User talk:Kaldari/Archive 1

Image:Colored pencils chevre.jpg[edit]

You have moved this image from pl.wiki, but I do not see NowCommons template on pl.wiki in original image!!!

Please always add this template on source wiki to help image cleanup!

--WarX 14:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POTY 2006[edit]

Your vote was not considered because you don't have at least 100 edits in Commons and you didn't provide a link to your home wiki. Please check the rules again. Alvesgaspar 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Musiccitystaratnight.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright

Image:Musiccitystaratnight.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

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

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 ∙ +/−

MECU≈talk 15:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the photographer changed the licensing in Flickr :( Kaldari 20:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gennaro_rubino.jpg[edit]

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in 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 information may be missing. Thank you. Siebrand 16:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.

Image:Harpersbazar.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 informations 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 Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Fil nik 02:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prokaryotic cell[edit]

here is the new version of the prokaryotic cell. i hope you find the shadin more pleasant in this one :)-LadyofHats 10:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A feature you may not know about...[edit]

If you go to Special:Preferences, there's a checkbox under E-mail for "E-mail me when my user talk page is changed". This is an amazingly handy feature (one that I wish all the wikis had), and will (surprise surprise) send you an email if anyone leaves you a message here. If you turn that on, you can remove the "please contact me on Wikipedia" message that is causing a bit of a huff on your RfA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Dear Administrator![edit]

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

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

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. Also consider joining #wikimedia-admin, the cross-wiki coordination channel for Wikimedia administrators. Any member of the channel can invite you in temporarily, but you need an invite exemption from a channel operator to get in whenever you want. Please come to #wikimedia and ask for an invite. Any admin from any project is welcome.

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

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references....
Congratulations!!!! My stock advice: take it slow and easy at first. Ask for help if you need it or are unsure, lots of folks out there to give it. Have fun! Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 21:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, you need to do the update to Commons:List of administrators by adminship status in other Wikimedia projects yourself as I don't know what your other projects are (or am too lazy to run the utility I know that can tell me :) ) ++Lar: t/c 21:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats BTW :) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, man. If you have any Commons-related admin questions, just give me a shout. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeling Curve graph[edit]

I saw recently that you converted the Keeling Curve graph into an SVG graphic. Thanks so much for doing this! I had a question though: Would it be possible for you to update the graph to reflect what the current Keeling Curve looks like (the existing one was a couple years out of date). The current curve for reference can be found here:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mauna_loa_record_-_color.html
Kaldari (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks ! I have updated it and all others SVG versions. Sémhur 14:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Commons:Photo scavenger hunts[edit]

Hi Kaldari. I'd like to let you know you can now sign up as a participant in this new WikiProject. The WikiProject's talk page should be a good forum for future discussions. Thank you.--Pharos (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Emmeline Pankhurst arrested 2.jpg[edit]

Interesting find. Unfortunately, it makes me now believe that the photo is not PD. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Emmeline Pankhurst arrested.jpg. --dave pape (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2008 (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, Kaldari!

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

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

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

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

BotMultichillT (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sit-in map.svg is uncategorized since 31 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Charles Darwin seated.jpg is uncategorized since 4 February 2009. BotMultichillT 05:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image:NIF Laser Bay.jpg is uncategorized since 31 March 2009.
Image:Unknown flower 20090404.jpg is uncategorized since 5 April 2009.
Image:Unknown flower 01.jpg is uncategorized since 26 May 2009.
Image:Thiodina sylvana epigyne.jpg was uncategorized on 23 August 2009.
Image:WLA lacma Martino di Bartolomeo Coronation of the Virgin.jpg was uncategorized on 3 January 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Tan-page-corner.png was uncategorized on 11 March 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Gray-gradient1.png was uncategorized on 7 May 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:FEMA-3320-EM, Mississippi Disaster Declaration.svg was uncategorized on 8 May 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Foobar.jpg was uncategorized on 5 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Howard P. Perry, the first African-American US Marine Corps recruit, 1942.tif was uncategorized on 20 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Pune HackathonWEBBANNER0126.png was uncategorized on 31 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, Image:Makemake hubble.png, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

--shizhao (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SVG images[edit]

hi, first of all, thanks for having my work in such a high steem :P i dont think i am that good. as for your questions: i usually work in adobe illustrator. i have worked before in inkscape but find it much less confortable. About the fonts. i usually convert the fonts to outlines to get sure that the image is always shown correctly. since wikipedia has problem with font sizes. if you still want to add them as font, then use arial or verana or any other really common font since when opening the file the computer uses the fonts in the rading computer. no font is saved in the file. about the suboptions, well i usually remove the keeping illustrator capabilities since it makes files bigger, but the others i keeps them in a way that they create less ENTITY tags.. will explain... there is something about illustrator files. wikipedia has a problem showing those files as they come out from illustrator.in some sizes they dont show sometimes they do show but in thumbnail dont and so to aboid this. you need to open the svg file in a text editor. on the start of the file there are some ENTITY tags, inside those there are words followed by a text inside " " so what you need to do is to find this word in the next paragraf, and substitute the adress or text inside the " " for the word. finally after doing so remove the whole entity tags that are between <>. save and it is done. hope this is clear enough try it a couple of times and if you got trouble let me know and will try to explain it more clearly - LadyofHats (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the sort of tip that should be put on an SVG help page somewhere on this wiki :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvios[edit]

I found possible copyvios with the logo at http://www.thepamantasan.com/page1.php in these images uploaded by Richard Relucio: File:PLM University logo.jpg, File:Plm logo.png and File:800px-Flag of the PLM.PNG. The 1st image has a copy at File:University of the City of Manila.jpg, uploaded by PLMayer, who also uploaded File:UCM logo.jpg. All state it is the own work by uploader. As he's had the university's logo and similar items deleted before, would you mind looking into it? Revelian (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: CC-meta[edit]

The two main things are: allowing for any combination of CC versions and auto translation (the translations itself can be gather from what we already have). There also will need to be some kind of check for non-existent licenses, because right now, for example, you can use it for {{cc|by|sa|2.5|de}} which doesn't exist but that didn't stop some users from creating Template:Cc-by-sa-2.5-de (and now about 140 images are without licenses). But, yes, after it's finished, the plan is to move it to {{cc}}. Users can then use CC licenses in what I consider the easiest and most logical syntax, e.g. {{cc|sa|1.0}} or {{cc|by|sa|2.5|3.0}}. Rocket000(talk) 22:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and it should insert a {{Noncommercial}} or {{Nonderivative}} if someone tries using "nc" or "nd" for one of it's variables. Rocket000(talk) 22:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be made on a per-case basis (I have {{Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual}} in mind, which is a valid license template). →Diti the penguin — 21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that template will be problematic once we migrate to the new dual licensing scheme, since your image will then be licensed under both cc-by-sa and cc-by-sa-nc (which doesn't make sense). Kaldari (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approving licensing templates[edit]

Hi. Just wondering if this idea ever went ahead or if it was one of the many good ones that got forgotten? /Lokal _Profil 20:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

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

review

File:NIF Crystal.jpg[edit]

