Q1[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Morlachs maps[edit]

Alex, I am new to Commons wikipedia and I am sorry for my mistakes. I am correcting the information on the "Morlachs maps", as you requested. All the maps were in my old computer databank, so I have made the mistake of believing they were copyrighted. I have just found that two (Hungary with turkey in europe.jpg and romanian origin map.PNG) are already (!) in wikipedia commons. The other two (Bosna2.jpg and MORLACCHI.MORLACCHIA.jpg) are from old maps in my databank. The fifth (a photo I have done some years ago, and scanned on my computer) is a personal creation, and you should decide the classification if you don't agree with me. I hope to have solved the problems, so you can remove the tags. Have a happy new year. Bruno.--Brunodambrosio 21:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Alex. I'll do the requested corrections. Bruno.--Brunodambrosio 16:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images marked free for private and educational use[edit]

ref Orkney pages in de.wkipedia and your comments ...

Whatsoever might have been written/left on the pics/maps themselves or in the description: Everything was clearly labled and licenced GNU/CC from me the author. I simply got rid of such stupid discussions and will delete all my contributions to WikiCommons and/or de.wikipedeia, both texts and pics/graphs. Nice to meet you ... Islandhopper 14:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bildetik/regler[edit]

Hur illa är det att registreringsnummer på bilar på en parkeringsplats syns i bilden Image:Lugnet.JPG? Finns det regler kring sådant. Och hur är det med privata hus i t.ex. foton från villastadsdelar? Radera gärna Lugnet-bilden om den inte är OK. Jag vet ej hur man gör. Skvattram 15:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Skvattram! Jag har letat lite, men inte lyckats hitta att Commons skulle ha några regler angående registreringsskyltar. Däremot hittade jag Category:License plates, så det verkar ju inte vara några problem. Sedan vet jag inte om personuppgiftslagen har några märkliga invändningar, men i de flesta länder gäller att man inte kan ha särskilt höga förväntningar på integritet på allmän plats. Jag är inte administratör här på Commons, så jag kan inte själv ta bort något. Om du hittar något som tyder på att bilden borde bort kan du anmäla den på Commons:Deletion requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing derived images[edit]

Continued at User talk:Tintazul as per notice at the top of this page.

Help please[edit]

Could you please help me. I requested deletion for two images Image:Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant 1.jpg and Image:Charadehepburn.jpg and you rightly noted that they did not conflict with copyright policies. I have uploaded new versions of the same images without the URL stamp that I thought was problematic. I should have just done that in the first place. I don't know what to do now. Should the deletion request be closed? Should I now remove the tags from the image pages? Thanks. Rossrs 11:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, deletion requests are only closed by administrators. I don't know whether or not it would be in accordance with common practice here for the user filing the request to withdraw it. If it is, I guess you would simply follow the instructions for administrators. It might be wise to ask an experience administrator first. In any event, an administrator will probably close the issues without deletion within a week or so, unless someone comes up with a reason not to, seeing your comments. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fair so I will wait and let it run its course. Thank you for your advice. Rossrs 13:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50px[edit]

- How do I give myself permission to upload this image? --Profero 09:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Commons:Email templates. You could also ask the original author to put a statement on his web site adjacent to the source placing it under one or more free licences and link to this. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I took the picture - why don't you ask me for permission to use it? I'll give it to you. --Profero 23:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image originally said "uploaded with permission from photographer Robert E. Haraldsen". This implied that the uploader and the photographer were two different people. It looks okay now. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why do admins at wikicommons hate freedom of artistic expression ?[edit]

I understand that Europeans elected Hitler willingly, but that was over 60 years ago. Why is facism slowly creeping back into the European mindset?

Please ask yourself: What would the world be like if photographers were restricted to taking only photos with "consent of subject"? We surely would lose millions of beautiful images. As far as I know, only taliban destroys photos of human beings. This is what European culture has become?

Now all my photos have been flagged for deletion. This is obviously in retaliation to my first appeal. Wikicommons admins clearly punish all resistance, a sick kind of electronic gestapo that tolerates no dissent.

Please have a look at my other candid photographs and explain why they are being deleted. Graham Wellington 19:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally agree with requiring permission for photographic subjects, but if the law in the country where the photograph was taken requires it, we have to respect that. Like I said on your talk page, you're unlikely to rally support by antagonising others. —LX (talk, contribs) 04:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Gerhard[edit]

Hej LX!

Jag har nu kompletterat Karl Gerhardbilden med uppgift om källa. Som framgår faller den under PD såsom tagen av okänd fotograf och publicerad före 1944. /FredrikT 15:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Smile[edit]

Hi, I got an answer from the Chapter's Secretary. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Order of Smile.svg. Kpalion 13:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maps, maps, and more maps[edit]

Hi! re: Category talk:Maps (please join the discussion, because This edit is very contrary to what is going to go on with any map--they'll all eventually have tons of different map pages categories. The correct move on that date would be Maps showing the history of the Late Middle Ages and Maps showing the history of the High Middle Ages because of "Roughly spans the years: 1000 AD—1300 AD;", emphasis on the roughly. The map re-categorization project (sic) has been on going here since May, paused over the late late summer and fall, and is soon to be a many handed steady effort again... Please share your wisdom with us.

And then also that 'Europein1328.png' page's talk, considering this: [1], where the accuracy of the map is in question. Do you know whether there is a resolution group here to turn to on that issue? Nice to meetchya! Regards // FrankB 18:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC) (P.S.--I'll fix that cat issue now, need to go to that talk anyway.)[reply]

That was a few thousand edits ago, so I can't say exactly what I was thinking. I believe my concern with Image:Europein1328.png was that I thought that Category:Maps showing 14th-century history was a subcategory of Category:High Middle Ages (via Category:Maps showing the history of the High Middle Ages) and Category:Late Middle Ages (via Category:Maps showing the history of the Late Middle Ages; this would be similar to how Category:Maps showing 11th-century history is categorised, and perhaps it ought to follow the same scheme, as I seem to have assumed it did).

If this assumption had been correct, the map would have appeared in multiple levels of the same hierarchy. As you might know, this is called overcategorisation, which should be avoided. Diagrammatically, here is what I thought the partial category graph looked like and where the image was categorised:

Category:High Middle Ages ←
- Category:Maps showing the history of the High Middle Ages
  - Category:Maps showing 14th-century history ←

Category:Late Middle Ages ←
- Category:Maps showing the history of the Late Middle Ages
  - Category:Maps showing 14th-century history ←

Category talk:Maps is on my watchlist, I do express my views there occasionally, and I have taken an active role in the categorisation of maps (mainly helping to move broadly categorised maps from Category:Maps to its subcategories.

I'm afraid I know far too little history to comment on the accuracy of the map. Maybe some kind participants of en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages could help?

—LX (talk, contribs) 03:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with your thought process... save I'd have killed the parent Middle ages categories, as clearly it's a map and should be in a rib off that skeleton, so to speak. Whether it should be listed in both the latter kind, or just one with the centuries being arranged under the period span is something we need to hammer out. They are both periodization schemes, but only the centuries one is fully in place on the commons. On en.wp, there is a set of articles matching a navigation template... so that is a work in progress here, and I'll have to further explore what was happening over there. WikiP's server is currently down, so I came here for a bit.

I'm an engineer, but have an avocation in history, and I don't know the answer to that one myself. Thanks for reminding me to research it a bit more. As we get into modern times, such periodization classifications will become far more complicated as at the same time the body of work to be classified will be far larger, whilst fitting such into any era category save 'Contemporary times' may well be impossible--hence the finer discrimination of the by centuries blurs much in our recent past and present. I think I just convinced myself the maps by centuries should be the tagging cat, and the other hold those!

