User talk:LX/Archive/2012: January to March

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived.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.

Admin?[edit]

It's been three months since this topic has been raised. Although I don't know the details of your resignation, I understand your frustration with some of our rules and some of the positions taken by our colleagues. I rationalize those by simply avoiding areas where I know I will disagree with the results.

I think, though, that your reason above for refusing the Admin role is unsatisfactory. Either Commons is, on balance, a Good Thing, or it is not. Apparently you believe that it is a Good Thing, or you would not be giving it considerable time and effort. In making that choice, you have chosen to ignore the images that we host that violate Swedish law (is this Corel v Bridgeman?). I don't see how being an Admin makes you any more responsible for that problem -- certainly as an Admin you could delete them against consensus, but they would just be undeleted and, eventually, you would be censured. Therefore, as a practical matter, being an Admin would not make you any more responsible for those images being on Commons than your present position. Indeed, it can, as a practical matter, have no effect at all on them.

I truly don't mean to lay a guilt trip on someone who is such a prolific contributor, but on the other side of the issue, it is clear that your being an Admin would save time for the rest of us. On Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections you are responsible for 10 of the 19 requests posted in the past nine days. If you were an Admin, you could have simply blocked most of them, without having to ask one of your colleagues to do it, which requires each of us to do a little research. That's around 400 a year -- which would put you in the top third of Admin activity without ever deleting a file.

Please think about it. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim!
Thanks for your message, and sorry for taking so long to respond. I've been a little busy in real life. I also wanted to take some time to think about it, as you asked, rather than just responding right away.
I agree that Commons, on balance, is a good thing. In fact, I think it's downright awesome. I disagree, however, with your statement that this assertion ignores the problems with the Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag policy in relation to Swedish copyright law.
Just to recap what the problem is: Under Swedish copyright law, many photographs do not receive full copyright protection status. Instead, Article 49 (a) of the Swedish copyright law extends a limited protection for 50 years from creation to all photographs created by Swedish citizens and residents, regardless of originality. This means that Swedish so-called "simple" photographs, which would meet the threshold of originality required for full copyright protection if they were U.S. works, are only protected for 50 years. It also means that even the simplest of photographic reproductions, which would be in the public domain in the United States for lack of originality under Bridgeman v. Corel, are protected. Commons recognizes one half of this principle by relying on it for {{PD-Sweden-photo}}, but ignores the flipside.
I recognize that I would have no practical ability in the long run to delete files which violate Swedish copyright law as long as they are allowed by Commons policy. I disagree, however, with the idea that I would have no legal responsibility to delete such files upon becoming aware of them if I had the technical ability to do so. Swedish law appears to be pretty strict in such situations. I'd really rather not have to choose between going against Commons policy or my country's statute law. As a regular user, I distance myself from the problem by not having any special technical abilities.
While this situation does pose a problem, it isn't enough for me to abandon the project and all the good that it does, which is why I agree with your choice of the words "on balance." I still hope that either the law or Commons policy will change, even though it seems unlikely. In the meantime, I try to do what I can to help maintain Commons' unique qualities in the face of rapid growth by categorizing files, tagging problem files and translating templates. Not performing these tasks certainly would not improve the situation.
Hopefully, my not being an administrator is not too much of a timesink, and I hope that my work here is still considered a net benefit. I do try to keep requests to the point and provide the necessary links to make them easy to process. If there is more I can do to that end, please let me know. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a big benefit and appreciated :) --Herby talk thyme 07:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, let me echo Herby's comment -- there is no question that you are a major contributor, both by the work you do, and by the considered and reasonable attitude you bring to it.
Thank you for the complete explanation of the Swedish law. I understood that your problem was with Bridgeman, but the full story is helpful.
I think that Bridgeman is good law. There is little point in granting copyright to a slavish copy of an old master's work, particularly since the work has probably been photographed many times and figuring out whose photograph was actually used would be impossible in many cases. However, I will not throw stones at the Swedes for their failure to endorse it -- after all, we in the USA restrict FOP to buildings, while you are more enlightened about that.
I cannot speak to how Swedish law and the Swedish authorities would react to your failure to delete a Swedish Bridgeman case, but I can say confidently that US authorities would look at the practical limits of your authority, not the theoretical limits.
I can imagine several creative solutions to this -- your agreeing that as an Admin you would never delete a Swedish file on pain of your being instantly relieved of your powers -- but I suspect they may not meet your needs. It is too bad we do not have a "Limited Admin" that could only block and protect (in the USA we could call that an offensive lineman.
Anyway, thanks again for a complete and considered answer and for all your work on Commons.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only just came across this. Has the community discussed this in full before? If Swedish law is so explicit, I would support an exception in our rules so that PD-art and COM:TOO cannot be applied to photographs taken by Swedes. For everything else it is well established that the file must be free in both the country of origin and the USA. Why not for slavish copies too? (This wouldn't extend to other countries unless they made explicit laws like this.) --99of9 (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was extensively discussed, but ultimately, instead of weighing the arguments against one another, the discussion was cut short by a simple tally of votes which rejected any suggestions to consider national laws. See Commons talk:When to use the PD-Art tag/Archive 1. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. That does look like a resounding majority. But if you want it discussed again/properly and think Commons is convinceable, you'll probably have my support at an RfC. It's been more than 3 years, so I don't think it's unfair to re-test opinion. --99of9 (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, but I'm personally not up for the drama at the moment, and I don't foresee the outcome being any different today if the same approach is used again. The nature of our project and the projects that we serve is such that if copyright matters are decided by simple vote counting with no eligibility criteria, you will always get a large number of votes motivated solely by the desire to include as many illustrations as possible. As I'm sure you've seen yourself, it's not uncommon for deletion discussions to be hit with an influx of first-time visitors to Commons who think they can "vote" for an image to stay no matter how much it violates our policies. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oude Bakelsedyk.png[edit]