Per the en FPC discussion, File:NIF Crystal.jpg is now up for deletion. The debate is Commons:Deletion requests/File:NIF Crystal.jpg. MER-C 09:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token c52347be67e77a0b938e2f1a05ba895a[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

invalid licence for Leptopterna dolobrata01.jpg[edit]

hello Kaldari,

I suppose you refer to http://www.entomart.be/contact.html, so in french it is written Les photographies sont libres de tout droit... Vous pouvez les télécharger gracieusement pour votre usage personnel. Cependant, pour toute publication ou utilisation commerciale, les clichés reproduits devront nécessairement être accompagnés de la mention ©Entomart. Entomart souhaite cependant en être informé (adresse mail ci-dessous), mais ceci sans aucune obligation. Merci

That means that commercial use is valid, that picture need attribution, and that the author wish to be informed, but this is not a request. I know, this is a home-made free licence, it should be better that the author use standard cc-by-sa.

thanks Jeffdelonge (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, the english version of the licence is a poor translation. One year ago, i had mail exchanges with the author Claude Galand, Jeffdelonge (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this not the only picture, i had upload a lot Category:Entomart and it had been already debated Jeffdelonge (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no, licence in native language is valid, and is as free as GFDL which require 4 leaves licence annexed. The only requirement of this licence is to attribute picture to Entomart. i dont see what is the problem Jeffdelonge (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shuffleboard.jpg[edit]

File:Shuffleboard.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 ∙ +/−

---- Deadstar (msg) 14:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PD review[edit]

I added you to Commons:PD_files/reviewers#List_of_PD_reviewers since you are an admin and interested in using the program. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sceloporus magister Phoenix.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments nice --Ianare 21:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hypera zoilus Kaldari 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Very good. Lycaon 18:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

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

review

Comment Then please set up a Most Valued Review with both pictures. --Eusebius (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hope I did it correctly. The instructions are confusing. Kaldari (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please try to explain what was confusing and what should be improved! Feedback is always appreciated. --Eusebius (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree: I rather like this one. Yann (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Have to agree too. Lycaon (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results:
Commons:Valued image candidates/Curculionidae on Betula Richard Bartz.jpg: no votes
Commons:Valued image candidates/Hypera zoilus Kaldari 01.jpg: 2 support <--
=>
File:Curculionidae on Betula Richard Bartz.jpg: Declined
File:Hypera zoilus Kaldari 01.jpg: Promoted <--

--Slaunger (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP promotion[edit]

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Polemonium reptans 2009.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Polemonium reptans 2009.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

FP promotion[edit]

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Thiodina puerpera female 02.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thiodina puerpera female 02.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Category:Wikipedia Loves Art at the Hunter Museum of American Art[edit]

Hi Kaldari, I see you've created Category:Wikipedia Loves Art at the Hunter Museum of American Art. This is a strange category because you mix a source category (images from the WLA project) and a topic category (images related with the Hunter Museum of American Art). All the images should be placed in Category:Hunter Museum of American Art and (a subcategory of) Category:Wikipedia Loves Art. Multichill (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What subcategory would you suggest? We have ~3500 images from 15 museums. It seems like it would be logical to create a subcategory under Wikipedia Loves Art for each museum. I'm open to suggestions though. Kaldari (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have to respect the museums that participated, and that means making a category of all their images from the project (their "source category") easily accessible. Each museum is a different entity and ran its own autonomous competition. Ideally of course, we will also have topical subcategories for different types of works at a museum, such as "American paintings at the Hunter Museum of American Art".--Pharos (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume since you haven't replied on my talk page or here that you have no further opinion on the matter. Please let me know if you still have concerns about the category structure for Wikipedia Loves Art. Kaldari (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You assume too much ;-) I'm somewhat short on time. I tend to respond eventually. The mixing of source and topic categories causes horrible situations so just keep them separated. Multichill (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Pharos elaborated on above, the combined source and topic category is quite useful in this situation. I'm reluctant to abandon it in favor of one giant 3000 file category without knowing more about the "horrible situations" it would cause. I understand it's not the standard practice, but this is a bit of a unique situation, FWIW. Kaldari (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an unique situation. We get lot's of image donations and all potentially face the same problem. Sure you can split out your source category if you really want that as long as you also place the image in the right topic category and not make the source category a child of a topic category. Multichill (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only case I'm aware of where a single donation event spans more than one source institution. Kaldari (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse if I comment here. If I may suggest, how about the following two:

Category:Wikipedia Loves Art
- 1. Category:WLA 2009 at the Hunter Museum of American Art

and

Category:Hunter Museum of American Art
- 2. Category:Hunter Museum of American Art (paintings) (or other subcategories suggested by Commons:WikiProject_Museums/Museums_categorization)

-- User:Docu at

- - Would Category:Hunter Museum of American Art be a parent category of Category:WLA 2009 at the Hunter Museum of American Art or not? Kaldari (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a good compromise I guess. Category:WLA 2009 at the Hunter Museum of American Art and Category:Paintings in the Hunter Museum of American Art (Category:Paintings by museum). Both can be a subcategory of Category:Hunter Museum of American Art. Multichill (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, I'll create Category:Paintings in the Hunter Museum of American Art, Category:Sculptures in the Hunter Museum of American Art, etc. for use during the human review phase of the project (after the automatic uploads are complete). Please note that the 10 existing images are going to be deleted before then anyway, so don't pay much mind to them. Kaldari (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        OK folks, sounds like a good way forward to me.--Pharos (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you forget about this? I see a lot of uncategorized images pop up. Multichill (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        We haven't forgotten about it. The process is on hold at the moment, per Pharos. Kaldari (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot status[edit]

Please apply for bot status for User:File Upload Bot (Kaldari) at Commons:Bots/Requests. Multichill (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons talk:Licensing#How to interprete "The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable"?[edit]

Hi Kaldari, FYI, I have posted a new thread at COM:L, which relates to how to interprete an adjustment/clarification you implemented in April, 2009. --Slaunger (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:File Upload Bot (Kaldari)[edit]

Congratulations! It has bot status now. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Entrance_to_Wellington_Park,_Somerset.jpg[edit]

You just deleted File:Entrance to Wellington Park, Somerset.jpg despite the DR that was earlier closed as keep. Can you please correct your mistake. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good adminship to delete an image after another admin closed it as kept. Please undelete the image. Multichill (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring it :-). You do know that we usually keep original versions and don't delete things as "superceded"? --Tony Wills (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, the new image obviously superseded the original. The original had obvious haloing, stitching errors, poor color balance, and distortion due to choosing a bad projection algorithm. Additionally, if you look at both images at full res, you will see that the level of detail is comparable, as large portions of the original had to be up-sampled due to the projection. The original is completely unused and should never be used, IMO. I see no logical reason to oppose the uploader's wish to delete the original file, other than making sure that they become completely frustrated with Wikimedia and stop uploading files for us to use. Also, I think the closer's complete dismissal of the uploader's comments ("No valid reason given") was pretty insulting, especially considering that the uploader had waited several months for the request to be evaluated. So let's look at the scorecard: Commons gained 1 crappy, redundant image, but lost the good-will of a talented uploader. I don't see how that helps the project. Kaldari (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are an admin? You should know that the appropriate course of action is to re-open the deletion request, not over ride a decision made through normal processes here if you disagree with the outcome. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested that to the uploader, but understandably, she wasn't interested in waiting another 2 months to be curtly dismissed again. When did Commons become such a dysfunctional bureaucracy? Yes, I broke the rules, but I thought it was worth a shot to keep the uploader from becoming more upset (and needlessly so). Oh well, I tried. Kaldari (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't go spin this around. This is not about bureaucracy, this is about admins breaking our own rules and causing a lot of havoc. Multichill (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Loves Art[edit]

