2006 Q3[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Copyvio?[edit]

Image:Grzegorz Rosiński - Aaricia.jpg - mr Rosinski draw it for me, I'm owner of this drawing - so also copyright holder. what's on your mind? Image:Jerzy Urban autograph.jpg - it was a signature from letter sent to me. if I wan't, I can publish any part from my correspondence. or maybe I'm wrong? maybe first you'll wait patiently for my answer before delting pictures, OK? Arek1979 15:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry - I was wrong, it was my huge mistake Arek1979 15:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, as you appear to have realised, copyright resides with the creator of a work. I don't get the right to distribute copies of a film simply because I buy a DVD of it. This also applies to individual copies that were gifts. You can sell, give away, or destroy your copy of it, but the right to control copying (hence copyright) resides with the creator.

Secondly, I didn't delete the images. I tagged them as copyright violations, which I believe they were, and administrators (Raymond de [1] and Ejdzej [2]) apparently agreed that the tagging was appropriate and deleted the images. I am sorry if you felt that they acted too soon, but I have no control over that. Understandably, I guess administrators are quick to delete copyright violations in order to protect the integrity of Wikimedia Commons.

—LX (talk, contribs) 13:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Q4[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Category:Maps[edit]

You are vandalizing the subcategories of Category:Maps. Stop immediatly! --Juiced lemon 11:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before your changes, the subcategories were properly sorted. You don't see all the subcategories on the first pages because Category:Maps contains unsorted pictures, while it should contains only pages and subcategories.

The solution is to sort the pictures, not to unsort the subcategories. --Juiced lemon 11:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should have noticed that you didn't change the number of subcategories displayed on the first page. When you unsort a subcategory and put it on the first page, the last subcategory of the first page goes away. --Juiced lemon 11:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for assuming good faith!

I'm not vandalising the subcategories, I'm sorting them so that they show up on one page (not unsorting them; appending the appropriate sorting keyword after the leading space will ensure they are still in alphabetical order, and if all subcategories are sorted in this manner, all of them will appear on the first category page). I agree that in the long term, the images in the category should be sorted. (If you look through my edits, you will see that I was also in the process of doing that. I hope this doesn't count as vandalism in your book too.)

However, this process will be assisted by being able to get an overview of the subcategories without browsing through multiple pages. As an example of the sort of problems created by not being able to overview the subcategories, we have not one but two duplicate categories of Category:Religion maps. (I also cleaned the duplicates out and tagged them for deletion. Again, I hope you don't feel that this was vandalism as well.)

—LX (talk, contribs) 11:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my poor vocabulary. I have realized that my last assertion was wrong, since near all pictures are sorted into the letter I. However, I still think it was a curious idea to change the subcategories classement.

Generally, we put only noteworthy categories on top of the list, as special categories which are sorted according to criteria. For maps, the general form is “Category:Maps by <criteria>”, but we have also Category:Maps of countries. In particular, if you don't put Category:Maps by theme in a prominent place, you'll have duplicates. --Juiced lemon 13:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, glad we could resolve it and get things to a point where the discussion is rather moot, with all the categories showing on the first page. The space-prefix is something I've done in the past on Swedish Wikipedia, usually as a first step in a category cleanup process, and my experience is that it works quite well and helps a lot.

I do like to think of it as a temporary tool, since the goal is almost always to reduce the number of items in large categories, so now that the category is a single page, I have restored all the categories to sorted order (except the continent ones, which I presume there is consensus to keep before other subcategories, although I think, contrary to the commentator on the talk page, that there is a need to group them in a subcategory for continents). If you want to promote Maps by theme in the sorting order, I won't object. Generally, I think we should try to reduce the number of subcategories by grouping them in more broad subcategories which we would need to introduce.

I also found another duplicate, Category:Maps of the Oceans, a duplicate of Category:Maps of oceans. All dupes were created by the same user, so I asked them to be careful not to create more duplicates.

—LX (talk, contribs) 13:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know what is a continent for categorization purposes in Commons. I talked in the village pump about a similar subject without result. --Juiced lemon 14:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there's an agreed system. Looking at en:Continent, it seems Category:Maps is currently applying the somewhat rare six-continent combined-America model with Oceania being used instead of Australia and with the addition of the Arctic (technically not a continent because it has no land mass). This might be convenient because it allows the Americas to be subdivided into North, Central, and South rather than wondering what to do with Central America in a split-America model. The main point is that I would like to get Maps of Africa, Maps of the Americas and so on into a subdirectory that collects them all. We can worry about the details of those subcategories later. I'm holding off since I've seen at least one voice against it, though. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transport in America and some subcategories were badly named, so I took the opportunity to change to the seven-continent model, like in the first image in en:Continent. I suggest to do the same thing about the maps. --Juiced lemon 21:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Q1[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Morlachs maps[edit]

Alex, I am new to Commons wikipedia and I am sorry for my mistakes. I am correcting the information on the "Morlachs maps", as you requested. All the maps were in my old computer databank, so I have made the mistake of believing they were copyrighted. I have just found that two (Hungary with turkey in europe.jpg and romanian origin map.PNG) are already (!) in wikipedia commons. The other two (Bosna2.jpg and MORLACCHI.MORLACCHIA.jpg) are from old maps in my databank. The fifth (a photo I have done some years ago, and scanned on my computer) is a personal creation, and you should decide the classification if you don't agree with me. I hope to have solved the problems, so you can remove the tags. Have a happy new year. Bruno.--Brunodambrosio 21:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Alex. I'll do the requested corrections. Bruno.--Brunodambrosio 16:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images marked free for private and educational use[edit]

ref Orkney pages in de.wkipedia and your comments ...

Whatsoever might have been written/left on the pics/maps themselves or in the description: Everything was clearly labled and licenced GNU/CC from me the author. I simply got rid of such stupid discussions and will delete all my contributions to WikiCommons and/or de.wikipedeia, both texts and pics/graphs. Nice to meet you ... Islandhopper 14:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bildetik/regler[edit]

Hur illa är det att registreringsnummer på bilar på en parkeringsplats syns i bilden Image:Lugnet.JPG? Finns det regler kring sådant. Och hur är det med privata hus i t.ex. foton från villastadsdelar? Radera gärna Lugnet-bilden om den inte är OK. Jag vet ej hur man gör. Skvattram 15:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Skvattram! Jag har letat lite, men inte lyckats hitta att Commons skulle ha några regler angående registreringsskyltar. Däremot hittade jag Category:License plates, så det verkar ju inte vara några problem. Sedan vet jag inte om personuppgiftslagen har några märkliga invändningar, men i de flesta länder gäller att man inte kan ha särskilt höga förväntningar på integritet på allmän plats. Jag är inte administratör här på Commons, så jag kan inte själv ta bort något. Om du hittar något som tyder på att bilden borde bort kan du anmäla den på Commons:Deletion requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing derived images[edit]

Continued at User talk:Tintazul as per notice at the top of this page.

Help please[edit]

Could you please help me. I requested deletion for two images Image:Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant 1.jpg and Image:Charadehepburn.jpg and you rightly noted that they did not conflict with copyright policies. I have uploaded new versions of the same images without the URL stamp that I thought was problematic. I should have just done that in the first place. I don't know what to do now. Should the deletion request be closed? Should I now remove the tags from the image pages? Thanks. Rossrs 11:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, deletion requests are only closed by administrators. I don't know whether or not it would be in accordance with common practice here for the user filing the request to withdraw it. If it is, I guess you would simply follow the instructions for administrators. It might be wise to ask an experience administrator first. In any event, an administrator will probably close the issues without deletion within a week or so, unless someone comes up with a reason not to, seeing your comments. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fair so I will wait and let it run its course. Thank you for your advice. Rossrs 13:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50px[edit]

- How do I give myself permission to upload this image? --Profero 09:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Commons:Email templates. You could also ask the original author to put a statement on his web site adjacent to the source placing it under one or more free licences and link to this. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I took the picture - why don't you ask me for permission to use it? I'll give it to you. --Profero 23:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image originally said "uploaded with permission from photographer Robert E. Haraldsen". This implied that the uploader and the photographer were two different people. It looks okay now. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why do admins at wikicommons hate freedom of artistic expression ?[edit]

I understand that Europeans elected Hitler willingly, but that was over 60 years ago. Why is facism slowly creeping back into the European mindset?

Please ask yourself: What would the world be like if photographers were restricted to taking only photos with "consent of subject"? We surely would lose millions of beautiful images. As far as I know, only taliban destroys photos of human beings. This is what European culture has become?

Now all my photos have been flagged for deletion. This is obviously in retaliation to my first appeal. Wikicommons admins clearly punish all resistance, a sick kind of electronic gestapo that tolerates no dissent.

Please have a look at my other candid photographs and explain why they are being deleted. Graham Wellington 19:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally agree with requiring permission for photographic subjects, but if the law in the country where the photograph was taken requires it, we have to respect that. Like I said on your talk page, you're unlikely to rally support by antagonising others. —LX (talk, contribs) 04:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Gerhard[edit]

Hej LX!

Jag har nu kompletterat Karl Gerhardbilden med uppgift om källa. Som framgår faller den under PD såsom tagen av okänd fotograf och publicerad före 1944. /FredrikT 15:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Smile[edit]

Hi, I got an answer from the Chapter's Secretary. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Order of Smile.svg. Kpalion 13:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maps, maps, and more maps[edit]

Hi! re: Category talk:Maps (please join the discussion, because This edit is very contrary to what is going to go on with any map--they'll all eventually have tons of different map pages categories. The correct move on that date would be Maps showing the history of the Late Middle Ages and Maps showing the history of the High Middle Ages because of "Roughly spans the years: 1000 AD—1300 AD;", emphasis on the roughly. The map re-categorization project (sic) has been on going here since May, paused over the late late summer and fall, and is soon to be a many handed steady effort again... Please share your wisdom with us.

And then also that 'Europein1328.png' page's talk, considering this: [3], where the accuracy of the map is in question. Do you know whether there is a resolution group here to turn to on that issue? Nice to meetchya! Regards // FrankB 18:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC) (P.S.--I'll fix that cat issue now, need to go to that talk anyway.)[reply]

That was a few thousand edits ago, so I can't say exactly what I was thinking. I believe my concern with Image:Europein1328.png was that I thought that Category:Maps showing 14th-century history was a subcategory of Category:High Middle Ages (via Category:Maps showing the history of the High Middle Ages) and Category:Late Middle Ages (via Category:Maps showing the history of the Late Middle Ages; this would be similar to how Category:Maps showing 11th-century history is categorised, and perhaps it ought to follow the same scheme, as I seem to have assumed it did).

If this assumption had been correct, the map would have appeared in multiple levels of the same hierarchy. As you might know, this is called overcategorisation, which should be avoided. Diagrammatically, here is what I thought the partial category graph looked like and where the image was categorised:

Category:High Middle Ages ←
- Category:Maps showing the history of the High Middle Ages
  - Category:Maps showing 14th-century history ←

Category:Late Middle Ages ←
- Category:Maps showing the history of the Late Middle Ages
  - Category:Maps showing 14th-century history ←

Category talk:Maps is on my watchlist, I do express my views there occasionally, and I have taken an active role in the categorisation of maps (mainly helping to move broadly categorised maps from Category:Maps to its subcategories.

I'm afraid I know far too little history to comment on the accuracy of the map. Maybe some kind participants of en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages could help?

—LX (talk, contribs) 03:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with your thought process... save I'd have killed the parent Middle ages categories, as clearly it's a map and should be in a rib off that skeleton, so to speak. Whether it should be listed in both the latter kind, or just one with the centuries being arranged under the period span is something we need to hammer out. They are both periodization schemes, but only the centuries one is fully in place on the commons. On en.wp, there is a set of articles matching a navigation template... so that is a work in progress here, and I'll have to further explore what was happening over there. WikiP's server is currently down, so I came here for a bit.

I'm an engineer, but have an avocation in history, and I don't know the answer to that one myself. Thanks for reminding me to research it a bit more. As we get into modern times, such periodization classifications will become far more complicated as at the same time the body of work to be classified will be far larger, whilst fitting such into any era category save 'Contemporary times' may well be impossible--hence the finer discrimination of the by centuries blurs much in our recent past and present. I think I just convinced myself the maps by centuries should be the tagging cat, and the other hold those!

I sort of consider the wide-timespan categories in periodization as aggregations -- galleries collecting a lot of all in the era by type data. A similar case would be coins or pottery by era. Do late Roman empire coins and Greek coins from the era of the Persian wars belong together? Both are in 'Antiquity' per current era classifications, so I would say so... if it's recognized as such a 'tracking category', not as a primary schema in and of itself. Regards -- thanks for the long answer. I'll refer this to that talk. // FrankB 00:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auroranorth[edit]

Please keep discussions where they started, as requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stereographic polytope 8cell.png[edit]

Please keep discussions where they started, as requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mellotron[edit]

Please keep discussions where they started, as requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chourah[edit]

Thanks for picking it up - again! I've protected them from recreation now which hopefully leave us with time for other things - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 11:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Mangareva 2006[edit]

Please keep discussions where they started, as requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image "Lost Temporada 3"[edit]

Please keep discussions where they started, as requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is the correct procedure, but I'm newbee here, please be patient. The user, who uploaded that image (Temporada 3), uploads now Image:Lost_Tercera_Temporada.jpg. I think this is copyright infringment, but i'm not sure (otherwise I insert speedy delete). I apologize for my english. Bye. ELBorgo (sms) 19:28, 18 Mar 2007 (UTC)

Free Pictures[edit]

Please keep discussions where they started, as requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please delete[edit]

Would you please go ahead and delete Image:D2JSP screenshot.jpg for me... I forgot about the fact that the image would only qualify as fair use. I have uploaded it to wikipedia instead. Thanks! Pedant 19:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't – I'm not an admin here. However, it's been tagged as a non-free screenshot, so its deletion should be imminent. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make a warning template for Copyvio claim to don't be[edit]

Hello, I found thqt you edit this :

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALainhRien&diff=4847730&oldid=4847516

And I perfectly agree with you, for 'This case', and for 'such cases'. We have new vandals uploading copyrighted image under free licenses. For such cases, we need to put then face to the fact that the uploader is legaly responsable of the copyvio. This case becoming frequent, I think we need a new template.

I did the template "{{Wait}}", but it may be (and need) both improvement and renaming. Please feel free to improve and rename the template {{Wait}}, to have a more efficient tool of warning.

--Yug (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC) (administrator too ;)[reply]

Yeah, you might have noticed I got some inspiration for the wording from your post on the village pump. :) I threw together {{User:LX/Copyright claims}} for now.

I'm not sure about your idea of integrating warning and blocking messages. It would be good for us non-admins to be able to warn users without claiming (incorrectly) that they've been blocked, and warning users give them a chance to show

that the work really is their own or
that they hadn't understood what they were doing (giving them the chance to come clean by tagging their own uploads for deletion) or
that they intend to proceed in bad faith, ignoring all warnings. (If and when this happens, blocking is in order.)

—LX (talk, contribs) 14:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, I have the same idea : we have to send a kindly notification, to encourage them to make good contributions. And obviously, we have not to block them on the minute.

In the template Wait, we can change :

"you were block" by "...from now, you may be block to allow copryrigh checking..."
The Wait name, by {{User seeming in copivio}}, or something like that (my english is not good enough to make shorter)
add a section such "you are legaly responsable of your upload [...] wikimedia may share the informations keep about you [...]"

Can you build something in this 3 ways with a "Standard English" ? Then it will be ok to add it. ;]

(In fact, the work is almost exactly to merge Wait and your User:LX/Copyright claims)

Yug (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I started by substing the {{Wait}} template on user talk pages where this hadn't been done, to avoid changing the contents of messages that have previously been left on user talk pages. (Substing templates with headings also helps avoid editing of the template, as the edit link for the heading leads to the template unless it's been substed.)

I'll make some changes to the template in the next few minutes based on this discussion. Please keep an eye on it, and let me know of anything you don't like or anything you think I've overlooked.

—LX (talk, contribs) 17:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Let me know what you think. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship for Tintazul[edit]

Hi LX! I have proposed myself for adminship; please go to the nomination page and support me with your vote. Thank you! – Tintazul ^talk 11:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to think about this for a bit, and I notice in the meantime, you appear to have effectively withdrawn your request. I do hope that you are not too disappointed with the outcome, and that you continue to contribute to Commons as you have done for the past couple of years.

To be honest, I would hesitate to support your request. The willingness to experience what adminship is like, both from a social and technological perspective, indicates some level of curiosity, which I think is a good thing, so that didn't bother me. What did bother me is the solicitation of votes (particularly as you not only encouraged people to vote, but to vote in a specific way) and the discussion we had earlier about licensing of derivatives of GFDL-licensed works.

I'm sure you've learned from that discussion, but my fear is that it might indicate that there are other weak points in your understanding of this complex area, which I think is absolutely crucial to Commons administrators. I know I could be wrong here, and I know I set the bar high here, but sorting out licensing issues is the most important job of administrators here, so I do want to err on the side of caution.

That said, we do need Portuguese speaking administrators to deal with the increasing quantity of copyright violations of Portuguese speaking uploaders, and you do have a long history of valuable contributions, so it's not a simple decision to make.

—LX (talk, contribs) 01:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Please keep discussions where they started, as requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Q2[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Adminship[edit]

I wanna nominate you for adminship... Yonatan ^talk 13:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I really appreciate it, and I think I could make good use of the extra tools in the janitorial work that I already perform. Right now is not the best time, though. I'm in the process of moving to another city for work, and arrangements are a bit temporary until I move into my new apartment at the beginning of May. (This is also the reason it's taken me some time to respond.) I won't have much access to a computer that I feel comfortable editing Commons from until then, which means I won't be able to answer many questions that might follow a nomination. I also wouldn't have much use for the extra tools until things settle down. I'd be happy to accept the nomination in a few weeks, though. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me know when you want me to nominate you. ;) Yonatan ^talk 17:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think I'm somewhat settled in at my new place now, so if you still want to nominate me, I'm ready to accept it now. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't like people responding on your talk page, but I've nominated you. ;) Yonatan ^talk 14:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't mind, so long as this is where the discussion started. :) Thanks a lot! —LX (talk, contribs) 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French[edit]

Hello, i'm french and i don't speak english, but you can remove the images of players because I have in fact taken the images on wiki.en! Sorry!!! I did what it was necessary for the shirts ! thank you!!! Guigui59 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland Review Cover[edit]

Please keep discussions where they started, as requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:50, 29 May 2007 (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 ∙ +/−

LX/Archive/All, 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.

EugeneZelenko 15:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! :) —LX (talk, contribs) 18:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Stella[edit]

Hi,

I´ve seen you´ve deleted an image by a picture of mine, portraiting a work by Frank Stella. The image was freedom of panorama. The allegation used to delete it is that it was not located in a public place. This is wrong. The work belongs to a a Brazilian public museum (University of São Paulo - Museum of Contemporary Art), vinculated to a State University, with free entrance, which allows visitors to take photos. I didn´t understand the reason for deleting it, could you explain to me? thanks —the preceding unsigned comment is by 201.6.179.194 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all state-owned buildings are public places, and freedom of panorama typically only applies outdoors. Furthermore, it only applies to works permanently placed in a public place, and the work in question did not appear to be permanently installed. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, I´m confused. I´ve read what the code states ("Works permanently located in public places may be freely represented by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes."). The work in question belongs to the permanent collection of the Museum (it is registered in the institution´s inventory under the number T.42.857.06), therefore, it is permanently installed in that place. My doubt is about the "public places" and the meaning it has. You stated that this applies only to outdoors, but I´ve seen a huge number of pictures portraiting works of art in inner places in Commons, under the Freedom of Panorama license. So, why public places means "outdoors" for some and "indoors" for ohters? —the preceding unsigned comment is by 201.6.179.194 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the image and nominated it at COM:DEL instead to see what others have to say. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin statue[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User_talk:Nickel_Chromo#Image_Tagging_Image:Stalin_statue_in_Budapest.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion tag at Commons?[edit]

Hi, I followed a link from someone's userpage to newpages, and found Mike Stephens. It looked like nonsense/vandalism, so I tried to tag it the way I would have at en — with {{db|Nonsense}}. I'm not really familiar with Commons. I saw that it said my deletion request was incomplete, so I started looking around to see what I should have done. When I got back to the Mike Stephens page, I found that you had deleted it. Is there not some quick tag that I can use on Commons for something that's obviously meant for speedy deletion rather than for a week-long vote? Thanks. ElinorD 22:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for your efforts at tidying up around here. Yes, it was vandalism (criminal hate speech and defamation, actually). The users who made the "contributions" have been blocked and their other actions have been reverted. As you noticed, {{Db}} is used for deletion requests for less obvious cases, which are discussed at COM:DEL. We have {{Speedy}} for speedy deletions in obvious cases. You can also post a message on the administrators' noticeboard or (the quickest way) get on IRC and holler "!admin" in #wikimedia-commons on irc.freenode.net (that's how this vandal came to my attention). —LX (talk, contribs) 22:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all that. I'll be sure to remember it. Cheers. ElinorD 22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you a question, please?[edit]

Hello, LX.Here's the question: Let's say I uploaded a nice image of a very common flower. Let's say that Wikipedia photo library has many images of the same flower and the same or better quality. I wonder, if my image is going to be kept and, if it is, for how long. If the image is going to be kept, I wonder what is the purpose of keeping the image?Thanks--Mbz1 02:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]

Unless there is some compelling reason not to keep it, such as licensing problems or extremely poor quality (the subject being completely out of focus, for example), the image should be kept indefinitely. The purpose, as I understand it, is to provide alternatives which may work in different situations and to showcase multiple examples of what the flower might look like. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcio Benvenuto de Lima - Help me about upload that image Fx.[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Marcio Benvenuto de Lima. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you.

Image:Grab Werner von Fritsch. Berlin. Invalidenfriedhof 2004-09-25.jpg[edit]

The User had Uploaded only one pic und the german text says: "Own Work". I don't know the Picture, but i think ist is possible. --Fg68at de:Disk 06:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to doubt the source, but we also need a license, which the uploader failed to specify. Without a license, we cannot legally use the image. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaic[edit]

HI... It looks like you deleted Image:Gentian_from_slovakia.JPG Would you mind fixing the Mosaic? See STOP!!!! DO NOT DELETE THIS IMAGE TILL YOU REPLACE IT IN THE WIKIMEDIA LOGO MOSAIC which we hoped would stand out when people did what links here before or after deleting, and which explains what to do... The mosaic is one of the most highly viewed pages on commons since it was named off in a press release. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c

To be honest, I didn't check "What links here," as I generally trust Commons Delinker to do a better job at cleaning up after deletions at all Wikimedia projects than I could ever hope to do manually. I'm not really familiar with the mosaic project, but I'd strongly encourage the project participants not to use unlicensed images. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a project that used 1200 images!!!! (and it is over with, the press release was at the time of 1M image files)... that is a lot of images and it is inevitable that a few images slip through, and this particular one seemed to have a good license. CommonsDelinker hasn't a prayer of fixing it if you delete an image, as the image references are embedded in deeply nested template invocations and the fix is to find another image to replace the one, not just remove it.. that leaves a hole. Let me know if you will not be able to fix it. But if you do, you can tell your friends you were in on one of the neatest commemorative projects ever. :) ++Lar: t/c 23:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done (I hope). —LX (talk, contribs) 06:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and very nicely done, too. Thanks muchly. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 22:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, and locator maps[edit]

Hello -- thanks for your praise and for the information. Boldly, I am replacing the locator maps already in place for European countries, which seem to have a weird projection and (in my opinion) are unappealing. Anyhow, I will try to make an effort to categorise these (and other) images as I upload them.

One note: in the coming days, I intend on creating and uploading locator maps for all European countries, not just those of the EU. If there's another or complimentary category I should be using, please let me know. Thanks! Quizimodo 11:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. There is a category called Category:Locator maps for African countries in Category:Locator maps for countries, which sets a precedent indicating that it would probably be reasonable for you to be bold and create Category:Locator maps for European countries as another subcategory. If you do, also move Category:Locator maps for EU countries into it. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Like it says! Plus would you care to look at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wolf-n-horsy.jpg - you closed the other one that was uploaded at the same time. As I was involved I'd prefer to avoid it - if not no problem - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Foxie_with_player.jpg[edit]

This image wes uploaded by the original author licensed {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}. You deleted this image commented "Not appropriate material for Commons". It has value for the projects as much as everything in category Erotic art. It is uploaded and used in ru-wiki. Please explain where in Commons:Project scope is written that such image is outside project scope. 82.199.102.55 00:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 82.199.102.55,

That's not true. I deleted it with the comment "Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Foxie with player.jpg". The consensus of this debate was that the image should be deleted, which was also the conclusion of the undeletion request which you filed. I'm afraid nagging won't do you much good around here.

Pornographic images of animals are widely considered obscene in the United States, and as such, hosting such images on Wikimedia's servers in Florida would be illegal. Clearly, the scope of Commons or the notion that Wikimedia projects are not censored does not extend beyond the boundaries of the law. Just like we don't host obscene images of children to illustrate articles on child pornography, you'll simply have to find other ways to describe articles on animal porn.

—LX (talk, contribs) 06:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xcv47x[edit]

You recently refused an unblock request for Xcv47x (talk · contribs). Just letting you know that this user uploaded yet another image with a blatantly false license. Looks like, despite the user's claims he would stop violating our image policies, he has no intention of adhering to policy. --68.148.89.74 19:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright violations have been deleted, and the user has been blocked indefinitely. Thank you for your vigilance. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hola en español please, no entiendo lo que dices[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User_talk:Brutanza#Copyright_violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you.

Helping User:Brutanza[edit]

Hi, LX, I'm Santiperez, a user from es:Wikipedia, and I am trying to help Brutanza with his problems here in Commons. I think he now understands that he can't upload images of CDs or posters, but he has doubts about Concert tickets and fliers. Are they acceptable, or are they considered "derivative work"? You can answer me in English and I will translate your answer to Brutanza and try to explain it to him. He is not a troll, he is just a confused starter, please have patience. Thanks for your help and comprehension, --Santiperez 22:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC) P.D.: I've left a copy of this message at Brutanza's discussion page, so you can continue the discussion there if you want[reply]

Hola, hazme saber si cumpli con el proceso subir archivos, esta foto es de mi propiedad, yo la tome, Image:Víbora Julieta Heineken-2006.JPG gracias--Brutanza 01:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help about cuban image[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Elnecio#Image:FidelGuerilla.JPG. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you.

My uploads[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Horv.petya#Copyright_violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you.

2007 Q3[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

La chaine RTE[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Gavigan#Fair_use_is_not_permitted_on_Commons. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RTE logo[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Gavigan#Fair_use_is_not_permitted_on_Commons. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you.

Image:Paint NET screen.jpg[edit]

Hi! Thanks for your patience and resolving this licensing problem :] Sorry for my mistake :? Regards, patrol110 19:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

77bcr77[edit]

Merci de m'avoir prévenue, 77bcr77 18:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mail[edit]

You have it! Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth edwards etc.[edit]

ok

You must delete them please Image:GARETH EDWARDS.jpg...

Effectively, it's better...

Thanks

Ddfree 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Other speedy deletions[edit]

Hallo,
can you look into that category ? It overflows, because of a bot-error. Augiasstallputzer 18:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot deletion[edit]

Hi, LX: a couple of years ago I uploaded Image:ProgressQuest_Screenshot.png to the English Wikipedia. It was a screenshot of an MIT-licensed program (Progress Quest), and I explicitly renounced any personal copyright claim to it. At some point someone else apparently in good faith contributed it to Wikimedia Commons and deleted it from English Wikipedia. I was running Windows when I took the screenshot -- this didn't appear to matter at the time, but last week, you deleted the image from Commons because images containing visible Microsoft Windows widgets are apparently no longer allowed here.

This has resulted in a broken image on the original English Wikipedia article. I no longer possess a copy of the original image and it now appears to have fallen off the web completely. Even though nobody individually did anything wrong, the cumulative end result of this process is that my contribution was destroyed, and the wp article subjected to wiki-entropy, for what appears from the outside to be silly procedural reasons.

Would it make sense in such cases to move the image back to the English Wikipedia (which allows "fair use" images) instead of destroying it forever?

(I'm actually wondering how Commons can contain any photographs at all under the union of the strictest possible interpretations of all copyright laws everywhere: how would one contribute a screenshot of a Windows program to Commons in the future? Is just removing the window decorations enough, or would the presence of buttons and scrollbars contaminate the screenshot? What about photographs where a Windows or Mac OS desktop is visible on a monitor in the background? What about photographs that contain portions of a car or other industrially designed object visible in frame?) --Saucepan 02:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that we've ever consciously accepted screenshots containing parts of non-free software. User:Liftarn who transferred the image to Commons incorrectly tagged the image with {{Free screenshot}}, which already then stated that the image does not contain any elements of non-free software, a statement which did not apply to this image.

As a courtesy, I've uploaded a version of the image where I've cropped out all copyrightable non-free Microsoft Windows widgets and undeleted the image description.

—LX (talk, contribs) 09:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrol[edit]

Hi LX. Thank you very much for delete user page and block Wherethef***karethepicturesofferrol. Best regards. --Prevert^(talk) 20:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I'm trying to keep an eye out for these vandals. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Upload/sv[edit]

Hi LX! I noticed you have worked on this. Is it complete? If so I can get my bot to update the navigation links etc so they match the Swedish. cheers --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, it's complete. I think I've taken care of all the labels for all the "svsomething" language codes as well. You can have a look at my Mediawiki namespace contributions and see if I've missed anything obvious. Thanks! We still haven't changed the left-hand side menu to point to the Commons rather than the Special version of the upload page. I thought I'd announce it on the Swedish VP to give people some time to find my mistakes first. Finally, good on you for your part in reworking the upload process. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing[edit]

Hello! There are 6 types of licensing my own work, but I can find none of their description, so I can't tell the difference. Could you please help me with this? Thank you in advance. Pagan 16:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I've understood your question right: you're wondering about the differences between the licenses that you can choose to apply to works that are entirely the result of your own efforts, is that right?

The most popular licensing options here at Wikimedia Commons are the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and one of the free Creative Commons (CC) licenses, some combination thereof, and releasing works into the public domain.

There are a few varieties of the CC licenses. The Creative Commons Attribution (CC-by) license grants the most freedoms to those who use your works. Essentially, they can use your work for any purpose, so long as they credit you. The Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (CC-by-sa) license is a copyleft license, meaning anyone who wants to distribute modified copies of your work must license their modifications under that same license. Thus, a CC-by work can be modified and turned into a non-free work, while a CC-by-sa license guarantees that all derivative works are equally free.

The GFDL is similar to the CC-by-sa license in that it is a copyleft license. The ideas behind these two licenses are relatively similar, but subtleties in the wording have legal implications that one needs to study the license texts in detail to grasp completely.

Releasing the work into the public domain is similar to the CC-by license, but whether or not attribution is required may depend on the jurisdiction.

Many users also choose to multi-license their works under a combination of, for example, GFDL and CC-by-sa, to let the recipients choose which license they prefer.

I hope that addresses your question and makes things a bit clearer. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough evidence[edit]

LX, I sure hope that you have best intentions in mind as you contineously question the permission I got for pictures from my articles I uploaded to the commons. I obtained written permissions from authors, however I cannot provide texts for public viewing as they are distributed between several messages (for example, in one message I ask a person to allow me use of the pictures from his site, in another one they reply, but they do not cite my original quesiton, for which I do not blame them), also these messages contain my personal information which I do not want to share with the world. I hope you share my view point. Even I forwarded you (and by the way, why you, may I ask ???) or permissions designated email address in commons some of those pieces of emails, what kind of evidence is that. At some point, you people have to learn how to trust words of other people. It amazes me that you are so overprotective against good citizen, while vandals and trolls are just doing their stuff without asking. Should I continue?.. I already written that I obtained permission from authors. So, nagging authors for kinds of permissions that would satisfy your curiosity would do the trick?.. I don't think that was the original intention of Wikipedia. Best regards. Avetik 22:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My intentions are to ensure the integrity and safekeeping of Commons and to ensure that we do not host images with licenses which we are not certain the author approved. I hope we can agree that these are good intentions.

As the {{No permission since}} template explains, you have to "provide a link to a webpage with an explicit permission. If you obtained such a permission via email, please forward it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and reference it at upload." E-mails forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org are stored in OTRS and visible only to a limited number of trusted users.

I too wish that we could simply trust everyone uploading material to Commons, but reality is that we can't. We get hundreds if not thousands of uploads every day from people who violate copyright laws and Commons policies out of ignorance or deliberation. Permissions in particular are an area where appropriate procedures are not followed. Uploaders often request permission to "use the work on Wikipedia" when what they need to ask is under which free license, if any, the author would like to publish the work for the whole world to use, modify and redistribute for free or for profit. Authors often reply in a manner which does not clearly assert authorship and a license grant. Uploaders, again, frequently interpret such imprecise responses frivolously and select license tags which cannot actually be inferred from the authors' statements.

Then when the author finds his work, which he thought he contributed only to the wonderful, non-profit Wikipedia project, being distributed, modified and sold elsewhere because of statements made here, Commons is looking like a pretty good target for litigation (even if it's the uploader that's ultimately responsible).

And that's why we have to be so diligent. Please add evidence of the permission granted and please don't remove problem tags without fixing the actual problem. Images without such evidence will be deleted.

—LX (talk, contribs) 23:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining yourself so well. So, apparently I am one of many confused and ignorant folks who want to do a good thing, but are somehow trapped in these regulations. Seems like it is a systematic problem. Well, I am still learning the rules, sorry, I missunderstood your intentions. I will try to contact authors again and solicit a clear release statements from them. Thanks again. Avetik 02:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent email to permissions box. What's next? When that warning tag will be removed? Just curious. Avetik 11:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next, someone who has OTRS access (I don't) will review the permission statement. In the meantime, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tags with {{Otrs pending}}. If the permission looks okay, the reviewer will then replace this with a tag which references the specific OTRS entry. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User blocks[edit]

Let me know if you would like CU on those - I see autoblocks kicking in? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems they gave up. Thanks, though. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administratörhjälp[edit]

Hej, skulle du som är administratör kunna ta en titt på MediaWiki talk:Readonly. Jag la ett meddelande med Template:Editprotected där för tre veckor sedan, men det verker inte vara rätt sätt att få administratörers uppmärksamhet. /90.229.135.239 12:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo now GFDL[edit]

Hi LX,
I contacted the owner of the promo photo of Josh Woodward you deleted earlier, and was able to convince him to licence it as GFDL. Thanks for informing me of the bad licence! (Link)
- Lasse Havelund ^{(p) (t)} 22:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hhello[edit]

Hello Lx! As you might have noticed I´ve just uploaded this img:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Discurso_central_do_brasil.jpg

Since it was linked on the pt-wk ([4]) and there is a warning from brazilian Army, isaying it is allowed to work with ... Filomena

The stated source, http://www.exercito.gov.br/01Instit/Historia/sinopse/historia.htm, returns a 404 Not Found, so there is no evidence that that's indeed the source or that they published the image under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license, as you have claimed. Therefore, I have tagged it as missing permission information. There is also no sign that it was posted to Flickr, as you claim since you tagged it with {{Flickrreview}}. Generally, it is better to ask first if you're unsure about whether or not an image may be uploaded to Commons or which license you should use. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Crespus2006. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 12:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Violations[edit]

Dont be that harsh mr LX.Actually when you take a look at a few of them you will then be able to know that the images are not copyright vios...the one named as kunjah textile mills is the logo of a textile mill and they dont stop you to publish it or use it in an encyclopedia, and the one named Shrine of Ghaneemat is from the cam of a person as the name is given there in the pic.It is the pic of a shrine that is in my city... so what is wrong with them??? remains the question of the others i accept that i have downloaded them from Google but i thougt thay they were free as they are the pic of living persons.....so what do you think?Adeelbutt88 18:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a chat with Adeel on the English Wikipedia, and I think he understands what he did wrong now, so there shouldn't be any need for a block. Remember to assume good faith! ;) --Diniz 19:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied where the discussion started. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is it ok now?[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Talgraf777#Image_Tagging_Image:Adam_Jerzy_Czartoryski1.png. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 14:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

how?[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:StarWar55#Image_Tagging_Image:Artur_BalderBW.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 14:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:JohnCenaWWEChampion.jpg[edit]

Can you please delete Image:JohnCenaWWEChampion.jpg. I originally uploaded it and I noticed that the uploader from Flickr said that this image is also used on his obsessed with wrestling profile. ––StormyXXX 22:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done —LX (talk, contribs) 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You —StormyXXX 22:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Carly Colon in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg and Image:Carlito-ICchamp.jpg[edit]

Again I just noticed that both of these images were on obsessed with wrestling. So could you please delete them. --StormyXXX 22:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tahnks again. --StormyXXX 22:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bob Holly in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg, Image:Sho Funaki in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg, etc.[edit]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a second here. I would like to make a comment on this before you go on a deletion spree here. As far as I'm aware, the author of the photos donated the images to OWW for use there as well. I'll contact him over at FlickR about this. --Oakster 14:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they were originally from OWW. --StormyXXX 14:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one, the images Static uploaded were all from the same house shows held at January 15 and August 12 [5], so it's not like they're randomly picked. Secondly that page I just gave you is their coverage of house shows. They don't host photos for specific house show or even televised shows for the last few years, only photos for specific wrestlers. Either way, I've notified the author now. --Oakster 17:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I was going to file a deletion request rather than speedying anyway, since it involved so many files. In any case, the Flickr captions do raise some questions, and I guess they could be interpreted in several ways, so I think we really do need some clarifications. If we get confirmation that the Flickr uploader is actually the photographer, it would be good to document this with an OTRS ticket to avoid further confusion. Of course, if that happens, I'll also undelete the images already deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:I Dont Know.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Gwilherm_Al_Leonad#Image_Tagging_Image:I_Dont_Know.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 18:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Andros64#Please_remain_calm_and_collegial. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 18:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

re:[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Andros64#Please_remain_calm_and_collegial. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 19:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Log in problems. Can you help?[edit]

I am currently logged in under my correct username, but I am afraid I recently may have inadvertently changed my password when I attempted to create an account at wikipedia. So now I am afraid to log out.....because I am not sure I can get back in again later.....Am I right to be concerned, or are usernames distinct between wikipedia and wikimedia commons?

KnowItSome 21:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User accounts at different Wikimedia projects (such as Commons and the different language editions of Wikipedia) are all independent from one another (at least so far: there is work being done to change this, but nothing actively deployed). If you have an e-mail set in your preferences, you should be able to get your password e-mailed to you in case you've forgotten it. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MikePhish.jpg[edit]

Hi, thanks for fixing my omission of a license from the subject image in this edit. Also, you will probably be interested in my post to User talk:RunLikeAnAntelope. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I have no problem with the addition of the {{Flickrreview}} tag, which only formally noted that I verified the license on Flickr, which is true (and was implied by my edit summary). I probably should have added it myself. But yes, double license tags seem a bit silly. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

imagenes[edit]

holA yo no habia visto las otras advertencias.

y que licencia le pongo a las imagenes de kingdom hearts--Fefefe 15:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User_talk:Stahlkocher#Do_not_blank_your_user_talk_page. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 13:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I answered you on my talk page. May i now life again in peace? -- Stahlkocher 13:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are so right. May i now blank it again? -- Stahlkocher 14:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thing you now became hostile and uncivil. What a big step forward. I added a OTRS number. May i now live again in peace? -- Stahlkocher 14:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Commons:Disputes noticeboard#User:LX_and_User:Stahlkocher. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FOP in germany[edit]

Hi LX, you made my day with this edit: [6]. Since now the Germon-FOP became suddenly "non-commercial". Well, thats wrong. It actually is "non-derivatve". Also not sufficient for commons. Like this Image:Petter Solberg 2006 Rally Australia Dwellingup.jpg image. And you obviously have no allowance to use it for commercials. To make it worse, FOP it is not a question of taking the image, but of publishing it. In germany (and probably is most countries, who cares). A small difference, you know? Just have a look at Category:Buildings, so much copyrigted work, over and over, no sources, no copyright-owner....

I wish you the very best and that you may trace down any so called "copyright-infringement"! -- Stahlkocher 15:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Microsoft Sign on German campus.jpg at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Microsoft Sign on German campus.jpg. I've copied your comment there and responded there. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help![edit]

Hello, I've just seen your name on the recentchanges page. I need to delete these two images:

The first is an unuseful copy of Image:600px Rosso scuro e Nero.png (which I noticed too late), whereas the second is no longer needed as I substituted it with another, less generic image. I also created this deletion request page.
Could you please delete these images? Thank you very much. --Freddyballo 18:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the first one as a duplicate. You may tag any other duplicates for speedy deletion with {{duplicate|Image:Other file.jpg}}. The reason you've given for deleting the second one doesn't fall into Commons:Deletion guidelines#Speedy_deletion, so I'll just let the deletion request have its course for now. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I reworded my reason in a better way, is it OK now? --Freddyballo 18:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cascabelcolombia.jpg[edit]

I note you haven't nominated Image:Cascabelcolombia.jpg for deletion yet, you might like to know its possible source is [7], same picture, same filename, site has copyright notices but I don't see any particular attribution for that image. Hope that helps :-) --Tony Wills 13:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the infringing image. Thanks for your detective work! —LX (talk, contribs) 18:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wolf-n-horsy.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to Commons:Undeletion requests#Image:Wolf-n-horsy.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 18:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Image:Order Zasługi RP.jpg[edit]

I wouldn't like to take part in nonsensable edit wars.For your information : The previous uploaded Order Zasługi RP was self-made. I've inform Polarlys that www.polska-ukraina.pl, where he found the copy of this photo is a page of my own.

Reuploading this image I've given the source as www.polska-ukraina.pl , and notice, that in any questions an doubts it's easiest to mail directly to andros@polska-ukraina.pl.

In case of deleteted images of Order of White Eagle, it was photos of exhibit from free exhibition of Polish Governmental Mint (their products) and it is possible that this particular exhibit ( The Highest Polish Order - product of Governmental Mint) was photographed not only by myself :)). But it is not the case.

In any case there are illegible photos ( without any individual features which make possible securing it by copyright law according to regulations of Berne Convention and Polish copyright law). The are simply photos of artefacts made by photograph-amateur.

