User talk:Geni

interior images of Florence buildings[edit]

If images are not allowed to be taken inside various Florentine buildings and museums, then they should not have been taken in the first place and then uploaded onto the Commons on top of that. Gryffindor 11:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsiolkovskiy: Monument to the Conquerors of Space[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to explain so clearly the reasons for your decision to delete the photos. I have been uploading my own photographs of statues/monuments in Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and possibly other CIS countries. Could you please provide more detailed and specific guidelines of what is allowed and what not in these countries according to Wikipedia policies? Thank you, --Zlerman (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but I am trying to understand the principles. All the laws in CIS countries (including the Russian law applied to Tsiolkovskiy images) allow use for non-commercial purposes. Don't WikiCommons and Wikipedia itself fall in the category of non-commercial uses? Is this only a matter of changing the permissions tag on each photo to something appropriate instead of {{GFDL}}, or is there a deeper problem that I don't see? Thank you, --Zlerman (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

I am wondering why File:OSS logo.jpg and File:OSS logo.jpg, they were owned by the US Government (I checked with the US Patent and Trademark Office) and even the OSS Society of McLean, Virginia said they didn't own them, they used them with permission. By deleting them, aren't we essentially saying "vandalize enough and you will get your way?" I'm confused. - NeutralHomer • Talk 17:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zündkerze verschlissen.jpg[edit]

This image (and some other spark-plug-images) where taken by me. They are not scanned from any book! I made them with a mechanical camera and I have scanned these pictures to load it up to wikipedia (and to use them with PowerPoint). The pictures are more than 10 years old and I once used them in my garage to instruct apprentices about what spark-plugs are telling about an engines condition. They are looking used because they are, not because they where scanned out of an old book! Red Rooster (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BP image input[edit]

Can you provide input here: User_talk:Rlevse#The_Story_of_B-P_picture_was_deleted.3F? Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geni, an additional question for you, there. Thanks in advance if you can spare the time. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Image:PhotoFly HangGliding.jpg[edit]

Why does sticking your watermark on someone else's give you the copyright? John Reaves (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When deleting something as copyvio ...[edit]

... isn't at least customary to provide a link showing where the original was?

I really resent edit summaries like "stop it with the unfree images". That doesn't AGF. The first image had been up on Commons for a while; I had no inkling we couldn't trust it. I am currently taking steps on Flickr to have the uploader's account pulled and all his uploads deleted. Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...discussion is usual, in this case with the Operation Red Wing photo created (and labeled) as being created by a US Soldier in commission of his duties that you simply deleted. Sherurcij (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token 3f46ae4255b12a219b598e5cde81c54c[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Map Request[edit]

Hello there! I notice you have the area 182 OS Map from the 1940s, from which you have also added a clear section showing Horley, Surrey and that features on its page at Wikipedia. Might I ask if you still have such a map, would you be able to provide a similar extract for commons showing the area of Crawley a few miles to the south? This would make a great addition to the article on Wikipedia which talks at great length about the changes after the war, but has little image content to demonstrate the point. Your assistance would be much appreciated! Thanks Tafkam (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close Deletion[edit]

Hey Geni, could you possibly close this for me thanks! -Marcusmax (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madeofstars[edit]

User:Madeofstars is attempting to get File:Rosy Wilde.jpg deleted.[1] This was first uploaded by him at en.wiki at w:File:Rosy.jpeg and he has just had it speedy deleted there by user request. I posted to the deleting admin's talk page about this.[2] As I understand it, GFDL is not revocable just because the uploader changes their mind.

There is a previous OTRS ticket #2008121510018309 that relates to some of his image uploads, where there were paintings by w:Stella Vine in the photograph. As the communication via OTRS specified a release for the paintings which was "permission is valid for Wikipedia only", those particular photos were deleted. The ones without paintings in were kept, namely the two now on Commons at File:Rosy Wilde.jpg and File:Rosy Wilde Gallery.jpg.

You deleted File:Stella Vine MAO 5.jpg as "OTRS 2009020810011301 derivative of the painting on the wall". The original file for this File:Stella Vine MAO.jpg uploaded by Madeofstars was also previously deleted as derivative. However, I have made crops of this image such as File:Stella_Vine_MAO_6.jpg, which have only a small part of the painting remaining. I do not believe this is sufficient to count as a derivative work, but would like your evaluation of this. If is necessary, the background can be removed as per File:Stella Vine MAO 3.jpg, but it is preferable not to have to "doctor" the image.

Regardless of the deletion of the original upload, I believe I am correct in saying that the crops are legitimate to keep because the photo was uploaded under GFDL.

Related to this issue, I would like to ask your advice about File:2001 First Stuckist Show in Paris.jpg, which I uploaded. There is GFDL clearance for the photo itself and the two paintings on the right, but not for the one in the centre and the one on the left. Do these therefore count as a copyvio, or is the extent of them too small to infringe? If it is an infringement, would an even smaller size upload prevent that?