I sort of consider the wide-timespan categories in periodization as aggregations -- galleries collecting a lot of all in the era by type data. A similar case would be coins or pottery by era. Do late Roman empire coins and Greek coins from the era of the Persian wars belong together? Both are in 'Antiquity' per current era classifications, so I would say so... if it's recognized as such a 'tracking category', not as a primary schema in and of itself. Regards -- thanks for the long answer. I'll refer this to that talk. // FrankB 00:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auroranorth[edit]

Please keep discussions where they started, as requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stereographic polytope 8cell.png[edit]

Please keep discussions where they started, as requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mellotron[edit]

Please keep discussions where they started, as requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chourah[edit]

Thanks for picking it up - again! I've protected them from recreation now which hopefully leave us with time for other things - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 11:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Mangareva 2006[edit]

Please keep discussions where they started, as requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image "Lost Temporada 3"[edit]

Please keep discussions where they started, as requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is the correct procedure, but I'm newbee here, please be patient. The user, who uploaded that image (Temporada 3), uploads now Image:Lost_Tercera_Temporada.jpg. I think this is copyright infringment, but i'm not sure (otherwise I insert speedy delete). I apologize for my english. Bye. ELBorgo (sms) 19:28, 18 Mar 2007 (UTC)

Free Pictures[edit]

Please keep discussions where they started, as requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please delete[edit]

Would you please go ahead and delete Image:D2JSP screenshot.jpg for me... I forgot about the fact that the image would only qualify as fair use. I have uploaded it to wikipedia instead. Thanks! Pedant 19:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't – I'm not an admin here. However, it's been tagged as a non-free screenshot, so its deletion should be imminent. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make a warning template for Copyvio claim to don't be[edit]

Hello, I found thqt you edit this :

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALainhRien&diff=4847730&oldid=4847516

And I perfectly agree with you, for 'This case', and for 'such cases'. We have new vandals uploading copyrighted image under free licenses. For such cases, we need to put then face to the fact that the uploader is legaly responsable of the copyvio. This case becoming frequent, I think we need a new template.

I did the template "{{Wait}}", but it may be (and need) both improvement and renaming. Please feel free to improve and rename the template {{Wait}}, to have a more efficient tool of warning.

--Yug (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC) (administrator too ;)[reply]

Yeah, you might have noticed I got some inspiration for the wording from your post on the village pump. :) I threw together {{User:LX/Copyright claims}} for now.

I'm not sure about your idea of integrating warning and blocking messages. It would be good for us non-admins to be able to warn users without claiming (incorrectly) that they've been blocked, and warning users give them a chance to show

that the work really is their own or
that they hadn't understood what they were doing (giving them the chance to come clean by tagging their own uploads for deletion) or
that they intend to proceed in bad faith, ignoring all warnings. (If and when this happens, blocking is in order.)

—LX (talk, contribs) 14:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, I have the same idea : we have to send a kindly notification, to encourage them to make good contributions. And obviously, we have not to block them on the minute.

In the template Wait, we can change :

"you were block" by "...from now, you may be block to allow copryrigh checking..."
The Wait name, by {{User seeming in copivio}}, or something like that (my english is not good enough to make shorter)
add a section such "you are legaly responsable of your upload [...] wikimedia may share the informations keep about you [...]"

Can you build something in this 3 ways with a "Standard English" ? Then it will be ok to add it. ;]

(In fact, the work is almost exactly to merge Wait and your User:LX/Copyright claims)

Yug (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I started by substing the {{Wait}} template on user talk pages where this hadn't been done, to avoid changing the contents of messages that have previously been left on user talk pages. (Substing templates with headings also helps avoid editing of the template, as the edit link for the heading leads to the template unless it's been substed.)

I'll make some changes to the template in the next few minutes based on this discussion. Please keep an eye on it, and let me know of anything you don't like or anything you think I've overlooked.

—LX (talk, contribs) 17:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Let me know what you think. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship for Tintazul[edit]

Hi LX! I have proposed myself for adminship; please go to the nomination page and support me with your vote. Thank you! – Tintazul ^talk 11:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to think about this for a bit, and I notice in the meantime, you appear to have effectively withdrawn your request. I do hope that you are not too disappointed with the outcome, and that you continue to contribute to Commons as you have done for the past couple of years.

To be honest, I would hesitate to support your request. The willingness to experience what adminship is like, both from a social and technological perspective, indicates some level of curiosity, which I think is a good thing, so that didn't bother me. What did bother me is the solicitation of votes (particularly as you not only encouraged people to vote, but to vote in a specific way) and the discussion we had earlier about licensing of derivatives of GFDL-licensed works.

I'm sure you've learned from that discussion, but my fear is that it might indicate that there are other weak points in your understanding of this complex area, which I think is absolutely crucial to Commons administrators. I know I could be wrong here, and I know I set the bar high here, but sorting out licensing issues is the most important job of administrators here, so I do want to err on the side of caution.

That said, we do need Portuguese speaking administrators to deal with the increasing quantity of copyright violations of Portuguese speaking uploaders, and you do have a long history of valuable contributions, so it's not a simple decision to make.

—LX (talk, contribs) 01:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Please keep discussions where they started, as requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q2[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Adminship[edit]

I wanna nominate you for adminship... Yonatan ^talk 13:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I really appreciate it, and I think I could make good use of the extra tools in the janitorial work that I already perform. Right now is not the best time, though. I'm in the process of moving to another city for work, and arrangements are a bit temporary until I move into my new apartment at the beginning of May. (This is also the reason it's taken me some time to respond.) I won't have much access to a computer that I feel comfortable editing Commons from until then, which means I won't be able to answer many questions that might follow a nomination. I also wouldn't have much use for the extra tools until things settle down. I'd be happy to accept the nomination in a few weeks, though. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me know when you want me to nominate you. ;) Yonatan ^talk 17:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think I'm somewhat settled in at my new place now, so if you still want to nominate me, I'm ready to accept it now. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't like people responding on your talk page, but I've nominated you. ;) Yonatan ^talk 14:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't mind, so long as this is where the discussion started. :) Thanks a lot! —LX (talk, contribs) 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French[edit]

Hello, i'm french and i don't speak english, but you can remove the images of players because I have in fact taken the images on wiki.en! Sorry!!! I did what it was necessary for the shirts ! thank you!!! Guigui59 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland Review Cover[edit]

Please keep discussions where they started, as requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Dear Administrator![edit]

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ +/−

LX/Archive/2007, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and Commons:Deletion requests), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net.

EugeneZelenko 15:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! :) —LX (talk, contribs) 18:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Stella[edit]

Hi,

I´ve seen you´ve deleted an image by a picture of mine, portraiting a work by Frank Stella. The image was freedom of panorama. The allegation used to delete it is that it was not located in a public place. This is wrong. The work belongs to a a Brazilian public museum (University of São Paulo - Museum of Contemporary Art), vinculated to a State University, with free entrance, which allows visitors to take photos. I didn´t understand the reason for deleting it, could you explain to me? thanks —the preceding unsigned comment is by 201.6.179.194 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all state-owned buildings are public places, and freedom of panorama typically only applies outdoors. Furthermore, it only applies to works permanently placed in a public place, and the work in question did not appear to be permanently installed. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, I´m confused. I´ve read what the code states ("Works permanently located in public places may be freely represented by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes."). The work in question belongs to the permanent collection of the Museum (it is registered in the institution´s inventory under the number T.42.857.06), therefore, it is permanently installed in that place. My doubt is about the "public places" and the meaning it has. You stated that this applies only to outdoors, but I´ve seen a huge number of pictures portraiting works of art in inner places in Commons, under the Freedom of Panorama license. So, why public places means "outdoors" for some and "indoors" for ohters? —the preceding unsigned comment is by 201.6.179.194 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the image and nominated it at COM:DEL instead to see what others have to say. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin statue[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User_talk:Nickel_Chromo#Image_Tagging_Image:Stalin_statue_in_Budapest.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion tag at Commons?[edit]

Hi, I followed a link from someone's userpage to newpages, and found Mike Stephens. It looked like nonsense/vandalism, so I tried to tag it the way I would have at en — with {{db|Nonsense}}. I'm not really familiar with Commons. I saw that it said my deletion request was incomplete, so I started looking around to see what I should have done. When I got back to the Mike Stephens page, I found that you had deleted it. Is there not some quick tag that I can use on Commons for something that's obviously meant for speedy deletion rather than for a week-long vote? Thanks. ElinorD 22:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for your efforts at tidying up around here. Yes, it was vandalism (criminal hate speech and defamation, actually). The users who made the "contributions" have been blocked and their other actions have been reverted. As you noticed, {{Db}} is used for deletion requests for less obvious cases, which are discussed at COM:DEL. We have {{Speedy}} for speedy deletions in obvious cases. You can also post a message on the administrators' noticeboard or (the quickest way) get on IRC and holler "!admin" in #wikimedia-commons on irc.freenode.net (that's how this vandal came to my attention). —LX (talk, contribs) 22:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all that. I'll be sure to remember it. Cheers. ElinorD 22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you a question, please?[edit]

Hello, LX.Here's the question: Let's say I uploaded a nice image of a very common flower. Let's say that Wikipedia photo library has many images of the same flower and the same or better quality. I wonder, if my image is going to be kept and, if it is, for how long. If the image is going to be kept, I wonder what is the purpose of keeping the image?Thanks--Mbz1 02:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]

Unless there is some compelling reason not to keep it, such as licensing problems or extremely poor quality (the subject being completely out of focus, for example), the image should be kept indefinitely. The purpose, as I understand it, is to provide alternatives which may work in different situations and to showcase multiple examples of what the flower might look like. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcio Benvenuto de Lima - Help me about upload that image Fx.[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Marcio Benvenuto de Lima. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you.

