User talk:Rehman/Archive 2

Thank you

What's wrong with you? I'm working on uncategorized templates and you suddenly block my bot! Multichill (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Sorry about that, I did it with good intentions. Please see my replies there. Rehman 14:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Question about no-indexed page

Hello, I'd like to ask you this question: I put the _NOINDEX_ tag at a file on Wikimedia Commons, and it doesn't show up in search engines anymore, but it's copy at Wikipedia itself does, even though there's a _NOINDEX_ there as well. But since it's a copy of the Commons file description, perhaps the Wikipedia page doesn't have the tag in its source code. Is it still possible to also delete that page from search results? Thank you if you can help me! Dutch773. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutch773 (talk • contribs) 13:25 (UTC)

Hi. I think my answer won't be 100% helpful, but nevertheless, here it is. AFAIK, the _NOINDEX_ works only on the page of application, and doesn't work on other sites the page is transcluded at. Search engines like Google store these search result data page by page, so it would exclude the Commons image page, and the Wikipedia image page (if you added there too), but not the image at the article page... I myself am not 100% sure on its full funtions. Perhaps you could ask at COM:VP or WP:VP? Hope this helps. Kind regards. Rehman 14:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your fast reply. I understand that the image itself will of course remain where it is. The Commons image page has already been excluded from search results, but in some weird way the Wikipedia image page (which is a 100% copy of the Commons one) hasn't been, even though there's a _NOINDEX_ tag there as well. Do you have an idea how this is possible? And thank you for the links to those other pages, I will ask there if we cannot solve this.Regards, Dutch773

You're most welcome. But I'm afraid thats all my little brain knows about _NOINDEX_... :) Rehman 15:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I happened to notice this as I was writing the note below. Why are we allowing users to put the noindex tag on images? Once the image is licensed to Commons, that is no longer the uploader's choice. Would it not clearly be our policy that our images get the widest possible distribution, which would include their being indexed by search engines?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I was told by the users at COM:VP to ask you to hide/delete my version in the file history. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:NI-Latijn-article.ogg This is the file, in the file history you'll find my version, and one by Jcb, which is mine; he reverted this file, so that one is mine too. I do not know if you would like to do this, but if you could hide/delete these 2 versions, and let the current version in use remain, the _NOINDEX_ tag would not have to be put there, which would satisfy user Jim, and the ommision of my username would satisfy me. Is this possible? Thank you in advance. Regards, Dutch773

OK, do I understand correctly that you want to delete the versions by Dutch 773 and Jcb and leave the version by VR-Land? I'll do that, if that's what you want, although it may be 24 hours from now if you do not respond in the next few minutes.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sir, that would solve the whole problem! Thank you very much! Regards, Dutch773

 Done     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying Dutch773, my connection was down again. And thanks Jim, for handling this. Kind regards. Rehman 14:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Lutz H

I have added an exchange of e-mail to the discussion here. I'm not sure if he simply doesn't understand that he can upload a new file over the old, or if he's trying to replace an existing file with a completely different one for some reason. Either way, I disagree with helping out-of-the-usual behavior -- one of the reasons that the system is set up so that a user can upload an improved version of an image over the old one is to eliminate Admin workload, so why teach this newbie that it's OK?

With that said, read my last note at User talk:Lutz H, and if you want to watch over the rest of whatever he does, I'll back away. Regards,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jim. Was just about to write to you about this matter. I think doing what I said would put a quick end to whats going on. But I agree that this should not be made a habit, for that reason, I'll explain to them what the rules really are after the relevant tasks are carried out, and maybe also explain how exactly the overwrite link helps. I am doing this only because I happen to have a bit of spare time today/tomorrow, and would like to end that issue. Came across it when emptying the CSD backlog. I hope I'm not going against you. :) Kind regards. Rehman 15:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Photo page with subject detail

Can you tell me what's wrong with this page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Bruno_Borgman&oldid=51683281 An admin claims this is some sort of an "evasion" which frankly I don't understand. Since the subject is not well known like John Cleese or Steve Martin is and since my photos are being used on several pages isn't it only normal to give some details as to who the person in all the photographs is and in what context? I'd be interested in your opinion. Thanks Tantamount (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