Ty 15:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your reply to the above, I've uploaded File:20011019ParisCrop.jpg, a cropped version of File:2001 First Stuckist Show in Paris.jpg, which you might want to delete: a duplicate cropped version is there, but the full one still shows up in the history, so I uploaded the crop again with the different name. Ty 03:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terms of Madeofstars' photos[edit]

I noticed you posted at w:User_talk:Madeofstars#Photos_of_stella_vine_and_her_gallery: "under what terms did you take these photos?"

The images File:Rosy Wilde.jpg and File:Rosy Wilde Gallery.jpg are both shots from the public highway of the exterior of the building, so presumably do not require consent from Stella Vine.

Regarding the photo File:Stella Vine installs her painting Diana branches in Oxford.jpg, with crops extant such as File:Stella Vine MAO 1.jpg, Madeofstars has said that his images of this nature (others also deleted on en.wiki as derivative) were "video stills which I filmed at Oxford in 2007",[3] and also:

"Usually when someone is filmed, when its not for personal use only, the person filming has to get the person being filmed to sign a consent form to say they are happy for those videos, or video stills, to be used, screened or shown in public. I know I got a consent form when I filmed Vine." (15 December 2008)[4]

I have now had a request for all the Madeofstars images to be deleted. See w:User_talk:Tyrenius#Stella_Vine_and_Rosy_Wilde_photos. I am opposed to this.

Ty 08:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above request was made in response to Ticket:2008121510018309. I hoped {{db-g7}} tags would allow it to quickly be dealt with, but if Tyrenius wants the crops to stay the mentioned ticket has new information as rational for deletion. Geni, do you want to merge the 3 tickets and handle it? -- Jeandré, 2009-02-09t09:19z

If the declarations made by Madeofstars, as shown above and per his using the file upload form, are correct, then I can't see a basis for deletion. If they are not correct, then I think the information about what's going on here should be made available, so other users can evaluate Madeofstars' actions properly, now and in the future. Ty 09:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs of identifiable people again[edit]

I have made some changes to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people/Proposal in response to a variety of helpful suggestions that users have made on the talk page. You have already commented there; could I ask you to have a look again, and to consider whether you would like to express an opinion in the Poll towards the bottom of the page? Many thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lazare Ponticelli[edit]

I am the photografer (Fréderic Coune) of the article you referd to after deleting the picture of Lazare Ponticelli. As you might have noticed I have no copyright claims on the article either, making it no reason to delete the picture on commons. --Koongo940 (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opt-out discussion[edit]

Hello Geni, I am trying to develop a larger consensus around the opt-out issue. Consistent with that, I have started a new section on the talk page and plan to advertise it widely. Your previous comments are linked from that page, but I am mentioning it here in case you want to address the issue directly in the new thread. Apologies, for the duplication of effort, but I think restarting this is more likely to gain participation rather than trying to draw new voices into an thread that had already grown stale. Dragons flight (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMS Warrior (1860)2009.jpg[edit]

Hi, great picture ! lovely colours. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions of my uploads[edit]

Hi happened to notice you deleted two of my uploads. Why didn't you file a deletion request? Why didn't you notify me? Multichill (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they were clear derivatives of 2D works that were under copyright.Geni (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, please don't hop talk pages. I have a watchlist and i use it.

You didn't answer my second question. Judging from your deletion log you seem to have developed a bad habbit of not notifying uploaders, could you please *always* notify the uploader? Multichill (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

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, Geni!

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, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Videoscreengrab of Morris C8 towing.ogv is uncategorized since 10 July 2009.
Image:British Polaris fireing trigger.jpg was uncategorized on 8 October 2009.
Image:Round Tower (Portsmouth)2009.jpg was uncategorized on 10 October 2009.
Image:2D code mockup.jpg was uncategorized on 17 October 2009.
Image:Theoretical model of wikipedia consensus.PNG was uncategorized on 20 February 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Screenshot portsbridge creekseamonkey.jpg was uncategorized on 11 June 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image:AHOTWpenny.JPG was uncategorized on 5 December 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:LRO apollo14 landing sight 1st pic .jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 21:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Migration automatic?[edit]

Hi, I am trying to follow all the license migration discussions (fairly impossible task), but your statement "The switich is automatic we don't technicaly need to document it on the image file pages before the deadline.Geni (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)" - has me asking why? Are you saying that the WMF acceptance of the migration automatically over rides anything on individual image pages? Does this also mean that the opt-out has no meaning too? --Tony Wills (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pyrocumulus over Los Angeles.jpg[edit]

Sorry about this image I've uploaded from English Wikipedia and you had to delete. I thought that since it had details about the camera settings in the English Wikipedia, that it was legitimate. I will try to find more proof before uploading in the future. Pierre cb (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good pointers you gave me. Thanks. Pierre cb (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token f4858f6d7aa397b4108bd4c0b97a3b43[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

A word of advice[edit]

Don't go making accusatory comments on other peoples talk pages. I'm referring to this comment that you left on my talk page:

This is not allowed under commons policy. How many of the other images you have uploaded did you not take yourself?