All these I've written on the page of discussion. Two days after images were without any further discussion deleted. ( Take a look at the page of discussion)

There were made several year before, so argument of Polarlys, that to proove the authenticity of my work I have to give photo of professional resolution is unreasonable and unjustifiable. Besides it is curious , unusual, simly - just unexpected request for uploader.

I reserve to return to this question in the future. However - first - free use of self-made work is copyright violation the same way as an masturbation is a rape.

In this case we have no copyvio at all, and the deletion was unjustifiable and unreasonable. For today it is at least evidence of copyright paranoia and overactivity of some of our collegues.

Best regards:

Andros64 07:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to duplicate messages regarding this matter on my user talk page. I am watching your user talk page and Commons:Undeletion requests. I have responded at your user talk page. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Your letter. I used to reply everytime directly to my interlocutor. By the way : the term "overactivity" is IMHO just simply constatation of fact and in every activity in area of Commons we have IMHO take into account the principle of Common sense first.

All the best. Of course I'll do respect common rules and procedures , but there are binding for everybody , esspecially admins in Commons , who are people of common trust. All the best: Andros64 17:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Paint NET screen.jpg[edit]

On 30 June 2007 You removed my screenshot from Wikimedia Commons and posted in my user talk. Thanks for your advice :) Now screenshot is without M$ widgets ;) But when i was browsing category Free screenshots i was totally shocked :!: There are many graphics like mine former (with widgets). Maybe it's time to look carefully what was hosted at Commons? Regards! patrol110 13:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the widgets on the toolbox windows? I'm still quite concerned about that... As for other screenshots of Windows widgets, I'm sure there are more out there. I think I was going through Category:Windows Screenshots when I came across that one, and I know there is more work to be done in other categories. Unfortunately, the admin staff are a few volunteers short here, so we do have several backlogs of things that need to be looked into. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chamaeleo chamaeleon Frightened thus black.JPG[edit]

Hi. You appear to have deleted Image:Chamaeleo chamaeleon Frightened thus black.JPG. What warning tag was on it? Would you please consider undeleting it while I email the uploader requesting licensing? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged with {{Own work}} since 2005, and no license had been specified during that time. I've undeleted it and changed {{Own work}} to {{Nld}}. It will be deleted again if no license is provided within a week. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted pictures from Red Rooster[edit]

You have deleted following pictures:

The given reason was, that screenshots of copyrighted software are also copyrighted. I am sure you don't know that the software "CDex" is released under GPL! Thus, the screenshots are GPL too!

Please tell me if I can upload them again without the fear that they are deleted over and over... Or was there any other reason why the pictures could not stay longer? Is there a way to restore deleted images? Red Rooster —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.56.80.165 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite familiar with the licensing terms of CDex; that's not the problem. Please see User talk:Red Rooster#No_screenshots_containing_non-free_Windows_widgets.2C_please and Commons:Licensing#Screenshots. Deleted images can be restored (see Commons:Undeletion requests), but images which do not comply with Commons:Licensing will not be undeleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read Commons:Licensing#Screenshots and could not see any reason why the screenshots was deleted. CDex is released under GPL and this makes screenshots of this application legal for wikimedia-commons. Please tell me which content did not fit the commons-licensing, because I could not see anything in the screenshot that is not GPL or at least LGPL... Red Rooster 16:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Screenshots are copyrighted if the displayed program or operating system is copyrighted." The screenshots showed copyrighted elements, such as window decorations, drawn by the non-free Microsoft Windows operating system. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so please tell me, how I can create legal screenshots (without Linux). Do I only need to cut off the window decorations? Or do I have to setup "wine" on Linux to create that damn screenshots? Red Rooster 15:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe cropping away the window decorations would be sufficient. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abono para sembrar flor[edit]

Please check this user, he created a sockpuppet account and it keeps uploading copyvio images, I can't remeber the sock's name but I know it was his original username with a number, it uploaded this image File:Cibernetico el mejor.jpg and linked it to Wikipedia [8] please check the image's history to find out his sock's name, thanks. -24.138.194.124 18:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Abono para sembrar flor3 (talk | contribs). Please see also Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Abono para sembrar flor. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. Sorry I couldn't look into it sooner, since I was away. I also deleted Image:El buki en AWC.jpg, which was uploaded with self-attribution using the sockpuppet account. Since the original block was made because the user uploaded images with false authorship claims, I'm reluctant to believe any such claims made while using a sockpuppet account. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Artur BalderBW.jpg[edit]

Please, tell if its all right now. Thanks. Sincerely yours, --StarWar55 22:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't say who created the photograph, which is needed with the GFDL. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cerro_Espiritu_Santo_1999.jpg[edit]

Hi, LX. According to this history log you deleted this file because it had no license. According to this and this she was never warned about it. As she did not have a link here to her usual page in es.Wikipedia then, I can understand that you did not left a message in es.wiki, however you should have given her a warning in he user page here, even if her contributions in Commons are not many. She is the author of the picture and she would like the picture to be restored in order to tag it with the suitable license. Could you please do it and let her know here? Thanks. --Piolinfax ^{(Tell me)} 10:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the user tagging the image with {{Own work}} did not notify the uploader as the template instructs, that's unfortunate, but uploaders are told at the time of uploading that images without licenses may be deleted without further notice. The image had been tagged as missing a license since the day after it was uploaded in October 2005. That's more than 19 months to notice the problem. The user also failed to add source information to other uploads despite being given notice.

Nevertheless, I have restored the image, tagged it with {{Nld}} and notified their user talk page here on Commons. (As a matter of principle, I don't copy Commons talk page templates to other projects to accommodate users who don't wish to discuss Commons-related issues on Commons, as this requires a lot of manual work and re-linking; if they don't want to monitor their Commons talk page, they can simply tick a box to activate e-mail notifications in their preferences.) The image will be deleted again unless licensing information is supplied within seven days. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx LX :). I registered in Commons 3 or 4 months after its creation and I am not totally sure that 10 months later (around October 2005) uploaders were told at the time of uploading that images without licenses might be deleted without further notice but I am quite sure that not such a notice was provided in Spanish those days. Catibel knows some English but she is not fluent with it, that is why I offered myself to let you know about her pic.

I have let Catibel know about the restored pic (probably she would have seen it anyway now but just in case) and hopefully she will add the license soon. Please notice that no Commons sysop needs copy Commons talk page templates to other projects; a short message and/or a link to the relevant page already tagged would do the trick... that procedure is not for discussion but for simple and basic notification. Anyway I am not especially surprised because unfortunately, it seems to be a common procedure in a big part of the few Commons sysops I know. I am a sysop myself and I know about the pressures and problems of it but as a matter of principle I would never delete anything without a previous, proper warning (other than vandalisms and obvious copyright violations, of course), regardless any previous set warnings the user might have come across. Anyway, thanks once again for rstoring the photo and for your time --Piolinfax ^{(Tell me)} 15:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Svenska/Swedish Polling Templates[edit]

Hi. Would you please take a look at Category talk:Polling templates#Credits? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO YOU COULD BLOCK TO A USER?[edit]

IF I REQUEST A FAVOR TO YOU, DO YOU ME MAKE ME, YOU COULD BLOCK TO User:Cobaes04 TO UPLOAD PRIVATE PHOTOS, PLEASE.Alx 91 04:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user has not made any uploads since November 2006, so it doesn't seem like a block is necessary. Also, please remain calm and civil, and refrain from yelling at your fellow contributors. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Cobaes04. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlinking deleted images[edit]

Hi, as I see in the deletion log, you deleted "Image:Pine.cone.jpg" ‎with No license specified since 2005. notice. But, there are still two pages which link to this image - pinus and pinus sylvestris. Would you be so kind to unlink such images in the future? Regards, Nova 10:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought User:CommonsDelinker would have taken care of that. Thanks for the notice, though. It's been unlinked. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Q4[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Image Tagging Image:Johnny_hallyday_(2003).JPG[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Ixnay#Image_Tagging_Image:Johnny_hallyday_.282003.29.JPG. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 22:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

I'm the brother of the user Cadenamado1, but he create many account becouse he have images of a concert of gwen stefani, he upload this photos to Flickr but, when he upload this pictures to commons, many user eraeser all pictures. you can help us for modiffy the license the photos in Flickr, remember this pictures are of my brother!!!. thanks for you collaboration. this is the page of him in flickr: flickr —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Fernando12 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The files were deleted in accordance with the consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Cadenamado1. If you wish to dispute the deletions, please use Commons:Undeletion requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Šenjug-kata-Tampere-2006.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Thierry Caro#Image_Tagging_Image:.C5.A0enjug-kata-Tampere-2006.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 22:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry. You're right. There is a potential problem.

By the way, I voted

Keep. Thierry Caro 23:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

again me[edit]

I need your autorization, I can upload the images to commons? see this pages with my explication: the last item. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Fernando12 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests is on my watchlist, so I have seen your comment. Please be patient and allow me and other volunteers time to look into the issue. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Goodrem photograph ([9])[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User_talk:TheKillerAngel#Image_Tagging_Image:Delta_Goodrem_in_Concert.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 19:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"Fraudulent authorship claims"[edit]

A few months back I uploaded File:Delaware Shunpike.JPG onto Commons, a map I'd made using Google Maps. Today, I got an email notice that someone had said it might not be acceptable, and then very shortly afterward, you deleted it, marking it "Fraudulent authorship claims" and to look at Commons:Licensing. I can't really find anything there applicable one way or the other, but I'd like to know how I can avoid having my images deleted in the future. Jonpin 00:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using Google Maps or taking a screenshot of it does not make you the author or copyright holder of its contents. See the copyright notice at the bottom of the page and the terms of use to which it links. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion/Flickr/Puppets[edit]

Let me know if you want a hand but you seem to be ok with it at present (I agree with your position completely & I am watching for puppets), cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I always appreciate a second opinion. It would be nice to see someone else comment on COM:UNDEL as well. Since I carried out a large number of the deletions, I think it's in order that I comment on why I did, but if I'm the only one who comments, it could easily seem like it's personal or like I'm the police, prosecutor, judge and court of appeals judge, and that wouldn't be very good. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - however the last couple of times I've dived in there I've had bad experiences. I'll certainly watch it more though, regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flickrwashed copyvio[edit]

Hello, Alex. I noticed you recently deleted a few images I uploaded from flickr. Note that I'm not blaming you, your argument makes perfect sense to me. I was wondering what we can do to prevent that flick user to hold those images on flick violating their copyright. I mean, I was using Magnus' FlickrWatch tool to search for images to ilustrate Cape Verde-related articles, and most of the images that appeared there were from this guy, caboindex (that's actually the name of a cape verdean website. I bet that site is full of copyright infringements, but let's not go that far). So, what do you think? Waldir 07:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as the Flickr upload form states, one needs to keep in mind that Flickr users often don't know about copyright, so use common sense to evaluate the likelihood of the Flickr uploader being the copyright holder. Things to consider include the size of the full resolution version (copyvios are often, but not always, low-res), vastly different styles of photography for a single uploader, and geographical anomalies that can't be explained by normal travel habits. My favourite clue is probably exif data showing that the uploads were taken with several different cameras, and this is something that a bot could check for and either prevent the upload or at least give notice to a human to investigate.

Unfortunately, Flickr's copyright violation report form leaves a bit to be desired; it basically assumes copyvios will only be reported by the copyright holders. Maybe some of the users who frequently interact with Flickr could lobby for a more streamlined way for third parties to notify Flickr admins of suspected copyvios. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not one of those frequnt Flickr users, so I don't think there's much I can do about that. But I think that we, the Commons, as a free-media repository which gets much of its content from there, are one of the main interested parties in this issue, so maybe we should do something, like asking commons-flickr users to do do a joint-force and make that lobbying. I am a flick user, I could participate on such an initiative, but alone, or with flickr people alone (whom I know very little) I wouldn't go far. But hey, what about an email from a prominent commons admin, or even a wikimedia figure? not jimmy wales =P but someone with some public exposure could contact them. Afterall, commons admins are fighting against copyright violations all the time, flickr would only benefit in giving them ways to notify them of copyvios in their site. And they would probably listen to a "near-official" wikimedia communication. Maybe this is a crazy idea, but it is an idea =P

About the bot: I think that's a great idea. You should propose it to Magnus, Erik and Flominator who all have tools to upload images from flickr. Especially Magnus, since his FlickrWatch tool searches flickr and returns suggestions, while in the others the image is inputted by the user. If you wish I can do that myself to spare you the work =P

PS - Erik would be a good person for the previous idea, since he is a board member and he has one of those tools... =P Waldir 09:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you believe it?! I sent flickr an email, explaining the situation. As the whole contact form and page was in portuguese, I wrote in portuguese. Guess what. They replied in english and before sending the reply they translated it with some automatic translator (one of those web-based ones, like babelfish, i bet)!!! Obviously, the text in "portuguese" that I received was unintelligible. Are they nuts?! that's the way they're providing international support?? Go figue. Waldir 21:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Read our problem in the page please Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests --Fernando12 00:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already told you, that page is on my watchlist, so there's no need to nag me about it. I've seen your comments, and I've already given you my final thoughts on the matter. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not lie! becouse... mmmmm the mail tomorrow will be in internet! the mail is in Spanish, i think that you have a diccionary. tomorrow, I'm going to give you the permission, ok? this think is more important than if she live next to me. the important here is the prmission, in this moment I have, but isn't in english. when I send to you the link, i'm going to tal to you. bye. page in flickr, image of facebook of me but is in Spanish.... permission of tatiana but is in Spanish, i talk this to tatiana and she make the message in english. ok? in this page, in the end, is the english mod. i wait your answer --Fernando12 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that proves is that you know how to register a Hotmail account. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

. ??? why? i don't understand you. But you recive the image of facebook? if you fon't have a traductor i going to write this in English. Clear... please make a great publicity message of Stefani... and up say... Can you give me a permission of upload your image in face book to wikipedia? in this link: .... mmmm if you think that i'm lie... the first permission is in order. read... Ok? the second permission is of tatiana, but her pictures in this moment don't interest me the first is in oreder... remember --Fernando12 18:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we've established you've lied about the origin of your uploads in the past and used sockpuppets to evade bans repeatedly. Therefore, I can no longer assume good faith on your behalf. I will not undelete any of your uploads, and that's my final word on the matter. If you want to try to convince another administrator to undelete your uploads, go ahead, but I'm done wasting my time on this matter. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, forgive all, I'm not upload the files. you won. ok? I go out of commons... in other moment before the act, i going to think. the file ( only the 1/2 ) are not of me. forgive all. bye bye. this picture are not me. the real autor is here in wikipedia. 1 --Fernando12 22:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violations[edit]

Hi LX,

I understood and agree with this and I will take care of these things thanks Eximius

Beastie[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User_talk:Ysangkok#Image:Beastie.svg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 20:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Flickr[edit]

You have posted a note on my page about a copyright violation after I had marked the image for speedy deletion. I would strongly advice you to pay attention to whats going on before you make any claims like that. Jeblad 20:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You marked the image, which you had uploaded without a valid licence, for speedy deletion between the time that I opened up the image and the time I hit delete, so I never saw that edit before it was deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with a user[edit]

Can you look into this report: COM:AN/V#User:5-0-5_.28Pop-Rock.29. I'm sick of screwing around with this user; he's been warned more often than the boy who cried wolf, and he's still spamming, and no one's around to do anything about it. Patstuart 21:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this when you first posted it, but didn't feel like my comprehension of Spanish was good enough to fully understand the problem. Looks like it's been dealt with anyway. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disabling my talk page[edit]

Who do you think you are, you bloody bastard? Only because you have more rights then me its not up to you to decide who my talk page looks like. Fuck off, go to hell, lick my ass, you are a drity motherfucker. Do you think you are trhe king and have to decide that? No, so piss off. Huebi —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.163.90.185 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you expect to accomplish with that kind of language, but whatever it is you want to achieve, that's probably not a very constructive or effective way of doing it. Your user talk page is protected not because of who I am or who you are, but because you failed to adhere to Commons:Talk page guidelines. I recommend reading it once you've calmed down. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

guidelines are no rules nor a must follow. do you have nothing else to do but playing police in commons, you asshole? so quick quick, lock me and my page again. --Huebi 21:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done —LX (talk, contribs) 22:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SAG2004 197 Ferrari sigle.JPG[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Bradipus#Image:SAG2004_197_Ferrari_sigle.JPG. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 12:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

CC-logga[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Frege#Image:Cc_logo2007.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 08:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Topic[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Joymaster#Please_do_not_recreate_deleted_images. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 21:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I give a one dolar. Who is an owner? Joymaster 21:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post scriptum. I always answer on disscustion site. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Joymaster (talk • contribs) 21:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is an immaterial right, not an object of material property. They are completely separate areas of law. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rudana photos[edit]

Deleting all of them may have been a mistake. Notwithstanding what was said on the image page, he did send a valid release to OTRS for images he created. Any one that I had tagged as appropriate with he OTRS tag should be restored. Thank you. -- Avi 13:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mistake, then, was to keep a Wikimedia-only permission on the image page. Also note that for most uploads, any permission given by Mr Rudana was null and void because he was not the copyright holder. Please make any undeletion requests at Commons:Undeletion requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bombastus le bradipus (talk · contribs)[edit]

Hi! This user seems to be a vandal whose name is some kind of joke on the name of two fr: users. His/her edits appear to mock these users' Belgian origin. I don't think this activity is related with the ArbCom dispute you mentioned (which deals with fr: articles about the Rotary International and POV problems). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sound-Pearl poster[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Melancolicsphere#Image:Sound-pearl_poster.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 20:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Image restoration[edit]

Can you please restore File:K13-Aufkleber.jpg? We have a statement of release into the public domain in the OTRS system. Thank you. -- Avi 20:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have OTRS access, so I have no way of verifying that. I was not the one who deleted the image, so I don't know why you're asking me anyway. Please use Commons:Undeletion requests to request undeletions and notify Zirland, who did delete the image. You'll probably find that no administrator is going to do anything about undeletion requests which have not been raised at Commons:Undeletion requests and reached consensus there. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you because you are available. I am on the OTRS list, so I see the permission. I am not a commons admin yet, although I will request such privs shortly. In general, I am under the understanding that if an image has been deleted solely for the lack of a license and the license has now been submitted, it does not need to go through undeletion. Is that incorrect? -- Avi 20:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the question here if you are interested in responding: Commons talk:Undeletion requests#Is the following class of undeletions acceptable? -- Avi 20:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For other reasons, please disregard the undeletion request for this particular image. However, I would still appreciate your comments about the general question of the summary undeletion of images for which we have received licenses. Thanks! -- Avi 21:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done (at Commons talk:Undeletion requests). Time to get some food and sleep now. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 21:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright holder appearing in image[edit]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but in a "work-for-hire" the copyright holder is the commissioner of the work; not the author/photographer. In the case of Mr. Rudana, wouldn't it be true that if the pictures were taken on his request, for him, he becomes the copyright holder? -- Avi 20:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it needs to be clearly demonstrated that the photographer was a regularly salaried or hourly employed employee of Mr Rudana at the time and that the photograph was created within the scope of his or her employment or that there was a written contract for a work for hire. Do note that works produced by independent contractors or freelancers (except if done under a written contract explicitly stating that the result will be a work for hire) and other non-employees cannot be works for hire. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Avi 20:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request for Image:Glenfarclas.jpg[edit]

Hi there, I noticed you initiated a deletion request for Image:Glenfarclas.jpg. However, you did not complete the request; consequently the discussion is not yet valid. Please complete the steps given in the {{Delete}} template on the image description page. Thanks, ~ Riana ⁂ 14:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd neglected to point this and several other images to the right subpage on COM:DEL when tagging them onto a related deletion discussion. I have now fixed this one and the others. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. —LX (talk, contribs) 01:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:00004631.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Albomaster#Image_Tagging_Image:00004631.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 21:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image Tagging Image:RozkladMKD1942.jpg[edit]

Mam pozwolenie!!! [10]

Kopia posta z tego forum:

25.09.2007 17:42:51

chrisfox

   Administrator
   ni mom i nie bede mioł
   Skąd: przy drodze na Wyszków
   Zarejestrowany: 8.03.2007
   Posty: 2065
   WWW

Re: PKP czy nie?

   Crusier~gość napisał:

   Mam takie pytanie, czy mogę zamieścić ten plik na Wikipedii TEN ??

Nie widzę przeciwwskazań. Rozkład - ani tym bardziej ten skan - nie są moją własnością. Sam to zresztą dostałem od kolegi a powiedziane jest (w Piśmie) "darmo otrzymaliście - darmo dawajcie" Tam wprawdzie było to o czymś innym, ale wspomniane dzieło powstało nieco wcześniej, niż rozkłady jazdy.

Oczywiście, nie miałbym nic przeciwko, gdyby znalazła się tam gdzieś wzmianka, skąd ów rozkład pochodzi - muszę się w końcu troszkę promować, nieprawdaż?

Co do stacji i przystanków... Nie jest to przejaw arogancji - słowo daję - może nieśmiało polecę taki link: http://www.marki.net.pl/kolejka/bocznice.html

Offline

   * Cytuj

—the preceding unsigned comment was added by Crusier (talk • contribs) 07:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pl-0

Ta osoba nie rozumie języka polskiego (albo ma z nim olbrzymie trudności).


 —LX (talk, contribs) 10:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Pics[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Melancolicsphere#Image:Jim_morrison.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 22:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm posting this here considering that discussion to be over, so this is only another message to you.

Ok, let's try to make it right then... I'm editing the Rated R album article in order to get the big ol' star, and I want to put an image on the cover part that at least represents the album. I did a photoshop thing before that was a representation of the cover, but it was deleted also. So I thought of making something that isn't the same but it will remind people of Rated R cover. I really don't know how to show ya without uploading so I'm just gonna upload and send ya the link. It's completely my work and if you look at the R cover it's not the same, it only has the R in a white square and the saying below. Here it is:

Melancolicsphere 19:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin[edit]

Thanks for your immediately action :-) Good Job, regards :-) --Filnik 19:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TR-Logo-On Dark 100px.png[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:AiguaDolsa#Image:TR-Logo-On_Dark_100px.png. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 20:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:PD-Canada[edit]

Please join in the discussion...--Padraic 20:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hey LX, how are you doing? I'd like to know if Image:Ringo riendo.jpg is a valid pic for the Commons. Thanks, Melancolicsphere 05:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. Screenshots of copyrighted films are subject to the copyright of the film. I've deleted the copyright violation and informed the uploader. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From: AsakuraStar[edit]

Go ahead. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by AsakuraStar (talk • contribs) 18:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Questionable Flickr images contributions[edit]

Thanks for your help! --AnonEMouse 14:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think that's a great initiative. I must admit I got a bit perplexed with the format of the entries. I think bots would have an easier time making use of it if it were clearly tabulated and only contained the most relevant bits of information (i.e. excluding things like the Flickr user's stated location). —LX (talk, contribs) 20:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can get rid of the stated location, I'm not sure why that's important either. They seem to have been added by User:Jeff G., let me ask why he thought they were useful. The usernames and links to flickr accounts are important, as are the actual discussions. --AnonEMouse 21:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violations[edit]

Hi, yes, I know that many images I've uploaded have been marked as copyright violations, but most of them are images that I've uploaded in one day without knowing the licenses. How can I know that? I just want to help Wikipedia, I hate vandalism and all that stuff, so sorry if I did something wrong. It was not my intention. I just have no way to know if one image is a copyright violation or not. I want to upload a image to the article Ringo Starr and I don't know if it's fine... Well, thank you for making me know.--Tina 63 22:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Commons:Licensing. Please refrain from uploading any images until such a time that you are able to tell whether or not you would be violating copyright laws in doing so. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIC images[edit]

Hey man, I've seen ya deleted another pic uploaded by me, and I think these other ones by me are also wrong: Image:Mike Inez.jpg and Image:AIC acousticset2.jpg. Those two plus the one ya deleted were from the same time and well it's been quite a long time, I think it was even before ya started sending me messages. Don't worry, I believe those are the last wrong ones. Melancolicsphere 22:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I've deleted them now. Sorry for the delay; I've been travelling and working long hours. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Stockh_1930_5a.jpg samt 7a, 8a och 9a[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Holger.Ellgaard#Image Tagging Image:Stockh 1930 9a.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

2008 Q1[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

about homer simpsons picture[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Anubis-mx#Image:Homer Simp.png. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of my image[edit]

21:05, 25. Okt. 2007 LX (Diskussion | Beiträge) hat „Image:BSD-Daemon CeBIT 2006.jpg“ gelöscht ‎ (Copyright violation/Commons:Derivative work of a non-free work: "BSD Daemon Copyright 1988 by Marshall Kirk McKusick. All Rights Reserved." http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/daemon.html)

This Daemon is authorized by Marshall Kirk McKusick back in 1996, when it was made, the BSD-Daemon is my own. There is no copyright-violation, please restore the image. --Kawana 09:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please forward evidence that McKusick approved distribution of the likeness of his BSD Daemon character under the {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} licence to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org per the instructions at Commons:OTRS and then make a request at Commons:Undeletion requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That %#!@ flag[edit]

Thanks for you're help, I didn't want to look like the only bad guy. ;) Rocket000 20:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP block[edit]

Hi - this IP I blocked yesterday on en wb as an open proxy (info via en wp IIRC). Will you review the block? Cheers (& I noticed the other block - persistent some people!) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Extended to one year, not limited to anons. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puppet accounts?[edit]

Might want to look at user:Juancvm? Let me know if you want me to dig deeper, regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look familiar, but I'm juggling a bit much at the moment. What was your suspicion? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we say there are similarities. However if the work they are doing is different then maybe just keep an eye for now? Let me know if I can help - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned and blocked so many users lately, I just can't keep track of them all. If you think it looks like a problem user I've dealt with before, I trust your judgement. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello LX[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Tony Scarface Montana#Image Tagging Image:Coretta-scott-king.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 00:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Diferents Camaras[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User_talk:Optimus07#Do you own a lot of different cameras?. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 09:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bebop[edit]

What is the problem with the photo? I took it, so the copyrights are mine are they not? 128.139.226.37 12:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bebop CD covers.jpg? If so, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Licensing. The problem, put simply, is that taking a photo of a photo does not make you the copyright holder of it. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get admnin help[edit]

user Kojadi emptyes his discussion page and take away my editings in the pictures, can you help little --Motopark 20:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I've warned the user not to remove legitimate warnings and I'll keep an eye on their activities. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no permission since[edit]

The template no permission since clearly states: Also, use{{subst:image permission|Image:FPO affiche.jpg}} ~~~~ to notify the uploader. Why didnt you notify me?! Multichill 22:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because the uploader of Image:FPO affiche.jpg was apparently User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske). —LX (talk, contribs) 00:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I keep filling out the username field but everyone seems to ignore that :(

I understand it can be considered deriative work so you can delete it. Multichill 21:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to overlook if you use UserMessages.js, and it's also completely unreliable because there is no checking. (Several respectable users have reported bad uploads being made in their name.) I wish it could be set up so that it only accepted commands from registered Commons users via a page here on Commons so that there would be some proper traceability. Until that happens, I won't bother people unless I'm sure they're the uploader. I guess if you're really keen to know, you can always put the image on your watchlist. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ca:Spierekanaal[edit]

Hi, You took away a photo in that article. I sent an email to permissions where I had the explicit authorisation to use the map in the wikipedia article from the copyright holder of the map. Please help me as I don't understand at all why in this case, the image has been taken away. I normally am very carefull with images from third parties and never copy and paste from the internet. It's very confusing and I need help. Flamenc 01:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image in question is Image:Bluelinks-carte Canal de l'Espierres.jpg. When I deleted it, it looked like this: it had no evidence of the copyright holder approving the stated licence and it was tagged as a copyright violation from http://www.bluelinks2008.org/, which has the notice "All rights reserved" on it. User:GeorgHH, who initially marked the image as a copyright violation, has undeleted the image. Please follow his instructions on your user talk page.

Also note that "authorisation to use the map in the wikipedia article" is not sufficient. See {{Permission}} and Commons:Licensing. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korrekt licens[edit]

Hej! Jag har möjligheten att ladda upp logo och bilder av företaget A&E Design med företagets VD Hans Ehrichs tillstånd (han har upphovsrätten). Han vill maila dessa bilder till mig. Fråga: Hur skall han formulera sitt tillstånd till mig så att det uppfyller kraven för Wikipedia "GNU Free Documentation License" ? Vart skall jag sedan skicka Hans Ehrichs tillstånd?--Holger.Ellgaard 09:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Holger! Titta på Commons:Email templates och Commons:OTRS. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus07[edit]

Hey. I noticed you have dealt with Optimus07 before. I suppose you are watching User talk:Optimus07 then, but if you are not, I have just tagged four of this user's uploads as obvious copyright violations (three were from Marcus Grönholm's official website, www.mgr.fi). While assuming good faith is important, I believe all of Optimus07's uploads need to deleted since he simply can not be trusted to provide accurate author and source information. Prolog 03:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I took care of the most blatant ones earlier. I'm pretty knackered right now, but I'll make a mental note to look into this more later. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the user didn't seem to want to talk about it, so I didn't see any other way forward than to open Commons:Deletion requests/Images by Optimus07. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, and well-written deletion request. Thanks, Prolog 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion question[edit]

Hi LX, the image Image:Chesrilanka0749.JPG was deleted because of the photography visible on the poster. It would be nice to have that picture for illustrating wp:Sinhala alphabet, but only for the letters, the person is completely irrelevant.

So, before uploading a modified picture, I have a question: - If I remove the head, would a depiction of the remaining words be a copyvio? They read basically "John Doe, political science courses", and thus fail the originality criterion, as far as I can see. Could you tell me whether I am correct? There are a number of comparable images on the commons that are not objected too, which I include.

Jasyjatere 80.126.161.176 12:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I converted the inline images to links; I hope you don't mind.)

There are already other images which could be used for illustrating the sinhala script. See Category:Sinhala script, Image:Examples.of.complex.text.rendering.Sinhala.png and Image:Sri Lanka Sinhala.jpg.

Given the translation you provide, there is probably no textual copyright, but the design (colour scheme, placement of the elements and other effects) may well be sufficiently original to qualify for copyright protection. The deleted photo also showed other posters with presumably copyrighted photographs and graphic designs.

There is no approval process for photos at Commons, so the fact that there exist similar images which nobody has nominated for deletion (yet) is not to be used as a guide. If they are questionable (and some of those examples are), it probably just means they haven't been spotted yet. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will certainly agree that those images are very technical and do not illustrate the use of Sinhala script in context or real life.

I am aware of this. I just wanted to save you and me the time of another deletion process

I think I will be able to edit out the questionable parts of the image under discussion. Thanks for your time. Jasy jatere 80.126.161.176 09:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the images I suggested are somewhat different in nature and I understand if that was not what you were going for; they were more meant as suggestions for temporary alternatives until we have something better. I hope you can create something with the copyrightable parts removed without it looking too odd, and I thank you for taking the time to ask first. I think the best sort of image to show the script in a natural context without having to crop or mask stuff out might be something like a street sign or other simple, preferably official, sign. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep out this picture is not reel.[edit]

السلام عليكم هده الصورة غير حقيقية وأنا اطلب منكم وارجوكم حدفها . وشكرا

Hello, please keep out this picture because is not reel. thank you.

Bonjour, s'il veut plais supprimé cette photo car ce n'est pas vrais. merci. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.248.19.237 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted image from Flickr[edit]

Hi. I posted a photo to Flickr. Someone, it seems, used it for a Wikipedia article and you deleted it: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:245910213_ce5d30d52e_o.jpg

The image in my Flickr shows a Creative Commons license so I see no problem in using it for Wikipedia. I took the picture (it is of a native cuisine dish: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mgiraldo/245910213/ ). Not sure where the photo was placed though. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.24.88.33 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this from #Flickrwashed copyvio, because it's unrelated to that discussion. (That was about the Flickr uploader not being authorised to issue the licence stated on Flickr.) I hope you don't mind.

Image:245910213_ce5d30d52e_o.jpg was deleted because it was incorrectly claimed to be under the licensing terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence, whereas on Flickr, it is actually licenced under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial Share Alike licence, which is not compatible with the Commons:Licensing policy. Only the copyright holder may issue a new licence to his work with different terms, so what the Commons uploader did was a copyright violation. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. So the guy who suggested the photo messed up (if I understand right). What is the procedure for me proving I own the photo? —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.25.135.96 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has a reason to doubt that. The problem is that the licence you have chosen on Flickr doesn't make the image free enough to upload here. Commons only accepts images that can be used by anyone, for any purpose, and your licensing choice prohibits it from being used in a commercial context.

If you want your image uploaded here (and we would of course appreciate that), you would have to change the licensing on Flickr to Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike. This would allow others to reuse the image in a commercial context, but they would still have to credit you, state that the image is free to use under that licence, and release any modifications they make to the image under the same licence.

(You could also use Creative Commons Attribution, but that would allow others to publish modified versions under a non-free licence, and it seems further from what you originally specified, so I assume you would be less inclined to choose this option.)

If you do decide to change the licence, let me know and I'll be happy to undelete the image here and make sure it has all the proper credits. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. License changed. Had no idea Commons was a commercial context. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.25.135.96 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons itself isn't, but its purpose is to be free (in the libre sense of the word rather than gratis) and reusable. (You may read more about this in the introduction of Commons:Licensing.)

Rather than restoring the image with its old, rather meaningless name here on Commons (245910213_ce5d30d52e_o), I re-uploaded it as Image:Ajiaco.jpg. Thank you for your kind donation. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is next user page OK[edit]

User:Jlora2, it seems be out of project space but I'm not sure, what are your opinion ?. See also his discussion page --Motopark 19:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pages in the User: namespace are meant to be used to give a brief presentation of yourself (as yours and mine do, for example). Of course, I'd hope that that's not going to be the user's only contribution here on Commons, and he does need to add a licence to his image or it will be deleted after a week, but other than that, I don't think it's hurting anyone for now. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, let's wait--Motopark 19:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperion[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Relampague#Copyright violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 20:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

Sorry... i dont now about to do get licence. Thanks. I not do again. --Ewertonandrade 20:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Image protection[edit]

Can you revert edits by User:Le Behnam and then protect the Image:Tajik man in Kabul.jpg that I uploaded so that it doesn't get deleted until discussion on it comes to an end. Thanks!--Executioner 04:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not going to favour any particular version, but the image is locked to prevent you and Le Behnam from continuing your edit war. The deletion request is incomplete, so there's no risk that the image will be deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the image and Le Behnam added a Duplicate tag then you protected the image to prevent me from removing the duplicate tag. So the image will be speedy deleted if you don't remove the duplicate tag that Le Behnam placed. Can you please remove the DUP TAG because I started a discussion on it.--Executioner 17:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, I doubt any administrator would delete it while its the subject of an ongoing dispute, and if that does happen, it can always be undeleted. I will not participate in your edit war. As long as the image stays protected, I am not about to make any edits to favour either side, and if you insist on others making changes for you, I can unfortunately only assume that you intend to continue the edit war after the protection expires. Rest assured, this would not be without consequences. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Behnam has decided to self-delete his Image:Pashtun man in Afghanistan, 01-07-2002.jpg: "Ok I've had enough of this. I know he is Pashtun but I'm not going to waste any more of my time on something unimportant. I'm going to self delete the image I uploaded and you can do the same. That is a good compromise and it saves us both time." Le Behnam 17:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC) [11][reply]

Can you unprotect the file or delete it yourself? Also, please stop offending me like if I'm a criminal and you as a police officer. Your job is to help other editors not try to show off with your admin tools. You're suppose to be a servent here. Thanks for understanding and have a nice day Swedish mate.--Executioner 18:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image is freely sourced image on Flickr, I think it's a good photo, and I believe it could be useful on Wikimedia Commons. Since the naming seems to be the point of contention, and there really cannot be anything objectively said about the subject's ethnicity, my suggestion is that we upload it again with a neutral name such as Man in Kabul or similar and delete the duplicates. However, I'd like to wait for the toolserver to fully recover so that I can do a proper check for usage of the other versions before deleting them.

As for the administrative role and the tools that go with it, I feel pretty comfortable with my views on them. Some of the behaviour shown by both you and Le Behnam (edit warring and personal attacks) is disruptive to the point that a block may have already been justified, not as a punishment, but to prevent further disruption. I chose to protect the subjects of the edit wars instead of blocking the two of you because I felt you had perhaps not been given a clear enough warning yet as to the inappropriateness of the disruptive editing. I was also hoping to encourage civilised discussion. While I'm not entirely satisfied with your attitudes towards each other, I think things have been moving roughly in the right direction.

Sorry for the late respose; I've been working all sorts of hours this week. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Www.wikipedia.org screenshot.png[edit]

Image deletion warning

Image:Www.wikipedia.org screenshot.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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 ∙ +/−

This is an automated message from DRBot. (Stop bugging me!) 06:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete[edit]

Can you please delete the file Image:Iraq.jpg. I have uploaded it from Flickr, but the filename is similar to another image in English wikipedia. So I cannot use this image there, I want to rename it, or delete it, I will again upload it with a new name. --Otolemur crassicaudatus 18:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upload it under a new name first and then tag Image:Iraq.jpg with {{bad name|Image:Whatever the name is.jpg}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded the same image under new name Image:Iraq dog.jpg and tagged the previous file for speedy. --Otolemur crassicaudatus 18:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay,

Done. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning

Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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 ∙ +/−

202.83.172.245 07:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the uploader. I just reverted some vandalism that was done to it.
Painted portraits are obviously not as documentary as photographs, and are always subject to the artist's own interpretations. I think most intelligent people understand this. This doesn't mean painted art is useless.
If it hurts your feelings, don't look at it. If we deleted all images that were potentially offensive to someone, we'd have very few images left. We don't need another Bamian, so please stop your efforts to eradicate our common cultural heritage and focus on something more productive.
You are most welcome to create a Wikipedia fork or competitor. You may even use their text and our images if you like, provided that you comply with the licensing terms and credit the authors.
As noted on the talk page, this matter has already been discussed, there is a clear consensus to keep, and the disruptive ongoing campaign from you and other anonymous users to deface or nominate Islamic art for deletion is now regarded as vandalism. You have therefore been blocked for a week. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LabourIndia_Logo.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Avineshjose#Image Tagging Image:LabourIndia Logo.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 12:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've replied in my talk pg. please check. --avinj 06:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hasselblad sunset.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright

Image:Hasselblad sunset.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 ∙ +/−

The main theme of photo is copyrighted logo. Picture used only on nationals wikis to ilustrate the logo of producent..., e.g. see here. Regards Electron 11:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden has freedom of panorama and the sign is permanently mounted on top of a building in Gothenburg, Sweden. The logotype is text in a simple font and probably qualifies for {{PD-textlogo}}. I don't know if the same logotype has been used since the company was founded in 1841, but if it is, it should be {{PD-old}} as well. I've converted the speedy deletion tag to a regular deletion discussion. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's me again![edit]

OK, this time I need your help. I am looking for pictures of Christina Milian, but cannot find any free ones. Any ideas as to where I can find any? Upload Less and Talκ More 06:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help with the specific request, but have a look at Commons:Free media resources/Photography for a list of places you can start looking. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2pac image violation.[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Carlonesm#Image:2Pac Makaveli-The Don Killuminati front.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 21:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

IP blocked, 129.194.8.73[edit]

Hi, would you be so kind and unblock my IP? It is quite difficult to write any message on your talk page having the access blocked. That's not very nice. Could you explain me, please, why my IP was blocked? Thank you. Twisp 18:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by the message in the block log, the use of open proxies is not allowed on Wikimedia projects. The IP address was picked up by our open proxy detection system following some vandalism. If you do a Google search for the IP, it turns up quite a few hits indicating that it's compromised or deliberately set up as an open proxy being used for a variety of malicious purposes. -LX (talk, contribs) 19:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a quick reply. I still have some questions about this. I had a look on the contributions from this IP and there were quite a few which were ok. Would it be possible to take a risk and allow the edits, just to see if the vandalism is realy a crcial problem of this IP. Your example seems to be unique according to the User contributions tool. The second concern is that I am not able to upload images even if I am logged in. Would it be possible to fix this somehow? Thank you. Twisp 21:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, editing through open proxies is not allowed as a matter of policy. I'm afraid your only recourse is to ensure that the root cause of the problem gets fixed. Having everyone being able to use your IP address for any purpose is generally not a very good thing. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet filters and proxy IP's[edit]

Please be careful with proxy IP's !

You might have all the luxury in the western world, but for people like me and Waerth in Thailand, proxies are frequently the only way to gain access to Wikipedia and related projects ! (at least to the wikiprojects where we're not auto-blocked!). I see no reason to block non vandalism proxy IP's. The goal of the wikimedia projects is to be editable for everyone. Locking out people from non western countries (which is most of the world's population !!) from contributing won't help building a world wide project with views from all people... until we have full and non filtered internet access all the time everywhere when moving to Asia ! (pushing or lobbying for more free internet availability would be a good side project by the way). It is good behaviour to look at our contributions, not the fact the we need to use proxies in some places from time to time !! Regards. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.31.186.104 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read meta:No open proxies. If you wish to object to the policies, please direct your complaints at the Foundation. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for undeletion[edit]

Hey. Sorry to bother you. Could you check and restore Image:Ari_Vatanen_2006_EMS.jpg and a few other images of notable racing drivers deleted by now-desysopped User:Stahlkocher with reasoning "personality rights", as seen here? I can't see deleted revisions, but I think the deletion reason might be bogus in all these cases. Thanks, Prolog 19:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks reasonable, but considering Commons:Disputes noticeboard/Archive 3#User:LX and User:Stahlkocher, I'm probably not the right person to ask. Could you please put these up on Commons:Undeletion requests and name each specific image concerned? —LX (talk, contribs) 21:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I didn't notice that archive. Prolog 19:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Space Invaders on TV.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:RTG#Image Tagging Image:The New Zealand Story screenshot.png. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 19:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Notar heli pics[edit]

I just uploaded two pics to Epolk's page for discussion as possible improvements. Won't mind if they are deleted in two weeks. JMK 21:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Marcelosimao without heading[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Marcelosimao#Copyright violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 19:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Graphics village pump[edit]

You may think that discussions should always be held on the subordinate month page, rather than on the main page itself, but it's a simple fact that people don't actually do this, and the way you move things around is confusing... AnonMoos 10:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you were confused, but I thought I was pretty clear in the edit summaries. If you don't like how the page is organised, I guess that should be taken up at Commons talk:Graphics village pump. I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other, so long as things are consistent. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP block[edit]

Thanks but I range blocked it (72.68.31.0/24). They seem to be happy playing a game where they make one edit & I block a range of IPs :) It is the ongoing Shankbone stuff. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds productive. Cheers! —LX (talk, contribs) 15:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violation[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Jorghex#Image:InspectorClouseau.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 19:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Group_account[edit]

Hi LX, with respect, please look again at this topic. thanks, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (The page is on my watchlist.) —LX (talk, contribs) 19:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Q2[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for Welcome Messege ;)

Prppedro 16:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About deletions...[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Prppedro#Please do not remove deletion requests. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 17:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Subspace Emissary[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:ManecoWifi#Image:The Subspace Emissary.PNG. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 21:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually..about the Station Logo Photo[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Cordelia89#Image:Stationlogo.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 11:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vasa model.jpg is OK?[edit]

If Image:Model rescued Vasa ship.jpg was deleted because No FOP since not outdoors as required by Swedish law, Image:Vasa model.jpg is OK? --Jacopo Werther 18:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a deletion discussion open now, and I'm afraid it will also have to be deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:These kid.jpg[edit]

Would it be possible for you to send this deleted image to me? Some anon IP over on Wikipedia uploaded it here so we could help him ID a show, and he doesn't have the ability to upload it anywhere else (see his bizarre story here). If you could do this, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! ···日本穣^{Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimail doesn't support attachments, but if you want you can send me a wikimail, which will tell me your address, and then I can send a regular e-mail with the image attached. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ···日本穣^{Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lost[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Pypaertv#Image:Jin (Lost).jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 08:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Migueles.png[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Anarkangel#Image Tagging Image:Migueles.png. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 22:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your response with the London pictures. 75.105.13.17 15:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may think that I don't know what I am talking about, but the law supports what I state. See here:

"4.-(1) In this Part "artistic work" means- (b) a work of architecture being a building or a model for a building, or"

and

"The author of an artistic work has the right to be identified whenever- in the case of a work of architecture in the form of a building or a model for a building, a sculpture or a work of artistic craftsmanship, copies of a graphic work representing it, or of a photograph of it, are issued to the public."

