User talk:OSX/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Image:Holden VZ executive 01.jpg

This file is no released under the license "cc-by-2.0" that you marked when you uploaded the file but under "cc-by-nc-nd". This license is not considered a free license at Commons because it is not possible to make modifications of the work or to use it commercially. Thus the image will be deleted soon. It you upload images from Flickr, make sure you fill in the correct license. Thank you! --Matt314 09:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Holden Ute.jpg

Any idea what model this use is? Bidgee (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a utility, with a Statesman front end—a common conversion. Looks like either a HJ, HX, or HZ (Statesman De Ville). I don't think the six-wheel design is factory-spec either. I'll try and find the exact "front-end" model, but I don't believe it will be possible to determine the "utility" series. OSX (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It did have De Ville badge on it but wasn't sure if it was added on at a later date. I also think the six-wheel design isn't factory-spec. Bidgee (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also just noticed that it has "De Ville" badging on the side, AND a "Caprice" hood ornament (like on Mercedes models). Both the Statesman De Ville and Caprice were different. OSX (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't notice the hood ornament until you said it. Maybe the ute or it's owner is having mid-life crisis? Bidgee (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Dear OSX, I'm afraid that given the lack of good support to your request for adminship, I had to close it as unsuccessful. Please do not let this discourage you, and keep on doing the excellent work you do on Commons, this project needs dedicated users like yourself. Regards, Patrícia msg 19:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:EOS 500D FSL w EF S 18 55mm IS.jpg

Hi OSX. You nominated this File for Deletion. I don't know, if this is a good translation:

Translatet by Google Translation Tool Please note the following copyright notice on this page to download the available photos: Exempted product pictures or photos ambience (with the designed environment) may be in addition to free editorial use for promotional purposes, including flyers, brochures and ads for the application of Canon products. Fashion photos (with people) may only be used for editorial coverage in the following media are used: consumer magazines and trade magazines (including use for cover design), daily newspapers, online publications and TV. In the context of this lawful use may be necessary or smaller Retouche image are made. The Fashion Photos may not be used for commercial purposes, including but not limited to, trade promotions, POS materials, posters, billboards and other typical commercial purposes.

The Company (Canon) says, that you can take the picture, also for commerical use and you can change little things at the pictures. So I thought, it's like the cc-by-sa-3.0-licence. Isn't it? Sa-se (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may sound similar, but unfortunately you cannot license it as cc-by-sa-3.0, only Canon can do this. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your flickr review request

Hello, and thank you for volunteering to help with flickr reviews. As there were no community objections to your request after a week, I have closed it as successful, and you are now a flickr reviewer. Please take a look at COM:FLICKR, Category:Flickr images needing human review and Category:Flickr review needed for most of the backlog, and ask myself or another reviewer if you run into difficulties. If you wish, you can place {{User trusted}} on your userpage. Thank you for your help on Commons! Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flick2

Hello I'm French so my English is very bad Would you mind having a look on this picture http://www.flickr.com/photos/unforth/3414107492/ that I have downloaded on Commons in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Haworthia_attenuata_(1).jpg. Thanks

Berichard (talk) 07:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to at User talk:Berichard. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MAGFest

The picture I uploaded was deleted (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Magfestlogo.gif). I have conferred with the owners of magfest, and they are OK with that image being displayed on wikipedia. What is the best way for them to convey their thoughts on this matter, so that I may properly upload their logo? --NickTheNewbie (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For use here on the Commons (and Wikipedia, etc), the logo must have an appropriate license. MAGFest being OK with use of the image here is not enough, as we only host files that are allowed to be reused and freely edited anywhere. To get permission, you will have to email MAGFest and ask the image to be released under a free license, for example Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported. Here is a template email you can use:

Hi, I found your page <URL of image> and would like to use your logo at Wikipedia.
For Wikipedia, your images need to be freely licensed, like under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
With your permission, we will credit you for your work in the image's permanent description page, noting that it is your work and is used with your permission, and we will provide a link back to your website.
Thank you.

If you get a positive response, you will have to forward the reply to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, where it will get approved by the OTRS system. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, will do. Thanks for the tip!--NickTheNewbie (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category

Hi, thank you for your advice. I have a question for you: how can we eliminate the categories?