Image:Grab Werner von Fritsch. Berlin. Invalidenfriedhof 2004-09-25.jpg[edit]

The User had Uploaded only one pic und the german text says: "Own Work". I don't know the Picture, but i think ist is possible. --Fg68at de:Disk 06:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to doubt the source, but we also need a license, which the uploader failed to specify. Without a license, we cannot legally use the image. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaic[edit]

HI... It looks like you deleted Image:Gentian_from_slovakia.JPG Would you mind fixing the Mosaic? See STOP!!!! DO NOT DELETE THIS IMAGE TILL YOU REPLACE IT IN THE WIKIMEDIA LOGO MOSAIC which we hoped would stand out when people did what links here before or after deleting, and which explains what to do... The mosaic is one of the most highly viewed pages on commons since it was named off in a press release. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c

To be honest, I didn't check "What links here," as I generally trust Commons Delinker to do a better job at cleaning up after deletions at all Wikimedia projects than I could ever hope to do manually. I'm not really familiar with the mosaic project, but I'd strongly encourage the project participants not to use unlicensed images. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a project that used 1200 images!!!! (and it is over with, the press release was at the time of 1M image files)... that is a lot of images and it is inevitable that a few images slip through, and this particular one seemed to have a good license. CommonsDelinker hasn't a prayer of fixing it if you delete an image, as the image references are embedded in deeply nested template invocations and the fix is to find another image to replace the one, not just remove it.. that leaves a hole. Let me know if you will not be able to fix it. But if you do, you can tell your friends you were in on one of the neatest commemorative projects ever. :) ++Lar: t/c 23:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done (I hope). —LX (talk, contribs) 06:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and very nicely done, too. Thanks muchly. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 22:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, and locator maps[edit]

Hello -- thanks for your praise and for the information. Boldly, I am replacing the locator maps already in place for European countries, which seem to have a weird projection and (in my opinion) are unappealing. Anyhow, I will try to make an effort to categorise these (and other) images as I upload them.

One note: in the coming days, I intend on creating and uploading locator maps for all European countries, not just those of the EU. If there's another or complimentary category I should be using, please let me know. Thanks! Quizimodo 11:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. There is a category called Category:Locator maps for African countries in Category:Locator maps for countries, which sets a precedent indicating that it would probably be reasonable for you to be bold and create Category:Locator maps for European countries as another subcategory. If you do, also move Category:Locator maps for EU countries into it. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Like it says! Plus would you care to look at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wolf-n-horsy.jpg - you closed the other one that was uploaded at the same time. As I was involved I'd prefer to avoid it - if not no problem - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Foxie_with_player.jpg[edit]

This image wes uploaded by the original author licensed {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}. You deleted this image commented "Not appropriate material for Commons". It has value for the projects as much as everything in category Erotic art. It is uploaded and used in ru-wiki. Please explain where in Commons:Project scope is written that such image is outside project scope. 82.199.102.55 00:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 82.199.102.55,

That's not true. I deleted it with the comment "Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Foxie with player.jpg". The consensus of this debate was that the image should be deleted, which was also the conclusion of the undeletion request which you filed. I'm afraid nagging won't do you much good around here.

Pornographic images of animals are widely considered obscene in the United States, and as such, hosting such images on Wikimedia's servers in Florida would be illegal. Clearly, the scope of Commons or the notion that Wikimedia projects are not censored does not extend beyond the boundaries of the law. Just like we don't host obscene images of children to illustrate articles on child pornography, you'll simply have to find other ways to describe articles on animal porn.

—LX (talk, contribs) 06:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xcv47x[edit]

You recently refused an unblock request for Xcv47x (talk · contribs). Just letting you know that this user uploaded yet another image with a blatantly false license. Looks like, despite the user's claims he would stop violating our image policies, he has no intention of adhering to policy. --68.148.89.74 19:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright violations have been deleted, and the user has been blocked indefinitely. Thank you for your vigilance. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hola en español please, no entiendo lo que dices[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User_talk:Brutanza#Copyright_violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you.

Helping User:Brutanza[edit]

Hi, LX, I'm Santiperez, a user from es:Wikipedia, and I am trying to help Brutanza with his problems here in Commons. I think he now understands that he can't upload images of CDs or posters, but he has doubts about Concert tickets and fliers. Are they acceptable, or are they considered "derivative work"? You can answer me in English and I will translate your answer to Brutanza and try to explain it to him. He is not a troll, he is just a confused starter, please have patience. Thanks for your help and comprehension, --Santiperez 22:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC) P.D.: I've left a copy of this message at Brutanza's discussion page, so you can continue the discussion there if you want[reply]

Hola, hazme saber si cumpli con el proceso subir archivos, esta foto es de mi propiedad, yo la tome, Image:Víbora Julieta Heineken-2006.JPG gracias--Brutanza 01:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help about cuban image[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Elnecio#Image:FidelGuerilla.JPG. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you.

My uploads[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Horv.petya#Copyright_violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you.

Q3[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

La chaine RTE[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Gavigan#Fair_use_is_not_permitted_on_Commons. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RTE logo[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Gavigan#Fair_use_is_not_permitted_on_Commons. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you.

Image:Paint NET screen.jpg[edit]

Hi! Thanks for your patience and resolving this licensing problem :] Sorry for my mistake :? Regards, patrol110 19:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

77bcr77[edit]

Merci de m'avoir prévenue, 77bcr77 18:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mail[edit]

You have it! Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth edwards etc.[edit]

ok

You must delete them please Image:GARETH EDWARDS.jpg...

Effectively, it's better...

Thanks

Ddfree 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Other speedy deletions[edit]

Hallo,
can you look into that category ? It overflows, because of a bot-error. Augiasstallputzer 18:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot deletion[edit]

Hi, LX: a couple of years ago I uploaded Image:ProgressQuest_Screenshot.png to the English Wikipedia. It was a screenshot of an MIT-licensed program (Progress Quest), and I explicitly renounced any personal copyright claim to it. At some point someone else apparently in good faith contributed it to Wikimedia Commons and deleted it from English Wikipedia. I was running Windows when I took the screenshot -- this didn't appear to matter at the time, but last week, you deleted the image from Commons because images containing visible Microsoft Windows widgets are apparently no longer allowed here.

This has resulted in a broken image on the original English Wikipedia article. I no longer possess a copy of the original image and it now appears to have fallen off the web completely. Even though nobody individually did anything wrong, the cumulative end result of this process is that my contribution was destroyed, and the wp article subjected to wiki-entropy, for what appears from the outside to be silly procedural reasons.

Would it make sense in such cases to move the image back to the English Wikipedia (which allows "fair use" images) instead of destroying it forever?

(I'm actually wondering how Commons can contain any photographs at all under the union of the strictest possible interpretations of all copyright laws everywhere: how would one contribute a screenshot of a Windows program to Commons in the future? Is just removing the window decorations enough, or would the presence of buttons and scrollbars contaminate the screenshot? What about photographs where a Windows or Mac OS desktop is visible on a monitor in the background? What about photographs that contain portions of a car or other industrially designed object visible in frame?) --Saucepan 02:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that we've ever consciously accepted screenshots containing parts of non-free software. User:Liftarn who transferred the image to Commons incorrectly tagged the image with {{Free screenshot}}, which already then stated that the image does not contain any elements of non-free software, a statement which did not apply to this image.