Hallo collega gebruiker, waarom is File:Oude Bakelsedyk.png verwijderd? Ik ben hier maar één keer over ingelicht namelijk bij de verwijderings nominatie. Ik heb zelfs een reactie achtergelaten op Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oude Bakelsedyk.png, en de verwijderingsnominatie heeft volgens mij wel 2 tot 3 maanden geduurd en ik heb nooit een reactie terug gezien! Wat is volgens jullie de reden dat de afbeelding weg moest? Ik vind dit echt waardeloos, ik wordt bij de verwijdering maar amper geïnformeerd over de nominatie. Ik wil hier graag een reactie op. Mvg Bakel123 (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bakel123. It's easier to follow the discussion if you choose one place for it. I've commented under the thread of the identical message that you posted at User talk:Rosenzweig#File:Oude_Bakelsedyk.png. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tack[edit]

Hej Alex, jag raderade många filer som du har markerats idag. Tack så mycket för dina ansträngningar. --Polarlys (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC) PS: Kan du hjälpa med Papercut.616’s filer? --Polarlys (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tack själv! Jag trodde inte någon hade sett Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 31#Papercut.616. Jag ska fortsätta att gå igenom användarens filer under dagen. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nu är jag äntligen klar: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Papercut.616. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

Please take a look at Template talk:Copyvio/en. Thank you--Trixt (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've justified my edit on the talk page of the template I edited. Nobody has presented any arguments as to why the version that was restored was better, so there's not really much for me to respond to. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship[edit]

Have you thought about seeking adminship on the Commons? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zach! Thanks for asking, but things haven't really changed since last time it was brought up. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 17:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even see that, so I do apologize. But I asked because you asked a lot for revision deletions and I figured someone like you could be an admin and focus on this issue. Though if you do run again, I would be happy to support you. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hum. Having reviewed the PD-Art issue, I'm surprised that {{PD-Art}} doesn't at least make a provision for identifying photographs which may not be considered free in certain countries. Should we try to make a list of countries that don't respect the PD-Art principle, and modify the template to warn re-users? Rd232 (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doh - list exists at Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs. What's not entirely clear to me is if the laws apply only to photographs first published in that country, or to all PD-Art photographs regardless. Do you know? Rd232 (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claude PIARD[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Claude PIARD#File tagging File:Marie-Thérèse Eyquem.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) 15:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper edit restrictions[edit]