Please Keep your condescending remarks to yourself and refrain from accusing people of things and you'll be fine. Scanbus (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph used your photo[edit]

This article of the Telegraph uses one of your pictures. TheDJ (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:6 inch gun from HMS Calypso.jpg[edit]

Hi there, I'm trying to identify the model of gun in your photo at Fort Nelson. If it was a"Mk III" QF built as new by Elswick in 1893, it would be a 40-calibres (20 feet long internally) QF gun weighing 6.6 tons. Its cartridge was a brass case. But so far as I know, HMS Calyso had the much lighter and shorter (36 calibres) 5-ton BL gun (silk bag cartridge) of 1881-1883, and I doubt it would have been able to carry the QF 40-calibres gun. The gun looks too short for the long 40-calibres QF model, but difficult to judgege end-on. A view of the breech would allow definite identification. I'm wondering whether this was one of the early 1880s BL Mk III 26-calibre guns which were later converted to QF in about 1893 ? Do you have any more information about this ? thanks. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rowfant station image[edit]

To the best of my recollections, the author of the image was unknown; many images prior to 1910 generally do not have the author indicated unless issued by one of the large publishers. May I ask where you found the author? Ravenseft (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are free images and there unfree images and free images must be encouraged. Even in the face of Armageddon I will not compromise in this.[edit]

Don't you mean "Because there are free images and there are unfree images and free images must be encouraged. Even in the face of Armageddon I will not compromise in this."

Normally I'd just change it as a typo, but personal pages are different. Also, there may be some obscure deeply profound grammatical construction that I don't pick up on. Also nobody loves a smart bleep. I think I just failed the test on that last one.

Happy day. Charles01 (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of my art[edit]

Thank you for your attempt to restore my artwork. Apparently User:Fran Rogers was so offended by it, that she had it suppressed, after you restored it, falsely claiming that it was a photo of me, and was child pornography. I would upload the full size image, if i didn't think that Fran would further abuse her administrative privileges to block me. I uploaded it to rapidshare., and I would appreciate if you would retrieve it and verify that it is artwork, and not photography. And if you would be willing, please upload it to commons with the description :" Closeup of Female Masturbation 2009 Pastel and drybrush on textured paper ". Because you are also an administator, I don't think she will have the same ability to censor your uploads, as she does mine. Misty Willows (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not restore it deliberately that was a test of the oversight system. Commons has adiquate amounts of pics of Vulvas and female masterbation. I see no reason to add another at this time.Geni (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Boise, Idaho panorama[edit]

Hi, Geni, I was wondering why my Boise_Panorama.jpg was removed from the Boise, Idaho article:

11:47, 17 October 2009 CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs) m (50,796 bytes) (Removing "Boise_Panorama.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Geni because: Copyright violation: http://erality.deviantart.com/art/Downtown-Boise-in-Fall-106837847 2009101710006258.

It’s an image I’d previously proved was my own after it was originally posted by someone else under their name. I talked to Wiki admin Paul Davis about it, and he reprimanded the person who posted it and deleted it so that I could repost it under my name. Did I violate the copyright by also posting the image on my DeviantArt account? Is there a better copyright license I should give the photo or should I only have it posted in one place? Thanks for your time. User:Erality

File:Hampton-on-Sea 005.jpg[edit]

Yes please delete this.Storye book (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of images[edit]

I think your interpretation while deleting two of my last images is in error. The photos you deleted are reproductions of "signs" that was placed at a public place outdoors, and now in a national museum. They can hardly be interpreted as artworks. I am unhappy with deletion power wikipedia has given to some persons, and using of that power without starting any discussion. Please start a discussion so that community can decide, whenever in doubt, or even when you are very sure of yourself as in this case. There are tens of thousands of signs that should be deleted if your interpretation is true. You can start directly from category signs, and good luck for you. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cockcroft-Walton Voltage Multiplier[edit]

I apologize for my lame question, but I'm almost 60 and it's taken me three days to figure out how to ask a question.

I'm a collage artist and this is the first time I've used an image I didn't take myself. I'm not understanding how to give you photo credit for the Voltage Multiplier. It appears in the back of a small collage celebrating particle science.

I've read all the legal stuff about giving credit and its over my head. Do I just give it's name, your name as the source for the image and the initials of usage?

Thank you for your time.

You need to mention that the photo was taken by "Geni" and that the photo is under the "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license". There is no need to mention the name of the image.Geni (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

undelete request[edit]

sorry！I didn't make backup for these picture
can you undelete these
File:MCAS Word test report.jpg
File:MCAS Excel test report.jpg

I promise this is the last time to doing with these picture
--Onlymyself65536 (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

attribution question[edit]

How do I attribute your photos? I do not know your name and we must use real names. This is for use in an AP Art History course for the Florida Virtual School. Thank you so much!

My pseudonym is geni. Since it is an established pseudonym it should be enough but you will have to discuss that with your tutors.Geni (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mapping Request[edit]

Thanks for collecting OS maps.

