User talk:MBisanz/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
English: Welcome to the Commons, MBisanz!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Bahasa Banjar | català | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | Esperanto | euskara | estremeñu | français | Frysk | galego | hrvatski | Bahasa Indonesia | interlingua | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | Kiswahili | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | magyar | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | Plattdüütsch | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | rumantsch | Scots | shqip | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | Basa Sunda | suomi | svenska | Tagalog | Türkçe | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | Ирон | македонски | нохчийн | русский | српски / srpski | тоҷикӣ | українська | ქართული | Հայերեն | नेपाली | भोजपुरी | मराठी | हिन्दी | অসমীয়া | বাংলা | தமிழ் | മലയാളം | සිංහල | ไทย | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 中文 | 中文（台灣）‎ | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | 粵語 | עברית | اردو | العربية | تۆرکجه | سنڌي | فارسی | +/−
First steps tutorial

Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy.

Getting help

More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.

Goodies, tips and tricks
  • Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities.
  • All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery
  • Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~
  • Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!)
  • To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], which produces: Image:Foo.jpg
  • If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper
Made a mistake?
  • Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}}
  • For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

~ Riana ⁂ 16:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Neat, a welcome from Riana! MBisanz 06:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 55817009636699019b34ff26e450cde3

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!


Image:Water Street sculpture.jpg

You've uploaded a derivative work We're sorry, but Image:Water Street sculpture.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Photographs of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this photo must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a derivative work, please explain why on the image description page.

čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ ไทย ∙ 日本語 ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

--dave pape (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I see I was mistaken, I've tagged it for speedy deletion. MBisanz talk 19:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

New pages

Thanks for your work on tagging new pages, please keep it up! Best regards, --Kanonkas(talk) 09:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

IfD

I noticed you voted to keep this image: [1] Unfortunately, however, the image is almost certainly a copy vio. It was copied from this web page: [2] The license is stated at the bottom: 'Copyright © 1996 Dr. Charles S. Finch, III, MD All rights reserved by the author.' If Commons uses it, we are Violating Dr Finch's rights. By the way, user Crucifixion is very infamous for his copy vios. See the messages at the bottom of his talk page: [3] Most of his Commons images are just copy vios sadly. I hope this helps to increase your assessment of the situation. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the image in question is of a 3,000 year old mosaic. That means the original creator's copyright has long since expired and the artwork itself is in the public domain. Since this image is just a 2D reproduction of that artwork, it cannot gain copyright on its own. Granted, I agree it is highly problematic that he lied about his source, and his other uploads will need investigation and re-sourcing, but I do think we can keep this image, albeit with a proper source link. MBisanz talk 12:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

Dear MBisanz, I have received a tag and message with the signature of you today that a figure of ours uploaded to Wikimedia were referred by somebody as a copyright violation. Here I am going to uinform you about the detailed backgrounds of the image uploaded: - The image is a part of my collaboration with Prof. Rosalba Bancetti. - A similar, however, not totally identical image is a part of our article: Kőhidai, L., Gál, G., Banchetti, R. Interspecific effect of Er-1 and Er-2 Euplotes pheromones in Tetrahymena. Acta Zool. Sin. 52, 1125-1132 /2007/ (modifications of the figure were done by us) - The image is a part of an article 'Analisi chemiotattica' edited by us (User of Wiki Italian: Kohidai_Banchetti). - The image was uploaded by me (User:Kohlasz21) and both in the origin and author lines our names are given. - I have to underfline that: the image is NOT a scan of a book! - I have to declare that the copyright logo shows only that Prof. Bancetti as an expert of the technique described has some copyrights (the detailed licencing is shown on the Summary table of Wikimedia (If you prefer we can change it to © Banchetti-Kohidai, 2008)

Please let me know what confirmation you need more to make clear that we are the copyright holders of the image.

Best regards from, Kohlasz21 (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC) (Prof. Kohidai, L.)

Replied at [4]. MBisanz talk 08:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear MBisanz, Thanks for your rapid response. You will get an official mail from my office (kohlasz@dgci.sote.hu) tomorrow about the copyright. However, I think it is rather hard to you verify if it is an official one or not (dgci=Dept. Genetics Cell- and Immunobiology). Perhaps our professional working on the Wiki is supported more if you check PubMed for publications of Kohidai or Banchetti or the homepage of my group (www.chemotaxis.usn.hu). After that I hope you will believe that Wiki is not our scientific forum to "publish", but a forum to spread information concerning of biology/medicine - as teachers use to do it. This is why we keep copyright and copyright violations also very important. Thanks for your help again. Best regrads from, Kohlasz21

Flickr images

Hi. As a result of your request at Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers, I have added you to the reviewers list. Please see the instructions at Commons:Flickr images/reviewers and add {{User trusted}} to your userpage. You can ask me if you need any help. Cheers, Giggy (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Neat; thanks Giggy, I won't fail you. MBisanz talk 08:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! Ping me if you need to know anything, though I doubt you'll have any need for me :) --Kanonkas(talk) 16:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Rick Astley

I cropped Image:Rick Astley.jpg and uploaded it under Image:Rick Astley-cropped.jpg, why did you re-upload Rick Astley.jpg under Rick Astley-cropped? now "cropped" is a duplicate. :s --Yamanbaiia (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that in order to preserve proper attribution, we need to upload an exact copy of the Flickr image and then upload a derivative cropped copy of it, since technically the flickr image is not the same as the cropped image (it isn't cropped). Although some admins have since told me it is close enough, so I'll revert to your version. Sorry for the confusion. MBisanz talk 21:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, now I see you did upload the exact flickr version. So the second image is a derivative image, not a flickr image. Fixing the tag, apologies for the confusion again, I didn't see the master copy. MBisanz talk 21:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I thought I was on the wrong somehow so no worries. Thanksssss.--Yamanbaiia (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Yamanbaiia was in the right here, but don't worry Matt, we're still never gonna give you up ;-) Giggy (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:GrandMarshallMichaelPSmithFuneral.jpg

Re Image:GrandMarshallMichaelPSmithFuneral.jpg: No, not "Flickr sourced from another blog". Flickr user "dsb nola" and blogger "dsb nola" are the same person, as the link on the Flickr user profile shows. The blog link on the Flickr description goes to where dsb nola discusses the setting where the photo was taken on his blog. Clear enough? Thanks, -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
The National Conference Center.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

User:MBisanzBot

Congratulations! It has bot status now. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll run it over lunch. MBisanz talk 15:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Flickr review

Hi, i just wonder why you are tagging such pictures Image:Xylocampa areola.jpg and Image:Yotoco (Calima) Colombia Headrest Ornament2008.jpg as "copyright violation: Author is using NC, ND, or all rights reserved."? Looking at the licensing on Flickr such pictures are licensing either cc-by-2.0 either cc-by-sa-2.0, and this kind of licenses are welcome on Commons. For such pictures i undo your work. Best Regards. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 16:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I had the copyvio template loaded into my paste buffer, instead of the normal template, when I was reviewing this morning. Yes those are compliant images, thanks for catching them. MBisanz talk 17:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Images needing human review

Dear Admin Matt,

✓ Done MBisanz talk 01:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. I'm sorry, I forgot you are an Admin on WP, not Commons. My interest is actually in Ancient Egypt...but since so many of the images of objects and paintings from museums in Washington DC or the Czech republic don't even exist here, I decided to spend a bit of time to upload them here. After all, someone may need them them in future. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    NP, they are good images. :) MBisanz talk 01:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

image message

I am a bit mystified as to your message regarding Image:Sulawesi-hawk eagle.jpg. The image has been tagged as approved by flickr bot as uploaded correctly and if you follow the source link has been tagged with the appropriate licence. Could you double check, it would be a shame to lose such a nice image. Cheers. Sabine's Sunbird (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Distribution in this case is synonymous with range. The broken link was telling people where in the world you can find the species, where it is distributed, not where he got it from. Sabine's Sunbird (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Bell Labs Holmdel Complex.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Duplicates?

Dear Matt,

  • You might wish to check this catalogue of images from the Nat'l Museum of African Art in Washington, DC before you upload an image on Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:National_Museum_of_African_Art I think both of us uploaded an image of a Yoruba crown and a Kongo bowl within a week of each other. They are basically the same image. I just cropped the bowl for a close up which I used in this article: [5] I hope this helps. Sadly there few copyright free images on Commons from this museum. I have told Claire (Unforth on flickr) of my use of her images and she has no problem here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep, there should be some duplicates in there, I uploaded un-cropped versions of some of the files you did. Commons likes to avoid having exact, pixel by pixel duplicates, but does keep different versions based on cropping, so I figured I'd give the next user both your styled crops and the original base image for the most options. MBisanz talk 08:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That's fine. I just thought you were actively looking for important CF free images on flickr like me. In truth, the number of images from the Washington Museum on Commons is abysmally low. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tay Smile.jpg

Are you sure the OTRS permission came from the copyright owner? Giggy (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have Ticket#: 2008102210055081 asserting an explicit ownership and permission, I did informally run it by a more experienced OTRS user before posting and it appears valid. Granted any OTRS person can review it if you'd like. MBisanz talk 03:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Witte Kerk in Katwijk.jpeg

Hello MBisanz, you left me this message:

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Witte Kerk in Katwijk.jpeg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you. MBisanz talk 02:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you left this message, because I provided all information necessary. Tasja (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The Flickr image has a link under it to another image website that indicates copyrighted images. Do you know if the flickr account is owned by the same person as that website? Basically, does the website have a claim to the image? MBisanz talk 17:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

O, I see what yoo mean. The link under the image is www.hansvink.nl and yes, that is the same person who owns the Flickr account. I also named Hans Vink as the photographer on Wikicommons. Tasja (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, good, I do like the black and white image, really classy, glad we can keep it. MBisanz talk 19:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
It is nice, isn't it. But what do you think of this photo Image:Starfish Zeesterren.jpeg? Beautiful don't you think. Incredible that the photographer doesn't copyright it. Tasja (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm a big architecture nut, so I like the building, but that tidal scene is pretty impressive in its own right. MBisanz talk 21:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Commons requires a little tiding.

Hi, thanks for trusting me as admistrator. I will be trying to make a good use of this tools, and using it with care. Surely this will motivate me to work more on the project, as well as in other areas ;) Sfu (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

We're going live!

Maybe it would be wise to wear some fancy clothes? Here you go! --Kanonkas(talk) 17:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Commons images

Dear Matt, I didn't upload this image but its currently licensed as Attribution Creative Commons ShareAlike or cc by sa 2.0: Image:Davidsonbranchlibrary.jpg So, it should have passed flickr review. By the way, is it possible if you could just inspect these 2 images by me:

The flickrbot seem to be a bit slow today. Thank You and Happy Halloween in NY. Regards, from Metro Vancouver, Canada --Leoboudv (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done, surprised that license changed since yesterday, I clearly remember it being ND, good catch and thanks :) MBisanz talk 01:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help Matt. As for that image, I guess the uploader figured out what flickr license is now acceptable and what isn't. Anyway, it looked like a good image that was likely in use for a Wikipedia article somwhere. Have yourself a Happy Halloweeen! Regards from Canada --Leoboudv (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sculptures & sysop?

Dear Matt, As you know I supported your application to be a sys op...because I know you are quite competent as a trusted user and on Wikipedia. I've always wondered however: is a 'sys op' the European term for an Administrator. I've always found it strange that in North America, we call a University professor as a 'Professor' whereas in Europe, they call him/her a 'Doctor.'

  • On another matter, does the term freedom of panorama (as it pertain to works of art) mean that Commons is not allowed to use images of sculptures, statues or paintings...until the artist has been deceased for 70 years. So, if we want to place such an image on Wikipedia (WP), it is best to use a fair use claim on WP instead? I am referring indirectly to this sculpture (not uploaded by me) where the artist only died in 2006: Image:Paloma de Marco.jpg Is it acceptable for Commons since it seems to be located in a public place or does it violate the late artist's copyright since this is only 2 yrs after his death. Its an interesting question. (Sorry I have to ask you this hard one but it is good to know sometimes) --Leoboudv (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Leo,
I'm in New York and what I've always heard is that Sysop is short for Systems Operator. According to Wikipedia; w:Sysop, it seems like a pretty universal term, although I imagine "Administrator" is easier for people without a tech background to understand. I imagine it is more relative to the background of the users who use a system that determines the name, as opposed to geographic distinctions.
Second question, Freedom of Panorama is something I despise, since it means I can't put up images of sculptures, since the USA has no exception for it. I've found COM:FOP#Situation_in_different_countries to be quite useful in determining when I can and cannot use an image. Of course, if that page says a country has no FOP exception, that means the image is copyright and can be used on another project under a claim of Fair-use.
To your specific image, that sculpture is in Monterrey, Mexico, which according to COM:FOP#Mexico means it may be used on Commons as a free image, assuming the Flickr user has released it under a CC-* license.
Hope that helps. MBisanz talk 01:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...
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 ∙ +/−

MBisanz, 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. Also consider joining #wikimedia-admin, the cross-wiki coordination channel for Wikimedia administrators. Any member of the channel can invite you in temporarily, but you need an invite exemption from a channel operator to get in whenever you want. Please come to #wikimedia and ask for an invite. Any admin from any project is welcome.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references....

Congratulations! I see you're already getting questions from Leoboudv :) Keep up the good work. ++Lar: t/c 20:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Congrats ! --Mardetanha talk 20:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Good luck! --Kanonkas(talk) 20:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Cirt (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for the warm messages, I will do my best to show your trust is well placed. MBisanz talk 22:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
And congratulations again. I get to congratulate you twice. :) ++Lar: t/c 23:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Congrats. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to commons' coolest clique :) abf /talk to me/ 18:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Admin! abf /talk to me/ 18:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Steve kantrowitz image

Well, when i volunteered for Steve's campaign, I asked his wife if it was ok to use the image, and she said she would get back to me. She later called my house and said I could and that's all I can give you.

Wayne Bennett

I can imagine why it may have been removed; it being on a big screen. Can you please confirm to me that was the reason for the deletion, just to put my mind at ease. Many thanks.Londo06 (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a picture of a video screen, so there were two copyrights at stake, the copyright of the person holding the video camera and the person taking the picture of the video screen. Since only the person taking the picture of the video screen released it to flickr and we have no idea of the identity of the video camera operator, its a copyright violation of the video camera operator's rights. MBisanz talk 16:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Metropolitano_bus_system.jpg

Regarding your nomination for deletion, I do not think that the image was previosly uploaded onto commons as the structure which it depicts has only existed for a matter of a few months or even less.

Thank you, Vivaperucarajo (talk)

Compare it to Image:Metropolitano_bus_system.jpg to Image:3024328656 616f1e1b04.jpg, the person is in the exact same position. MBisanz talk 05:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Open pit mine.jpg

Just a note. I never knew this image would be nominated for valued images. And I see you are doing real work on that! Thanks. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
The Big Hole mine.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

My RfA

I appreciate your support in my recent RfA. I'm really honored to have gotten unanimous approval and I hope I can live up to everyone expectations! Please don't hesitate to let me know if you need anything. --J.smith (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Why cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 is not compatible with Commons?

Hi,

you have pointed on Nicolelis' photo that cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 license is not compatible with Commons and is it unknown if this license is considered valid. I would to know why. I can change the license on Flickr if I see it is necessary.

Thanks,

--Everton137 (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and you've changed the license, re-uploaded it, and it has been reviewed. The image is now valid. Thanks for helping. MBisanz talk 17:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Image:Leander Paes.jpg

Hi Matt, please check your Gmail as I have sent OTRS permission.SanfyTalk

permanently located

Are outdoor advertisements considered to be "permanently located in a public place"? --Damiens.rf 16:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe the poster frame would be ok, and even if not, it would fall under the de minimis concept since it is an image of the rail platform, for illustrating the rail platform, and having nothing to do with the posters in the background. MBisanz talk 16:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

SterkeBak gone

Did you know that Sterkebak has removed his Adminship...for now. With him gone, the backlog of flickr images is really getting pretty huge. He used to mark the images. The Flickrbot seems to mark only a few imsges before it goes down. Just a heads up. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he will be missed. I went through and did about 100 taggings, but there are another 100 that still need reviewing. Thanks for reminding me. MBisanz talk 09:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know the reason why he left...though I did see a message by him that he was not happy anymore on Commons. Its a real shame. Maybe it was the daily grind of the job (all the complaints) or because the flickr review bot keeps malfunctioning which left him with a huge workload. I remember he kept saying that he had to go to work in the morning before he could mark images in the evening and I think he was just worn out.
By the way, can I ask a question on this image? Sometimes...a friend of you or me may take a historically valuable or priceless image which you just cannot get anywhere like this: Image:Harper,-Stephen-Jan-23-06.jpg In this case, the uploader identifies the photographer as Ted Buracas. Since the uploader is not Ted Buracas, the image got DR. But I've seen other great images like this on WP where the uploader notes the photographer. Is this wrong to upload an image like this? What happens if I have a friend who took a picture of the Prime Minister of Canada--my country--or a rare ancient object and I wanted to place it here. Would such a picture be labelled as a copy vio...because I was not the photographer? Many people don't have time for flickr accounts to store their pictures, don't have their own personal web sites and are not interested in registering an account on Commons or WP just to place a few images here because they lead busy lives. What happens in this case--would any perfectly good image which was not taken by the uploader be placed on DR? I thought in this particular case, the uploader was being honest and saying he was not the photographer, the photographer was Mr/Mrs X and such. I thought this clarification would be welcome here. When I see this DR, I painfully comprehend why so many important people's articles on WP lack images. This is the WP article on the mayor of my city: [8] and there is no image of her? This is incredible considering Surrey has 400,000+ people and she is one of the most powerful politicians in Metro Vancouver, Canada. I can't even dream of placing a fair use claim since...she's alive!. This case makes me wonder sometimes if WP can ever be more popular? Why is it only US Federal Government images are considered public domain whereas an official Cdn. government picture of this mayor--or another politician--isn't public domain? How does this make sense? People often talk about expanding WP's horizons...but an image tells a thousand words. Without an image, many people simply tune out. What do you say--as an American and an experienced Admin. Any ideas? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • This is tough. A lot of times someone has a copy of an image a friend took, and assumes that since they have it, they own the copyright to it. If someone has an image they want on Commons or has a friend who has an image they are willing to release, I would say the easiest thing is to email it to OTRS. You don't need an account or anything, just an email, they can even attach the photo to the email. I know USGov images are PD, and that must state images are not PD, I am not sure of Canadian law, but I suspect we have researched it and figured out they are not PD. More of a thing to lobby your government for (to make their products PD), by pointing out how the USA's PDGov gives them an advantage in spreading the cultural message of their nation.
    The WMF is pretty strict about no fairuse for people (as you mention), I would say your best bet for getting a free image for a provincial official is to email them. Most of them love publicity and wouldn't mind sending an image they own to OTRS to go on their Wikipedia bio. Sorry I can't give better news. 20:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Dear Matt, Thank you for your insightful answers here...and for taking the time to post a response. Your response is much appreciated. With kind Regards from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ajax pictures

Dear MBisanz, I don't really understand your message. I've uploaded some pictures from Flickr with a link. The license of the picture on Flickr says it's free to distribute as long as it's given attribution. So.. what is the problem? JacobH (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Alice-in-Wonderland-Central Park.jpg

Are you aware of the (fairly recent) changes to COM:FOP#United States and the discussions at Template talk:PD-US-statue/proposal? In brief, Carl has shown a reasonable argument for pre-1978 U.S. sculptures having been published when they were erected in a public place (without prohibition on photography). As published works, they would have needed to have a copyright notice to have been copyrighted, and there would need to be a renewal for it to be still valid.