Dear Kaldari, did u start the upload of the images yet? Since Phase 4 was completed. Please update Commons:Batch uploading/Wikipedia Loves Art saying what templates are used and where images are categorized. I also find {{WLA}} placement with images to be very unintuitive. Wouldn't a substituted Information template be much better? With the description being wiki text, a template in the source saying that it's from Wikiloves art under XX team name and so on (First part of the {{WLA}} template. Then in author it would contain another template if you wish that contains the last part of {{WLA}}? Instead of just having this big bubble in the Description parameter. This would also make description improvement easier and give a better overview of the files.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Loves Art: Uncategorized uploads[edit]

It seems that some of the uploads only have the (hidden) WLA categories. Would it be possible to add at least one topical one, e.g. the suggested "Category:Paintings in the Hunter Museum of American Art" or at least a general Category:Hunter Museum of American Art one. I think this would make it easier for people to categorize them. I doubt people will dig them up in Category:Media needing categories as of 22 September 2009. -- User:Docu at 18:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We will be doing that eventually. The process is stalled at the moment, however. Kaldari (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Dutrieuc.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dutrieuc.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map of US Suffrage, 1920.svg[edit]

Hi. I thought User talk:Lokal_Profil#Potential featured picture? might interest you =). /Lokal _Profil 15:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it was something that caught my eye as a potential en:wiki FP. Lokal Profil very kindly added source information to the file. Do you agree this would be a good candidate? Durova (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it would make a good featured picture. It definitely has a lot of EV. Kaldari (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re File:Sandsculpting, Frankston, Vic jjron, 21.01.2009.jpg[edit]

Hi Kaldari,

Does this just sit there with the big deletion template for the rest of eternity now? --jjron (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. --jjron (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To prepare titles[edit]

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgLegalTitleChars. Multichill (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guitar_Wolf.ogg[edit]

File:Guitar_Wolf.ogg 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 has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

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 ∙ +/−

mahanga (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guitar_Wolf.ogg[edit]

File:Guitar_Wolf.ogg 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 ∙ +/−

Multichill (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico maps[edit]

You have reason, the licenses could cause problems. I will revert the changes. --Addicted04 (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Favour?[edit]

Hi Kaldari, would you be able to do a favour for me, please? This image has the wrong title and needs to be moved to File:Louis-Nicolas Robert 30 painted by his sister.jpg‎. From my experience, it's much easier to ask for these small administrative things than it is to jump through the hoops required when one is only a lowly rollbacker, ;-) If you'd rather I did the whole uploading a new one and requesting deletion of the other thing, that's fine, just let me know. Thanks! Maedin\^talk 07:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ryan, I appreciate it, :-) Maedin\^talk 17:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:John t scopes.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 Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 12:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Leonard Nimoy 1972.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 Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 13:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Exact or scaled-down duplicate[edit]

Hi Kaldari, when deleting duplicates, please always put the name of the superseding file in the delete reason textbox. Otherwise people will not be able to find it. Thanks and regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about migrated GFDL-en[edit]

Hi, I saw you listed under the migration task force and I have a question: if I create a derivative work of an image licensed under a {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated-with-disclaimers}} can the result be licensed under {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} (because of the "same or similar license" part of CC)? I'm asking because there is no license with disclaimer (I can find) that omits the "migrated" part. That question occured at the derivative work File:Ballerina-icon.jpg to which I added the license of the original, but it seems wrong because now the page states "This licensing tag was added to this file as part of the GFDL licensing update." which only happened to the original. Thanks Hekerui (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. Please see User talk:Dragons flight#CC templates with disclaimers. My opinion is that the disclaimers are not necessary if relicensing the derivative under CC-by-sa. You should be able to choose to relicense the derivative under GFDL with disclaimers, CC-by-sa (without disclaimers), or both. The confusion is due to sloppy wording of the GFDL 1.3. I'll let you know if I hear anything back from Dragon's flight on the issue. Kaldari (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:WLA lacma Emil Nolde Cows in the Lowland.jpg[edit]

Hi Kaldari, I'm about to speedy-delete File:WLA lacma Emil Nolde Cows in the Lowland.jpg, which you uploaded. The painter Emil Nolde died in 1956, so the painting won't enter the public domain until 2027. Pruneau^talk 12:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need your help at the Wikiproject medicine[edit]

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

I've responded to your comments at the village pump.[edit]

here. (Eventually I'll figure out how to use internal links for this matter.) Please give me something more substantial, or I'll presume that you are one of those finger-wagging snobs that I should ignore--unless of course, WC has been taken over by your likes. You might as well answer on this page--I'll be monitoring.Better than Hustler (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My user talk page[edit]

There's no real need to inform me on my user talk page every single time that you've replied to one of my comments elsewhere, unless you have some particular specific reason for thinking that I might not notice your comment (such as a long time having elapsed between comment and reply, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharky[edit]

Hi, as I'm blocked on en.wiki I can't leave notice on the Illustration Workshop, but is this the sort of thing you wanted? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clifden 0419c.jpg[edit]

Please restore the description page. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm¹¹⁶⁷¹ 20:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't seen already, there is a small thread on COM:AN. --Túrelio (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Florida location map[edit]

Hello
It's ok to make a version of this map without the scale if you like but I don't see well the necessity to modify the license. Asking to re-distribute the map under the same license is not a big issue imo and it grants (at least theoretically) that anybody will be able to re-use it under the same condition.
Sting (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the license is mainly related to derivative works. Because location maps are commonly combined with other data or graphics to create derivative works, copy-left licenses (such as cc-by-sa or GFDL) can be problematic. It is preferable that basic maps designed for derivative use be released under more permissive licenses such as cc-by or cc-zero. For example, if a GFDL or GPL graphic is combined with a cc-by-sa location map, the resulting graphic is unlicensable (as neither license can fulfill the terms of the other). We have to delete such derivative graphics from Commons fairly often. There is also the issue of consistency. Right now we have 49 cc-by US state location maps and 1 cc-by-sa US state location map. It would be unfortunate if someone had to abandon a project due to that 1 map with a different license (or didn't even notice that one of the maps had a different license than the others). Kaldari (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll do it. Sting (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New version of the map available here: File:USA_Florida_location_map_without_scale.svg. Sting (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PD review[edit]

Hi!

I write to you because you are listed here Commons:PD_files/reviewers#List_of_PD_reviewers.