As you were involved in the original discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_23#Pieter_Kuiper_.28yes_again.2C_what_a_surprise.29, I'm notifying you of the current discussion of the edit restriction Pieter Kuiper agreed to. See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Clarify_edit_restriction. Rd232 (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Respose to deleted pictures and your warning.[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Lord of Hell#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. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

puppet tag[edit]

If they remove it again drop me a note & I'll change the block. --Herby talk thyme 13:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no worries. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 13:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VisualFileChange configuration - watchlist options lost[edit]

Because I made a design-error in v0.8.0.0 (boolean-option for watchlist), your watchlist settings are now lost. Next time when using VisualFileChange, please set your watchlist options back to watch. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 17:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Thanks for the heads-up. And thank you so much again for working on this invaluable tool. Setting up Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Veritas2233 manually would have been a real pain. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filer uppladdade av Användare:Igor1409[edit]

Hej! Du har varit inblanad i en diskussion om en bild uppladdad av Användare:Igor1409. Jag tycker att det finns en hel del suspekt bland användarens filer. För några dagar sedan startade jag en raderingsdiskussion avseende flera av hans andra bilder. Nu har han ändrat uppgifterna för en massa bilder och detta ser väldigt suspekt ut. För det första är vissa bilder märkta med en webbadress och för det andra är det väldigt få som har den tekniska utrustning som krävs för att ta egna flygfoton. Det finns ytterligare tre bilder (se galleri nedan) som inte ännu föreslagits för radering. Jag tycker att det verkar som att han försöker falsifiera uppgifterna om bilderna och att man kanske bör föreslå rubbet för radering. Vad anser du?

Stefan4 (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, med tanke på den högst varierande tekniska kvalitén på bilderna börjar det bli allt mer uppenbart att användarens påståenden om vad han skapat själv inte går att lita på. Det finns inte en snöbolls chans att det är samma person som fotograferat det här tekniskt kompetenta porträttfotografiet och det här fotot med sneda linjer, slagskuggor och blixtreflexer. Jag antar att loggan omfattas av (d) i {{PD-UA-exempt}}, men säker är jag inte. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:KRAUSS stadium.jpg har för övrigt legat uppe på http://www.krauss.ru/forum/printpage.php?forum=3&topic=17&start=2 sedan 2005 tillsammans med flera andra av de foton som användaren laddat upp. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Intressant det här att vissa projekt verkar ha satt i system att inte ta upphovsrätten på allvar. På grund av en orelaterad händelse gick jag in på mrwiki och upptäckte att mr:चित्र:Photothon.jpg hade postats på min diskussionssida som en del av ett välkomstmeddelande utan att någon källa eller licens anges. Dessutom finns den på mr:MediaWiki:Sitenotice vilket måste tolkas som att en administratör har godkänt bildens licensvillkor... --Stefan4 (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Marathiska Wikipedia har 12 administratörer, och färre än 3000 registrerade användare har någonsin gjort några redigeringar där. Det är inte så förvånande att okunskap eller oansvar frodas i projekt som saknar kritisk massa. Det märkligaste tycker jag fortfarande är det som vi diskuterade på COM:VP: att det inte finns någon Wikimediarepresentant som arbetar centralt för att med vägledning eller kraftfullare metoder se till att projekten följer centrala policies. I alla fall inte någon som någon känner till. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rights[edit]

Hi Lx! Can you aprove my Rollback? User Béria Lima did not see that I'm a trusted user. Or I have to do another request? Thanks! Vitor Mazuco Msg 13:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a regular user; I don't have the rights necessary to grant rights to other users. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Sorry! I thought that you are a sysop. Vitor Mazuco Msg 18:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claude PIARD[edit]