Now, we have no way for searching for renewal of sculptures erected before 1950 (for later ones, the renewals should be in the online catalog of the U.S. Copyright Office), but it appears there is a consensus amongst the participants in that discussion (which, I admit, were only a few) that either an external source saying the work bears no notice, or a detailed SIRIS entry that doesn't mention a copyright are ok for at least {{PD-US-no notice}} tagging.

Feel free to override this decision, or to voice concerns at Template talk:PD-US-statue/proposal. Lupo 13:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'll go with consensus, so if I read it correctly, sculptures erected between 1950 and 1978 are published and need a copyright notice. If they don't have one, they are free for our purposes. Post-1978 works are copyrighted and cannot be used. Pre-1950 works are not tracked so we cannot determine their status. Works for me. MBisanz talk 16:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, MBisanz!
Tip: Add categories to your files
Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Mumbles Lighthouse.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

reply

Thanks.

I noticed User:FlickreviewR robot seemed to upload the hi-res version, when it confirmed the image was properly liscenced. I thought I could afford to be lazy. It saves a about 20 seconds, so I figured if I was only making more work for the robot I would let it upload the highest resolution.

But your contribution history shows you manually reviewing images. I didn't play to make more work for a human being.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Israel flag crossed.png

Hi, just a thought, but you should possibly explain your reasoning on the DR closure as it's rather contentious. Also, could you undelete File:No Israel.svg for consistency? It's been deleted and undeleted several times. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded, but as the Israel image was deleted in a separate DR by another admin, I feel uncomfortable undeleting it. MBisanz talk 17:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
It was deleted in a DR, I then undeleted after a UDEL. It was deleted by another admin citing the first DR and out of scope, I then restored it again citing the UDEL. I don't feel that my restoring it again would do any good. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as I closed the AFD, I'd prefer not to judge this other image. Sorry. MBisanz talk 21:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks anyway. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I've done this now. More info on the image's talk page.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike, thanks for handling it. MBisanz talk 10:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

File:RonzillaFavoriteThings.jpg

Hello,

On my watchlist i saw you placing a otrs permission template on this image. It's always good to know a image can stay and won't get deleted. But I believe there is still a problem.

The image is the cover from a Cd. But the source says:Own work by uploader And the Author says: Ron Rice (Shichikokuyama).

I am wondering is this information correct? Or should a other person (Company) receive credit for the image?

Best regards, Abigor talk 17:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on the OTRS email, the album is properly attributed. MBisanz talk 18:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the information. Abigor talk 19:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Update

Dear Matt, This is just to let you know that I got someone to license an image of my city's mayor which I sourced from flickr: [9] I notice that the flickrbot has not functioned since December 14...which is somewhat frustrating.

  • Finally, this is my personal observation...but when Commons says it has 3.711 million copyright free photos, I wonder just how many of them are really quality images. A fair percentage of the images I see in the flickr backlog consist of fan images of certain personalities like the 10 of Sirusho Harutyunyan. Well I did source one on my mayor and one on Roxette's Marie Fredrikson here: File:Marie Fredriksson by Thomas Evensson (1987).jpg (there was no pix of her on WP which was bizarre considering Roxette had 5 Top 10 music hits such as 'Listen to Your Heart' or 'It must have been Love') but at least they are real stars. I didn't do an overkill with 10 images. Strange. Anyway, Regards and Merry Christmas, --Leoboudv (talk) 11:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
J.smith beat me to reviewing the image. I think to your concern, most professional photographers don't want to release their images to a free license because they profit off of selling images. At the same time, many fans want to put up their favorite personality and don't mind putting up 10 mediocre quality images. I suspect processes like COM:VI and COM:QI will over time help us better separate out images by quality. Also, with the advent of Web 2.0 and the flattening of the technological barriers, more and more people will have better cameras and hopefully over time quality will increase. MBisanz talk 01:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree most people refuse to surrender copyright on valuable images--so, Commons gets a slew of second class images which are sometimes out of focus, out of scope, or pictures of potentially non-notable people. Its unfortunate. Thanks Matt, Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Christmas review!

Hi MBisanz/Archive 1. I would like to thank you for the interest you have shown in my request for adminship, and for the time you have taken to review my profile. As a Christmas present I've just been given the admin tools, for which I'm thankful as well. I have understood all the remarks that have been made during the review period. I will take them into account and begin using the tools with much care, until I gain more experience and self-confidence. Thanks again, and Merry Christmas! --Eusebius (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Teenage Head

Well, the user added the license at his flickr-site ([10]). The license links to [11]. Isn't that enough? It was no problem, when I uploaded other pictures. Sorry for my bad English. --Gripweed (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

My main concern is the photo says it is by a Linda Heldman, and it isn't obvious (at least to me) that cdnmusicdiva is Linda or owns the rights to Linda's work. MBisanz talk 18:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see, that's a problem. I got no account at flickr, so I can't write to the user. --Gripweed (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I do have an account and just wrote them a note to try and find out. MBisanz talk 21:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --Gripweed (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's now gone. No answers? --Gripweed (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
No answer to my flickrmail, sorry. MBisanz talk 23:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

your deleting

Why your has deleting „File:1018 111410.jpg“ and „File:1018 112431.jpg“ as (: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing)? This Files ar lizensind under cc-by-nc-nd. This is not free, ok. But likewise lizensing under Licence Art Libre - ths is a free Lizenz. On Flickr is possible to see this.--Sarkana frag den ℑ Vampir 14:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at Flickr page http://www.flickr.com/photos/25591034@N04/3143274360/ the only license on see on there is the cc-by-nc-nd, as far as I know, there is no way to set Flickr for the FAL, so you would need to email Commons:Email_templates stating you are the owner of the flickr site and are licensing under a free license they do not support in order for the images to be retained. Regards. MBisanz talk 19:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
This is not your can not see, this is your wish well not see. The Files on Flickr has Lizenztag as Tag and Lizenztext as Comment. Has fulfilled his obligations of Lizenz. I send no eMail.--Sarkana frag den ℑ Vampir 12:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Hyalinobatrachium Colymbiphyllum.jpg

Just for heads up, the file name and source description should be renamed to Hyalinobatrachium colymbiphyllum (notice the lowercase on the "C").[12] People have the tendency to get wrong on formatting and drive biologists like me really crazy. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested at [13]. MBisanz talk 22:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Dear Matt,

As an aside, this is the kind of dubious image which I think both of us concur lowers the quality of Commons: File:Suicide bag.jpg All I can say is yikes. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea I was a tad surprised when I went through tagging that image. But seeing from the Flickr stream that it looks like he is the author and is still alive, I couldn't come up with an IAR reason to delete it. Thinking further, I could imagine it being used in an article like w:Asphyxia (in poor taste I grant), so I suspect this is part of Commons not being censored. I agree thought that is is super-creepy. MBisanz talk 03:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging File:Mohammed_Ali_family_tree.jpg

Hi MBisanz!! I noticed that a file I uploaded from Flickr is currently being considered for deletion, and I don't understand why. There are two contradictory tags on its description page, one stating that you yourself "confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the above license on that date", the other claiming that "there is no proof that the author agreed to license the file under the given license". Could you explain this contradiction? Regards. BomBom (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I know the image is listed on Flickr that the photographer releases it under a free license. However, the person who created the family tree poster itself has a copyright claim to it, and it is unclear that he has released the poster itself into the public domain or another free license. MBisanz talk 03:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi MBisanz! I have added licensing information on the image's description page. Is everything OK now? --BomBom (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, all better. MBisanz talk 20:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Can you fix this image license: File:Nancy at Sun Peaks in 2000.jpg ? It is of Olympic gold medallist Nancy Greene I moved it to Commons and now it says it is missing author information. Strange. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

All fixed, it was missing a template variable. MBisanz talk 14:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Altangarten 1018 112835.jpg and other uploads by User:Sarkana

Please see User talk:Sarkana#Images from Flickr: FAL cc-by-nc-nd for clarification, the issue was also discussed at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Copyright Licenses and in german at Commons:Forum#Hilfe_benötigt. Uploader is author as you can see definite in the flickr profile, the general licensing with FAL is ok, the cc-by-nc-nd licensing is additional for private use and also ok. --Martin H. (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Okey, I've gone and undeleted the images. MBisanz talk 14:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging File:Amalia_Rodrigues.jpg

You need to talk to User:Carlos Botelho about that image. I am not an original uploader just someone who removed watermark. --Jarekt (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 22:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

IfD question

Dear Matt, You are an Admin on Commons correct? Do you think this IfD request should be closed and the image deleted: [15]

File history

Dear Matt,

I think I fixed it, there was some sort of technical error in the table. MBisanz talk 00:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

The Original Barnstar
For superior administrative work on Commons. Cheers! Eustress (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The book cover image

The [[File:When_a_Tree_Shook_Delhi.jpg]] has been marked as not present with permission. I need to understand the problem to fix it. The image is the front cover shot of the book by H. S. Phoolka taken by Mr. Parvinder Singh (as Flickr). The image is being used on the biographical sketch of author and article on the book may follow. I thought a book cover may be used on the author page and article on the book, help me understand the specifics of the problems. --Roadahead (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio

Dear Matt,

3 images

Dear Matt, If these images have not been marked when you check your talkpage, can you inspect them please:

The second image and third images are important for this article: [18] Hansen is a national Canadian hero and a member of the Order of Canada. I never use unapproved pictures. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 02:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictures deleted

Not sure if this is the right place to make this comment. I'm getting tired to upload pictures that after a few minutes are deleted. I'm trying to follow the rules but there's something wrong or not clear at all. Each time that I fill the form when upload a file (from Flickr in my case) I put there ALL the required info, I mean, author, tags, description, source (URL), Creative Commons License, etc. What else is needed? If I provide a link where everyone can view the author, the date, the license and so on ... why the file is deleted? I'm new at Wikipedia and I'm trying to do the right thing but can't understand this. Could you give me a hand? Thanks in advance. Marcel

Update: 7 jan, 2009 - Allright, reading this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:L I understand that the kind of license is not suitable for the Wikipedia. Well, it's not so easy to found absolutely free images to each article.

Thank You

Hi MBisanz/Archive 1, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of 100 % support. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and I promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. Please do feel free to get in touch if you feel you can improve me in any way; I will be glad to listen to all comments. Again, thanks,Abigor talk 17:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

1 image

Dear Matt, Could you kindly inspect this image:

  • Thank you Matt for your time. The file was going to need an Admin to review the cropped image of the coin anyway...so I thought it was better to contact you. I will be slowing down quite a bit in 2009 and taking it easy as I have already many good flickr images of ancient art on Commons and have been suffering from ill health. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank You Matt for your concern. Its severe tinnitus in left ear which affects my nerves and there is presently no immediate cure. I'm only in my mid-30's but feel older. Well I will keep your kind message to me to heart. It was a pleasure working with someone as considerate as you, Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ..

...for the RFB support. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You reviewed a copyvio ;)

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that you reviewed a Flickr picture, quickly after its upload, as being licensed under a {{Cc-by-2.0}} license whereas commercial use was prohibited. I just noticed it because I wanted to support it on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Safety Belt.jpg. Don't worry though, I did worse than that (who said “IRC consensus”? :) →Diti the penguin — 18:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

When I reviewed it, it was a {{Cc-by-2.0}}, I noticed Ford recently changed their flickr license for all of their images. I think there is a tag we are supposed to use to show this on the image since they cannot revoke the cc license. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:2008FordSportTrac.jpg. Just because they messed up in releasing it under a free license, doesn't mean we are required to delete it. MBisanz talk 18:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. What's the result of this deletion request (that I didn't see) then? Because, here is the problem: “you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license”. Yet, this picture was obtained with a non-commercial clause (see the watermark), so, perhaps the image you reviewed was a former version of this file which included a CC-by watermark, but the version I deleted was obtained while it had a NC license. That's why I deleted it. →Diti the penguin — 18:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: the same statement applies to File:2008FordSportTrac.jpg. The way the image was obtained is determinant for the deletion request, and what I see as a first version is a non-commercial image. Can I close the DR and delete the file using that reason? →Diti the penguin — 19:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
All the images have always had the NC watermark, but Ford for some period of time had additionally released it under cc-by-2.0 via the Flickr release license. There was a conversation somewhere about this already, and I restarted a conversation at teh Village Pump in the hope that someone else will remember what was decided. MBisanz talk 19:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation, user keeps removing tag

Sorry to bother you, but http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ndcue4fhyhs0fih4roif8s.jpg this file is a pretty obvious copyvio, it was uploaded by a user that thinks because he uploads it he owns in, and I've been trying to work with him but it's not going well. Figured I'd call it to your attention. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:11thdoctor.jpg for comparison.

✓ Done MBisanz talk 04:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Why thank you. Please don't do anything to him about the attack on my talk page here, I'm hoping he'll calm down. Templarion (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well what do you know, it's back. Templarion (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

8 images?

Dear Matt, Could you inspect these 8 images. They were originally uploaded in 2005 with an unfree license by someone with no idea of what an acceptable flickr license is! I just contacted the flickr owner...and she has now agreed to license them as "cc by sa 2.0" Can you kindly inspect them? They are:

Can you help? If it wasn't important, I would not contact you. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 21:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank You Matt for marking the 8 pictures here. It is always appreciated. Yours sincerely from Metro Vancouver, Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Technical question

Do you know how to place a Rotatebot request to rotate this picture 90 degrees to the right:

I think I did it correctly, should know in a couple hours if it isn't rotated. MBisanz talk 04:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Samuel Lincoln House

Hello. I asked earlier at the Commons Help Desk (where it's hard to get a response) about this issue. I uploaded several files from a Flickr contributor with whom I normally work on transferring his images to Commons. Normally I uploaded the files directly from him, and then post his assent to Commons 3.0 ShareAlike license. This time we figured we'd try something simpler, and allow him to post his images to Flickr, and then simply upload them to Commons. In spite of the fact that it's obviously the same creator whose files I've posted here earlier, the bot seems not to have passed these images for Commons. Can anyone give me any guidance here on how to resolve this? I have posted many images to Commons at this point, and am, after all, simply a volunteer trying to improve these sites. Moreover as a former publishing industry employee, I am well aware of copyright issues -- and am always trying to honor them. Thank you for your assistance. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to tell the bot to upload them and they must be the right license to move over. Try re-asking your question at Commons:Village pump, since I'm also a volunteer and not much of an expert in the technical areas. MBisanz talk 03:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I am not a techie, but I am trying to improve this site as well as wikipedia. Anything you could do to help resolve this issue would be much appreciated. The files I have uploaded are not copyright violations. It's hard to reason with a bot. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please delete this image

Dear Matt, Please delete this image which you marked (and which I did Not upload):

I just contacted the flickr account holder, Aaron, who told me this:

"I understand Wikipedia's policy. I am not changing my license to allow commercial use of that photograph although I will allow any non-profit use of it at no cost. I understand that Wikipedia's images require the licensing to allow for-profit redistribution."

So, he will not change the license to remove the No-commercial use clause. Hence, it cannot be kept on WikiCommons. It is basically a copy vio and Commons could be sued over it. It never once passed flickr review. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 05:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank You. He was pleasant in his messages to me and Very knowledgeable of WP policies. He just doesn't want anyone profiting from his images. I think we all can respect that position. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Your decision making process

Dear Matt, I noticed you placed a DR on this image File:Sarah Michelle Gellar.jpg This is 1 of 300+ images where the flickr source is not found. Its not a big deal to me...but how do you decide which images to delete? People on flickr delete images every day for various reasons. I once asked an Admin once about his decision making process and he replied he looked at 1. if the image was used extensively on Wikipedia sites and 2. the length of the interval between the initial image upload and the flickr review. In this case, this image is used moderately on several WP sites and the length of the interval is more than 1 year. This is a long time--not 2 or 4 months. Was there a complaint about this image or was it because it involved an identifiable person? I was just curious because while many images in this category (image not found) are junk, there are a few gems like this: File:RMS Queen Mary.jpg which are used extensively on WP.

  • As an aside, the Gellar picture could have been taken by this flickr owner at Dubai since he is clearly a Saudi (you can tell in his photos) and Dubai is in the Saudi peninsula. But, of course, no one can be 100% sure now when the flickr owner deletes his/her photo. But I notice he licenses his other photos freely.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  • My process varies a bit. One thing I look for is if the image license is not something Flickr offers (like {{Cc-by-2.5}}). Also I look at the type of image, is it something that is likely to be free or non-free. In my experience, people tend to upload images of celebrities they like, thinking "they are a public figure, it must be free", so that was my thinking in tagging the Gellar image. MBisanz talk 22:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I also tagged a few images for deletion in the same category...that were blurry or fuzzy, not used at all on any wiki page or used in only 1 single WP page (after clicking the 'Check Usage' button). Flick review is imperfect. I actually found images on a few flickr links for images files in the 'image not found category'. So, I submitted them for flickrreview. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    I'd say go with the DR for that picture. Licence was never confirmed. See how trustworthy the uploader is, and base it on that. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Mattbuck is right. Maybe its better to file a formal DR on the Sarah Gellar image and see what the community thinks. I notice the original flickr owner takes poor images...and wonder if the image is a copy vio that he initially placed on his account. But its possible he was in Dubai and took that 'so so' shot of her since he is a Saudi. The image is used on many 'Buffy' and Michelle Gellar articles. I also base this suggestion on my experience with some flickr owners who may be peeved their images are uploaded here on a CF license and react by deleting their entire account: File:Byzantine temple in Idlib (Ruweiha) Syria.jpg If it weren't for flickr review, it would be in the same category as the Queen Mary and Michelle Gellar image. However, its your call, Matt. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hendrix statues

I've only uploaded those two (that you deleted) because of this:

So, isn't they copyright violations too? --Whooligan (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Freedom of panorama varies from country to country. So those images in Germany and Poland pass the test. MBisanz talk 02:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

2 images

Dear Mbisanz, If you are around, please check to see if these 2 images I resubmitted for a new review have been marked:

✓ Done MBisanz talk 02:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank You, The image of Hadrian's temple sat in the 'Recent unfree Flickr images' for 6 months...and no one checked to see if the flickr owner had changed the license. Strange...but thanks for your kind help. The Flickr review bot is really slow today. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Notification

Dear Matt, I made an edit with my anon IP here. If you wish to delete this image, please file a formal DR on it so the community can discuss it:

  • My decision is based on my very bad experience here. This is one image that was licensed freely. File:Byzantine temple in Idlib (Ruweiha) Syria.jpg I uploaded it myself. And what does the flickr owner do? He deletes the image and his entire flickr account. Some people on Flickr find their images used on Wikipedia and they respond by deleting them--before it can be subjected to a formal Flickr review. Without flickr review, there is no proof the image I uploaded was ever licensed freely.
  • This is a FlickrLickr image so it was definitely free when first uploaded here: File:Carlsbad Caverns2.jpg but on the flickr link source, it says the image doesn't exist. Secondly, the Saudi account uploader licenses all his other images freely and could have been in Dubai in 2004. Finally, the Gellar image is used on various wiki articles. Please...don't consider my actions here as hostile. It is not. I have just found that flickr images in the 'Not found category' can be very complex. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


Image Tagging File:Richmond,_Virginia.jpg

You can delete this image. It was only in place on the article for about twenty minutes before another editor inserted a much better image. My image was a much doctored version of the original from flickr, which frankly I was not too happy about, but it was the best I could find. My imperative was to replace as quickly as possible the awful over-dark image that existed before. It was so black it was virtually useless as a lead picture. But in my opinion everything is fine now, with this other guy's new picture.--BHJ (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, thanks. MBisanz talk 17:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Images can't be kept

Note: I don't think these 2 images can be kept:

Both are licensed 'all right reserved.' The first is a clear copy vio which you marked. On the cactus, you can place a 'no permission tag' and notify the uploader if you wish since the uploader says he has the author's permission. It was marked less than 3 months after it was placed here. There are also other images of the cactus on Commons though. Its your call here. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

✓ Deleted Thanks. MBisanz talk 04:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange flickr images

These 2 images have almost no image description and are not used on WP: File:Nokdim1.jpg and File:PadMac.jpg I tagged the second image for deletion weeks ago but no one has acted. If these images had passed flickr review...and were used somewhere, they *could be kept if they are not copy vios but they didn't and are orphaned. Pls consider deleting them; I doubt a formal DR is needed here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 04:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank You Matt. If the image was used then I wouldn't make a comment but they weren't and just sat there doing nothing. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Tank-T-54-843-1369947647 897b197834 o.jpg

Please help me choose lisence tag for File:Tank-T-54-843-1369947647 897b197834 o.jpg suitable with "Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic". Newone (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the images is licensed under a non-commercial license. Commons cannot host images under a non-commercial license. The image cannot be retained. MBisanz talk 04:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Scheme_accelerator.jpg

Hi MBisanz Sorry for my english. I think you did not read talk for file:Scheme_accelerator.jpg which was deleted by yourself. I repeat that this picture was created by myself and my co-workers for free publishing in different technical documents and advertising. Explain me, please: what's the reason for deletion this file and what type of licence I have to use to publish this file here (I need it for article in wikipedia)? If you know russian user who can explain it to me I'll be thank you.--Skiffm (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, stating you created and release under a free license/public domain. MBisanz talk 09:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll try to send it.--Skiffm (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

L. Thompson

Would you consider placing a 'no permission since' tag or outright deletion for this File:Lea Thompson.jpg It was uploaded and reviewed within 1 month and failed flickr review. I checked the original author's flickr account and they license all their images as "cc by nc sa." I think someone just saw the word creative commons...and assumed it was free.