The Category:PD files for review was flooded some time ago and perhaps therefore PD review seems to have stopped. After some discussion on Commons_talk:PD_files#Has_review_stopped? the category has been cleaned up.

Perhaps you would like to come back and take a look at some of the remaining files?

Thank you!

--MGA73 (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featured[edit]

Hello. Please look at some pictures I have uploaded so far at my user page. Are any of them good enough for voting for featured? Thanks, TEK (talk • e-mail) 04:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the two Statue of Liberty pictures. Which one is better? TEK (talk • e-mail) 03:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thiodina puerpera female 02.jpg[edit]

I have nominated this image for Valued Image status. Would you be able to geocode it if possible?

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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 ∙ +/−

—innotata 19:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logos[edit]

Desculpa mas não há como provar que os logos pertencem a qualquer marca porque são imagens destorcidas, talvez até parecem marcas mas não são criados com essa intenção. E o pior que sou o único criticado, só os meus ficheiros são refeitos e muitos usuários fazem isso e apreciam esses ficheiros porque eu não uso marcas, os logos estão na camisa porque são detalhes e não representam marcas. Você entendeu? Bruno-ban ^(talk) -- 17h06min de 17 de agosto de 2010 (UTC)

File:Ca 1920 Joseph Henry Sharp.jpg[edit]

File:Ca 1920 Joseph Henry Sharp.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 ∙ +/−

--Teofilo (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:WLA amart Self-Portrait 1918 Morris Kantor.jpg[edit]

File:WLA amart Self-Portrait 1918 Morris Kantor.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 ∙ +/−

--Teofilo (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Painting deletions[edit]

File:Blumenschein Superstition.jpg was uploaded yesterday. I found it in Special:Newfiles. I thought I was helpful browsing these new files, tagging some obvious copyvios with {{Copyvio}}, and less obvious, copyright status unclear ones with {{Delete}}.

After I found File:Blumenschein Superstition.jpg, I browsed the corresponding categories, and other similar categories, (File:Taos Society of Artists founders.jpg was the connection with Joseph Henry Sharp) and that is how I found your uploads.

My intention was to nominate only one or two, or four or five (among those which are the closest to 1923; the paintings, not the lithographies) but not the whole category.

I am sorry for saying what made you reply that you feel insulted. I didn't know you had been employed by the WMF. I said what I said because I am sad, because I can't fight against Mike Godwin.

I can't on one hand ask small uploaders to upload only files with a clear copyright status, and say nothing when the WMF pushes for massive uploads of copyright-unclear files. The WMF is destroying the precautionary principle.

So I need to leave this project, although it was a project I used to enjoy taking part in. I was back after an absence of many weeks, but I am leaving again. Some time ago I was called an "idiot" on the foundation list. The idiot is leaving. Teofilo (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear the slight was not intentional. I think you may have a valid point for some of these paintings, but I would personally like to see them kept unless there is some compelling evidence that they are probably not public domain. Considering that I spent nearly a year working on the Wikipedia Loves Art project, I'm sure you can understand my desire to defend the images from being deleted. I'm not trying to destroy the precautionary principle. I'm just applying it a bit more conservatively :) Kaldari (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marefa[edit]

Hi, take a look here. I need your comment Commons:Village_pump#Marefa. Thkx --Helmoony (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:WTN_PeepHoles_099.JPG[edit]

File:WTN_PeepHoles_099.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) 19:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with 2 pictures or are PD-OLD and PD-art tags useless?[edit]

Hello, Kaldari. Since you are both an administrator at English wikipedia and at Commons I believe you can help me out. I have an article which is being nominated to Featured status on Portuguese navigator en:Pedro Álvares Cabral. All that is left to the article to be passed are 2 images in it which an editor has issues with it. They are:

File:Pedro alvares cabral 01.png - a lithography made by George Mathias Heaton (1804 – after 1855) and Eduard Rensburg (1817-1898)

File:Miniature of Pedro Alvares Cabral.jpg - miniature made by Roque Gameiro (1864-1935)

On both pictures I used the PD-art tag due to the type of images and their authors' date of death. This editor who I mentioned says that it is not enough neither the tag nor the author's date of death. I need to prove that both pictures were also published before 1923. Is that correct? According to him, I need to prove that every single image I upload, no matter if the author died more than 70 years (or even in this case, more than 110 years ago), was published before 1923. So, if the PD-art and PD-old are useless, why do they exist at all? So the PD-1923 tag is the only one that we can use? If that's the case, why that is not told? Please, I would really like to hear an imput on this subject. P.S.: Answer me on my talk page, please. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kaldari. I'd like to request a favor from you. I have nominated yet another article as a FAC at the English-written Wikipedia. It is about José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco (Link: [1]), a 19th century Brazilian statesman. I'd like to ask you to take a look at the article's pictures and write in the nomination page if they are OK or not. I also made the same invitation to Dcoetzee and I wanted to see both of you giving your opinions there, since you are both administrators there and at Commons. Here is the link to the nomination page: [2]. Thank you very much for listening. I'd be very grateful if you could do it. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, George, John[edit]

Hi Kaldari,

License information for File:Paul, George & John.png is (and was already) provided under "permission". Best regards, Clausule (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry about that. Don't know how I missed it. The permission had been removed from several of the derivatives, and I guess I assumed they were all lacking permission. Kaldari (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem :-) Thank you for solving it again. Clausule (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco[edit]

Hi, Kaldari. I'd like to request a favor from you. I have nominated yet another article as a FAC at the English-written Wikipedia. It is about José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco (Link: [3]), a 19th century Brazilian statesman. I'd like to ask you to take a look at the article's pictures and write in the nomination page if they are OK or not. I also made the same invitation to Dcoetzee and I wanted to see both of you giving your opinions there, since you are both administrators there and at Commons. Here is the link to the nomination page: [4]. Thank you very much for listening. I'd be very grateful if you could do it. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Commons:Sexual content is ready for a vote[edit]

As discussed at Commons talk:Sexual content, it looks like people have finally talked themselves out about this policy and are ready to vote on it. According to the vote text I wrote up, which was supported in a preview thread, the vote runs for 10 days starting when the Commons site notice is altered to advertise it. Because you're the last person to edit the site notice and an uninvolved party in the discussion, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could look over this vote and, if you feel it's right to do, place the site notice advertising it and thus beginning the 10-day period. Wnt (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks alot for your suggestion, it appears to have worked. Fry1989 (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you are so kind.[edit]

Thanks man!