LMK if you find any pre 1922 OS Maps, these will be earlier Popular Edition sheets or Fourth Edition?

The reason is so that I can find out 'pre-grouping' company names, and likely routes without relying on the Junction Diagrams, which you aware are currently subject to a longer disscussion.

I'd also like to be able to find 'clean' sources for company names, station names/locations, given that at present quite a lot of the articles seem to refer to specfic Ian Allen publications, In the US this may be OK (fact is fact) but the UK has database right, meaning much as I would like to use Wikipedia as a reference for OSM, I fell inhibited from doing so. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for the Feather Helmet picture - I have an articl, but no picture from the BM. See me on en if you would like to help edit it Victuallers (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monument-primelin.jpg[edit]

File:Monument-primelin.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) 12:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipe-tan[edit]

I love your great Wikipe-tan! Do you take requests?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Benjamin Britten 1945.jpg[edit]

The photograph is tagged as PD on Gallica but only the publisher (Boosey & Hawkes) is mentioned. Perhaps there is a more appropriate Commons license but I don't know which one. – Mu (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Johannes_Heesters.jpg[edit]

Hallo Geni, why have you uploaded a crop at File:Johannes_Heesters.jpg? Images should not be changed that much with uploading new versions. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The change from the decemeber 2008 version which is the one that actualy been in use for the most part was not that significant.Geni (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me what this "Reverted to version as of 05:18, 19 May 2008 per OTRS request" means? Shouldn't the reworked version - which is better - be used? Who asked for?

Okay - yes - the ratio difference since Dec. 2008 is not that much. Please just answer here. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

aparently we were getting a complaint about the changes to the image over otrs so I went with version with lower saturation on the colours.Geni (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geni,
as you are an admin, would you mind to add the admin-bit to your babel-box, so that others can recognize you as an admin. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token 7983dc46da854089e7d827b1be9b8826[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Scat files[edit]

Hi, I saw you deleted a load of images with the reason per the Danilo Croce probably obscene. Also uploader has no prolonged upload history so no certainly on copyright - I understand the second part, but what's the Danilo bit about? -mattbuck (Talk) 09:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should not you nominate for deletion?[edit]

According your edit summary? User:Lar seems to have resigned his power hats, so you should be safe. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:De Havilland DH106 Comet 4 G-APDB Cockpit .JPG[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 04:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

File:ERNIE1 2012.JPG[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 01:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Permission to use Sutton Hoo[edit]

Hi,

I'm writing to ask permission to use your lovely image of the Sutton Hoo mask for a book of knitting patterns based on historical images.

I intend to credit / source it as follows:

This Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons image is from the user geni, and is freely available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sutton_hoo_helmet_room_1_no_flashbrightness_ajusted.JPG under the creative commons cc-by-sa 3.0 license.

Would that be okay?

Thank you, Annie Modesitt

yes that would be fine.Geni (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Memento mori ring Norwich.JPG[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 20:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Delinker commands[edit]

Please attend question about category naming at COM:AN (last thread). Orrlingtalk 12:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg[edit]

Hi, you deleted this file for the following reason: "Copyright violation: enough post processing was done on the image that there is a reasonable chance that it qualifies for copyright see OTRS:2012120510006092" As the original uploader, I don't agree with this assertion. Rather, I consider that any routine digital processing such as cropping, filtering etc. isn't enough of a creative act to make a copyright subsist in the image. Otherwise we'd need to delete many of the photographs of old artworks we keep under COM:ART, because many of them have also been digitally processed by the photographer. I'd like to ask you to undelete the file and, if you disagree with my assessment, make the file subject to a regular deletion discussion so that the community can decide. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your line of argument is that it ignores the fact the issue that COM:ART stuff is created with the intent of reproducing the original image. In this case the there was no intent to recreate the original RAW file in particular there is an argument to be made that there was enough creativity involved in the rotation and the cropping to qualify for copyright.Geni (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Copying the above reply from my talk page) Well, in this case there was intent to capture the picture the monkey shot, I assume. Rotating and (presumably minor) cropping is hardly a creative process. In any case, that is an argument for a normal deletion dicussion. Could you please start one? Sandstein (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The monkey's shot an unprocessed RAW file. It would have been in a different aspect ratio to the final image (634*894 isn't consistent with any standard digital camera ratio I'm aware of). So ja creativity. The photographer also claims to have done some cloning but I have no idea of what.Geni (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Copying the above reply from my talk page) Well, I disagree that the simple cropping of a part of the image is sufficiently creative to establish copyright protection. That is something that needs to be discussed, rather than decided by fiat by one administrator. Since you haven't responded to my request to undelete the image and start a deletion discussion, I'm going to do so myself. Sandstein (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 09:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year[reply]

Using Portchester Castle image[edit]

Hello there, I would like to use your image of Portchester Castle in an up=and-coming guide book on Anne Boleyn. Sadly, when OI went there, the whole place was enshrouded with mist! Not great for photos. Love your photos and wondered if I could use it and under what, if any conditions? MAny thanks. You can contact me on sarah.morris@letempsviendra.co.uk

Hi Geni[edit]

That's not the process for de-adminship, damn I wish it was, but it's not. You need to follow the procedure. Penyulap ☏ 22:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moai liverpool[edit]

Hi Geni. OK. Thanks for the information. Solved. Best regards, JMCC1 (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

العربية ∙ català ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ română ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ українська ∙ +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey.