You helped me a month ago. And I am again in difficulty with files. File:Vers_quel_homme.jpg, a old and quiet file, was subitly deletted fews day ago. I send immediatly OTRS pendind to wikimedia-commons in order to remove it and imported a new file:Vers_quel_homme_par_quels_chemins.jpg with OTRS pendind so. This night this second file was also deletted, without waiting answer. And no answer for removing the first file. I understand the difficulties to see all the autorisations ; but, then, why delette so fast ??? Thank you very much to try understand my very poor english and good afternoon.--Claude PIARD (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this answer of the deletter, while the OTRS pending is well written in english : The email was received and processed but the permission was not sufficient. The email was written in french and I am not proficient in french, so I do not know exactly why the permission was insufficient. So, please post your question on the OTRS Noticeboard citing ticket # 2011121110005556. It can be written in french since it is a multilingual noticeboard. MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claude PIARD (talk • contribs) 08:23, 24 February 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
Hi Claude! Because I'm not an administrator, I cannot see what happened with the file descriptions before the files were deleted. I also don't have access to OTRS, so I don't know exactly what you sent in or what happened to it.
Regarding File:Vers quel homme.jpg: According to the log, you uploaded this file on 24 December 2011, it was apparently tagged as missing permission on 7 February 2012, and it was deleted one week later by Fastily. I don't see a notification on your user talk page regarding the missing permission tag. However, if you sent in a permission to OTRS and it did not meet the requirements, you may have been notified via e-mail instead.
When you obtain permission for uploading a file, the statement from the copyright holder must contain all of the following:
  • Affirmation that the person giving the permission is authorised to do so (either because they are the sole copyright holder or because they legally represent the copyright holder)
  • A clear identification of the licensed file
  • Specification of the exact terms, preferably by naming a standard license
If any of these were missing from what you sent in to OTRS, you would have been asked to correct that. If you didn't do that within a week, it could explain why this file was deleted. If you submit a completed permission statement to OTRS, the file can be restored by an administrator.
Regarding File:Vers quel homme par quel chemin.jpg: According to the log, you uploaded this file on 15 February 2012, it was tagged as missing licensing information on 15 February 2012, and it was deleted a week later by Fastily. The notification about the missing licensing information was given here by Nikbot, a robot which marks files which do not have any copyright tags on them.
Whenever you upload a file, you must use a copyright tag to specify the terms that the copyright holder agreed to. If you can't select a copyright tag because the copyright holder did not specify any terms, you should not upload the file or send anything to OTRS until you have obtained a clear permission. If you upload files without a license tag, they may be deleted even if you sent something to OTRS. If you submit a completed permission statement to OTRS, the file can be restored by an administrator. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I recieve this answer of Fastily :
The email was received and processed but the permission was not sufficient. The email was written in french and I am not proficient in french, so I do not know exactly why the permission was insufficient. So, please post your question on the OTRS Noticeboard citing ticket # 2011121110005556. It can be written in french since it is a multilingual noticeboard. MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't understand while : OTRS was well wrote in english. And I never send notification on my PdD. I have too seek them on the PdD of administrators. My answer :
The e-mail is written in english. See it again, please. You have recently deleted the aforesaid file, while it was clearly mentioned that an OTRS pending authorization had been sent to Wikimedia last week. Moreover, we were still waiting for the answer. Could you please kindly reestablish this file until the said authorization is duly examined? Thank you very much and sorry for my very poor English. Have a good afternoon! Claude PIARD (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much and a very good afternoon.--Claude PIARD (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That answer was not written by Fastily, but by Morgankevinj, as you can see by the signature. Fastily does speak a bit of French, but is busy elsewhere, according to the notice at the top of the user talk page. Again, I don't have access to OTRS, so I don't know why the ticket was not considered insufficient (but see my previous reply for what's required) or why Morgankevinj says that the ticket was in French, while you say that it was in English. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Combate1#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. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Read This, It is Very Important[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Combate1#File:Logo de Viña del Mar 2012.png 2. 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) 20:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pongo a su consideración de Ustedes lo siguiente[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo de Viña del Mar 2012.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. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican stadiums[edit]

Dear LX: you change the panoramic photo of Mexican' stadium "Zoque" to its original size (File:Panorama Estadio Zoque Víctor Manuel Reyna.jpg), but please note that original size is uncomfortable in the various articles of wikipedia in spanish, and there are other panoramic photos of the same stadium. So, can I undo your edition to this image?

By the other side, the image of Estadio Universitario Tigres UANL.jpg, its not mine, so if you want to delete, its ok.