Navigator84 17:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC+1)

Hi, first of all I would go to "My preferences" --> Gadgets --> and select the boxes "Cat-a-lot" and "Hot Cat". These tools will make it much easier for you to rename the categories. Note: After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes. Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Mozilla: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Opera/Konqueror: press F5, Safari: press Cmd-Opt-E.
I'll let you work out how to use them for yourself, but if you can't just ask me and I'll try and guide you.
Now back to your original question. When you've used the above tools to batch re-categorise the images, you will need to create the category page. To delete the old category, use the following template, {{badname|new name of category}}. An administrator will then delete the old one for you. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Please remember to use the category naming conventions. Rather than using "Category:Second-generation Pontiac Vibe" use "Category:Pontiac Vibe (second generation)". Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 01:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thank you for your advice, I am going to repair my errors if there is a problem say it me
Sorry for the faults of English Navigator84 10:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC+1)

copyright of ultrasound images (such as File:Ecografía 2D - Feto 14semanas A.jpg‎)

Hi OSX,
I've seen you tagged 4 pregnancy-related US images as copyvios. Are you sure about that? Have there been other cases in the past? The original Flickr uploader is rather surely the woman herself. I even cropped away her name that was quite legible in some the images. As such images are produced mostly by diagnostic machines, I really can't see them as a "work of art" of the doctor. --Túrelio (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the woman in question owns the copyright. These would be images taken by the hospital / medical centre and therefore she would not own the copyright. If you get your photo taken professionally, the copyright does not automatically become yours, so why would it in the case of ultrasounds. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we misunderstood. I'm in doubt whether there is any copyright in such an image. Something which requires no creativity, owns no copyright. There are, of course, privacy and personality rights.--Túrelio (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no creativity if I get out my point-and-shoot camera and randomly press the shutter either, but I still own the copyright (it's dumb I know). OSX (talk • contributions) 08:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. But as Category:Medical ultrasound and Category:Medical X-rays are full of images and as I couldn't find anything about such images in Commons:Image casebook or elsewhere, I would like to open a more generally directed discussion about the use of such images on the VP. --Túrelio (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With X-Ray's and Ultrasound's the rights would be the operator or the organisation in were the it was taken even if it's a X-Ray or Ultrasound of yourself you don't hold the copyrights unless the operator or organisation agree in writing. So in short the same photography laws would apply (My view of the law). Bidgee (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I had already invited to discussion here. --Túrelio (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Big Break Artwork keeps Getting Deleted But I Own Copyright

Hi- I keep uploading an image File:"My Big Break DVD Poster Art.jpg" and before that "File:My_Big_Break_artwork.jpg" but they keep getting deleted. I am the copyright holder because I am the producer of this film and have commissioned the artwork. I've repeatedly stated this but it doesn't seem to matter. Yes, I know the artwork appears on Amazon.com - because I put it there! Please advise! Kedesk (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Kedesk[reply]

I would upload the artwork again, making it VERY clear you own the copyright. That is, state that you are aware of the artwork being on Amazon.com (mention that you put it there) and mention that you are the film's producer. We get 1,000s of copyright violation images per week, and 99/100 times, if it looks like a copyright violation, it probably is, hence we tag that images and delete them. One way to avoid it being seen by violation patrolers would be to place it in a category, like Category:Movie posters. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 01:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Echography

What about personality rights? The mother has been "echographyed"?
Did she give permission to the doctor , to be the legal author of the image? It sounds ridiculous... When a doctor takes you a x-ray or an echography is the image under copyright? where is the contract wich you let him to photograph you?
It could be better you ask Flickr admins to delete the uploaded images in Flickr, using this arguments, and later, delete the images here. Why? If Myllissa uploaded the images, and released them with CC, why could we doubt her? She, or his husband could take the image rights. She or his husband could be doctors in this case. If she uploaded the image, we sould believe her.

I think what you are saying, is an abuse of copyright law, to delete an image.

Sorry for my bad english, I speak spanish. Could we use an mediator to comunicate each other comfortably. --Rizome (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Rizome, stop attacking User:OSX! His request is fully legitimate and we are currently discussing this - in general - on the village pump. You should really take back such words as "abuse". --Túrelio (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE2: abuse is an attacking word? Not in spanish. I've ask for forgiveness for my bad english. I've never tried to attack anybody. :( --Rizome (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you wrote ".. what you are saying, is an abuse of ..". Thereby you are saying, that he (OSX) is commiting an abuse. But, ok, let's not increase drama. OSX will surely understand and accept that is wasn't meant that way, as you are not a native english-speaker (I am neither). --Túrelio (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No hurt feelings; In fact I read right past it without any realisation. It was not until Túrelio pointed it out above that I even took notice of Rizome's choice of words. Anyway, probably best to keep discussions at the pump; most people will not look here. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE3: OK. :) See you there. --Rizome (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lampotska.jpg