Thus, the author must be identified in such pictures. This is not happening on Wikicommons. 75.105.13.17 01:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Voltio[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:El cangri386#Please do not recreate deleted images. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 17:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

A101j[edit]

The user A101j is uploading large numbers of copyvios, such as all the CD covers of the band Molotov. I noticed that you warned him to stop two days ago. It seems that he hasn't, he should be blocked from uploading more files and his recent contributions deleted (I guess it would be futile to go placing "copyvio" to all of them) Thialfi 03:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing it. Looks like Christian Nurtsch dealt with it while I was sleeping. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vasa model photo[edit]

You voted to have Image:Vasa model.jpg deleted recently, but I think I've found a solution to this problem. Please see request page for clarification.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's really good news, and a refreshing contrast to the attitudes of many museums that I've come across in discussions lately. Please see Michael's comment underneath yours in the deletion request. Additionally, if you could ask them to include mention of the model showing the salvaging operation as well, we could undelete Image:Model rescued Vasa ship.jpg. Don't forget to thank them and encourage their stance. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Anarkangel#Image Tagging Image:Migueles.png. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 11:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dinosaur Jr. photo[edit]

it would have been nice if you had waited until I sorted out the licensing before deleting this image Arleach 20:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you do, leave a message at Commons:Undeletion requests and it can be undeleted. Generally, the right order to do things in is to ensure we can host the image before uploading. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confused[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Runningblader#Image:Ogame.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 23:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Unsigned[edit]

I see you reverted me. I thought I had that right. Please point me to a broken use, as I cannot see how I was wrong. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should of course have left you a note about this. I recreated your revision in my own namespace as User:LX/Unsigned, and here's the result of {{User:LX/Unsigned|Username|2000-01-01}}:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Username (talk • contribs) {{subst:#if:2000-01-01|2000-01-01 (UTC)}}

This does not seem to happen when the template is substed, but the idea that it "must be substed" is a relatively new invention, which contradicts Template talk:Unsigned#Usage and which has, as far as I have seen, not been justified. It continues to be used without substing by many users, and even if that were to be universally considered wrong, I don't think the above is an very informative or graceful degradation. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, old uses should be substituted, and future uses as well. I will subst them at some point. Once that's done, I'll add that back in. If it says anywhere that this template should not be substituted then it needs to be changed. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be (other than to make your change work ;-) )? Keeping it unsubsted makes discussions more readable in source mode and helps new users figure out which template to use when others forget to sign their posts (that's how I learned). I remember a time in the past when a bot started substing them and there were objections (I'll try to dig up the conversation later; I'm a bit swamped at the moment). —LX (talk, contribs) 15:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary server load. The template code is simple, and will not clutter edit view. I will add a hidden comment so people know what template is used. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this actually a problem? Is it by request from the sysadmins that we're worrying about performance in this case? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

I present my excuses for the copyrighted photos that I have no exact knowledge of origin. I am the coordinator of a working group to put information of Paraguay in "Wikipedia". On the list are many pictures we have taken, but we also have an agreement with other people linked to media that I have gone for me to upload the photos.

You deleted 3 photos quite rightly, I realize that they have been copied elsewhere.

However, 80% of the photos that are on the list are in my group, and we have taken with different cameras.

I know understand this situation, and I'm going to be much more careful when it comes to receive and publish them. In addition I will make a review of other photos that I charged and delete those that do not correspond.

But allow me to continue our project smoothly.

I am available for any clarification.

I notice you has deleted more than 70 photos. Can we do anything to resolve this fact. Its this much important to our contribution project, to resolve this ?. Thanks. --Hujadila 16:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Hujadila 14:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to keep discussions in one place. You've posted nearly identical messages here, on the deletion discussion page and on your own user talk page. I'll address most of your points in the deletion discussion instead. The word "you" in the last paragraph of your message above is ambiguous, but I assume by the use of it here on my talk page, it's directed at me personally, so I'll address that here.

In total, I've deleted close to 5,000 images, but only four of your uploads (Image:Carlos gamarra.jpg, Image:CHILAVERT.jpg, Image:Jose-luis-chilavert6.jpg and Image:Carlos gamarra.jpg), not 70. Others admins have deleted three more of your uploads (Image:Oldman.jpeg, Image:Juancarlosmoreno.jpeg and Image:Monday 002.jpg). If you disagree with any deletions, you can request undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help; i agree with your comentaries. The 70 photos wasn't deleted; was marked for deletions. Sorry, until now I thought, i could do anything with my Discusion Page. I don't know how to do to legal unmmark those pictures marked for deletion.

--Hujadila 23:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. (It's actually 114 images by my count.) If you edit the image descriptions so that they contain truthful, credible and verifiable information about the authorship and licensing (including evidence that other authors approved the licensing terms you have stated), and if the consensus of the deletion discussion is that the information is as required, the administrator closing the discussion will remove the {{Delete}} tags from the images. Do not remove the {{Delete}} tags yourself. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2506988601 3528546f18 b.jpg/Image:Hilton San Diego Bayfront explosion incident.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User_talk:Cooljuno411#Image:2506988601_3528546f18_b.jpg.2FImage:Hilton_San_Diego_Bayfront_explosion_incident.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 07:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments removed[edit]

Would you care to explain why you removed my comments from here? I used to think that I was entitled to (at least) voice my opinion, especially when I am being called lame. I also used to think that deletion of comments from discussions had to be somehow notified.

I would very much like them to be reinstated, unless a specific policy against this exists.

Cheers --Alien life form 11:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The top of the page states "This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive." I thought that was rather clear. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The top of the page now states what above. When I entered my comments, it did not. If I still cared, I'd call that vandalism (and the lame tag a personal attack, that being a seaparate issue). As things are, you are very welcome to do as you please, and feel justified in the process. (My request of reinstatement still stands, BTW). Have fun & cheers, --Alien life form 17:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It did contain that text when you added your comment. See the revision immediately before your edits and immediately after. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Hotel" one[edit]

Just by way of information I looked at the email address of the user - this suggests care/reflection. I am concerned about the increase in images on Commons that may be used for marketing, selling or search engine optimisation purposes. I'll post something more general shortly --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Say HI[edit]

Just I say thanks and hi for the three times to you block my user, now i just upload images than is free copyright or self made. Jorghe X

That's good to see. Glad the message got through. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately, after you uploaded Image:Age-Of-Empires-2-2wallpapers.jpg, I have to take that back. It seems you still have a bit to learn. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

I'm sorry, I didn't know nothing of the license, I have to read more, thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threll (talk • contribs) 21:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete[edit]

Why did you delete File:Indians 2007 Champs.jpg? User:Spencer (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the answer on your user talk page before I saw this: please see Commons:Derivative works. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't it go under freedom of Panorama...this is a building. And why is Image:Jacobs Field scoreboard.jpg allowed? Spencer (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an image displayed on a jumbotron mounted on a building, and that's not covered by US FoP, I'm afraid. Thanks for bringing Image:Jacobs Field scoreboard.jpg to my attention. I've deleted it too, for the same reason. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Image:Snowed out on opening day.jpg and Category:Baseball scoreboards? Spencer (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those include only {{PD-ineligible}} signs. In some, the inclusion of copyrightable elements is de minimis and incidental to the image itself. (In Image:Snowed out on opening day.jpg, the center sign is just text in a standard typeface and all other signs are de minimis, the main focus being on the condition of the field and to some extent the center sign.) Other images in that category should probably be reviewed. I'll post a notice on COM:ANB. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Derivatives of baseball scoreboards. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I thought it was okay because of the other pictures, but this clarifies it for me. Thanks, Spencer (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem...I also got the image deleted fron en.wikipedia (I was originally copying it over). Spencer (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nero InfoTool[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Tdc6502#Image:Nero InfoTool Disc.png. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 23:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Mark.heifetz#Image:Big Gun - AC-DC.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 08:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Imagenes del usuario solfeo957[edit]

oye me han borrado todas las imagenes que he subido, pero lo que se me hace raro es que por ejemplo la de Amanda_Rosa.jpg y la de las campanas extractoras hace mucho tiempo que las subí y que casualidad que meses despues me resulten con eso. Quisiera saber por que hicieron eso, explicamelo tú por favor, gracias. --Solfeo957 (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why my all images which i uploaded had been deleted??? if 3 of them they have a long of time here, and now, they're deleted (amanda_rosa.jpg and the 2 extractor hood images), and so tell me why.--Solfeo957 (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion log for Image:Amanda Rosa.jpg (uploaded just over two months ago) indicates that it was deleted following Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Amanda Rosa.jpg, which states that it was a copyright violation. Finding an image online does not make you the copyright holder, creator or author of that image, and you may not release it into the public domain. The fact that these things are not clear to you indicates to me that you still need to read Commons:Licensing (Commons:Sobre las licencias). Please note that making fraudulent statements regarding the authorship and licensing of other people's works is a criminal offense.

Image:Extractor-hood_air_gets_in.gif and Image:Extractor-hood air gets out.gif have not (yet) been deleted, but they have been nominated for deletion. You can find the deletion discussions at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Extractor-hood air gets in.gif and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Extractor-hood air gets out.gif, where the reasons for the nominations are stated.

The reasons for deletion of your other uploads are stated in the deletion logs here, here, here and here. In short, you need to read Commons:Licensing (Commons:Sobre las licencias). —LX (talk, contribs) 01:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LX for answer, I think the reasons which I did wrong the images upload were because I am new here in Commons and I don't know the commons rules. Thank you once again for answer.--Solfeo957 (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some things I don't understand[edit]

Hi, first, EXCUSE ME!!!!!!! if I am not polite, I don't have a great level in english, so, if I say to you something that sound like an agression, really, excuse me. Well, I don't use commons frequently, so I don't know verry well how it works, so excuse me (again) if I do, say, think or make something mistake about commons. Ok, you erased the photo Jacobo Arenas.jpg. Well, that was a photo of a member of the Farc-Ep (a terrorist organization), taken by a Farc-Ep member too. The image was found in the page of the Farc-Ep (a blocked page by the police). As a Terrorist organization, there's no possibility of any kind of sue for that reason. The image Eguzman.jpg, well, you're right, it's a copyright violation. The images Bertulfo.jpg and Alape.jpg appear in a list of the US government, so I suppose, the images have no copyright. Second, the image Wasserman.jpg was tooked by me. It's a graffiti in the National University of Colombia and it's not a part of a copyrighted work. I aprecciate your time, and again, if i'm wrong with something (copyright, language) please excuse me. Thanks a lot. --Elviper (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the deletion log for Image:Jacobo Arenas.JPG shows, it was deleted as a result of the consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Eguzman.jpg.

Image:Bertulfo.jpg, Image:Alape.jpg and Image:Wasserman.jpg have not (yet) been deleted, but they have been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bertulfo.jpg (also covers Image:Alape.jpg) and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wasserman.jpg.

Commons only accepts works that are in the public domain or whose copyright holders (usually the authors, meaning the people who created the works) have published the work under a free license. Assumptions that the copyright holders are unlikely to sue the uploader or Commons for copyright infringement are not sufficient to meet the requirements of Commons' licensing policy. If you believe that a work is genuinely in the public domain, you need to indicate why, with reference to the specific laws that state that such works are in the public domain. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Jake2088#Copyright violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 18:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Golf![edit]

I see autoblocks in the block log - I think we might safely assume we will see more of the pictures uploaded yet. Let me know if I can help - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye out and keep you posted. Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 08:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BitDefender Logo[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Rbedy#Image:Logo BitDefender.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 14:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Help desk[edit]

You are really good there. Sometimes, excellent even. -- carol (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) —LX (talk, contribs) 07:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add eloquent as well -- it is all an understatement right now -- carol (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, one day you might experience asskissing from me. This isn't that. This is a thank you. I would go as far to call it slobbering if I hadn't just pasted a picture of a person spitting elsewhere. -- carol (talk)

Well then I shall keep looking forward to that day. ;) —LX (talk, contribs) 08:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me podrias Ayudar a Archivar mi pagina de Discusión[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Mil va#Please do not remove warnings. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 16:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Dlaczego?/Why?[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Dragon-ghost#Image:Nicky Jonas.21.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 11:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

2008 Q3[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Primoz Brezec[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User_talk:Bballlova99#Image_Tagging_Image:Primoz_Brezec.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 14:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

How[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User_talk:Chubbennaitor#Image:Sepang_Fan_Track_Map.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 19:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear officious jerk[edit]

Here where I am physically staying there has been an invasion of ants. I agree with many resource conservation suggestions, especially when they mean less housework which is even more agreeable to me. That being said, it seems I have managed the infestation with a pile of scraps outside of the living area. They do not seem to care now for the little bits of things that might be in the living area and are interesting to watch where they now dine around the clock (some clocks are still actually round).

I mention this now because at English wikipedia, they did not like it when I spoke for myself. Then, they did not like it when I borrowed the words of en:Nathan Explosion to say what was on my mind. I have the option to log into either of the two other computers I have shell access to and work from there, just because. I rather like keeping it "real" though or among human beings and not about access privileges and sneaking and hacking, etc.

Is there something like what I did with the ants where I physically am that I could do to the eh, biting ants at English wikipedia? -- carol (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I can still tell the difference between ass kissing and brain picking, this is not yet ass kissing.... -- carol (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I usually deal with the ants on my patio using boiling water. Not sure I can recommend that, though. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to kill them. Just put something they can feast on somewhere else; out of sight is fine in this case. The real ants here are interesting and I have enjoyed watching them. No boiling water here -- I am not going to name each one of them but, I am becoming fond enough of them that they are being called collectively the feasties which almost rhymes with species.... -- carol (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user: Executioner making racist comments, vandalizing, and using sockpuppet IP[edit]

user: Executioner often tries to delete or change images I upload. A few days ago he did it with his IP so that he doesn't get into trouble for it. I know that this is his his IP range because it is this IP that he uses when placing the images he uploads on Commons onto articles in EnWiki. Here is the diff where he tries to delete an image that I uploaded. Executioner often puts "cleanup" in his edit summaries, here he puts cleanup in the edit summary but does not do a cleanup at all. Instead he puts a deletion tag on the image. He has tried deleting images I upload many times. Also, just a few days ago he also made racist remarks about Persian-Iranian women basically calling them ugly on his talk page, see here. He clearly shows he is racist toward Iranian women so it makes sense that he would try to delete their images from Commons. Due to this evidence I am sure this IP is him vandalizing the image of the Iranian woman I uploaded. Editing with an IP is ok, but using your IP to get away with racism inspired vandalism is sockpuppetry. Le Behnam (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serious questions about administrative goals here and elsewhere[edit]

In the last few days, uncommunicative and disruptive edits have been encouraged here and communication attempts has been discouraged.

Administrators revert some of my edits and then ask the reason for them.

I was having similar problems on English wikipedia. English wikipedia has a really weird situation going right now, weird, contradictory and kind of interesting so I am taking your time and talk space to outline it:

I was blocked for idiotic reasons (I suspect the real reason was that I clicked on a wikisource upload and reaction to that got out of hand).
While my user account is blocked, my login expires and I was pasting some information that was already wikified for a category here (All the names of Yugoslavia!!!), I could easily read that the block on the IP was to expire on a certain date.
that date arrived, the IP was no longer blocked but the user name was. I like my edit history there. I made one edit with my IP and got a sock en:User:Spears, Carol and went to a user name who had been really good about keeping administrative spam off from my user page there to ask about (or mention) the inconsistency in the ban between IP and User name. No other edits.
I am now banned for "making socks".
The same inconsistency exists where the ban on the IP is set to expire but the ban on my User name is set indefinitely.

My problem with all of this is that it is a point where the definitions do not meet and those points are oftn where extremely abusive people work. I suspect that Ryan Postelwhatever is a new/recent administrator here (using the windows gamebox) but have nothing but a feeling about that.

I do not like the new these last few weeks atmosphere where non-communication is encouraged. I am used to administrators looking into things and making changes then, not making changes and then looking into things.

And not only am I sorry to bother you with this, but I am also sorry that it exists to bother you with. -- carol (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(It does often have the look and feel here that all of the administrators and interested contributors that are looking for problems I create are experiencing unusually strong PMS here. Sometimes I have regular PMS, but never -- I think -- to the extent that the administrators are experiencing it now. Over-reactions, over-emotion, lack of logic and the over-quick deletion of things. It is actually textbook and an often mentioned reason that a female could not be a good leader, yet all of the current administrative actions against me and my work have all of those qualities to it.)

Forgive me for these observations of the "staff" both here and at English wikipedia. I would love to be seeing something else. -- carol (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Executioner[edit]

Loads of autoblocks in the log. I'll be away but I think it may be worth nudging a CU or two if you see anything odd! Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I speak too soon? :-0 Anyway, emails sent. Rocket000 (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+[edit]

How about this? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, same Flickr account. I'm adding it to QFI. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. I'll mail the other CUs and you will get one from me too :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandrina (talk · contribs)[edit]

@LX, would you mind if I replace your english Welcome-template on the userpage of User:Alexandrina (blocked by you for 1 month) by the portuguese language version? Patricia told me recently that portuguese-speakers often have little knowledge of english. --Túrelio (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I generally leave templates in English because don't want to give the impression of being able to speak languages that I don't speak. I figure anybody should be able to recognise the name of their own language in their own language, but if you want to give that a try, I don't mind. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS request[edit]

There you go! Just to notify you just got removed on Meta about your request for OTRS, I believe you're now a member. --Kanonkas_(talk) 19:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I have an e-mail with instructions. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats/good luck! —Giggy 08:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions of Webber[edit]

Hi LX,

I wonder if you would have a look at the contributions of Webber. I am not convinced that they are free images at all. Thanks 84.13.130.1 10:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason for that suspicion? They appear to have a consistent style and quality level as far as I an see. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:João P. M. Lima#Copyright_violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 20:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Renaboss (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)[edit]

Good day LX, I was wondering if you could give me more information on how you found the sockpuppet LeoLaci which belongs to Renaboss. For all we know the user might have more so if you find another one, or if I find another maybe a Checkuser report should do. Best regards, --Kanonkas_(talk) 14:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spotted the uploads in Special:NewImages, knew I'd seen them before, checked their usage, looked at the history of one of the instances where it was used, found that pt:User:Renaboss added the image uploaded by User:LeoLaci and that they had previously added Image:Lynette-Scavo.jpg (uploaded by User:Renaboss) to the same article. With User:Renaboss being blocked, User:LeoLaci uploading the same images and pt:User:Renaboss adding references to the images, it was pretty trivial to connect the dots. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Golf Pgatiger.jpg[edit]

Hi, i nominated this image for deletion after you deleted it. Im very sorry for recreating the page Image:Golf Pgatiger.jpg , can you remove it once more? thanks and greetings, --Martin H. (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, no worries. If you see images following the same pattern as this, please report them at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#New Salma sockpuppet, since this is a persistent vandal with so far over half a dozen sockpuppet accounts. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i once nominated (and speedy nominated) a bunch of golf pictures, i still have them on my watchlist, so i found Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Golf Pgatiger.jpg and finaly this thread on your discussion page. Can you please check the contribs of Fatooosh (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log), the Golf images he recently uploaded are looking familiar to me, all of his uploads are photographed with a mobile phone cam from the monitor (i strongly believe). There are some images of airplanes to, the first i mentioned was Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Airplane114.jpg, i dont nominated other contributions of this user so far because it is obvious and waste of time. --Martin H. (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This could be the same user, and the last rangeblock has expired, but it's not obvious enough that I'm willing to go for a block right away. You could file a request at COM:CU or talk to Herbythyme (talk · contribs), who's familiar with the case. I'm a bit too busy at the moment; otherwise I'd do it myself. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done by involving User Herbythyme. Thanks, --Martin H. (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ManuelVillalobos.jpg[edit]

Hi, you deletet this image already. Is there any template to tag a imagepage with "permission needed"? The uploader claims to be the author of the image (Photosport (talk · contribs), author is ANDRES PINA/PHOTOSPORT according to the images metadata), unlikely he is - so i want to call on him to sent a written permission. Could you give me an instruction? Please excuse my bad english, --Martin H. (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted that again, since it was recreated outside of process. For what you're asking for, see Image:Luis Flores Abarca.jpg, which I've tagged with {{subst:npd}} and notified them of this per the instructions on that template. If you enable User Messages gadget in your preferences, you'll get a bunch of new links in your toolbox on the left-hand side which makes the whole process a lot easier. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, ill try out the User Messages gadget, it seems to be very useful. The npd tag is what i'm looking for, there are three possible reactions of the uploader in this example: 1. permission per email and everything is ok, 2. do nothing and image will be deleted, 3. make the copyvio obviosly (like this time) and the image will be deleted. thx, --Martin H. (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/

Hello i was wondering if i could upload a manga scan using this licene, ive been banned already by you for the same image but i think this license should work --Elmerion (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a word: no. Firstly, do not recreate images that have previously been deleted. If you believe the deletion was incorrect, you may request undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests. Secondly, only the legitimate copyright holder can issue a valid license to their work. Making a copy of someone else's work by scanning it does not make you the copyright holder. Please read Commons:Licensing. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Droits d'image[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Louis02#Copyright violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 13:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

images[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Overred#Please do not recreate deleted images. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 08:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

cat fix[edit]

hey, thanks for fixing the cat links in my userpage! I often forget to add the colon :) --Waldir ^talk 11:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're friend of the power dury![edit]

Anyway seeyou... friend of the power (or friend of Wikipedia PT user), but some pics is from GOV web sitepls dont delete that one ok, that pics have some right to be here ok pls first know portuguese then ask me if you can't or your fiends of the power.

DO you know that...gov pics friend of the power! gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov gov

See you friend of the power (I'm pool person end rush!).

Marcio Benvenuto de Lima (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I back here for talk about it your BS BS BS BS...all pics "YOU" deleted as under GOV web site, that! YOU CAN'T DELETED THAT PIC BY YOUR PERSONAL WAYS then I'LL BE FIGHT TO THAT PIC!

If you used your power to hit me becouse someone from PT wikipedia friends talk something about me wich you...I have to say...my bad...can't be sweet wich "ALL" then...PLS AND PLS that pics under GOV roles, that pics is free to use, somewhere, everywhere then "I" upload that pic here "SIR".

YOUR JOG IS YOUR JOB, BUT DON'T TRAY HIT ME BY ROLES, THAT ROLES IS FROM YOU NOT FROM COMMONS, GOV PICS IT FREE TO USE ANYWHERE, EVERYWHERE.

Thank you for. pls back that pic in your location "COMMONS" THAT PICS FROM GOV WEB SITE.

Thank you onemore time "SIR" LX.

Marcio Benvenuto de Lima (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THAT SIR FROM GOV OF BRAZIL to me Brasil!

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses:

This work is in the public domain in Brazil for one of the following reasons:

It is a work published or commissioned by a Brazilian government (federal, state, or municipal) prior to 1983. (Law 3071/1916, art. 662; Law 5988/1973, art. 46; Law 9610/1998, art. 115)
It is the text of a treaty, convention, law, decree, regulation, judicial decision, or other official enactment. (Law 9610/1998, art. 8)
It is a work whose authors' rights belong to the Brazilian government (federal, state, or municipal), for which the economic rights shall be protected for a period of 70 years from the first of January of the year following that of their disclosure or that of the author's demise, whichever is later. ([12])

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ +/−

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license.

You are free:

to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to remix – to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

You may select the license of your choice.

Respect is one of the most (if not the most to we ahve PB "SIR" FX).

Marcio Benvenuto de Lima (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look for other Admin for halp, you can´t use your status or you don't know how to use your Status of admin sir, that hit me sir so much, i can't know you by that, why? becouse I from Brazil or "America do Sul" you don't know how much I love my home and pics of my home, law is law, that law driver all in commons (me and you too) you're not the law, I'll open front line to "fight" under law commons and call "one" Admin to help, if that law work just in here "America do Sul" you have PB, I from Brasil South of America, if that roles of Commons work only here...Commons admin FX hame the bust one PB on your life..."User Marcio Benvenuto de Lima under law of Commons boy" welcome in my life FX and South of America...Brasil..rush people home!

Marcio Benvenuto de Lima (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LX I see your comment...first I have to say...sorry or my bad, that pics it so...anyway, have say sorry, my sorry LX so sorry.

Satday or sunday can answer more better, sorry.

Stay wich God LX and My sorry.

Marcio Benvenuto de Lima (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mám otázku[edit]

Co sem ti udělal? Přefikl sem ti přítelkyni, že se do mě navážíš?--Cassius Chaerea (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Watson image[edit]

Back again: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Emwatson.jpg rootology (T) 17:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Target neutralized. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ripped of your talk page, kind of...[edit]

Thanks :) Jacoplane (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go the penguin! —LX (talk, contribs) 20:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

feasties are back![edit]

Sorry to bother you, I have no idea where the correct place for this is. The feasties have returned. They do not seem to enjoy the cold weather but that isn't the problem because the weather has not changed and they have returned.

Regardless to what makes them appear and disappear, this morning I moved something and they started running around. There was a spider which was about their size hanging out near their hole. I got to see the spider encounter one of these ants face to face. They both got scared and ran away. Honest! It was quite funny.

I am really sorry that there was no way to capture that via a movie -- even if I had a lens and a camera that could make a good picture of it; it was just one of those things.

Anyways, thanks for the break -- carol (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/National Portrait Gallery images (first set)[edit]

Could you find a few moments to comment on this? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done about as much as I can without getting too snarly at the drivers-by who seem to think that one or two words makes for a compelling argument. I think I'll try strong give me a raise with my boss next time my salary comes up. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HI LX...About it...Dury[edit]

Hi you said to Patrícia..." I don't know what a "power dury" is; dury does not appear in my dictionary"

Dury = Duty, sames times can´t have control about "r" or "t" if have somes problem, but my friends said that..."if marcio used that, Dury, lol, good halp that duty wich T(I talk about me)"

See you LX...And My Bad!

Marcio Benvenuto de Lima (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Arantxa Sánchez-Vicario.jpg[edit]

Sorry, I've been abused by flickr. You're right the user on flickr is probably not the copyright holder. I will try to do better from now. - Zil (d) 08:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

ODLG[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:ODLG#Copyright violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 17:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

respect my request[edit]

I just shamelessly stole your thingie for that request to keep discussions where they started.. Thanks for making it. -- carol (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I usually use {{subst:User:LX/Moved back to|Original place}} and {{subst:User:LX/Moved back here}}. As you can see, people seem to quite frequently ignore those instructions (but then, most of my interaction with people on this site takes place after they fail to read instructions to begin with). —LX (talk, contribs) 14:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El cangri386[edit]

Hej, du har tidigare haft kontakt med User:El cangri386 och gett en varning till denne. Jag vill göra dig uppmärksam på att användaren nu åter är aktiv och har laddat upp "problematiska" bilder. Thuresson (talk) 05:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jag ser det. Användarens diskussionssida finns på min bevakningslista (liksom de flesta användardiskussioner där jag skrivit något). Jag avvaktar med blockering och ser om vederbörande fortsätter på samma sätt eller om något händer med de uppmärkta bilderna. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Scope - Pdf and Djvu files[edit]

I have added some text dealing with these based on the discussion on the talk page. Users are by no means unanimous about which files should be allowed, and I have tried to follow the majority opinion. Thus, the suggestion is that if a Pdf or Djvu file is educationally useful even to a single other Wiki it should be kept. Would you like to comment before this page goes live? Please do so at the bottom of the talk page. Regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Threll#Copyright violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 06:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I will read that. And please, excuse me for my bad english. Thanks

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threll (talk • contribs) 13:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Time_con_Stakhanov.jpg[edit]

Puedes borrar Image:Time_con_Stakhanov.jpg.--MaratRevolution (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Copyright[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Unmerklich#Copyright violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 14:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

PD-Art[edit]

Hello LX. Regarding the PD-Art policy it appears you are the main person blocking consensus on changing the policy. If that is your decision, I would like to ask you how you intend to fix the current problems with PD-Art without changing the policy. Currently, there are 2 major problems:

All PD-Art images get moved from the English Wikipedia to Commons and then speedy deleted from en, even if they are not allowed on Commons. On en.wiki we have tried everything to get people to quit doing this. It is already prohibited by the speedy deletion policy. We have tried protecting such images and adding warning templates to them saying not to move them to Commons. Yet the fact remains that admins on the en.wiki do not understand the issue and they uniformly assume that the PD-Art policy on en.wiki is the same as on Commons. If you don't believe me, look at this example. This is an image that is not allowed on Commons, yet it has been moved to Commons and deleted 3 times! This, despite the fact that the image was fully protected on en.wiki and included a prominent warning that it should not be moved to Commons. Anything marked PD-Art on en.wiki gets copied to Commons and deleted without a second thought.
The PD-Art policy on Commons is not enforced, indeed it seems to be unenforcable. We have literally thousands of images on Commons currently in violation of policy. If you try to delete these images (as I did) it stirs up a firestorm of objections, and all you end up with is a mile long debate and more images left in limbo. If you could just move these images to en.wiki, it would be OK, but since they hardly ever actually get deleted from Commons, people on en.wiki keep moving them here, and we have thousands of images that are left in danger of being deleted. Having thousands of prominent historical images that are used across dozens of wikipedia projects but are always in danger of being deleted is not a good situation.

If you have any compelling suggestions for addressing these problems, please let me know. Kaldari (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been one of the more vocal participants in objecting to encouraging copyright violations (and that is what the proposal is; there's really no way around that), but as far as I can see, I'm far from the only one "blocking consensus" as you put it.

With regards to the first issue, we have always have, and probably will always have, a problem with people not understanding our policies or international issues in copyright law. We also have problems with users not understanding that fair use cannot apply on Commons. That doesn't mean that our stance on that matter is incorrect either. It's simply an issue that we will have to inform people about on an on-going basis.

With regards to the second issue, it is enforced, but like everything else, there are backlogs, and we don't catch everything right away, but there have definitely been many instances of content deleted on this basis, usually as a result of expired {{Nsd}} notices from what I've seen. Yes, there are objections from people who don't understand our policies or the legal matters involved, just like COM:UNDEL and the user talk pages of active admins rack up plenty of invalid complaints after blatant copyvios are deleted. Again, that doesn't mean that our stance is incorrect. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see the arguments have already been ignored in favour of vote counting. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of sympathy with your view, and as you know I argued the UK case at some length, but who are we to stand in the way of the WMF Board's "position"? :) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, why did we even bother with a discussion or with that whole voting circus? Other than that, refer to my comments here and here. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that it's not a Board Position, it's a statement on philosophy of the WMF in general, if that date is correct, it's while Erik is Deputy Director, not a Board Member, and has no (and should have no) undue influence on Commons policies whatsoever (speaking as a WMF Staff Member). Bastique ^demandez 21:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn[edit]

This totally totally sucks. —Giggy 23:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:'( ~~→Christian .И 13:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Turrón[edit]

Given your previous involvement in discussions of the copyright status of food packaging, I would appreciate your opinion at Image talk:Turrón.jpg. Thanks. --Iustinus (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. However, I am no longer an administrator here, so I'm not able to see deleted contents and therefore not able to comment on it. Furthermore, I no longer have any intention of attempting serious discussions of copyright matters within the scope of this project, as that has proven fruitless in the past. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free[edit]

Later of three months i finished the sentence XD. Thanks as well, of new. Jorghex (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a past deletion[edit]

Over here, you deleted a bunch of screenshots from the Lost Via Domus video game, despite {{Attribution-Ubisoft}}, which states that "Ubisoft allows the users to publish screenshots of all their games under a free license. … Ubisoft, the copyright holder of this file, allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that they are properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted." Why? –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the arguments in the discussion that you mentioned. You may also be interested in Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Lost (video game). If you disagree with the reasons provided, you may voice your concerns at Commons:Undeletion requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Q4[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Viking Satellite Images[edit]

Hi, can you say something about User talk:Rjd0060#Ticket #2008071410064762? 4 of the images are still in the speedydeletion category. Thank you, --Martin H. (talk) 09:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot, as I no longer have OTRS access. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Q1[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Protection[edit]

Protection of File:Siyer-i Nebi 298a.jpg expired and is already being vandalised, I'd suggest protection until 2010.--Otterathome (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my watchlist. If you want to ask an administrator to renew its protection, I have no objections. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Q2[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Logo deletion request[edit]

Hello, you may be interested in this request of mine, since it's the same case. Either remove all motor logos, or none of them, I guess. --grin ✎ 12:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I guess it's not necessarily the case that everything must go, since there may be special circumstances in some cases, for example applicability of {{PD-textlogo}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Textlogo is another funny topic for me, since in my opinion there is huge difference between a logo containing only a "normal" text and a logo using specialised typography, calligraphy and such (or, to put it otherwise, contain original artistic work). But I do not want to stir that water. :-) --grin ✎ 09:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos[edit]

Hello, Could you please to delete my photos because I've not other informations on them. I believed I had enough informations. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asian kung-fu (talk • contribs) 16:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't, but I've asked the admins to do it. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Asian kung-fu (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hej![edit]

Good to see you around again! Have you thought about requesting the tools back? :) Regards, →Na gy 11:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the situation is still the same with respect to my reasons for handing back the toolbox, so that's a no. But thanks for noticing my plodding around. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kul att se dig :). Patrícia ^msg 20:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Q3[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

I can't talk in english.!![edit]

Hello, I'm from Argentina, so aI can't speak you so much. Sorry. --Romance químico (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwarts category[edit]

I was thinking of recreating the deleted Hogwarts category in order to organize the related images in the Harry Potter category. However I thought I'd check in with you first as the deleting admin and also would like your opinion as to whether some of the relevant images in the parent category might be have to be deleted as derivative fanart. Thanks. --BrokenSphere 04:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was quite a while ago, but I believe the items in the category were clear-cut derivatives. I'm not really familiar enough with the original works to feel comfortable asserting that a Commons image is not a derivative, though (much less a whole set of images). If you feel unsure about individual images, I'd recommend bringing them up for discussion at COM:DEL. I have no objections to the category being recreated (but I'd encourage placing an informative notice about the pitfalls of fan art at the top). File:GranComedor.JPG, which is categorized into the (currently) nonexistent category, should be fine and is an indication that the deletion reason I stated may no longer apply. Thanks for asking! —LX (talk, contribs) 10:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned message from an anonymous Argentinian fan[edit]

yu suck, motherfucker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.138.225.225 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk, tsk. Such a potty mouth. I think I'm awesome. Your dissent is noted but dismissed for lacking rationale and eloquence. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve Picture[edit]

Hi there. the written email permission will be sent to wikimedia-commons soon. I have contacted the photographe of the picture, and he agreed to give his picture freely for free use to wikimedia-commons. Please do not delete the picture as the permission email will be sent out soon. Thanks. -- Amsaim (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update,
I've received the written email permission of the picture, and forwarded the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. --Amsaim (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well say it :)[edit]

While understanding & respecting your position it would be great if you would get the tools back sometime. Commons could do with more people of your standing. Thanks for your continuing work & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One can always hope for a change in consensus or silly laws. In the meantime, there's plenty of tasks that don't require special privileges. I've been pretty busy structuring Category:Sweden, Category:Stockholm and others, and it's good to get some time to focus on those things too. It's too bad we're so swamped with copyvio vandals that all active users are busy with deleting the bad content instead of organising the good stuff. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gianfranco Zola picture[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:PrJ 27#.7B.7BAutotranslate.7C1.3DFile:Zola chelsea.jpg.7Cbase.3DCopyvionote.2Fheading.7D.7D. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herald63's pictures[edit]

Hi Alexander,

I added all pictures (photographs) from the open source http://www.ugcc.org.ua/38.0.html and according the permission of the bishops. But I didn't know what I must write in data about pictures.

Lycka till!

Herald63 (Herald63 (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Wrong address, returning to sender ;)[edit]

Please note

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChrkl&diff=27415605&oldid=27415219

and

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A%E3%82%B7%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AB%E3%82%BA%E3%82%8D%E3%81%A3%E3%81%8D%E3%83%BC&diff=27415652&oldid=27415617

As I did not provide the image but merely tried to improve it. --chris 論 17:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just using the toolbox links to note the problems, and I did notice it ended up on your user talk page, but I figured it was only fair to also let you know your work may be undone because of the original uploader's omission. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I think the pic is hopeless anyway. Can't recognise a thing there ^^ --chris 論 17:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion[edit]

Hi LX!

All files uploaded by me have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests.

I licenced the ones I would like to use in my article (though I'm having a hard time finding a category - still working on that).

Could you please expalin to me why are these photos up for deletion and what it is I could do to solve the problem?

THANK YOU! 208.124.200.218 18:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 208.124.200.218,

You cannot upload any images without being logged in. Based on your edit to File:László Marton theate director.jpg, I'm guessing you are User:Dvornicsek. If so, please continue the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dvornicsek to keep it in one place. I have also explained the reason for the nomination there. In short: it seems you are uploading and claiming to be the author and copyright holder of photos which were actually created by other people. You also appear to be claiming that the images have been published under licenses which there is no proof that the legitimate copyright holders have approved. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grabow[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Epeefleche#.7B.7BAutotranslate.7C1.3DFile:Grabow pitching cropped.jpg.7Cbase.3DCopyvionote.2Fheading.7D.7D. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 19:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting the montage[edit]

Regarding the Commons talk:Licensing discussion about File:Mac-O-Chee–Mac-A-Cheek montage.jpg, I've added a comment to clarify my position. Could/would you revisit the discussion? Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see others have already responded, and I don't really think I have anything to add to their comments. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTC5.jpg[edit]

Como sabés si es una foto protegida si yo mismo había preguntado si se puede conseguir?. Me respondieron que sí. Tú has leído los derechos CT/Creative Commons del sitio?. Wikipedia es un sitio pago? Me parece que jugaste muy mal. Te prometería que velvas a tirarte un balde para poder entender, si es posible que puedas desarrollar eso y leer si tienes tiempo, algo que está autorizado y no libre. como la foto que borraste. --Ervin (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Spanish. If you have questions in Spanish, you can ask them at Commons:Café.

Yo no hablo español. Si usted tiene preguntas en español, usted puede pedir que en el Commons:Café. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of Lazio[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Andrea 93#File Tagging File:Davide Ballardini cropped.JPG. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 19:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Photos of Sistecozome buses[edit]

You have marked the photos that I have uploaded with an advice that says that I need to provide you an evidence of permission...

The permission of this photo is in the history, if you watch that history, you will see that the author (JPDD, an user of fotolog) uploaded more information to the photo, like the description.

And, how can I take the permission of this photo, if the author is not marked on the book that I took to upload this picture?, also that image is from the eighties! --BettasGDL (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Soriana Santa Rosa[edit]

I am again,

--BettasGDL (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why you marked my photo like a noncommercial licence violation????

You can enter to the article of this store: [13] and you will see other photos of the same, why only my photo is candidate to be deleted!? That contents are only for illustrate the page, not for earn money.

I can see that, when I upload just 1 picture of whearever, this page makes me an interrogation about copyright and licence, and deletes that photo inmediatly if only one detail is lost....

If ALL of this strange rules are neccesary to upload one picture of me, it´s the last time that I contribute.

If you saw some mistakes of this text, is because I am MEXICAN and I'm trying to talk in english.

--BettasGDL (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PavelStefka.jpg[edit]

Tato fotografie je vlastnictvím ministerstva národní obrany (MNO), které dalo písemný souhlas (přes tiskového mluvčího) k zveřejnění fotografií, pod podmínkou, že bude uvedeno jako zdroj MNO. Písemný souhlas, jsem již v době zveřejnění zaslal na permission-commons. Předpokládám, že jako v případě obrázků výložek vojáků armády ČR, které také jsou vlastnictvím MNO a na které se vztahoval písemný souhlas a který byl taktéž zaslán na permission-commons, došlo k ignoraci z Vaší strany z důvodů jazykových. --Cassius Chaerea (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FILE: Reason.jpg and Givemeup02.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:King Glenburg#File:Givemeup02.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 15:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Piantina di Nizza.png[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Ciosl#File:Piantina di Nizza.png. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 17:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Aeroparque_Jorge_Newberry-Overview_(by_Darío_Crusafón).jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Barcex#File Tagging File:Aeroparque Jorge Newberry-Overview (by Darío Crusafón).jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 18:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 Q4[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Återställning[edit]

Om du undrar över att jag ändrade tillbaka den här redigeringen [14] så beror det på att jag är väldigt säker på att bilden föreställer Gustav Adolfs torg i Malmö och inte i Stockholm. Byggnaden i bakgrunden finns fortfarande kvar på torg, och burspråket är rätt ovanligt utformat. Mvh--Ankara (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Det verkar stämma. Jag gick nog lite för snabbt fram. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I DON'T HACE MANY CAMERAS[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:RASECZENITRAM#Do you own a lot of different cameras?. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 19:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

your assistance please...[edit]

You deleted File:Segera Afghanistan.jpg and File:Celebrating Internation Womens' Day in Kandahar.jpg. The deletion log says they were marked as copyright violations. But I received no heads-up that they had been marked.