As a courtesy, I've uploaded a version of the image where I've cropped out all copyrightable non-free Microsoft Windows widgets and undeleted the image description.

—LX (talk, contribs) 09:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrol[edit]

Hi LX. Thank you very much for delete user page and block Wherethef***karethepicturesofferrol. Best regards. --Prevert^(talk) 20:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I'm trying to keep an eye out for these vandals. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Upload/sv[edit]

Hi LX! I noticed you have worked on this. Is it complete? If so I can get my bot to update the navigation links etc so they match the Swedish. cheers --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, it's complete. I think I've taken care of all the labels for all the "svsomething" language codes as well. You can have a look at my Mediawiki namespace contributions and see if I've missed anything obvious. Thanks! We still haven't changed the left-hand side menu to point to the Commons rather than the Special version of the upload page. I thought I'd announce it on the Swedish VP to give people some time to find my mistakes first. Finally, good on you for your part in reworking the upload process. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing[edit]

Hello! There are 6 types of licensing my own work, but I can find none of their description, so I can't tell the difference. Could you please help me with this? Thank you in advance. Pagan 16:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I've understood your question right: you're wondering about the differences between the licenses that you can choose to apply to works that are entirely the result of your own efforts, is that right?

The most popular licensing options here at Wikimedia Commons are the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and one of the free Creative Commons (CC) licenses, some combination thereof, and releasing works into the public domain.

There are a few varieties of the CC licenses. The Creative Commons Attribution (CC-by) license grants the most freedoms to those who use your works. Essentially, they can use your work for any purpose, so long as they credit you. The Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (CC-by-sa) license is a copyleft license, meaning anyone who wants to distribute modified copies of your work must license their modifications under that same license. Thus, a CC-by work can be modified and turned into a non-free work, while a CC-by-sa license guarantees that all derivative works are equally free.

The GFDL is similar to the CC-by-sa license in that it is a copyleft license. The ideas behind these two licenses are relatively similar, but subtleties in the wording have legal implications that one needs to study the license texts in detail to grasp completely.

Releasing the work into the public domain is similar to the CC-by license, but whether or not attribution is required may depend on the jurisdiction.

Many users also choose to multi-license their works under a combination of, for example, GFDL and CC-by-sa, to let the recipients choose which license they prefer.

I hope that addresses your question and makes things a bit clearer. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough evidence[edit]

LX, I sure hope that you have best intentions in mind as you contineously question the permission I got for pictures from my articles I uploaded to the commons. I obtained written permissions from authors, however I cannot provide texts for public viewing as they are distributed between several messages (for example, in one message I ask a person to allow me use of the pictures from his site, in another one they reply, but they do not cite my original quesiton, for which I do not blame them), also these messages contain my personal information which I do not want to share with the world. I hope you share my view point. Even I forwarded you (and by the way, why you, may I ask ???) or permissions designated email address in commons some of those pieces of emails, what kind of evidence is that. At some point, you people have to learn how to trust words of other people. It amazes me that you are so overprotective against good citizen, while vandals and trolls are just doing their stuff without asking. Should I continue?.. I already written that I obtained permission from authors. So, nagging authors for kinds of permissions that would satisfy your curiosity would do the trick?.. I don't think that was the original intention of Wikipedia. Best regards. Avetik 22:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My intentions are to ensure the integrity and safekeeping of Commons and to ensure that we do not host images with licenses which we are not certain the author approved. I hope we can agree that these are good intentions.

As the {{No permission since}} template explains, you have to "provide a link to a webpage with an explicit permission. If you obtained such a permission via email, please forward it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and reference it at upload." E-mails forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org are stored in OTRS and visible only to a limited number of trusted users.

I too wish that we could simply trust everyone uploading material to Commons, but reality is that we can't. We get hundreds if not thousands of uploads every day from people who violate copyright laws and Commons policies out of ignorance or deliberation. Permissions in particular are an area where appropriate procedures are not followed. Uploaders often request permission to "use the work on Wikipedia" when what they need to ask is under which free license, if any, the author would like to publish the work for the whole world to use, modify and redistribute for free or for profit. Authors often reply in a manner which does not clearly assert authorship and a license grant. Uploaders, again, frequently interpret such imprecise responses frivolously and select license tags which cannot actually be inferred from the authors' statements.

Then when the author finds his work, which he thought he contributed only to the wonderful, non-profit Wikipedia project, being distributed, modified and sold elsewhere because of statements made here, Commons is looking like a pretty good target for litigation (even if it's the uploader that's ultimately responsible).

And that's why we have to be so diligent. Please add evidence of the permission granted and please don't remove problem tags without fixing the actual problem. Images without such evidence will be deleted.

—LX (talk, contribs) 23:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining yourself so well. So, apparently I am one of many confused and ignorant folks who want to do a good thing, but are somehow trapped in these regulations. Seems like it is a systematic problem. Well, I am still learning the rules, sorry, I missunderstood your intentions. I will try to contact authors again and solicit a clear release statements from them. Thanks again. Avetik 02:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent email to permissions box. What's next? When that warning tag will be removed? Just curious. Avetik 11:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next, someone who has OTRS access (I don't) will review the permission statement. In the meantime, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tags with {{Otrs pending}}. If the permission looks okay, the reviewer will then replace this with a tag which references the specific OTRS entry. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User blocks[edit]

Let me know if you would like CU on those - I see autoblocks kicking in? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems they gave up. Thanks, though. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administratörhjälp[edit]

Hej, skulle du som är administratör kunna ta en titt på MediaWiki talk:Readonly. Jag la ett meddelande med Template:Editprotected där för tre veckor sedan, men det verker inte vara rätt sätt att få administratörers uppmärksamhet. /90.229.135.239 12:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo now GFDL[edit]

Hi LX,
I contacted the owner of the promo photo of Josh Woodward you deleted earlier, and was able to convince him to licence it as GFDL. Thanks for informing me of the bad licence! (Link)
- Lasse Havelund ^{(p) (t)} 22:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hhello[edit]

Hello Lx! As you might have noticed I´ve just uploaded this img:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Discurso_central_do_brasil.jpg

Since it was linked on the pt-wk ([2]) and there is a warning from brazilian Army, isaying it is allowed to work with ... Filomena

The stated source, http://www.exercito.gov.br/01Instit/Historia/sinopse/historia.htm, returns a 404 Not Found, so there is no evidence that that's indeed the source or that they published the image under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license, as you have claimed. Therefore, I have tagged it as missing permission information. There is also no sign that it was posted to Flickr, as you claim since you tagged it with {{Flickrreview}}. Generally, it is better to ask first if you're unsure about whether or not an image may be uploaded to Commons or which license you should use. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Crespus2006. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 12:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Violations[edit]

Dont be that harsh mr LX.Actually when you take a look at a few of them you will then be able to know that the images are not copyright vios...the one named as kunjah textile mills is the logo of a textile mill and they dont stop you to publish it or use it in an encyclopedia, and the one named Shrine of Ghaneemat is from the cam of a person as the name is given there in the pic.It is the pic of a shrine that is in my city... so what is wrong with them??? remains the question of the others i accept that i have downloaded them from Google but i thougt thay they were free as they are the pic of living persons.....so what do you think?Adeelbutt88 18:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a chat with Adeel on the English Wikipedia, and I think he understands what he did wrong now, so there shouldn't be any need for a block. Remember to assume good faith! ;) --Diniz 19:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied where the discussion started. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is it ok now?[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Talgraf777#Image_Tagging_Image:Adam_Jerzy_Czartoryski1.png. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 14:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

how?[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:StarWar55#Image_Tagging_Image:Artur_BalderBW.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 14:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:JohnCenaWWEChampion.jpg[edit]

Can you please delete Image:JohnCenaWWEChampion.jpg. I originally uploaded it and I noticed that the uploader from Flickr said that this image is also used on his obsessed with wrestling profile. ––StormyXXX 22:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done —LX (talk, contribs) 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You —StormyXXX 22:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Carly Colon in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg and Image:Carlito-ICchamp.jpg[edit]