To put it in simple terms, what he meant was that the page was out of the project's scope; Wikipedia deals with such articles and content, while Commons deals with files and galleries. You basically created an "article" in a page intended to be a "gallery" (which is good, just in the wrong place). I suggest you keep that admin's version, and copy the text to en:Eric Bruno Borgman. That way, we ahave a nice gallery here, and a nice article there, just where they should be. :) Rehman 00:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Remove

Hi Rehman. I come here regarding your redirection of the {{Remove}} template to {{Vote delete}}. I noticed it after browsing some history, coming upon Commons:Requests and votes/Stahlkocher (de-adminship). I see most of its transclusions are on deletion requests, where this makes sense, but needless to say I was confused at the de-adminship page. Should we just change that page, or undo the redirection, or.. what do you think? Jujutacular ^talk 21:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for bringing this up. At the time of redirection, most of the {{Remove}} were used at deletion requests (which apparently still is). So the template were simply redirected to {{Vote delete}}, where translations were all added together. I must have missed out the use of this template on pages like the one you mentioned (my mistake). Considering the little use of {{Remove}} on pages like the one you mentioned, I'd say we simply modify those archive pages to change them to {{Support}}/{{Oppose}}. What do you think? Rehman 00:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The only problem with changing to Support/Oppose is that it would be confusing on that page whether they are supporting adminship, or supporting de-adminship, etc. How about we change them to: {{Vote delete|Remove}} (displays:  Remove). Jujutacular ^talk 00:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is a better solution! :) Rehman 00:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I was about to say I'll do it, but it's protected. Have at it ;) Regards, Jujutacular ^talk 00:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, will do it when I get back from work (going offline now). Kind regards. :) Rehman 00:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Lokomotivbau Elektrotechnische Werke

No, the user in question did not intend to create a category. He intended to make a gallery, which shows the diversity of products from that particular manufacturer. Apart from that one speedy deletion, i'm generally not very happy with User:Sandmann4u's way to handle things. --Markscheider (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. My sincere apologies for not spotting it, it seems like that was indeed a wrongful tag by that user. :) Please, if you do have any issues with any user, feel free to post the details at the relevant page at COM:AN, that way we could have a more wider audience. Thanks. Kind regards. Rehman 10:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thx. --Markscheider (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Rehman 10:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

PNG to SVG

In this case. Please read User:CommonsDelinker/commands#Documentation. JDavid (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't notice the file extensions. Thanks for dealing with it. Regards. Rehman 03:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Affiche OMS-AIEA.jpg

Hello Rehman, about OMS-AIEA, i reckon independentwho [1] will be glad to fulfill the exact request. What do you need exactly ? I will get in contact with them to make sure that it 'll works. Thx. -- Perky (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. If the creator/author could email COM:OTRS, I'm sure someone will look into it and there would be no problems in keeping the file. If you think that could be done, I can restore the file and tag it with {{OTRS pending}}. Kind regards. Rehman 03:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's fixed now. Good day and kind regards too. -- Perky (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay :) Rehman 23:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, All elements in this poster are in the public domain. There could not be a copyright on the nuclear symbol, nor on the medical symbol. And the rest is just a few words. Moreover the process was not properly done : I was not warned of the deletion request. Warning users is the very minum acceptable step in deleting any content. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. My deepest apologies, I honestly thought the above user (Perky) was the creator. Sorry again. Kind regards. Rehman 23:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Could you please restore this image, so that a deletion request take place. As I was not warned, a proper procedure was not followed for deletion. I think there is absolutely no copyright issue with this image. Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Sorry again, for triggering that stream deletes/undeletes... ;) Rehman 09:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for undeleting this file. Yann (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Email

Replied. Sorry for the delay. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Replied again. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Got them :) Rehman 09:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Madame_Tussauds_London_00831_Nevit.jpg

Hi, you have deleted Madame_Tussauds_London_00831_Nevit.jpg. Please note that a deletion request and discussion is being continued about the deleted image and some other images of same series. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Madame Tussauds London 00801 Nevit.jpg --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