Could you please direct me to the place where the discussion of this copyright concern took place? Geo Swan (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete them. As the deletion log states, File:Segera Afghanistan.jpg was deleted by Abigor (talk · contribs) and File:Celebrating Internation Womens' Day in Kandahar.jpg was deleted by High Contrast (talk · contribs). I only marked them as copyright violations. I notified you of this on your talk page here and here.

These images were obvious copyright violations (http://www.flickr.com/photos/21394661@N08/3632467937/ is credited to Marco Di Lauro/Getty Images and http://www.flickr.com/photos/23879550@N00/3399565743/ is credited to AP Photo/Allauddin Khan, meaning neither Flickr uploader has rights to issue valid licenses to them). As such, the files were eligible for speedy deletion without prior discussion per Commons:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion. If you have objections, you may raise them at Commons:Undeletion requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that Afghanistan is not a signatory to any international copyright agreements, and has no domestic copyright law. You called these images "obvious copyright violations". I suggest you made this comment without fully addressing the complicated status of images taken in countries with no copyright protection. I suggest this makes Afghan images inappropriate for speedy deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The country of origin is the country where the image was first published. The headquaters of Getty or Associated Press are not in Afghanistan. --Martin H. (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The country of origin is the country where the image was first published?" That would be significant. Do you have a source for this?
And if these images were first published in Afghanistan? Is it your legal opinion (are you a lawyer who specializes in intellectual property law?) that publications in Afghanistan don't count? What about images taken by GIs or State Dept employees in Afghanistan -- is it your position that an image taken by a GI, first published outside of the USA, is covered by the laws of that other country? What if that country where the GI's official photo was first published was Afghanistan?
How do you know these images were first published by Getty or the AP? I have seen both services claim credit for images that were the work of US Federal employees. Geo Swan (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from Martin's comments, it's also quite likely that the images were post-processed outside of Afghanistan, which could constitute additional support for the organisations' copyright claims even if the original photos were not protected by copyright. In any case, you did not make the claim that the photos were not protected by copyright until just now. In fact, by uploading the photos to Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons copyright license, you were explicitly making the claim that they are protected by copyright. If you believe they are not protected by copyright, a public domain tag ({{PD-Afghanistan}}?) would have been more appropriate. Additionally, you incorrectly cited the Flickr users ♪_Lisa_♪ and tldagny as authors. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify, are you suggesting that routine image cropping, or color balancing, would allow AP or Getty to claim these photos were their derivative works, and that they owned the intellectual property rights, without regard to who actually took them?
When I upload images from flickr I use the flinfo or flickr2commons tools. I have occasionally added PD liscenses, when I was absolutely 100 percent certain that PD liscense was apropriate. But it is more convenient to stick with the liscense the tool wants to carry over. Sticking with the flickr liscense means that either the flickrreview robot, or a 2nd real human being will confirm that the image was available on flickr. There is no corresponding routine confirmation of PD images. Leaving the original flickr-derived liscense on the image so there is a review prevents confusion if and when the page where the image was found is no longer available.
I think your challenges above confirm that the deletion of these images was not routine, and that your use of speedy deletion was overly hasty. Geo Swan (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cropping is usually not considered a copyrightable modification, but it's certainly possible to introduce modifications requiring creative decision-making of a copyrightable nature in post-processing. I don't know if that's the case here, but given that Getty and AP appear to be claiming rights to these photos, I believe an assertion to the contrary ought to be based on more than favourable assumptions.

I also think that convenience is not an appropriate reason for using copyright tags that one has good reason to believe to be incorrect. Using an appropriate tag with an explanation in the permissions field would be preferable and could still be handled by a human reviewer.

When tagging these images, my focus was on doing a routine sweep for files with information indicating that they were sourced from commercial agencies. The Afghan situation is a bit of an unusual case as far as international copyright law is concerned, and given that there was no reference to it, it did not cross my mind (nor the deleting administrators' minds, apparently). While I would still argue for deletion in this case, I probably would have gone for a regular deletion discussion rather than speedy tagging if these issues had been apparent at the time. Again, feel free to use Commons:Undeletion requests if you feel that the deletion was handled improperly. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations[edit]

Sorry about all the copyright violations. I was confused about how it worked. I'm afraid you'll also have to delete the following files as well:

Spaghetti alla puttanesca.jpg
Turkey with stuffing.jpg
Roast turkey 02.jpg
Spaghetti vongole rosso.jpg

RecoveryMinded (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tidied up RecoveryMinded's incomplete deletion request or File:Roast turkey 02.jpg before I saw this note, perhaps it can be closed speedily. I converted his other deletion requests:File:Spaghetti alla puttanesca.jpg, File:Turkey with stuffing.jpg, File:Spaghetti vongole rosso.jpg into speedies as he has stated license is invalid. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that and hope you learn from the situation and have more success with future participation. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File Tagging File:Pontevedra_air.jpg[edit]

Hello,

the bot has only transferd the file and isn't the creator. The creator is en:User:Swamp_Greetings!

Jan Luca (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creator, according to the file description, is the University of Santiago de Compostela. I guess you mean the uploader, though. In that case, Swamp Greetings may be the English Wikipedia uploader, but the bot is indeed the Commons uploader. I'd say the human responsible for the upload here at Commons would be whoever ordered the transfer to Commons. Where can I see that information so that I can remind them to check that the source and licensing information is complete before requesting such transfers? —LX (talk, contribs) 20:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Julica-und-fefe.jpg[edit]

Yes, the attribution is part of the licensing, still an advertising link to a bicycle workshop is not part of an attribution (that would be "Ralf Soletschek", as explicitly stated in the license tags). I believe making an advertising link a required part of a "free" file would collide with Wikimedia policy - no ads on Wikimedia projects. --77.176.210.177 10:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 77.176.210.177 (or 92.225.132.117, if you prefer),

Attributing the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor is a strict requirement of the license. There are plenty of files on Commons that have a link as part of the required attribution, and there is no problem with this. See, for example, Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2006/05#Image:Locro.jpg. I've asked the admins to look at the issue, since you've now made the same edit four times without trying to reach consensus. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping[edit]

Hi LX. Do you want me to assign you rollback and patroller permissions? Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 10:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that could be useful, I guess. Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 10:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done :). Best reards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 11:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When tagging[edit]

Hello! This is just a friendly reminder to warn uploaders when you tag their images that were done via a bot (the automated tagging might warn the bot, not the actual creator). You might be interested in this thread. :-) Killiondude (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do try to do this, at least when there is a link to a Commons account, which there isn't in this case unless one looks into the file history. I'll try to be a little more diligent. Note that the image descriptions for the undeleted files contain statements that directly contradict the supposed CC-by-sa license (ikke-kommersiell means noncommercial). Also, because of the claim that the photographs are provided by a municipality, an OTRS ticket is in order to verify the permission. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for letting me know about that. Would you mind handling these images from here? It seems you are familiar with the language source and might be able to communicate better with that user. I would be very appreciative. Regards, Killiondude (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

failure[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Gonce#File:Voseo rioplatense.JPG. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 15:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

File:FERRARI_RUOTA.jpg[edit]

Thank you for your notification. I'll show it to Multichill (the actual dev of the bot) :). Fale (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User messages[edit]

Hello LX!

Such messages are ment to be only put by administrators that can easily administrate what the message tells a user. Thanks in advance. --High Contrast (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must apologize myself! You are an admin: I was looking here for your entry, but failed. There was a positive search result then. I'm sorry! --High Contrast (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not an admin. However, having previously been an administrator, I feel comfortable enough with policies that I can confidently say that I recognise situations where persistence will result in an imminent block. I typically check back on issues like this and post a message on the noticeboards if needed, and I find you admins are usually quite responsive when I do so. With all that in mind, unless there is a specific guideline against experienced regular users stating that a user will be blocked if they continue to violate policies, I honestly don't see what the problem is. If what you say is widely agreed, then it should be documented on {{Test4/doc}} and the user message link for inserting the template should be removed from non-administrators' toolboxes. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't play a pedant, pleae. It is inappropriate to menace some user without having the possibility to fullfill that threat. Another thing: What happened with your admin-rights? Why have they been removed? --High Contrast (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as a personal threat but as a warning of a rather obvious consequence. Sorry if that's semantics, and yes, I'll be the first to admit I'm a bit pedantic. If it's that important to you, I'll avoid {{Test4}}, but I do still think such usage rules should be documented.

My admin rights were removed in August last year at my own request. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ghada Adel.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Maher27777#File:Ghada Adel.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 06:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 Q1[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Feminists by country[edit]

hi,

"Restore categorisation for consistency with Category:Feminism, which is a subcat of Category:Activism. Also, feminists are not necessarily women by definition."

If you want. But if you recat one category, please, do the same thing for ALL the categories. I don't like when we have a list of categories completely different depending on where we are. Swedish feminists (or whatever the subject) are not supposed to be different from Canadian or Spanish. Thank you. Okki (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that such consistency is desirable. However, my focus is on keeping Category:Sweden and some of its subcategories nice, orderly and consistent with their parent categories. That's big enough a scope for me. Even if I broaden it further, I'll always end up leaving some of the categories at the periphery of my scope in a state that's inconsistent with its siblings. The category structure will never be perfect, but I think that keeping Category:Feminists from Sweden consistent with Category:Feminism is a step in the right direction, and I hope that we can agree that taking one step in the right direction–even if you don't take all the steps–is better than taking none. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, help me, then[edit]

I made that image. I had a note about it, I edited it, and so I deleted the tag. Don't reprimand me. Help me, if I didn't do it correctly. Evertype (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep the discussion in one place. I think Commons:Deletion requests/File:Proposed Streamer of United Ireland.jpg contains the most complete summary of the issue. If you have specific questions after reading that, feel free to follow up there; it's on my watchlist. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:FERRARI RUOTA.jpg[edit]

Hi LX, sorry for the lateness of my answer but I was into a wiki-pause until a few minutes ago. The problem that you pointed out, sadly, is a pretty common problem for the imports from it.wiki, mainly because Italian users tend to use in a random way the templates. I'll try to fix this with some bot running on it.wiki and fixing, where possible, the wrong templates. Fale (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tamuna_singer.jpg[edit]

HiHi, may be you are right :) I've just transferred the file, not uploaded :)--Gaeser (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not transfer files to Commons without first verifying that the information provided for the source checks out. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of your comments on my talk page[edit]

I noticed you restored the comments you placed on my discussion page after I removed them.

I'm accustomed to using Wikipedia, a sister project of Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia users are free to remove all comments on their discussion pages per this policy, regardless of the reason for removing them. The rationale behind this policy is that the comments are always displayed in that user's talk page history which no user can delete because the software won't allow it. Wikimedia Commons' software has this same capability. Why then are Wikipedia Commons users not permitted to remove comments on their discussion pages? RecoveryMinded (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've yet to respond to my comment. In the meanwhile, I was reading WMC policy and discovered the following info:

Most users treat their user talk pages like regular talk pages, and archive the contents periodically to a personal subpage -- either when the page gets too large, on a regular schedule, or when they take a wikivacation. Others delete comments after they have responded to them.

The above info came frome the following WMC policy page: Commons:Talk page guidelines#Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page? Feel free to verify it.

I also checked the WMC list of administrators and you're not on it (although I see you used to be one). Therefore, I doubt you have the right to restore information to my talk page after I've removed it and responded to it.

I have now responded to you on this issue twice (this comment and the following one on 11 November 2009: [15]). Also, I now have a solid understanding of WMC's copyright rules. Therefore, I'm removing your comments from my talk page in keeping with the policy I cited above. Keep in mind I will report you for a policy violation if you persist in restoring information on my talk page, something you apparently don't have the right to do. RecoveryMinded (talk) RecoveryMinded (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks for your messages and sorry for not responding more promptly. I've been busy work and real life. You've raised a few different points, so I'll try to address them one by one.

Firstly, regarding the reason blanking talk page messages is strongly discouraged at Commons, I can't speak for everyone here, so I can't objectively rationalize the consensus, but I do have a couple of theories as to why things are the way they are here. Commons administrators also rely on talk pages for a lot of their work, probably to a greater extent than at most other Wikimedia projects. Properly archived pages are far easier to review than the history of a page that has been repeatedly blanked at various times.

Secondly, regarding the Commons talk page guidelines, in describing existing practices, it does indeed state that some users delete comments after having responded to them. The way I'm reading it, it's somewhat ambiguous on whether or not this deletion is typically accompanied by archival, and it doesn't say how common this practice is. (Not very common at all in my experience.) In prescribing recommended practices, it is quite clear about discouraging actively erasing messages without responding to them. Now, I do realize that you have responded to my notes, but as it was done elsewhere, that had slipped my mind when I noticed the comments being deleted. (I interact with a lot of users, and I put pages where I've left comments on my watchlist.)

Thirdly, regarding the right to revert blanking, this is not something that is limited to administrators. The special privileges afforded to administrators (deletion, undeletion, protection, blocking, file renaming and MediaWiki namespace editing) are managed through technical mechanisms, not just policy. Any user has the right to revert edits that they believe to be improper (as long as they don't edit war or disrupt the project in some other way).

I'm convinced that your removal of the comments are in good faith and based on your interpretation of the talk page guidelines. I acknowledge that you have responded to the messages and that your interpretation of the guidelines is reasonable. I'd still encourage archiving, but I won't insist on it or restore your talk page.

I hope this sorts things out and wish you smooth sailing ahead. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing with me. I appreciate it. RecoveryMinded (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob...[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:TwoWings#Commons:Deletion requests/Files from Bob Bobster on Flickr. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 15:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hey Alex! Thank you for identifying such a lot of copyvios, tagging them for deletion. :-) --Polarlys (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It's crazy what one can dig up with just a few good search expressions. If you get a chance, please keep an eye on the Category:Unknown subcategories that mature next week, as I tagged quite a few files as missing information as part of the same review. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we could spend weeks just digging up album covers, google earth images and content like this. Do you use any scripts for notifying users? --Polarlys (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just the Quick Delete, User Messages gadgets and diligent use of the watchlist. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as I need a little technical upgrade ;-) Thank you! --Polarlys (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I`m Sorry[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Medhat Montasser#Copyright violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 19:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

File tagging File:French_Cemetery_Keelung.jpg[edit]

	Hello, LX/Archive. You have new messages at Sdrtirs'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 ∙ +/−

File:Hhgg.jpg[edit]

You poked me at en.wiki about this file a few weeks ago, but I was on break. It's a copyvio, and I deleted it here. Maxim_(talk) 21:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that. Hope you enjoyed your break. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miniatyrbåtyxa.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Holger.Ellgaard#File source is not properly indicated: File:Miniatyrbåtyxa.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 15:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Need`s to Upload Some Picture[edit]

Welcome LX,Please I need to upload some personal pictures to use. It`s Pictures of my family Thanks.. Medhat Montasser (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and... do you need me to do anything, or why are you telling me this? Are the files within the project scope of Commons? (See COM:NOT#HOST and COM:NOT#SOCIAL as well.) Can you show that the copyright holder (usually the photographer) has approved publication under a free license? If you can answer yes to both these questions, then there should be no problem. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolling edits (COM:CVU)[edit]

Hi LX,

In case you've missed it, since yesterday the patrolling functinality has been enabled for all edits, no longer just for page creations. This enables us to track, for example, anonymous edits on Commons. I'd like to invite you to check out the Anonymous edits list and maybe patrol part of a day. See also the updated Commons:Patrol.
If you have any questions please leave message on the CVU talkpage, my talkpage or on IRC. -- Krinkle^talk 23:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. I did notice it and some of the discussions leading up to it. It falls within the scope of some of my usual activities here, so I'll have a look at the instructions and maybe have a go with the new tools sometime soon. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ukrainiannaziatrocity2.jpg[edit]

dont by a fool, bitte. deleting a file becausue got a "badly name"? that are a nonsence, and, rename it better way to solve this "problem" User:Fredy.00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.63.93.191 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC) (possible open proxy)[reply]

What part of Do not remove this tag until the deletion request is closed are you having trouble grasping? If you disagree with the deletion nomination, discuss it at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ukrainiannaziatrocity2.jpg. Blanking the deletion tag will not make the deletion discussion go away; it'll only make it less visible to people who may wish to object that the file is up for deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just nonsense, I do not know what your problem to understand it - delete the file because it has a weird name? It simply makes no sense, and it is a mere vandalism ...

you are stupid or can not read? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.63.93.191 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat this once more: If you disagree with the deletion nomination, voice your opinion at the deletion discussion. Blanking the deletion tag will not make the deletion discussion go away. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, you have a problem with reading or what exactly is going on? you can not understand that, delete the file due to improper name is this nonsense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.63.93.191 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall ever having expressed an opinion on whether or not the file should be deleted. Your blanking of the deletion tag will also not affect the outcome of the deletion discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ukrainiannaziatrocity2.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Grimsta nature reserve[edit]

Hoppsan, jag var visst inne och rotade i Category:Grimsta nature reserve samtidigt som du. Hoppas jag inte ställde till någon oreda. --Zejo (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Det är ju kul att det är fler som är inne och petar i Stockholmskategorierna, men varifrån kommer uppgiften om att Grimsta naturreservat ligger i Blackeberg och Södra Ängby? Jag tog nyligen bort kategorin från Category:Bromma (stadsdelsområde), eftersom gränserna för naturreservatet enligt Stockholms stadsbyggnadskontors kartor (gröna heldragna linjer) tydligt ligger helt och hållet innanför stadsdelen Grimstas gränser i Hässelby-Vällingby. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Det verkar stämma att det ska ingå i Blackeberg och Södra Ängby också. Jag vet inte vad det är för gränser stadsbyggnadskontoret visar, men enligt kartan på http://www.stockholm.se/KlimatMiljo/Natur/Naturreservat-i-Stockholms-stad/ sträcker sig reservatet betydligt längre ut. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Q2[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

File:Screen shot444.jpg[edit]

Hi LX, as I'm not sure about that myself, has File:Screen shot444.jpg really to be considered copyrighted, though the apple-photo is by the uploader himself? Is it due to the Vista-logo in the lower left corner or are there more reasons? --Túrelio (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph is of course copyrighted by the uploader, who is free apply any license of his choice to that photograph, so there is no issue with that part. However, the user interface design depicted in the screenshot is that of Adobe Photoshop, which is non-free software, copyrighted by Adobe. According to Commons:Screenshots, screenshots of computer software cannot be uploaded to Commons unless the software is released under a free software license that complies with the Commons licensing policy. Consequently, the screenshots appearing in the English Wikipedia article on Photoshop (en:File:Adobe Photoshop CS4.png, en:File:AdobePS-107-System6.png and en:File:Photoshop CS3 Smart Layers.png) are all tagged as fair use images. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you THINK?[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Colt .55#File source is not properly indicated: File:Map of fertile cresent.png. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 11:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Schriner.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:William Saturn#File Tagging File:Schriner.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions[edit]

Don't bother me with your templates, check this and this. Barocci (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. There was no reference to that permission on the files that you uploaded or in the sources that you pointed to. Please add {{PermissionOTRS|ticket=https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=2023558}} in the permissions field of any future uploads you make and edit the file descriptions of your existing uploads in the same way. This will provide the information needed for others to verify the licensing information, as required. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Barocci (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for understanding and for your contributions. Just to clarify: by "any future uploads you make" I of course only meant uploads from soccer.ru should be tagged with this particular OTRS ticket reference. This was probably clear from the context, though. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way[edit]

Filemover rights granted - not sure whether you would use it but it would seem obvious to let someone like you have them. (if you don't want them let me know) Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, that's useful. It might make cleaning up Special:PrefixIndex/File:Dsc a bit more straightforward. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File mover[edit]

The functionality of the template {{Rename}} has recently changed. You might need to clear your cache to see the changes. If successful you should then be able to use the new "Quick adding" link in the template to instruct CommonsDelinker to replace the old name with the new name in all wikis. Please use that every time you rename a file. If further questions arise, feel free to write on my talk page --DieBuche (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spam[edit]

STOP SPAMMING MY PAGE! I ALREADY TOLD YOU THIS! --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr review notice[edit]

Hello LX. You are receiving this message because you have recently or regularly participate in Flickr review requests. A proposal to move Commons talk:Flickr files/reviewers to Commons:License review/requests was made and no objections were raised and thus transferred. Please watchlist this new page for further requests. Commons talk:Flickr files/reviewers will continue to display for a period of time but new requests will not be raised on your watchlist. Thank you, ZooFari 17:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Cheers. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Girl with a nice smile.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Electron#File:Girl with a nice smile.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 07:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Rename image[edit]

Can you please rename File:Meteror Crater in Arizone.jpg? I accidentally spelled meteor and Arizona wrong. Schuylar (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Schuylar (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Q3[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Info for interest only[edit]

I know you tagged some of them but I've just blocked 10 users who have all been uploading music equipment related images. Maybe they will get the point now! Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! You have so much faith in people, though. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have great faith in people generally (assuming I read you right) but I also know what some folk here will get up to! As always - thanks for your work here, there are few good ones left now sadly. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocage des photos concernant la biographie d'Edoardo Puglisi[edit]

This discussion has been moved back (twice) to User talk:Bezierscatane2#File:Donne di Carta (encre de Chine).jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC) and 21:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tack för hjälpen[edit]

med kategorierna. Jag måste erkänna att jag fullständigt hade missat att Högbergsgatan tydligen heter Högborgsgatan numera. Något jag inte verkar vara ensam om, Högbergsgatan vs Högborgsgatan--Ankara (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ingen orsak. Jag vet inte ens hur officiellt det är. Jag tycker också att man borde hört mer om det. På både Eniros och stadsbyggnadskontorets kartor står det fortfarande Högbergsgatan, trots att ändringen verkar ha skett för cirka två år sedan. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ursäkta att jag snöat in på det här. Jag har kontrollerat ett antal gatuskyltar längs med Högb*rgsgatan och på alla står det Högbergsgatan. Jag börjar undra om namnbytet är en vandringssägen som uppstått på grund av en felstavad gatuskylt. Det finns onekligen ett bildbevis här (dumt nog har jag inte kollat den skylten) men det skulle kunna vara en feltryckt skylt (något som har hänt förrut).--Ankara (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, jo, det verkar onekligen så. Namnformen Högbergsgatan fastslogs 1919, och namnet har funnits i äldre namnformer såsom Höghe bärgz gathan och Högh bärgz gathan från första halvan av 1600-talet. Det känns inte troligt att man skulle gå och ändra på det. Om ingen på Projekt Stockholm vet svaret kanske man kan reda ut det med kommunen. Om jag fattat rätt är det stadsbyggnadskontoret som ansvarar för namngivningen och trafikkontoret som ansvarar för skyltningen. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hola[edit]

This discussion has been moved back three times(!) to User talk:Botedance#File:La gran aventura de mortadelo y filemon.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC), 15:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC) and 12:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demano perdó[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Jbaropuig#File source is not properly indicated: File:Marc Birkigt.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will probably find it but[edit]

The talk page is partly addressed to you :) Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at the duplicate entry on the user's talk page (which is indeed on my watchlist, along with the file and its talk page). The file can now be deleted (again). —LX (talk, contribs) 12:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:BAURU_NOB_30.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Meloaraujo#File source is not properly indicated: File:BAURU NOB 30.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samarbete (AGF)?[edit]

Ang. Cleanup: Finding a file on the Internet does not make one the author; -"permission" which isn't needed; changed bogus license to PD tag; don't put files in meta categories

Tack för dina korrigeringar. Jag vill redogöra för bakgrunden till detta med "permission" which isn't needed". Det är inte så att jag har hittat en rolig, slumpvis vald bild, utan en bild som är viktig för projektet Ortportaler. Skutan på bilden har stått modell för Österåkers kommunvapen: Österåker deltar i Projekt:Ortportaler.

Att jag gjorde en templet för uppladdningar från bildarkivet vid Vallentuna bibliotek beror på att jag vill inkludera dem i projektet genom en viss grad av synlighet = mall. Jag har skrivit till biblioteks bildarkiv för att informera dem om publiceringen av bilden på Commons för att försöka uppnå en viss grad av samarbete inom ramen för projekt Ortportaler. Det finns fler bilder från samma källa som jag vill ladda upp på commons. Du är säkert varse GLAM-projektet. Detta sker i sann GLAM-anda. Läs ev. mer här /Einarspetz (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hejsan Einar,

Tack för informationen! Då förstår jag tanken bakom mallen lite bättre. Några funderingar:

Såvitt jag förstår anger mallen inte något generellt tillstånd att använda innehåll från Vallentuna kommuns bildarkiv. Vi kan hämta enskilda bilder därifrån under förutsättning att de är i allmän ägo på grund av ålder (som i detta fall) eller respektive upphovsrättsinnehavare går med på publicering under en fri licens (såsom {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, vilken dock i detta fall inte förefaller tillämplig, eftersom den förutsätter att upphovsrättsskyddet fortfarande är giltigt och att upphovsrättsinnehavaren uttrycker sitt medgivande). Mallen skulle dock kunna användas för att ange att bilden är hämtad från bildarkivet, så att den som hittar bilden här på Commons kan verifiera informationen i beskrivningen. Med detta synsätt skulle mallen passa för användning i source-fältet.

För att en sådan användning ska fungera på bästa sätt borde mallen ta bildens löpnummer (6028 i detta fall) som ett argument, så att vi kan länka till rätt sida i arkivet. Ett exempel på en mall med liknande funktion är {{LOC-image}}. Den mallen är också väl utformad och beprövad vad gäller kategorisering och liknande. Om detta stämmer överens med vad du tänkt dig, hjälper jag gärna till att fixa till mallen i liknande anda. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Så, nu har jag gjort som jag föreslog. Mallen hittar du fortfarande på {{Vallentuna Public Library}}, tillsammans med dokumentation av dess användning. Den växlar nu språk beroende på användarens inställning (för närvarande finns den på svenska och engelska). Den lägger in uppmärkta bilder i Category:Images from Vallentuna Public Library, och mallen är själv kategoriserad under Category:Source templates. Mallen tar nu bildens löpnummer som argument, och jag har uppdaterat användningen i File:Alcea.jpg i enlighet med detta. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Nightscream#Removal of galleries. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

According to Argentine copyright law, any image that is older then 25 years, that is, anything made before 1985, is legit to use without the need of the author (source still needs to be cited). On that I am clear.

Now...I have found a great deal of pictures of squads that won the Copa Libertadores. All of the pictures have something in common: they have an "El Grafico" stamp on it as you can see here.

Could I still upload the pictures as so or so I need to leave out the "El Grafico" part? Jamen Somasu (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watermarks are discouraged on Commons. This means that versions without watermarks are preferred on Commons, and files uploaded with watermarks may have those marks removed. It does not mean, however, that you are obligated to remove watermarks from freely licensed files that you upload from other sources.

Note that {{PD-AR-Photo}} requires that you provide not only the source where you found the files, but also evidence that the image was taken more than 25 years ago and the date and source of publication more than 20 years old. If you are able to provide those details, perhaps you are also able to find original versions without those watermarks. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Hi, can you delete the image Ecofet.jpg please? This image has copyright and I seen this after. Thanks -- Andrevruas (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ecofet.jpg

Ecofet

I'm not an administrator, so I can't delete anything. If the file is a copyright violation, you can put {{copyvio|Reason}} on the file description page. Did you take the file from somewhere else? If so, why have you claimed to be the author and copyright holder? —LX (talk, contribs) 05:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Túrelio (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No heading[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Someonepakistani#Vandalism_is_not_appreciated. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copyvio[edit]

Why deleting infos like templates for notifying the uploader? Oh, I see. "Click here to show further instructions". This should be in a different color or else. --Kungfuman (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm... I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I can only assume that you believe that I removed some information from {{Copyvio}}. What I actually did was explained in the edit summaries and in Template talk:Copyvio#Languages. This is what the template looked like before I started editing (source) and this is what it looked like when I was done (source). In source mode, that may look like a big change, but that's because the information is now imported from other templates based on your selected language instead of always defaulting to English. The English version of the template itself is largely unchanged. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Kentronhayastan[edit]

I have a Wikipedia account called KentronHayastan. I thought it wouldn't be case sensitive, but now Kentronhayastan and KentronHayastan are two different accounts. I always have to switch from on to the other. Do you think there's a way to transfer everything from this account to KentronHayastan so I can merge the two, without having to re-upload everything and re-edit all of the Wikipedia articles that use my uploads? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentronhayastan (talk • contribs) 19:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that can be done. See Commons:Changing username. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo categories[edit]

Thanks for sorting my photos to more specific categories! Dmitry G (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Thanks for your contributions. I'd like to offer a small hint as well: I notice that you write the date on your uploads as "27 - SEP - 2010" (for example). If you write the date as "2010-09-27" instead, the way it is shown is determined by each user's own language and date format preferences. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try, but I'm afraid to write "9th october" instead of "10th september" or "2nd march" instead of "3rd february". I really do mistakes in such format. So, will work on my mistakes in the future. Dmitry G (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps you remember, think of it the same way you write a number, like an amount of money: the biggest units go on the left and the smallest units go on the right. For example, if you have €412, you have four (4) €100 bills, one (1) €10 bill, and two (2) €1 coins. Same thing with dates: the year is biggest, so it's on the left, the month is in the middle, and the day is the smallest unit, so it goes on the right. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you much! Yes, today is 2010-09-27. And 2nd march is 2010-03-02. And 3rd february is 2010-02-03. Correct. It is quite unusual to be reconstructed from the Soviet format, which I used approximately 20 years of my life everywhere and every day :) Dmitry G (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:JustineBateman Shearer.jpg[edit]

Hi LX. You unintentionally categorized this image into Category:Items missing OTRS ticket ID. --Leyo 16:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did. Thanks for spotting it! Fixed, I hope. Note that I haven't checked the ticket, since I'm not an OTS agent, but I did check that the uploader is, and I assume this is the result they were trying to achieve. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Leyo 16:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Q4[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Overcategorization and the Archipelago Sea[edit]

I have a problem with the Categories Category:Archipelago Sea and Category:Archipelago National Park: A big part of the Archipelago Sea is in the park's "interest area". In that area many of the major islands partly belong to the park. Putting the islands in the park category makes them disappear for somebody seeking an object that is not in the park (and makes private property on those islands seem like being part of the park) and vice versa. I have thought overcategorization is the least evil in this case. Do you have any thoughts?

(Where should such issues be discussed? The talk pages of categories are seldom on watch lists.)

--LPfi (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem. Creating Category:Islands of the Archipelago Sea should help avoid overcategorization. What do you think? —LX (talk, contribs) 12:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most photos of the Archipelago Sea include islands. And parts of those islands belong to the park, parts of them do not (the same problem sustains with other subdivisions). A bunch of {{Cat see also}} and some explanatory text might help. I think that is needed regardless of how we categorize the files.

May be Category:Archipelago National Park should be a mostly empty category, containing only information signs, maps and other files that are relevant only for the park, and reference Category:Archipelago Sea for everything else. Hm, a category for the part of the Archipelago Sea in the interest area (ah, the correct term might be cooperation area) could also help a bit (that area has a reasonable border line).

--LPfi (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. It always helps if the entities we use for categories have good, clearly defined borders. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent]
A proposal (if it seems somewhat reasonable the discussion should probably be copied or moved to Category talk:Archipelago Sea):

Category:Archipelago Sea
- Category:Municipalities in the Archipelago Sea (including former municipalities)
- Category:Southern Archipelago Sea (defined here as the cooperation area of the park, see map)
  - Category:Archipelago National Park (for media related only to the park, see parent category for everything else)
  - other subcategories as needed, e.g. for all major island groups and major lone islands
- Category:Archipelago Sea in Åland
  - eastern Åland municipalities
  - longer ferry routes (Category:Södra Linjen seems to exist already)
  - other subcategories as needed
- Category:Central and northern Archipelago Sea
  - Category:Turku Archipelago
  - municipalities and former municipalities
  - other subcategories as needed, e.g. for well known islands
- Category:Eastern Archipelago Sea
  - municipalities and former municipalities in Eastern Åboland (mainly east of the cooperation area)
  - other subcategories as needed

Splitting out the cooperation area seems to make other area categories necessary for symmetry reasons. The Åland part doesn't yet seem to be categorized as part of the Archipelago Sea, but I've understood that everything east of the Åland "mainland" belongs to the Archipelago Sea. The "central and northern" is clumsy, but there is no well defined border here. The cooperation area makes the "southern" well defined, even if the term as such is vague. The eastern part is well defined by the traditional division between western and eastern Åboland, but as part of this area is in the park, we probably have to put some media in both this and the "southern" category.

The municipalities are a bit problematic, as the cooperation area consists of parts of several municipalities. I would suggest having the municipalities in the area category where their centre is and in a separate municipality category (I think only one former municipality has its centre in the cooperation area and can there be regarded as an island group).

I think islands and islands groups in the northern, central and southern Archipelago Sea should be both in the area categories and the municipality categories, as the municipality borders are not necessarily well known (and often irrelevant). This could of course count as overcategorization.

(For Åland and the east using only the municipality categories might be ok, I know less about those areas.)

--LPfi (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've responded at Category talk:Archipelago Sea. Sorry for taking so long to write back. I wanted to give it some thought, and I've been rather busy lately. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Lohan drawing[edit]

Sorry about that, I don't knew that this image not could. Truu (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. All the user accounts have been blocked now. --Eldarion (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info[edit]

Thanks for the note on the DR which led me here. I just blocked some socks and closed some other bad faith DRs. Might be worth keeping an eye. Thanks anyway --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. To paraphrase Samuel L. Jackson (TV version): I have had it with these monkey-fighting sockpuppets on this Monday-to-Friday wiki! —LX (talk, contribs) 17:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted pics[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Danieldnm#File:BSS Sverigedemokraterna 1.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DONT DELETE the picture Maurice de Bevere[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Codeholder#File:Maurice De Bevere.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations[edit]

Dear LX, I regretfully read that you marked as copyright violations all of my latest photos. As i wrote in their entry, this is not a copyright violation according to italian laws.

You wrote that there is no evidence that it was first published in Italy, but can you demonstrate that it was first published some elsewhere? Can you tell who is the author? I can't. And, unless you show me that I'm wrong, I can assume that they were first published in the book that I quoted as their source. Furthermore it's impossible to discover where they were published for the first time and if you want I can even say that, because we're talking about Ferraris, they were surely published on italian press at that time, what it counts it's that they were published in Italy more than 20 years ago. Furthermore, by giving the source of the file, I demontrated that it was published and created in Italy. If you want i'll attach you the photo of the book where i took the photos.

Surely I'm not a copyright expert, but nobody explained me how to handle wikimedia's rules and never had time to read them all. I only try to do my best with public domain photos which are no more eligible for copyright....... Digioman 22:18, 15 November 2010 (CEST)

The onus is on the uploader to provide credible evidence to support the licensing or public domain claims made, and on the balance of probability, I think it seems unlikely that photographs of such high-profile events would go unpublished for 35 years. The way {{PD-Italy}} is written, the very fact that the photos were not taken in Italy makes the tag not applicable to these photos. I don't know for sure whether or not that's actually the case; usually, it's the country of first publication that's relevant. If that is the case here, we would still need to determine that they were not published anywhere else before. Let's keep the discussion at the individual deletion discussions, though, as circumstances may differ. I appreciate your responsiveness, but I still urge you to take the time to read through Commons:Licensing. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see I answered also at the individual deletion discussions, later these days I'll try to determine the country of their first pubblication. But a couple of phots you marked as copyright violations where surely taken in Italy, I'll later specify the ones. The fact is that it's very difficult to determine the author, all the photos are anonimous, and actually impossible to find where they were first published. I also found that, for the photo taken at the Swiss GP, could be applied the {{Switzerland-photo}}, I'll later let you know because I have to some how transalte the swiss law which is in german and I don't speak german.I'll let you know also for the other ones at the individual discussions Digioman 20:58, 16 November 2010 (CEST)

Dear LX, in the individual deletion discussions I marked the photos which can be deleted because I found new photos which were for sure taken in Italy and that can replace the ones I actually uploaded so that there are no troubles with licenses. Let me know, but please don't think that I deliberately tried to violate copyright laws, the fact is that I still don't handle very well those rules. byeeee Digioman 13:35, 17 November 2010 (CEST)

Thanks again for your responsiveness and for researching the sources further. I don't doubt that any mistakes you made were based on good intentions. I see users who do deliberately upload copyright violations on a daily basis, and it's quite easy to spot the difference. I'll follow up on the individual discussions where I feel like I have something to say, and for the rest, we'll just wait for other users to chime in or admins to take action one way or another. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Dagane#File:FuerteChacal.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assist me![edit]

Hello, LX! I'm the uploader of File:Tamil_Culture.jpg. As I am a newbie of this stuff, I have no idea what to do with source information. Can you please help to figure out what actually I supposed to do? I don't want to let the image deleted. Rather, I seek proper help to provide copyright info with my contributions. Thank you! --Chuckraverthy (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tamil Culture.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Atkinson 2006 Rally Australia Dwellingup.jpg[edit]

{subst:Fdw-puf|Chris Atkinson 2006 Rally Australia Dwellingup.jpg}} 75.112.150.226 16:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, seven five dot one one two dot one five zero dot two two six! Based on this, I assume that you are TucsonDavid. (Or do you prefer Brian?)

We don't have en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files here at Commons, there is no Template:Fdw-puf here, and templates require two opening brackets to work. You might have been looking for Commons:Deletion requests.

I can understand if you're upset about this, but if this is intended as retaliation, I urge you to find a more productive way to vent your frustration.

You seem to be concerned with the fact that File:Chris Atkinson 2006 Rally Australia Dwellingup.jpg is showing up in Tineye searches.

The first match is from tuning.sk, who have also added their watermark to it. As you can see, it is much lower resolution and a tighter crop than the image stored here, so there is no way that I could have derived the file from the copy on their site. Furthermore, that page is dated 2007-06-07, whereas I uploaded the file to Commons on 2006-11-10. I have been in touch with Peter Kuttner of Cobra Tuning Ltd. regarding their infringing use of the photo in August last year, and frankly, I'm disappointed to see that they have still not taken it down or removed the fraudulent watermarking.

The second match was from subarutunersofmaine.com, which appears to be a parked domain now. Note that this site's inclusion of my photo was actually a deeplink to a low-resolution version here on Wikimedia's servers. I did also try to contact them in 2009, but they're RFC ignorant, so mails to info@subarutunersofmaine.com and postmaster@subarutunersofmaine.com all bounced.

There are also infringing uses at academic.ru, flagworld.com and cafecomf1, but it should be pretty obvious for similar reasons that they're violating my copyright and not the other way around. I hope that clears up any concerns you may have had. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flickrwashing File:Pinacograma.png[edit]

Is there evidence for the statement, or is that your suspicion? If so, based upon what? Not doubting, just seeking information so I can progress deletion. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The specific format of the source link shows that the Commons uploader is also operating the Flickr account, and sure enough, it was also uploaded to Commons right after it was uploaded to Flickr. It also shows up in Tineye searches, including a blog entry which predates the upload to Flickr and Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I agree with LX --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sortering av kategorier[edit]

Alfabetisk ordning är i stort sett en slumpmässig ordning. Det kan variera väldigt mycket beroende hur kategorierna namngetts och vilken bokstav olika ord börjar med. Till exempel hamnar manskategorin före people by name, medan kvinnokategorin hamnar efter. Ett annat exempel är att på svenska Wikipedia skulle dödskategorin komma före födelsekategorin Det är bättre att ha de viktigaste och mer specifika kategorierna först. En statsminister är mest känd för det uppdraget (kanske med något undantag som jag inte tänkt på), så statsministerkategorin kommer först. Alla personer föds, dör och har ett namn, så de kategorierna är väldigt ospecifika och kommer sist. Däremellan kan det vara svårare att avgöra, men det går ofta att gruppera olika typer av kategorier och om det inte går så kan ju alfabetisk ordning vara lika bra som något annat. /Ö 18:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hej och tack för förklaringen! :) Utan redigeringskommentar såg det lite underligt ut, men nu förstår jag att det finns en tanke bakom ändringen, även om jag ändå inte är säker på att jag håller med. Alfabetisk ordning kanske kan tyckas slumpmässig i någon bemärkelse, men den förefaller i alla fall mindre godtycklig än alternativet. När man jobbar systematiskt med kategorier tycker jag att det är lättare om man vet var i listan man ska titta efter en viss kategori. Om man börjar vikta till exempel statsministerämbete mot Nobelpristagarskap tror jag att utslaget beror alltför mycket på vilket perspektiv den som redigerar har utifrån till exempel härkomst och vilken kategoristruktur de håller på med för tillfället. Så hur går vi vidare? Commons:Categories ger ingen vägledning. Ska vi ta upp frågan på Commons talk:Categories? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!![edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Rudeby88#File:Eminem and Rihanna.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted[edit]

The obvious issues :) I've also sprot your user page but let me know if you want me to revert that. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's probably fine to leave it like that. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users banned according to your list. I will try to keep an eye on the list. Thanks. --Eldarion (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Q1[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Possible sock error[edit]

Hello LX, I am an editor at the English Wikipedia who has been advising a new editor there, User:Schulzdavid. I just found out that he is being accused of being a sock, and that you have CSD-tagged the image files he has uploaded. I want to let you know that I am contesting the CSDs. I realize, on looking at the socks listed at the sock investigation, that there is a similarity in the editing styles that could certainly make one suspicious, but I very much believe that this is only a coincidence, and that this editor is simply a new contributor who is being falsely accused. I have not personally inspected the copyright permission, but I have every reason to believe that it is for real, and was provided in good faith. Please let me know if I can do anything more to help clear this up. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the issue of the images, Commons only accepts content that anyone may use for any purpose, including commercial purposes; see Commons:Licensing. There is no basis whatsoever for the {{CC-by-sa}} tagging of the images. According to the statement repeatedly pasted to multiple pages by User:Schulzdavid, "our photos cannot be sold or transferred to other parties and can only be used for the Temple Beth Sholom's Wikipedia page." These are {{Non-commercial}}, {{Wikipediaonly}} and {{Non-free}} conditions that fundamentally contradict the CC-by-sa license. Claiming that these images are licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license constitutes copyright violation, and I've restored that tagging.