PS: If there is some doubt, it is better to delete. This will save Wikipedia from any liability. After all, this is just a recent image anyway. I will contact the flickr owners but I doubt they will be pleased to see their image used here without their permission anyway. If I get permission, I would prefer to upload it myself to save everyone some grief since this image was uploaded in 2008. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. MBisanz talk 22:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


Fighting Israel for dummies.png

Well, some say it should be deleted, some say that it should be kept for some reason. I deleted it for beeing out of scope. Even Abigor wrote that my reason of deletion "is maybe not the best reason" he however did not undelete the file. In his opinion it's a derivative work from the ... for dummies-series. However even there is an OTRS ticket, the image is (from my point of view) out of scope and (from Abigor's point of view) a derivative work of a copyrighted bookcover. The image should thereby may be redeleted.
--D-Kuru (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, redeleted. MBisanz talk 21:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Something wrong with flickr bot?

Will you be marking some of the outstanding flickr images in your free time? Some of the images have been waiting to be marked since Feb 21 and 23 (1 week) and there are 199 images here (I didn't know it was this bad!) I don't have any images in the pipeline but someone complained about the situation on an Admin's talkpage...but still nothing has happened. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I saw that, it is probably more like 600 to 800 images. It appears FlickrReviewBot has broken down or something. I've email Bryan hoping he can fix it. MBisanz talk 21:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you inspect these images?

PS: It looks like Admin K really likes Dutch supermodel M. Verhoeks. Wow!

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

✓ Anytime!!! MBisanz talk 21:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, Leobudv :) --Kanonkas(talk) 21:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

L. Thompson

Dear Matt, I managed to persuade a Flickr contributor to license "you know who" freely...at last. Can you please mark it:

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I was bored and looking on my watchlist.. Its done.. Matt I hope you don't mind. Abigor talk 19:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow! Thanks Abigor. That was a quick response by you. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you guys. Glad to know someone is looking out for me. MBisanz talk 00:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment : It was a good thing MBisanz you deleted the first flickr image of L. Thompson which failed flickr review. I contacted that flickr account owner and he said he would never let his images be used commercially. This was a case of someone seeing a 'cc' license and thinking it could be used on Commons. By the way, this image below is a prime candidate for deletion. It is of a person but was marked by you as 'all rights reserved' at time of upload. Secondly, it isn't even used on wiki. I don't know why a Commons Admin didn't nominate it for deletion within say a month of upload.
  • File:Veryan Weston photo.jpg Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Flag of the Irish cricket team

Could you please give a more specific reason as to why File:Flag of the Irish cricket team.svg was removed from all Wikipedia articles. If it was a copyright violation then shouldn't it be removed from commons as well? --81.170.122.40 09:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where I removed it, it appears to be in the articles currently. MBisanz talk 22:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
It is in some articles because people added it back. It was removed last week by CommonsDelinker and the removal was attributed to you [19]. --88.109.77.230 10:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, I see, it was licensed under {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}, and it wouldn't be possible for a person to own the copyright and re-license it under a free license for a national symbol. MBisanz talk 21:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
So should it be removed from Commons? or the public domain tag changed? --79.71.236.207 12:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
If it is public domain, it should stay on commons, otherwise it should be deleted. I don't know Irish law. MBisanz talk 21:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How then can we get a flag for the article? im confused.

Close this DR

Can you close this DR by me: [20] Its been fixed. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. MBisanz talk 23:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Matt. Wish I could say I was ashamed at initiating this DR but I didn't know the uploader botched the url link. I guess there's a first for everything. Sigh! --Leoboudv (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate

Can you delete this image below which is unused on wiki:

It is a duplicate of this image which I transferred from english wiki and is used there: File:EndAscetism.JPG

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done MBisanz talk 00:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Ford Situation

So I read your comments in the vp discussion. Sure, there are plenty of amateur images available, but these are top notch images. I feel that this has been a rather obnoxious instance of commons pedantry since it wasn't even Ford who complained in the first place. And goodness knows that many of us actually tried to get in touch with people there with no response. That they finally responded is great, but the fact remains that they didn't for all that time. Be that as it may, I am not terribly diplomatic or good at these kinds of things, which is why I was hoping that someone of your standing might take the initiative to work out a deal with them. What is need ed is getting passed the low level people and get to the decision makers there. Considering the state of the U.S. auto industry and given how high Wikipedia returns on google (sometimes even before ford.com itself!) I should think this a win-win for both us and them. The only thing that is needed is someone who can convince them. I found you to be rather articulate and persuasive in the past, so I was hoping you might put that to use now. Thanks! --Dragon695 (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm rather poor at dealing with these things since it would involve calling Ford, finding the right person, getting the images regenerated, etc. I'm mainly into handling large simple tasks, not these delicate, one-off things. You might try asking on WP in on the Wikiprojects dedicated to cars or checking if there is a user category for car enthusiasts. MBisanz talk 11:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Found w:Category:WikiProject Automobiles members and w:Category:Wikipedians interested in roads which may help. MBisanz talk 11:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Query

Can you fix the image description or history here: File:Three Sisters.jpg It seems to have been corrupted. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 05:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This image

Can this image be deleted: File:Queñua sajama.jpg and the accompanying DR closed? I had filed a DR on it. I also contacted the flickr owner. All he did was change the license from all rights reserved to "Non-Commercial" ShareAlike Creative Commons."So, it is still not free enough for Commons. Note: my reasons for the DR...it was Never free to begin with. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank You Matt. By the way, I pray that you work situation is secure. I have another good contact on flickr who lives in London (no! I have not used any of her images on Commons) and she is now the sole provider for her family because her husband lost his job as a financial analyst there. Times are tough right now. In Canada, the unemployment rate is 7.7% but it is rising and many economists say it will top off at 9-10%. But it is surely worse in the US. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

OTRS

Dear Matt,

As a member of the OTRS team, is there a possibility you could OTRS these images which I placed under DR? Once they are OTRS'ed, the DR can be closed by you. They are: this and this There is some metadata here.

  • Don't worry about it Leo. Could you have Doug send the emails you put onwiki to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ? I can only OTRS it if there is an email in the system. MBisanz talk 02:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Sent e-mail. ✓ Done.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Re mail

Image restored. In the absence of OTRS access or any OTRS number etc the image has a clear copyright symbol on - hence my deletion as such (& given a lack of public information to the contrary I still see it that way). Undeleted so feel free to do whatever. --Herby talk thyme 08:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Per VP it seems you were right to delete. MBisanz talk 23:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
While licenses are irrevocable so many people find Commons, upload material & then read stuff. It does Commons no good (nor the Foundation) to take an unduly harsh line with people. Over the past couple of years there has been some high profile cases but in general if the request is pretty close to the upload I see little point in getting into fights over stuff. The material is frequently not that important, Commons reputation is more so. --Herby talk thyme 11:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

DR closures

Can these DR's be closed? They are this DR nominator is satisfied and the uploader (Sandstein) is trusted and these 2 by me here and here Strange that no one acts on them. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 23:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank You. By the way, I think I saw my two separate Deletion requests still open above. I have asked for them to be closed since I have a lot of trust in the uploader. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Whoopsie, got those as well. MBisanz talk 00:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Matt for your patience. By the way, if it wasn't for you, I would never have known Bidgee was applying to be an Admin. He takes excellent pictures and is an excellent trusted user. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyvios?

I don't think these 2 images can be kept. The first recently failed review as 'All Rights Reserved.' The second of Imelda Staunton is NOT the flickr owner's image. The flickr owner is Jordi Motlló but he explicitly credits the photograph to 'Imma Romero Gelpí.' It is now used on wiki but failed review:

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, this is an emergency RotateBot request. Can you please place a request to move this image 90 degrees clockwise to the right: File:Oracle of the Temple of Amun (03-2009).jpg to fit the original image in the flickr link. I used the full resolution image and this happened. (It would be nice if you could pass it too, of course. First time this has happened. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
All done. Thanks :) MBisanz talk 23:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Presumption of correct license

Should there be or is there now some policy which assumes an image is passed within 2 or 3 days of upload if the uploader is not notified of any problems of the image within that time period? This of course would be exempt if "fraud" were found later like a person placing a copy vio and then adding in a non-existent or wrong flickr link to get the picture onto Commons. You can answer here as I will look back here for an answer. This keeps both parts in the same place. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the OTRS backlog for English permissions is regularly a week long and for German permissions I think it is a month long. Also there are only about 200 admins on Commons and 1,000s of new images everyday, so it can take weeks sometimes for an image to be discovered as copyrighted. Images can always be undeleted, so there isn't a huge danger of losing things. MBisanz talk 22:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reply, its clearer to understand. Here is my list of over 100 Flickr images I have uploaded successfully using a "Form Letter" requesting if they would lower their copyright tags to "Attribution License" -or- "Attribution-ShareAlike License". It works quite well for me as described at User talk:Leoboudv#File:Sansepolcro_church_bells_against_the_sky.jpg. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Matt,
Just wanted to add about the three pictures that were deleted from the list above of 106 Flickr images to show that I obtain valid licenses of "Attribution License" -or- "Attribution-ShareAlike License" ONLY. The first one deleted of "File:Michigan Historic Site sign - Pickle Barrel House.jpg" was a picture of a historical sign, that apparently a person can not do since the text on the sign would be (or could be) copyrighted by the state of Michigan (or any state with a historical sign). The second one of "File:Westinghouse 1964 World's Fair Pavilion.jpg" was ultimately shown that the Flickr holder did not have the copyrights in the first place. The third one of "File:Pickle Barrel House interior.png" was cropped and became valid picture of "File:Pickle Barrel House interior.jpg." I obtained 3 more pictures today and uploaded those also under the correct licenses. I think Flickr pictures are an excellent source of pictures that make an article quite attractive. Using my method of the mentioned "Form Letter" one has then access to an additional 60,000,000 pictures!!! I recently wrote a 16 article DYK that can be contributed to Flickr pictures. Without the additional Flickr pictures I am almost sure it would not have made it through. The 16 articles are on my Talk page and listed on my Wikipedia User Page under "List of 100+ "Did You Know" articles.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I love flickr images and use the same sort of request letter to get licenses changed. I don't have your record yet (I'm working on it, another DYK last night), but it is always good to remember to check flickr. MBisanz talk 23:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This image

Dear Matt, You can of course exercise your discretion and reject my 'suggestion' here. These 2 images are in the "flickr image not found" category but I am 100% sure the image was once on the flickr link because the flickr owner later placed it on another flickr link here with an unfree license and noted its use on Wikipedia. Also, another image from the same flickr account was passed by the flickbot here: File:Keeshond Majic.jpg

BUT...this first image is not used at all on Wikipedia: File:Keeshond Majic standing.jpg whereas the cropped image of the same dog here: File:Keeshond Majic standing cropped.jpg is used extensively on Wikipedia at 15 pages.

I deleted the uncropped image, the cropped one probably will be deleted since we can't prove it was free. Pity people don't use the Flickr upload tools, those guarantee it will be reviewed when uploaded. MBisanz talk 08:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

 Comment You probably don't know this but the flickr link for the 2-3 images uploaded by Doug suddenly came 'alive' and showed the pictures of that Italian church. So, I immediatedly ordered a new review and they were passed. This is one of them: File:Sansepolcro church walls and bells.jpg I don't know why the flickr link didn't show the pictures initially. Was there a ghost involved? No one knows.

    • Yes, it is unfortunate that the images in the 'image not found' link may be deleted but on the bright side there is only 288 images left in this category out of 4 million photos here. I have filed DRs for 2 probable copy vios here: [21] and [22]. My reasons are clear and one Admin even supported me. I just hope someone acts on them one day. Thank You. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
If you have some time, please see if you can mark these 4 photos Matt. (if the bot hasn't marked them yet) They are the best images out of a 'so so' bunch in the category needing flickr review.

Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

✓ Score! on the good image find. I just finished a new article at w:Front Range Community College and should have w:Illinois Valley Community College done later tonight. I love free government maps. MBisanz talk 01:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. You made good use of that aerial map. Unfortunately in Canada, we don't have 'free government maps' but we do have full FOP. (unlike the US) Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


Flickr review bot

Dear Matt, Flickr review is malfunctioning again and the backlog is almost 200 images now. Please see the flickr review needed category It seems the bot only marks a few images and stops functioning again as this indicates

Maybe you need to contact Bryan again?

BTW, can you mark these 5 images? They look good.

Congrats on your Illinois Valley article. Pretty impressive for a new article. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I got the images and will bug Bryan. Say, why aren't you a Flickr Reviewer? You obviously know what you are doing. MBisanz talk 21:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Right now, I've been concentrating on attacking the Possibly unfree flickr reviewed images catalogue. Have helped bring the number down from c.1830 to less than 1600. Some were even FlickrLickr images that were reviewed by Nifanion's Nilfabot after the license was changed to make it unfree. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

2 issues

  • Can you close this DR The flickr owner has licensed the image freely after someone contacted him. It has now passed flickr review.
  • Secondly, do you know if this image was free when it was uploaded by Manske Bot Flickr Upload bot:File:Juragua Nuclear Power Plant.jpg Please look at the image history. The flickr owner has now deleted it....but I notice his 22 other images from Cuba are licensed freely. I don't know much about this bot...but I do know the picture is of an abandoned nuclear power station in Cuba. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
DR closed, and I passed the image since the bot won't upload it unless it has a valid license, so it is ok. MBisanz talk 00:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank You for your help. I didn't know what the Manske Bot was. I only know FlickrLickr. By the way, perhaps this may catch your eye:

Oooh, pretty. MBisanz talk 08:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I'm glad you love the image. The thing is the flickr owner made the 'mistake' of licensing his early images freely which is why it was uploaded on FlickrLickr. He never gave a description of where the tigers were located until I remembered that the Singapore zoo was famous for having white tigers...and the flickr owner is from Singapore. Bingo!

  • Can you close this DR initiated by me?

I have a question on this image. Can its license tag be cleaned up--it has 2 distracting disclaimer tags: File:White-throated Kingfisher (Shankar).jpg It was uploaded at a time when people didn't know about flickr review so the uploader (who is NOT Shiva the flickr owner) may have made a mistake. It may/may not be a copy vio and will certainly fail flickr review today...but I can contact the uploader to contact Shiva on flickr to change the license. I know the flickr owner a little and had "spent" a little of my credibility yesterday here to get 2 of his images licensed free (the "Bulbul" featured image was likely originally a copy vio) but I can't contact Shiva and tell him today that I found another copy vio on flickr and say, oh! by the way can you license it as "cc by sa 2.0". Before anything is done though the 2 confusing disclaimer tags have to cleaned up. Can you solve this? You can mark it as failed flickr review too. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well in this case the 2 disclaimer tags are coming from the main GFDL tag, so I don't know how to fix that. Happily, the File:White-throated Kingfisher (Shankar).jpg isn't a copyvio. It was uploaded with the GFDL license by User:Shivanayak on enwiki, who says on this userpage he is Shiva the photographer. It is just a case of him showing it on flickr under copyright, but uploading and giving it to Wikipedia under GFDL. I added a note to the image page indicating we did have permission to host it from the deleted page at en. MBisanz talk 23:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


Question

Shiva licensed the image of the Kingfisher bird as 'cc by sa' and it has now been passed by Bidgee.

  • I wonder, should this DR be closed as a speedy or is it premature (just 1 day old)
Secondly, someone saw my DR's on certain images which failed flickr review within days or only weeks of upload and said on my talkpage "You don't need to take them to RFD, just use speedy deletion with that Flickr CV button you can add." Do you know what he's talking about? Is there a code I can type in for them or is this under gadgetry. These are some of the many codes that I don't know...(just like I didn't know how to add TinEye until Tryphon told me it was under Gadgetry.) Any ideas? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I speedy deleted the image, on Special:Preferences/Gadgets/Tools for admins and special users there should be a Flickr option, it lets you add a Speedy Delete template citing the image as a flickr copyvio (which non compliant images are). MBisanz talk 04:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

3 DR's

Is it advisable if these 3 DRs can be closed by you or would you prefer to wait the full week? They seem uncontroversial and, in 2 cases, the uploaders did not object: DR , DR and this I think is copyrighted: DR

Please exercise your discretion here on my requests. I've lowered the number of possibly unfree images reviewed by Flickr Review from 1830 to just below 1500 now and have reached the limit, I think. Most of the other images were uploaded in 2005 or early 2006 but Flickr Review didn't come online until mid-November 2006...more than enough time for people to change the flickr license sadly. So, I'll be slowing down now. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
DRs closed, I love the lips! MBisanz talk 05:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 Comment I figured out why the lips were used on 100 user's pages on Portugese wiki. The photo was part of a special 'pornography image template' designed there. Oh well! Its a good image though. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Per commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Etzel_diryasin.jpg

Why did you remove this file? Hanan

It was claimed at non-free at Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Etzel_diryasin.jpg, no one rebutted that point so it was deleted per COM:PRP. MBisanz talk 19:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Flickr

Have you noticed how the flickr review keeps missing images which have been waiting for review for days. This image has been waiting for review for more than 4 days now.