TCO (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a category[edit]

Hi, Kaldari. Could you be kind and tell me how do I change the name of a category? I'd like to move Teresa of the Two Sicilies to Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies as in its English-written article Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies. I also want to move Maria Amalia of Brazil to Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil as in its English-written article Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok! Cheers! --Lecen (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re[edit]

I have a response to your concern here: User_talk:Haha169#File_Tagging_File:Northern_mountains.ogg. --Haha169 (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. --Haha169 (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick n00b copyright Q[edit]

Hey Kaldari, help me out? I took a picture of some cool wall graffiti inside the Tower of London in January (you can see it on the Historic Royal Palaces site here, the second one from the top). Does my photo of it count as my own work or derivative? How does that work, license-wise? As My Very First Article,^tm I want to write about that Castiglione dude and include the pic. But I suppose that might also mean My Very First Commons Upload,^(tm) too... ahhh! Scary. Thx in advance! --Accedie (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original graffiti is both public domain due to age, and likely too simple to qualify for copyright protection anyway. You should mark your photograph "own work" and license it as you choose. Kaldari (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, as always! Enjoy your weekend, and I'll seeya on Monday :) --Accedie (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ An image you edited has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you edited was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Passer hemileucus (Abd al-Kuri Sparrow).

review

Blocking of User:Paddy[edit]

As i read on the noticeboard you blocked user paddy for making hard comments. Did you read my comments under the same topic? [5] For myself, i think that the behavior of user Citron itself was very provocative. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 01:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Hi there. There are two related deletion discussions that seem to have stagnated, as no admin has weighed in yet (c.f. 1, 2). They both involve images that were uploaded by a sockpuppet [6] of a banned Commons user, one Brunodam. Despite this, the user has attempted to participate in the discussion and sway the outcome in his favor. He has claimed both files as his own work, although each dates from at least the early 20th century. He has also misrepresented the subject and location of one of them, a file which was actually deleted in the past when he attempted to upload it using another account (deletion rationale: "Deletion of files added by NBDA: Abusive sockpuppeteer"). I have documented the specifics on each deletion discussion page, with the requisite links. Can you please have a look and help break the stalemate? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 05:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

Hello Kaldari. Could you move the File:Benedict Cumberbatch filming Sherlock Holmes.jpg to File:Benedict Cumberbatch filming Sherlock.jpg? (It is the real name of the TV series) Thank you very much ;-) --RanZag (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ansel Adams TIFFs[edit]

Just as an update, these are coming, but it may be a couple of days before I can get my hands on the external drive with the files, as it is being used for another project. Once I do, how should I go about getting them uploaded? Dominic (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Ansel Adams - National Archives 79-AA-Q01 restored.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ansel Adams - National Archives 79-AA-Q01 restored.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio issues[edit]

Hi,

I'm a non-admin Wikipedia volunteer who has a solid history of uploading pictures, usually without problems. People have emailed me pictures, and given me explicit permission to use them in Wikipedia. What I'm finding is that many of my pictures are being put up for deletion on what I consider dubious grounds -- that is, I feel I'm being picked on in connection with a brouhaha over the Paul Revere-Sarah Palin controversy by another user named User:CutOffTies. And I'm being asked to cross every t and dot every i. So, I'm wondering, can you please help me understand how to do the OTRS system? Must I have every person who took a photo, or if they're a person in in the photo, email explicit permission, one at a time? Or is there a way to streamline this process? Please note that I'm a volunteer who has given his time freely to help raise serious $$$ for Wikimedia Foundation (by doing an editing for donations project in which WMF got a serious check from an indie music label); it is unlikely I will keep volunteering if I am treated unfairly. Please help me understand what I should do to keep the pictures. And which persons or which forum can I turn to for help?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New mascot for WP Feminism[edit]

From the NARA uploads: Missvain (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sexually explicit bleck[edit]

Just wanted to bring this conversation to your attention which moved from WP:Feminism to Commons. Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Release_form_for_sexual_images_as_mitigation_against_child_pornography. I haven't participated yet (conversations like this take some serious patience and zen for me!), but, might chime in a bit. Missvain (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading bot[edit]

Hello Kaldari,

First, I would like to thank you for the picture uploading tool that you created. It is really useful for what we have to do for the Wikipedia takes Montréal contest. But I would like to report some bugs that make it a bit frustrating. First, the bot always stops after 30 pictures uploaded. So for some teams I have to stay in front of the computer to restart the bot manually (refresh the page then hit publish again). It would help a lot if I could just start it and come back when it's done.

Also, I think there should be a "Save" and "back to top menu" buttons in the pages made to review teams works. It's really a pain in the xxx when I have to go back to add a target that was forgoten or whatever I need to do.

I hope you can do something fast for the first point because it makes the process very long. If not, don't worry about it, I know we all have many things to do. Thanks again for your help and I hope we can work again together.

Letartean (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Walton Tutelina elegans male 01.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 may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Walton Tutelina elegans male 01.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).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Zygoballus nervosus female 01.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:Zygoballus nervosus female 01.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:Zygoballus nervosus female 01.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Denniss (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Zygoballus nervosus female 02.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 may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Zygoballus nervosus female 02.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).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Zygoballus nervosus female 03.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:Zygoballus nervosus female 03.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:Zygoballus nervosus female 03.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Denniss (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Hello, Kaldari. You have new messages at 99of9's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for moving the image. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move files[edit]

Hi! I wonder if you could be so kind and rename (move) two files that I have produced. In an errenous attempt to convert tif-file into jpg-files, I happened to name two files "....JPG.tif". This will probably not work well in the long run, so please either delete the *.JPG" mid-part of it, or delete the files alltogether. I have copies, and I have also managed to export them into jpg-files.

The two files in question are:

File:Adventdalen panorama 03.JPG.tif
File:Adventdalen panorama 04.JPG.tif ‎

The files are already uploaded as jpg, so a total deletion would not harm. Please see:

File:Adventdalen panorama 03.jpg
File:Adventdalen panorama 04.jpg

Question: Is .tif a feasible format at Commons? The files seem terribly heavy...?

Kindest regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply[edit]

I this comment on Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb_(de-adminship_2) you offered an excision which you thought supported Jcb's claim he only excised troll comments.

Did you look at his excision of this comment?

He had made a totally unaccountable deletion decision. His one nominal attempt to explain the deletion was insulting in its flagrant inapplicability. He never tried to offer a meaningful explanation.

Given how seriously he failed to fulfill his obligations to exercise the extra powers entrusted to him I think I was entitled to leave my comment.

His response is also very insulting. His bad decision wasted about 20 hours of my time, so his complaint that answering me was a waste of his time generates absolutely no sympathy with me.

As I wrote in the discussion this deletion gives the appearance of being made in response to inappropriate anger on his part over my having posed civil good faith questions to him that he was unable or unwilling to answer over his early refusal to explain earlier bad closures. I don't really care if the deletion was made in good faith, as if he had been complying with his obligations he never would have given the appearance of operating in malicious bad faith. If the deletion was made in good faith, his bad judgment in failing to explain himself, and his bad judgment in recklessly presenting the appearance of bad faith are sufficient to cause him to be stripped of administratorship, IMO. Geo Swan (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NewKaldari[edit]

The new and revised edition?! :-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carolina Gynning portrait.jpg[edit]

Hello. I'm curious as to your speedy deletion of File:Carolina Gynning portrait.jpg with the explanation of "(Copyright violation: Flickrwashed from Café Magazine (http://cafe.se/))". Did you notice that the Flickr user name was "Café Magazine" and the original version included a link to http://cafe.se/ entitled "There’s more at Café Magazine!"? Thanks for your attention. -- Infrogmation (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved at User talk:Infrogmation#File:Carolina Gynning_portrait.jpg. Kaldari (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You had even speedied it? This is totally irregular. You MUST notify uploaders if you propose files for deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a textbook case of Flickrwashing. Speedy deletion of obvious copyvios is normal procedure. Kaldari (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no Flickrwashing, but a publicity campaign by Magazine Café. See links in the DR that I linked to. You MUST notify uploaders. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look?[edit]

Hi, I noticed you're a Wikicommons admin somewhat active at Categories for discussion.