As for the sockpuppetry issue, it is discussed at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aju lion. Aside from the behavioral evidence I put forth as basis for investigation, the result of the actual CU was also that the accounts were likely related. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. After reading it, I went back and looked more closely at the permission, and I agree with you that it fails CC-by-sa. I regret that I advised the editor to use Commons for the files, and I agree with you now that the files should be deleted here. But as for the more serious accusation of socking, please note that (as of this time) the Checkuser evidence only applies to the other account, and CU appears not to have been run yet on this user. The behavioral evidence appears to me to be a coincidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm glad we can agree on the permission problem (as unfortunate as it is that we didn't get an actual usable permission). Regarding the CU case, Magister Mathematicae has checkuser privileges and wrote in the results section of Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aju lion that "I believe there's strong enough correlation to link the accounts." My interpretation of this statement is that a CU was run and indicated likely correlation (such as dynamic IP addresses in the same range). Add that to the overlapping interest in a rather geographically and topically specialized field (cf. Aju lion's log and Southern jew's log), the disregard and lack of understanding of copyright and Commons policies, and the fact that Schulzdavid became active here less than a month after the last known sock was blocked. I'm sorry, but I'm finding it a bit hard to believe that the combination of all those factors are a coincidence. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do feel bad that I advised the user to upload those files without my having first looked at the permission letter myself, and I've deleted the images now from the English Wikipedia. But in the mean time, checkuser Tiptoety reported at the sock investigation that the CU confirms socking by the other account, but seems to indicate that the account I'm discussing with you is unrelated. It really is just a case of a new and inexperienced user who made some beginner mistakes about copyright policy, but did not do so intentionally. And the southern US is a big place. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure what to think now with two different CU results contradicting each other. The southern US is indeed a big place (I've traveled through a fair bit of it), but Temple Beth Sholom from Schulzdavid's uploads is less than 2.5 miles from Temple Emanu-El and Cuban Hebrew Congregation from Aju lion's File:Temple emanuel.jpg and File:Cuban Hebrew.jpg uploads. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:DMCA Takedown, NCI Photos[edit]

I read the village pump yesterday to know what happened, but thanks for your message anyway :) Lobo (howl?) 12:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page[edit]

Hi, I realize that this is really not important, but could you please post all the block requests on the specific page Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections instead of Commons:Administrators' noticeboard? It could help a little for people who have one page or the other on their watchlists. Thanks. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it seems a lot of admins are only watching the main COM:ANB. I'll try using the blocks subpage at least for a while and see if response times have improved from my past experiences. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Rk 95 Tp[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:FinFihlman#File:RK 95 TP.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help...[edit]

Hi LX! I have a bit of a problem. I uploaded this: File:Umeå studentkårs medlemsantal.svg, and it looked like hell when uploaded (dont know why...). How do I do to delete it? dnm ^{(t | c)} 00:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Daniel!

Tråkigt att det inte blev som du tänkt dig. Eftersom filen är nyuppladdad och inte används någonstans kan du förmodligen få filen snabbraderad genom att lägga in någonting i stil med {{speedy|Uploader's request; not rendered correctly}} på filbeskrivningssidan.

Ett annat alternativ är att försöka fixa problemet och ladda upp en ny version av filen. En bit ner på filbeskrivningssidan finns en länk för att ladda upp nya versioner.

Du beskriver inte vad det är som ser fel ut. Jag ser att texten har flutit ihop en del. Om det är problemet kan bero på att du angett en font som inte stöds. På meta:SVG fonts hittar du en lista över vilka fonter som stöds. Annars brukar man kunna få bra hjälp angående SVG-filer på Commons:Graphics village pump. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Łukas Biedny[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Jumpman23. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Massa_critica_pinturas_poa.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Tigre do oeste. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Headshot.jpg[edit]

Take a look. Thanks. --RanZag (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my watchlist, so there's no need to notify me, but I have nothing to add really. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Lepota[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Lepota Kuzmanovic#User:Lepota. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admin[edit]

Dear LX.
I would - again - kindly ask you to become a sysop again. I know, you had some issues in the past, but that does mean, you are not a fine editor. And by not being an administrator here, you don't change that old licensing-issue. You are filling in so damn many requests on the adminisrator's noticeboard, you really need those tools. Please think about this idea again. If you wanted to, I'd nominate you, of course. Kind regards, abf «Cabale!» 10:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but no. Since the policy on certain photographs protected by Swedish copyright law remains the same (i.e. that the law should be ignored), I would still be forced to make the same impossible choice between abiding by the laws by which I'm bound and the policies by which administrators are bound. Please understand that my resignation was not a protest, but an action intended to protect Commons. I'm not bitter, I know I'm a good editor, and I intend to continue with that. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you "exclude" decissions on such images from your work as an administrator? abf «Cabale!» 13:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, that would be the same as refusing requests to delete such files, thereby supporting the infringement. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sad but true. :( abf «Cabale!» 18:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

I reverted [16] this category edit - it may have been the case in Britain some 200 years ago, but municipal workhouses in Moscow in the end of 19th century were neither prisons, nor industrial buildings. Rather, they're half way between free municipal housing and almshouses or orphanages. Admission was voluntary, and in some years there was quite a waiting list. The buildings themselves were converted from former upper-class mansions, and located in "ordinary" residential areas - so they're not industrial either. In the beginning (1880s-1890s) they were more like a modern charity-run free hostel, and then degenerated into ordinary filthy flophouses and lost their work component altogether. It just didn't work.

Regards, NVO (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, see caption for File:Municipal Album 1.126b Sokolniki workhouse.jpg: "Asile des incurables, hôpital boulangerie et hospice" = "Hospice for the incurable, almshouse and bakery". Definitely not a forced labor institution, and yet called a division of the city's workhouse. NVO (talk)

Thank you for explaining the edit – I had just noticed it and was about to ask you about it. Was there a reason why you reverted my entire edit rather than just removing the categories which you think do not apply? In other words, was it your intent to move Category:Workhouses in Russia back to Category:Workhouses rather than the more specific Category:Workhouses by country? Additionally, workhouses were certainly buildings, so I still think that the category should be a descendant of Category:Buildings in Russia in one way or another.

Also, if workhouses were only prisons or industrial buildings in some countries, those categories should probably be removed from Category:Workhouses and Category:Workhouses by country. It seems you are more familiar with the subject than I am, so perhaps you could help? —LX (talk, contribs) 11:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I moved it into Category:Workhouses by country. The case of buildings is more complicated: "buildings in Russia" will, technically, include the former East Prussian workhouses that were more like British model (and were not part of Russian Empire ever). Perhaps, the whole set of Moscow photographs should be moved into something like "former social services buildings in Russia" (on the same level as orphanages, almshouses and hospices). NVO (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Well, there's nothing in the name Category:Workhouses in Russia to imply exclusion of East Prussia. Perhaps Category:Workhouses in the Russian Empire is needed to make the distinction? That could then be a subcategory of Category:Buildings in the Russian Empire, which could be a subcategory of Category:Buildings in Russia and Category:Buildings by former country. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last proposal seems unmanageable: there's not enough resources to maintain "by (current) country" categorization. Parallel "by former country" will be, I suspect, stillborn from the start. And a can of worms of all EE conflicts. ~~Perhaps the simplest solution will be to move Category:Workhouses in the Russian Empire to Category:Workhouses in Russia.~~ Already there. NVO (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, national borders changing over time does pose a problem for categorisation (especially for things like buildings, which tend not to move or disappear along with those borders). Suppose we get some photos of workhouses in East Prussia. Where should they go? I still don't see why Category:Buildings in Russia would imply inclusion of East Prussia if you think that Category:Workhouses in Russia does not. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation detection - Could/ Should normal users warn to block?[edit]

Hello LX, as I saw, you're looking for copyright violation. But some users prefer not to follow the guidlines (e.g. User_talk:AdryDN2). Are normal users like me allowed to post the "End copyvio" - message on a useres talkpage? (Example here: User_talk:Antmanpym)? Thanks --RE RILLKE Questions? 18:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes :) (it means an admin coming along on the next batch should block not warn) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of my stalkers :-P has apparently answered the question already, but yes. I'm a regular user too, and I use it. Even if you don't have the ability to block them yourself, I think it's only fair to warn people of the fact that getting blocked is a highly likely consequence of persistently uploading copyright violations.

User talk:Antmanpym has already been given that warning (by Dodo), so there's not much point giving them the same message again. If I notice that a user ignores that warning and continues to upload copyright violations without getting blocked quickly enough for my liking (I'm impatient), I usually leave a note at COM:AN/B requesting a block.

Keep up the good work! —LX (talk, contribs) 18:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fast reply. I am looking at uncategorized images and there are so many useless images :-( And it seems not to become better. Sometimes up to 30% of the new files are garbage - that's frustrating. --RE RILLKE Questions? 21:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of work done to make it easier to upload files to Commons. We broke the nine million barrier in February, just a couple of months after the previous million milestone. Subjectively, it feels like it's getting harder to keep up with new uploads. So the efforts to make it easier to upload stuff to Commons seem to have worked. I'm just not sure that the useful uploads have increased at all. I think a lot of people who find Commons difficult to use do so because what they are trying to do isn't what Commons was intended for. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Q2[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

File:Diego Narvaez Rincon.JPG[edit]

I reverted this file and the old one has complete Exif-Data. Do we still need a permission? Thanks --RE RILLKE Questions? 17:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. The user name Artistentertainment implies that the copyright is held by a corporation (probably http://www.aegroup.com.au/), but of course anyone could register an official-sounding user name, so that needs OTRS confirmation from an e-mail account @aegroup.com.au. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Lampedusa[edit]

I have permission for use in wikipedia the image from http://www.lampedusa35.com/ in my e-mail (see information of the my files posted in commons). Andre86 16:27, 2 April 2011

At the top of this page, there's this text:

Important:
I prefer to keep discussions where they started.
If I left a message on your user talk page, please respond there.

And at the top of the page when you're editing, there's this text:

If you are responding to a message or template that I left on your user talk page, respond there

So please do that. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed and have posted in the image of Lampedusa:

Please help me... Andre86 16:38, 2 April 2011

I can't help you if you continue to ignore every instruction given to you. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CriciumxJec[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Joaocarlospatricio#File:Tigrexjec.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions[edit]

Thanks! --Cekli829 (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions[edit]

Hi! To say the true, i did not know this. Thanks!--Melikov Memmed (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:CRLV DETRAN.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Sethemanuel#File Tagging File:CRLV DETRAN.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

about File:Shunde_Rainbow_Bridge_(satellite_view).jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Caiguanhao#File:Shunde_Rainbow Bridge (satellite view).jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict in DR[edit]

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kottarathil_sankunni.jpg - Will you able to look into this..?? ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gutosão copyvios[edit]

Hello LX, I saw you marking a series of copyvios on Gutosão photos. Will it be possible to automatically replace the photos in use in wikipedia projects with equivalent versions, when available?-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, I'm not aware of any feature like that, and I don't see how that would technically work. It's quite hard to automatically determine if two photos are "equivalent" for a given illustration purpose. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. It would have to be manually, then... I would do it later today, perhaps, if the images would be still there. :S -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 05:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, upon closer inspection, File:800px-Palacio da Alvorada Mezzanine.JPG is actually a scaled-down duplicate of File:Palacio da Alvorada Mezzanine.JPG (not sure why Gutosão felt the need to upload that instead of just using the full-resolution version, which has proper source and authorship information). The version uploaded by Gutosão doesn't seem to be used anywhere. Usage information may not be fully up to date at the moment, though. The same applies to File:Alvoradaanoite.jpg (an apparently unused low-resolution duplicate of File:Palacio da Alvorada Exterior.JPG). Other photos of Palácio da Alvorada can be found in Category:Palácio da Alvorada.

The only file that's reportedly in use is File:Theatro Municipal, Rio de Janeiro 2010.jpg. For that, we have several alternatives in Category:Teatro Municipal do Rio de Janeiro: File:Teatro Municipal.jpg and File:Teatro municipal rio de janeiro.jpg are both much better quality than the copyvio uploaded by Gutosão. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those files were not exact replacements, since the copyvio photo was taken after the 2009/2010 restoration. For the Portuguese wikipedia, which was the only one which used it in that context, I tweaked another Commons file to make File:Theatro Municipal do Rio 22-05-2010-2.JPG (actually, the original photo was taken during a Wiki meeting, just days before the inauguration of the restoration works in the theatre), which may even be more appropriated, since the other photo was apparently from 2009. The uses in other wikis were replaced with the files you suggested. Cheers, -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 08:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the discussions[edit]

Maybe we can get a chance to do some content work together. I value the image experts! TCO (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm all for the different Wikimedia projects working together more. Feel free to chip in over here whenever you see the need. Most tasks are easy to get started with, and there's plenty to do. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 10:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...you know your stuff. I like bringing in the "heavy hitters" so will weedle a bit of image review or other image help next FA/FL I have. ;) TCO (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Assistance with my uploads[edit]

I responded to your comment on my uploads. I am pretty new to commons, so if you could give me some guidance as to the best boxes to check when uploading, or additional information I should provide for any of the specific documents, it would be appreciated. Thanks. MineWatcher (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Graciemeats.jpg[edit]

He's done it again. Time for a permablock. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've put up a request at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Underhandedly?[edit]

Please refrain from personal attacks. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

un·der·hand adv \ˈən-dər-ˌhand\: 1 a : in a clandestine manner. I stand by my position that blanking out a legitimate problem tag solely on your volition without discussion, notification or explanation of any kind is underhanded. I am sorry if you perceived it as an attack on your person; I solely intended it as what I believe is justified criticism of your actions in this particular case. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the diffs for the explanation; you can read. And in English, to accuse someone of acting underhandedly is definitely a personal attack. "Clandestine" is not much better. Do not use the word again. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information required by Commons policy was not present before your edits, was not provided by your edits, and consequently, was still missing after you removed the problem tags that stated that the information was missing. The diffs did not explain the edits, and you did not discuss the blanking or notify anyone of your actions (whereas the uploader was notified when the problem tag was introduced). In fact, the second time I came across and tagged it, I didn't realise I had already tagged it before, because you removed the tag, well, in a manner that is unlikely to be noticed, whatever you would like to call that. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave clear edit summaries, and I made it clear that I saw no problems with copyright, indicating the reasons why. Now remove your gratuitous personal attacks please, if you care for a collegial working atmosphere. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not. "Undo revision 40987921 by LX (talk)" didn't really make anything clear. Since I haven't made any personal attacks, I have nothing to remove. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Q3[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

AjaxMassDelete[edit]

Hello LX (Alexander), I wonder how you performed the last deletion request that fast: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by PrinceMarciano.

I wrote a handy script (is still in alpha state and will be extended for adding no-permission, OTRS, ...) allowing a mass deletion request. As I think you are able to read and comprehend JS, you might want to test it? You can find it here: User:Rillke/AjaxMassDelete.js. In a few hours there will be documentation on the discussion page.

You can load it for debugging purposes:

importScriptURI('http://www.commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rillke/AjaxMassDelete.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s');

or for usage only:

importScript("User:Rillke/AjaxMassDelete.js");

When ready, it will be a snap-in for AjaxQuickDelete. -- RE rillke questions? 15:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just used tabs, copy & paste – no magic involved. :) The script sounds useful; I'll look into it. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tried it out for the first time yesterday. Seems to work well. I have a few comments. Where would you like me to put the feedback? —LX (talk, contribs) 12:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the confidence put your comments here. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 17:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for the inconvinience due to the malfunction of this script. (That happens whenever one has no time to test) The errors should now be fixed. Do you want to use my replacement for MediaWiki:Gadget-UserMessages.js ?

If you want to, here is the neccessary code:

importScript("User:Rillke/AxUserMsg.js");
var AxUserMsgPreSelect = 10; // selects end-copyvio

Errors and desires can be put here. Screenshot and documentation will follow.

Have a nice evening. -- RE rillke questions? 18:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's been no inconvenience at all. I appreciate the opportunity to test it; it's already saved me quite a bit of time. I would consider most of the bugs I reported to be feature requests rather than defects. If there were major hiccups, I didn't notice them. What are the benefits of your UserMessages version? —LX (talk, contribs) 08:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed there were "hiccups". I improved the documentation page. Especially User talk:Rillke/AxUserMsg.js#What has been improved? should be of your interest. Did you ever click on your browser's "back"-button using the old script after adding "... to inform the user"? I did and that's why wrote the new script. (And because it is a good toy for newbies and the forgetful like me.) -- RE rillke questions? 17:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, accidental extra messages as a consequence of using the back button have happened to me several times – especially before the Quick Delete gadget was fixed. I'll give your User Messages rewrite a whirl too. It sounds promising! —LX (talk, contribs) 21:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AjaxMassDelete.js - New feature[edit]

User manual, requests and known issues

Thanks for trusting in my skills and me.

At this point I would recommend switching to the "load on demand"-feature of this script because it's quite a huge pile of code. This should improve performance and is not mandatory to retain its functionality: It's just a suggestion. This will prevent the interpretation of the whole script if a page loaded on commons. Instead, only if you click on the link, it will load the script.

What you've to do: In User:LX/monobook.js exchange

importScript("User:Rillke/AjaxMassDelete.js");

with

addPortletLink('p-tb', 'javascript:{importScript(\'User:Rillke/AjaxMassDelete.js\'); void(0);}', "Perform batch task", 't-AjaxQuickDeleteOnDemand', null);

That's all. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 20:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done. FYI, I had some problems with the script the other day where it wouldn't list any files, so I had to resort to creating Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by RASECZENITRAM manually. It seems to work again now, so I assume it was a temporary problem while the script was undergoing what looked to be some pretty major changes. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to remove a debug-line (console.log()). A similar problem caused a bug in MediaWiki-Software :) I hope it works now as expected. -- RE rillke questions? 09:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JSONListUploads[edit]

Rd232 sent an enquiry whether I'd like to create a gallery tool from AjaxMassDelete I did and here is what you need to install the script. It adds a toolbar link (My uploads) if you are somewhere in your namespace. Please do not click on it if you are editing a page. It removes the whole page's content and sets up the gallery.

if (-1 != mw.config.get("wgPageName").indexOf(mw.user.name())) importScript("User:Rillke/JSONListUploads.js");

I read about the features you requested at VPP and I will work on implementing the missing ones in both scripts. Kind regards -- RE rillke questions? 19:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good news: Make and model available. Filter, revision treatment and global usage will follow soon. AjaxMassDelete will adopt this (not yet done because there are some structural changes). -- RE rillke questions? 22:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:RASECZENITRAM#Do you own a lot of different cameras?. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tip for you[edit]

Here is a tip for you {{Disputed}}. That is for when you want to fix a problem without deleting a file. --MGA73 (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not autotranslated.
Nobody/ only a few people care about this tag. You have to ask or invite everyone in a discussion.
Sorry for meddling :) -- RE rillke questions? 15:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that's in reference to this comment, and I think you may have misunderstood me slightly. What I meant is this: when adding {{No source since}}, {{No license since}} or {{No permission since}}, I first and foremost hope that the missing information will be provided so that the file doesn't have to be deleted. I still believe – as is our policy – that files which do not provide source, authorship and licensing information as required must be deleted, but it's not an outcome I wish for. I'm well aware of {{Disputed}}. I use it occasionally but sparingly (for the reasons listed by Rillke) – usually in combination with another tag as a means of pointing out where the problem is. It is not a replacement for {{No source since}}-tagging of files sourced only to "Google" and which may or may not be in the public domain. Even the template itself discourages such uses. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wykymania, Please do not remove speedy deletion tags[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Wykymania#Please do not remove speedy deletion tags. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Le tombeau de l'amiral Baste (Brienne-le-Château).jpg[edit]

Hi, Exceptionally, I removed your request for the removal of the watermark on File:Le tombeau de l'amiral Baste (Brienne-le-Château).jpg. Because the file is unsourced and a probable copyvio, I believe it may be better to leave the watermark in evidence until the file is deleted (or validated), even if it is not easily readable. Also, if the file is probably to be deleted, it is better to save useless work for a graphist. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll keep an eye on it in case it turns out to be worth the effort to remove the watermark. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Myers.png[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Mi-black#File:Halloween Myers.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hi, LX!

I read your message. You're right. There are photos in wikimedia commons it no are my own work (sorry, I have not good english). But, the photos taken with casio exilim ARE MY OWN WORK. If you want, delete other photos, but photos with casio exilim not delete, they are of mi own work.

Thanks

In spanish:

Hola, Lx Leí tu mensaje. Tienes razón. Hay fotos en wikimedia commos que no son de mi autoría.... Pero las fotos tomadas con Casio Exilim SON MI PROPIO TRABAJO. Si tu quieres, borra las otras fotos, pero las fotos con casio exilim no las borres, son mi propio trabajo.

Gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.36.211.12 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2. August 2011 (UTC)

At the top of this page, there's this text:

Important:
I prefer to keep discussions where they started.
If I left a message on your user talk page, please respond there.

And at the top of the page when you're editing, there's this text:

If you are responding to a message or template that I left on your user talk page, respond there

So please log in and do that so that I have some chance of knowing who you are and what you're talking about. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

...for this fixing of the COM:VPR header. :) Rd232 (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. A related hint: if you want to provide a diff link (or similar) that goes to the right server regardless of whether the reader uses the secure login server, you can use fullurl, like so. Makes the source code more concise too. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 15:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I actually know fullurl (though I always have to look up how to use it), but it wasn't needed here, as you demonstrated, and I don't normally bother with it in discussions, out of laziness :) (BTW I hear the developers are working on making fullurl redundant, so MediaWiki will automatically know where to send the user.) Rd232 (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good news: In MediaWiki 1.18, we can simply write Special:PermanentLink/56906117 for an oldID bugzilla:268. The secure server will probably change, too (which can ease writing links: [17]) There are plenty of improvements. :) -- RE rillke questions? 16:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesomesauce! Someone deserves a good beer. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

photo[edit]

The owner is allowed to work @ah0ra (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of this page, there's this text:

Important:
I prefer to keep discussions where they started.
If I left a message on your user talk page, please respond there.

And at the top of the page when you're editing, there's this text:

If you are responding to a message or template that I left on your user talk page, respond there

So please do that. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

photos about board games[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Yoavd#photos about board games. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tineye / Google Images[edit]

Hello LX,

I see that you sometimes use Tineye to identify copyvios. Google is now offering a similar service at Google Images, search with an image. If you don't already know this search option, you might want to try it. You can either enter an URL, upload an image or use drag&drop. The search results are much better than those of Tineye, probably because Google's databanks are bigger. There is also a plugin for Firefox or Chrome which makes searching with images as simple as a right mouse click. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 17:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: More info at http://www.google.com/insidesearch/searchbyimage.html. --Rosenzweig τ 17:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of it and use it quite a lot. (I have the extension enabled in my preferences.) I find that they complement each other nicely. Thanks, though. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No heading[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Augusto664#File Tagging File:Federal police building.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epost[edit]

Fick du mitt mail? Jag vill inte tjata, men det är kort om tid och är du inte intresserad får jag fortsätta leta. Vänligen--ArildV (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hej! Nej, jag verkar inte ha fått något mail. Hittar inget i spamkorgen heller. Kan du försöka igen, eller posta här om det inte rör något känsligt. Ursäkta att jag inte svarat tidigare; jag var ute i svampskogen hela helgen. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hej! Låter trevligt med svampskogen. Frågan gällde Wiki Loves Monuments där jag är projektledare för den svenska delen och att vi sökte en Wikipedian/Commonsanvändare som var intresserad av att sitta med i den svenska juryn. Trots efterlysningar på bybrunnen både på Wikipedia och här har vi inte fått något napp, och jag tänkte att du kanske var intresserad att vara med i juryn? Det är oavlönat, däremot ska vi kunna stå för eventuella reskostnader för dig till Stockholm. Juryn kommer sannolikt vid åtminstone ett tillfälle sammanträde.--ArildV (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Det var både trevligt och produktivt. Jag åker upp till Stockholm rätt ofta ändå och skulle gärna ha ställt upp, men just under september är jag tyvärr alldeles för upptagen med jobb och tjänsteresor. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Tack för ditt svar.--ArildV (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This DR[edit]

I have withdrawn my panoramio pass in this DR after Admin Lupo clarified that pre-2009 images must not have a "for wikipedia" only permission statement/restriction. Please note that the uploader did try to get some form of permission for his uploaded panoramio images but since it mentions wikipedia, it is not acceptable or free enough for Commons....as you noted. It is strange. I did file a separate DR on 1 of his uploaded photos which grew to a mass DR on many of his other images and I agreed to their deletion. The problem was that this old pre-2009 panoramio images can cause problems (with their restrictive permission) since the permission can be vague..if there is no license change. Thanks for notifying me of the problem. Unfortunately, it is usually Dr. Fo who caused me this problem at panoramio! Best Regards from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reconsidering and for checking other affected files. It's too bad that obviously well-intending contributors who care enough to ask for permission sometimes don't read up on what kind of permission they actually have to ask for. Sorry for not responding sooner; I was out in the woods all weekend. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I hope there are no more issues with Dr. Fo but I can't be 100% sure. I already have to ask Admin Lupo to delete another 20 images here today from another panoramio account that I passed. Dr. Fo just causes me a headache sadly. But with these old images, there is no bot to review panoramio images sadly and if I make a mistake I have to rectify it. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Pirámide de la isla de Jaina.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:El Comandante#File Tagging File:Pirámide de la isla de Jaina.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ljungstream[edit]

I just want to say, I am sorry for this. Unfortunately it was not an error I could fix: If you look at MediaWiki_talk:AjaxQuickDelete.js#Handle_server_error_504_and_502, and below, you will see that the API used by this script had serious problems these days because one server was out of sync. This should be fixed by the techs for now. -- RE rillke questions? 09:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I knew I was test driving a work in progress, and I did notice that something went wrong, so it's my fault for not checking more carefully to see which steps were missed. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:GERMAN TANK DISGUISED AS AN AMERICAN TANK.jpg[edit]

Hello LX!

Thank you for your help here. It is nice to see people who know what valid sources are and that such things are important for Commons. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Took me all of two minutes. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 12:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Files[edit]

You must be joking, right? Why don't you first consult me? It takes 20 min to upload one file. I don't want to upload them all again, just because somebody cannot read a bracket. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion where it started. I did notify you of the discussion and asked for your comments ("We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion"), so you have been consulted. If the permissions are found to be acceptable, the files will not be deleted. If the permissions are not acceptable and no acceptable permission is obtained, the files will be deleted. If the files are deleted and an acceptable permission is later obtained, they can be undeleted. Whatever the case, you will not need to upload them again. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How long does the deletion process take? I will need a couple of days for sure. You already knew on 24 August, you could have given me a hint then, instead of immediately plunging into the brute method of mass deletion. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions run for at least seven days, and usually more than that in cases like this, so there's no need to panic. I didn't actually see the response to my question on OTRS until just now (too many pages on my watchlist, I guess), and I thought it was best to deal with it before it got archived. Commons is big enough a project that messages on user talk pages tend to get forgotten if they go unanswered. Open deletion discussions are kept track of more effectively, which is pretty important for cases like this. I hope that we can resolve it without deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you remove the deletion tag from the files with a renewed permission? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The admin who closes the request will remove the tags. With an approved OTRS permission they won't be deleted.

If Alex wants to do this before, he can use "custom replace" using RegExp /\{\{delete\|reason\=.+\|day\=5\}\}/ with a space or just nothing. -- RE rillke questions? 21:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for all your work! —LX (talk, contribs) 14:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Bakel plein omstreeks 721 na Chr..jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Bakel123#File source is not properly indicated: File:Bakel plein omstreeks 721 na Chr..jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC) and 14:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

commons helper[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Maher27777#File:Stockholm in winter.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: File:Casadejuntas.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Dagane#File source is not properly indicated: File:Casadejuntas.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replied in my own discussion.--Dagane (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for image review[edit]

A cup of juice for you. Sir you are looklike a good image reviewer.So please review my other uploads.

sridhar1000 (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did have a quick look through your uploads when I first discovered copyright violations among them. Are there any particular files that you think may need attention? If you are unsure enough about your uploads that you feel like all of them need to be reviewed, perhaps you should consider asking before uploading next time. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About an image[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Gino il Pio#File:Ariccia osp Castelli 11 03 11.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories needs translation[edit]

is a huge page which is not translated to svenska. If you find the time or another volunteer, some users would have it easier. I think the first 3 or 4 sections are the most import ones. I just ask because today, Bo Forslind (talk · contribs) asked on Helpdesk how to categorize. According to CentralAuth he could be a native sv-speaker. -- RE rillke questions? 15:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a reply to Bo, who's clearly a Swedish speaker. I'll see if I can find the time to translate the help page later. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was recently a discussion about splitting that page to make it easier to understand. The discussion petered out (Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2011/08) but it might be worth trying to pursue this before making the effort to translate the page. Rd232 (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Q4[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

licence[edit]

Thank you message! The licence is good today! Szajci ^pošta 08:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures Uploaded through Wikipedia Commons[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:CherryGirl22#File:Pangong Tso Range.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Balansören.jpg[edit]

Hi Alex, I have some difficulties to find proper attribution info for this image. Could correct them if they are not right? Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 12:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did the best I could to clean up the file description. I hope that's better. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A major improvement, thanks. -- RE rillke questions? 15:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for intervention[edit]

Thanks for your fast intervention regarding the vandalism of IP No 178.232.124.8 today (multiple requestis for deletion of pictures of Swedish outdoor sculptures). You may have noticed that the person behind was cunny enough to sweep his or her electronic tracks, so this seems to be a sheer vandalism and not an act of an innocent newbeginner. Regards Boberger (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. (It was actually yesterday, though.) They've also edited from the following IP addresses:

46.15.5.52 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • tor • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log • checkuser)

46.15.68.105 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • tor • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log • checkuser)

89.8.160.73 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • tor • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log • checkuser)

89.8.242.183 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • tor • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log • checkuser)

176.11.170.226 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • tor • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log • checkuser)

These all belong to Norwegian mobile operator NetCom AS. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opmerking bij afbeelding BHIC en BHIC1[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Bakel123#File tagging File:Bhic1.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinnery.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chinnery.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eleutherna Bridge[edit]

Hello. Concerning the Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gun Powder Ma, could you please add the License Review template for these two images (File:Eleutherna Bridge, Crete, Greece. Pic 02.jpg and File:Eleutherna Bridge, Crete, Greece. Pic 04.jpg), as you already did for the other two (1 and 3). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Those five confirmed of the Category:Arapsu Bridge (Ticket 2009121210021853) still need this renewal template, too. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: Plus these 29 pictures of the Category:Eurymedon Bridge (Selge) (Ticket 2009121210021979). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I didn't add {{LicenseReview}} to those images; Adrignola did.[18][19] The purpose of {{LicenseReview}} is that a trusted user verifies licensing information from another site in case the site disappears at a later date. When the licensing information has already been confirmed and archived by OTRS, that's not necessary. If the license can be seen on another website, you can provide more precise source addresses and ask a license reviewer (I'm not on that list) to review the licenses if you want, but again, since the licensing has already been confirmed through OTRS, it's not necessary. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But, in case of the Eurymedon and Arapsu Bridge, did you change the OTRS to the renewed permission given by Mr Rochow? Just want to make sure that the issue is settled once and for all. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gun Powder Ma, Adrignola filed the updated permission info under the same ticket ID as the old permission. This means that if someone with access to OTRS looks up these files, they'll find the up to date information. So it's all good. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 08:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

related discussion about donald[edit]

I assume you've allready know about it, but related is Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869.tif _→AzaToth 18:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not. Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 18:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discours_du_18_juin_1940_du_Général_De_Gaulle_à_Londres.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Discours du 18 juin 1940 du Général De Gaulle à Londres.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

???[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Dagane#File source is not properly indicated: File:Casadejuntas.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Copyright_violations[edit]

Copyright violations has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

84.62.204.7 19:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny indeed. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reactie[edit]

Ik heb al dagen geleden gereageerd op Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oude Bakelsedyk.png, maar heb nog steeds geen reactie terug ontvangen! Ik wil graag dat de afbeelding blijft! (Daar heb ik mijn redenen voor!) Mvg Bakel123 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't understand your response. The administrator that decides what to do with the deletion request will consider the comments you made there. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for your response! Mvg Bakel123 (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC) (ps. my english is not so good)[reply]

Claude PIARD[edit]

Excuse my very poor english. I had answer you in "discussion" of the file. Thank you.--Claude PIARD (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Blocage"[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Claude PIARD#Copyright violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alger FSGPF[edit]

Hello, LX!

Thank you for your precious, judicious and relevant contributions!

Thank you also for your remarkable improvements relating to the numerous details and protocol regarding the diverse aspects of uploading!

As you seem to be particularly well informed about the various existing licenses, which one would you choose as being specifically related to the aforesaid image, as mentioned in the title?

Thank you in advance for your help!

Vänliga hälsningar!

euphonie ^breviary
02:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. I will comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alger FSGPF.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LX!

Thank you for your message!

I have also posted an additional reply on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alger FSGPF.jpg.

Hälsningar och god natt!

euphonie ^breviary

19:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Gadget Update: UserMessages[edit]

Hi Alex!

Thanks for testing, commenting, improving and using AxUserMsg.js . This is essentially important for developers and highly appreciated. The script is now available in your preferences. This will also speed-up page loading.

Please remove the line importScript("User:Rillke/AxUserMsg.js") from your monobook.js before activating the ordinary gadget.

If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask me or put them here. Even if you dislike a new feature.

Thank you! -- RE rillke questions? 13:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thank you for the notice! —LX (talk, contribs) 17:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvionote - where to talk[edit]

Just if you don't have it on your watchlist: Revision of Template:Copyvionote/en. I think talk should always done on the talk-page like suggested by {{Copyvio}} and like you changed the message. I hope we can avoid a long discussion about this matter with the reverter. Here is a suggestion what to tell him:

Hi Teofilo,
I recognized your change at Revision of Template:Copyvionote/en. While I personally like keeping discussions where they started, I think file-description pages serve only for information purposes: Source, license, author and other essential information about a file. In my view, discussions should take place on the file-talk-page only. The administrator deleting the file has to take care to read the discussion on either place.

I hope you find some more convincing arguments. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 15:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry for not replying sooner. Unsurprisingly, I agree with your assessment. The place for discussion is on the discussion page. There is no obvious place or established method for "replying" to a problem tag on file description pages, where signatures and threading are typically not expected. A copyvio tag is primarily a notification of a problem rather than the opening argument of a discussion. Unlike a discussion entry, it isn't signed. This can be compared to discussions regarding the appropriateness of {{Fact disputed}} tagging, which should not take place on the file description page, but on the discussion page. In fact, this is how all other problem tags and maintenance tags and their related discussions work on all other Wikimedia projects that I'm aware of. For example, en:Template:POV does not encourage neutrality discussion to take place on the article page itself. If the perceived problem with conducting discussions on the discussion page is that they get overlooked by deleting admins, we can modify {{Copyvio}} with administrator instructions that detect if a talk page exist. Template:No source since/en currently has such a notification. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Q1[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Admin?[edit]

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

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

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

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

Hi Jim!

Thanks for your message, and sorry for taking so long to respond. I've been a little busy in real life. I also wanted to take some time to think about it, as you asked, rather than just responding right away.

I agree that Commons, on balance, is a good thing. In fact, I think it's downright awesome. I disagree, however, with your statement that this assertion ignores the problems with the Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag policy in relation to Swedish copyright law.

Just to recap what the problem is: Under Swedish copyright law, many photographs do not receive full copyright protection status. Instead, Article 49 (a) of the Swedish copyright law extends a limited protection for 50 years from creation to all photographs created by Swedish citizens and residents, regardless of originality. This means that Swedish so-called "simple" photographs, which would meet the threshold of originality required for full copyright protection if they were U.S. works, are only protected for 50 years. It also means that even the simplest of photographic reproductions, which would be in the public domain in the United States for lack of originality under Bridgeman v. Corel, are protected. Commons recognizes one half of this principle by relying on it for {{PD-Sweden-photo}}, but ignores the flipside.

I recognize that I would have no practical ability in the long run to delete files which violate Swedish copyright law as long as they are allowed by Commons policy. I disagree, however, with the idea that I would have no legal responsibility to delete such files upon becoming aware of them if I had the technical ability to do so. Swedish law appears to be pretty strict in such situations. I'd really rather not have to choose between going against Commons policy or my country's statute law. As a regular user, I distance myself from the problem by not having any special technical abilities.

While this situation does pose a problem, it isn't enough for me to abandon the project and all the good that it does, which is why I agree with your choice of the words "on balance." I still hope that either the law or Commons policy will change, even though it seems unlikely. In the meantime, I try to do what I can to help maintain Commons' unique qualities in the face of rapid growth by categorizing files, tagging problem files and translating templates. Not performing these tasks certainly would not improve the situation.

Hopefully, my not being an administrator is not too much of a timesink, and I hope that my work here is still considered a net benefit. I do try to keep requests to the point and provide the necessary links to make them easy to process. If there is more I can do to that end, please let me know. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a big benefit and appreciated :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me echo Herby's comment -- there is no question that you are a major contributor, both by the work you do, and by the considered and reasonable attitude you bring to it.

Thank you for the complete explanation of the Swedish law. I understood that your problem was with Bridgeman, but the full story is helpful.

I think that Bridgeman is good law. There is little point in granting copyright to a slavish copy of an old master's work, particularly since the work has probably been photographed many times and figuring out whose photograph was actually used would be impossible in many cases. However, I will not throw stones at the Swedes for their failure to endorse it -- after all, we in the USA restrict FOP to buildings, while you are more enlightened about that.

I cannot speak to how Swedish law and the Swedish authorities would react to your failure to delete a Swedish Bridgeman case, but I can say confidently that US authorities would look at the practical limits of your authority, not the theoretical limits.

I can imagine several creative solutions to this -- your agreeing that as an Admin you would never delete a Swedish file on pain of your being instantly relieved of your powers -- but I suspect they may not meet your needs. It is too bad we do not have a "Limited Admin" that could only block and protect (in the USA we could call that an offensive lineman.

Anyway, thanks again for a complete and considered answer and for all your work on Commons. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only just came across this. Has the community discussed this in full before? If Swedish law is so explicit, I would support an exception in our rules so that PD-art and COM:TOO cannot be applied to photographs taken by Swedes. For everything else it is well established that the file must be free in both the country of origin and the USA. Why not for slavish copies too? (This wouldn't extend to other countries unless they made explicit laws like this.) --99of9 (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was extensively discussed, but ultimately, instead of weighing the arguments against one another, the discussion was cut short by a simple tally of votes which rejected any suggestions to consider national laws. See Commons talk:When to use the PD-Art tag/Archive 1. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. That does look like a resounding majority. But if you want it discussed again/properly and think Commons is convinceable, you'll probably have my support at an RfC. It's been more than 3 years, so I don't think it's unfair to re-test opinion. --99of9 (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, but I'm personally not up for the drama at the moment, and I don't foresee the outcome being any different today if the same approach is used again. The nature of our project and the projects that we serve is such that if copyright matters are decided by simple vote counting with no eligibility criteria, you will always get a large number of votes motivated solely by the desire to include as many illustrations as possible. As I'm sure you've seen yourself, it's not uncommon for deletion discussions to be hit with an influx of first-time visitors to Commons who think they can "vote" for an image to stay no matter how much it violates our policies. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oude Bakelsedyk.png[edit]

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

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

Tack[edit]

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

Tack själv! Jag trodde inte någon hade sett Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 31#Papercut.616. Jag ska fortsätta att gå igenom användarens filer under dagen. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nu är jag äntligen klar: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Papercut.616. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

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

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

Adminship[edit]

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

Hi Zach! Thanks for asking, but things haven't really changed since last time it was brought up. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 17:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even see that, so I do apologize. But I asked because you asked a lot for revision deletions and I figured someone like you could be an admin and focus on this issue. Though if you do run again, I would be happy to support you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Claude PIARD[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Claude PIARD#File tagging File:Marie-Thérèse Eyquem.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper edit restrictions[edit]

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

Respose to deleted pictures and your warning.[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Lord of Hell#Copyright violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

puppet tag[edit]

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

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

VisualFileChange configuration - watchlist options lost[edit]

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

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

Filer uppladdade av Användare:Igor1409[edit]

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

Logotyp: giltig {{PD-UA-exempt}}?

Logotyp: giltig {{PD-UA-exempt}}?
File:Andrusevi4.jpg
File:KRAUSS stadium.jpg

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

Ja, med tanke på den högst varierande tekniska kvalitén på bilderna börjar det bli allt mer uppenbart att användarens påståenden om vad han skapat själv inte går att lita på. Det finns inte en snöbolls chans att det är samma person som fotograferat det här tekniskt kompetenta porträttfotografiet och det här fotot med sneda linjer, slagskuggor och blixtreflexer. Jag antar att loggan omfattas av (d) i {{PD-UA-exempt}}, men säker är jag inte. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:KRAUSS stadium.jpg har för övrigt legat uppe på http://www.krauss.ru/forum/printpage.php?forum=3&topic=17&start=2 sedan 2005 tillsammans med flera andra av de foton som användaren laddat upp. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intressant det här att vissa projekt verkar ha satt i system att inte ta upphovsrätten på allvar. På grund av en orelaterad händelse gick jag in på mrwiki och upptäckte att mr:चित्र:Photothon.jpg hade postats på min diskussionssida som en del av ett välkomstmeddelande utan att någon källa eller licens anges. Dessutom finns den på mr:MediaWiki:Sitenotice vilket måste tolkas som att en administratör har godkänt bildens licensvillkor... --Stefan4 (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marathiska Wikipedia har 12 administratörer, och färre än 3000 registrerade användare har någonsin gjort några redigeringar där. Det är inte så förvånande att okunskap eller oansvar frodas i projekt som saknar kritisk massa. Det märkligaste tycker jag fortfarande är det som vi diskuterade på COM:VP: att det inte finns någon Wikimediarepresentant som arbetar centralt för att med vägledning eller kraftfullare metoder se till att projekten följer centrala policies. I alla fall inte någon som någon känner till. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rights[edit]

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

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

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

Claude PIARD[edit]

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

I don't understand this answer of the deletter, while the OTRS pending is well written in english : The email was received and processed but the permission was not sufficient. The email was written in french and I am not proficient in french, so I do not know exactly why the permission was insufficient. So, please post your question on the OTRS Noticeboard citing ticket # 2011121110005556. It can be written in french since it is a multilingual noticeboard. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 00:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claude PIARD (talk • contribs) 08:23, 24 February 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi Claude! Because I'm not an administrator, I cannot see what happened with the file descriptions before the files were deleted. I also don't have access to OTRS, so I don't know exactly what you sent in or what happened to it.