Thanks and have a excelent day there in Sweden. --Equiquinos (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please upload the cropped version under a different name instead and update the links on the Spanish Wikipedia to the preferred version. The file is used on other projects as well, which may prefer the panoramic version. See Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files for additional reasoning.
Regarding File:Estadio Universitario Tigres UANL.jpg, you stated that you got it from Panoramio, but you didn't provide a source address so that the license could be verified. It looks like you took it from here, which is clearly marked "All Rights Reserved" and not Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike, as you claimed. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alcatraz (TV series).jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:لطرش_احمد_الهاشمي#File:Alcatraz (TV series).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) 10:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alcatraz logo 2012.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:لطرش_احمد_الهاشمي#File:Alcatraz logo 2012.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) 10:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greenpeace images[edit]

Now you are "on my case" also. I don't understand. There are Greenpeace images on Wikipedia. And let you won't allow mine on, even though they are sourced from Greenpeace. There are no explainations given, only red crosses and stuff. It all started from this poco person who did a speedy deletion on the stuff I uploaded. I am confused, Greenpeace is confused also. I just want FAIRNESS here. I am also due an apology from a few people. Wallie (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "on your case." I simply explained to you why the files were deleted. The fact that you don't understand the explanation, or that you are refusing to accept it, does not negate the fact that an explanation was indeed given. Again: Commons does not accept content restricted to non-commercial use or content limited to use by Commons, Wikimedia, or Wikipedia. This is set out in our defining policy Commons:Project scope – specifically Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. This policy applies equally to everyone. I'm not sure what unfairness you think you've experienced or who you think should apologise for what exactly. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image talk pages - tests[edit]

Not sure if some of them are not created by spambots - had a few recently. Just for info. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 17:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks likely. Although, if that's what they are, they must be the world's dumbest spammers (which is saying something), since they keep insisting on being a nuisance even though they can't seem to succeed in including an address or anything else that could potentially make them money. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deletion request, urgent[edit]

I have asked for an urgent deletion request for that file on Commons File:20012012THOMASMEYER0050.jpg‎. Can it been done finally now? --Shatabisha (talk) 18:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator, so I cannot delete any files. Deletion requests are normally open for one week, unless one of the criteria for speedy deletion are met. It would help if you explained more clearly why you think the file should be deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File should be deleted because it ist my picture that I uploaded, and the name for the pic shows my name which was not intended. Thats why an urgent delete ist requested.--Shatabisha (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If all you want to do is to rename it, I can do that for you. (I'm not an admin, but I do have file moving rights.) What would you like the new name to be? Unfortunately, because you've also created a deletion request page that includes the filename and because you've mentioned the filename on several pages, there will still be some traces of your real name around. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ok, do it now...BPI_Lisboa. Thats it. Thanks alot.--Shatabisha (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. A redirect from the old filename was left by the move operation. An admin will delete that shortly. I've also restored the file description, closed the deletion discussion, and marked the help desk thread as resolved. As I mentioned, some traces of the file name will remain in discussion archives and logs, but it won't be very prominent. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is wonderful my friend, so how do I find the file now?--Shatabisha (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:BPI Lisboa.jpg, as you requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is great work !!!!!!!--Shatabisha (talk) 20:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your immediate fix on File:Reagan and Todd.jpg. You work as quickly as the Internet itself! :-) Gildir (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FIDAL[edit]

For me there is no problem, also immediately deleted all the images. --Mattew666 (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kalaua/Miniotx is back[edit]

Another sockpuppet of Kalaua etcetera is back, as Binefor - still uploading copyvio pictures of the Opel Mokka. Borde blockeras snarast!

Mr.choppers (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Det ser så ut, ja. Jag ser att du redan har postat det här på Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, så det finns inte så mycket mer jag kan göra. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pics are deleted[edit]

Dear LX

I am new here but with a passion to learn everything. I just love Wikipedia & equally respect this powerful encyclopaedia of the world. The contents I researched here have helped me a lot in almost all spheres of my life. whether it is written matter or ancient & valuable pics, all these helped me to avoid wandering here & there. The same is my spirit to contribute my best to this ocean of knowledge while I uploaded the images of my upcoming movie Shudra - The Rising. These images are now common everywhere across the world & can be seen on thousands of web portals. The most ridiculous thing is, I can't use these (my own) images into my substantially informative article on Shudra - The Rising.