Can you take a look at this user [7] recent actions? The back story is that he just got blocked on en-wiki for edit warring, some of which concerned some images. He then came over here and created several inappropriate categories under dubious auspices [8] [9], nominated widely used images for deletion for no reason [10], removed appropriate categories from several images (for example [11]) and then proceeded to tag a whole bunch of images (too many to list) with just plain strange statements (for example [12], [13], [14], quite a number of others).

When I nomintated two of the categories he created for discussion he removed the relevant notifications from the category page [15], [16], [17], and even tried to remove the discussion page itself [18]

And of course he followed that up with obnoxious insults and personal attacks which he left on my talk page [19] and in edit summaries [20] [21] (and this is leaving out being called a "vandal" etc).

I don't orient myself that well in how things function on commons - either with regard to the details of the deletion processes or reporting abusive and obviously disruptive users. If you can help, thanks in advance.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Files you uploaded may be deleted[edit]

The files listed below, which you uploaded, have been tagged {{OTRS pending}} for more than 30 days. This tag indicates that an email setting out permission to use the file was sent to the OTRS team. Unfortunately, we cannot find any record that such an email has been received, and accordingly the file remains without permission. Unless the OTRS team receives evidence that permission has been granted within 15 days of today's date, the file will be deleted. If you have not sent the permission, please send it to "permissions-commonswikimedia.org" now. Please quote the file name in your email. If you have, please leave a message at the OTRS noticeboard, quoting the file name, so that a volunteer can follow this up. Alternatively, you can contact an OTRS volunteer directly. Please note that this message is being left by an automated bot, whose operator is not an OTRS volunteer, therefore please do not send this information to me, as it will not save your images from deletion. Thanks for your time! Please help translate this message! HersfoldOTRSBot^{(talk/opt out)} 23:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improving {{PD-USGov}}[edit]

Hi Kaldari, you might be interested in Template talk:PD-USGov#Improving the text. Multichill (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artist fields for the Walters[edit]

Kaldari, do you know what happens when there are multiple artist or when there are qualifiers like "style of" or "(?)" ? Descriptions like this or that are seriously flawed. --Zolo (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the multiple artists problem is a known issue. I'm going to fix those as soon as the initial upload is finished. The "(?)" qualifiers just mean that some piece of data is uncertain. Kaldari (talk) 07:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. I know what the "?" mean, I meant they had not made their way to Commons (admittedly my sentence was weirdly built). --Zolo (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "style of" and "(?)" is that we're using their artist IDs rather than their artist text (so that we can easily match to creator templates), but sometimes their artist text gives extra information that we also want. I'll look more into fixing these after the upload is finished. Kaldari (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bot HotCat is malfunctioning[edit]

Hi Kaldari.

I added or changed categories to the images with HotCat. But the bot is malfunctioning. Sometimes the bot delete the categories and the text. I reversed several 05:14 25 mar 2012. I've discussed in Coffee 05:20 25 mar 2012.

Thanks for warning me. Best regards, --JMCC1 (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not add the category "Ancient Egyptian art." Thanks, --JMCC1 (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see: [22] Great job! Thanks, --JMCC1 (talk)

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for all your hard work regarding the Walters collection. Great job!! Sarah (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editor[edit]

Hello, Kaldari. Since you're an administrator here, I'd like to request your aid. There is an editor called Pedro Aguiar who has been repeatly uploading wrong version of two maps I created for a Featured Article I wrote at the English Wikipedia: en:Empire of Brazil. The articles are:

It will be quite easy to you to see what is the main difference between the map I created and the newer versions he added (take a look at Brazil' limits to the northwest). Here is a map of Brazil in the 1850s taken from Brazil: the Forging of a Nation so that you may see which one is the correct version. You can also see a hand drawn map on this English written Emperor Pedro I's biography. Or if you prefer, you may see a 19th century map of Brazil on this other book. Either way, you'll notice that the entire are removed by that editor is present on all three maps. I'd like you to tell him to stop disrupting the files and warn him about this kind of behavior, please. --Lecen (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piri Reis - Map of the Western Coast of Greece From the Island of Levcas Going North as Far as Paxi Island - Walters W658141A - Full Page (2).jpg[edit]

Ryan, Do we need to keep File:Piri Reis - Map of the Western Coast of Greece From the Island of Levcas Going North as Far as Paxi Island - Walters W658141A - Full Page (2).jpg? I could not figure out a reason why we need it, when we have File:Piri Reis - Map of the Western Coast of Greece From the Island of Levcas Going North as Far as Paxi Island - Walters W658141A - Full Page.jpg. --Jarekt (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I must have accidentally created that when I was trying to reupload the image. Kaldari (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr[edit]

Hi, I dropped you an e-mail a day or two ago, related to Flickr imports. Did you receive it? It ties in with Commons:Village_pump#COM:PEOPLE_and_subject_consent, but I am not sure that page is the right place to discuss this specific sub-issue at this time. --JN466 17:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tan-gradient1.png[edit]

File:Tan-gradient1.png 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 ∙ +/−

FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorect author fix[edit]

See [23]. --Jarekt (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something wrong with this one too --Jarekt (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kaldari Platycryptus undatus 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Wonderful! --Florstein 08:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Thiodina sylvana female 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Wonderful! --Florstein 08:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kaldari Phidippus johnsoni female 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments It's wonderful too. --Florstein 08:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kaldari Phidippus johnsoni female 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Nice QI. --Selbymay 07:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Thiodina sylvana female 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 13:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS question[edit]

Hi Kaldari, would you mind looking at this OTRS ticket, please, and telling me what it says?

It concerns several images that keep being deleted, including File:Silver-Spring-monkey.jpg, which PETA told me they had released. But for some reason it's not enough. I've just uploaded it again, then saw it had been deleted at least once, so I would like to get it nailed down. Hoping you can help, best, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Hello, Kaldari. You have new messages at SlimVirgin's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

SlimVirgin (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on max allowed bot edit rates[edit]

Hi Kaldari,

I saw in the Saibo thread on VP, that you stated you are a WMF developer. Given that, maybe you could provide some qualified feedback to Commons talk:Bots#General questions not related to a specific bot?