Regarding File:Vers quel homme.jpg: According to the log, you uploaded this file on 24 December 2011, it was apparently tagged as missing permission on 7 February 2012, and it was deleted one week later by Fastily. I don't see a notification on your user talk page regarding the missing permission tag. However, if you sent in a permission to OTRS and it did not meet the requirements, you may have been notified via e-mail instead.

When you obtain permission for uploading a file, the statement from the copyright holder must contain all of the following:

Affirmation that the person giving the permission is authorised to do so (either because they are the sole copyright holder or because they legally represent the copyright holder)
A clear identification of the licensed file
Specification of the exact terms, preferably by naming a standard license

If any of these were missing from what you sent in to OTRS, you would have been asked to correct that. If you didn't do that within a week, it could explain why this file was deleted. If you submit a completed permission statement to OTRS, the file can be restored by an administrator.

Regarding File:Vers quel homme par quel chemin.jpg: According to the log, you uploaded this file on 15 February 2012, it was tagged as missing licensing information on 15 February 2012, and it was deleted a week later by Fastily. The notification about the missing licensing information was given here by Nikbot, a robot which marks files which do not have any copyright tags on them.

Whenever you upload a file, you must use a copyright tag to specify the terms that the copyright holder agreed to. If you can't select a copyright tag because the copyright holder did not specify any terms, you should not upload the file or send anything to OTRS until you have obtained a clear permission. If you upload files without a license tag, they may be deleted even if you sent something to OTRS. If you submit a completed permission statement to OTRS, the file can be restored by an administrator. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recieve this answer of Fastily :

The email was received and processed but the permission was not sufficient. The email was written in french and I am not proficient in french, so I do not know exactly why the permission was insufficient. So, please post your question on the OTRS Noticeboard citing ticket # 2011121110005556. It can be written in french since it is a multilingual noticeboard. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 00:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't understand while : OTRS was well wrote in english. And I never send notification on my PdD. I have too seek them on the PdD of administrators. My answer :

The e-mail is written in english. See it again, please. You have recently deleted the aforesaid file, while it was clearly mentioned that an OTRS pending authorization had been sent to Wikimedia last week. Moreover, we were still waiting for the answer. Could you please kindly reestablish this file until the said authorization is duly examined? Thank you very much and sorry for my very poor English. Have a good afternoon! Claude PIARD (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much and a very good afternoon.--Claude PIARD (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That answer was not written by Fastily, but by Morgankevinj, as you can see by the signature. Fastily does speak a bit of French, but is busy elsewhere, according to the notice at the top of the user talk page. Again, I don't have access to OTRS, so I don't know why the ticket was not considered insufficient (but see my previous reply for what's required) or why Morgankevinj says that the ticket was in French, while you say that it was in English. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Combate1#Copyright violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Read This, It is Very Important[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Combate1#File:Logo de Viña del Mar 2012.png 2. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pongo a su consideración de Ustedes lo siguiente[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo de Viña del Mar 2012.png. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican stadiums[edit]

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

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

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

Please upload the cropped version under a different name instead and update the links on the Spanish Wikipedia to the preferred version. The file is used on other projects as well, which may prefer the panoramic version. See Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files for additional reasoning.

Regarding File:Estadio Universitario Tigres UANL.jpg, you stated that you got it from Panoramio, but you didn't provide a source address so that the license could be verified. It looks like you took it from here, which is clearly marked "All Rights Reserved" and not Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike, as you claimed. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:لطرش_احمد_الهاشمي#File:Alcatraz (TV series).jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alcatraz logo 2012.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:لطرش_احمد_الهاشمي#File:Alcatraz logo 2012.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greenpeace images[edit]

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

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

Image talk pages - tests[edit]

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

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

deletion request, urgent[edit]

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

I am not an administrator, so I cannot delete any files. Deletion requests are normally open for one week, unless one of the criteria for speedy deletion are met. It would help if you explained more clearly why you think the file should be deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File should be deleted because it ist my picture that I uploaded, and the name for the pic shows my name which was not intended. Thats why an urgent delete ist requested.--Shatabisha (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If all you want to do is to rename it, I can do that for you. (I'm not an admin, but I do have file moving rights.) What would you like the new name to be? Unfortunately, because you've also created a deletion request page that includes the filename and because you've mentioned the filename on several pages, there will still be some traces of your real name around. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok, do it now...BPI_Lisboa. Thats it. Thanks alot.--Shatabisha (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. A redirect from the old filename was left by the move operation. An admin will delete that shortly. I've also restored the file description, closed the deletion discussion, and marked the help desk thread as resolved. As I mentioned, some traces of the file name will remain in discussion archives and logs, but it won't be very prominent. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is wonderful my friend, so how do I find the file now?--Shatabisha (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:BPI Lisboa.jpg, as you requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you[edit]

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

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

FIDAL[edit]

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

Kalaua/Miniotx is back[edit]

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

Scheno (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log)

Kalaua (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) and

Miniotx (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log)

Binefor (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log)

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

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

My pics are deleted[edit]

Dear LX

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

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

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

The files that you uploaded (File:Shudra Banner.jpg, File:Titleimage.jpg, File:Shudrawallpaper.jpg, File:Main poster.jpg, File:Uniqueshudraimage.jpg, File:Sanjivjaiswal.jpg, File:Shudrarunning.jpg and File:Directorsays.JPG) were deleted by Morning Sunshine and Amada44 because they were movie posters and images found on various websites. The copyright of movie posters typically belongs to production companies that do not allow them to be distributed by others for commercial purposes or with modifications. Unfortunately, every day, a lot of people upload a large number of non-free content to Commons. Many make false claims about the authorship or licensing out of ignorance or disregard for copyright laws and Commons' goals. Movie posters and previously published photos therefore tend to get deleted rather quickly if it's not very clear that the licensing is approved by the legitimate copyright holder.

I don't remember exactly what you put in the file descriptions or what the files looked like. I can't check, because only administrators can view deleted files. If I recall correctly, they all had rather low resolution and looked like they may have been created by different people, even though I think you said you personally created them all yourself. For genuinely self-created photos, we would typically expect to see full-resolution versions. For works for hire where you are the copyright holder but not the author, we would still expect you to name the actual authors.

If you are indeed the legitimate copyright holder (or a legal representative of the company that holds the copyright), you can send in a permission statement using the instructions at Commons:Email templates. The e-mail should come from an official e-mail address at the production company, or you may be asked to provide additional proof, such as full-resolution originals. If a valid permission is received, the files can be deleted.

You can also ask Morning Sunshine and Amada44 about the deletions or request undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests if you think the deletion was incorrect, but you will probably just be told to send in a permission like I mentioned. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Airports[edit]

LX,

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

I have no particularly strong opinion one way or another on the matter, but clearly, some people do, so I think you'd better hold off on reinstating your version and stop referring to it as the "consensual" version when it is clear that there is no consensus. I do think that if this should be used, it should be discussed and implemented centrally, rather than one category at a time. This would avoid discussions being duplicated, it would be easier to implement or undo if/when consensus changes, and it would result in a more consistent end result. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not because SJu disagrees with it that it isn't the last consensual version any more. If he thinks it should go everywhere, he can take the necessary steps to revise this. It's not because a new editor signs up at Commons, undoes every single edit of yours, that we shouldn't stop him. -- Docu at 08:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my images[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Karkeixa#File source is not properly indicated: File:Ríu Eiria (2).jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australia and Sweeden[edit]

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

What? Sorry, I really don't understand what you are trying to say. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Q2[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Flickr Image Upload[edit]

Hello,

Can you help me with regards to uploading an image from Flickr? I recently contacted the author of this photograph: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellasportfolio/5182091759/sizes/l/in/photostream/

The author has (through an email which I have yet to send to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org using OTRS) given me permission to upload the image to Commons under the CCBYSA 3.0 license. But how do I upload it to Commons from Flickr? On the Flickr link above, the image still says "all rights reserved" but the author has given me permission to use it. Do I send the email to 'permissions' first and then upload the image? If so, do I download the image to my computer (which I can't since it says all rights reserved)?

Please help, Poppersocks (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the author is willing to release it under that license, they should understand that they are not just giving their permission for the file to be uploaded to Commons, but that anyone may use the file for any purpose once it is published under that license. Therefore, there is not much point in having more restrictive terms when the file is distributed through Flickr. If they're willing to have the file distributed under that license from Commons, they should also be fine with changing the license on Flickr. If they do, then you can easily transfer it to Commons with of the automated upload tools, which also verify the license. This would be the easiest way to get the license verified. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

about my uploads [20][edit]

Actually those pictures are old Post cards, i reedited the descriptions. Is it okey? Dzlinker (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Licensing#License information. You need to provide sufficient source information to allow others to verify the copyright status, so if you claim that a photo is in the public domain because the photographer died more than 70 years ago, you need to provide source information demonstrating that. "Google" or "personal collection" doesn't really help with verification. Instead, give the address of the page on which you found them. Providing correct publication dates instead of 2012 dates would also be helpful, particularly since unpublished photos can be protected by copyright long after they were created. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not helpful when one wants to upload one's collection of old postcards... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source originally provided was "Google". —LX (talk, contribs) 21:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: the IP address, 212.121.219.1 is the source of serious hacking activities[edit]

Warning: the IP address, 212.121.219.1 registered to Oldham MBC public libraries, and which is permanently blocked in English Wikipedia since 2009, is the source of serious hacking activities right now. Please be on guard with this IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.57.36 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 15 May 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

212.121.219.1 has been blocked for six months by an administrator. As a regular user, my ability to intervene is no different from yours, so in the future, please direct such reports to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My uploads[edit]

Hi, I uploaded a set of pictures from my friends and sent the approval mail to wikimedia mail and got an acknowledgement as well. I now see all of them are nominated for deletion. Can you please have a look. 19:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssriram mt (talk • contribs) 19:18, 2 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

You did not get an acknowledgement from an OTRS volunteer, or they would have marked the files as reviewed. The reason I tagged the files as missing permission was that there was no indication that the author had actually approved the stated license or released the photos into the public domain or that a permission statement had been sent in. I've tagged the files with {{OTRS pending}} based on your claim that you have mailed in the permission details. Please don't remove problem tags again without actually addressing the problem first. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS team hasn't received any permission. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help!![edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Fineuser#File:Pyaar Ka Dard Hain.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you ...[edit]

Hi. Would you have some time to have a look at this creative mind. Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied up those categories to the best of my abilities. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, hopefully Lars understands the right examples now. Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 04:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

more specifications about File:" 12 - ITALY - muro a secco ( Dry stone wall ) building white palms.JPG[edit]

Hello, unfortunately i do not know what kind of building is, I took the photo while on vacation in southern Apulia (Salento, Italy) is maybe a home or a residential part of a company of olive oil. --Pava (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We probably have hundreds of thousands of images of buildings on Commons, and if all of them were to go in Category:Buildings, it would become completely unusable. Category:Buildings is a very high-level category and shouldn't contain any images directly. Even if you don't know the type of building, you can still find a more specific subcategory based on geography since you know where the photo was taken, such as Category:Buildings in Apulia (and even just Category:Buildings in Italy would have been better). Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 13:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you're right, I usually do but this time I have noticed, I'll try to be more careful --Pava (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mtns[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Ericoides. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misión Tarahumara[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Creel Chihuahua Mexico.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop abusing the photos i have added[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Sonisona#File:Sonia Ahmed 2011.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Q3[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Message above[edit]

I like "This discussion has been moved back...." Do you subst: a template, or just type it out when you need it? If subst, what template? If not, I think I'll make a template for it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I subst {{User:LX/Moved back to}} (and {{User:LX/Moved back here}}). —LX (talk, contribs) 10:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you object if I created them in Template space? I think they're generally useful and, although your name is short, it still saves typing to have them there. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all – go right ahead! That would also mean that we could make them multilingual. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

foto[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Magno Dos Santos#Copyright violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tessa Geliso nella Grotta Verde ad Alghero - archivio Marco Busdraghi AHO.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Marco Busdraghi. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poss Flickr washing?[edit]

You are far better in this area than me :) See here and these. I'm doing some background digging. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My findings: All but one of the first 34 uploads by the Flickr user have file names indicating they were taken from Facebook, including File:David Archuleta Press Conference 2012.jpg (270787_10150710121550076_672725075_19626750_1520815_n) and File:30secondtomars2012.jpg (225753_10150719136985076_672725075_19737471_1259799_n). Facebook strips the metadata from uploaded photos. The claim that they were taken on the date of upload is very likely wrong. Indeed, the backdrop of File:David Archuleta Press Conference 2012.jpg shows that it's from a Pond's Teen Concert press conference in Jakarta on 2011-07-16. All of the Flickr uploader's photos I came across were apparently taken in the Jakarta area, including the ones with Facebook names. The third part of a Facebook photo ID is the Facebook uploader's ID, in this case 672725075 for all photos with Facbook names in the Flickr stream. https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=672725075 is clearly the same girl as depicted in http://www.flickr.com/photos/karinasaskia/7490059184.

My conclusions: The photos on Flickr that are taken from Facebook are clearly from the same user's account. This could be because they transferred photos from their Facebook account to their Flickr account just after creating the latter. They are consistent in quality, and I believe that they're taken by the same person. I see no reason to suspect copyright infringement on behalf of the Flickr user. I also see no particular reason to assume that the Commons user is the same as the Flickr user. The Commons user's English is word soup, while the Flickr/Facebook user has moved from Jakarta to Wisconsin. It would be quite hard to work as a university research assistant in the United States with those communication skills. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated and I learned some things too :) Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove deletion requests[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Paul venter#Please do not remove deletion requests. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: July 12 deletions[edit]

Hello, you arbitrarily deleted several images that indeed are my own work. In the future, I would be careful about one-person deletions of U.S. imagery from a nomination by a non-native English speaker, especially when there are no comments on the deletion request. Feel free to restore them, or I can go about the arduous task of re-uploading them. Archivist1174 (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete anything. I nominated the files for deletion, and they were deleted by High Contrast.
The deletion was not arbitrary. I stated my reasons, you were given time to respond, and the matter was handled completely in accordance with Commons' policies.
I don't see how my English proficiency is relevant here.
Re-uploading previously deleted files without consensus will probably get your privileges on this site revoked.
I see that the matter is being dealt with at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Files uploaded by Archivist1174, which is a much more appropriate place than my talk page. Please keep it there and don't cross-post.

—LX (talk, contribs) 18:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Error[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Estiven88#File tagging File:Laghonia71.JPG. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right Licence[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Vaga-am#File tagging File:Canada Games Stadium.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question[edit]

Hi LX. After looking at all the work you do here, especially with deletion/copyvio, I wonder why you're not an administrator? INeverCry 21:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's come up a few times before. In reverse chronological order: User talk:LX/Archive/2012: January to March#Adminship, User talk:LX/Archive/2012: January to March#Admin? and User talk:LX/Archive/2011: January to March#Admin. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 22:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I guess you're used to this question. Atleast it's better than getting repeat complaints.

I hope you don't mind my giving you one of these:

		The Commons Barnstar
		In appreciation of all that you do here. INeverCry 22:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 16:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanramonescudo.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sanramonescudo.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Q4[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Delete five files[edit]

Hi LX - in the thread at the Helps page I have now listed the doubles that I have uploaded from Svalbard with correct names etc., so it would be nice if you could just delete the five original files if you have the time and availability. Thank you very much! Regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but only administrators have the ability to delete files. I've replied at the help desk about marking the old files as duplicates as a way of getting them processed sooner. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Yograj tiwari[edit]

Hi!

Thanks for your support with focussing the problamtic files in this centralized DR. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, glad I could help. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

would You PLEASE STOP REMOVING OTHER PPLS WORKS ?[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Wikistallion#File:Uganda Railway.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Cesar8807#File:Mads Peru Rock.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My friend , but if I put the file ventura alex you just going to delete, then you should wear? if even one source put the file will be deleted, the eye is Wicho Space Bee and Garcia are my own I was at these concerts and ustde coming to tell me when and where I wow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesar8807 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 4 November 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

I give up. Which parts of

If you are responding to a message or template that I left on your user talk page, respond there
Sign and date your posts using four tilde characters (~~~~)

are unclear? —LX (talk, contribs) 23:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

copyright[edit]

has continued the same there are pictures that have been taken by my concert and photos that are in the public domain here in Lima Peru for the authors of some photos are deceased, my dear please be careful with putting labels and read above that is credible you are already fltando respect for me, I ask you to check the files either here in Lima Peru photo before placing their ads, so those photos appear on pages wbe blogs and even use them in their youth facebook public domain as they are here in Lima Peru I appreciate you check what he writes well, greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesar8807 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 4 November 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

You really don't like to listen or follow instructions, do you? —LX (talk, contribs) 23:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you really never been taught to respect other people's work nor verify what I write if I've also denounced as there are photos that I've taken and you want to remove me Cesar8807 (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You take credit for other people's photos, and you want to talk to me about respecting other people's work? Crikey. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Violación de derechos de autor[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Baquides. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Q1[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Copyright[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:TheJoker#File:007LogobyJKR.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LX[edit]

I removed the comment at the Village pump in the support section of the proposal to apologise to Dimitri about the mishandling of his userpage. Please feel free to re-ad support, or something to the discussion section, I didn't re-add the comment there myself, as it seemed on second glance to simply incite. Possibly you could consider the light hearted remarks left by others in the spirit they were written. Not that I'm saying pouring petrol on a bad situation isn't the wikipedia way, but the purpose of the exercise was to put out a fire, rather than start several more. Penyulap ☏ 17:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what? On what basis did you think it was appropriate for you to censor my comment on Commons' main discussion board? I don't see any indication that the comment I replied to was in a section reserved for "support" or immune from rebuttal. What exactly are you saying that my comment incited? Is asking others to mellow worse than suggesting that fellow contributors be "hung, shot, and then drawn and quartered"? —LX (talk, contribs) 18:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I'm misunderstood, I hope you're not upset here, it's hard to tell sometimes. The section with just support in it followed the proposal and then there was another section called discussion right under it. It's easy to make more sections and please feel free.

The expression 'hung, drawn and quartered' is a figure of speech, or at least it has been since the 14th century. It's not meant to be taken literally and I don't think that we actually have the ability on commons to do that to a person. I think it's safer to figure it is used in a deliberately humorous or dramatic manner. I'm not trying to censor your comment so much as save some embarrassment, feel free to take the comment seriously if you really feel strongly about it. The purpose of the exercise is re-affirm the purpose of the project, and to try to fix what has so clearly gone wrong.

How do you feel about it btw ? I mean this whole thing where his photographs are so massively award winning and do you know I finally just checked one of the links just that moment for the first time, and National Geographic, and a bunch of other industry sites feature his work. That's pretty cool. Some people have mentioned that it all comes down to jealousy. Do you think that there could be people who are jealous of all those industry awards ? do you think that might have something to do with all of this drama ?

Where you mention about being mellow, I agree, that's a great idea, how can that idea be applied to the 'drawn and quartered' comment ? or my -(o)-(o)- glaring comment do you figure ? Penyulap ☏ 18:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

here is the part that I removed. At first glace, because of the highlighting, it may seem that only your comment was removed, but looking carefully, it wasn't your comment that was removed, it was two comments that I removed, one each from you and canoe1967. That's the 'incite' part, it's not your comment so much as both of them that were going off into that scene from the movie Zoolander where the supermodels are playfully splashing each other with the petrol hoses at the gas station. To sort of help out with keeping the 'support' section about 'support', I took them out. THAT is when I had such trouble finding an appropriate place for them. I still don't know where such comments could go. do you ? Penyulap ☏ 19:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I still don't see anything stating that comments directly following your proposal were immune to rebuttal, and I don't see why I should need to make a separate section to discuss something on a discussion board. I'm more baffled than upset; I'm not used to comments just being removed like that.

The user who removed the links from Dmitri's user page (and who has undone that edit and apologised) edits under his full name. I did not find the suggestion that he should be shot particularly humorous. I'd rather we didn't use that kind of hostile rhetoric. If anything, I would have expected that comment to be struck. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't say just shot, he mentioned hung, drawn and quartered. There is an article on the topic on english wikipedia. If you really feel he was actually making a death threat then by all means take it to the admin noticeboard, but don't say I didn't do my best to save you the embarrassment of as canoe1967 puts it not knowing "the difference between a firmly worded anecdotal opinion and a death threat.". I tried my best, but some people insist on looking the way they do. Penyulap ☏ 20:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Sarah Palin didn't really mean for Gabrielle Giffords to get shot in the head when she put a crosshairs symbol on the map of her district and asked supporters to "RELOAD" – it just happened to happen. Even Canoe1967 doesn't seem to suggest the comment was intended to be funny, but rather "firmly worded" opinion. I disagree with throwing such "firm" words around, and I'm not at all embarrassed about that. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going to stop my Wikimedia commons account[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Whitetararaj#Copyright violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Omegahouse.jpg from Wikimedia Commons[edit]

I am asking that you reconsider my request to delete the subject photo, considering that I uploaded it. The picture was originally used for an article on Wikipedia for self-promotion purposes, which is why the article on the fraternity got deleted from Wikipedia. Given this reason, I believe this photo should also be removed. I don't believe there is any value of keeping it here, and as the person who originally took the picture it is my wish to see it removed, especially since the original article linking to this picture got deleted for that specific reason. Victor8698 (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victor! You've nominated the file for deletion twice. So far, none of the reasons for deletion you've given have been based on our deletion policy. I left a comment on one of those discussions (which you did not respond to), but I was not the one to close either discussion. I suggest you discuss the matter with the administrators who closed the requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Licence Help[edit]

I've recently gained permission from a flickr author to upload his images from flickr. What licence do I need to use please? IJA (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at Commons:Upload help#Licence help. Please don't crosspost. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On models...[edit]

Hi LX, from your comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fiat 880 DT tractor.jpg, I gather you have an interest in models, or have at least been somewhat following the outcomes of related discussions. I've tried to assemble thoughts and support at User:Elcobbola/Models and I was wondering whether you’d be interested in giving me feedback. I’m largely hoping to learn whether or not you feel it is clear/understandable/accessible/etc. and, maybe more importantly, whether you think it successfully makes the case. Эlcobbola _talk 17:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't claim to have a special interest in scale models, but it is an area that I do come across from time to time when dealing with copyright related matters in general.

A few comments on your essay:

The essay is a bit US centric. Of course US copyright law always applies to Commons, but other jurisdictions might also be at play, so it's worth noting that copyright laws of other countries are based on similar principles.
Some of the strongest points are made near the end. An introductory summary should mention that case law and official US copyright registration forms confirm that models are eligible for copyright protection.
"illegible for copyright" should be "ineligible for copyright [protection]"
I personally try to avoid linking to policies and guidelines by their page names or shortcuts, so instead of explicitly pointing to COM:UA, I'd link the text "does not protect useful articles." This also shortens the sentence.
While we're on the topic of the link to that page: the points you make in the background section should really be incorporated in Commons:Derivative works#I know that I can't upload photos of copyrighted art (like paintings and statues), but what about toys? Toys are not art!, which currently reaches the right conclusions for the wrong reasons.
Do you have a reference for the claim that Mondrian's simple geometric shapes are eligible for copyright protection? If not, bringing up a potentially controversial example might detract from the actual topic.
In general, the background section might be a bit long. I personally don't mind it, but I'm afraid most of our readers' attention span only stretches so far.
The case law contains quoted text with nested quotes. The inner quotes should use single quotes.

In general, I think it's ready for the project namespace. Good initiative! —LX (talk, contribs) 18:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, all. Thank you for taking a look. "A bit US centric" is being far too kind; it is entirely US-based. This is deliberate, as works on the Commons must be free both in the U.S. and their country of origin. Given that U.S. considerations thus apply to all works, it's the logical first consideration. In an unfortunate sense, it doesn't matter what other countries say, as U.S. law will be the test (as an example of precedent, U.K. law grants copyright to faithful replications of PD works. The U.S., however, does not, so Commons policy is to ignore U.K. law–even for U.K. works). One could perhaps call this imperialist--and I have some sympathy for the notion, not being American myself--but ultimately it’s just simpler to confine discussion to the dominant jurisdiction. If this essay becomes something more formal, I would nevertheless hope others would contribute information from other jurisdictions. Эlcobbola _talk 19:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, everything needs to clear US copyright law as a "first hurdle," and when it comes to scale models, US copyright law is pretty much always going to be the most limiting factor. I still think it's worth pointing out that this focus is a deliberate one to avoid objections in cases involving models from other countries. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LX, I've tried to implement your suggestions and drastically shorten the explanation to arrive more quickly at the punchline, so to speak. If you're still interested, I would appreciate any feedback you're willing to offer. Эlcobbola _talk 23:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've addressed all my comments (except a couple of remaining nested quotation marks in the case law section) and made some other major improvements in the process. I'd say it's even more ready for the project namespace now. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, again. I think I've fixed them now. Эlcobbola _talk 19:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No subject[edit]

From Itapirkanmaa:

Insufficient license and not supported by source; source merely says "vapaasti julkaistavissa" (publicly available/freely publishable) and does not articulate whether derivatives are allowed, whether this applies to commercial usage, etc., as required by COM:L. Note user uploaded a similar image (File:Oasisazipods.jpg) saying it was "Copyrighted free use provided that the use is non-commercial" which suggests a failure to understand the level of freeness required by the Commons. Эlcobbola talk 17:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The phase "vapaasti julkaistavissa" means plainly, simply and irrevokably "freely publishable". Who made the other faulty translation for you? By all means publicly declare your expertise in the Finnish language if you are able to read Finnish that well yourself.

Moreover, the picture has ACTUALLY BEEN CLEARED PREVIOUSLY FOR CC by the request of the user Makele-90 (who seems to have some authority somewhere), after he had kindly contacted the originator of the work the Finnish press agency STT. Please contact him.

Regarding the other one of my pictures, I will therefore need to ask my contact person ABB Finland again for a licence in these very words:

"I, Mr/Ms XX, acting on behalf of and as the representative of the ABB corp, who is the legal originator of the enclosed picture, hereby declare for all intents legal and otherwise that the said picture is free for ALL kinds of publication in the entity known as "Wikipedia Commons", this including, but not being limited to, commercial, non-commercial, educational, institutional and private uses. The picture can be resized when and if needed. In all instances, the picture must be accompanied by a written indication to the effect that the copyright holder of the picture is and remains ABB Finland."

What the effing thing is a "derivation" of a picture? Where does it say such licence has to be explicity applied for?

(You will excuse me for having filed for an author account at one of Wikipedia alternatives actually.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itapirkanmaa (talk • contribs) 19:50, 15 February 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please read the instructions above. You failed to sign and date your post, and you posted it under a heading about the copyrightability of scale models. Your entry seems to have nothing to do with that topic. In fact, I have no idea why you've come to my user talk page to discuss this matter. You seem to be responding to a deletion nomination over at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Azipod, early design with retrofitted fin..jpg, which I've had absolutely nothing to do with. Please keep discussions where they started. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

one copyvio[edit]

please go to my user page becaues I uploaded a photo of the glitch pokemon and its from bulbapedia and needs to be deleted. --Starship9000 (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only administrators can delete files. If you know of something that's a copyright violation, just edit the file description page and add {{copyvio|Explanation of why it's a copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add this on my talk page:

== [[:File:TenQuestionMarks.png]] ==

{{Autotranslate|1=File:TenQuestionMarks.png|base=Copyvionote}}

Thanks!--Starship9000 (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only purpose of that template is to let you know that a file has been tagged for deletion. If you're the one requesting the deletion, there's no point in me or anyone else notifying you. Anyway, File:TenQuestionMarks.png does not look like it would be eligible for copyright protection; see Commons:Threshold of originality. (I took the liberty of formatting your message a bit.) —LX (talk, contribs) 17:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you![edit]

For the clever catch with the DR of Rumanareaz. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! —LX (talk, contribs) 11:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AN/B post[edit]

Hi LX. Can you take another look at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Juan esteban daza reyes? I can't fathom why Sanandros converted these obvious CSDs of yours to DR. They were all sourced to "internet" and a quick Google search easily found them on skyscrapercity. I'm left scratching my head on this one. INeverCry 21:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm as puzzled as you, so I have no good answers. You said pretty much what I was going to say. Thanks for taking care of it. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Nordstrom, important[edit]

Hej, jag är journalist och arbetar för en berömd tidning i Turkiet. Som ett team, med mina kollegor, vill vi utveckla biografier av kända personer. Det kan tyckas en upphovsrättsbrott, men det är det inte. Alla bilder är tagna av vårt team, men jag laddar upp dem. Vi bestämde oss för att beskära dem och ladda upp till Flickr. Det finns ingen kränkning alls. Jag kan bevisa hur du vill. Du kan kommunicera med fotografer. Jag ber dig att återställa dem. Najpoznatiji (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tror du att jag är dum på riktigt eller? Hitta något bättre att göra med din tid. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi LX the user Marocdima scan from the books thank's --— Mouh2jijel ^[Talk] 20:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the remaining contributions and nominated some for deletion. If you have additional information to provide, please do so in the deletion discussions. You'll find the links on the user's talk page, starting at User talk:Marocdima#File:Ifni war.jpg. Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 17:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert...[edit]

I'm honestly impressed how users are threated in this wonderful wikimedia-project. I really hope, you never have problems in any projects here. Thanks for your help! --93.212.89.246 11:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this revert? As it says right at the top of the page, Commons talk:Community portal is only intended for discussions about the contents of the page Commons:Community portal. It is not intended for general questions. General questions left on that page tend to remain unseen and unanswered for quite some time, as evidenced by the three questions above yours, dating back to November of last year. Also, please don't crosspost – especially not without mentioning that you have. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know, WHERE to post my question. I'm now trying it here. It would have been helpful to show me where to post it. I'm active since 2005 in various Wikipedia projects, but I don't understand the structure of commons. I'm just trying to get my login back on. --93.212.89.246 13:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it says right at the top: "Posts addressing the general public on Commons are best placed at the Village pump." Commons:Forum is the German language version of that page, so you've found the right place, and you'd already done that by the time I removed your comment from Commons talk:Community portal. Therefore, I didn't think you needed any more help with that part. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Q2[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

User:KostastozisT[edit]

Hi LX. I've blocked this user for a week. Let me know if the issues continue when he comes back. INeverCry 00:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I'll try to remember to keep an eye out. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS[edit]

Hi LX. I was wondering, since you had OTRS access in the past, why don't you request it again? It would certainly help us and you. :) Regards, Trijnstel_talk 13:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. The reasons are mainly that it makes a lot less sense without being an administrator and that it potentially comes with a lot of the same problems as long as Commons policy is to ignore key aspects of copyright law in the jurisdiction I'm in. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks[edit]

Thanks so much for the feedback on the Welcome to Commons draft! I've done a big set of revisions based on the feedback so far; if you have a chance, please take a look and let me know if you notice anything else that can be improved. We're hoping to have the text more or less set by a week from now, so that the designer can get started building the layout.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The recent changes look good from a quick glance. Things are a bit busy at the moment, but I'll see if I get more time to have a closer look in the next few days. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 11:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Special:PermanentLink/93310533#File:J Devil (Jonathan Davis).jpg and File:Killbot.jpg Permissions[edit]

LX to answer your questions and concerns on the Killbot.jpg, Korn, 2013.jpg, and the J Devil (Jonathan Davis).jpg's from the OTRS Noticeboard. All 3 files are owned solely by Killbot, Jonathan Davis, and Korn. The photographers (Terrance Blanton, Deven Taylor, and Rick Wenner) were hired to take those photos but the copyrights are owned by each of the respective artists. Prospect Park, the manager for each of the artists, authorized me to release those photos to the Commons. As the emails indicate from Brian Simpson from Prospect Park. Sebastien Paquet is Korn's photographer and has sent OTRS an email authorizing me to release those photos for him and Korn. These are busy people and they have given me the permissions to post them for them so that Wikipedia has current photos of the artists. I am a close personal friend of Jonathan Davis' and try to help get things added to Wikipedia that normally never get updated due to the permissions needed to get them uploaded and released properly. Tell me what you need so I can provide OTRS with what is necessary to undelete the files and so they will not be deleted yet again. I have provided emails on all files directly from the proper releasing authorities so tell me what's needed to fix this and I'll get it done. Nbcwd (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I see that you've already received replies at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Image:Killbot.jpg and Image:J Devil (Jonathan Davis).jpg and that the deleted files (except File:Korn NYC.jpg) have been restored. My main concern was some discrepancies with the file description pages, which have now been fixed. Basically, our file description pages should always credit the correct authors, and the author of a photograph is still the photographer even if they don't hold the copyright (which could happen if it's a work made for hire or a copyright transfer was made in writing). The OTRS folks should make sure that the information on the file description pages match the information they've received via e-mail when they mark a file for which the permission has been verified. When I asked them to do that, I guess some other issues turned up. Good to see that's now been resolved! —LX (talk, contribs) 18:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thankfully it's all taken care of now...I think! ;) I decided not to provide more information for the Korn NYC.jpg as that photo was from 2011 and they have since taken a recent band photo which is the Korn, 2013.jpg. I will be uploading more photos of the members to use on their individual Wikipedia articles soon and HOPE I now have the right method to do it so that the photos are cleared for use on Wikipedia. I only upload ones that are owned by Korn and all of their members/projects as those are the only ones I'm authorized to upload per their management. Thank you again for all your help! Nbcwd (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plcoopr[edit]

Thank you for the information I hope I got this right Yes...I think they are on there way to being deleted, rightfully so. I will read the polices again to see if i can get a deeper understanding. I am trying to become a responsible editor of Wikipedia.Plcoopr (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Interior view of Stockholm Public Library.jpg[edit]

If you think that Swedish FOP does not cover building interiors as in this case, please kindly file a deletion request. I ask you only because you are experienced in Swedish FOP matters, unlike me. Every country's FOP is different. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On second thought, you can ignore my message. I did not know that the architect Gunnar Asplund died in 1940. So, images of the building would be in the public domain anyway. Sorry to disturb you. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. As for the general case, Swedish copyright law states that "buildings may be depicted freely." I don't see anything that limits it to building exteriors. I'd say the only potential complicating factor would be decorative elements that are not an inherent utilitarian part of the building, like gargoyles. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advocaat[edit]

Background: User talk:Howcheng#File mover rights (permanent link)

There is a significant difference between advocaat and Dick Advocaat: one is for drinking, and one is for hiring to run your football team. Having a photo called "advocaat.jpg" is stupid and wrong, because if an idiot wants to upload a photo of a glass of rich eggy liqueur, that idiot will call it "advocaat.jpg", and all the articles about the football coach will be altered, and many people will be upset. And there are many idiots who upload photos to Commons without taking the time to consider the possibility that a filename may already be in use - consider this list of the first thousand filenames that are used by multiple files and the only difference is capital letters, and of which there are over twenty thousand.

There are many files that I don't rename even though much superior filenames are possible, because I don't see any justification for renaming them other than "well, this name is better". Before I act, I must judge that there is an actual serious potential for confusion -- filenames that do not have actual meaning might as well be worthless garbage. Names should be meaningful and without ambiguity. Commons is not a museum exhibit where flaws and errors must be enshrined and preserved for all eternity. I rename files if they need to be renamed, because they are not properly distinguishable from other files. File:African Bush Elephant.jpg and File:African bush elephant.jpg are completely different, but I can't think of a reason to rename either of them, so I've left them untouched. On the other hand, I renamed "African Civet.JPG" to "Habitat range of the African civet.jpg" because, although it is indeed pertinent to the African civet, the filename implies that (like "African civet.jpg") it is a photo of an African civet, but it is not. It is a map. When people try to write articles, and they use filenames in wikicode, and they make tiny little mistakes by (for instance) using capital letters for file extensions... they freak out. They clutter the help channels and the help forums and the help e-mails and they even call people who edit Wikipedia and they say WHAT'S WRONG THIS ISN'T THE PICTURE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE WHY IS IT DIFFERENT SOMEONE VANDALIZED IT I CAN'T FIGURE THIS OUT I QUIT and then they're gone.

I support making Commons more usable by humans. I am pro-human. Commons is meant to be used, not to be worshipped in eternal unchanging perfection glory hallelujah praise Jimbo.

What is the difference between "After.jpg" and "AFTER.jpg"? Don't look at them, just tell me. What about "Abies koreana 02.JPG" and "Abies Koreana 02.jpg"? Or "90 mile Beach.JPG" and "90 mile beach.jpg"? Now explain that to your grandmother over the phone while she's trying to edit a page and getting all flustered because it's the wrong picture.

"Aberdeen street.jpg" is a street in Aberdeen, Scotland. "Aberdeen Street.jpg" is a street named "Aberdeen Street" in Hong Kong. If you honestly believe that neither of these filenames should be changed -- or if you believe that they should be changed but that Policy Does Not Allow It -- then you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. If you have any questions about other specific filemoves I've made, feel free to ask, and I'll give you a more detailed explanation of why I did it. Otherwise... back off, leave me alone, and go do something productive. DS (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that filenames should be meaningful, unambiguous and useful to humans. Many of the original names of files that you have renamed would not be accepted for new uploads, and that's a good thing.

Our file renaming guidelines provide for moving files with completely meaningless or misleading names. The examples it gives for completely meaningless names are "22785u9ob807b3c4f4" and "DSC 1342", and misleading names are exemplified with "MY CUTE MOUSE" for something more aptly named "Dutch pet rabbit" and "1BIGGest nOSE everS33n" for something more appropriately described as "John Doe at concert." It explicitly states that files should not be renamed simply because the new name looks a bit better. A filename consisting only of the depicted person's surname (like File:Advocaat.jpg or File:Gusenbauer.jpg) is far from ideal, but it is neither misleading nor completely meaningless. Adding the person's given name is an example of "the new name looks a bit better."

Now, I don't believe in following guidelines blindly. There are exceptions to almost every rule, and there is nothing wrong with dealing with unusual cases with a bit of uncontroversial pragmatism. However, routinely deviating from agreed standards is not a good thing in a collaborative project. Doing so indicates that either the guidelines should be changed, or that what you're doing is against consensus. Indeed, renaming files on the basis that their names are too general has recently been proposed, and consensus is clearly unfavorable: Commons talk:File renaming#Too general names.

The reason that our guidelines for renaming files are this conservative is not to exhibit flaws, but that renaming files can cause problems which outweigh the benefits of a slightly better name. As far as I can see, the biggest such problems are bugs in the Mediawiki software, particularly bugzilla:35721 and bugzilla:22390. I would not be surprised if the guidelines are relaxed if/when those bugs are resolved.

Until that happens, I'd ask that you focus on uncontroversial examples (like File:22651715 b765764f49 b.jpg and File:P3240003.jpg) for a start and rely on the standard renaming rationales. You'd still have plenty of work to do for quite some time. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Background: User talk:Martin H.#Questions (permanent link)

Hi Alex. Since you seem to be more interested in helping me than Martin I thought I'd come to you for help instead.

Ok, so it turns out I was mistaken, the person on the Russian Wikipedia never uploaded their pictures to Commons, just the Russian Wikipedia. But the pictures are the property of the user that uploaded them and they put them on free use. How can I put their pictures on Commons? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would help greatly if you'd specify which files you're asking about. As for the general case, again, see Commons:Moving to Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried doing it myself, but couldn't. Here are the files.

I think the names should stay the same out of respect to the photographer. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as long as the original filename is sensible, it's best to keep it the same when transferring to Commons. Then the local version can be deleted without needing to update articles where it's used.

You say that you weren't able to transfer the files. Which method did you use, and which problems did you encounter? I'd recommend Commons Helper or Commons Helper 2 after confirming your identity. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My screen just crashed. I think it's working now, assuming I uploaded this file correctly. File:Robert Arzumanyan.jpg --TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all the required information is there, but you should add some categories to the file – Category:Association football players from Armenia maybe and probably a few others. Sorry for the slow response; I'm on a business trip at the moment. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright no problem and thank you. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Hello LX,

This User removes sana stop warning messages indicating that the page on which it was affixed does not contain enough information (like here: File:Ifni-Sahara Maritime Province Registration Ensign.gif and here: File:Tramway Casablanca Ligne 1.PNG.

In addition, it distorts the map loading Expre as their version (File:Morocco-Ottoman Empire relations.jpg, Release: October 16, 2010 at 23:59 and version: July 13, 2012 at 02:06 (mistakes on purpose)... and many others

Thank you.

--— Mouh2jijel ^[Talk] 08:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ifni-Sahara Maritime Province Registration Ensign.gif has a copyright tag, explaining that it is too simple to be protected by copyright, so I'm not sure why you think that it missing any information. I can't make sense of the speedy deletion rationale "load after a removing" that you've given for File:Tramway Casablanca Ligne 1.PNG, but obviously, it's being disputed, so instead of edit warring, I'd suggest you take it to a regular deletion discussion. In any case, I have no powers beyond your own, so I'm not sure what you want me to do. You'd be better off discussing it with Omar-toons directly, and if you need help from an administrator, use Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you LX, I ask your help because I know you have the best experience as administrators. thank you too --— Mouh2jijel ^[Talk] 16:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Copyright Watcher Barnstar
	For all the hard work you do on Commons. Thank you! Steinsplitter (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 20:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your detailed response to my query on the meaning of remix. I have added your comments to the relevant translation documentation files at translatewiki.net. Lloffiwr (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milk production and consumption.svg[edit]

Hi LX You can check the spelling of this card (Milk production and consumption.svg), is it contains errors in the words? thank you --— Mouh2jijel ^[Talk] 09:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling is fine, but the grammar doesn't make much sense to me. I think "Country's balance" should be "Countries in balance" or "Balanced countries", which isn't the most elegant English, but I think the meaning is clear from the context. You could omit "The" in "The consumption of dairy products" and the second "per" in "kg per person and per year". The explanations of "Surplus countries" and "Deficit countries" need some work, but I don't know the underlying data well enough to make a recommendation. I'm guessing the explanation for "Surplus countries" would be something like "Production exceeds consumption by 2%", but the exact mathematics may depend on whether it's production or consumption that is used as a reference. From a data visualisation point of view, I'd also like to see bars for production expressed in the same unit next to each of the consumption bars. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes on the grammar of the three images (1, 2 and 3).