By the way, it seems both of us were remiss to think that SterkeBak was gone. He just changed his Commons user account to Abigor...but I guess you knew this already. I just saw Abigor's user page and he says he has been in an auto accident. I hope he is well and did not suffer any broken bones! Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Odd with the lag, image all approved. Hope he is doing ok. MBisanz talk 04:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Piscator-Portrait.jpg

Hi Mbisanz, would you please give reasons when keeping/deleting images? Deciding without a statement should only be done in clear-cut cases, not when there has been discussion about the image. On the DR I linked, all users agreed, that the given license was invalid. If you keep the image, would you please change the license accordingly? Thanks and regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to give more reasons. I was trying to clear the 8 month DR backlog, and figure if something hadn't been commented on in 8 months no one would care. Also, I sort of hope that if people see an incorrect license, they fix it instead of proposing it be fixed, but that is probably asking too much, I'll try to watch for that where I can. MBisanz talk 22:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. To be clear: I don't mind you closing DRs with no discussion without giving an in-depth explanation, but please drop a few words on DRs that have been objected to or are not obviously invalid. Thanks and regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 01:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Etzel diryasin.jpg

Hello

Why did you delete this hoto Etzel diryasin.jpg because of a law that is not relevant for photos?!

As far as I know Israeli photos (taken prior to 2008) are protected for 50 years after the photo was taken, so this photo is PD. Eman (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there anywhere Commons discusses Israeli copyright? I was trying to be conservative in the lack of documented rules. MBisanz talk 22:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
There is tempalte, and it can be found at a large amount of Israeli pictures, see Template:PD-Israel. Please undelete the picture. Cheers, Netanel h (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, you convinced me, ✓ Done. MBisanz talk 16:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Urgu24's flickr images

I have a question about these flickr images by Urgu24. All 5 below were uploaded before Urgu24 (likely) changed the license to 'All Rights Reserved' from "CC BY 2.0" sometime between April 6 and April 9, 2007. The first 2 images were passed by Flickrreview based on the latter license because they were marked by April 6, 2007:

Unfortunately the latter three were failed. I gave a reason here for keeping them:

Am I correct in assuming that nothing more can be done here? ie. That I should not place a 'flickr change of license' tag to the 3 failed images since I was not the uploader and didn't know whether the license was indeed free? Therefore, the images will stay in the "Possibly unfree flickr images reviewed by FlickrreviewR" category? I suspect all the 5 images were probably free at upload since two different account holders placing urgu24's images on Commons here but, of course, I cannot say this 100% since I was not the uploader. It is unfortunate, you know, that flickr review took so long to review the images. I was tempted to file a DR on the 3 images until I checked for 'urgu24' on Commons. As an aside, Urtgu24 deleted all 4 of the 5 images from hsi flickr account. Any ideas? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well /something/ could be done, you could try contacting User:Lobillo or the creator via Flickrmail. If either of them can certify it was under cc-by-2.0 (even accidentally "It was under cc, but then I changed it"), we could keep it, otherwise we'd need to delete. MBisanz talk 22:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Note

I decided to nominate 1 of the 3 failed images by urgu24 for DR since it had subpar resolution and there were better images to replace it. I list 3 DR's by me that you may wish to consider. I don't think they can be kept and most of the members of the community either agree or have decided not to vote because it is rather clear cut. They are this , this and this Please exercise your discretion here. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it looks clear cut, good call. MBisanz talk 02:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to delete them then when you have the time. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting DR If you have access to OTRS, you can verify if it is indeed valid for Shriya Saran's photo. Some OTRS tickets like CNG coins surely are OK for old low resolution coins from their web site but I don't know about this image. If you don't, feel free to ignore my message. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: OTRS

Thanks for your advice, but it's because I am careful that I am painfully (in every meaning) tagging those images. {{Attribution-Ubisoft}} has indeed be reviewed by OTRS members ; but it does not imply that every single upload with this template does fall under the claimed permission. As you may not be aware, there are many abuses of this licence. Ubisoft allows usermade screenshots, but all the files that I am currently tagging for copyvio are taken from Ubisoft website (as I think I stated in every tag). This matter has been discussed on several Deletion requests, (Commons:Deletion requests/File:El Guerrero.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:PoP2008 Environment Bright.jpg) and at Commons talk:Licensing#Ubisoft, and we agreed that Ubisoft material taken from their website should not be used. I am just enforcing this decision by tagging for copyvio.

As for the spamming on user pages, sorry about that but I am thankfully using a semi-automated method for tagging, that automatically warns the uploader. Jean-Frédéric (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As speedy deletion has been declined, it seems I was mistaken as for the way to do this. I may follow the appropriate procedure, if such one exists. Sorry for the inconvenience, Jean-Frédéric (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


3 DRs

I nominated 3 DRs and they seem uncontroversial. Two are roughly 6 days old. Few have bothered to vote and no one objects. They are: DR, DR and DR

Please exercise your discretion here but you can delete them if you wish. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

All done. MBisanz talk 01:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for giving a reason for the first DR. The uploader didn't object to the image being deleted...but its better to be cautious. As an aside, take a look at this The person in the image doesn't have a Wikipedia article. The image is used only on the uploader's user page and nowhere else. I'm not sure it should be kept in this situation but you must weigh several issues I guess. You can keep it if you wish. Its your call and isn't a big deal to me. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment and 4 DRs

I would recommend this image be deleted:
The file history is a mess. I moved a duplicate with a clean history here: File:GreyReefshark3a.JPG Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As an Aside, there are 4 Drs here which seem quite uncontroversial. No one has opposed them or voted to keep them. They are: DR , DR, DR DR and DR Oh yeah! The first and forth and final DR files aren't used on Wikipedia. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

All done! MBisanz talk 07:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

1911 edition.jpg

I'm not sure, but I think that you just have forgotten to delete the image (edit on del page). Otherwise please change the result. --D-Kuru (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh yes, I meant to Keep 1911 and Delete 1936, updated the result. MBisanz talk 21:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate

Can you delete this file on Commons:

Commons can use this duplicate image which I transferred that preserves the metadata: File:Male greater kudu.jpg Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. MBisanz talk 01:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

 Comment: If you are interested, here are 3 images for possible deletion. The first 2 are non-controversial. The final one is a problem. You can feel free to keep it if you wish. I just wish someone made a decision here...one way or the other. Personally, I want to save Commons from any bad publicity. The lady (Julie) did once license many of her images freely. Here they are: DR , DR and DR

Duplicate

Is there any chance you could delete this image which was improperly moved to Commons:File:Metallicstarling.JPG Unfortunately it is used on many pages. But if someone slaps a db-commons on the original wiki image, there would be no source for the image.

I uploaded it properly here: File:Metallicstarling.jpg

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted dupe and created a redirect in its place to maintain the naming. MBisanz talk 08:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. There are only 2 photos of this bird on Commons. And this is a good resolution photo. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This image

Regarding this image, I moved it from English Wikipedia. There is actually a higher resolution image on the flickr link.

It has to be marked since it was cropped. I wonder if it is advisable to upload a cropped version of the higher resolution photo here of Hillary? Its your call. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If someone wants to upload a higher-res that is fine, but if not, that is also ok. I've gone ahead and passed the image. MBisanz talk 02:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I was thinking about uploading the highest resolution image but I wasn't sure if this was the right thing to do. So, I hesitated. PS: its amazing that this excellent photograph has sat on English Wikipedia for so long. It has a CF free license and no one moved it until today. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

3-4 DRs

There are 3 to 4 DRs you may wish to have a look at: DR DR and this problem

Good luck making a decision here on the last one, Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

All done. MBisanz talk 06:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The last image was a problem. By the way, did you see the discussion here This are the kind of stories which casts WikiCommons in a bad light sadly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Image

All done. MBisanz talk 07:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. As an aside, I doubt this image here can also be kept. I checked where it is used on wikipedia. It is used only on articles regarding cameras, not on the Pope's death. The image also only shows part of the camera. There are many images of cameras on Commons. I believe this is easily replacable. I notified the uploader but he is long gone. His last edit was in March 2006 sadly. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

THX for fixing the link (redirect) on my userpage! :) see ya!Baxter9 (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

3 DRs

There are 3 non-controversial DR's here: DR DR and DR

All done. MBisanz talk 04:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

Do you know why flickr says the image is not found here: File:GU002.jpg when it is on the link--just licensed unfreely. This is the kind of problem with flickr review which makes me wonder how many mistakes it makes. Its in the wrong category. It should be possibly unfree images reviewed by flickr review, not image not found. This is very strange. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know why, User:Bryan probably is the person to ask, although it might have been that the person had it hidden as private when Flickr reviewer checked it and then made it public under full copyright. MBisanz talk 18:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


Please consider deleting these 3 image files:

No one has commented on them and one image has no precise source. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

YAY! All done. MBisanz talk 06:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

Dear Matt,

  • Something happened to this image on Aug 25, 2007: File:Botaoshi.jpg The flickr review bot out of the blue uploaded the original picture. Would it have done this if the image was licensed freely then? Just curious. At present, the original image has been deleted....and its copyright status is unknown. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the infobox and deleted the other image to be cautious. MBisanz talk 05:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

4 images

Dear Matt,

I think this DR can be deleted as superceded (never passed flickr review and there is a good replacement); this DR by me can be closed as kept

This old DR can be either kept or deleted. Its your call. Lastly, this DR should be deleted. It also did not pass flickr review and has generated no response in nearly 1 week. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Finally could you kindly mark these 2 images:

They've sat in the Admin review needed category for 18 hours now. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for acting. The image of the Australian beach is marvellous. It wasn't my upload but I loved it. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You know, there is a new userright on commons, COM:ROLLBACK, you do a lot of editing, would you like it? MBisanz talk 03:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the offer but I don't think I need it here. I see very limited vandalism here. Admin Stifle recently gave me rollback rights on English Wikipedia and I just used it for the first time this Wednesday to revert an IP vandal there. I appreciate your gesture here, though. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Images

These 4 images need an Admin to mark them. There is a large backlog of Admin image requiring human inspection.

Would you consider inspecting them. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, I really like the hotel. MBisanz talk 00:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Dear Matt, You said you disliked FOP issues. So do I. It disturbs me that there is nothing in Common's FOP policy discussion on images taken in Indonesia, Jordan, the UAE (where Dubai is located) or Kuwait. These are all countries which Westerner's frequently visit. I don't know if these images are acceptable or not on Commons. Being born and raised in Malaysia (where there is full FOP), the omission of the huge nation of Indonesia--and Jordan--greatly disturbs me. Maybe you can contact a Commons chief policy maker here. This is just an idea. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

T. Wilken

Dear Matt,

  • Can you inspect this DR and confirm if a Thomas Wilken did release it initially on German wikipedia? If not it is likely a copy vio by uploader Rojk. I don't have access to the original records. The nominator complaints correctly that there is no source. I was inclined to agree but if Wilkens did place it on German wikipedia originally, then it is a legitimate image and should be kept. Many people don't know how to do transfers from wikipedia to Commons as you know. They just place a link...then after someone sees it on Commons, it gets deleted.

If you cannot locate the original image, it is likely a copy vio. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't find it, so it's deleted. Best to ask User:Herbythyme about FOP policies. MBisanz talk 07:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

DRs

I have a few DR's which I think can be deleted. No one has voted to keep them and some are obvious copy vios. Here they are: DR . DR , DR , DR and DR

As for this, you can keep or delete it: DR Personally, its a very poor photo which did not pass flickr review but if you find Pieter's arguments reasonable, then by all means keep it if you wish. Its not a big deal to me. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Another important issue: Can these 4 plane images be kept via OTRS by you...or not? The flickr owner Planephotoman says they were originally licensed on a ShareAlike Creative commons license and does not have a problem on their use here. They are old images. They are
  1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hawaiian_Airlines_Boeing_767-300ER.jpg
  2. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Southwest_737_SeaWorld.jpg
  3. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Southwest_737_Lonestar_One.jpg and
  4. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gulfstream_G-400.jpg

I contacted the flickr owner on these old images and this was my message to him:

  • "To: planephotoman
  • No real name given
  • Date: April 17, 2009 (I typed in the date)
  • 6:35 PM {PDT} (I typed in the time)

Subject: Re-licensing 4 of your images for Wikipedia

  • Dear Mr. Paul Carter,

This is an inquiry on my part. I occasionally contribute to Wikipedia in my free time and I noticed that several uploader placed 8 of your images on Wikimedia Commons--Wikipedia's online catalogue of copyright free images. Please see here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=planephotoman

As far as I can tell, 5 of the 8 images failed flickr review because the license was 'All Rights Reserved.' Since November 2006, any flickr images which were uploaded to this web site and subsequently failed flickr review were deleted within 2-3 weeks. However, 4 of your images which failed flickr review were uploaded earlier between June and July 2006. So the Admins here don't know if they were once licensed freely as "Attribution Creative Commons" by you when they were first uploaded...and then you possibly changed the license to 'All Rights Reserved' at a later date. I was just wondering if you would kindly consider licensing 4 of your flickr images of the Hawaiian Airlines Boeing 767: http://www.flickr.com/photos/planephotoman/135183282/ , of the Southwest 737 SeaWorld here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/planephotoman/164649610/ , of the Southwest 737 Lonestar here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/planephotoman/162794167/ and of the Gulfstream G-400 here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/planephotoman/145404723/ as "Attribution Creative Commons"?

As an aside, if you are interested, your image of the Gulfstream G-400 is used on 4 wikipedia sites: http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?i=Gulfstream_G-400.jpg&w=_100000#end You can click on the 'check usage' button to see where your images are currenty being used.

I did not upload them but I am asking you to consider changing the license for these 4 images. Thank You for reading my message, sir. With kind Regards, Mr. Boudville"

  • I have forwarded his confidential reply to your yahoo E-mail address. Please read it and let me know if the 4 images can be kept or not. The bottom line is he appears to say 1. he doesn't mind if they are used on Wikipedia and 2. they were originally licensed as Sharealike before he changed the license to All rights reserved.' That is why he has not deleted them. If they can be kept, can you OTRS it since you have his reply

Concerning this image, I did not ask him about it and I think it can be deleted: *http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portoftillamookbayrr.jpg Its only barely used on 1 wiki page anyway. Hardly notable. The remaining 3 images passed flickr review or were OTRS'ed. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never done OTRS before...but you have and you now have this flickr owner's reply on your E-mail account. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted the other image and replied to your email. Cheers. MBisanz talk 05:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment That's OK. The OTRS people can decide the issue on the 4 plane images then. Thanks for sending the guy's message to them...so they have an exact record of what he says. As an aside, I think this can be deleted: File:Portoftillamookbayrr.jpg I don't know why anyone uploaded it. Its barely used on Commons and I never mentioned it in my flickrmail. (not worth the effort sadly) Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This image

This beautiful high resolution photo was indeed uploaded by the flickr photographer (Kirill Azhitsky). I contacted him by flickrmail and he just changed the license from 'All Rights Reserved': File:Saint Paul's Bay.JPG

Question: Can this image have 2 licenses? If this is a problem, please feel free to remove the GFDL license. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Another OTRS matter.

Dear Matt. This is a critical image:

I had flickrmailed B. Weinstein (User Nrbelex) on whether he would agree to license a "low resolution" image of this image here. I will send you his reply to your yahoo account...for confidentiality purposes. In short, he agreed to upload a low resolution 332 X 450 image to English Wikipedia of this mask. I then transferred it to WikiCommons above. Please can someone (maybe you) 1. OTRS this permission (since you will have Mr. Weinstein's message here) and 2. can someone make it clear on the image file that the permission is only for the 332 X 450 pixel image here. Not the higher 800 X 800 pixel image. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed and tagged :-) MBisanz talk 21:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you Matt on the image of the pgharaoh's mask. I appreciate your help. PS: I hope you saw my earlier question on the Bay of St. Paul's in Malta. Can an image have 2 licenses? I don't know. All I know is it failed flickr review but since the uploader says he was the photographer, I decided to flickrmail him. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A few more deletions

Thanks for all your help, Matt. Remember when you said that Planephotoman's failed images likely cannot be kept. I think these 2 here can be deleted at once:

There are 21 replacements for SouthWest airlines including 1 by planephotoman which did pass flickr review: File:Southwest Triple Crown.jpg

  • As an aside, I think these 3 DR's can be deleted. Its more than 5 days now and no one has bothered to even vote on them. They are: DR , DR and DR

With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. MBisanz talk 01:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

2 more images for now

I was looking very closely at this image which did not pass flickr review and noticed its resolution is subpar:

I removed its use on Wikipedia with this excellent high resolution photo:

File:Palacio da Alvorada.jpeg But there is also another good photo of the same grounds in Brazil: File:Palacio Alvorada.JPG Both have excellent copyright.

As an aside, this DR is now almost 6 days old and no one has commented on it either. It is also in the 'image not found' category and the image is not used anywhere. I think 5-6 days is long enough, don't you? Its your decision of course but I believe it can also be deleted. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Got them and your email. MBisanz talk 06:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Note

  • Thanks for your help. It was 2 separate users who uploaded the 2 planes on a "CC BY 2.0" license way back in 2006 and they both seemed quite trustworthy, too. As an aside, I was just wondering is there a way you could tell how many images I have uploaded to Commons? It is likely more than 300 by now...but I've lost track. I assume this figure would exclude images I moved from Wikipedia to WikiCommons. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • As an aside, I told Bidgee here about some of flickr bot's mistakes. Sometimes I am not 100% sure I trust it when it says it can't detect an image on flickr in the past. Hopefully, this happens once in a blue moon. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • PS: I doubt this DR can be kept. It hasn't been dealt with for some time. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I think these 3 DR , DR and DR can be deleted. Its almost 7 days old (April 13) and no one commented on it. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll get to the DR in a bit, looking at the Special:Log/upload for your name will show all the files you've uploaded, I don't know if it includes CommonsHelper images. MBisanz talk 06:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reference. I thought you had to use a special Admin tool or something that only Admins had access to. I counted 445 uploaded images (it includes images which I uploaded and were subsequently deleted because I placed a rename request due to an erroneous title, etc). So, I was way off from 300! The interesting thing is the figure excludes all those images I transferred from Wikipedia to WikiCommons. Thanks again for your help. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted image

Hi MBisanz--you closed a deletion request I made (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Extraction separation cell.jpg) and although you deleted the file, you wrote "Kept." as the summary. Just wanted to draw your attention to that. Cheers - Gump Stump (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn that 2 click deletion script! I've fixed it. Thanks :) MBisanz talk 21:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Note on 4 images

Please look at this nearly 7 day old DRs by me of failed flickr images. The common thread...they are all uploaded by Urban sadly: DR , DR , DR and DR

I had a somewhat heated discussion with someone over another image here also by Urban: File:Topeka Kansas USA.jpg . But please don't delete this image of Topeka as I just nominated it today. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I think we can ignore the meta-data since the website clearly shows it as CC. MBisanz talk 01:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to be safe I emailed him asking for clarification, I can toss the clarification in OTRS to validate the image. MBisanz talk 01:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the images on Klamath falls. They are pretty good. I have also sent a second flickrmail to see if the flickr account guy will license the image as "cc by 2.0" I'll wait and see what he does. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
He replied back that the website is incorrect and it is full copyrighted. I suppose we should be nice and delete it. MBisanz talk 07:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

M. Kelly

Is it possible that this image of Malcolm Kelly which you deleted here came from this flickr link: [24] ? I think you can check the original image. The uploader and flickr account holder's name are similar: Desert Sapper. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, done. MBisanz talk 07:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I think Desert Sapper just uploaded the images on a new url link but forgot to note the change on Commons. He had 3-4 other files in the image not found category...until I found his flickr account by chance. By the way, on Klamath falls, the flickr account holder changed the license for this beautiful image just in time for it to be passed: File:KlamathFalls Oregon USA.jpg Of course, I had some 'explaining' to do about the first copy vio by Urban in 2005! Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Image:Facial Hair comic.jpg

On what grounds did you judge there to be a consensus to keep in this dicussion? Powers (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I judged it based on the comments that it was done in connection with the WMF and under a free license and did not directly copy a non-free image, so it passed the bar for inclusion. MBisanz talk 21:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
But I don't think there was a clear consensus that those factors mitigated the copyright violation on the distinctive character makeup. Powers (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand your position, but it appears the other individuals who commented disagreed and based the disagreement on similar arguments. MBisanz talk 21:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of four participants, opinion was split. That's why I'm questioning the consensus. Powers (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, MBisanz. I'm still curious how you determined a consensus that this was not a copyright violation, when the opinion was obviously split. Powers (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Images to be marked

Would you like to mark some images? They are several here including from Dos Santos's invaluable site:

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your help. The hockey players are part of my city's team. There are 4 DRs you may wish to look at, 3 by me: DR , DR , DR and DR

Please inspect this one too: File:Andrea Bowen 2009.jpg It was in the image not found category.