Dear Geni,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time.

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013.

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey!

Dear Geni,

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests!

In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days.

And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy!

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement[edit]

Calshot Castle[edit]

Have you thought about nominating this picture as a Valued Image or Quality Image or something? Nev1 (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Nev1 (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement[edit]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

⧼Wikibase-terms/Geni⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement[edit]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results[edit]

In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

Dear Geni,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On publishing of non-commercial licensed (CC-BY-NC) material[edit]

Hello. Instead of deleting an important post and comment on a page that might not suit it 100%, I have copy-pasted it here on your personal talk page. If you know of any other place that is more suitable, I welcome you to say so. Deletion is not constructive. Here is the post you deleted on the page of Atomium:

The FOP rules of Belgium does not seem to be the problem here (or anywhere). The problem is, that Wiki Commons does not allow (and prohibit) uploads licensed for non-commercial use only. I suggest you change your explanations accordingly to reflect this deep problem. Here and on Wiki Commons in general.

If Wiki Commons decides to allow for uploads and publishing under the CC-BY-NC license (NC = no commercial use), all problems will vanish and no FOPs of any country, will hinder uploads of this kind in the future. It is vey clear, that the problem lies within the policies of Wiki Commons, and you will need to expose these problems in all honesty.

RhinoMind (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You did however, engage in an attempt at explaining why this problem persists and have not been solved, and I much appreciate your engagement. Below is your comment copied from my talk page followed by my response. I expect that the discussion of this important issue can continued here:

There is no non commercial use clause in Belgian copyright law so CC-BY-NC would make no difference.Geni (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is really true, it would make it easier to allow for one, if Wiki Commons allowed for non-commercial licenses in the first place. By the way, the possible Belgian prohibition of non-commercial publishing, has nothing to do with the FOPs of that country. RhinoMind (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valued images[edit]

Could I persuade you to nominate this picture as a valued image since I reckon it is the best photo of the MOSI Air and Space Hall on Commons? Nev1 (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That OTRS deletion[edit]

Now that I've looked up what Daguerreotypes are, I'm even more confused. I can see how, if the guy was uploading images that date from the 19th Century as 'own work', you would think something was up and want more info. But you originally mentioned 60s/70s film stock. I took that to mean cinema reel (while still not really understanding your point about how that can be automatically assumed to be a violation), but now I'm thinking you were just referring to photos from the 60s/70s. Given the ones I remember were photos from the 70s/80s, I am extremely concerned that all that has happened here is that someone has uploaded their old photos to geograph as own work, and when they couldn't be contacted, someone assumed the worst. Now, surely that wasn't the case, surely there is something more to this, but without more info, I still really don't know. So again, without compromising anyone's personal data, is it possible to enlighten me further? My major concern here is if something has changed either in Commons policy or over at Geograph, and now people simply uploading their old scans as self-declared own work is not considered sufficient proof of authorship any more. If that's the case, it's going to be a serious issue - as recently as yesterday I've been working on geoggraph images dating from the 70s, and I've personally seen several hundred more in my time here.Ultra7 (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Ultra7 (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

De-adminship warning[edit]

This talk page in other languages:

Dear Geni, I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2014 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you, odder (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FOP deletions[edit]

In relation to your FOP deletions, can you not delete FOP images without a DR, as we have tracking categories which can be applied to them so that if/when FOP becomes available, or the work is out of copyright, they can be undeleted in the future (whenever that might be). russavia (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill Crocodile[edit]

Hello! Could You please tell me where is this tank, the picture which You uploaded? Thanks. --Gandvik (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I have created a category for this Museum. If you are not difficult, could you fill her illustrations related to this Museum (perhaps you uploaded earlier)? Thanks. --Gandvik (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EXIF[edit]

Looks from the EXIF data in File:Birmingham City Transport tram 395 2015.JPG that your camera has the wrong date/ time set. Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Earth 2015 in Ukraine[edit]

hi there! I have sent you an email. could you please tell me if you can help us? --アンタナナ 18:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

Dear Kaldari, would you help to move the file File:File70. UN Generalversammlung (21797538816) Mohammed al-Dairi.jpg to File:70. UN Generalversammlung (21797538816) Mohammed al-Dairi.jpg Maher27777 (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman Firefly[edit]

The Sherman Firefly stood out, because the last time I looked at the article this was the headline image. That's a fantastic photo. Your contribution is in colour but up-close it's oddly soft; compare it with this for example. Do you have a sharper copy? I notice that for example this is a difficult sell because it also has motion blur, which is a shame because the article doesn't have an interior shot. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Llangollen Canal under restoration.jpg[edit]