Again I just noticed that both of these images were on obsessed with wrestling. So could you please delete them. --StormyXXX 22:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tahnks again. --StormyXXX 22:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bob Holly in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg, Image:Sho Funaki in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg, etc.[edit]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a second here. I would like to make a comment on this before you go on a deletion spree here. As far as I'm aware, the author of the photos donated the images to OWW for use there as well. I'll contact him over at FlickR about this. --Oakster 14:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they were originally from OWW. --StormyXXX 14:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one, the images Static uploaded were all from the same house shows held at January 15 and August 12 [3], so it's not like they're randomly picked. Secondly that page I just gave you is their coverage of house shows. They don't host photos for specific house show or even televised shows for the last few years, only photos for specific wrestlers. Either way, I've notified the author now. --Oakster 17:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I was going to file a deletion request rather than speedying anyway, since it involved so many files. In any case, the Flickr captions do raise some questions, and I guess they could be interpreted in several ways, so I think we really do need some clarifications. If we get confirmation that the Flickr uploader is actually the photographer, it would be good to document this with an OTRS ticket to avoid further confusion. Of course, if that happens, I'll also undelete the images already deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:I Dont Know.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Gwilherm_Al_Leonad#Image_Tagging_Image:I_Dont_Know.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 18:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Andros64#Please_remain_calm_and_collegial. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 18:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

re:[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Andros64#Please_remain_calm_and_collegial. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 19:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Log in problems. Can you help?[edit]

I am currently logged in under my correct username, but I am afraid I recently may have inadvertently changed my password when I attempted to create an account at wikipedia. So now I am afraid to log out.....because I am not sure I can get back in again later.....Am I right to be concerned, or are usernames distinct between wikipedia and wikimedia commons?

KnowItSome 21:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User accounts at different Wikimedia projects (such as Commons and the different language editions of Wikipedia) are all independent from one another (at least so far: there is work being done to change this, but nothing actively deployed). If you have an e-mail set in your preferences, you should be able to get your password e-mailed to you in case you've forgotten it. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MikePhish.jpg[edit]

Hi, thanks for fixing my omission of a license from the subject image in this edit. Also, you will probably be interested in my post to User talk:RunLikeAnAntelope. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I have no problem with the addition of the {{Flickrreview}} tag, which only formally noted that I verified the license on Flickr, which is true (and was implied by my edit summary). I probably should have added it myself. But yes, double license tags seem a bit silly. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

imagenes[edit]

holA yo no habia visto las otras advertencias.

y que licencia le pongo a las imagenes de kingdom hearts--Fefefe 15:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User_talk:Stahlkocher#Do_not_blank_your_user_talk_page. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 13:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I answered you on my talk page. May i now life again in peace? -- Stahlkocher 13:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are so right. May i now blank it again? -- Stahlkocher 14:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thing you now became hostile and uncivil. What a big step forward. I added a OTRS number. May i now live again in peace? -- Stahlkocher 14:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Commons:Disputes noticeboard#User:LX_and_User:Stahlkocher. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FOP in germany[edit]

Hi LX, you made my day with this edit: [4]. Since now the Germon-FOP became suddenly "non-commercial". Well, thats wrong. It actually is "non-derivatve". Also not sufficient for commons. Like this Image:Petter Solberg 2006 Rally Australia Dwellingup.jpg image. And you obviously have no allowance to use it for commercials. To make it worse, FOP it is not a question of taking the image, but of publishing it. In germany (and probably is most countries, who cares). A small difference, you know? Just have a look at Category:Buildings, so much copyrigted work, over and over, no sources, no copyright-owner....

I wish you the very best and that you may trace down any so called "copyright-infringement"! -- Stahlkocher 15:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Microsoft Sign on German campus.jpg at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Microsoft Sign on German campus.jpg. I've copied your comment there and responded there. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help![edit]

Hello, I've just seen your name on the recentchanges page. I need to delete these two images:

The first is an unuseful copy of Image:600px Rosso scuro e Nero.png (which I noticed too late), whereas the second is no longer needed as I substituted it with another, less generic image. I also created this deletion request page.
Could you please delete these images? Thank you very much. --Freddyballo 18:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the first one as a duplicate. You may tag any other duplicates for speedy deletion with {{duplicate|Image:Other file.jpg}}. The reason you've given for deleting the second one doesn't fall into Commons:Deletion guidelines#Speedy_deletion, so I'll just let the deletion request have its course for now. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I reworded my reason in a better way, is it OK now? --Freddyballo 18:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cascabelcolombia.jpg[edit]

I note you haven't nominated Image:Cascabelcolombia.jpg for deletion yet, you might like to know its possible source is [5], same picture, same filename, site has copyright notices but I don't see any particular attribution for that image. Hope that helps :-) --Tony Wills 13:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the infringing image. Thanks for your detective work! —LX (talk, contribs) 18:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wolf-n-horsy.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to Commons:Undeletion requests#Image:Wolf-n-horsy.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 18:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Image:Order Zasługi RP.jpg[edit]

I wouldn't like to take part in nonsensable edit wars.For your information : The previous uploaded Order Zasługi RP was self-made. I've inform Polarlys that www.polska-ukraina.pl, where he found the copy of this photo is a page of my own.

Reuploading this image I've given the source as www.polska-ukraina.pl , and notice, that in any questions an doubts it's easiest to mail directly to andros@polska-ukraina.pl.

In case of deleteted images of Order of White Eagle, it was photos of exhibit from free exhibition of Polish Governmental Mint (their products) and it is possible that this particular exhibit ( The Highest Polish Order - product of Governmental Mint) was photographed not only by myself :)). But it is not the case.

In any case there are illegible photos ( without any individual features which make possible securing it by copyright law according to regulations of Berne Convention and Polish copyright law). The are simply photos of artefacts made by photograph-amateur.

All these I've written on the page of discussion. Two days after images were without any further discussion deleted. ( Take a look at the page of discussion)

There were made several year before, so argument of Polarlys, that to proove the authenticity of my work I have to give photo of professional resolution is unreasonable and unjustifiable. Besides it is curious , unusual, simly - just unexpected request for uploader.

I reserve to return to this question in the future. However - first - free use of self-made work is copyright violation the same way as an masturbation is a rape.

In this case we have no copyvio at all, and the deletion was unjustifiable and unreasonable. For today it is at least evidence of copyright paranoia and overactivity of some of our collegues.

Best regards:

Andros64 07:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to duplicate messages regarding this matter on my user talk page. I am watching your user talk page and Commons:Undeletion requests. I have responded at your user talk page. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Your letter. I used to reply everytime directly to my interlocutor. By the way : the term "overactivity" is IMHO just simply constatation of fact and in every activity in area of Commons we have IMHO take into account the principle of Common sense first.

All the best. Of course I'll do respect common rules and procedures , but there are binding for everybody , esspecially admins in Commons , who are people of common trust. All the best: Andros64 17:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Paint NET screen.jpg[edit]

On 30 June 2007 You removed my screenshot from Wikimedia Commons and posted in my user talk. Thanks for your advice :) Now screenshot is without M$ widgets ;) But when i was browsing category Free screenshots i was totally shocked :!: There are many graphics like mine former (with widgets). Maybe it's time to look carefully what was hosted at Commons? Regards! patrol110 13:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the widgets on the toolbox windows? I'm still quite concerned about that... As for other screenshots of Windows widgets, I'm sure there are more out there. I think I was going through Category:Windows Screenshots when I came across that one, and I know there is more work to be done in other categories. Unfortunately, the admin staff are a few volunteers short here, so we do have several backlogs of things that need to be looked into. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chamaeleo chamaeleon Frightened thus black.JPG[edit]

Hi. You appear to have deleted Image:Chamaeleo chamaeleon Frightened thus black.JPG. What warning tag was on it? Would you please consider undeleting it while I email the uploader requesting licensing? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged with {{Own work}} since 2005, and no license had been specified during that time. I've undeleted it and changed {{Own work}} to {{Nld}}. It will be deleted again if no license is provided within a week. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted pictures from Red Rooster[edit]

You have deleted following pictures:

The given reason was, that screenshots of copyrighted software are also copyrighted. I am sure you don't know that the software "CDex" is released under GPL! Thus, the screenshots are GPL too!