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

All done. MBisanz talk 04:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wayback

If the wayback machine shows that a picture was licensed freely before it was uploaded, can you pass it...or not? Concerning this image: File:Stewart-Fireworks fountain.jpg , it seems to have been licensed freely in 2004 according to this page

This other image: File:Stewart-yawn.jpg too appears here: [25]

Just curious, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I can! MBisanz talk 09:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Note

Ranveig knew what image licenses were OK. There are other images by Butterfield but they don't show in my search here. A pity! Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

  • PS: Please close this DR and delete the image. Its a copy vio by Rojk who is almost as bad as Urban sadly. An image with no clear source. I've found several copy vios by Rojk too. It was nominated by another user. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed them up. MBisanz talk 08:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wayback machine

Dear Matt,

Do you know how to use the wayback machine to find archived images from 2005 by this user (dalem): [29] I found 20 images by this person on Commons like this which failed flickr review. They were placed by him on flickr in September 2005 and also uploaded by Mac9 in the same month who seems to have known what image licenses were acceptable IMHO. (but I cannot be sure 100%) Unfortunately they failed flickr review as "NC CC BY 2.0" but they were only reviewed in January 2007. Those other wayback machine results by Butterfield came from this DR But I can't get anything on dalem...so far except this which suggests he licensed his with a NC restriction in September 2006 *after the upload but there are zero pictures). I have sent a flickrmail to dalem asking how he first licensed his Italian images but have received no reply thus far. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I have no idea how the wayback machine works. With the way Flickr has grown since 2006, I am amazed at what you have found so far. MBisanz talk 21:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The user who used the wayback machine told me he found an image by dalem from April 2006 where it was licensed as 'Non-Commercial.' I'll wait for dalem's answer. If he says it was already Non-Commercial in Sept. 2005, I'll have to place a {{Copyvio}} on his 20 images here sadly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I need to discuss a 'problem' with this important image from 2006: File:Seoul World Cup Stadium.jpg I contacted the flickr account holder but he refuses to allow the image to be licensed without the 'Non-Commercial' restriction. He says basically 'what's the problem, its already here' in a flickrmail to me. Pls. click the flickr source where I even sent him a message. He barely responds to my messages. I told him the image can only be used here with a cc by 2.0 or cc by sa license but he hasn't budged. Should it be kept...or is it be better to let sleeping dogs lie? The only good replacement image is this: File:Sangam worldcup stadium 2006.jpg or File:Inside Seoul World Cup Stadium.jpg . If the first image is deleted, it should be quickly replaced with 1 of the 2 legitimate photos...because it is heavily used on wikipedia. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Probably better to let sleeping dogs lie. Since we can't prove it was every under a free license at flickr, it is best to replace it and then tag it for deletion. I'll keep looking for a better replacement. MBisanz talk 00:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. On that image, it was never licensed freely. It was still ARR when I contacted the flickrowner more than 1 month ago and he changed it to 'cc by nc sa'. I used my anon IP to submit it for a failed flickrreview...just to prove that he had 'changed' the license, nothing more. Unfortunately there are no other great images of this important Stadium...and none from an aerial view like Bryan's sadly. As an aside, Bryan apparently initially uploaded this image here under a different user name (Coldstream1): [30] Pls see the note on the Commons file: [[:File:Seoul World Cup Stadium.jpg]] Does that mean anything if he doesn't change the flickr license? Just curious. I have seen some flickr images used on wiki but when you check the flickr license there is always some restriction. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

DRs

Thanks for checking the original deleted image of the stadium. Bryan clearly knows it is here from the flickr link source. By the way, can you delete the first these DR's: DR DR and DR and keep this DR I changed my mind on the last. They are 5-6 days old and no one has asked to keep them. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I know the answer unfortunately. Admin Nilfanion told me last year that Commons bots are 'not intelligent.' They mostly check the license and image resolution...and cannot tell if the picture is acceptable for use here or not. Its the same reason why Admins must review cropped images. A human is smarter than a bot. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

German speaking support team

Hi MBisanz, thank you for your initiative to get more help for the German speaking OTRS team. I saw your request on the user talk pages of all German speaking Commons admins. But please note that the German speaking support team has defined an own process. We do not use the Meta page. See de:WP:ST#Mitarbeit im Support-Team. I have closed the discussion about AFBorchert and sent him an email about this and invited him to to repeat his request per our process. Raymond Disc. 12:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And I can tell you, I never had a chance to join the german support-team because of what Raymond says. Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Apologies Raymond, I did not realize there was a different page, I will remember that in the future. MBisanz talk 20:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Note

I hope you saw my private message on that Victor problem. I cannot tell if that account was his. When I see this: [31], I think it is strange that his uploaded image here have much higher resolution than the flickr link. Perhaps 1 of the Portugese Admins knows the situation. I just noticed it because a few of his images failed flickr review. When rei artur uploaded Victor's image, the resolution is smaller: [32] Very strange. From victor's talkpage, rei artur calls Victor Vitor. Suggestive again but its not 100% certain. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I nominated that structure for deletion but someone says it is not art, just a functional object. I don't know what to think. By the way, could you mark these images:

No one has marked them for days. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. MBisanz talk 04:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A final question on Vitor's failed flickr photos

Dear Matt,

I was just checking at the image histories of the failed images of Vitor107. Over here, Admin MECU first passes the image then changes his mind and says that the uploader is the user: [33] This image, at least, merits a flickr pass.

Over here User Platonides says this image file is licensed unfree on flickr but that the uploader IS the flickr owner. As an aside, I sent another message to Vitor on Sunday morning asking him if this was his Commons account...and his response is complete silence. I think MECU is right in that Vitor107 here and the Vitor on flickr are the same people. His flickr link has the same vitor107 link, too.

I guess this has some bearing on the final 4 images which did not or would not pass flickr review:

Perhaps, you should contact MECU to see if he still agrees that this account is indeed by the flickr owner's one in 2006. If it is, then the 5 images (4 here and the second case) could be passed. Just an idea. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Okey, I'll tackle this later today. MBisanz talk 10:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Dear Matt,

If you have time, please close these 3 DRs: DR , DR and DR Finally, this DR can be kept.

Most of the images here were really poor quality except for the Italian bridge/ponte. I hope you contacted MECU on that "Vitor107" account. He may know more on the situation here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

DRs handled, and I emailed MECU about Vitor. MBisanz talk 06:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall doing anything special about verifying if Vitor is the same person, but perhaps I just connected the two usernames? If I passed one (and there is proof here such as the changelogs) then it should be kept, if it is the useful one as decided above. Sorry I can't be of more help. MECU≈talk 02:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

quick request

Hi, Matt. Would you mind making the requested name change on the misidentified File:Crowfoot.jpg for me? (I don't have enough edits here on Commons to do this.) I've already swapped it for the corrected File:Chief Crowfoot.jpg on the twenty or so English and foreign language articles where it was being used. Cheers. CactusWriter (talk) 07:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I made a null edit to signify admin approval, but I believe the bot that does images moves is broken due to a code issue, so it may be a few days. MBisanz talk 07:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you. CactusWriter (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

3 Drs

Dear Matt, I have 3 DR's you may want to look at. Please feel free to vote keep if you wish. Its a free country after all. Here they are: DR , DR Finally, concerning this DR the photo was uploaded by an Admin on Turkish wiki but he has not made a comment on the photo thus far to affirm it was licensed freely when first uploaded. No one has made a comment and its almost 1 month. If he wishes, it can always be undeleted in future.

In a few days time, I may approach you with a major DR. You may want to give a reason to keep or delete here. I will explain the circumstances when that time comes. Its 10+ images. I had nominated 1 image but someone else then converted it into a mass DR. The situation is almost the same as the third case but the Admin uploader on Commons has been desysopped by M. Maggs for no activity here since Aug. 2008. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, done. MBisanz talk 05:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Matt for your help here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: I hope you received my message about possibly OTRS'ing Dalem's 20 images. Not many people know about the NC character of Commons' images but I just sent a message to him today saying that Wikipedia not a big corporation, it is run by volunteers and so they allow Commercial use for images here to minimise legal liability...in case other web sites use their images. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The mass DR

Dear Matt,

After waiting for 2.5 weeks for any response on these 11 images (no one has responded), I gingerly hand this DR to you to deal with. Please read the entire mass DR closely. I had nominated 1 of the images 'in the not found' category' because I thought it was of low quality. The problem could have been fixed if Admin Bouncey had asserted that the images were free when he uploaded them as an Admin did here:

Sadly, he didn't and now Bouncey has been desysoped for no activity since Aug 31, 2008. Please read the mass DR, look at the images and decide if they should be kept or deleted. It was Teofilo who converted it into a mass DR. They are the typical images you find in a loud stadium: out of focus, fuzzy, etc. You may have to give a reason for your decision here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Handled. MBisanz talk 05:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


My uploads

If these images haven't been marked, please kindly inspect them as they require someone to mark them now:

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

My disscusion page

Thank you for your help in my disscusion page. See you around! Gallaecio (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I hope you got my message on the 2 images. I don't know if Flinfol on Citizendum is acceptable but Geo is a very prolific uploader and surely knows what licenses were OK. Pls have a look at this replacement image if it isn't marked.

I had nominated another image of Revere's house which failed review as a copy vio. It was uploaded...by Urban again. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I got it, a bit busy here, but I'll try to get to it later. MBisanz talk 02:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Handled. MBisanz talk 04:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. By the way, on this DR is it possible for the new image I uploaded to be used in place of where the current DR image is employed on wikipedia? The new image's quality is excellent...and it was just uploaded a few days ago. In contrast, the old image's copyright is uncertain and its resolution is poor. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Dear Matt, You can go ahead, close that DR and delete the image if you want. Its been here since April 20. Its no great loss to Commons due to its poor quality. So, I wonder why no one acts. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Defense Logistics Agency headquarters at Fort Belvoir.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, MBisanz!
Tip: Add categories to your files
Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 06:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Idole&fleau.jpg

Hi,

Please be careful with this picture. As you can see on the history, there is three owners of the exclusive copyright (we have currently only two permissions).

Please also verify that the parameter "Author" is the same as the name of our client in OTRS ;)

Cheers.--Bapti ✉ 19:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, I know at least for the ticket I added the person claimed to be the exclusive owner of it. That is odd. But ok, if there is another owner, we don't have a valid permission yet. MBisanz talk 13:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Matt,

Are you around...its June 1 today. If you are, could you mark these 3 images please?

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 01:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Only one OTRS?

This was the only one they sent OTRS for? They uploaded several kinda similar images. That's unfortunate. Wknight94 talk 14:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, only 1 file name and everything in the email is in the singular. MBisanz talk 17:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This DR

Are you comfortable deleting this image and closing this DR ? I'm afraid it cannot be kept...as I told Turelio. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

All done. MBisanz talk 22:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Would you consider viewing these 5 failed images and decide if they should be deleted...or kept? They are:

There are replacements for most of them except the Oakland deco building which is not used anywhere...and was uploaded by Urban--and the Sanatorium which is most likely a copy vio. (failed flickr review within 2 mths of upload). Uploader McGinnly placed other flickr images with a Non-Commercial restriction here....but he's long gone now. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Note

I don't think the first 4 images can be kept:

As an aside, could you kindly delete my upload here:

Bidgee has uploaded a better image here which is in use: File:Dumferline Abbey graveyard (April 2009) - cropped.jpg Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Description

Dear Matt, Do you know how to type in an English description for this photo...like "Trevi fountain"

There is a long superfluous (and technical) description in the image file...but nothing appears after I moved it to Commons. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I fixed it all, even the tricky image description. Let me know. MBisanz talk 04:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing the Trevi fountain description. I tried everything to make the description appear and gave up in frustration. PS: I see this number has fallen to 1002 here When I started, it was 1830+ images but Admin Lycaon and other contributors attacked the pile. The real outstanding figure is less than 1000 images...but there are some pretty awful FlickrLickr images that I prefer not to type a pass for. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm

the file saturn_with_moons.jpg says author and sourse parker1297 i created it i put it on my computer and then uploaded it 68.157.63.250 19:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

These images

If they have not been marked, please consider marking these cropped images. They look important.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

 Comment: Please also look at the message I typed on this image:


Question

What do you think of this DR Can it be replaced with the image I suggested? The image I suggest looks to be of better quality...but its your call. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. MBisanz talk 03:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Personally, I thought the replacement image is a better substitute in terms of quality, colour, etc. The original now deleted image did not show the nave of the church very clearly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

OTRS for new images

Dear Matt,

I hope you received my E-mail message for an OTRS ticket on this image as it is in the failed flickr image category:

I need to be sure on 1 point. When I contact someone on flickr, I get a message from their flickrmail system...not their private E-mail contact address. Most people value their privacy especially with strangers of course. OTRS tickets don't require the E-mail address of the copyright owner...correct for flickr images? I just want to be sure, nothing more. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep a Flickr ID is fine for us, we are more concerned with their statement of release and ownership. I handled the ticket and tagged the image. MBisanz talk 03:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clarifying that WikiCommons focuses on the license that the copyright owner chooses...and not on his/her contact address. I will notify the flickrowner where his picture is used now. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

These speedy requests

Please take a look at closing these 2 DR's below:

As for these 2 other images, I have contacted trusted user Ranveig and he prefers not to pass these ones as their quality is abysmal. I agree:

With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

All done. MBisanz talk 01:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Um...I have one last one here also by Ranveig.

Thanks, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

✓ Zapped. MBisanz talk 01:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your all your assistance. By the way, I had several high res. images by Rinux undeleted. Ironically, I was the guy who had them deleted! That's life I guess. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

2 images

Please look at the first 2 images and delete them:

No need for a regular DR here, I think. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

License fix

Can the old, deprecated license in this historically important image be fixed:

It is an extremely important pagoda in Korean history. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can, please look at this speedy delete below:

Thanks, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 04:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

5 images

I thinks these 5 'not found' images can be deleted here without much ado. Please look at the DR discussion. Its important.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 08:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

Should this person's 7 images be deleted as images from a banned sockpuppet: [35]

I had assumed good faith here but I did not know he would be banned at the time as an abusive sockpuppet. Its just a few images anyway. Maybe some could fall under PD-Art if the artist was dead 70+ years but maybe its safer to just delete them all. In the old 19th century photos, he says own work...which is impossible and no clear published source is given. What do you think? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I closed the DR, I left the 7 images since they appear to be purely PD and could be kept regardless of the socking. MBisanz talk 00:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Italian CoA

Hi MBisanz! Could you take a look at this? Commons:Deletion requests/Italian CoA. --MGA73 (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Commented. MBisanz talk 20:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

DRs

I think these 5 DR's can be closed as delete: DR, DR, DR , DR and DR

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. MBisanz talk 20:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
As an aside, I think this DR can also be closed as delete since the uploader has no objections and it is not used on wp. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 Comment It seems the flickr review bot is down. It has not marked images for 2+ days now and the backlog is more than 100 photos Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Notifying Bryan. MBisanz talk 07:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Copy vio?

This DR has been here for 5+ days and no one has commented to defend it. I doubt it can be kept.

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

✓ Your awesome! MBisanz talk 23:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. The posibly unfree category has fallen to below 500 images but sadly many include photos by Mac9 which were surely licensed freely at upload...unlike Ronline or Urban. There are still a few here by Urban but I cannot find any replacements for them. I nominate a few for deletion and have to look the other way on other images. Maybe Cptn. tucker will contact some flickr owners here one day...as he has now rescued this long deleted image by Mac9 here: File:Taormina-paizza.jpg Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagging the images now, sorry I had to delete the shirt button File:Botaocamisa.JPG seems like an acceptable replacement. I emailed Bryan with no response so far and have been begging around to coders to try and find a replacement. MBisanz talk 12:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Help: what is a monobook?

I have been made a trusted user but Abigor pointed out this script and said I should put it in my monobook.js: [36] It would make my job easier to mark photos. Do you know where my monobook.js is? Is it under Gadgets...where I found Tineye? I am not familiar with all the codes on Commons...anda m sometimes lost. If possible, please feel free to install this code in my monobook.js...wherever that is. Please give me a heads up. I don't know what he means by "and you clear the cache" either. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Your monobook.js is at User:Leoboudv/monobook.js. I installed the code he suggested in it. To activate it, press the CTRL and F5 keys on your keyboard at the same time. The clears the cache. Feel free to ask if you need any help. MBisanz talk 00:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Plik:Cosplay - Naruto e Kakashi.jpg

Nice choice. That's one of my favorite shots. You should grab the full-size version, though, rather than just that smaller one; If I didn't want people to have access to the full version, I wouldn't have CC-By'd it. :) --Short Circuit (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks. MBisanz talk 00:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I see you'd uploaded a few more from that set. I suggest you grab the full rez versions of those, too. (I *think* everything I have on Flickr is CC-By. Regardless, it won't give you access to the full resolution versions otherwise.) --Short Circuit (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Note

Flickr review is active again as this shows. Finally! --Leoboudv (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Two comments

  • Thanks. It looks like the possibly unfree category is being perhaps...dissolved as all the photos there have been flickrreviewed. What happens if I hit the flickr fail/CV button? Does it just say copy vio...or the author is using a certain restriction? So, far I've passed photos. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe it added a copyvio speedy deletion tag. Not positive. Why not test it and find out? :) MBisanz talk 03:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

On another subject, is this image message sufficient to get it OTRS'ed...or not:

I don't know the uploader at all. I sent a flickrmail to the flickr owner on February 5, 2009 regarding changing the license from ARR. I did not get any response at all....but he has not uploaded any images from his account since January 2009. Is this just too risky? Its completely your call. Thanks --Leoboudv (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at this tomorrow, I have to get some sleep before the big wiki conference. MBisanz talk 03:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you try contacting http://www.flickr.com/photos/fidothe/1670090/ it looks like that image is almost free and if he changed it, it would be a good enough replacement. MBisanz talk 04:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll think about this one. Thanks. As an aside, do you know if there is indeed an OTRS message for this DR It seems suspicious but I don't know if there is a message. Secondly, I don't think this DR can be kept. 1 week and still no one advocates for it since it is another photo by Urban. Finally, if possible, please try to mark this cropped image...as I cannot mark my own uploads.
  • File:Queen Ahhotep I’s sarcophagus.jpg

It is by H. Ollermann, a good contact and an Admin on flickr. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in OTRS for the one image, other images handled, nice mummy! MBisanz talk 03:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I suspected the 'OTRS' image was a copy vio after I saw his/her talkpage. Thanks for your nice comment's on the mummy mask. I'm afraid that while its resolution is not the highest, it will have to do since the Cairo Museum banned all photography in their building in mid-March 2005. As they say, 50% of something is better than nothing at all. Ahhotep I was a very important person. As an aside, the Wiki conference is in New York--your city. That's wonderful for someone like you! Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Note

DR handled. Been a bit busy but will get to the email. MBisanz talk 16:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • When you have the time, please OTRS these 5 cars based on the message I received from M. Schmitt....and sent to you. He confirms it was indeed cc by sa at upload and, in a few cases, I notice the uploader here was Anetode who is trusted here. Anetode also said the same thing to me--that it was cc by sa....but I did not upload them here. And anyway, Anetode is not an Admin: [37], [38] , [39], [40] and [41]

With kind Regards from a hot and muggy Vancouver, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

All done. MBisanz talk 02:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

2 DR

I doubt this 2 DRs can be kept. I gave clear reasons why they should be deleted and no one has objected. The DRs are almost 5 days old: [42] and [43] Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, if you can, please mark this image:

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks Matt. I was surprised to get any copyright free images of this Depression on flickr. There were only 12 photos in total...but 2 were licensed freely (cc by 2.0) . Its too bad no one checks on flickr for copyright free photos here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Mass DR

Has 7 full days passed from this mass nomination here ? I did not initiate the mass DR (though I suggested this idea to the nominator, I admit) and I am sorry it has come to this but they likely cannot be saved since they were most probably unfree at upload. I received *much static from flickr owners about NC restrictions on Urban's photos. My guess is Urban didn't know the licensing rules in 2005 and 2006....and it was an innocent error on his part.