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） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Llangollen Canal under restoration.jpg. This media 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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Llangollen Canal under restoration.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Earth Ukraine 2016[edit]

hi there! I have sent you an email. could you please tell if you got info and everything`s ok? --AnnaKhrobolova (WMUA) (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dunlop's first pneumatic bicycle tyre[edit]

Thank you for this image which I find very interesting. Please would you add the location and museum name to the Description on file. With kind regards, Eddaido (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I consider myself only averagely thick (different from the average IQ) and I did find that later on but the category is never displayed in any article is it? I think the photo will attract a lot of interest and curiosity. Nice that it is back in the man's original country. Would you like me to add something to the description? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still the UK around Belfast? Eddaido (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use figure in a book.[edit]

Dear Geni,

I am working with Prof. Steven LaValle to help obtain permissions for borrowing figures or pictures in his upcoming book Virtual Reality, to be published by Cambridge University Press. The book is online here:

http://vr.cs.uiuc.edu/

We are hoping to include the picture of yours (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Nimrud_lens_British_Museum.jpg) in this book (Chapter 4, Figure 4.8a). Could we please have your permission for this? Thank you.

Plese contact me at awarkoczewski@yahoo.com

Sincerely,

Adam Warkoczewski — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.11.41.147 (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Conference project[edit]

Hello

I'm writing you as one of the most active Commons users right now. Since a while now, the idea of a dedicated Commons conference has been floating around. But since the last Wikimania concrete steps have been taken to actually make it happen next year. If you're interested in participation or maybe willing to help organize the first ever Commons Conference, I invite you to check out the project page and leave your comments; or just show your support for the idea, by signing up.

Cheers,

--Touzrimounir (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De-adminship warning[edit]

This talk page in other languages:

Dear {{subst:PAGENAME}}. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you --B dash (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

for helping out in IRC. Artix Kreiger (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pitt Rivers Museum Image[edit]

I am co-authoring a book on museum culture, and I am interesting in reproducing your image of the Pitt Rivers museum (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Interior_of_Pitt_Rivers_Museum_2015.JPG). The request is for a scholarly project and the Press is a not-for-profit publisher. Please send me a notification or provide an email, where I can provide more information.

Thank you, J.R. Osborn Georgetown University — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrosborn (talk • contribs) 19:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

De-adminship warning (Aug 2019)[edit]

This talk page in other languages:

Dear Geni. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2019 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019: it's Wiki Loves Monuments time again![edit]

Hi

You're receiving this message because you've previously contributed to the annual Wiki Loves Monuments contest in the UK. We'd be delighted if you would do so again this year and help record our local built environment for future generations.

You can find more details at the Wiki Loves Monuments UK website. Or, if you have images taken in other countries, you can check the international options. This year's contest runs until 30 September 2019.

Many thanks for your help once more! MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments UK 2019![edit]

Hi

Thank you so much for contributing to the UK section of this year's Wiki Loves Monuments contest, which finished yesterday. We really do appreciate the time and effort you've put in to record the UK's built cultural heritage for future generations.

Your contribution has been been added to our collections here on Wikimedia Commons, and is already available for editors to make use of on Wikipedia and elsewhere. It has also been entered into this year's contest. If you'd like to see your own images, just click on the uploads link at the top right of this page (if you don't see it, click on the Log in option first).

We've received over 10,000 UK entries this year, and it will take a few weeks for our volunteers and professional judges to decide on the final top 10. The winners will be announced by the end of this month, both here on Wikimedia Commons and also on the competition website.

The top 10 UK images will go forward to the international section where they will compete against winners from some 50 other countries. The international winners should be announced here in December.

Don't forget, by the way, that if you're hoping to win a prize in the contest it's essential that you have enabled email in your Wikimedia preferences. If you haven't, you're not eligible to win. If you're unsure, please check here.

Once again, many thanks for your help! MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2019! Please help with this survey.[edit]

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Dear Geni,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 210K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 40 countries around the world.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2019.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team MediaWiki message delivery 12:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in Wiki Loves Monuments 2019 Participant Survey (Reminder)[edit]

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Dear Geni,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 210K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 40 countries around the world.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2019.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team MediaWiki message delivery 03:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using Ironclad HMS Warrior Image in publication[edit]

Hello Geni,

I am writing on behalf of Ming-Ai (London) Institute, to ask for your full name to be printed in one of our upcoming publications.

We will be using one of your authored images, the Ironclad HMS Warrior image in publication. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_warriorjune20092.jpg

Ming-Ai is a non-profit educational charity organisation based in the UK which was established in 1993. We run a Master degree programme (validated by the Middlesex University, UK) in Chinese Cultural Heritage Management, and also develop and research culture heritage projects especially on the subjects of British Chinese.