File rename

Hey Rehman, could you rename File:HooverDamHumboRig.jpg to File:HooverDamJumboRig.jpg ? I mispelled it while moving it to Commons. Thanks. Congrats on the RFA here by the way!--NortyNort (talk) 08:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks :) Rehman 08:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No, no, thank you!--NortyNort (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fat Fetish Pride Flag.jpg

Hi:
When you delete a file that has a DR, you can either go to the DR and close it as a delete or, as you did here, you can just delete the DR and the file. But, you also have to remove the DR from the daily log -- else it will show up as a red link there until someone else -- me in this case -- removes it.
Better, I think, just to close the DR. Regards,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jim. Sorry about that, thought there was a bot going around doing that. Thanks for the heads up! :) Rehman 00:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there is a bot -- but it isn't quick -- I probably should just be more patient and let the bot do its work.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi Rehman. Just wanted to thank you once again for nominating me at RfA. I really appreciate it man, I really do. If you ever need anything in the future, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Take care, FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fastily. Glad it went well; told ya it'll be a piece of cake ;) I'm sure you would be a fine contributor here, just like enwiki. Good luck! Best regards. Rehman 00:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

File:1.jpg

Hi, File:1.jpg was created as a redirect to the main page for a reason - that reason being obvious by fact there's another picture there already(!). There's a bug in file protection at present, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Page protection -- what am I missing about File:1.jpg?. If the cross-namespace redir is a problem, just undelete the placeholder (BanyanTree on 22:28, 25 October 2007).--Nilfanion (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. My apologies, I restored. Thanks for the head-up :) Rehman 13:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you deleted the protected redirect to the Main Page a few days, but as you can see here, you caused some undesired upload with that action. I restored the protected redirect. Please don't touch untill the upload prevention bug has been resolved. Jcb (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No, after your Nilfanion's message on March 29 above, I undid/restored everything I did. Then on April 2nd, someone SDed that page, and was on Category:Other speedy deletions. Since the content was eligible for speedy, I deleted it. And because things were going on relating the filepage, I left the file as it is. From what I see now (I was not watchlisting the file), "Ttindex" somehow uploaded a file over the redirect page (if everyone left the page as it was, after I restored). Rehman 10:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

File:BSicon BHF-ELEVa.svg

There has been a little bit of the overlap. Turelio has ordered a replacement to another file, then you have deleted the file that was being replaced, while I was in the middle of updating those that had not been replaced. We are going to either create a redirect from File:BSicon hBHFa.svg or move the file there. While the file may have been older, once we had gone to the process of conversion, is it really that important? I would also make the general comment that none of these blinking rail icons especially convert in universal replacement as they are all coded into templates and work on abbreviations of the filename.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

At the time of checking the GlobalUsage of both files (after the Delinker did the job), both files still had similar number for links each. So I decided to delete the older file instead (maybe save some off-wiki links, etc), and request the delinker to do the opposite (hoping it would replace all links this time). But seems like it didn't, so just redirected the file instead. The redirect could be deleted if the replacements are done manually. Rehman 14:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Then just make manual edits to the remaining articles with links and redirect the file to the new name. NoNews! 06:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The file is already redirected... Rehman 06:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the correct name is BSicon hBHFa.svg. I have already stated thus in my last edit to the file. NoNews! 12:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, say so :-) Renamed file. Rehman 13:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

DRs

Hi, something seems to go wrong if you process a DR, see here. The header is in the wrong place. Jcb (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jcb. Actually that is the correct way. Placing the template below the header is technically far more superior. It is actually the tool that needs updating to use the new style + the new footer template. One of the original creators of the tool did make a comment somewhere that he'll do the updates when he get the time (there was quite some discussions on this topic, need to dig for them, if you're interested). Rehman 09:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

One big disadvantage of not placing the header on top is that DRbot doesn't clean up. The other is that processing DRs, skipping the blue fields, it's disturbing if the blue field is interrupted by something that's not an open DR. Jcb (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the DRbot owner also did mention that he'll do the updates to the bot... But I'm not sure what you mean by the blue fields? Rehman 10:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you joking? If not, please see the image. The arrow shows you the blue field. Jcb (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh damn, sorry, I thought you meant blue field in the sense that its a form/cage, like the edit summary box. (I've removed the file, can be deleted now). Unfortunately, for those of us who work at the DR, we're used to looking at a wall of blue, which means all closed, whereas most other "matured" wikis (enwiki, for example) uses each coloured section to determine each topic. This has one major advantage (the "technically superior"):