This separate image can be deleted too, I think.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for acting. This is a painful process...but in this case, they could not be saved sadly and no one said they would try to intervene either in the DR. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This photo

Do you think there is a good reason to keep this image: [44] Its not used on Wikipedia. It was uploaded by an Administrator on wikiCommons, but he has been away for months and hasn't flickrpassed it sadly. If it is not used, why keep it I wonder? Any views, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It was one of those that could have gone either way. If it was being used in an article, I probably would have AGF'd and passed it, but since it wasn't, I erred on the side of caution and deleted. MBisanz talk 07:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Mach could have flickrpassed it but he has been away from Commons sadly. In my view, if an image in the "not found" category is completely unused on Wikipedia, why keep it? As Mr. Spock would say, this is 'illogical.' If it was used, then I would AGF and not nominate it for deletion at all as Admin Nilsfanion once advised me...on such tough matters. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Sarah Michelle Gellar.jpg

Dear MBisanz,

Please look at this image again. The flickr owner (Saudi) was on a basic flickr account...so he gets only 200 images for his account. Once he uploads newer images over this limit, older uploads would be automatically deleted per flickr policy. So, he may/may not not have deleted the image since flickr may have deleted it instead. The uploader Guety looks like he knew Common's licensing policies but he is long gone. This leaves Paddy who was an Admin on Commons between January 2005 to October 2008 (when he was de-Admin'ed) for lack of activity. Is it reasonable to assume that Paddy would have checked the license since he actually edited the image on the same day it was uploaded? (ie. that Paddy did a review when it was uploaded?) If correct, could I perhaps type in a flickrpass for Paddy dated to 15 February 2005...when he was an Admin here. I see the reasonably high original 1024 X 768 pixel image--which was the maximum allowable size for basic flickr accounts--and I think that this does not look like a copy vio.

Captain tucker has flickrmailed Saudi but gets no reply...likely because this guy's account is now orphaned--no images since August 2007. But from the images on his photostream, I seen no indication that he did not take his own images. I just sent a message to Paddy on this image...as his last edit on Commons was on August 4, 2009. What do you think I should do I should do after Paddy replies? One would think we can trust our Admins. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the archive.org URL for that file at [45] and it appears it was under cc-by at least in 2005, so I would concur it could be flickrpassed. MBisanz talk 03:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the note. I had no idea internet archive was still active. While the picture doesn't appear, the flickr link is virtually identical...which means Saudi did indeed take the image of Gellar in December 2004 and licensed it freely. The internet archive result is dated to January 30, 2005--only 2 weeks before it was uploaded here on February 15, 2005. Since Saudi always licensed his images as 'cc by 2.0', the image was certainly 'cc by 2.0' when uploaded here. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I have typed in a flickrpass dated to Feb. 15, 2005 on Paddy's behalf and notified Paddy of my actions here. But 1 need one clarification: according to this Paddy was not an Admin in 2004 but applied to be one on January 3, 2005. Am I right in assuming he was appointed an Admin around January 10-January 12, 2005 shortly after the vote ended? What does the Commons archive records say? It does not affect the picture since he was an Admin by February 2005, but it would be nice to get the date of his appointment. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

These 3 images

I feel it is better if you look at this images and captain tucker's comment. Then feel free to either flickr pass them or ignore my inquiry. (don't worry: its not a problem to me at all)

This flickr owner (E. Dinev) has 3 images (in the not found category) here:

They were uploaded in May & August 2006 respectively and one in May 2007. But captain tucker made this intriguing note here just yesterday on one of Dinev's images: [47]

Is this evidence clear enough to pass all 3 images or is it rather vague and fuzzy? (ie. insufficient evidence) Tucker has contacted the guy but I notice today he licenses his images as ARR and he has not responded to tucker's messages as no OTRS permission is given. If you decide to act, I think it would be better if you marked them as an Admin....rather than me. If not, just ignore my message as I don't like pressing anyone into making a decision they are unsure of. Note: Tucker has contacted people whose images lie in the not found category here and has had moderate success. He also saved Keeshond, the dog. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  • As an aside, I notice other images from this guy's account did pass flickrreview: [48] , [49] , [50] & [51] Interestingly Dinev also deleted them after he found them on Commons. But you should make the call on the 3 images above since you are an experienced Admin here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the note. I thought they were all licensed freely since they were uploaded before the date of captain tucker's way back results. I don't understand why some people on flickr license their images freely and then panic and hit the delete button when they see them used on the web. They should know what the implications of changing the license on an image are. Mr. Spock is right: 'We humans are an illogical species.' (just kidding!) With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 Comment I think you missed the last one here: File:Strandzha-dinev-2.jpg Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Woopsie. Bit distracted this week. All done. MBisanz talk 06:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This image

Can you check with the way back machine to see if this image was uploaded freely: File:Roma-stazione termini20.jpg I ask this because I notice the flickr owner licenses his images as cc by 2.0...but he has not replied to captain tucker' flickrmails on this heavily used photo. The way back machine is a puzzle to me sometimes. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, not showing up on the way back machine. Although it doesn't look like the kind of image that would be generally stolen, so I'll leave it up to your discretion. MBisanz talk 08:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No, it likely isn't stolen. Sadly, without proof the author licensed his photos freely in the past, no one can pass it. Also since no Admin 'edited' the image, its copyright status is ambiguous. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Mela's image

Should this image be passed because E. Zelenko restored it?:

Please see this note here and look at Mela's talkpage for E. Zelenko's own edit there dated July 25, 2006. He appears to accept it is the uploader's own work and restored the image. Only 1 image by this person. I don't know who Zelenko is sadly. Might be an Admin. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I went ahead and passed it given the comments you linked to and that Zelenko is a commons crat who is fairly knowledgeable in such matters. MBisanz talk 10:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This image

Does this photo have enough evidence for OTRS or not:

There is a confidential contact address given here. Then look at the actual flickr source. Just curious. It looks like permission to me. Also, the uploader is an Admin here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't qualify for OTRS since we don't have the email, but given the uploader is a Commons admin, I trusted him enough to pass it. MBisanz talk 05:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Its a bit eerie to see E-mail addresses but there was no flickr review system when this was uploaded. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I doubt this image can be kept. The DR is 1 week old and the flickr owner--I notice--licenses her images as ARR. She has not responded to captain tucker's messages to her in July either. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
done. MBisanz talk 00:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

OTRS

Any chance you could check for the OTRS messages for these 2 photos which were added by captain tucker. One is almost 30 days old. Just curious: [52] and [53] Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have an OTRS about the same flickr user as the first image, but not that specific image. The second image was referenced by Tucker in an OTRS email, but he never gave a permissions for it. Can he clear it up maybe? MBisanz talk 01:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I resent the permission email from the flickr author for File:Toronto_Subway_Yorkdale.jpg, the subject line of the email is Permission for http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toronto_Subway_Yorkdale.jpg. The email I received from the flickr author for File:Smith_&_Wesson_Model_629-1_flickr_szuppo.jpg is not a definitive as I would like so I am going to ask him to resend it as he did not include a specific link to the image in question just said 629 image on flickr. Might take a few days to get a response. --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Go it, done. MBisanz talk 18:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The second image File:Smith_&_Wesson_Model_629-1_flickr_szuppo.jpg] has been passed by Flickrreview now as the Flickr owner changed this and two other images that were in Category:Flickr images not found-old to CC-BY-SA so that one is all set. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Dear Admin MBisanz,

Can you please undelete these 6 images below? They were deleted beacuse they were thought to be on an unfree license at upload. But Admin MGA73 has pointed out to me that Admin Para kept specific records of certain image files from late 2006 to March 2007. They prove the license was either 'cc by 2.0' or 'cc by sa 2.0' on 2006-11-06 in Table 2006-11-06 – 2006-11-13 Here they are:

I can flickr pass them based on Para's clear evidence...if I could see the images. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

All done, Mister Leo :) MBisanz talk 23:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

 Comment: I should have said please restore them if there are no FOP problems. My mistake. This means that these 3 images should remain deleted sadly since Italian FOP do not allow them. Like you, I dislike FOP here:

BUT if possible, please check these other uploads here:

If there are no FOP modern art problems, they can be restored and passed by me as their licenses are either cc by 2.0 or cc by sa according to Admin Para's records from 2006. Let those with problems remain deleted. As an aside, here was my reasons for passing 1 of the 2 images you undeleted. The third was licensed freely and I ordered a new flickrreview. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there is FOP problems with some of the images. --MGA73 (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Just undelete the ones with no FOP issues as I noted. I can't type flickr passes for deleted images as you know. Thanks for undeleting the ones with no problems, MGA73. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


Update

and then restore these 5 photos here below. This is my final undeletion request. Para's records show the 5 were 'cc by 2.0' at upload in 2006:

I can then pass them by citing Admin Para's evidence. Please help. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not being around, I was moving into law school this weekend, I think I caught all the images. And no, this isn't your final request, I want more requests from you! MBisanz talk 16:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. OK. I'll have 1 final look at Admin Para's table to see if any more images can be saved. Have restored or typed in passes for 41 images based on his evidence table. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

4 images

I passed those 4 images based on evidence from Para's computerised records. (he doesn't make mistakes) By the way, could you restore these 4 images here as they are 'cc by 2.0' before the license changed please?

also just check and see if there is anything useful here (hopefully, it isn't a copy vio or a vanity image): File:225563734 b7b907b257.jpg

And could this DR be closed? It more than 1 week old and the evidence is clear cut. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. MBisanz talk 06:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)



OTRS question

I see that you are an admin and OTRS certified, and I am wondering if you would be able to check in on an OTRS permission email that I sent on 8/23 at 5pm and 11pm (Eastern time). The email contained permissions for File:Pete DeCoursey headshot 2009.jpg and File:Pete DeCoursey headshot 2005.jpg. I don't mean to be a pain, but I guess I am just hoping the email didn't get lost in the flood of emails that must arrive every day.--Blargh29 (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Found them and done. MBisanz talk 06:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! I hope you don't mind, but I have a second request. On File:Pete DeCoursey headshot 2005.jpg, I uploaded the wrong image first and then I uploaded the correct one. Is it possible to delete the original upload without disturbing the current image? If so, could you do that? --Blargh29 (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Yep, done. MBisanz talk 21:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again! I have also just sent in OTRS permission for File:John Micek photo.jpg, if you happen to run across it. (Approximately 8/25 at 7:15pm Eastern).--Blargh29 (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello again! I have just sent in an OTRS permission email to File:TJ Rooney photo.jpg(9/3 at 12:15pm Eastern) and File:Terry Madonna speaking.jpg and File:Terry Madonna headshot.jpg (9/3 at 4:27pm Eastern). Thanks! --Blargh29 (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

2 undeletion requests and 2 OTRS

Dear Matt,

Could you undelete these 2 image:

Secondly, if you have time please try to OTRS these 2 images in the 'image not found' category here: [54] and [55] captain tucker did the contacting.

  • Finally, this DR by me is somewhat complicated. So, please look at it carefully before you decide to delete or to keep it on the assumption of PD. Its more than 1 week old now. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I resent the OTRS email for File:Señalizacion_bilingue_bruselas.jpg, it has the subject Permission for http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Se%C3%B1alizacion_bilingue_bruselas.jpg. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment:I hope you received captain tucker's message above on that image. As an aside, perhaps you may want to contact Bryan again as the flickr bot reviews only a few images and then stops which means there is this backlog of unmarked images. I mark some but there are too many.
Finally, this is my final undeletion request to you. If possible, please restore these 2 images:

It looks like the second USA image is by Urban from the USA title. This is ironic but Para's table confirms both photos were indeed "cc by 2.0" on flickr...before the license changed. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 05:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. I have told Admin MGA73 that it would be better to use a bot to restore images found to be free on Para's site. But one has to carefully check all the evidence before passing the image. Only the actual flickr license tag that Para's program found counts; the license that people claims for a picture means nothing. In a few very rare cases, the license changes from ARR 1 week ago to 'cc by 2.0' the next week. Thanks for OTRSing that second image for the captain. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

OTRS

If you have some time, plesae try to OTRS these 2 images which lay in the 'images not found' category: [56] and [57] They were salvaged by the captain. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Someone had put it in the junkmail folder for some reason. MBisanz talk 13:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

2 Dr's

Dear Matt,

Can these 2 DR's here and here be closed as keep? Admin MGA73 confirms to me that the uploader knew what the licenses were in 2007 and that he was trustworthy. I will only type in a flickrpass for them if the DR's are closed. Can you help...as the DR is almost 1 month old now? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Okey, I closed. MBisanz talk 05:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. But I have a different question below. Can you answer my question here?

 Comment: Why are you able to download and place a Non-Commercial and No-Derivative restriction on the use of your images in WikiCommons as you did in this picture:

I thought that all images here were supposed to be freely usable as either "cc by" or "cc by sa" only? I ask this question because in a certain DR discussion, this German template was noted by a certain user: [58] with the same restriction as you place on your pictures. But if one tries to upload flickr images with these restriction, they would be deleted. This seems a bit inconsistent to me. Do you have a response? I am not familiar with Commons policies here.

  • Oh I see. The situation is clearer now. As for Erickson, he suffered from Parkinsons in his final years and everyone here in Vancouver where he lived knew he was close to death. Sadly he died only 2 weeks after I visited the Museum--which he designed in 1976--in May 2009. But everyone dies eventually. We had a brilliant guy who designed the upcoming 2010 Vancouver Olympic program for the Vancouver Olmpic Committee suddenly die in his sleep at age 40 leaving behind a wife and an infant daughter in last month. And he was healthy. That's why its better to prepared for such a situation just in case. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Help

Dear Matt,

Can this poor resolution image here: File:HephthaliteCoin.JPG be replaced by the original high resolution image I just transferred to Commons here:

The difference in quality is large. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If I could move images, it could be done easily, but since that feature it turned off, there is no easy way to do it. I do like the higher res image. MBisanz talk 16:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

 Comment: I've replaced all uses of this inferior resolution photo on wp now. Can it please be deleted here: File:HephthaliteCoin.JPG ? This small 550 X 278 pixel image does not do justice to the coin. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't have a grounds to delete it, so I added a superseded template to discourage future use. MBisanz talk 19:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • OK. that's fair enough. This situation happens often when people don't know how to transfer images to Commons since they don't have a TUSC account. They accidentally upload the low resolution image instead. That's why I asked for a TUSC account. This situation happened to me here once which prompted me to get a TUSC account. I got the poor low res. image & lost the metadata. If it wasn't for Admin Karonen noticing my explanation of the situation months later, Commons would be stuck with a low res. image for this quality photo: File:Adam, Eve and Abel by Carl Johan Bonnesen (1868-1933).jpg

With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This DR

Should this DR be closed as keep or is it premature to you? I have told the captain the situation and he has not made a reply though he has seen my message. Typically if an Admin vouches for a now absent uploader, it seems one can trust the uploader here especially given the other image which passed flickrreview. Its entirely your call. Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank god Admin Para wrote a computer script in 2006 to monitor flickr license changes from early October 2006-late March 2007! So, we know what images were truly licensed freely...before the flickr license changed. That is why many of p.photoman's images have been restored. Because we know exactly when he changed the license from 'cc by 2.0': between October 9 & 16, 2006. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OTRS Invitation

I wanted to thank you for extending the OTRS invitation. I do believe that at some point in the future I would like to join the OTRS team but at the present since I have only been an admin here at commons for two months I want to make sure I really know what's going on here as there are many different aspects of the admin job, some tasks that I have not given much attention. Thanks again! --Captain-tucker (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

1 image

Maybe you can help the captain OTRS this image:

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Somehow it found its way to the junkmail folder again. MBisanz talk 20:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there someway that I can be whitelisted on the OTRS SPAM filter as this seems to happen every time I send in an OTRS permission email? Thanks. --Captain-tucker (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I bugged Cary about it and he sent an email to a dev, but seeing as the head dev quit today, I doubt it will get done in the near future. Just let me know if you don't get a response to something and I'll dig through the junk folder. MBisanz talk 22:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for asking. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

These 2 images & Internet archive

Can you do a search on the flickr urls on Internet archive for these 2 images to see if they were licensed with an NC restriction or just simply as 'cc by sa': [59] and [60]

I checked just on the copyright owner's account on Internet archive and it indicates he licensed some images in 2005/2006 as cc by nc sa and others as 'cc by sa'. So, I can't tell if these 2 were once free. Maybe you will have better luck here? I have contacted him (S. Roe) on the license and he refused to make a reply. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  •  Comment: I checked on Internet archive and see there are no records for those 2 photos. That's clear enough then. I nominated 1 for deletion. But could you delete this photo which is not even used. I think Asta knew what the licenses were but without proof, no one can pass a photo on a feeling. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, can you also delete these 3 copyvios by you know whom from Commons.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This image

If possible, please mark this image I uploaded:

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This DR

Can this DR be closed as delete. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  •  Comment: As an aside, can DR's of old flickr images like this by the captain be speedy closed as delete? Just curious. Or is it better to wait the 1 week cycle. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done MBisanz talk 04:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This DR

Would you mind closing this DR as delete? Its more than 1 week and no one acts here. Para said he did not check the license when he added the flickr sources in the past. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:DIGWUREN and EE Cabal spilling over into Commons!