We are currently working on an oral history project which is about the former Hong Kong governors' vessel, Lady Maurine (慕蓮夫人號). The outcome of this project is to publish a book on its history. Project website for your reference: http://www.britishchineseheritagecentre.org.uk/projects/lady-maurine

Thank you very much and look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards, Charlotte Chan --Chanslc (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

De-adminship warning (Feb 2020)[edit]

This talk page in other languages:

Dear Geni. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2020 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admin bit[edit]

Hello. Your admin bit was restored per Special:Permalink/393380404#Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2020. Apologies for the inconvenience. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meghan Collison cropped.jpg[edit]

File:Meghan Collison cropped.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 ∙ +/−

E4024 (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2020! Please help with this survey[edit]

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Dear Geni,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2020, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again for a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 200K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey.

Please fill in this short survey and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2020.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team, 08:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Archives[edit]

By the way, reddit is not reliable.

BY THE GODDAMN WAY, IT WASN"T MY WORK, I PUT THE LINK WHERE I FOUND IT and THE GODDAMN SUTHOR, WTF I PUT LICENSE AND EVERYTHING Miggy MY GODDAMN TALK

Please participate in the Universal Code of Conduct consultation on Wikimedia Commons![edit]

Dear Geni

Thank you for your hard work to create the sum of all knowledge that is freely sharable to every single human being across the world. As our diverse community grows, we need a guideline that will help all of our work collectively and constructively where everyone feels safe, welcomed, and part of a team. That is why the Wikimedia movement is working on establishing a global guideline called the Universal Code of Conduct, often referred to as UCoC.

After the months-long policy consultation, we have prepared a policy (available in many languages) that has been ratified by the Board of Trustees. We’re currently in the second phase of the process. During this round of consultation, we want to discuss the implementation of this policy. As a member of the functionary team of Wikimedia Commons, your opinion on enforcement is of great value. We want to hear from you on how this policy can be enforced on the Wikimedia Commons community and what might be needed to do so. There are a few enforcement questions so you can easily outline your answers based on them. Please do not hesitate to bring any more questions/challenges you think are not yet discussed.

The discussion is taking place on Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation. You can also share your thoughts by replying to this message (Please ping me so I get notified), posting your message on my talk page. I am aware that some thoughts cannot be expressed publicly, so you can always share your opinion by emailing me as well.

As a valued member of the Commons community, please share your thoughts, ideas, and experiences that relate to UCoC. Let us know what needs to be improved so we can build a more friendly and cooperative space to increase editor engagement and retention of new users.

Wikimedia projects are governed by you. So, it is you who needs to step up to ensure a safe, comfortable, and pleasant working environment.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a short survey regarding UCoC[edit]

Hello Geni,

I would like to inform you that we now have a survey in place to take part in the UCoC consultation. It is not a long one and should take less than 10 minutes to complete. You can take the survey even if you have already participated in the on-wiki consultation. It has a different set of questions and allows you to participate anonymously and privately.

As a member of the Commons functionaries, your opinion is especially essential. Please click here to participate in the survey.

You are still welcome to participate in the on-wiki discussions. If you prefer you can have your say by sending me an email. You can also drop me an email if you want to have a one-to-one chat.

Thank you for your participation! Wikitanvir (WMF) 13:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

just letting u know[edit]

you protected User talk:Vaticidalprophet but didn't get rid of the spam 66.206.35.106 05:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:70013 Oliver Cromwell - Cathedrals Express - 19Th December 2017-Grateley Station.webm[edit]

Copyright status: File:70013 Oliver Cromwell - Cathedrals Express - 19Th December 2017-Grateley Station.webm

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 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:70013 Oliver Cromwell - Cathedrals Express - 19Th December 2017-Grateley Station.webm. 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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 19:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nobreasts[edit]

Template:Nobreasts 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 template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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 ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nobreasts (category version)[edit]

Template:Nobreasts (category version) 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 template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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 ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wikipe tan by SigurdHosenfeld.png[edit]

File:Wikipe tan by SigurdHosenfeld.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Apparent copyright violation

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : The2002 bmw.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old Babylonian weights[edit]

I am intrigued by your image:

   A series of old Babylonian weights ranging from 1 mina to 3 shekels

Do you know what the exact weights are? https://www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/PDFs/47-2/Hanging.pdf discusses a set of much smaller weights found in Ur. Those wieghts, in units of 1/20 of a shekel, are 1/3, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8. Note that all but the smallest weight form a Fibonacci sequence, allegedly simplifying the chose of weighing. I wonder if the weights in your photo have a relationship like that. Jamesdowallen (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closed DRs still tagged[edit]

Hey Geni. These four DRs from March 2021 were closed by you but are still tagged in their individual files. I'm guessing the script broke, and that's why they're still tagged. EDIT: make that five. I thought I'd let you know. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[edit]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you should simply prohibit IPs from editing your precious pages as clearly you see them as potential vandals. Why respect them, when it's easier to oust them. Vandals will need one minute or less to create usernames, but that's another issue. Mine is below. 181.203.5.142 22:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Geni![edit]

Greetings Geni,

I love the photos you took & shared on your page & your sentiments about photography - I agree! What is the easiest method you recommend for me to share my own photos of nature I took with my own camera on Wikipedia via the commons? I tried once to upload a photo (just once) and it was extremely (very) confusing. when I returned back to Wikipedia, I couldn't find my photo & not surprised that I uploaded it incorrectly & I made mistakes with all the complex codes & terminology with very little explanation or clear path on how to upload one photo I took myself.