If you click edit on the section (from any transcluded page), the entire contents of the target page loads in the edit window because everything is placed below the header, whereas now, if you click the edit button, anything above the header gets hidden (even though it is on the same page), such as {{DeletionHeader}}, etc. Rehman 10:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That difference doesn't occure to me. I just get the full section if I click 'edit'. The edit-button seems not be be influenced by the blue field. Jcb (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

My authorization as file mover

Hello Rehman! Can you say to me please, why you withdrawed my authorization from me as file mover? I abused neither this authorization, nor I made any nonsense thereby. You can regard my contributions. What thus is the reason for it? Communication over it I got also none. Admin Martin H., which had given with this authorization, knows likewise no reason and also not about it was informed. --Steindy (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steindy. I've removed those rights per my post here. You should not put up the resulting redirect for deletion while they are linked to from any site. And moves like moved File:Thomas Einwaller, Schiedsrichter (2).jpg to File:Thomas Einwaller, Fußballschiedsrichter (03).jpg is not good or necessary, especially if the file was uploaded over a year ago (since external websites could be linking to the file, and thus will not show up in Special:GlobalUsage). Yes, maybe I was a bit too harsh, but I had to prevent further damage. Remember, if a redirect is in use, and someone tag it for deletion, all the sites using the page will be immediately broken, even if the redirect is not yet deleted. I would suggest you manually (or automatically) update the links before tagging for deletion, and perform renames only to the ones that really require it (example: File:IMG054653.jpg → File:FootballChampionships-London-1999). I will restore the right in good faith. Regards. Rehman 01:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Rehman! Thank you for the rendition of the authorization. During the shift of the file specified by you I checked whether any are to be settled left. The picture was not however anywhere linked, why I saw the shift as problem-free. I had likewise regarded the forwarding from there as unnecessary. - Kindly regards Steindy (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC) (Sorry that my English is not so well, but it's more then 40 years ago, when I went to school.)

Ah don't worry about the language, Commons is a multilingual site (I wouldn't mind going a further step in machine translating any non-English messages) :) Kind regards, Rehman 00:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Phillip Museum.jpg

Hi Rehman. I saw you reverted my speedy on the redirect with the rationale that it is in use. But the special:what links here indicates no links from other pages. Is the link invisible? Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dr.K. Since files from Commons are used by other sites, Special:WhatLinksHere is rather useless. To check if a file (from Commons) is in use, you should use Special:GlobalUsage. Kind regards. Rehman 03:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Rehman. I suspected that the "What links here" function was not reliable but I used other indicators. For example, on 26 March I submitted a global replace request with the Commons Delinker and since today I didn't see a linkage of the redirect's name with the Delinker any longer, I assumed that the Delinker had executed the universal replace command. Also there is no "Global usage" drop-down menu on the redirect for some reason. To find the global usage of the redirect, after you suggested it, I had to go to the main filename and then I had to manually paste the redirect's name on the address bar of my browser. Anyway thank you for the information. Dr.K. (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem :) I see the "Global usage" in all file-namespaces including redirects (I use the Vector skin in Firefox 4). The biggest problem in "Requesting Delinker > Tag redirect" is that, in between requesting delinker and tagging the redirect (when the delinker is in progress), all its global usage would be broken. So, although a bit more hassle, it is always better to replace all usage (manually or via delinker), before requesting to delete a redirect. Also, external websites may still be using the file (even if GlobalUsage is 0), so it is best practice to not delete any old redirects. Kind regards. Rehman 03:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. As a final comment, the browser i use is Google Chrome. Maybe I have to switch to Firefox 4. Best wishes. Dr.K. (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome doctor :) Rehman 04:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Reminder

Rehman, please avoid editing my signed comments. --  Docu  at 11:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you for the very helpful reminder. Rehman 11:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User_Rehman