Please tell me if I can upload them again without the fear that they are deleted over and over... Or was there any other reason why the pictures could not stay longer? Is there a way to restore deleted images? Red Rooster —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.56.80.165 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite familiar with the licensing terms of CDex; that's not the problem. Please see User talk:Red Rooster#No_screenshots_containing_non-free_Windows_widgets.2C_please and Commons:Licensing#Screenshots. Deleted images can be restored (see Commons:Undeletion requests), but images which do not comply with Commons:Licensing will not be undeleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read Commons:Licensing#Screenshots and could not see any reason why the screenshots was deleted. CDex is released under GPL and this makes screenshots of this application legal for wikimedia-commons. Please tell me which content did not fit the commons-licensing, because I could not see anything in the screenshot that is not GPL or at least LGPL... Red Rooster 16:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Screenshots are copyrighted if the displayed program or operating system is copyrighted." The screenshots showed copyrighted elements, such as window decorations, drawn by the non-free Microsoft Windows operating system. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so please tell me, how I can create legal screenshots (without Linux). Do I only need to cut off the window decorations? Or do I have to setup "wine" on Linux to create that damn screenshots? Red Rooster 15:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe cropping away the window decorations would be sufficient. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abono para sembrar flor[edit]

Please check this user, he created a sockpuppet account and it keeps uploading copyvio images, I can't remeber the sock's name but I know it was his original username with a number, it uploaded this image File:Cibernetico el mejor.jpg and linked it to Wikipedia [6] please check the image's history to find out his sock's name, thanks. -24.138.194.124 18:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Abono para sembrar flor3 (talk | contribs). Please see also Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Abono para sembrar flor. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. Sorry I couldn't look into it sooner, since I was away. I also deleted Image:El buki en AWC.jpg, which was uploaded with self-attribution using the sockpuppet account. Since the original block was made because the user uploaded images with false authorship claims, I'm reluctant to believe any such claims made while using a sockpuppet account. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Artur BalderBW.jpg[edit]

Please, tell if its all right now. Thanks. Sincerely yours, --StarWar55 22:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't say who created the photograph, which is needed with the GFDL. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cerro_Espiritu_Santo_1999.jpg[edit]

Hi, LX. According to this history log you deleted this file because it had no license. According to this and this she was never warned about it. As she did not have a link here to her usual page in es.Wikipedia then, I can understand that you did not left a message in es.wiki, however you should have given her a warning in he user page here, even if her contributions in Commons are not many. She is the author of the picture and she would like the picture to be restored in order to tag it with the suitable license. Could you please do it and let her know here? Thanks. --Piolinfax ^{(Tell me)} 10:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the user tagging the image with {{Own work}} did not notify the uploader as the template instructs, that's unfortunate, but uploaders are told at the time of uploading that images without licenses may be deleted without further notice. The image had been tagged as missing a license since the day after it was uploaded in October 2005. That's more than 19 months to notice the problem. The user also failed to add source information to other uploads despite being given notice.

Nevertheless, I have restored the image, tagged it with {{Nld}} and notified their user talk page here on Commons. (As a matter of principle, I don't copy Commons talk page templates to other projects to accommodate users who don't wish to discuss Commons-related issues on Commons, as this requires a lot of manual work and re-linking; if they don't want to monitor their Commons talk page, they can simply tick a box to activate e-mail notifications in their preferences.) The image will be deleted again unless licensing information is supplied within seven days. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx LX :). I registered in Commons 3 or 4 months after its creation and I am not totally sure that 10 months later (around October 2005) uploaders were told at the time of uploading that images without licenses might be deleted without further notice but I am quite sure that not such a notice was provided in Spanish those days. Catibel knows some English but she is not fluent with it, that is why I offered myself to let you know about her pic.

I have let Catibel know about the restored pic (probably she would have seen it anyway now but just in case) and hopefully she will add the license soon. Please notice that no Commons sysop needs copy Commons talk page templates to other projects; a short message and/or a link to the relevant page already tagged would do the trick... that procedure is not for discussion but for simple and basic notification. Anyway I am not especially surprised because unfortunately, it seems to be a common procedure in a big part of the few Commons sysops I know. I am a sysop myself and I know about the pressures and problems of it but as a matter of principle I would never delete anything without a previous, proper warning (other than vandalisms and obvious copyright violations, of course), regardless any previous set warnings the user might have come across. Anyway, thanks once again for rstoring the photo and for your time --Piolinfax ^{(Tell me)} 15:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Svenska/Swedish Polling Templates[edit]

Hi. Would you please take a look at Category talk:Polling templates#Credits? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO YOU COULD BLOCK TO A USER?[edit]

IF I REQUEST A FAVOR TO YOU, DO YOU ME MAKE ME, YOU COULD BLOCK TO User:Cobaes04 TO UPLOAD PRIVATE PHOTOS, PLEASE.Alx 91 04:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user has not made any uploads since November 2006, so it doesn't seem like a block is necessary. Also, please remain calm and civil, and refrain from yelling at your fellow contributors. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Cobaes04. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlinking deleted images[edit]

Hi, as I see in the deletion log, you deleted "Image:Pine.cone.jpg" ‎with No license specified since 2005. notice. But, there are still two pages which link to this image - pinus and pinus sylvestris. Would you be so kind to unlink such images in the future? Regards, Nova 10:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought User:CommonsDelinker would have taken care of that. Thanks for the notice, though. It's been unlinked. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q4[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Image Tagging Image:Johnny_hallyday_(2003).JPG[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Ixnay#Image_Tagging_Image:Johnny_hallyday_.282003.29.JPG. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 22:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

I'm the brother of the user Cadenamado1, but he create many account becouse he have images of a concert of gwen stefani, he upload this photos to Flickr but, when he upload this pictures to commons, many user eraeser all pictures. you can help us for modiffy the license the photos in Flickr, remember this pictures are of my brother!!!. thanks for you collaboration. this is the page of him in flickr: flickr —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Fernando12 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The files were deleted in accordance with the consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Cadenamado1. If you wish to dispute the deletions, please use Commons:Undeletion requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Šenjug-kata-Tampere-2006.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Thierry Caro#Image_Tagging_Image:.C5.A0enjug-kata-Tampere-2006.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 22:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry. You're right. There is a potential problem.

By the way, I voted

Keep. Thierry Caro 23:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

again me[edit]

I need your autorization, I can upload the images to commons? see this pages with my explication: the last item. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Fernando12 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests is on my watchlist, so I have seen your comment. Please be patient and allow me and other volunteers time to look into the issue. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Goodrem photograph ([7])[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User_talk:TheKillerAngel#Image_Tagging_Image:Delta_Goodrem_in_Concert.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 19:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"Fraudulent authorship claims"[edit]

A few months back I uploaded File:Delaware Shunpike.JPG onto Commons, a map I'd made using Google Maps. Today, I got an email notice that someone had said it might not be acceptable, and then very shortly afterward, you deleted it, marking it "Fraudulent authorship claims" and to look at Commons:Licensing. I can't really find anything there applicable one way or the other, but I'd like to know how I can avoid having my images deleted in the future. Jonpin 00:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using Google Maps or taking a screenshot of it does not make you the author or copyright holder of its contents. See the copyright notice at the bottom of the page and the terms of use to which it links. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion/Flickr/Puppets[edit]

Let me know if you want a hand but you seem to be ok with it at present (I agree with your position completely & I am watching for puppets), cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I always appreciate a second opinion. It would be nice to see someone else comment on COM:UNDEL as well. Since I carried out a large number of the deletions, I think it's in order that I comment on why I did, but if I'm the only one who comments, it could easily seem like it's personal or like I'm the police, prosecutor, judge and court of appeals judge, and that wouldn't be very good. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - however the last couple of times I've dived in there I've had bad experiences. I'll certainly watch it more though, regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flickrwashed copyvio[edit]

Hello, Alex. I noticed you recently deleted a few images I uploaded from flickr. Note that I'm not blaming you, your argument makes perfect sense to me. I was wondering what we can do to prevent that flick user to hold those images on flick violating their copyright. I mean, I was using Magnus' FlickrWatch tool to search for images to ilustrate Cape Verde-related articles, and most of the images that appeared there were from this guy, caboindex (that's actually the name of a cape verdean website. I bet that site is full of copyright infringements, but let's not go that far). So, what do you think? Waldir 07:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as the Flickr upload form states, one needs to keep in mind that Flickr users often don't know about copyright, so use common sense to evaluate the likelihood of the Flickr uploader being the copyright holder. Things to consider include the size of the full resolution version (copyvios are often, but not always, low-res), vastly different styles of photography for a single uploader, and geographical anomalies that can't be explained by normal travel habits. My favourite clue is probably exif data showing that the uploads were taken with several different cameras, and this is something that a bot could check for and either prevent the upload or at least give notice to a human to investigate.