What are the exact steps you took to upload your photos? Thanks so much in advance - you seem to be an expert & quite a good photographer as well. Cheers! McGuire at Snyderlab (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)McGuire at Snyderlabs[reply]

Sound Logo[edit]

Hello,

I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admins and IPs[edit]

Happy Sunday! You closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:YoVoy. Pues al máster no ibas.jpg as Kept but neither you removed the deletion notification from the file nor you added a note on the talk page of the file. Sure it's just because you forgot to do all that, but the issue is, admins make many mistakes like these and at the same time they warn or block IPs for "vandalism" that they have never made or even intended. There are admins who don't review the "history" of cases of vandalism claims, or MAYBE they do and see that in fact it's not the IPs but established users who make the real vandalism, claiming false accusations on IPS, and prefer to ignore the facts and hit at the IPs. Maybe being an IP in Commons is considered as vandalism in itself... 181.203.5.142 22:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No its because DelReqHandler should have done the stuff but apparently didn't.Geni (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete[edit]

Can you help File:Mahim Masum.jpg

Or

Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/MahimMasumboss AkbarAliKhan1 (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fongoo Live in NCCC Mall Davao.JPG[edit]

Hi Geni, is there a reason why you didn't delete File:Fongoo Live in NCCC Mall Davao.JPG at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jangharner? If just a DelReqHandler issue again, then just delete the file. Thanks. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That one was probably due to missing a click. Deleted.Geni (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fongoo Live in NCCC Mall Davao.JPG is still there. Could this be a {{Deletion error}} issue? --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently yes "Error deleting file: An unknown error occurred in storage backend "local-multiwrite"Geni (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss FoP[edit]

Hi Geni; in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Alfred Manessier you kept an interior view of a modern stained glass window in a Swiss church with the reasoning "Swiss stuff has no FOP inside churches but does for anything visible from a public place. Window can be seen from outside." As the window can't be seen that way from the outside and it's impossible to take such a picture of the window from a public outside place, per my understanding of Swiss FoP, it doesn't apply. A picture taken from the outside, in a public place, would be fine. If it were otherwise, a great many deletions of images of church windows in Germany or Switzerland here on Commons would be wrong, as in most cases, you can somehow see the windows from the outside (but almost never make really out the artwork that way, for lighting reasons). So I would like to suggest to reconsider your decision, and I think that picture should be deleted, too. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You probably need to raise it at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Nothing in article 27 says the photo has to be taken from an angle that is accessible to the public. The Law focuses purely on the location of the object not the photographer (German law is more concerned with the location of the photographer). You could argue that 27.2 means that photos of such objects are never truely free but again Commons:Village pump/Copyright.Geni (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, see now there. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Traction engine - SFMAI - 1927.jpg[edit]

Hi GEni, thanks for the hint. I corrected it. Greetings --Llez (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2022! Please help with this survey[edit]

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Dear Geni,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2022, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again for a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 150K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 35 countries around the world.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey.

Please fill in this short survey and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2022.

Kind regards, Wiki Loves Monuments team, 09:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open![edit]

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2022 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the seventeenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the two most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on 1 May 2023, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2021 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open![edit]

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because we noticed that you voted in Round 1 of the 2022 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in the second round. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2022.

Round 2 will end at 18 May 2023, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Coins from northampton mint.JPG[edit]

Copyright status: File:Coins from northampton mint.JPG

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 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Coins from northampton mint.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 19:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Deleted per nomination"[edit]

Re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aritra Mondal.jpg: So "Not suitable for Wikimedia Commons, since it can't be traced to any Wikipedia article nor any other Wikimedia project" is a valid deletion reason? If it were, every image not currently in use on another wiki site would be automatically subject to deletion. I don't like it when a claim is made that an invalid reason is the reason a file was deleted. Would you like to edit your deletion summary? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geni, for some reason I have your discussion page on my watchlist (probably some earlier discussion), so I stumbled upon this, and I would agree with Ikan Kekek: Deletion as such is fine (unused personal image), but not for the reasons given by the nominator, as Commons doesn't require use of images in Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project (only that images are realistically useful for an educational purpose). Gestumblindi (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Silsden Hoard ring 2023.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 04:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steambot Willie[edit]

Hi, Deleting this file now is really stupid. I undeleted so that people in the Eastern hemisphere don't see a blank page. Yann (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Came here from en:Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day#Concrete proposal, just to note that a MediaWiki dev strongly recommend[s] against placing a video on the main page that has just been...undeleted. [5] Best, A smart kitten (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May be, you should read Commons:Do not disrupt Commons to illustrate a point. Anyway, it was undeleted again by Racconish. Yann (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]