I find this deletion requests (Commons:Deletion requests/Waffen-SS Sinimäed) highly problematic. It seems to be a case of WP:DIGWUREN and the EE Cabal spilling over into Commons. It may also have some some relevance to the ongoing ArbCom case at the English Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Reconciling the 2 templates

Dear Matt,

Do you know how to reconcile the two separate info templates here into one? Its very confusing to have 2 templates which both contain useful information. This image was just restored from Admin Para's list:

Any ideas? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

3 DRs

I think these 3 DRs here , here and maybe here can be closed as delete. The first 2 is clear cut but the third is more problematic. Think about the last one a bit...and feel free to keep it open if you wish. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Did two, I'll leave the third open a bit more. MBisanz talk 05:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Note

This DR should have been closed as delete long ago. There is no FOP in the former USSR states. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

2 DRs

Have you seen these 2 DRs here? I think it is now 7 days, so perhaps they should be deleted but its your call. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

✓ Whee! MBisanz talk 03:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Image template clutter

Can the template in this image be cleaned up. Its a bit distracting:

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Mass DR?

I notice all these images here come from this flickr owner's account but he (Luke) licensed his images as ARR. His last upload was in early 2007 and the Ferrari's are not in it. Maybe he deleted them? Anyway, I doubt we can keep any of the 16 images. What do you think? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I decided to pass it and gave my clear reasons in the image discussion. But I don't know when Gilgan first uploaded it to wikipedia. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC) 

#  17:48, June 18, 2008 . . Gligan (talk | contribs | block) 500×333 (45,121 bytes) ({{Information |Description=Autumn in the Rhodope mountains, southern Bulgaria |Source=[http://www.flickr.com/photos/evgord/1886791668/ Flickr] |Date=17.06.2008 |Author=Evgeni Dinev |Permission=see below |other_versions= }})

Does that work? MBisanz talk 05:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This DR

Can this DR be closed as keep. Its quite straightforward now. If you want, you can pass the photo too but that's up to you. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Category

Do you know why this category has not been created here for a park in Krygystan? I uploaded an image and placed it in this category but it still doesn't show up below.

Don't know what is the difficulty. There are 9 other images in this non-existent category. Can you do something as an admin please? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Does it work now? MBisanz talk 03:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Strange. The category didn't get created for 2 straight days until tonight. When I contacted you earlier, there still was no category for this natural park. Thank You for acting here. I couldn't figure out what the problem was. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


OTRS

If you can please OTRS these images for the captain. Hopefully the permission is still there:

As an aside, this photos: File:Waldorf Astoria Hotel main entrance Park Avenue.jpg should be deleted ASAP. The uploader faked the pass (typed it in himself) when it is certainly unfree. They are copy vios. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please help the captain here with OTRS if you can:

Note on OTRS

I hope the message I sent you from the flickr owner is sufficient for this image here:

I normally don't contact flickr owner's in the image not found section...but I made an exception here due to the quality of the photo. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

OTRS email sent

I sent in another OTRS email for File:Low brace Youghiogheny River Ohiopyle, PA.jpg this morning. I assume it will get moved into OTRS junk again. If you could take a look it would be appreciated. Thanks. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, fixed. MBisanz talk 17:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!--Captain-tucker (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done MBisanz talk 13:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

OTRS emails

I sent in two OTRS emails for the following images:

I imagine that the request for the first image will get marked as SPAM. I would be curious to know if the second makes it through with no problems. Thanks --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Second one made it through, but had a permissions error. I fixed the first one. MBisanz talk 22:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought the second was a little weak. I will contact the Flickr author directly and see if I can get something better. Thanks again for your assistance. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

DR

This DR should be closed as delete. Even the uploader concurs. As an aside, this should be speedy deleted. It failed review on the same day it was uploaded in September. Don't know why its still here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 22:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OTRS

Can you verify is such an OTRS ticket exists (and applies to) this image: [61] or this one: [62] I see many other images with this note. It would be a pity if the photos are lost but such is life. If the permission checks out, it should be applied to all his images here, I think. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Still on my plate, will try to get to it. MBisanz talk 17:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

File Andres Hurtado

Hello MBisanz, you have moved the file File:Andres Hurtado.jpg (for me it is not quite clear, what that mean) - do you know the person? The file is missing categories, and I am wondering what cats can be correct. Best wishes Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User:KTo288 suggested the rename, so you might ask him. If he doesn't know, let me know and I'll look into it more. MBisanz talk 18:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

OTRS

Please help the captain here if you can:

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not seeing anything in the queue for that file. MBisanz talk 06:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I sent the email again, it has the subject Permission for http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Noon_Gun_Firing_Signal_Hill_Cape_Town_4_September_2008.jpg. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Looks like it's all set, Odder took care of it, TicketNumber=2009110810011472. Strange though, I didn't include all of the email headers that was apparently causing my OTRS emails to go into SPAM , this one had a PDF attachment of the email exchange. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know why this keep happening tyo the captain. Anyway, can you please close this 3 DRs by me as keep? It is most likely own work in this case and I withdraw my nomination. I forgot the location of the images. Here they are: DR, DR and DR Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

OTRS 20 images

Dear Matt,

I hope you received my private message to you on OTRS'ing these 20 images by the flickr owner. I have validated the permission now after Mr. Wee agreed to my suggestion for the 20 images. Please help OTRS the message for these 20 images. Note: the license is 'cc by 2.0' (The last or 21st image is not from his account) Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 14:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This image came from flickr

Re: File:Collared Kingfisher (Todiramphus chloris) -Nee Soon Forest.jpg. The file came from flickr, so does it need an otis template? I have probably missed something. Snowmanradio (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

OTRS in this case is just extra insurance against it being challenged. MBisanz talk 01:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
It was just to let you know in case the OTRS was accidentally put on the wrong file. This image has passed flickerreview. If you want to put an OTRS tag on it, then it is extra proof of authenticity. Snowmanradio (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Lima Peru Temple.jpg

Dear Matt,

As an OTRS volunteer, can you please kindly check the permission message for the image above and see if it is sufficient (or not) for an OTRS ticket? I had contacted the uploader who then forwarded the permission to OTRS as he claims here The OTRS Admin who typed in the temporary OTRS message is busy with other tasks. I see no reasons not to trust the uploader (Trodel) at all personally and the license seems to be 'cc by sa'. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Kermit by Matthew Bisanz.JPG

File:Kermit by Matthew Bisanz.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

--Noddy93 (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Active Admins chart

Nice chart. A small request next time you run the numbers: Create 2 charts, one like the one you did, the other with the horizontal axis set at n=0 instead of n=850. This will more show the percentage drop-off over time. Davidwr (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Okey. MBisanz talk 14:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Note

I doubt any of the 5 images named here can be kept at all. They are likely flickrwashes and no one has defended their maintenance here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

About an OTRS of a photo of Avalon Hill's Axis and Allies

Hi Bisanz, I have raised a request for clarification on File:Third Reich AH.JPG, a photo to which you attached an OTRS, at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Request for check on ticket #2984812. Could you check in and help clear up the ticket's permission? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi MBisanz, as there is no permission by Avalon Hill in this case, I've filed one of them for deletion as I think this is a derived work where de minimis does not apply. Please voice your opinion at the DR. Thanks and regards, AFBorchert (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Okey. MBisanz talk 07:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

4 Copyvios

Dear Matt,

If you can, please delete these 4 photos below. They are either tagged as copyvios or the DR discussion is more than 1 week now:

With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 06:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

4 old DRs

Dear Matt,

If you have time, here are 3 old DRs and 1 newer DR which should all be closed as delete. Some are clear copy vios too when you see the discussions:

The second DR is regretabble but as it has been here for 2 months, maybe its better to delete since it has no OTRS permission. It was filed by Admin captain tucker. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I did all by #2 since I was too unclear to solve it. MBisanz talk 07:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyvios

Do you think you could delete these 4 images? The first three are not 1 week old but they are obvious copyvio candidates which do merit a speedy deletion and no one even comments in their DRs. The fourth and last failed review. Admin Turelio, in the image file, thought it can be saved but the photo is easily replacable:

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Singapore Airline suites

Please also delete the other two uploads by Kc1477 (talk · contribs) per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Singapore Airlines Suites.jpg. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 06:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Dear Matt,

If you can, please close these DRs as delete. They are 6-7 days old and no one supports keeping them. Here are the candidates: DR, DR DR and DR


Last 2 DRs

Dear MBisanz,

I think these are the last ones. I doubt Commons can or should keep them gven the circumstance (which you can see) and one image is not even used on wikipedia:

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 21:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

One photo

Have you seen this DR by me. I am not sure on the DR but I have uploaded a replacement...just in case as it is very heavily used. You can decide to keep or delete it if you wish. If you choose to delete, you can redirect the image to the photo I uploaded with the flickr owner's permission. Here they are:

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

1 last unfree image

Is there any reason this photo should be kept since it is not used anywhere? The photo isn't even clear and the uploader has not edited for 1.5 years. What do you think? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, deleted. MBisanz talk 20:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Bendigo talking tram.jpg & File:Central bendigo from botanic gardens.jpg

Do you have any views on these 2 images? I checked the user's contributions and he doesn't have many--only 5 or 6 images. So, I could understand why he doesn't say own work. But the resolution is quite high and it loooks like own work to me at first glance. The licensing rules were different in 2005. But what do you think from your perspective as an Admin? --Leoboudv (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks ok to me, since he did get the right license tag on it that kinda implies it is his. MBisanz talk 07:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

OTRS

Dear MBisanz,

If you can, please OTRS the permission for these images that Admin MGA73 states that he (not I) received:

DR done, working with MGA. MBisanz talk 07:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 Comment: I hope MGA's message didn't end up in the recycle box like the captain's. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
It did not. It is here https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=4283316&ArticleID=4870863&QueueID=53. I just added the template before I send the mail. Original mail from the uploader was a bit like "Yes the image and some others were CC before". New mail mention the specific images. If we want more we can just ask :-) Yeah! --MGA73 (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done MBisanz talk 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. As an aside, this DR cannot be kept. I contacted the flickrowner on Dec.20 and she refused to change the license even though she has updated new photos on her flickr account. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. Its 11:32 PM in New York and 8:32 PM in Vancouver, Canada. 29 more minutes until....2010. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

2 DRs

Dear MBisanz,

If possible, please delete these 2 photos. One is not used at all and the Captain contacted the other more than 1 month ago here on October 28, 2009 and got no reply from the flickr owner. The flickr owner has uploaded photos up until December 30, 2009 as this shows So, it is also a candidate speedy deletion in this case:

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 05:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Note

I think these 2 photos here and the other below can be deleted. The first has no clear source to indicate its copyright status. It may be from a new book or an old paper but this is unclear.

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 01:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Note

I think this DR can be closed as delete. No one has voted to keep it and it failed flickr review. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. MBisanz talk 06:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

 Comment: Maybe this unfree image should not be kept since it is not used on wikipedia:

Speedy delete?

I think this image: File:Temple of Poseidon at twilight1.jpg is a candidate for speedy delete as it failed review and is orphaned. Do you agree? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Final DRs

I think these 2 DR's here and here must be closed as delete since they are 1 week old. If you read the DRs, Its clear they cannot be kept.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:صدام و چند آمریکایی.jpg

Hi Matt, could you eventually confirm at the above DR, that or whether the questioned OTRS ticket is "fake" or invalid, and add your guess whether this looks just like a mistake or more like intention? In case you need farsi-language support, admins User:Mmxx or User:Mardetanha might help. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

DR

This DR is almost 1 week old. Do you have time to delete the roughly 60 images from Panoramio by the uploader which are most likely copy vios. No one bothers to make a statement defending their presence here...which is very revealing. They are all super tiny resolution photos (if you see the DR) and there is no FOP in France for more recent graves anyway. Any ideas? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. MBisanz talk 07:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Panoramica Castellbisbal.jpg

Dear Matt,

Is the flickr owner's reply here in the DR sufficient for an OTRS ticket...or not? I can't speak to the guy as he only converses in Spanish. If you cannot, just let me know. Its no problem. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't speak spanish, sorry. MBisanz talk 07:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


Copyright status: File:Omada E.gif

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Omada E.gif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Sv1xv (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

File:B-25 Mitchell - Panchito.jpg

Dear Matt,

Can this failed image be deleted since a suitable replacement has been found for it? The DR discussion for the image is a bit long but it looks clear that OTRS permission is very unlikely to be forthcoming sadly. As an aside, I think this DR too could be closed as a delete, also. The captain has done enough work here but the license could never be verified. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 19:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you. But please note that this photo DR below and its one derivative, which I noted in my second DR, should also be deleted:
  • CRUISER

The captain has done a lot to get a reply on the license...but nothing happened. He has now requested a formal deletion and I think there is no need to wait 1 full week in such a clear case. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I see someone else beat me to it, ok. MBisanz talk 18:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

OTRS

As you saw I finally accepted your invitation to volunteer for OTRS. Thank you for your support. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

We need your help at the Wikiproject medicine

Hello, Sorry for spaming your talk page, but this is very important. On the behalf of the Wikiproject medicine at the en.wikipedia, I am inviting you to be a part of the discussion going on the project's talk page about Patient images, The discussion started after I obtained a permission to more than 23000 dermatology related images, and about 1500 radiology images. As some editors of the Wikiproject medicine have some concerns regarding the policy of using patient images on wikipedia, and regarding patient consents. Also they believe that common's policy is not so clear regarding the issue. And since you are the experts please join us at this very important discussion -- MaenK.A.Talk 14:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper

I've been subject to a bit of harassment. A retaliatory deletion request was filed here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gamma ray burst.jpg. Jehochman (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see Herby and AFB are on top of things, but let me know if they continue and I'll review the situation. MBisanz talk 14:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. As I said, I don't want the user blocked, but they needed that counseling. Jehochman (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Requesting your help concerning Pearson Scott Foresman SVG conversions

The following is copied from my Commons userpage:

Users at the Open Clip Art Library have created many SVG versions of line drawing files by Pearson Scott Foresman here. They should be uploaded with the DerivativeFX tool, and the raster version tagged with Template:SupersededSVG. File:Catfish (PSF).svg is one file I have uploaded so far; use it as a basis for formatting new SVG upload filepages. --Siddharth Patil (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

List of uploaded SVGs

Here is the list of all uploaded SVGs so far. --Siddharth Patil (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

2009-11-06

2010-06-26

I am requesting your help getting more people to upload the derivative SVGs to Commons. A bot just for the task would be appreciated very much. However, people doing manual uploads with DerivativeFX would be appreciated as well.

Thanks in advance.

--Siddharth Patil (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really have no idea how to go about this, you might ask at COM:VP. MBisanz talk 05:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


File:Water_stone_by_Matthew_Bisanz.JPG

File:Water_stone_by_Matthew_Bisanz.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI:

[72]. Tiptoety talk 21:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Tiptoey, I was just about to do that. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Tyciol

I posted at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections (archive) contest the unblock of Tyciol. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This DR

Dear Matt,

Do you think you could go through this DR (and the original source) and reach a decision since its more than 1 week now. Everything I said here is correct. Feel free to keep or delete the image. Its entirely up to you. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Vietnam_Women's_Memorial_1.JPG

File:Vietnam_Women's_Memorial_1.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Monkey_rope_by_Matthew_Bisanz.JPG

File:Monkey_rope_by_Matthew_Bisanz.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face 2

Hello MBisanz! After months of discussion the consensus was to keep this template. That is evident in the discussion. Why did you delete it? Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 20:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I read the discussion as Jim saying it still was unfree, but since no one would sue us on it, it was ok to keep. Just because the copyright won't be enforced isn't the same as free and why I read it as a delete. MBisanz talk 23:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The only remaining concern that Jim had was that it was a no-derivatives license. But I demonstrated in detail just above his comment and in response to Dcoetzee how that's impossible. Jim didn't say why he was still concerned and chose to concede on the grounds that unless the use is fraudulent, there's no way the ECB will sue. So there was no point for me to continue discussion.
These restrictions on reproduction have nothing to do with commercial copyright, and all currencies, including US dollar (which is in PD) have similar restrictions, which are used to protect from fraud and confusion. If the Euro enters the public domain tomorrow they won't go away, hence they are non-copyright restrictions, and a warning template (like the one we were discussing) should suffice. -- Orionist ★ talk 14:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

FDIC photos

I happened to come across your FDIC 40,000 [73] and FDIC 20,000 [74] images, and I find them disappointingly blurry, particularly given that you had some similar images that were very nicely photographed: FDIC 2500 [75], FDIC 5000 [76], FDIC 10,000 [77], FDIC 15,000 [78], and FDIC 100,000 [79]. Would it be possible to re-shoot the pictures of the 20k and 40k signs? I'm actually surprised to find any signs predating the 100k era, so it's neat that you have them at all, but it would be nice to have first class images of all of the signs. (I also liked the FDIC eagle [80] and FDIC Seal [81] images, but those are not vintage signs like the pre-100k insurance signs.) — 67.42.83.126 00:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC) (Steve98052)

It might be. I assume the exhibit is still in the FDIC lobby. I'm going to be busy the next couple of weeks, but I will try to put it on my future shooting list. MBisanz talk 05:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
That's nice. I don't have any immediate need for it, but I thought that since you had taken good pictures of some of the stuff it would be nice to have pictures of the earlier ones too. Also, I just noticed that the temporary increase in the limit to $250k was made permanent, so maybe there's a $250k sign there too now. If not, one could probably find it in the window of a bank.
In case you're curious, I happened to find your pictures because I was curious about when the limit went up from $40k (which is what it was when I was a kid getting my first savings account) to $100k (which it was until very recently), and the Google search hit your $40k image rather than the FDIC article itself. — Steve98052 5:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Sheraton_Doha1.jpg

File:Sheraton_Doha1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Sheraton_Doha2.jpg

File:Sheraton_Doha2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Vermells-Ebner.jpg

Hi MBisanz, could you eventually look into the OTRS ticket for this image (which you had added 2 years ago), whether it says anything about the original photography that seems to have been used for the final book cover design. It might be helpful if you could add it at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vermells-Ebner.jpg. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 16:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

File:$100,000 bill by Matthew Bisanz.JPG

Pay attention to licensing
Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content: images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose.

File:$100,000 bill by Matthew Bisanz.JPG seems to be free (or it would be proposed for deletion), but it was identified as having a wrong license. Usually, it is because a public domain image is tagged with a free license, or because the stated source or other information is not sufficient to prove the selected tag is correct. Please verify that you applied the correct license tag for this file.

If you believe this file has the correct license, please explain why on the file discussion page.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ 日本語 ∙ മലയാളം ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−


The reason given by the user who added this tag is: Please see the file's page for more info.

→AzaToth 23:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done :) MBisanz talk 23:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

File:SUNY Stony Brook MC2.jpg

Critically evaluate Flickr licenses
File:SUNY Stony Brook MC2.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. You may have preserved the information shown on Flickr correctly when transferring the image here, but the Flickr uploader is not the copyright holder of this image. Either the image was created by someone else, or it is a derivative of someone else's work. As stated in Commons:Licensing, only the copyright holder may issue a license, so the one shown on Flickr is invalid. Always remember to critically evaluate Flickr licenses. Photostreams with professional-looking photographs, album covers, posters, and images in a wide range of styles or quality taken by many different cameras often indicate that the Flickr uploader either does not understand or does not care about copyright matters. See Commons:Questionable Flickr images for a list of known bad Flickr users.