FYI --  Docu  at 11:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks. I am totally surprised. Rehman 11:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

My page was deleted

Why did you delete my page? Iggy the Lion (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It is a general practice here to delete userpages that basically looks like an article or sandbox. I personally don't like that either. Perhaps you could start a discussion at COM:ANB or COM:VP? FYI, User:Motopark requested the deletion. I could restore the contents if you like. Rehman 00:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Brooke

Hallo Rehman, could you please undelete those "speedy" deleted ones at Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/03/14

• File:Lauren_Brooke_and_unknown_at_AVN_Adult_Entertainment_Expo_2008_(1).jpg
• File:Lauren_Brooke_AVN_Adult_Entertainment_Expo_2008.jpg

(see the other DRs - search for AVN) They just need a rename. I am volunteering. ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Saibo. I restored the file. Not sure what the new name should be; will leave that to you. Let me know if the redirect need deletion and I shall help :-) Kind regards. Rehman 04:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, I saw your recent undeletion of File:Lauren Brooke and unknown at AVN Adult Entertainment Expo 2008 (1).jpg only when I couldn't stop my mouse click, honestly. Anyway, it had been speedy-tagged by an OTRS-vol. "per subject request" and was unused at the time of my deletion. Can we leave it at that? --Túrelio (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi both of you! Being "unused" shouln't be a strong reason to delete a file. The subject has just complained about the title which, in fact, could be misunderstood.

Please delete the redir File:Lauren Brooke AVN Adult Entertainment Expo 2008.jpg then. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 17:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. While I don't have access to the complaint by the depicted person, the last OTRS volunteer, who had commented at the "Lauren Brooke and unknown ..." file, said that the depicted opposed the image itself, if I remember correctly. --Túrelio (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/03/14#File:Lauren_Brooke_and_unknown_at_AVN_Adult_Entertainment_Expo_2008_.281.29.jpg "Subject believes this file name to be defaming" same on the other DRs there.

I have "cleaned" all now.

Delete please (talk page redirs, too) - I have checked the global usage of all redirs already: File:Lauren Brooke at AVN Adult Entertainment Expo 2008 (1).jpg, File:Lauren Brooke at AVN Adult Entertainment Expo 2008 (2).jpg, File:Lauren Brooke at AVN Adult Entertainment Expo 2008.jpg, File:Lauren Brooke, unknown and Kellie Maines at AVN Adult Entertainment Expo 2008.jpg, File:Lauren Brooke and Kellie Maines at AVN Adult Entertainment Expo 2008.jpg.

Undel please: File:Lauren Brooke and unknown at AVN Adult Entertainment Expo 2008 (1).jpg (the first file from above). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Sorry, that message somehow managed escaped my watchlist and the orange banner :) Rehman 16:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I guessed it - I know that the orange bar does not be helpful when you have two messages. :-D

Delete please: File:Lauren Brooke and unknown at AVN Adult Entertainment Expo 2008 (1).jpg. I think that's it. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. :) Rehman 01:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

DR move

Hi Rehman, sorry - it's me again. ;-) Just to let you know: It would be beneficial if you leave a visible comment (with source) in a page informing about the moved discussion if you move a discussion like in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hans am Ende 00001.jpg. It caused some confusion there since there is no info about this. Thank you. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Okay, will be more cautious next time :-) Thanks. Rehman 04:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of redirect?

Hi, why did you delete[2] File:Taeniopoda maxima.jpg which was presumably still a redirect to the renamed version File:Taeniopoda reticulata.jpg, it is normal to leave redirects to renamed files unless there is a good reason to delete. It doesn't appear to come within "Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace". Thanks. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tony. The the deletion was requested by User:Taxocat. Nevertheless, I restored the redirect, as it seem to cause no harm. Regards. Rehman 05:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries :-) Rehman 11:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to be sure

Hi Rehman, thanks for looking at File:IMG 0189.JPG. You deleted the file. The deletion reason leaves me with a question. The file had two different images by two different uploads. Was it intentional to delete them both? Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Taketa. That was unintentional; thanks for letting me know. :) Rehman 08:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Infection and Immunity cover image you deleted

Hello Rehman-

I updated the Infection and Immunity wikipedia page weeks ago, and added a low resolution cover image to the page. You removed this image almost immediately after I put it up, and I am writing to ask you to restore it.

