissions beyond what is minimally required because my photos get picked up quite a lot by media, and in my experience if I don't restate things like this there is a tendency for them to be credited to "Wikimedia Commons" rather than to me.
• I have no idea whether this particular rule has been formalized. Not everything here that is customary is written down. I've been an administrator here for several years. I've been a contributor even longer and have somewhere over 30,000 of my photos hosted here. I am telling you from my personal experience that edits like the one you made are seldom welcomed and often reverted. If you want to continue, I can't stop you. If you keep doing this to my photos, expect to be reverted. You will be wasting both of our time and leaving me with unfavorable feelings toward you. If you keep doing this to other people's photos, don't be surprised when someone else is much unhappier with this than I am. And I'm done discussing this. - Jmabel ! talk 15:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• 1. So, from the end. Of course, I respect your administrator and contributor experience. But, it's very sad that administrator has no idea whether this particular rule has been formalized. This ought me to leave myself with unfavorable feelings towards such an administrator. Thus, you've treated wikimedia rules as you wish for several years. It could be possible if wikimedia was your personal project. But, unfortunately, it isn't so. So, do me a favour, base your actions and claims upon a formal rules. But, I suppose that you can't do this because of absence of such rules. Am I wrong? Scriber en (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Seattle - Fremont Bridge film clip.ogv

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Seattle - Fremont Bridge film clip.ogv. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry. I did a bad cut-and-paste job. Now sorted out. - Jmabel ! talk 23:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Ald foto12122006.jpg

File:Ald foto12122006.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

A.Savin 11:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seattle - Ellsworth Storey Cottages 02.jpg

Please don't get me wrong, I was just being puzzled because of that laundry issue. I was not being sarcastic when I proposed to nominate the other one as well, though. I'm a bit surprised that it actually got deleted, but I'm perfectly fine with that. Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't take it as sarcasm at all. It was an entirely reasonable question. If we hadn't had other decent backup photos, I'd have been opposed to the deletion myself. But, generally, as long as the subject of a photo who doesn't like the photo asks politely, and we have an appropriate replacement, I'll support removing a photo and not unnecessarily antagonizing someone. On the other hand, if they come in threatening lawsuits and acting like I don't have a perfect right to take photos in a public place & publishing them, I'll stand my ground. - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

ACK, I feel completely the same way. Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Rosh HaAyin and Rosh Ha'ayin

You've left a note on my talkpage regarding the matter we have on the plate and the block, to which I replied straight the next morning. This was 5 days ago. It's possible that you were somehow waiting for a notification that a message is waiting for you, so that you can attend it as normally expected. You may (alternatively) be taking your time. However, conventions suggest that when you're involved - as a dedicated editor and all the more so as Admin - in whichever discussion you'd also stay alert to the possibility that responses are written to your comment(s), not to mention when these concern an editor that is on the wait with little technical way to extend their communication from within their own talkpage and are seeing the days of their unfounded block go by, –and you may there want to act in that light and manifest respect to your own message and to others. Regardz, Orrlingtalk 15:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• I saw your comment. I had already said what I had to say and had nothing constructive to add. - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Автограф Лубченко Карточка ПРЕСС СЖУ 2001.JPG

hello! excuse me, would you mind looking at this, please? i'd like to know if it is okay to license it like this (every object has it's own tag, it seems). i've got a similar file i am not sure how to attribute correctly, as it consists of a PD-ineligeble one (though copyrighted) and a Cc-by-sa-2.1-jp one plus some text... thank you very much --antanana 04:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• In my non-expert opinion, assuming you took the photo yourself (since the finger there adds a creative element) the only thing that could imaginably be an issue is that one slightly non-trivial logo. If someone thinks that's above the threshold of eligibility, you could always do a Gaussian blur of the logo. - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • d'you mean this logo? that's not logo actually, that's our state's coat of arms. PD-UA-exempt (by our law). here is the file in question: uk:Файл:Wikimedia-UA-Baloha-concurs-logo.png. just cannot figure out how to license it right... but it does seem to me, that having just {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} tag is not okay... --antanana 17:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm really not expert enough on copyright law to answer this. I'd suggest you take it to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 21:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
      • ok, i'll try there. thanks) --antanana 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Chabad houses vs. synagogues

Sorry, I was just trying to tidy up categories. I think having "Congregation Shaarei Tefilah-Lubavitch" in the main Chabad category is too specific. I'll make a new category "Chabad synagogues and yeshivot", in which I'll put the 2 links I moved to "Chabad houses". I hope that's OK. April8 (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I'll make 2 categories: "Chabad synagogues" and "Chabad yeshivas", as they can be linked to "Category:Synagogues" and "Category:Yeshivas". April8 (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. - Jmabel ! talk 21:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Freeport Historical Museum

diff. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 00:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)