These statistics were published in Ouest-France (May 22, 2013) (capture of the article).

I would like to have specific results on the production of milk in the country to add bars to the side of the consumer. But I do not know where I can find this kind of statistics. --— Mouh2jijel ^[Talk] 16:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nddb.org/English/Statistics/Pages/Milk-Production-across-countries.aspx has statistics for 2010. Of course, to be able to compare the data, you'd need to know what year the production statistics is from, which is another thing that's missing. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Q3[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Quality images of Stockholm[edit]

Hej,

Jag noterade att du initierade tömningen av category:Quality_images_of_Stockholm_Municipality. Förutom att jag inte förstår varför kommunkategorin för Stockholms kommun inte ska vara namngiven enligt samma standard som alla andra svenska kommunkategorier för kvalitetsbilder så var bakgrunden till att jag skapade den nya kategorin att kategorin category:Quality_images_of_Stockholm användes för kvalitetsbilder från hela Stockholms län; och därför skapade jag nya kommunkategorier för alla kommuner i Stockholms län (inklusive Stockholms kommun).

En mycket rimligare sak att göra, istället för att tömma kategorin, vore att bara lägga till category:Quality_images_of_Stockholm i category:Stockholm County och den nya kategorin category:Quality_images_of_Stockholm_Municipality i category:Stockholm.--ArildV (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, det framgick inte alls av vare sig namnet eller kategoriseringen att Category:Quality images of Stockholm skulle syfta på Stockholms län. Den har sedan den skapades för tre år sedan legat i Category:Stockholm, som ända sedan 2005 har använts för kommunen. Category:Quality images of Stockholm har aldrig varit placerad i Category:Stockholm County (och jag hade väntat mig att en kategori med det användningsområdet skulle heta Category:Quality images of Stockholm County). Underkategorierna till Category:Stockholm (som alltså avser kommunen) brukar inte heller ha "Municipality" i namnet. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kategorin har använts så men Jag kan ju skapa kategori Category:Quality images of Stockholm County och flytta alla underkategorier i Category:Quality images of Stockholm som inte rör Stockholms kommun dit. Då borde alla problem vara lösta?--ArildV (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sagt och gjort! :) Det enda som kan vara kvar att fixa är några enstaka länsrelaterade bilder som fortfarande ligger i Category:Quality images of Stockholm. Jag gör en snabb genomsökning och flyttar upp det jag hittar som bör flyttas upp. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot from Google Maps[edit]

Greetings. You tagged File:PikesvilleHS2012.png for speedy deletion, but I have a question at File talk:PikesvilleHS2012.png. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. (The file and its talk page are on my watchlist.) —LX (talk, contribs) 14:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No subject[edit]

I NEED HELP , CAN SOMEONE HELP ME  URGENT

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidzicoman (talk • contribs) 10:55, 28 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down, stop SHOUTING (locate the caps lock key on the left-hand side of your keyboard and press it once), sign your entries and place them under a separate heading (because I assume you're not here to discuss screenshots from Google Maps). Now, what do you need help with, and what's the urgency? —LX (talk, contribs) 11:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks![edit]

		The Commons Barnstar
		Thanks so much for giving feedback on the Commons brochure! You can see the print version here. Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KostastozisT[edit]

Hi Alex. I've blocked this user and his two alternates indef. Let me know if you see any further socks. INeverCry 00:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good call! I'll keep an eye out. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Undeletion and permissionOTRS.[edit]

My image is not owned by Microsoft. I contacted the image owner and they gave me permission. So could I please undelete my image. --Crazyboy279 (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you've followed the procedure described at Commons:OTRS, a volunteer will process your e-mail when its turn comes. If (and only if) they are satisfied that all necessary information has been provided, the file will be undeleted. You may not restore previously deleted files yourself. Doing so may result in your uploading and editing privileges being revoked. As you have already been blocked several times before, such a block is quite likely to be an indefinite one. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warthog5[edit]

I've blocked this user for a week. If you see more from him after that, let me know and I can give him a longer or indef block. I'll keep him on my watchlist too. Looks like a problem-only account. INeverCry 18:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. They're blocked indefinitely on English Wikipedia, and it looks like they've also caused trouble on simple English Wikipedia and Spanish Wikipedia. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking that info into consideration, I've switched to an indef block. INeverCry 17:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just as well. :-) —LX (talk, contribs) 18:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion eh? grasshopper?[edit]

Hello , thankyou for patrolling new files in wikimedia but seem this File:Filipino Traditonal Fashion Timeline.jpg is my SELF-MADE Article, and i have my OWN copyright to that you must check the Name over the lower left ok, i made that by ALL BY MY SELF as also to the other files i made, so but it seems u tag this to a delete? what do you want to know about the copy right ? this is an Original file. if Are you a Filipino? If you are , Be Proud of it!

Thanks Philipandrew 1:33,15 September 2013 UTC

If you have something substantial to contribute regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Filipino Traditonal Fashion Timeline.jpg, please comment there rather than here, as the closing administrator will not review comments on my talk page when deciding the outcome. My nationality is mentioned on my user page, but I don't see how that's relevant (or why one would be proud of one's nationality – being born in a particular country is not exactly a great achievement). —LX (talk, contribs) 11:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Q4[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

¿Qué es lo quieres?[edit]

Como dueño de mi cuenta puedo decidir sobre mi página de portal y de discussion, tú ni nadie puede intervenir en mi página descusión solo por que un fulano lo pide, sobre la imágenes has tus comentarios o lo que te de la gana, pero no sobre mi información personal. Si mi página de discusión te interesa, pues guardala en tu portal y create tu propio enlace con mis datos. Te pido respeto a mi persona y a mi cuenta.--Marrovi (talk) 06:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Te doy el privilegio de que las almacenes en algún lugar o algún archivo que te pueda servir porque a mi no me sirven esas discusiones, estos comentarios son muy pesados como archivos y hacen lento mi acceso. Lo que haces no es democrático ni debe ser permitido hacerse, yo respeto las reglas de commons pero eso no significa que deba estar a favor de intensinadamente converir en vandalismo algo que es légitimo manejar solo por el propio usuario, que sin duda es el manejo de tu propia cuenta. Saludos desde México.--Marrovi (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been told several times, you need to read Commons:Talk page guidelines#Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page? Feel free to set up archiving for old messages, but you should not be blanking talk pages on this project to attempt to cover up your history of uploading copyright violations with false authorship claims. —LX (talk, contribs)

Usted se equivoca al decir que yo encubro violaciones al derecho de autor, si un usuario borró las imágenes fue porqué yo le coloqué el autor real de la imagen más no mi firma, no confunda una cosa con otra, investigue primero antes de que usted diga cosas sin fundamento.--Marrovi (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know what I'm talking about. We both know that in spite of your claims, you did not create File:Abanderamiento de la delegaciónde Jalisco.JPG or File:Bandera Purépecha en Uruapan, Michoacán.JPG, to name two of the more recent ones. And then there are the dozens of files where you did provide the real author's name, but still claimed that it was your own work and just made up a licensing claim that they never agreed to, which is just as illegal. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sea usted concreto, ¿Qué es lo quiere o a dónde quiere llegar?; si es para ridiculizarme, se quivocó de persona, si es por el borrado de imágenes, borre todas las imágenes que considere inapropiadas, ya sea por licencia o por autoría y asunto terminado. Gracias por sus argumentos, voy tomarlos en cuenta cuando suba nuevas imágenes, de antemano, le ofrezco mi muro de discusiones por si ud quiere hacereme comentarios.--Marrovi (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My images marked for speedy deletion[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:8Dodo8#File:Galaxy Young blue.png. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apology[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by FSCEM45212. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

I replied at Commons:Upload help. Thanks, --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 20:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. The page is on my watchlist, so there's no need to notify me in the future unless I don't respond for more than a couple of days. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 21:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful[edit]

This notice here was apparently left after it was deleted..I got the notification nearly a day after the notice was left, and half a day after it was deleted. Useless. I was not the original uploader. I merely cropped it. ~~Now that I can't even look up the original uploader~~{ok, look up buried log link next time) because of the stupid policy of deleting the html and history along with the offending image, I have nowhere to go and nothing to do about it. There's not even a trace of any proof that it was copyvio for me to look at. ~~So, thanks for nothing. IMHO, you got scammed, to everyone's cost.~~ Ok, satisfied. --Lexein (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor @ ar.wiki[edit]

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I got the e-mail notification a while ago. As I can't speak or read Arabic, I don't expect to do much editing there, apart from the occasional restoration of free images swapped out with copyright violations, cross-wiki spam or cross-wiki vandalism. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finding free images the right way[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:CaroleHenson#File:Susan Krieg - Mural - Hollywood Walk of Fame Doors Project.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Q1[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

الواجهة الأمامية لـ5 فرنكات جزائرية عام 1933.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:لطرش أحمد الهاشمي#File:الواجهة الأمامية لـ5 فرنكات جزائرية عام 1933.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Canadian Parliament Buildings Ottawa.jpg[edit]

Could you take another look at your !vote here? I believe I know what image you are referring to in thinking the one posted here is a copyvio, but while they are taken from remarkably similar angles and distances, there are a fair number of difference between the two such that I don't believe they are the same image. But perhaps most importantly, the Commons copy predates the blog by three months. If there were a copyvio, I think the blog would have been the one in the wrong. Thanks! Resolute (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I've commented there. Thanks for noticing. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S'alright. The angle and distance being almost exact threw me too. I likely would have agreed with you if I hadn't noticed the flag. There must be a sort of observation platform or something nearby. Cheers! Resolute (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Thank you tons for your replay and advises on how to get a license. I had no idea how difficult this was. The whole thing was so confusing but you made it so easy and clear. Tons and tons of cheers to you for the help.

Stepojevac (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I like kittens. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that[edit]

Unstoppable Juggernaut
Oops I thought I'd requested administrator right (I find this odd) can you link to an admin request page? (if they exist).
And I don't want to reply on my own User:talk page (all because you had never replied to my previous message when I replied on my own talk page)
Can you also delete Ghost Rider my younger sibling pushed the publish button.
Unstoppable Juggernaut — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Sintex (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 February 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise there was anything in that message for me to respond to, but I must admit that I couldn't really make sense of it. You created a subpage of Commons:Administrators/Requests, which is the right place to request administrator privileges, but your request was malformed and incomplete, and I'm sorry, but you don't stand a snowball's chance of becoming an administrator in the foreseeable future given that you have not contributed anything of value to the project, to put things mildly. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:DankeTorero#File:Shaqiri.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dblama[edit]

I've blocked this user and 3 connected accts, and deleted all the DR'd uploads. Let me know if you see any further socking. INeverCry 20:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll keep my eyes open. It never ceases to amaze me how some people have the gall to keep lying until they're blue in the face even after they've been caught red-handed and called out. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Text och bild ur tidning från 1907[edit]

Hej! Såg att du filade på kategorivalför en av mina bilder. Tror du att du kan hjälpa mig rätt i licensdjungeln?

Bilden föreställer ur ett avfotograferat eller inscannat tidningsurklipp från 1907. Jag har i min tur fotograferat av det ur en bok, som anges vid bilden. I USA anses tydligen allt som är publicerat före 1923 vara fritt från upphovsrätt men för svenska förhållanden vet jag verkligen inte. Kanske bilden egentligen inte borde vara på Commons. Vet du var man frågar om sånt här? --Stighammar (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Svensk upphovsrätt utgår i huvudsak från när upphovsmannen avlidit, snarare än publicering, vilket ibland kan göra det svårare att verifiera att ett verk är i allmän ägo. Grundregeln är att 70 år ska ha passerat efter det att upphovsmannen avlidit. Om publiceringen skett anonymt, vilket eventuellt kan vara fallet för text och bild i tidningar, räknas det istället från publiceringstillfället (se {{Anonymous-EU}} eller {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}). Det är inte säkert att publiceringen är anonym bara för att det inte finns någon byline i anslutning till texten eller bilden. Bästa stället för de här typen av frågor på Commons är bybrunnen för upphovsrättsfrågor. Oftast pratas det engelska där, men det går bra med andra språk också. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tack! Bäst hade varit att ha sett själva tidningen (och inte bara klippet), förstås. Men eftersom det rör sig om en av skandalblaskan Fäderneslandets "peka ut homosexuella"-artiklar (vilket iofs inte ännu var en genre 1907) är risken att skribent eller tecknare valde att stå för alstret med sitt namn ganska liten. Jag ska fundera lite mer, och kika mer på licensmallarna du länkar till. --Stighammar (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Universities[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Blackcat#Linköping University and Stockholm University. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I replied in my talk page, LX -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 18:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I replied in my talk page again -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 23:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New version[edit]

Hi,I'd like to learn how to upload a new version of an existing file. You have already helped somebody with a similar question in Spanish WP on 8 October 2013, but I don't know Spanish and I will be glad if you repeat the procedure for me Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Spanish either, but see Commons:FAQ#How can I upload a new version of a file? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Q2[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Admin[edit]

Hi, Why don't you candidate for adminship? I've noticed that you do quite a lot of copyright reviews, so it would useful. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yann! I do appreciate the sentiment, but as I've explained at User talk:LX/Archive/2012: January to March#Adminship, User talk:LX/Archive/2012: January to March#Admin? and User talk:LX/Archive/2011: January to March#Admin, adminship is highly problematic for Swedish users given current Commons policies, so regretfully, I'm not interested in being an administrator again. (Stefan4 has also written a more detailed explanation of the problems User talk:Stefan4#Adminship.) Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 17:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wasn't aware of this situation. Actually, I think Stefan and you are probably the most active copyright reviewers who are not admins, and I've noticed that you are both Swedish, but I thought that it was just a coincidence. Sorry for asking again. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all. Thanks again, —LX (talk, contribs) 17:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame, you do great stuff. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! —LX (talk, contribs) 07:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello We Meet Again[edit]

Hello LX nice to meet you .. Again . .. About the Files i made here I have Attributions on the File:Ancient Filipino Hierarchy (Classical Period).jpg]] File:East Asian Peoples.jpg]] and and indigenous charts

and i will add reasons and licensing so can we talk about this ??

And one more thing Thanks for Deleting my Medias Last Year and Last Month! i Appreciate it !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.181.194 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 24 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is Philipandrew. Please understand that you are blocked. You should not be evading your block by editing anonymously (logged out) or by using other accounts. Please be aware that block evasion is grounds for the original block to be extended. Although you are blocked, you are still able to edit your user talk page, so if you have any comments regarding the deletion nominations, please provide them there. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La Patilla logo[edit]

I uploaded this logo today and just wanted to make sure this is ok. I wanted to include the watermelon part of the logo but I'm not sure if that has more strict copyrights or not. I know the text logo is sometimes used though and doesn't seem like it would be forbidden to use it appropriately on here.

Here is the source to the logo: http://lapatilla.com/site/lapatilla-logo.png

If you can help me more that'd be great. I just figured since you were the only one who answered I could rely on you. Thank you for your help!--Zfigueroa (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine. I think it's a good idea not to include the watermelon part, because it's going to be very hard for anyone to say for sure that it isn't above the threshold of originality. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What if you added the watermelon part and added info to the file saying it is a Non-free logo and give a rationale. I'm not sure how to do it but I've seen it on the Fox News logo file.--Zfigueroa (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free "fair use" content is not allowed on Commons. en:File:Fox News Channel.svg is not hosted on Commons, but on English Wikipedia. If you need help uploading non-free content to English Wikipedia, en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions looks like the place to ask. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

picture[edit]

Hello, Look [oubasslam], And Bataille de Bougafer--Moussa Kerroum (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwTpiy8yckA‏--Moussa Kerroum (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the giant notice at the top of this page, is there a particularly good reason why you thought it would be a good idea to scatter the discussion from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Moussa Kerroum to my talk page, which whoever closes the deletion discussion probably won't read? —LX (talk, contribs) 13:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lx, Help me !--Moussa Kerroum (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's really hard to help when you don't read what I write. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nuclear_energy_politics_of_Sweden[edit]

Nuclear energy politics of Sweden has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Jonund (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Injang[edit]

Admin I should Revised this pic and why you reverted the retouch tag since its modified ? (Philipandrew (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I am not an administrator. If you have comments about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Artist-Sketch-Idjang-300x200.jpg, please comment there, not here. My reasons for this edit are in the edit summary. I hope that addresses your question, but I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hello LX[edit]

I am Ali Reza Asadi from iran . pictures:/File:Faramarz asadi1335.JPG/File:Sanad Haji Faramarz Asadi.jpg/File:Sanad Rasmi Haj Faramarz.jpg and File:Fath Nameh Mosa Khamis Malekshahi.jpg/File:Fath Nameh Malekshahi Mosa Khamis.jpg/File:Fath Name Pahlavn Mosa Khamis Gorzdainvnd Malekshahi.jpg,File:Aramgah Haji Faramarz Asadi.jpg File:Khamis Shahmir.jpg uplaoded by own please restores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saran133 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 15 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Since I am not an administrator, I cannot restore anything. If you think any of the deletions were not in accordance with Commons' policies, please take it up with the administrator who deleted each respective file or at Commons:Undeletion requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Immagini[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Ferrari 147#Copyright violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by JasonStack43[edit]

It seems I missed them. They were intended by me to be deleted. I am sorry for that. Ankry (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking?[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Munjanes#Copyright violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Q3[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Translation[edit]

Hi, you wrote a nice guideline for paid editors and I liked your approach (educate them rather than bully them) and wanted to thank you by translating your text into German for a wider audience. But although I clicked on "Deutsch" on the page, the German text replaced the English text rather than offering both. Obviously, the "Deutsch"-link just relates to the template, not to the text under it. I reverted myself - but maybe, if you want a translation, you know how to add it without harming the original text. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for your translation work! The German version is now available at Commons:Guidance for paid editors/de. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gamla vykort.[edit]

Hejsan! Eftersom du verkar ha rätt bra koll på det här med upphovsrätt så tänkte jag fråga dig om råd innan jag ladder upp bilder den här gången. På engelska Wikipedia håller jag på med en artikel om konstnären John Bauer och jag behöver en bild av John monumentet i Jönköping. Jag har hittat ett par gamla vykort som jag skannat in och kan ladda upp. Det finns inga som helst datum eller fotografnamn på dom och bolagen som anges på baksidan av bilderna finns inte att hitta hos Bolagsverket. Av kvalitén och trycktekniken så gissar jag att dom är från i alla fall före 50-talet, men det går ju inte att vara säker. Hur bör jag göra? Tacksam för råd. - W.carter (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jag kan tänka mig att {{PD-Sweden-photo}} skulle kunna vara aktuellt för fotografierna (det verkar som att i princip alla fotografier anses vara fotografiska bilder och inte fotografiska verk, och då är de i allmän ägo om de är tagna före 1969) och {{FoP-Sweden}} för avbildningen av monumentet. Monumentets upphovsman är Karl Hultström, vilket bör finnas med i beskrivningen. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tack för hjälpen. :) Och tack för påminnelsen om Karl Hultström, det höll jag helt på att glömma! Det rör ju sig om ett foto av ett annat konstverk. Jag ladder upp dom så får vi väl se om det är någon som har något att invända. Häls! - W.carter (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angelo Campos Peruvian.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:PrinceSulaiman#File:Angelo Campos Peruvian.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sysop?[edit]

Hello, You are doing a great work. I am happy to nominate you as admin if you agree. Regards. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steinsplitter! I do appreciate the sentiment, but as I've explained at User talk:LX/Archive/2012: January to March#Adminship, User talk:LX/Archive/2012: January to March#Admin?, User talk:LX/Archive/2011: January to March#Admin and #Admin, adminship is highly problematic for Swedish users given current Commons policies, so regretfully, I'm not interested in being an administrator again. (Stefan4 has also written a more detailed explanation of the problems User talk:Stefan4#Adminship.) Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 05:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, :( okay --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 18:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The correct link is User talk:Stefan4/Arkiv 1#Adminship. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earnestly desiring to fix debacle of >>>> HELP! File:Karl_W_Richter.jpg How to CATEGORIZE (United States Air Force Pilot)???[edit]

I don't know if it is OK for me to write you here, but you kindly responded with some concerns re. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk#.3E.3E.3E.3E_HELP.21_File:Karl_W_Richter.jpg_How_to_CATEGORIZE_.28United_States_Air_Force_Pilot.29.3F.3F.3F I initially respond there but now realize maybe what I was writing should have been placed here instead? So at the risk of displaying even more incompetence, I'm going to repeat myself here, verbatim, and [t]hank you for responding to my request for help. You sound like you are very experienced and I feel like an incompetent schmuck for not having done things properly. Is there the chance that you would you be willing to mentor me in taking the remedial actions that you suggest? I am devastated to learn that I transferred this file incorrectly - even though it was my first time to do so, I would never have wanted to introduce errors or inaccuracies into the new file and am just so upset with myself for even attempting to do it. I should've known that I wouldn't be able to do this properly and wish I hadn't, but now I feel like I don't have any choice but to see it through. Oh geeze :( I >really< would appreciate any help/guidance you could provide, especially because I can't imagine how upset people will be at me if the file has to be deleted and the article stripped of its image. I'm so upset already as it is. If you can't or won't help me resolve the issues you cited, should that be interpreted as disapproval? Am I gonna get in trouble? Oh please help me fix this - I want to do what's right but I lack confidence and some experience...ok, thank you again for taking the time to advise me that I dropped the ball. Az x2 07:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were in the right place to begin with. El Grafo has already written an excellent reply there, which I don't have much to add to, other than to say I'm sorry if my comment came off as harsh. It's good that you're taking these things seriously, but don't take them so seriously that you get upset or devastated! It's nothing that can't be fixed. Start with El Grafo's advice, and if you have any follow-up questions, pop into the help desk. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 18:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies of the Dominican Republic[edit]

I think I understand your concern about overcategorization here. Is it that this category is already in Category:Companies of the Caribbean, which is also under companies of North America? I usually don't like that kind of thing, either, but there needs to be somewhere that all the categories for a continent's countries are listed together. I have been working with continent categories, and in most cases, that place is directly under the continent category, even if some or all of the countries are also in categories for regions like the Caribbean. Sometimes a category like "companies of North American by country" is used if needed based on what else is in the category.

To make "by country" categories for North America would mean creating dozens of new categories, if not more. That's just for one continent -- other continents have similar issues. In most cases, creating these new categories would make things more complicated where we have gotten along well without them. In some cases, the new category would be the only thing in the parent category. There is something called "non-diffusing subcategories" that's applicable here. Non-diffusing subcategories allow for all of something to be listed together in a parent category for convenience, even if the items listed are also in subcategories. I wonder, can we agree to let the countries be in both places where there are categories for the Caribbean? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You understand correctly, and I see your point, but I'm not particularly excited about making exceptions to the overcategorization rule. It's not particularly clear to me from the text on English Wikipedia when and why that principle should apply. With most of their examples, we'd have a "by name" subcategory to avoid overcategorization, and I think that's clearer and more consistent. Personally, I'd prefer the "by country" approach in this case. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of my photo: 2014-07-06 Photo Plaque Hungerford Hall Hamilton College John N. Hungerford.jpg[edit]

Hi LX,

You state the following: "It seems unlikely that this plaque is the uploader's own work." This is incorrect. I arranged for the plaque to be put up in memory of John N. Hungerford; Hamilton College will verify this. I also took the photo myself. Can you be more specific as to why you believe that I did not take the photo. Please note that I took a number of photos that day of the plaque and the college campus, which I can show you. I request that the photo be reinstated because it helps illustrate some of the points made in the Wikipedia entry for JNH. Thank you.

Best,

-AJHAJHAJH — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJHAJHAJH (talk • contribs) 03:28, 4 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I don't believe you took the photo; I'm sure you did. What I stated in Commons:Deletion requests/File:2014-07-06 Photo Plaque Hungerford Hall Hamilton College John N. Hungerford.jpg was that it seems unlikely that you are the author of the text and the portrait on the plaque. If I'm mistaken, you can request undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Empire of War#File tagging File:Sketch of Great Fire of Brisbane.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ever thought of...[edit]

(not worries, I won't ask you to become an admin ;-))... but maybe access to OTRS might be useful for you? Trijnstel_talk 15:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used to have it, and I gave it up at the same time I resigned as an administrator. Since it doesn't involve the ability to delete files, it doesn't create the same problems with having obligations under Swedish law that conflict with expectations under Commons' policy, as far as I can tell. However, I'm still a bit hesitant, since it does involve dealing with copyright issues and representing the project to a greater extent than can be said of regular users. From a more practical perspective, I'm not sure I could be as active in OTRS activities as I used to be. With OTRS requiring timely responses for ongoing tickets and me having rather frequent and unpredictable business trips and other commitments, I'm not sure I'd be able to provide a level of service that I would expect of myself, and I don't like having elevated privileges without using them actively. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Museiekatalog.[edit]

Hej! Jag håller på med flera artiklar ang Svenska Ostindiska Companiet på engelska Wikipedia. Nu har jag hittat en utställningskatalog utgiven av Göteborgs museum från 1965 med bilder på porslin och tavlor. Samtliga avbildade föremål finns ju i samlingarna och är därför ok att fotografera. Men, kan jag ladda upp och använda bilderna under {{PD-Sweden-photo}} eftersom dom är tagna av en okänd fotograf på museet före 1969? Textens författare är dock känd, Stig Roth. Ska jag I så fall även ange någon licens för själva föremålen? Det brukar inte finnas sådana tillägg på bilder av museiföremål, men det kanske bara är en miss. Tacksam för lite hjälp, W.carter (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hej W.carter! Innan jag säger något annat ska jag säga att jag är inte jurist, och det här utgör inte juridisk rådgivning, utan det är allmän vägledning angående Commons regler mot bakgrund av min lekmannaförståelse av svensk och amerikansk upphovsrätt. Ja, svenska fotografiska bilder tagna före 1969 kan i allmänhet laddas upp med {{PD-Sweden-photo}} som upphovsrättsmall. Katalogskyddet bör inte heller vara något problem med tanke på katalogens ålder. För fotografier som avbildar något som kan vara föremål för upphovsrättsskydd är det viktigt att säkerställa att även den upphovsrätten är utgången och dokumentera det på filbeskrivningssidan. Bruksföremål som porslin skyddas i allmänhet inte av upphovsrätt. Upphovsrätten för tavlor som är samtida med Svenska Ostindiska Companiet nästan helt säkert utgången, och i sådana uppenbara fall kan jag tänka mig att dokumentationen många gånger är bristfällig, men vet man vem konstnären är och när vederbörande dog bör man givetvis notera det. Att ha ett verk i sina samlingar ger inte museer någon upphovsrätt, utan den tillhör skaparen eller dess arvingar. I den mån texten i katalogen uppnår verkshöjd skyddas den fortfarande av upphovsrätt eftersom Roth dog för mindre än 70 år sedan, så den får inte finnas med. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tack snälla du för det ingående och mycket upplysande svaret. Jag förstår naturligtvis att du inte är någon officiell frågelåda :). Men har man fått bra svar av någon tidigare så är det ju tyvärr rätt enkelt att fråga igen. Jag är inte så särskillt hemma på just Commons, men jag ska kola lite om det finns något ställe dit man kan vända sig annars med frågor liknande denna. Du ska veta att jag har tagit till mig dina tidigare (även dom utmärkta) svar, och med utgångspunkt av dom kunnat studera vidare när det gäller upphovsrätter på bilder. Tack för att du tagit dig tid att utbilda mig. W.carter (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Det är klart att du får fråga mig om du vill – jag ville bara vara tydlig med i vilken utsträckning man kan förlita sig på svaret och vilket ansvar man har själv, och det gäller ju alla hjälpforum här eftersom vi alla är frivilliga. Mer centraliserade frågesidor är Commons:Help desk Commons:Upload help, Commons:Village pump/Copyright och Commons:Bybrunnen. Jag läser och skriver på samtliga, så det är inte helt otroligt att det ändå är jag som svarar om du skriver där. :-) —LX (talk, contribs) 14:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted several photos which I took[edit]

I took several photos, including ones from a 19th century family album, and you deleted them. Now two photos I did not take and that is fine but you deleted at least 4 photos which I am in possession of and nobody else is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugzyandmax (talk • contribs) 03:03, 22 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm not an administrator, I cannot and did not delete anything. If you look at Special:Log/Mugzyandmax and click on the file in question, you will see the deletion log entry for the file, identifying the administrator who deleted it.

When uploading files to Commons, you are responsible for making sure that the source, authorship and copyright information you provide is complete and truthful. I marked one of your uploads (File:Juggi outside Mazar-i-Sharif.jpg) as an obvious copyright violation and corrected the information on another (File:Mickey Edelstein.jpg). I marked several files as missing truthful source information, as it was obvious that the information you had provided was not correct. Please understand that "own work" means a work that you personally created without relying on a pre-existing work by another person, that "author" means the person who created the work, and that having a copy of a photo in your possession (even if it is the only copy) does not necessarily mean that you are the copyright holder. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Upload Wizard feedback[edit]

It was a very nice surprise to see you're answering some feedback there. Thank you!! --Nemo 15:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching and participating since it was called Commons:Usability ideas and issues before it was coopted for today's much more narrow focus. These days, it feels a bit silly since I'm not really in a position to affect any actual change, but hopefully I can at least point some people to tools that help them achieve their goals. I'm glad someone appreciates it. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 21:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category removal[edit]

Sorry, the Borglanda category removal was possibly a bit hurried! Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the note. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 21:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More Frisco vistas[edit]

Hello! Could you do again some more of your identification magic with this photo, please? -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've only been in San Fransisco a couple of times, and I happened to recognize the fence around the Sunset reservoir in the previous photo from walking around the city, so I could work out the location from there, but this one doesn't really have any distinguishing features that I can make out. It probably needs someone with a bit more local knowledge. (Sorry for the slow response; I've been away at a trade show.) —LX (talk, contribs) 15:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway, and welcome back! Someone some day will identify that particular street block. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image usage with expired copy right in USA[edit]

hello, sir may i use This image at Wikipedia. its copy right has been expired in USA. regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Pakistan (talk • contribs) 15:04, 21 September 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Questions regarding use on Wikipedia should probably be asked on the specific language edition of Wikipedia that you have in mind. As to whether or not you should have uploaded the file to Wikimedia Commons, it would have been a better idea to sort out questions at Commons:Village pump/Copyright before uploading. Anyway, you're apparently claiming that the copyright has expired because the author has been dead for more than 70 years, but you've provided no corroborating details on who the author was or when the work was first published (2014-09-17 seems unlikely). Jeremy Richards, who you list as the sole author, seems to be alive and well. It seems like he is not the original author, but rather the photographer who created the reproduction. According to the source page you list, he is claiming copyright, which he may well be entitled to despite this project's insistence on pretending that Bridgeman v. Corel applies worldwide. Those issues aside, you also haven't offered any rationale as to why the underlying work would be in the public domain in the United States. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Physicians from Sweden[edit]

Sorry, this was a general pattern of categorization for all physicians. - Category:Physicians by country|xxx - Category:Natural scientists from xxx|physician - Category:People of xxx by occupation - An empty line or not, who cares? mfg --Drdoht (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

other example:

Category:Pharmacists by country|yyy - Category:Natural scientists from yyy|pharmacists - Category:People of yyy by occupation|Pharmacists

If you don't care, why make a change that only makes things harder to read? And as I noted in my edit comment, category sort keys that are the same as the name of the category (like [[Category:Natural scientists from Sweden|physician]] in a category named Category:Physicians from Sweden) are redundant, so please don't add those. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Anthem of the Republic of China.ogg[edit]

Hi, can you please resolve this problem - the website of government of Taiwan deleted old piano instrumental version of anthem and added new instrumental. But upload of new version of this file is bugged. It always presenting old version but after revert it is playing as previous version. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:National_Anthem_of_the_Republic_of_China.ogg Thank you! --ThecentreCZ (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to believe that the performance you uploaded is in the public domain, and you shouldn't overwrite files with completely different content, so you'll need an administrator to delete what you uploaded. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Q4[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	Danke für den Hinweis und vor allem für die Höflichkeit, bin Neuling und leider werden mir noch einige Pannen passieren, habe mir die Hilfestellungen als PDF ausgedruckt, um besser damit klarzukommen. Siggisieg (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned message in WCommons[edit]

The editor here is saying that he uploaded a picture but cannot edit it on the page where he is using it, but does not say what page that is. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be these two photos, meanwhile both already used in articles. I’m not 100% convinced about «own work», though. -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tuválkin, File:Porsche 930 - 121.jpg was uploaded after the question was asked, but yes, I agree that they both look suspect. File:Porsche 930 - 121.jpg has some weird "play" button on it and a faint watermark; it's probably a screengrab from somewhere. File:Marcelo pp 6 abc.jpg looks like a botched photomontage with some sponsor logos in higher resolution than the original photo(s). The head and the body may be two different photos. Very odd indeed. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rui Gabriel Correia, that is as much as I got out of the Google translation as well ("I can not edit it on the page I am writing"), but I'm still not sure what he means. You don't "edit a photo on a page". You might edit the picture and upload a new version under the same name (unless your account is too new), and it will be automatically updated on the page where it is used. You might edit the photo and upload it under a different name and edit the page where it is used to point to the new version (unless the page is protected). You might edit the description of the picture on the page where it is used or on the file description. Problems with editing articles on Wikipedia are of course something that should be dealt with at the relevant project rather than here. If you speak Portuguese, please feel free to jump in and help. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd let you know, seeing that you took the trouble to create a separate entry for his comment. I'll pass onj your message. Keep well. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obrigado! —LX (talk, contribs) 21:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

licenses : cc-by-sa-3.0[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Faisal Al-Abdullah#File:المجلس الإسلامي في جامايكا.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian culture[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Szczebrzeszynski#Please remain calm and collegial. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, including your work regarding an "industrial-sized farm of confirmed sockpuppets." Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request[edit]

Hi, I would like to bring this [21] to your attention. I have not spent much time on Commons and would welcome your views. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely that this picture [22] was uploaded by the same sockfarm. It is just restoring exactly the same pic that was added by another sock of NZ here [23]. I don't know the rules on Commons, but on EN-WIKI, the picture could be deleted per WP:EVASION--it's re-creating the same material from a blocked editor, possibly by a proxy. But I suspect it is the same person and not just a proxy. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Logical Cowboy! I've been busy traveling for work, hence the slow response. This falls under our criteria for speedy deletion; specifically recreation of previously deleted content. I've tagged it with

{{speedy|[[Commons:Deletion requests/File:DavidAlssema.jpg|Previously deleted content]] [[Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4|recreated]] outside of [[Commons:Undeletion requests|process]], possibly using a [[Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Newzealand123|sockpuppet]]}}

. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two uploaded versions of same photo ?[edit]

Thanks for the 'Category cleanup' you just did on two images I uploaded in the last few days. As it turns out, this photo:

File:Motorcyclists about to cross from Sweden to Norway in 1934.png

Motorcyclists about to cross from Sweden to Norway in 1934

is one I later uploaded in a better quality (as part of a whole series of photos). If you could help me to mark this first photo as replaced by this one:

then I would much appreciate that. Thanks either way. Lklundin (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! You could add {{duplicate|File:Danish motorcyclists about to cross the border between Sweden and Norway in 1934.png}} to File:Motorcyclists about to cross from Sweden to Norway in 1934.png. Or, since they're not exact duplicates,

{{speedy delete|[[Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7|Uploader requests deletion of recently created, unused content]]; superseded by [[:File:Danish motorcyclists about to cross the border between Sweden and Norway in 1934.png]]}}

might be more appropriate. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I think I followed your recommendation. Lklundin (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

It's a cool kitten, don't you think?

Gabriponte (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't they all, really? —LX (talk, contribs) 18:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need to actually delete older version of uploaded photo[edit]

Hello LX,

I am turning to you again because I have another (and different) problem with versions of an image upload.

Some years ago I took this image en:FILE:Registerblad for Frederik Rasmussen Christensen.jpg and yesterday I realized it could be useful to a Wikipedia article.

However, when I first uploaded the photo to Wikimedia, I made a mistake and uploaded a different photo of the same object (I have about 30000 such photos and I guess I could organize them better). I fixed the problem by uploading the correct photo using the 'Upload a new version of this file' on the incorrect upload.

Now I realize that unlike the new one I don't actually have the right to distribute the old photo and that it is still accessible (although currently not linked to from any Wikipedia page). So I would like to completely remove the old photo, while somehow keeping the new one. Would it be possible for you to suggest some help in doing so? Many thanks and apologies for the inconvenience, Lklundin (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Only administrators can delete files and revisions of them, so just go to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and post a request for the first revision of File:Registerblad for Frederik Rasmussen Christensen.jpg to be deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Many thanks. Lklundin (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NZ is back[edit]

Please see [24]. I hope I did this right. Ketsuban Pichu is a confirmed sock on EN. [25]. Thank you. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not surprised? Fixed up the format a bit. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 17:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

27 KSNT logo[edit]

Hello. I was just wondering how it is not in the PD? The NBC Peacock is in the PD, and the bottom half is just simple geometric shapes and numbers. Therefore it is in the PD. When I originally uploaded it on the English Wikipedia, I just uploaded without even thinking that it was in the PD. The peacock is just like all if the other NBC logos on here. If this one isn't in the PD, then neither should the other NBC logos. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 19:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I explained quite clearly in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:NBC logos, which is the correct venue to discuss this matter. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so if it gets deleted here, think they would be suitable enough for the English Wikipedia? Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 21:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on English Wikipedia's non-free content guidelines and policies, but I see no obvious reason why low-resolution versions could not be used and locally hosted there. That's more of a question for en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, though. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, thanks! Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 18:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Absent69#File:Khimik Stadium, Armyansk.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture from sajed.ir[edit]

Hi, Thanks for your comments on the images from Shahid Blog. I had also some doubt that this blog owns the copyright of these images. There may be a similar situation with File:Ayatollah Ashrafi Esfehani8.jpg. What do you think? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's most likely either a bad or at least problematic source, and this is a much bigger issue. There's a custom license template for that site, 44 files that rely on it and several hundred other files from that site. There have been several relevant deletion discussions with various outcomes.

Kept:

Deleted:

I've also I've commented on this issue in the past. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable[edit]

You are as low as a dog and have no good will. I sincerely tried to cooperate with you so all those images would not be deleted but your sick mind could not hold its self from doing the damage you have done.
Pity for you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooperag (talk • contribs) 18:22, 17 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you have against dogs. Personally, I like them. Probably not as much as I like cats, but that's more of a personal preference. And I have plenty of good will. Also, I'm not sick at the moment – in my mind or elsewhere – unless you count the usual lack of energy caused by the darkness of winter this close to the Arctic Circle. I have to say, though, I think it's rather uncool to use mental health issues as a pejorative. People with mental health issues aren't bad people. You can't blame a person for having them any more than you can blame someone for having a cold. So all in all, I think your comments about dogs and sick minds probably say more about you then they do about me. Anyway, I'm sorry you don't like having to follow the rules of this project. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase things better then; Here I am putting lots of effort to enhance Wikipedia articles, doing my best to follow rules, and spending time arguing with people like you. I feel tired of it, and tired of dealing with editors like you. After 5 years of editing on Wikipedia and dealing with people like you I have had enough of it and that is why I put that message on your talk page. As of today I quit Wikipedia... the only editors you want are the ones like yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooperag (talk • contribs) 23:15, 17 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Bye-bye then. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me with license issues! ... and you don't go anywhere![edit]

Hi LX!

I put a message here without adding any topic and consequently my message was added to the previous one. I read it and got horrified. I just want you to know that you are needed here very much and the majority of people appreciate your contribution. Ignore the unrespectful guy and continue helping new editors like me. You are needed here!

However: I hope this is the right page to post my questions! Now I'am a bit confused where to discuss my problems! I am a new user to Wikimedia and have recently uploaded a few images: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Roudaki_Hall_Opera.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Memorial_Stamp_for_Roudaki_Hall_Opera_in_Tehran.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 which were deleted because of uncertain copyright status. The source of the images where I got them, the foundation of Les Ballets Persans sent recently an email, a declaration of consent, to Wikimedia but the file is not undeleted yet. I also sent a request for undeletion. Is there anything else I should do? Please help. Thanks. Mittimoe (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. As I mentioned in the deletion discussions, if the copyright has expired, the one thing that's most likely to help in both of these cases is verifiable source information – specifically, source confirming the date of the first publication and/or the death of the author. That source information would be crucial in an undeletion request.