I am an editor at Infection and Immunity, responsible for academic content and other things like wikipedia pages relevant to the journal, and I have permission from the publisher to put this cover image up in wikipedia. On that basis I wonder if you would restore the image that I uploaded to wikimedia commons and put it back on the page. Similar cover images appear for other ASM journal pages in wikipedia (see Journal of Virology), and the publisher is in favor of having these images out there (ASM press is the publisher).

Thanks, microbe67

SCRATCH THAT REQUEST- I figured out how to upload it the proper way for 'fair use' material via wikipedia.

Hi Microbe. If you have permission, you could still upload that file to Commons via COM:OTRS. That way, many other projects including the English Wikipedia, could use the file... Regards. Rehman 02:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Image from facsimile

Hey Rehman, if you look at File:Harley ms 2253 66v.pdf, you'll see it's two pages. The first page may be the best, but it needs to be cropped--the manuscript with all its edges must be visible, but the pagination at the bottom should go. Can you take care of that for me? Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Okay, both the images in that PDF are the same. So I uploaded both here and here, let me know which one you would like deleted, and whether you would like the PDF deleted as well. Please update the descriptions of the PNGs... Regards. Rehman 02:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Rehman, that looks great. If you could move one of them to the original filename (without the (1)) and delete everything else--you can do that right, as a Commons admin?--that would be great. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, done. The file can be found here. Regards. Rehman 01:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Butterfly 02.JPG

Can you please split this image page into two as per {{Split}} guidelines. I was actually thinking of using the second image for a purpose and so was in a hurry. Hope you don't mind. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I don't mind, but please post here next time :) Rehman 16:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Sreejith K (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Rehman 14:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

User:BogenBastler

Hi Rehman, just FYI, I've undeleted User:BogenBastler/Bastelbögen für Kinder as the "speedy by user" was an unintended result of a page move, which I had recommended to the user earlier to "clean" his userpage. --Túrelio (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for letting me know :) Rehman 00:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Klick. Cheers, --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Roger. :) Rehman 01:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Hello my friend. I noticed you adjusted the deletion drop-down reasons according to "consensus" at Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Speaking from experience, I wouldn't have done that if I were you. I see not consensus, but rather a fragmented discussion; FWIW, the community has not taken a vote/RfC on this matter (Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion still bears the proposed policy/guideline template). Once more users realize what has happened, there is going to be a slow and very nasty backlash; you may want to revert yourself before you have to deal with that. If you like, I'll help you start and advertise a community-wide RfC so we can obtain a real consensus. Please consider. All the best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for the heads-up. I'm stuck with some very urgent real-life work; will get back to the discussions soon :) I'll start (or you can, whichever comes first) a consensus poll on that change when I get back. Thanks again. Best regards. Rehman 02:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, was stuck with a lot of RL work. Please see MediaWiki talk:Deletereason-dropdown. Kind regards. Rehman 03:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Example of a pig carcass in the fresh strage of decompostion.jpg

Hi, I was wondering about the deletion of this redirect. I realise that there is a problem with that filename (mis-spelt) but that was the only way to access that file since October 2010, so anyone who references that file would have to be using that filename - it is normal to retain all redirects unless very recent, misleading, or insulting. Am I missing something ? :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. My bad, the deletion was requested by User:DerBorg; though that was an author requested deletion of a recently uploaded file. Thanks :-) Rehman 09:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see

You have been misinformed, please see this post --WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking into it... Thanks for the post. 14:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Just see the same page one more time. Thanks! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 19:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm watching it :) Rehman 03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong image

Details and image removal from it.wiki article are here. --M7 (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay :) Rehman 13:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --M7 (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem :) Rehman 03:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

How to add Non-free media use rationale - non-free logo

I have searched around for the same issue but didn't get anything which can help to upload non-free logo of the company. can you please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiragAParekh (talk • contribs) 05:06 (UTC)

Hi. Commons doesn't allow uploading non-free/fair-use content, see Commons:Fair use. You may of course, upload them to the local wiki where you intend to host it. Kind regards. Rehman 05:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Bild Heinrich Konlechner