Best wishes, --Slaunger (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walters Art Museum[edit]

Would you be able to look at the question I asked at Commons talk:Walters Art Museum? Thanks. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caption of picture[edit]

hello Kaldari. Thank you for your beautiful images.
For the accuracy of the legend of the picture, could you tell me what is the museum (name of city, region, country ...) quoted in the caption of this image / wiki / File: Zygoballus_concolor_allotype_dorsal_with_scale.jpg File: Zygoballus_concolor_allotype_dorsal_with_scale.
Thank you again. --F. Lamiot (talk) 07:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kaldari (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:MountSharp-MarsCuriosity.jpg[edit]

Hi Kaldari. While I do admire your tireless work here, I must comment that the deletion of the file above was a bad move (although I don't directly have a problem with that). For two reasons: 1, the files are currently being discussed; you could've at least waited till that was over or at least join the conversation. 2, when it comes to duplicates, we normally delete the newer file; the older file in this case is file deleted. Respectfully, Reh man 12:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of it?[edit]

Hi, Kaldari. Good to talk to you again. I have recently opened my ninth nomination for FAC. The article is en:Pedro I of Brazil. The pictures used in the article were almost all made during the subject's lifetime, which means that the authors died around 150 years ago. The exception are this painting, made by a painter who died in 1916 and two modern day photographs.

Now here's the problem: and editor has told me that the tags used in all pictures are wrong, and that I need to add the US PD tag, which is solely used for works published in the U.S. before 1923. I believe it's an unreasonable request, since as far as I can remember both "PD-Art" and "PD-100" tags are just fine. The other editor disagrees and said that they are not acceptable in the United States.

It doesn't make sense at all! Why do both exist, then? Anyway, here is the link (scroll down to "Image review"). Could you take a look and share your thoughts? I would be really grateful if you did. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:WikiAd for WikiProject Open Access.png[edit]

Hi Kaldari,

while playing around with {{OAMI}}, I was wondering whether you could provide a version of File:WikiAd for WikiProject Open Access.png that does not have the "Join" in it. Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to: Is it possible to get Image URI, imageinfo (like size for thumbs) of one category in one query[edit]

There is a possibility. Prove (using a "generator", only listing files). It would be kind if you could forward this. Because I don't like mailing lists for various reasons (prefer a system like stackoverflow uses for questions), I won't do it myself. Sorry. -- Rillke^(q?) 14:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should I explain this in detail, I am wrong or is there another reason why you prefer neither forwarding the message nor responding? Or is Ryan Kaldari at the mailing list not you? -- Rillke^(q?) 13:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this looks like a good solution. I'll forward it. Kaldari (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filenames with ampersands break the WLM Reviewer tool[edit]

When the WLM Reviewer gets to a picture whose filename contains an ampersand (I've encountered this with File:Silverspringb&o052.JPG), the places where the picture and full resolution should be displayed are left essentially blank. I don't know whether or not this is fixable; just wanted to let you know. Thanks for the tool! Ntsimp (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This should be fixed now. Kaldari (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you![edit]

Thanks for moving my WLM photos from test.wp over here and in way that they actually show up as my contributions. I expected them to be bot contributions and this is a positive surprise to see them as mine. Yay!:) Mutante (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted category[edit]

Hello!
I did not understand why you deleted the Category:Faria Bagh? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how would a photograph taken in 1880s fall under WLM 2012? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Licences[edit]

I see you are aware of the discussion on Commons FPs concerning licences. I've been trawling through archived dicussions. Your names shows up as someone who also wants rid of this GFDL 1.2 licence option. My reason for raising it at FP rather than Commons Policy was a concern there may be some weak case for allowing GFDL 1.2 images in exceptional circumstances or in combination with some other wiki project. It seems to me that some FP photographers are only using it as a back door NC licence, which I don't regard as anything to celebrate on a "free media" repository for "anyone".

I'm trying to understand the differences between GFDL and CC-BY-SA that might mean somone would legitimately use it (other than to approximate NC). There are hints on various pages that the SA portion of CC differs from GFDL and that the latter is more "copyleft". My understanding of CC-BY-SA is that someone can use my image in a book and that doesn't cause the book to become CC-BY-SA. Whereas if someone uses my image as a poster with a title overlaid, then that is a derivative work that must also be CC-BY-SA. Perhaps it is different with GFDL?

I would appreciate any help/guidance you can give, or a pointer to someone you know may be able to help. Cheers, Colin (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query file delete[edit]

Your edit summary here gives no substantive reason for removing a file that has only just been uploaded and released under a free license. It was already in the Signpost's draft "News and notes". Exactly why was it removed??? Tony1 (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot reviews[edit]

Hello!
I recently noticed that your bot User:File Upload Bot (Kaldari) is reviewing files. My understanding of Category:WLM 2012 India reviewed is the contents of this are eligible for award consideration. How is this bot doing this review? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. If there is no special reason to use bot account instead of yours, please use your account to do the WLM image reviews. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked your bot account. Once you give a clarification here, I will unblock your account. --Sreejith K (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of those reviews are by me. Naveen Francis asked me to build a reviewing tool for WLM India (which also CCed Yuvi Panda and Karthik Nadar). The tool is here: http://toolserver.org/~kaldari/reviewer/india/. It works just like any other toolserver tool - the reviews are performed by whoever uses the tool, while the actual edits are made by the bot account (since toolserver tools are not supposed to collect login credentials). If WLM India doesn't want to use this tool, just let me know and I'll turn it off. Kaldari (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So its actually you personally seeing each image and reviewing it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, none of the reviews are by me. I have no involvement in WLM India other than building this tool. Kaldari (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: You might be confusing Category:WLM 2012 India reviewed with Category:WLM 2012 India nominated. The later category is the one that includes images eligible for awards. Kaldari (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In such case i do not exactly understand how this tool is any different from manually checking images.
Also you are right about my confusion. There are three categories of Category:WLM 2012 India nominated‎, Category:WLM 2012 India reviewed and Category:WLM 2012 India unreviewed‎ with hardly any good role descriptions. Nominated one are the image which jury has selected for the awards' consideration. Now what exactly is the difference between reviewed and unreviewed is not clear to me. I had, some time ago, asked somewhere if i could be of any help in moving files from unreviewed to reviewed. I don't think i got any answer to that. Hence i assumed jury is doing that too. But then i saw this bot changing categories and was puzzled. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly how India is planning on doing it. In the US, they had volunteers doing the reviewing and then the jury would just evaluate the images in the nominated category. When an image is reviewed with the reviewing tool it moves the image from unreviewed to reviewed and then optionally to nominated if the image is supposed to be nominated. It's supposed to work the same as manually reviewing them, but be easier and more efficient. I assume it would be OK to still manually review them, but you might want to check with organizers to see what they prefer. Kaldari (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see! Thanks for the info. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. Earlier we planned to use Ryan's tool. Since Jury was 6 members we have to move to WLM jury tool. We will delete the three categories to avoid confusion . --Naveenpf (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what I understand is that moving images from unreviewed to reviewed/nominated category is not doing any good. The jury is using another tool anyways. I would recommend Kaldari to take down his toolserver page so as not to confuse people. Also, the next time you are configuring a toolserver page to use this account, please state that in the bot user page. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tool I built isn't really for juries to use, it's for volunteers to nominate images for the jury to consider. I feel sorry for your jury if they have to review 16,000 images! But I'm happy to accommodate whatever you want to do. I'll go ahead and take down the page for now. Just let me know if you want me to put it back up or create something different. Kaldari (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. Thanks for the clarifications. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ русский ∙ slovenčina ∙ српски (ћирилица) ∙ srpski (latinica) ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ українська ∙ +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012!