Submitting a consent declaration is a different process, which is appropriate if the copyright has not expired. As it says at the top of Commons:OTRS, "[t]he volunteer [who processes the permission e-mail] will also act to restore any files which may have been deleted before the permission could be verified, so when following the procedure described here, there is no need to request undeletion." In order to be useful, the declaration must be issued by the legitimate copyright holder. The foundation of Les Ballets Persans may or may not be the copyright holders of the photo, but it seems unlikely that they would be the copyright holders of the stamp. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanations. Here is the problem: In the case of File:Roudaki Hall Opera.jpg, the copyright has definitely expired since the photograph was taken around 1970 and the image has fallen within the public domain in Iran. I have forwarded the information and also requested the source of the image (Les Ballets Persans) to confirm this. And they did. But the image is still unavailable. Does it mean that my request for undeletion has been ignored? In regards to File:Memorial Stamp for Roudaki Hall Opera in Tehran.jpg, this is a photography of a stamp published in 1968. Obviously the photography is in the public domain in Iran since it was taken more than 30 years ago. Moreover, the legitimate copyright holder of this stamp or photography should be the Imperial Postal Service of Iran, which is a non-existing company since the Islamic revolution of 1979. So there is no copyright holder to turn to for request of permission or even mention as the source of this file. Please advice! Mittimoe (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's important to note that creation is not necessarily the same as publication. Since the 30-year rule in Iran depends on the date of publication, that's what you need to provide evicence of. With regards to the stamp, it's not the photographic reproduction that matters (that probably does not merit any copyright protection), but the engraving of the stamp itself. Since the 30-year rule only applies to photographs, whether or not the stamp is in the public domain probably depends on if and when the engraved died. Commons:OTRS has a big backlog – there are more people sending permissions in than there are volunteers processing them, so as stated on the page, it may take approximately 20 days before you hear back from them. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stockholm category maintenance[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Paris 16#Category:Stockholm category maintenance. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Q1[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

File:Onoguria.jpg[edit]

Request to delete File Onoguria.jpg I brought myself - Meliska, as the author but it was mistakenly. For that I apologize. Thank you for your understanding.--Meliska (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proper place to comment is Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Meliska. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	謝謝您的關愛！謝長融 (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:קברו של שאול ביבר בבית הקברות בגבעת השלושה צילום אלי אלון.jpg[edit]

Hello Alex,

The photographer, and the author of the article are the same person. I dont think that there is problem here. -- Geagea (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is, of course, generally no way of knowing who is behind a certain user account, except Commons:OTRS permission. Other uploads by the user have full resolution and intact metadata from a Canon PowerShot A630. This photo has no metadata, the exact same web resolution dimensions as the version previously published at http://cafe.themarker.com/post/3147746/. As an alternative to OTRS, a full-resolution photo with intact metadata would suffice. If the uploader is indeed the photographer, that shouldn't be a problem. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article http://cafe.themarker.com/post/3147746/ written by him (אלי אלון - Eli Alon). All filename contain the words "photo by Eli Alon" (Alon=אלון). -- Geagea (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's indeed the case, then there's a third option: mention the license in that article. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

license mentioned in that article? -- Geagea (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to know what you're asking when you don't use complete sentences. What I'm saying is that if the uploader wrote the article at http://cafe.themarker.com/post/3147746/, then he should presumably be able to edit it. If he does that and adds "This photo is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license" (or equivalent in Hebrew), then that will resolve the permission issue. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supercatwalk[edit]

Hi! Just to inform you, seeing your request at OTRS/Noticeboard: If this helps (not really OTRS-related):

File:Film Producer Bobby Johnson.jpg (uploaded 01.02.2015) = grabbed & cropped from Bobby Johnson's official Twitter via https://twitter.com/BobbyJohnson___/status/435697032464834560 (02.2014)
and regarding nr. 5. from you list = File:Bobby Johnson film producer red carpet.jpg (uploaded 01.02.2015) = grabbed & cropped from https://twitter.com/BobbyJohnson___/status/225552341510791168/photo/1 (2012)

Both files tagged with no permission. I have done this more technically (awaiting a whatsoever reaction) because the user behind https://twitter.com/BobbyJohnson___ is aware that files he posted on Twitter are also available at Commons, considering (e.g.) https://twitter.com/BobbyJohnson___/status/533945494549307392/photo/1 or https://twitter.com/BobbyJohnson___/status/533947241833046016/photo/1... Gunnex (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. My guess the uploader is either the subject himself or a paid editor acting on his behalf, but whatever the case, they obviously can't claim to be the author of photos that they didn't personally create. I also noticed some Twitter matches while running some Google image searches, but I figured there were enough questions already. As you say, it doesn't really change the OTRS situation one way or another. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Started Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Supercatwalk. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...[edit]

...for fixing my typo. - Jmabel ! talk 23:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 07:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of copyright images![edit]

【TiCA15】《進擊的巨人》阿爾敏聲優簽名會井上麻里奈雀躍分享配音心得《Attack on Titan Season 2》 - 巴哈姆特

File:Kana Ueda.JPG

【TiCA15】《Fate/stay night》遠坂凜聲優植田佳奈簽名會現場嶄露傲嬌橋段《Fate/stay night [Unlimited Blade Works》 - 巴哈姆特]

File:Tomomi Itano at Taiwan.JPG

【TpGS 15】萬代南夢宮邀請日本知名偶像「板野友美」於攤位與粉絲互動 - 巴哈姆特

--61.228.225.197 14:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that has anything to do with me. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not understanding the rules[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Sixpacz#Copyright violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liedkunst Husum.JPG[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Mehlauge#File:Liedkunst Husum.JPG. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temis CH.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:YanikB#File:Temis CH.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biting newbies[edit]

I know it's tempting, but do be a bit kind. [26] Who knows, he might be writing from a CDC 6400 and have no choice in the matter... - Jmabel ! talk 21:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He or she has been around for 10 months and seems to be capable of writing normally on other pages, so I'm not sure about the newbie label. I did say "please", and I thought the rest was rather matter-of-fact. But I'll try my best to sugarcoat it a bit next time. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 23:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10 months? Yup, he should probably know better. - Jmabel ! talk 04:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:SC430-B10-direct drive.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Gypaete09#File tagging File:SC430-B10-direct drive.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This should be sorted now - see *my* talk page (that exists now). btw the discussion did not start on that page - I had to create it just for that occasion. Johan Prins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.140.141.7 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Gypaete09 has existed since 27 September 2013‎, and the discussion started there. Maybe you had trouble finding it because you keep editing without being logged in. In that case, the Special:MyTalk link will point to the talk page of the IP address that you're editing from. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Q2[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Help Desk link to undeletion discussion[edit]

Hello, LX! Just noting that I took the liberty of changing the UDR link in your recent Help Desk posting; it was pointing to the section beneath the one where you had made a similar comment, so I assume you just mis-selected while copying it. Hope you don‘t mind.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! Don't know how I managed to mess that up. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gazetteer[edit]

Hej! Du flyttade kategorin från singular till plural. Tanken var att kategorin skulle utgöra "The Gazetteer" genom att samla digitaliserade källor som innehåller geografisk information men som inte själva nödvändigtvis utgör "gazetteers". Det är möjligt att det är mindre bra tänkt och att ordet inte kan användas så på engelska. Edaen (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... kanske borde kollat med dig först. :o) Jag får erkänna att jag inte hade hört ordet tidigare och var tvungen att kolla upp det. Det kan säkert användas på det sättet, men jag tror att det ändå behöver sättas in i ett sammanhang – något i stil med Category:WikiAtlas och Atlas of Sweden, fast med ickekartografiskt geografiskt fokus. Var det något sånt du tänkte dig? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, precis. Kategorin var tänkt att samla textkällor som är relevanta för geografiska artiklar på Wikipedia, Wikidata och OpenHistoricalMap. Edaen (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okej. Då låter det som att en gallerisida egentligen vore lämpligare än en kategori, så att man kan skapa lite sammanhang – återigen i likhet med Atlas of Sweden. Håller du med? Kategorierna jag skapade (i alla fall de överordnade) kan nog få vara kvar ändå; de verkar också behövas. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kategorin kan komma att bli väldigt stor och borde nog i sinom tid delas upp på underkategorier. T. ex SCB:s folkräkningar, regeringsbeslut om kommunindelningar eller beslut om församlingsindelningar i Stockholm. Jag har ingen bestämd uppfattning om underkategorier ännu utan det får ge sig när det finns tillräckligt med material i huvudkategorin. Edaen (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, jag återskapat kategorin och lagt till en liten beskrivning. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, vad bra. Edaen (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for response, even in English. The important thing is we have resources that enable our communication. With your help getting success and my photos were published in Wikimedia commons! (Gervásio, Brazil). Gervásio Carvalho (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obrigado! I'm glad I could help. Given the size and importance of Serra da Capivara National Park, we can definitely use more illustrations related to it, so those are valuable contributions. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:CryOCed#Copyright violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Congrats for being respectful. HOW CAN I DELETE MY ACCOUNT (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for trying to help me under my request... I don't where I can click to send you a private message, neither how to get in touch with a proper authority to request my files to be deleted. I appreciate your time. ERICK DUQUE (EDKH) HOW CAN I DELETE MY ACCOUNT (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re:[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 8Dodo8. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the users of a forum to help me with images. Is it ok if they add this texts next to the photos that they add? And what am I supposed to do after I obtain them?

I hereby affirm that [I, (name here), am] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the media.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. 8Dodo8 (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say anything definitive without knowing more about the specifics. Normally, the e-mail template should be filled in and sent in via e-mail according to the instructions at Commons:OTRS. If previous online publications have a clear licensing statement, linking to it and adding {{Licensereview}} may be sufficient, but if it's the kind of forum where anyone may register an account anonymously, an e-mail may still be needed to verify the licensor's identity. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Q3[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Subrapubic catheter[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#User:Terryyes15 sockpuppets. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imágenes[edit]

Hola, estaba revisando el artículo Comunicaciones y me dí cuenta que las imágenes aparecen como trabajo propio, cuando estas están sacadas de Comunicaciones, son violaciones, también su contenido, no es neutral. Gracias --ElisonSeg (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

¡Hola! I don't really speak Spanish, but if I understand correctly, you're saying that the images used in es:Comunicaciones Fútbol Club appear to be copyright violations. It looks like they were all uploaded by one user, and I've created Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fr4nc0svr. In the future, please report this type of issue somewhere where more people will see it – either by creating a deletion nomination yourself, or by reporting it at the Administrators' noticeboard, the copyright Village Pump or the Spanish Village Pump. Neutrality issues with the article is a matter for the folks over at Spanish Wikipedia, but it looks like the article has the corresponding problem tag. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 07:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admin[edit]

Hi, You ever considered becoming a admin? I would be happy to nominate you. Best. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Steinsplitter! Pehaps you remember this? Thanks again, though. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 14:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you a mail :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions of user:Usamasaad[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Usamasaad. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry![edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Batiba#Copyright violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These files[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Diego Grez-Cañete#File tagging File:Niza Catalán, presidenta del CCAA LARE 2012.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Template:Qfi[edit]

Template currently lacks link search options for https protocol. Maybe it's possible to rebuild the template so link searches are only done for links starting with flickr.com, excluding protocols et al. @Martin H., Rillke, and Steinsplitter: requesting further input/ideas. I hope there's an easy solution.--Denniss (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I've tried fixing it. I think this should work. Let me know if anything seems broken. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have received two emails about an image[edit]

"File:Mapa-del-Pays-Caribe.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation" Right know I cannot access to that images, could you send me to me, because in this moment I really cannot remain it. but I could tell you, that it, and two proposal flags that I created, were a part of a political process to get more autonomy in the Caribbean region of Colombia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyemail (talk • contribs) 00:57, 2 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

I haven't sent you any e-mail. I tagged File:Mapa-del-Pays-Caribe.jpg for deletion as a copyright violation 5½ years ago and notified you on the user talk page of the account you used to upload it. User talk:Jaimeyemail. (I see that you have also created an account called Yemailjaime. Is there a reason why you need so many accounts?) Depending on your settings, that may have triggered an e-mail notification, but it would have been sent back then, not now.

I cannot send you the file. It has been deleted, and only administrators can access deleted content. From looking at the log for the file, it was a copyright violation, because it was a screenshot of non-free Google Maps content. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for your help at Commons:Help desk‎. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to be at your service! —LX (talk, contribs) 19:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Page[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to Commons:Help desk#Editing Problem. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eights weeks and still no resolution[edit]

Hej LX, you suggested me to report a problem with the interpretation of image EXIF information on Phabricator. You also pointed out where the problem was, I guess there is just two lines of codes that need to be swapped in the Exif.php file. This was eight weeks ago. Do you have any suggestion on how to get something to happen with T107717? Are there any statistics available showing which kind of resolution time that can be expected for bugs with priority Low? --Larske (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I really don't know what the holdup is. It seems the developers are as always too busy working on unwanted features to fix even the simplest of bugs even when you hand them everything on a silver platter. :-( I don't know about statistics, and I'm not as familiar with Phabricator as I was with Bugzilla that was used earlier, but it looks like only eight Commons issues with low priority have ever been resolved since Phabricator was introduced over a year ago. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Q4[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Camerino Farnese[edit]

Hi, I want to ask a question please: this photograph may be published on Wikicommons? It is true that the surface of the roof is concave, but the paintings on it are obviously two-dimensional (I think) ... What is your opinion? Thanks for collaboration--Never covered (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Never covered! I'm afraid I'd have to say no, unless the photographer is willing to release the photo under a free license. The issue is that the photographer obviously had to make a decision about where to place the camera and how to angle it. The result of that decision is that the photographer holds the copyright to this particular depiction of the painting. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

okay... thanks for the reply... cordially--Never covered (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi excuse me for the trouble: I wanted to ask you another information. I did this picture with my camera, photographing the page of a book: I can legitimately upload it on Wikicommons or not? Thank you--Never covered (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Never covered! No trouble at all – asking is the right thing to if you're unsure (although I do recommend the help desk – I may not always be around to answer). The answer to your question is most likely no. The person who created the original photograph of the sculpture has the right to specify who may use their photo and how it may be used. Your photo is a derivative work of the original photo, and the original photographer's copyright still applies. It looks like the original photograph is quite recent, so it's unlikely that the original photographer's copyright has expired. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I feared so, but tell me one more thing: if the originally photo had been related to a bidiminensional work (drawing, painiting ecc.), there would be no problems: am I right or wrong? thanks for your kind availability. un saluto--Never covered (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it would depend on the copyright status of the drawing or painting. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag for details. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok, tank you--Never covered (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi, sorry for another request. I would like to upload this photo. I understand that I cant do it themselves, because depicts not a two-dimensional object. But if I ask permission to the holders of the picture (http://www.genusbononiae.it/) and they agree, I can publish it? In that case, how can I prove that they were authorized?. I hope to be able to understand me. Tank you very match --Never covered (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the copyright holder agrees to publish the photo under a license that allows anyone to use, modify, and redistribute it for any purpose, including commercial purposes, you should use this process to document that. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright tag[edit]

Hej! Jag håller på och expanderar en artikel om Mästermyrskistan och kollade vad det kunde finnas för bilder. Själva fotona på kistan och föremålen tillhör ju Historiska museet och är skyddade, men det finns en hel hög teckningar i anteckningsboken från själva upptäckten dvs 1936. Dessa sidor är inskannade och finns att ladda ned. Dom är alla märkta med "Public Domain" se ex 1 och ex 2. Jag tänkte ladda upp dom på Commons, men jag kan bara inte klura ut vilken licens jag ska använda. Kan du hjälpa mig att föreslå vilken som är bäst? w.carter-Talk 19:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hej w.carter! Det knepiga här är att Historiska museet inte talar om på vilken grund de har märkt verken med Public Domain Mark. För bilder från Flickr med motsvarande märkning har vi {{Flickr-public domain mark}}, som indikerar att mer information krävs för att de inte ska raderas. Upphovsrättens giltighet i Sverige är generellt 70 år från det att den som skapat verket avlidit ({{PD-old-70}}), eller från första publiceringen om skaparen är okänd ({{PD-anon-70-EU}}, {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}, {{PD-anon-70}}; jag har inte sett någon bra förklaring till varför vi har så många mallar för samma sak). Jag kan inte avgöra baserat på informationen på de länkade bildsidorna vad som eventuellt skulle kunna vara fallet här. Kanske museet kan bistå med ett förtydligande? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tack för försöket i alla fall. Det var ungefär de licenserna jag hade kollat på men inte kunnat reda ut. Jag ska kontakta museet som du föreslog. Ha en trevlig kväll, w.carter-Talk 17:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hej igen! Alltid lär man sig något nytt. Jag har nu fått svar från Historiska Museet och det visar sig att dom betraktar dom som dokument:

Gällande alla våra skannade kataloger så har vi resonerat så att det rör sig om dokumentation av samlingarna och är ”allmän handling”. Därför har vi valt att även släppa även den ”digitala kopian” som Public Domain.

Det är alltså {{PD-Sweden-URL9}} som gäller här. Bör jag ange någonstans att jag fått de här uppgifterna från museet eller räcker det med att bara ange licensen? w.carter-Talk 15:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Menar de alltså att det är fråga om ett yttrande av en myndighet? (För en författning eller ett beslut är det ju inte.) Statens historiska museer är en myndighet, men att att det här skulle utgöra ett yttrande känns spontant lite märkligt. Fast jag kan inte tolka det på något annat sätt. Permission-fältet i Information-mallen känns som ett lämpligt ställe att citera korrespondensen. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jepp, enligt dom så gäller det "dokument och publikationer som ges ut av myndigheter och statliga verk, exempelvis handböcker, lagkommentarer, upplysningstidskrifter och informativa publikationer" där "upphovsmannens namn ofta inte är känt utan myndigheten står som avsändare". Jag gör en hänvisning till allt detta där du föreslog. De inskannade sidorna är ju till största delen text, skisserna I dom är mer en bisak och räknas tydligen inte som några större artistiska verk. Utöver det så handlar det ju om en slags kataloger, och sådana har ju bara en copyright på 15 år I Sverige. Dom var dessutom mycket glada över att artikeln och andra artiklar som rör museet blir skrivna, så det kändes väldigt positivt. Bad mig även att titta in och plåta saker själv om jag hade vägarna förbi. Bara att sätta igång och ladda upp. w.carter-Talk 22:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a problem[edit]

Hi there. I seem to have caused a problem here and I'm sure how to fix it. Sorry, I forgot about what happened with File:Tseax vent 2013.jpeg. I also accidentally uploaded the first file under a different file name here so now there is an exact duplicate. I will upload the different figure under a different file name. Volcanoguy (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what it is you want to achieve. You've marked File:20151113231003!Level Mountain diagram.png as a duplicate of File:Level Mountain diagram.png, but it's really a duplicate of the first version of that file. In the file history section of File:Level Mountain diagram.png, you can see the two different versions that you have uploaded, and if you want to restore it to the first version, just press the "revert" link next to it. You might need assistance from an administrator to sort this out. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine I sorted it out myself. Volcanoguy (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Antonio3.14[edit]

Answered here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Antonio3.14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio3.14 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 26 December 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

2016 Q1[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Hi[edit]

We are the current owners of Strathmore at 74 Falls Road, Wentworth Falls. We have some more recent photos of the front if the house that we could send you, to replace the ones you have posted if you are interested.

Regards

Kate Kate Ryder (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kate! I'm not sure why you've come to me about this. If I understand correctly, this is about the house shown in File:(1)Strathmore Wentworth Falls-3.jpg, File:(1)Strathmore Wentworth Falls-1.jpg, File:(1)Strathmore Wentworth Falls-2.jpg and File:(1)Strathmore Wentworth Falls.jpg. As far as I know, I've never participated in any discussions on this topic before. That said, you're of course as welcome as anybody to contribute to Commons. Please have a look at Commons:First steps. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 18:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user files deletion[edit]

Hi LX,

I found out that there is a mistake in the query, I anticipated only 1 category on all of these files but that filter did not work thus a lot (40-50%) have another category besides the user page images category. Some of these might still be out of scope (due to unused user logo), but they are a bit more tricky. I'm sorry for the mistake on that, and of course willing to (help) clean that up. Basvb (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Basvb! No worries. I'll wait for you to see if you can get that sorted before moving on with any additional batches. I was planning on letting the first nomination run its course first anyway. As for the ongoing discussion, I think most of the files are still solid candidates for deletion. The main criterion is that they're not used on any pages, and lack of categorisation is secondary. Generally, files that are actually useful illustrations for a real content category shouldn't be tagged with {{user page image}}. Since those images seem to be a very small minority, we can just identify and strike them, as I did with File:Viivoja2.JPG. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 20:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this query shows the number of cats, it seems however that hidden cats are also counted, all of the images have several hidden cats and a lot are still out of scope even with a valid other category (categories such as user logos, english wikipedia, etc.). Basvb (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hej[edit]

Hej, jag vet inte hur jag varit på denna hemsida så länge (ok, ints så länge, men ändå) utan att sett att du också kommer från Sverige. Ville bara säga hej :) Josve05a (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hej hej Jonatan! Jo, vi har snackat svenska med varandra tidigare. Du har kommit långt sedan dess! :) —LX (talk, contribs) 18:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omg, burn that archive with fire. Inte direkt ett av mina bästa stunder, men visar bara att man lär sig av sina misstag, om man bara vill. Josve05a (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exakt! Jag tycker inte alls att det är något att skämmas över med facit i hand – tvärtom. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, jag skäms lite över det. Kollar tillbaka på hur "ociviliserad" och ovetande jag var då...jag framstår inte direkt på ett moget sätt skulle man kunna sammanfatta det.Får hoppas jag bevisat (och fortsätter bevisa) att jag förändrats en hel del sen dess. Josve05a (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Every week you find another set of sockpuppets. :-) Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I do seem to stumble over them quite frequently. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Need Help[edit]

It's my page and I can do what I want. (signatures) I was doing that because I seriously need help. I need someone who can send a message to Wikipedia admin Jezebel's Ponyo about WikiEditor905 would like to have a chat. Also, asking him/her to come talk to me on my disscusion on Wikimedia page. I need someone else to do this because I can't do anything on Wikipedia now. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ponyo) (WikiEditor905 (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

No, you may not do what you want. You may not move your user talk page into the main gallery talk namespace, and you may not distort other people's comments or signatures. And you may not bring disruptions from other projects to Commons. You are clearly not here to contribute constructively to this project, so please go away. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to be rude or mean here but I think some admins from any Wikipedia or Wikimedia are rude. Some edits I get but they do not have respect for other users edits. Admins think it is always about. No one wants to help me. The Wiki community are just meanie beanies. I cannot believe I was stupid enough to start editing on Wikipedia. I will just stick to the normal wiki. Whatever admins did to me made feel like crying or killing mnyself. (WikiEditor905 (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Again, you are clearly not here to participate constructively to this project. I asked you to go away. Since it seems like you need help going away, I requested it. Bye, —LX (talk, contribs) 21:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons Why I Donèt Edit Here[edit]

Sorry about è. Numbers lock is on. One reason why I donèt edit on here is because I donèt know how to. This is for pictures. Can you help learn how to upload picturesÉ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditor905 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 07 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Number locks is on and I canèt do anything about it. (////) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditor905 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 07 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

Just as a 'note' that you might find interesting, when we say things like 'granting a work into the public domain', or 'Creative Commons licenses are not revocable', we are not, in a very technical sense, telling the literal truth. I submit, for your (probably appalled) consideration, 17 USC 203. Not that telling people that you have a five year window to terminate your license grants, 30 years from when you made them, is particularly useful or helpful to us or them, lol. What's more, it's actually highly disputed, even under US law (which does not disallow an author from giving up their rights) if literally 'giving up a work into the public domain' has any legal meaning at all. Like John Bergmayer says, "The law doesn't say anything about how an author might renounce her rights. It is certainly possible that a court, if faced with a dispute about this, would find that there is some "inherent" right to give up your copyright. One no doubt arising out of centuries of the common law. But there's nothing in the statute that mentions the possibility."[27] (other lawyers have made the same point)

This isn't me telling you are wrong about anything, not at all. Just some interesting technicalities. Revent (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Sigh, if only legislators knew to stay out of things they obviously aren't competent to do, like legislating. Anyway, it looks like people far smarter than myself have written at length about this topic: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Reese-CC-Terminability-Draft-10_02_08.pdf. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where you under the misapprehension that the skills required to get elected had the slightest thing to do with competence at the actual job? At least you can feel happy now knowing that there is actually something dumber than the URAA. Revent (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you help me?[edit]

Dear LX, how are you doing?, I have just uploaded a file in WC: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:De_castas_y_mala_raza-_Claudia_Coca.jpg

It´s not my own work but I have the permission of the author to publish it under Creative Commons license. Could you please tell me if I have uploaded in he right way? I would really appreciate if you could help me in this affair. Regards from Peru. Yhhue91 (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yhhue91! There are many Creative Commons licenses, and only some of them are appropriate for Commons. Did the author specifically mention the Creative Commons Attribution license (as opposed to, for example, Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial)? Also, when it comes to permissions from others, you need to follow the process described as Commons:OTRS to submit evidence of the permission. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LX, many thanks for your response. I have a written authorization of the copyright holder for a CC-BY-SA license and I have just sent it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and they sent me a ticket number, so I guess I'm on the right path? Cheers! 15:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully, yes. I've edited the file description to correct the license according to what you've stated here and to note that verification of the permission is pending. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Venues[edit]

Thanks, I was not aware. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blackcat: No worries. That whole part of the category structure was a bit of a mess. I did my best to untangle it, and I ended up having to draw a diagram to get it right. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 15:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Categories, Unwanted images[edit]

Hello, and firstly thanks for your response on the Help Desk that I left earlier this week. It helped out find images much faster. I have a couple of questions left to ask, though. Firstly, is there any categories that you can place on an uncategorized image? Like any general categories that all images should have? (Or basically any popular categories you can think of) Secondly, what do I do when you see an unwanted image that needs to be deleted? For example, I found this image that has no categories (since 2013), no related article (there isn't a "Kohinoor Begum" page on EN wiki, and a quick google search doesn't seem to indicate there's an article of that name anywhere), and I can't think of any way to use it. What do you think of this image? Electrico96 (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Electrico96! I'm glad you found my response at the help desk useful.

As for your first question, I'd say Commons:Categories#Categorization tips has a pretty good coverage of the sort of aspects that categories should cover.

As for your second question, if you find a file that you think should be deleted, you can find a link to start a deletion discussion for the current page or file on the left-hand side of the page under "Tools". For files that meet our criteria for speedy deletion, you can add an appropriate speedy deletion tag to the file page and notify the uploader. You may wish to enable the "Quick Delete" gadget in your preferences to make this easier.

The image you bring up as an example (and the other files uploaded by the same user) not only appears to be outside of Commons' project scope, but there is no evidence to support the uploader's claims that the copyright holder has approved publication under the stated license. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Embassies in Montenegro[edit]

I agree that categories should be as specific as possible. However, the "buildings by function" categories are for more general categories than "embassies". I did find some other government buildings categories for Montenegro, so I made a category for them and put that in the "by function" category. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of putting content in even more generic categories just because a more specific intermediate category is missing. The thing that embassy buildings have in common is their function (as opposed to their shape or condition). But creating the intermediate category is of course the best solution. Cheers and have a great weekend, —LX (talk, contribs) 16:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted details on the morgans mount image[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Thursby16#File source is not properly indicated: File:Mm2.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Q2[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

meaningful categories[edit]

[28] Dude, I'm no expert. I'm just trying to get them out of uncats, and maybe come back later. Thanks for what you done, though. Hope it wasn't too annoying. :-)
99.234.209.208 08:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! No, it wasn't annoying, but if you can, please try to use a little more specific categories. Most high-level topics have subcategories for most countries, and in many cases, there are much more specific categories than that. Having lots of files in very generic categories is only marginally better than having them completely uncategorised. Using more specific categories greatly increases the chances that files can be found by the people who are looking for them. Just using the slightly more specific Category:Hotels in Poland would have been a big improvement in this case. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 15:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suppose I could make better use of Google translate and like. I'm going through my old edits, adding cats, and next time around, put them in the more specific categories. Will consider and increasingly act on your suggestion. :-)99.234.209.208 02:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Footballing images from the Italian wikipedia[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Danieletorino2#File source is not properly indicated: File:Antonio Janni.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Swedish National ID card.jpg and File:Swedish National ID card (Back).jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Gregori-luxair#File:Swedish National ID card.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE THE PICTURE OF THIS LINK PLEASE Eliad drahi bensoussan.jpg[edit]

hello

thanks for your help, but if you try to write eliad drahi bensoussan in google you find a picture with the link eliad drahi bensoussan of wikimedia can u delete this please

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliad bensoussan (talk • contribs) 18:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Eliad, but I don't control Google's caching of search results, so I can't delete anything from there. You may wish to refer to the second point at https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/4628134. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank u LX for ur help Eliad bensoussan (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016[edit]

Please my upload photo give to your other user from wikipedia please LX — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaustria124 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 17 May 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're trying to say. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help Please[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Qian.Nivan#File tagging File:Thomas Jefferson HS Raiders Robotic.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Image Urgent[edit]

Hello,

I own an image which has been deleted several times by the Wikimedia Commons team. And I sought to contact them but was unlucky in my attemps.

What do you advise me to do in order for the image to not be deleted ?

Many thanks in advance ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NdeyeD (talk • contribs) 19:00, 27 May 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the procedure describe at Commons:OTRS. Do not attempt to recreate previously deleted files on your own. Doing so may lead to your account being blocked. Also, do note that owning a copy of an image or having a license to use an image usually does not mean that you have the right to issue any sort of copyright license for the image to anyone else. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cherubino Alberti[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Never covered#File:Cherubino Alberti, Clementina Hall Ceiling.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:DiogoCosta1998#Copyright violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Q3[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Re:[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Rodtico21#File:Traditional chair. Costa Rica.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Description instead of a comment, please[edit]

Your changes of categorizations often contain a comment rather than a factual description of your change. I would prefer to see a description of the change. Thank you. Bengt Nyman (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I would prefer if you followed the advice in those comments and didn't flood top-level categories with files that don't belong there. I'm guessing neither of us is going to get what we want. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Siegel 1939[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:BaronBifford#Please do not recreate deleted content. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally when I upload images....[edit]

It takes me so much time, even using the uploader, to pick a name for each image file, to write a description of the image, the time of the image, copyright notices, and so forth. Then, for each image, I am supposed to choose categories. This is something I am not good at and am unlikely to get good at. For me, to have to wade through tons of categories (which change regularly) to try to select the perfect categories for each one would be exhausting. Let me do what I'm good at -- uploading images -- and let others do what they're good at -- choosing categories -- that way, it's much better all around. There are contributors such as yourself who know that categories such as sand and hotels are inappropriate and that walking persons is a better one. So, kudos to you, but please don't expect too much from me in terms of categorization.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we already have more than 750,000 completely uncategorised files, and we probably have an even greater number of files in overly generic top-level categories that aren't going to help anyone find them. There simply aren't enough volunteers to handle these volumes. Unless uploaders take a few minutes to pick relevant categories, the chances of the files ever ending up in categories where they're actually likely to be found are slim to none. It doesn't take many clicks to find your way from an overly generic top level category like Category:Hotels via Category:Hotels by country→Category:Hotels in the United States→Category:Hotels in the United States by state→Category:Hotels in New Jersey to Category:Hotels in Cape May County, New Jersey – and there's nothing special about me that enabled me to find it. It's just that I made the effort, just like anyone else could. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, each contributor chooses how he or she will contribute here. I've chosen to upload images. You've chosen to categorize them better. Yes there are many uncategorized images or ones with generic categories, but it is always possible that in future new volunteers will come along to categorize them better. You, asking me to do what you do best, is kind of like me, asking you to upload more images. Do you see what I'm getting at here? Let's all do what we do best. Further, it is possible that in the future, new bots or programs will come along that will re-categorize images automatically, so no, I'm not too thrilled about the idea of spending even more time on each image trying to get the exact categories down.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're all volunteers here, but if you could take just a few seconds to drill down from the top-level categories that you're currently using, that would be very, very helpful and increases the likelihood of your uploads being found. That's all I'm saying. After all, you're in a better position than anyone else to know what it is you've photographed and where. But if you don't want to be that helpful and don't care about your photos being found, that is, as you say, entirely up to you. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will try.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No source tags[edit]

Hi, please stop removing 'no source' tags from DWs of unsourced base maps, unless you can provide a source for the base maps which shows that they are free. You are causing unnecessary work, leading to nothing. Jcb (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you had simply not read or understood the authorship assertions in Swedish. To me, your edits just looked like blind tagging of files that just had its source information somewhere other than the source field, especially since you skipped over all the other files in Category:Election maps of India attributed to User:Soman, where the only difference seems to be that File:Rjdelectionmap.PNG and File:Rldelectionmap.PNG had an empty source field because the source information was in the description field instead.

I would argue that these files do have source information, and that if you think that the source information provided is not credible, a deletion discussion would be more appropriate. Similarly, if there is source information, but you think that it is not sufficient for some reason, a deletion discussion would be a much clearer way to raise that concern than to erroneously tag the file as having no source information, which is just likely to cause confusion. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is exactly what the tag is for. "This media file is missing essential source information." is exactly what's wrong with these files. The choice of these two files may seem a bit random, the cause is that I an going through files alfabetically. Jcb (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aiadmkelectionmap.PNG comes before both those files alphabetically, and all the files I've seen you tag lately were ones that had blank source fields, so it still seems to me like that was the sole criterion. Anyway, I can only explain what my reasoning was, and I think you're likely to confuse others the same way if you keep tagging files with source information as missing source information because you suspect that they are derivatives of some undisclosed original work. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

The strawberry fruit (which is not actually a berry) is widely appreciated for its characteristic aroma, bright red color, juicy texture, and sweetness.

Thanks for your daily hard work :-) I appreciate it. -- Steinsplitter (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been so daily lately – I've been busy with a trade show. But thank you, and same to you! —LX (talk, contribs) 16:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegro champion cycling jerseys[edit]

Hello, can you upload Montenegro champion cycling jersey? Or can you tell someone else to upload? -- Vux33 (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please use Commons:Picture requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Q4[edit]

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

I would love your thoughts on how to search by metadata[edit]

Hello LX, The search team at the foundation is looking to add the ability to search by metadata. Whatamidoing/Sherry said you might be interested. If you are and have a moment I'd love to hear your thoughts. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris! Thanks for asking, and sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I've been busy and haven't really been around here. I'm guessing my name came up after the comments I made in Special:Diff/203134998, where I mentioned searching metadata, by file type, by file size and (where applicable) dimensions as useful features for identifying bad uploads.

When I mentioned metadata (separately from file properties such as type, size and dimensions), I mainly meant EXIF, IPTC etc. It looks like the Phabricator entry and the help text is only really concerned with file properties, not actual metadata.

An example use case would be for a search to match the "REUTERS" value in the Iptc.Application2.Credit (0x006e) tag in File:Chloé Sauvourel JO 2016.jpg (displayed as "Credit/Provider" in the Metadata section of the file description here on Commons). I currently search for such files using Google, but there are a lot of false positives, and I'm guessing I also miss a lot. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All My Uploads Removed[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Homey104#Copyright violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. LICENSE[edit]

Where can I see if a photo is copyrighted? I have photos on my computer to upload to wikipedia and I do not know what license to put. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha 09 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 27 November 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

All recently created photographs are automatically protected by copyright upon creation. If you don't know "what license to put", it's probably because the photo hasn't been published under any free license by the copyright holder. Please understand that you cannot just grab photos from the Internet and make up some random licensing claim. Please read Commons:Project scope/Summary to understand what you can and cannot upload to Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my ignorance. I have read the link you have told me and I do not understand anything. If I want to upload an instagram image that is from a cyclist (Who uploads the image is not the cyclist What should I do?) For example, if I want to upload this image: https://www.instagram.com/p/BLonOL-Bzdo/ What a license I put so that it is not erased.--Alpha 09 (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to figure out who the legitimate copyright holder. Then you need to get them to agree to publish it under a free license and send in a release statement. It's not up to you to select a license. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I ask permission from the author. And if you let me upload it. I have to tell OTRS: Correct?--Alpha 09 (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a valid permission is sent in to OTRS from the right person (I wasn't able to figure out who the photographer is, so I'm a bit surprised if you did), then the OTRS volunteers will ensure that the file is restored. Do not upload it again. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to https://www.instagram.com/p/BLonOL-Bzdo/. The owner of the photo is @paulineballet (instagram) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha 09 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm not up to speed with how the social media types provide photo credits, but yes, that seems correct. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask permission to upload the photo to wikipedia. Is there a text template? What do I get to ask for permission in a correct way? I'm sorry for my ignorance. I'm a noob. I'm on Wikipedia's cycling project (SPAIN) --Alpha 09 (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to upload the photo is not sufficient. The permission has to be for publication under a free license (a license that allows anyone to use, modify and distribute the photo for any purpose, including commercial purposes). Using the standard template at Commons:OTRS will help you get the details right. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please. This is correct? Delete if not correct. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Peter_Sagan_-_%22Road_World_Champion_2016%22.png --Alpha 09 (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop reuploading previously deleted content immediately. You've been warned not to do this. You need to use Commons:Undeletion requests instead of just unilaterally restoring things, especially when you do not, by your own admission, do not understand how copyright works. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent this. Dear Madam, I am a contributor in the Spanish version of Wikipedia (http://es.wikipedia.org) and we are looking for images for [29]. Currently, we do not have free images for the following article:

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sagan

If I may, I wanted to ask if it would be possible for you to change the license of some of your images to CC-BY-SA 3.0 (Equal Share Recognition). This would allow use on Wikipedia (implying that such images could be used for commercial use, although the main purpose of these is to illustrate articles). Of course, you would be mentioned as the original author, with a link to your page at [30], subject to the license chosen. We are interested in this particular picture:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BLonOL-Bzdo/

We would be very grateful for your contribution, which would allow us to enrich the encyclopedia, which can be accessed by anyone who wishes. Cordially, Rubén - https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alpha_09 and Https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alpha_09 .................................................................................................................................................................................................. For permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

I hereby declare that I am the owner of the exclusive copyright of [WRITE HERE THE NAME OF THE WORK, AND ADD A WEB LINK]. I agree that such work is published under the free license CC-BY-SA 3.0 (Recognition-Equal Share) [OR ANY OF THE LICENSES HERE]. I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the image on a commercial product, as well as to modify it according to their needs. I am aware that I will always retain the copyright of my image, as well as the right to be recognized as author according to the terms of the license chosen for my work. Modifications that others make to the image will not be attributed to me. I am aware that the free license only affects copyright, and I reserve the right to take legal action against anyone who uses this work in violation of any other law, such as restrictions on trademarks, libel or specific geographical restrictions. I acknowledge that I can not retract this agreement, and that the image may or may not be stored permanently in a project of the Wikimedia Foundation. [NAME AND LAST NAME OF OWNER OF COPYRIGHT] [DATE] --Alpha 09 (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the photographer is willing to fill that out, that should be fine. Of course, many professional photographers will not agree to give away their works in ways that allow others to use it commercially, and that's entirely up to her in this case as well. Good luck! —LX (talk, contribs) 17:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Wikipedia Cycling there are very few photos. I know why. Nobody does 3500 km by motorcycle to give free pictures. I have found photos that read: "For editorial use only" (The images and pictures marked "Exclusive editorial use" have been made for use in stories or articles that describe events that are news or articles of public interest. Content can not be used for commercial purposes.These standards are also applicable to non-profit organizations.The editorial content can be used in: New articles, Nonfiction books, Documentaries, Other informative purposes, Editorial content can not be used In: Advertisements, Products, Product packaging Any other commercial or promotional material) Wikipedia are informational purposes. I think. Can they be used?--Alpha 09 (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. We only host content that is free for any purpose. See Commons:Licensing/Justifications. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, Lizenz[edit]

Hallo, es wurde von ihnen zwei Bilder, die ich hochgeladen habe, zur Löschung beantragt. Ich bin die Fotos selbst bearbeitet, und es gibt kein Urheber, die die Lizenz für die Fotos besitzen. Da auch die Qualität nicht mehr entsprechen wie die original, finde ich, dass da kein Lizenz verletzen wurde. Die beiden Fotos wurde jede mongolische Webseiten verwendet, ohne ein Lizenz zu nennen. Daher bitte ich Sie, dass die Bilder erhalten bleibt. Vielen Dank. Munkhzaya.E (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand what you are trying to say. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't delete anything (ask an administrator instead), and this isn't Wikipedia. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock puppet of Kritkitty[edit]

Hi!
You seem to be an expert on this topic, so could you look at Myan-bruma8888? --jdx ^Re: 17:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's an obvious one. Added to Commons:Requests for checkuser. Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 19:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what do[edit]

Hi
I was editing a page when I was notified that all the images I uploaded were being reviewed. I was shocked. Then I remembered that on Wikipedia I had to put Copyright. For being my first edition, I do not know how to do such a thing, and less if it is in English (my English is not so good, in fact I now use Google Translate xd ...). I've been trying to figure it all out, but there's still a mistake ... but many of those images I took from a book, and the author is where I live. Please, could you help me with how to resolve all the notifications you sent me? I do not understand much of what you send me, how to put licenses or codes that I do not know or to serve or things like that. I just want to update and improve the page of the city where I live. Thanks in advance. Shrykos (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)User:Shrykos[reply]

Please read Commons:Project scope/Summary/es to understand what you can and cannot upload to Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, LX![edit]

Happy New Year!

LX, a new year is like a blank book, the pen is in your hands. It is your chance to write a beautiful story for yourself! Happy New Year 2017. Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 18:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:LX/Archive/All

2006 Q3[edit]

Copyvio?[edit]

2006 Q4[edit]

Category:Maps[edit]

2007 Q1[edit]

Morlachs maps[edit]

Images marked free for private and educational use[edit]

Bildetik/regler[edit]

Licensing derived images[edit]

Help please[edit]

50px[edit]

why do admins at wikicommons hate freedom of artistic expression ?[edit]

Karl Gerhard[edit]

Order of Smile[edit]

Maps, maps, and more maps[edit]

Auroranorth[edit]

Stereographic polytope 8cell.png[edit]

Mellotron[edit]

Chourah[edit]

About Mangareva 2006[edit]

Image "Lost Temporada 3"[edit]

Free Pictures[edit]

please delete[edit]

Make a warning template for Copyvio claim to don't be[edit]

Adminship for Tintazul[edit]

Image[edit]

2007 Q2[edit]

Adminship[edit]

French[edit]

Iceland Review Cover[edit]

Congratulations, Dear Administrator![edit]

Frank Stella[edit]

Stalin statue[edit]

Speedy deletion tag at Commons?[edit]

Can I ask you a question, please?[edit]

Marcio Benvenuto de Lima - Help me about upload that image Fx.[edit]

Image:Grab Werner von Fritsch. Berlin. Invalidenfriedhof 2004-09-25.jpg[edit]

Mosaic[edit]

Greetings, and locator maps[edit]

Hi[edit]

Image:Foxie_with_player.jpg[edit]

Xcv47x[edit]

Hola en español please, no entiendo lo que dices[edit]

Helping User:Brutanza[edit]

Help about cuban image[edit]

My uploads[edit]

2007 Q3[edit]

La chaine RTE[edit]

RTE logo[edit]

Image:Paint NET screen.jpg[edit]

77bcr77[edit]

mail[edit]

Gareth edwards etc.[edit]

Category:Other speedy deletions[edit]

Screenshot deletion[edit]

Ferrol[edit]

Commons:Upload/sv[edit]

Licensing[edit]

Not enough evidence[edit]

User blocks[edit]

Administratörhjälp[edit]

Photo now GFDL[edit]

Hhello[edit]

Sorry[edit]

Copyright Violations[edit]

is it ok now?[edit]

how?[edit]

Image:JohnCenaWWEChampion.jpg[edit]

Image:Carly Colon in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg and Image:Carlito-ICchamp.jpg[edit]

Image:Bob Holly in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg, Image:Sho Funaki in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg, etc.[edit]

Image:I Dont Know.jpg[edit]

Re:[edit]

re:[edit]

Log in problems. Can you help?[edit]

Image:MikePhish.jpg[edit]

imagenes[edit]

Talk page[edit]

FOP in germany[edit]

Help![edit]