I accept the fact that as of now I am not enough skilled to upload something through right medium or process. But here comes your act into play as coach to guide newcomers like me into the right direction. I went through the online support (chat) also but nobody could give me a perfect one go solution but a link. I anyway went through the link as well & did whatever maximum I could do to declare these pics as 'Common Pics'.

I am sorry if I had troubled you but I want your guidance on this. Kindly help me to upload these pics here. Sdeepak scor (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The files that you uploaded (File:Shudra Banner.jpg, File:Titleimage.jpg, File:Shudrawallpaper.jpg, File:Main poster.jpg, File:Uniqueshudraimage.jpg, File:Sanjivjaiswal.jpg, File:Shudrarunning.jpg and File:Directorsays.JPG) were deleted by Morning Sunshine and Amada44 because they were movie posters and images found on various websites. The copyright of movie posters typically belongs to production companies that do not allow them to be distributed by others for commercial purposes or with modifications. Unfortunately, every day, a lot of people upload a large number of non-free content to Commons. Many make false claims about the authorship or licensing out of ignorance or disregard for copyright laws and Commons' goals. Movie posters and previously published photos therefore tend to get deleted rather quickly if it's not very clear that the licensing is approved by the legitimate copyright holder.
I don't remember exactly what you put in the file descriptions or what the files looked like. I can't check, because only administrators can view deleted files. If I recall correctly, they all had rather low resolution and looked like they may have been created by different people, even though I think you said you personally created them all yourself. For genuinely self-created photos, we would typically expect to see full-resolution versions. For works for hire where you are the copyright holder but not the author, we would still expect you to name the actual authors.
If you are indeed the legitimate copyright holder (or a legal representative of the company that holds the copyright), you can send in a permission statement using the instructions at Commons:Email templates. The e-mail should come from an official e-mail address at the production company, or you may be asked to provide additional proof, such as full-resolution originals. If a valid permission is received, the files can be deleted.
You can also ask Morning Sunshine and Amada44 about the deletions or request undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests if you think the deletion was incorrect, but you will probably just be told to send in a permission like I mentioned. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Airports[edit]

LX,

How shall we proceed with this? --  Docu  at 08:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particularly strong opinion one way or another on the matter, but clearly, some people do, so I think you'd better hold off on reinstating your version and stop referring to it as the "consensual" version when it is clear that there is no consensus. I do think that if this should be used, it should be discussed and implemented centrally, rather than one category at a time. This would avoid discussions being duplicated, it would be easier to implement or undo if/when consensus changes, and it would result in a more consistent end result. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not because SJu disagrees with it that it isn't the last consensual version any more. If he thinks it should go everywhere, he can take the necessary steps to revise this. It's not because a new editor signs up at Commons, undoes every single edit of yours, that we shouldn't stop him. --  Docu  at 08:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my images[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Karkeixa#File source is not properly indicated: File:Ríu Eiria (2).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) 09:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australia and Sweeden[edit]

You are discasting, if anyone tries to find anything about me, and I have done books and poetry, he will find Your trup, "in future sigh with tilda", so in your account I am Serbian and you are Sweden, clever than I. And I am Czech. So for you doesn't matter if I live in Serbia or Barcelona, and every one knows then when you put tilde you thought on Varagians, but still you don't know about Saqalibi, famous sailor with Sagena, or Slavian guard in Cordoba, Slavian califs in Barcelona, Majorca...
My only contact with Stockholm was with Swedes coming to Belgrade, I was good host and show them whole city, Belgrade nights, bars where I was going, introduced to all my friends. After that Erica chose to study Philosophy and left Economy. It was time of Djindjic. There still loved most of all, me because I was fond with Brazil and Sweden.
In return from Stockholm I got nothing, I ask nothing, but not to make to me evil deeds. So now I ask you to change display of Lepota Kuzmanovic on browser, more precisely to correct culpa.
Not to give hipper text on Lepota Kuzmanovic "in future sigh with tilda" Lepota Kuzmanovic (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC) But display of User:Lepota. Because I making with FIFA, and when someone tries to find out about me they got information of your game.Lepota Kuzmanovic (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? Sorry, I really don't understand what you are trying to say. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LX/Archive/2012:_January_to_March&oldid=73080470"