Dear Kaldari,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world!

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 350,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from 36 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 2012.

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Message delivered by the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 notification system on 11:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-wo.png[edit]

Thanks for improving the logo. Maybe wmf:Wikimedia official marks/Word mark creation would use some more instructions on how to do it correctly, when/if you have time. Thank you! --Nemo 11:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heptathela kimurai yanbaruensis[edit]

Hello, you recategorise File:Heptathela.kimurai.yanbaruensis.female.-.tanikawa.jpg from Category:Heptathela yanbaruensis to Category:Heptathela kimurai (here). But why ? It's not a Heptathela kimurai yanbaruensis spider ? Because in "The World Spider Catalog, Version 13.0" : http://research.amnh.org/iz/spiders/catalog/LIPHISTIIDAE.html, if the description is correct, it's Heptathela yanbaruensis. Cordialement - Goudron92 (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It looks like Heptathela kimurai yanbaruensis was promoted to a separate species in 2009. I've fixed the categorization. Kaldari (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - Goudron92 (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Small upload photo button.png[edit]

Hi! Would it take much time for you to create the same button but with text Завантажити ("Upload" in Ukrainian)? I'll appreciate your help a lot. Thanks, --DixonD (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to do this soon. Kaldari (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HELP[edit]

PLZ help me about this [24] that is not shown. someone has moved original pic and then everything tended to disorder!Alborzagros (talk) 09:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be fixed now. Kaldari (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. Alborzagros (talk) 06:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eyes of a Female Jumping Spider - Phidippus regius - Florida.jpg[edit]

File:Eyes of a Female Jumping Spider - Phidippus regius - Florida.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 ∙ +/−

ComputerHotline (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mother carries her child.JPG[edit]

Hello!

I have noticed that you have deleted the file in question. Can you please expand your deletion rationale in order to show how are dealing with the fact that this image comes from a stream of a professional photographer who possibly has that required permission. Thank you in advance. --High Contrast (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The closing rationale says "No evidence of consent." Since the photograph was taken in Spain and the subject is identifiable, we need to have some evidence, any evidence, of consent. This can be as simple as the photographer stating that he had the subject's consent. If you could get the photographer to add such a statement to the picasa page or email it to OTRS, I would be happy to undelete it. If you believe this decision was incorrect, I'm also happy to discuss it further, as I'm certainly not infallible :) If it were a portrait photograph, I think we could reasonably assume consent, but in this case it does not seem certain that consent was given. Unfortunately, due to the laws of Spain, we must err on the side of the subject's right to privacy, per Commons:PEOPLE. Kaldari (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I am perfectly aware of the law situation in Spain. Your rational seemed to be incomplete, as such I was asking you. "No evidence of consent" - I see. I did not know that this sentenced was intended to express what you were writing just above. Would be nice to have such a long rationale in order to give other users to understand what brought you to this decision. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll elaborate on the deletion discussion page. Kaldari (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! Kindest regards, High Contrast (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another redraft of Photographs of identifiable people[edit]

Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people#Another redraft

I would very much appreciate your comments on this redraft. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2013 (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 09:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year[reply]

Commons:Photographs of identifiable people[edit]

Hi Kaldari,

I think there is sufficient agreement to move the draft User:Colin/People to replace the existing guideline page (obviously with a few tweaks to add categories, etc). The complication is that a few people have editing the draft and so I think, per copyright licence, we need to ensure they are credited in the history. I can't find info on that on Commons, but what I found on Wikipedia confused me. I think it might be permissible to move the content over and simply refer to the old draft in the edit summary with a link. Then the draft can be blanked. However, perhaps a more complex admin move is needed where history is kept. Do you know? -- Colin (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I usually just do it the old fashioned way—copy and paste the new material into the old article and list the contributing users in the edit summary. Kaldari (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well in my desire to do things properly, it seems we've ended up with a mess -- a history that is less than a month old. See discussion on the guideline talk page. I think we should have done it as you said (and/or with a link to the draft, which I then turn into a redirect) but I guess it will need an admin to move the old guideline back and then paste in the new material. Could you do this? Colin (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WLM question[edit]

Hi, are you responsible for wikilovesmonuments.us? Mono 23:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I'm an admin on it. Matthew Roth or Aude might be 'responsible' for it, but honestly I'm not sure exactly who is root on it. Kaldari (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helping me move a category[edit]

Hi Kaldari. No rush on this, but, I was hoping you could help me - I want to move this category Category:Images from World Digital Library to Category:Images from the World Digital Library. It hasn't been protested by anyone, so I think it's okay to move. Please let me know what you think (and if you can help). Thanks :) Sarah (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Image[edit]

Yes for Shared Parenting - med.jpg[edit]

Kaldari Comment

File:Yes for Shared Parenting - med.jpg Appears to be a derivative copyright violation: http://www.imagechef.com/fr/t/arbc/La-permission-de-parking Kaldari (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

My reply:

Yes it is a derivative i.e it is a template with my additions.

http://www.imagechef.com/ic/search.jsp?mode=3&tag=yes

However it is certainly not a copyright violation.

The template was purchased by me from Imagechef.com. This was for business use. Therefore the image can be used as I have used it. This is also in accordance with the Imagechef "Terms of Use".

As evidence of this, there is no watermark (deleted by Imagechef) and the file is much larger then the sample provided (as indicated by Imagechef when you purchase the template).

Extract from the Imagechef web-site:-

ImageChef is free for personal use. Become an ImageChef Pro user to get new features and rights for business use!

Choose a Single User License Plan

1 Month = $10

4 Months = $30

One Year = $80

BEST VALUE

Benefits

No Ads!

Remove ImageChef logo and watermark from images you make

Tools to resize images to exactly what you want

Use ImageChef images for your business newsletter, professional blogs, flyers, advertisments and more

Higher resolution images (30% bigger for most images)

Access to 'Silver Level' effects in the Sketchpad tool

New content and features added every few weeks!

Terms of Use

Unfortunately, those terms of use are not compatible with Commons' free license requirements. We require that images be released under a free license that permits unrestricted reuse and redistribution. A single user license is restricted to a single person or business's use. Kaldari (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kaldari[edit]

I've started off some requests for the more obvious batmobile images, listing them at discussions here:

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The Tumbler

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Batmobile (1995 Batman Forever)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Batmobile (1966)

If you want to just wait a week or two and do nothing, the category contents should be reduced to a manageable size for you to continue and finish off with the harder ones and so on, leaving just what is allowed. Penyulap ☏ 20:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

just go ahead and edit the list I made directly, I don't mind you editing my remarks in the DR, where it says <s> and </s> and FOP or whatever, just delete it as you please and add [[:Image:battypic.jpg]] to the list, not the : before Image in [[:Image:battpic.... (or File instead of Image, Penyulap ☏ 22:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]