Unfortunately, Flickr's copyright violation report form leaves a bit to be desired; it basically assumes copyvios will only be reported by the copyright holders. Maybe some of the users who frequently interact with Flickr could lobby for a more streamlined way for third parties to notify Flickr admins of suspected copyvios. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not one of those frequnt Flickr users, so I don't think there's much I can do about that. But I think that we, the Commons, as a free-media repository which gets much of its content from there, are one of the main interested parties in this issue, so maybe we should do something, like asking commons-flickr users to do do a joint-force and make that lobbying. I am a flick user, I could participate on such an initiative, but alone, or with flickr people alone (whom I know very little) I wouldn't go far. But hey, what about an email from a prominent commons admin, or even a wikimedia figure? not jimmy wales =P but someone with some public exposure could contact them. Afterall, commons admins are fighting against copyright violations all the time, flickr would only benefit in giving them ways to notify them of copyvios in their site. And they would probably listen to a "near-official" wikimedia communication. Maybe this is a crazy idea, but it is an idea =P

About the bot: I think that's a great idea. You should propose it to Magnus, Erik and Flominator who all have tools to upload images from flickr. Especially Magnus, since his FlickrWatch tool searches flickr and returns suggestions, while in the others the image is inputted by the user. If you wish I can do that myself to spare you the work =P

PS - Erik would be a good person for the previous idea, since he is a board member and he has one of those tools... =P Waldir 09:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you believe it?! I sent flickr an email, explaining the situation. As the whole contact form and page was in portuguese, I wrote in portuguese. Guess what. They replied in english and before sending the reply they translated it with some automatic translator (one of those web-based ones, like babelfish, i bet)!!! Obviously, the text in "portuguese" that I received was unintelligible. Are they nuts?! that's the way they're providing international support?? Go figue. Waldir 21:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Read our problem in the page please Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests --Fernando12 00:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already told you, that page is on my watchlist, so there's no need to nag me about it. I've seen your comments, and I've already given you my final thoughts on the matter. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not lie! becouse... mmmmm the mail tomorrow will be in internet! the mail is in Spanish, i think that you have a diccionary. tomorrow, I'm going to give you the permission, ok? this think is more important than if she live next to me. the important here is the prmission, in this moment I have, but isn't in english. when I send to you the link, i'm going to tal to you. bye. page in flickr, image of facebook of me but is in Spanish.... permission of tatiana but is in Spanish, i talk this to tatiana and she make the message in english. ok? in this page, in the end, is the english mod. i wait your answer --Fernando12 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that proves is that you know how to register a Hotmail account. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

. ??? why? i don't understand you. But you recive the image of facebook? if you fon't have a traductor i going to write this in English. Clear... please make a great publicity message of Stefani... and up say... Can you give me a permission of upload your image in face book to wikipedia? in this link: .... mmmm if you think that i'm lie... the first permission is in order. read... Ok? the second permission is of tatiana, but her pictures in this moment don't interest me the first is in oreder... remember --Fernando12 18:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we've established you've lied about the origin of your uploads in the past and used sockpuppets to evade bans repeatedly. Therefore, I can no longer assume good faith on your behalf. I will not undelete any of your uploads, and that's my final word on the matter. If you want to try to convince another administrator to undelete your uploads, go ahead, but I'm done wasting my time on this matter. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, forgive all, I'm not upload the files. you won. ok? I go out of commons... in other moment before the act, i going to think. the file ( only the 1/2 ) are not of me. forgive all. bye bye. this picture are not me. the real autor is here in wikipedia. 1 --Fernando12 22:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violations[edit]

Hi LX,

I understood and agree with this and I will take care of these things thanks Eximius

Beastie[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User_talk:Ysangkok#Image:Beastie.svg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 20:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Flickr[edit]

You have posted a note on my page about a copyright violation after I had marked the image for speedy deletion. I would strongly advice you to pay attention to whats going on before you make any claims like that. Jeblad 20:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You marked the image, which you had uploaded without a valid licence, for speedy deletion between the time that I opened up the image and the time I hit delete, so I never saw that edit before it was deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with a user[edit]

Can you look into this report: COM:AN/V#User:5-0-5_.28Pop-Rock.29. I'm sick of screwing around with this user; he's been warned more often than the boy who cried wolf, and he's still spamming, and no one's around to do anything about it. Patstuart 21:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this when you first posted it, but didn't feel like my comprehension of Spanish was good enough to fully understand the problem. Looks like it's been dealt with anyway. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disabling my talk page[edit]

Who do you think you are, you bloody bastard? Only because you have more rights then me its not up to you to decide who my talk page looks like. Fuck off, go to hell, lick my ass, you are a drity motherfucker. Do you think you are trhe king and have to decide that? No, so piss off. Huebi —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.163.90.185 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you expect to accomplish with that kind of language, but whatever it is you want to achieve, that's probably not a very constructive or effective way of doing it. Your user talk page is protected not because of who I am or who you are, but because you failed to adhere to Commons:Talk page guidelines. I recommend reading it once you've calmed down. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

guidelines are no rules nor a must follow. do you have nothing else to do but playing police in commons, you asshole? so quick quick, lock me and my page again. --Huebi 21:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done —LX (talk, contribs) 22:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SAG2004 197 Ferrari sigle.JPG[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Bradipus#Image:SAG2004_197_Ferrari_sigle.JPG. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 12:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

CC-logga[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Frege#Image:Cc_logo2007.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 08:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Topic[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Joymaster#Please_do_not_recreate_deleted_images. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 21:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I give a one dolar. Who is an owner? Joymaster 21:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post scriptum. I always answer on disscustion site. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Joymaster (talk • contribs) 21:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is an immaterial right, not an object of material property. They are completely separate areas of law. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rudana photos[edit]

Deleting all of them may have been a mistake. Notwithstanding what was said on the image page, he did send a valid release to OTRS for images he created. Any one that I had tagged as appropriate with he OTRS tag should be restored. Thank you. -- Avi 13:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mistake, then, was to keep a Wikimedia-only permission on the image page. Also note that for most uploads, any permission given by Mr Rudana was null and void because he was not the copyright holder. Please make any undeletion requests at Commons:Undeletion requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bombastus le bradipus (talk · contribs)[edit]

Hi! This user seems to be a vandal whose name is some kind of joke on the name of two fr: users. His/her edits appear to mock these users' Belgian origin. I don't think this activity is related with the ArbCom dispute you mentioned (which deals with fr: articles about the Rotary International and POV problems). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sound-Pearl poster[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Melancolicsphere#Image:Sound-pearl_poster.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 20:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Image restoration[edit]

Can you please restore File:K13-Aufkleber.jpg? We have a statement of release into the public domain in the OTRS system. Thank you. -- Avi 20:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have OTRS access, so I have no way of verifying that. I was not the one who deleted the image, so I don't know why you're asking me anyway. Please use Commons:Undeletion requests to request undeletions and notify Zirland, who did delete the image. You'll probably find that no administrator is going to do anything about undeletion requests which have not been raised at Commons:Undeletion requests and reached consensus there. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you because you are available. I am on the OTRS list, so I see the permission. I am not a commons admin yet, although I will request such privs shortly. In general, I am under the understanding that if an image has been deleted solely for the lack of a license and the license has now been submitted, it does not need to go through undeletion. Is that incorrect? -- Avi 20:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the question here if you are interested in responding: Commons talk:Undeletion requests#Is the following class of undeletions acceptable? -- Avi 20:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For other reasons, please disregard the undeletion request for this particular image. However, I would still appreciate your comments about the general question of the summary undeletion of images for which we have received licenses. Thanks! -- Avi 21:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done (at Commons talk:Undeletion requests). Time to get some food and sleep now. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 21:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright holder appearing in image[edit]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but in a "work-for-hire" the copyright holder is the commissioner of the work; not the author/photographer. In the case of Mr. Rudana, wouldn't it be true that if the pictures were taken on his request, for him, he becomes the copyright holder? -- Avi 20:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it needs to be clearly demonstrated that the photographer was a regularly salaried or hourly employed employee of Mr Rudana at the time and that the photograph was created within the scope of his or her employment or that there was a written contract for a work for hire. Do note that works produced by independent contractors or freelancers (except if done under a written contract explicitly stating that the result will be a work for hire) and other non-employees cannot be works for hire. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Avi 20:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request for Image:Glenfarclas.jpg[edit]