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ magyar ∙ português do Brasil ∙ italiano ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ français ∙ македонски ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ українська ∙ svenska ∙ sicilianu ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−

—LX (talk, contribs) 14:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Campus2.jpg

Please take care about rest of user uploads. Same for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Belairlab1.jpg. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 01:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi ! Thi file File:Nove lezioni di architettura.jpg it's a book cover, I think it's not a free image.--151.67.196.119 17:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like a copyvio, but it looks like the book's author uploaded it, so I've sent it in for a deletion request. MBisanz talk 17:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Collage - community, love and support.png

Hi, I just saw you closed this DR; there was and almost identical file, by the same uploader, that is also affected: File:Collage - community.png. Since it's rather straightforward, I don't think it's worth a new DR, but if you think it'd be better, I'll open one. Thanks. Prof. Professorson (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 20:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:The German battleship Tirpitz.ogg

Hello!

Can you provide a rationale why you decided to keep this file, please? Thank you in advance. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I believed Peter's uncontested assertion of "expired crown copyright." MBisanz talk 23:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The fact that there is no evidence for this thesis is not of interest? --High Contrast (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
It is of interest, but with an IP's bare claim that something is copyrighted and a longstanding editor's claim that it is covered under a different doctrine, I needed some means by which to resolve the DR. MBisanz talk 18:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd rather stick to facts than to user opinions in licensing DRs. But it was your choice. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I certainly agree that using cited facts is far superior to user opinions, but when the commentators are a DR provide no facts, it becomes difficult to close on the basis of what is provided. MBisanz talk 19:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
One could wait for additional licensing information by other users. --High Contrast (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wall of Sound

Hello, MBisanz. With this edit you removed an image from a Wikipedia article. I had created this image on Wikimedia Commons and added it to the article. I created the image by altering another Wikimedia image. Your edit summary says that image I created was deleted as a copyright violation. I'm guessing that that's because the image that I based in on was a copyvio. The edit summary says, "see ticket 2012021510002541". Can you please provide a link to the ticket, or explain how I can find it? Thanks. (If you reply here I will see what you say.) Mudwater (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The ticket is on OTRS, so I can't provide a link that would be readable to you. In short, the actual owner of that image emailed Wikipedia to complain that we were using his image without his consent and I deleted it as a result. MBisanz talk 00:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I see. And the image I created was deleted because the Wikimedia Commons image it was based on proved to be a copyvio, correct? Are you allowed to say who the copyright owner is? Mudwater (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
You would need to ask the ticket agent for that, en:User:Steven Zhang, but he might be able to contact the owner on your behalf. MBisanz talk 00:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Would he be able to tell me who the copyright owner is? Or is that information considered confidential, for privacy reasons? Mudwater (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
He probably won't be able to because it's confidential. MBisanz talk 00:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for explaining all this, I appreciate it. Mudwater (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry. We can contact him for you; we just can't release his information and his claim seems valid. MBisanz talk 00:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes sense to me. Thanks again for your help. Mudwater (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Iwo Jima letter

Thanks very much for the notice! I have archived the file, please proceed. -Pete F (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Бой_Максима_Кривоноса_с_Иеремией_Вишневецким.jpg

It looks like the nominator thought that 70pma terms apply in full in the Ukraine, without realizing that the 2001 extensions from 50 pma to 70 pma were non-retroactive, meaning anything which had expired under the old 50pma terms by 2001 remains PD there (so the {{PD-Ukraine}} tag looks to be correct). Should I file an undeletion request? You can see the current Ukraine law here; the section explaining the non-retroactivity is near the very end. (That is the 2003 law; the 2001 law which extended the terms has the same phrasing). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I went ahead and undeleted it; no reason for additional bureaucracy. Please update the image page as is appropriate. MBisanz talk 01:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, but painter lived in Simferopol, Crimea, and Crimea was at that time was in Russia, and according Russian copyright law it is not free now (painter should die before 1941).--Anatoliy (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
And if it's considered "simultaneously published" in both countries, the Berne country of origin is the one with the shorter term, which would be the country we would use. Dunno, but it seems reasonable to use the Ukraine, and not delete over historical territorial arguments. According to Russian law at the time, it was PD, and they only made their law retroactive in 2008, at which time that area was considered Ukrainian, so I'm not really sure that should apply at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Please be so kind and reinstate the request. Our discussion is far from over at "Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright restored in Ukraine? Please, help" with more participants joining in every day. There's a serious issue of possible misrepresentation of Article 28.-7 of Ukraine Law on Copyright in lieu of supporting factual data. Thanks. A. Kupicki (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done MBisanz talk 16:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paris Guimard 19 & 21 La Fontaine.jpg

Sorry to bother you, could you provide a rationale for your closure ? It's just that I don't understand why the design would be in the public domain, and thus I want to avoid making similar mistakes in the future. Thanks. --Claritas (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It would appear my math was off by a year; I have corrected my mistake. MBisanz talk 19:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --Claritas (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hochseeflotte 1.jpg

Hello, MBisanz. Can you provide a rationale for closing this deletion request as "keep"? None of those !voting to keep the image provided a source to prove its copyright status, nor did they cite any policy reason to keep the image. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 03:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing reason

Hi MBisanz, you missed to provided a reason for keeping in Commons:Deletion requests/File:DiscursoDePilsudski1932.jpeg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pilsudski1921-2.jpeg. Thanks for adding it a posteriori. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 03:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - please try to think of reasons. :-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Anna Katharina Schwabroh

Anna Katharina Schwabroh
Dear MBisanz,

i find no other way to contact you. Is WikiLove the right way?

You deleted the pic of Anna Katharina Schwabroh. Please tell me why. I have the approval of Heike Steinweg (photographer) to use the picture.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Katharina_Schwabroh

What can i do now?

Thanks a lot Enrico Pseudonym84 (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Istanbul

Hi, MBisanz. Thank you for your contribution. About "06:05 . . MBisanz (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Lev Ist Tur 2.jpg ‎(Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lupus-Collage Istanbul.png)".

I think File:Lev Ist Tur 2.jpg should have been deleted not per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lupus-Collage Istanbul.png but per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lev Ist Tur 2.jpg. Takabeg (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

And File:Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality City Hall.jpg should have been deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality City Hall.jpg. (File:Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality.jpg is the same image.) Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Corrected Thanks! MBisanz talk 23:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Merci. Takabeg (talk) 08:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Katyare

Hi, you missed one :) Prof. Professorson (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but: (show/hide) 00:40, 27 February 2012 MBisanz (talk | contribs | block) deleted page File:Golwalkar Sangha pracarak राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ.JPG (Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Katyare) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log)
No? MBisanz talk 13:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
That looks like a server-side error. Those problems are quite frequent in the last days/week. The image is still visible. You need to restore and delete again. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe I've now fixed it. MBisanz talk 16:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieve meta-info from deleted image

I have a question for you here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Collage - community, love and support.png.

Best --Anna Bauer (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 16:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much! --Anna Bauer (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Furniture Village logo.jpg

Hi, please could you clarify why this closed as kept? There was no opposition to deletion, and at the linked village pump discussion two editors agreed that the logo may not be PD in the UK. January (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, mis-clicked. MBisanz talk 01:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mixed Doubles3.jpg

Dear MBisanz, please contact the author roland.stratmann@freenet.de that gave his permission for the photos to be used by the wikipedia. HE was thrilled and I am sorry that they were deleted. thanks. --Yoavd (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


Hello again, Here is the author letter to the permissions-commons@wikimedia.org: Could you please revive the photos? I did not keep the files that he sent to me. If it is impossible I will have to ask him to send them to me again. --Yoavd (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


From: Roland Stratmann Subject: Re: Zwickau Museum Match - publication in WIKIPEDIA To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Date: Friday, 16 March, 2012, 7:23 PM


Dear Wikimedia permission team,


herewith I give again the permission to Yoav Dothan to reload the pictures of my art chess installation the "Zwickau Chess Match" which have been deleted. He has my allowance to add this pictures again to his article.


I beg you to support Yoav in this subject matter!


Please don't hesitate to contact me if you may have any question.


With best regards


Roland Stratmann

Thanks, someone will get to this and respond to you via that email. MBisanz talk 05:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Your hardhat laurel image

Howdy. I'm not sure if you are interested or not, but I've decided to use an image you put together as the launcher icon for an Android app I'm making. Is there a certain way you would like to be attributed?--Rockfang (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not particular. Name (Matthew Bisanz) in the credits/copyright notice is fine. MBisanz talk 23:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Consumerization Report 2011

Hello

Thanks for attending to Commons:Deletion requests/Consumerization Report 2011 but the uploader seems to have reuploaded them under new names. Please see:

He also posted a not-so-friendly message in my talk page that took me a long time to understand. What do you think we should do? Fleet Command (talk) 06:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I think I got it now: I am going to upload again and will submit proof of ownership of copyright to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Apologies if my previous message came across not-so-friendly but I am sure you realize the complexity of the process involved with sharing my own charts - and the frustration of seeing them deleted twice. Any questions please contact me at CesareGarlati @ cal.berkeley.edu Thank you. Cesare--Cgarlati (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I look forward to seeing your images. MBisanz talk 03:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Fraternity COAs 2

Thanks for closing Commons:Deletion requests/Fraternity COAs 2, but there are still 3 files under the "Insufficient information (i.e. date/source/author) information to support PD claim" heading still to be deleted. Thanks.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 22:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Rationale

When closing DRs, it is good to give a rationale on why you decided to Delete or Keep the picture. For example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Painting streetart india 5.jpg is keeping me wondering on why you took that decision. --Sreejith K (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concern. Basically, no one closes DRs anymore and I've found that maybe 1/100 actually have someone care about what the rationale is, so I tend not to give a rationale unless it seems like someone will care. But, since you ask, I am more than happy to explain. After discounting Nicor's comment as not understanding copyright, I was left with your assertion that it was a derivative work of the man's artwork and Blackcat's assertion that it was a de minimis usage. Given that the primary subject of the picture and the verb in the file name are about the man painting and not describing the streetart itself (the entire image isn't even presented and any infringement is discouraged by his arm blocking part of it), I kept it based on Blackcat's rationale. MBisanz talk 22:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

File:2008 Beijing Auto Show * Cute Fiesta Girl.jpg

File:2008 Beijing Auto Show * Cute Fiesta Girl.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Art-top (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Byodoin Phoenix Hall Uji 2009.jpg

Hi. There wasn't any consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Byodoin Phoenix Hall Uji 2009.jpg. Note the request that this should have been handled through OTRS. --ELEKHHT 23:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I see his last comment from May 12th as being very clear that permission was not given by his relative. MBisanz talk 00:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
That means we believe this one recent claim, and presume that he was lying for five years in hundreds of occasions, each time he uploaded an image stating he is the author. What if it is the other way round? That's why we need an OTRS confirmation. --ELEKHHT 03:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The reason I went this way instead of the other way around is Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. If and when we get OTRS confirmation, I'll go through and undelete them all. MBisanz talk 17:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
All right, I invite you then to delete all the images uploaded under my user name, since I don't have a strong recollection any more if I took those images using my camera. Under the above interpretation of the precautionary principle, and for consistency, you will have to delete them, otherwise we are at risk. Thank you. --ELEKHHT 04:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Arezki Bachir

About you deleting this file: [82] for this reason; "Photo from a blog, shoudn't be used here Dzlinker". Seriously! as i described in the file, this is a post card taken the day of the execution of the guy (1895) so it is totally in the PD. And the source of the numeric file doesn't really matter. Dzlinker (talk) 08:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

So restore it please !Dzlinker (talk) 08:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done MBisanz talk 20:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

'Annie Potts' photo

Hi, I'm writing regarding this photo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Annie_Potts_at_the_1988_Emmy_Awards_crop.jpg#filelinks) used in the entry on Annie Potts. As I also just pointed out to the photographer on Flickr, this photo is not of Annie Potts but of Gina Nemo (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0625976/bio), who had a small role on 21 Jump Street. It probably is at the 1988 Emmy Awards, but she is there with her date and on-/off-screen love interest Peter DeLuise, who is the man in the original version of the photo before the crop for Wikimedia Commons, and who was a leading man on the same show.

I know everyone is supposed to be able to edit Wikipedia but I feel like changing the information on a Commons photo is somehow not my place, and I saw your name down as a reviewer so I thought I should send the information to you. The photo should also, therefore, be removed from Annie Potts' Wikipedia entry, but I'm afraid I'll ruin the page formatting if I try to do that. Could you help?

Thanks for your time. Also, this is my first such message and I'm not sure if I correctly followed protocol. Please excuse me and advise me of what I should do differently next time if I have messed this process up.

You did a good job. Thank you for telling me. I've gone ahead and fixed it. MBisanz talk 01:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for Deletion

I am requesting to delete the image below (own work). It is has poor resolution (I don't have higher resolution version). Its usage on other wikis is increasing and I'd rather upload a better, higher resolution image. File:Rawal Lake Islamabad.jpg Samar (Talk . Contributions) 14:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Nominated. MBisanz talk 02:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thank's for all Викимэн (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

My username change

Hi, I am not sure what is happening but my account name on commons is still Willdude123 even though you changed my username a while back. Now I have to log in to commons as Willdude123, which is a pain because it logs me in as Willdude123 on Wikipedia also, and if I want to log out of that to login to W.D., it also logs me off commons. Could you please elaborate on what is happening here? Thanks, 81.178.188.15 08:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You need to change and unify the W.D. name on Commons. See Commons:CHU. MBisanz talk 12:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/DoD files with unknown author

Hello! I see that you marked files from this DR as "kept" but you haven't closed the DR itself. Also, if you think these files should kept - please restore File:Medium ocean tanker "Irkut" in 1985.JPEG, it was deleted for the same reason. --James R. Nockson (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've closed it now, thank you for letting me know. I'm declining to undelete the other file because it was deleted by a different administrator in a different deletion request; it wasn't the subject of the deletion request I closed. You might ask the administrator who closed that request to reconsider or take it to Commons:Undeletion requests. MBisanz talk 22:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Maps of user Ceha

I see that bot removed from pages some of maps of user Ceha that you deleted. However nominator for deletion did not listed all maps of user Ceha that are copyviolation of that OHR map. There are more maps: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1991_C_towns.svg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wb.gif

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ethnic_map_of_municipality_centers_in_Bosnia-Herzegovina_1991.gif

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BiH95.JPG

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bosniak_croat_war_He.gif

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Percentage_of_Croats_in_municipalities_of_Bosnia-Herzegovina_1991.gif

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Percentage_of_Croats_in_municipalities_of_Bosnia-Herzegovina_1971.gif

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bosniak_croat_war.png

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bosniak_Croat_territories1993.GIF

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Muslim_percentige_in_Bosnian_municipalities_in_1961.gif

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Percentage_of_Croats_in_municipalities_of_Bosnia-Herzegovina_1961.gif

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HercegBosnaBeforeDayton.GIF

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abih_controled.GIF

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bsa_controled.GIF

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hvo_controled.GIF

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BiH_territory_posession_just_before_Dayton_(without_legend).png

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Posavina.gif

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HzB.GIF

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eth_relations_1991_bih.gif

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BiH_in_the_beginning_of_the_war.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dayton.GIF

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bosniak_Croat_territories1993_(without_legend).png

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kontaktna.JPG

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:H_change_1991_2005.GIF

There are also more in English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Ceha 213.240.29.183 08:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

These would need to be listed at COM:DR. MBisanz talk 16:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:StudioEspace.jpg

Please take care about second file mentioned in request. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for missing those. Done. MBisanz talk 15:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:ZRK Sosna.jpg

Hello!

I have noticed that you have decided to close this DR with "keep". Can you please provide a valid rationale for your action, please. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sure, done. Thanks. MBisanz talk 16:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Policy regarding some forms of modern and contemporary art

Hi, I'm not happy with the outcome of this and the immediately following DR. In my opinion this is a derivative of a work of art, because the image does not show a shark, but this shark specially preserved by Damien Hirst in a special container within the show room of a museum with visitors. It is obvious, that this shark in its state of preservation is presented as work of art and regarded as such. I feel we are bound by that assessment by pretty much all curators dealing with contemporary art. As it is a work of art, the image is a derivate and we can't keep it. rgds --h-stt !? 07:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see you point, but an experienced user other than the uploader argued a different point and the uploader also argued that it was not a derivative work. This is where more voices would be useful at COM:DR and I wouldn't mind you re-nominating it and try to get more people from the Village Pump to give their interpretations of taxidermy rights. MBisanz talk 15:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
done: Commons:Village_pump#Some_aspects_of_modern_and_contemporary_art rgds --h-stt !? 14:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! MBisanz talk 01:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi. You deleted File:Rose Rotana Tower Under Construction on 12 May 2007 Pict 4 crop.jpg‎ as uncontested, but in fact I did contest the deletion, only I did so at the deletion discussion for the parent image, File:Rose Rotana Tower Under Construction on 12 May 2007 Pict 4.jpg‎. I thought the two were being considered together in the same discussion, which was my error. Do you think you could undelete it until there's a consensus on the parent? (The issue seems to be whether there is Freedom of Panorama in Dubai or not.) Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, done. MBisanz talk 13:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Panneau A Donkey and Goat.jpg

If you can, please decide whether to pass or fail this image. I don't know if this restaurant sign is copyrightable...or a simple logo. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a simple logo and not copyrightable. MBisanz talk 02:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Feel free to stop by anytime. MBisanz talk 06:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karte Traisen (Fluss).svg

Hi! You just deleted the file because of 'Uncontested DR', I contested it @ the nominators talk page. This is linked on the DR page. If you want me to I can repeat my argumentation on DR ;) Could you redecide your decision, mostly because of the possible deletion of all my other maps... Best --AleXXw 21:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Not necessary. I undid my decision and will let someone else close it. Thanks for letting me know. MBisanz talk 21:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Thx! Best --AleXXw 21:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gheorghe Cantacuzino-Granicerul.jpg

Thanks for closing some DRs, but for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gheorghe Cantacuzino-Granicerul.jpg you seem to have missed the however I added at the bottom. I wanted someone to confirm, but although the existing PD rationale was wrong I think {{PD-RO-photo}} applies to all or most of those photos. Since you've involved yourself by handling the DR :) can you be that person? Thanks, Rd232 (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks for pointing that out. MBisanz talk 23:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:12-10-13-dokument-kongreszhalle-nuernberg-by-RalfR-147.jpg

You closed this DR per: Per DR.. It's an TIME magazine article, and was - at least - copyrighted. The latest information was: It's maybe PD-not-renewed, but no one has checked. Can you please explain, why this is a clear 'Keep per DR? sугсго 08:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed per the precautionary principle. Thanks for letting me know. MBisanz talk 16:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of File:CNN's premature obituary of Dick Cheney.jpeg

I don't want to necessarily challenge the deletion (though I disagree with it without more debate, discussion, and explanation), but you closed it and deleted the file saying it was "uncontested". I did contest the deletion, though. I said that the current contents of Category:PD text were what I based the eligibility of the CNN image on; if the contents of that category were copacetic for PD claims, then the CNN image was as well by virtue of being less complicated and artistic than other images. Now, perhaps you disagree with my argument and stance and you instead agreed with King of Hearts' deletion argument, and that's your right and virtue as an administrator, but I would argue that the deletion request was not "uncontested". — Fourthords | =/\= | 16:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Reviewed and revised. Sorry to have mischaracterized your position. MBisanz talk 17:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Thats okay, I appreciate the clarification. Thanks! — Fourthords | =/\= | 19:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MBisanz/Archive_1&oldid=372583459"