Hallo Rehmann. Habe nach dem Hochladen zwar d. Problem gesehen, aber warum wird man nicht über die Löschung verständigt. Warum ist in der Liste noch solche eine Lizenz angegeben. Da habe ich endlich eine Zustimmung und trotzdem wurde die Datei gleich gelöscht. Welche Lösung schlägst du vor? Das Bild eine ehemaligen Dir. einer Lehranstalt, welcher schon längst verstorben ist, wird nicht komerziell genutzt. Die Zustimmung habe ich aber nur von vom Bildarchiv d. NB - nicht für komerzielle Nutzung - erhalten. Sicher hat die NB die Bildrechte von aufgelassenen Fotostudio Simonis gekauft, d. haben die die Hand darauf. Bitte dich um eine Lösung. HG Karl - --Bauer Karl (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hallo. Verzeiht mir, ich spreche kein Deutsch. Das Folgende ist aus maschinellen Übersetzung. (Hi. Pardon me, I don't speak German. The following is from machine translation.) Könnten Sie bitte die Datei führt Sie sprechen? Dann darf ich in der Lage sein, einen genaueren Blick auf das Thema zu nehmen. Auch, wenn du eine nicht-kommerzielle Lizenz, ist es nicht auf Commons erlaubt. :) Rehman 13:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rehman, I guess it is about File:Heinrich Konlechner.jpg which was deleted by you with comment "Uploader requested deletion of unused file". Could you please paste the file description's content here? I will explain it to user:Bauer Karl then (he asked me to). Thanks. :-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Saibo. I have restored the file. Seems like I have mistaken "uploader requested deletion" with this edit of Bauer Karl. For some reason, I cannot access OTRS (will post a note somewhere). Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK, NC licences aren't permitted, even via OTRS... Rehman 01:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rehman, thanks! template:cc-by-nc-3.0 is a redir (kind of) to a prefilled speedy. Action is required - but I do not think this really should be treated as speedy. Yes, you're absolutely right: Non-commercial licenses are not allowed at Commons (at least if they are the only license) as each image must be useable by anybody ("Media licensed under non-commercial only licenses also are not accepted." COM:L).

If have tagged it {{subst:OP}} since he already has a (insufficient) permission and is in contact with someone (maybe copyright holder) and will explain Bauer Karl later today. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Rehman 17:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Kanthari Mulaku.JPG → File:Kanthari Mulaku (2).JPG

When you split the history of this file, you copied the entire contents as well. Now the second image has the license tags and author info from the first image which is incorrect. Can you please fix this as well? Thank you. --182.71.254.46 08:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Rehman 09:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Duplicates

Hi Rehman, why did you upload duplicates from pictures (Soyuz TMA-20 flyaround) that i've uploaded yet? Your copies suffered generation loss and color subsampling and lost almost all metadata as well as the ICC color profile. Commons prefers the best available version. Kind regards --Ras67 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Uh Ras, no one likes uploading duplicates. And in my case, I also work on COM:CSD, and I know how to deal with dupes. So yeah, you guessed it, that was unintentional (mere hours apart, lol). :) The IP somewhat has a point (on the usage part); I would delete 'em myself if you could replace it usages? Kind regards. Rehman 13:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I thought that you have an unlinker change link tool as administrator? --Ras67 (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, just got to file a request manually at the Delinker. Besides we don't want to unlink it, but to replace the file name with your file. Delinker takes unnecessary time to process these few links, compared to a manual job... Rehman 13:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will make it :-) --Ras67 (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, deleted 'em all. :) Rehman 14:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you --Ras67 (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Rehman 14:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for deleting my portrait, and so quickly! Wacomshera (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help :) Rehman 17:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of non-exact duplicates

Hi Rehman, you've recently deleted several versions of images that are not exact or scaled-down duplicates. In particular, you deleted File:Las Meninas 01.jpg which, besides being from a different source with different colours, contains a number of image notes that the image it was replaced by does not (yet) contain. Please be more careful in the future. I'll try to include notes like "(Do not delete original)" in the replacer description to discourage this. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. Rehman 13:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)