Hi there, I noticed you initiated a deletion request for Image:Glenfarclas.jpg. However, you did not complete the request; consequently the discussion is not yet valid. Please complete the steps given in the {{Delete}} template on the image description page. Thanks, ~ Riana ⁂ 14:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd neglected to point this and several other images to the right subpage on COM:DEL when tagging them onto a related deletion discussion. I have now fixed this one and the others. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. —LX (talk, contribs) 01:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:00004631.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Albomaster#Image_Tagging_Image:00004631.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 21:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image Tagging Image:RozkladMKD1942.jpg[edit]

Mam pozwolenie!!! [8]

Kopia posta z tego forum:

25.09.2007 17:42:51

chrisfox

   Administrator
   ni mom i nie bede mioł
   Skąd: przy drodze na Wyszków
   Zarejestrowany: 8.03.2007
   Posty: 2065
   WWW

Re: PKP czy nie?

   Crusier~gość napisał:

   Mam takie pytanie, czy mogę zamieścić ten plik na Wikipedii TEN ??

Nie widzę przeciwwskazań. Rozkład - ani tym bardziej ten skan - nie są moją własnością. Sam to zresztą dostałem od kolegi a powiedziane jest (w Piśmie) "darmo otrzymaliście - darmo dawajcie" Tam wprawdzie było to o czymś innym, ale wspomniane dzieło powstało nieco wcześniej, niż rozkłady jazdy.

Oczywiście, nie miałbym nic przeciwko, gdyby znalazła się tam gdzieś wzmianka, skąd ów rozkład pochodzi - muszę się w końcu troszkę promować, nieprawdaż?

Co do stacji i przystanków... Nie jest to przejaw arogancji - słowo daję - może nieśmiało polecę taki link: http://www.marki.net.pl/kolejka/bocznice.html

Offline

   * Cytuj

—the preceding unsigned comment was added by Crusier (talk • contribs) 07:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pl-0

Ta osoba nie rozumie języka polskiego (albo ma z nim olbrzymie trudności).


 —LX (talk, contribs) 10:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Pics[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Melancolicsphere#Image:Jim_morrison.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 22:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm posting this here considering that discussion to be over, so this is only another message to you.

Ok, let's try to make it right then... I'm editing the Rated R album article in order to get the big ol' star, and I want to put an image on the cover part that at least represents the album. I did a photoshop thing before that was a representation of the cover, but it was deleted also. So I thought of making something that isn't the same but it will remind people of Rated R cover. I really don't know how to show ya without uploading so I'm just gonna upload and send ya the link. It's completely my work and if you look at the R cover it's not the same, it only has the R in a white square and the saying below. Here it is:

Melancolicsphere 19:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin[edit]

Thanks for your immediately action :-) Good Job, regards :-) --Filnik 19:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TR-Logo-On Dark 100px.png[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:AiguaDolsa#Image:TR-Logo-On_Dark_100px.png. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 20:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:PD-Canada[edit]

Please join in the discussion...--Padraic 20:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hey LX, how are you doing? I'd like to know if Image:Ringo riendo.jpg is a valid pic for the Commons. Thanks, Melancolicsphere 05:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. Screenshots of copyrighted films are subject to the copyright of the film. I've deleted the copyright violation and informed the uploader. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From: AsakuraStar[edit]

Go ahead. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by AsakuraStar (talk • contribs) 18:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Questionable Flickr images contributions[edit]

Thanks for your help! --AnonEMouse 14:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think that's a great initiative. I must admit I got a bit perplexed with the format of the entries. I think bots would have an easier time making use of it if it were clearly tabulated and only contained the most relevant bits of information (i.e. excluding things like the Flickr user's stated location). —LX (talk, contribs) 20:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can get rid of the stated location, I'm not sure why that's important either. They seem to have been added by User:Jeff G., let me ask why he thought they were useful. The usernames and links to flickr accounts are important, as are the actual discussions. --AnonEMouse 21:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violations[edit]

Hi, yes, I know that many images I've uploaded have been marked as copyright violations, but most of them are images that I've uploaded in one day without knowing the licenses. How can I know that? I just want to help Wikipedia, I hate vandalism and all that stuff, so sorry if I did something wrong. It was not my intention. I just have no way to know if one image is a copyright violation or not. I want to upload a image to the article Ringo Starr and I don't know if it's fine... Well, thank you for making me know.--Tina 63 22:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Commons:Licensing. Please refrain from uploading any images until such a time that you are able to tell whether or not you would be violating copyright laws in doing so. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIC images[edit]

Hey man, I've seen ya deleted another pic uploaded by me, and I think these other ones by me are also wrong: Image:Mike Inez.jpg and Image:AIC acousticset2.jpg. Those two plus the one ya deleted were from the same time and well it's been quite a long time, I think it was even before ya started sending me messages. Don't worry, I believe those are the last wrong ones. Melancolicsphere 22:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I've deleted them now. Sorry for the delay; I've been travelling and working long hours. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Stockh_1930_5a.jpg samt 7a, 8a och 9a[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Holger.Ellgaard#Image Tagging Image:Stockh 1930 9a.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:LX/Archive/2007

Q1[edit]

Morlachs maps[edit]

Images marked free for private and educational use[edit]

Bildetik/regler[edit]

Licensing derived images[edit]

Help please[edit]

50px[edit]

why do admins at wikicommons hate freedom of artistic expression ?[edit]

Karl Gerhard[edit]

Order of Smile[edit]

Maps, maps, and more maps[edit]

Auroranorth[edit]

Stereographic polytope 8cell.png[edit]

Mellotron[edit]

Chourah[edit]

About Mangareva 2006[edit]

Image "Lost Temporada 3"[edit]

Free Pictures[edit]

please delete[edit]

Make a warning template for Copyvio claim to don't be[edit]

Adminship for Tintazul[edit]

Image[edit]

Q2[edit]

Adminship[edit]

French[edit]

Iceland Review Cover[edit]

Congratulations, Dear Administrator![edit]

Frank Stella[edit]

Stalin statue[edit]

Speedy deletion tag at Commons?[edit]

Can I ask you a question, please?[edit]

Marcio Benvenuto de Lima - Help me about upload that image Fx.[edit]

Image:Grab Werner von Fritsch. Berlin. Invalidenfriedhof 2004-09-25.jpg[edit]

Mosaic[edit]

Greetings, and locator maps[edit]

Hi[edit]

Image:Foxie_with_player.jpg[edit]

Xcv47x[edit]

Hola en español please, no entiendo lo que dices[edit]

Helping User:Brutanza[edit]

Help about cuban image[edit]

My uploads[edit]

Q3[edit]

La chaine RTE[edit]

RTE logo[edit]

Image:Paint NET screen.jpg[edit]

77bcr77[edit]

mail[edit]

Gareth edwards etc.[edit]

Category:Other speedy deletions[edit]

Screenshot deletion[edit]

Ferrol[edit]

Commons:Upload/sv[edit]

Licensing[edit]

Not enough evidence[edit]

User blocks[edit]

Administratörhjälp[edit]

Photo now GFDL[edit]

Hhello[edit]

Sorry[edit]

Copyright Violations[edit]

is it ok now?[edit]

how?[edit]

Image:JohnCenaWWEChampion.jpg[edit]

Image:Carly Colon in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg and Image:Carlito-ICchamp.jpg[edit]

Image:Bob Holly in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg, Image:Sho Funaki in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg, etc.[edit]

Image:I Dont Know.jpg[edit]

Re:[edit]

re:[edit]

Log in problems. Can you help?[edit]

Image:MikePhish.jpg[edit]

imagenes[edit]

Talk page[edit]

FOP in germany[edit]

Help![edit]

Image:Cascabelcolombia.jpg[edit]

Image:Wolf-n-horsy.jpg[edit]

Re:Image:Order Zasługi RP.jpg[edit]

Image:Paint NET screen.jpg[edit]