Пршу удалить данный мой файл, т.к. изменив имя его, я сделал новый снимок, ранее ошибочно назвав его старым имененем. Новое его имя Lampotska +.jpg. Почему Вы просите, что бы я просил разрешения на мои снимки. Тем более, я сразу указал шаблон срочного удаления. (Устранение дублей)--Moisey (talk) 11:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Russian, but I hope I have fixed the problem. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vikidia-portada.png

Hello OSX. I saw you send me on my talk page the copyvionote template. This image is a screenshot of a website. How can I do to this image not be susceptible to deletion and does not violate copyright? Thank you for your attention. --Mr. Seeker (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

You would have to upload it to the local Wikipedia that you use. For the English wiki for example, you would have to include a fair-use rationale, but I don't know about other languages. I hope this helps. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Car ident

So far one image that has me stumped. http://i638.photobucket.com/albums/uu105/Busabout/_IGP8695.jpg, I thought it was a SS but it would have the SS on the side. Bidgee (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2006-2009 Holden VE Calais V sedan
Except this has the alloys from the 2006-2009 HSV GTS (E Series). OSX (talk • contributions) 22:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I thought that they were from the HSV GTS but then looking at the car knew it wasn't a HSV. I'll get around to editing and uploading that. ATM I have a huge back-log of images and little time to really clear it as I'm in my final week of study (I'm behind on my studies ATM). Bidgee (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I had ongoing back log issues until quite recently, but you will eventually get there. If its is quicker, upload your hard-to-identify images to flickr and I'll identify them for you. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As of today some car images will be uploaded to Flickr but please add the one of the camera categories [[Category:Photos taken with Samsung ES15]] or [[Category:Taken with Pentax K100D]] and add [[Category:Photographs by Bidgee]]. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bidgee/sets/72157620663999549/ . Bidgee (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By commenting I have added the correct titles to each of the images (except the truck, I probably know less than you about them). Did you want me to upload them for you using the Magnus' Flickr upload tool page?
Thanks the idents. With the Isuzu truck it's there for anyone who may know the model (Could be a few). I've uploaded them but you can upload next time (if you like). Bidgee (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Problems with uploads

Yep I've had the same problems. When there are issues keep an eye on http://techblog.wikimedia.org. Bidgee (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi I live in Italy but my parents live in South Korea, I don't speak english :-(( --Corvettec6r (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Osx, the most of file/image upload I on commons are made by my friends and I have the permission to use this file... But i don't know the most of licensed necessary to upload this file and I use the public domain... (excuse me for my english, i don't speak english) :-( --Corvettec6r (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comunque in Italiano io carico delle foto che mi vengono date o inviate da amici e conoscenti solo che qualcuna si trova anche su dei siti web (e quindi voi le classificate come copyviol), conoscendo chi l'ha scattata mi faccio fornire una specie di autorizzazione per poterle utilizzare a mio piacimento (come se le avessi scattate io) ma caricandole su commons non so che licenza attribuirle e quindi le carico come Public Domain... Come devo fare allora x poterle utilizzare su commons? Devo utilizzare una particolare licenza? Oppure qualche immagine che si trova anche su un sito web devo richiedere prima la rimozione e poi la carico??? Ciao/Bye --Corvettec6r (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google English translation. PS OSX. I've uploaded two different car images on Flickr but not sure if the 53 Chev would be in any use. Bidgee (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bidgee. I have no idea what the Chevrolet is, but you were right with the EK Specials. I would probably just upload the Chevys anyway. They might be useful somewhere. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

corvettes images

Hi, have you got any answers for those Corvettec6r images? is that deletion request in right place? --Typ932 (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have been ignored, but his/her silence only reassures what I suspected. Avoiding the question basically. I know that we are supposed to assume good faith, but I honestly do not buy his story that he lives in Italy (that may be true), his parents live in South Korea, and all his friends from other countries take photos which they all freely license for him upload (but only in web resolution mostly). Something like that never happens, and the fact that a large number of his images have already been proven as copyvios only further supports this. Maybe you could make a statement here: Commons:Deletion requests/Images by User:Corvettec6r.
"[I]s that deletion request in right place?": I think so, the only other way (that I am aware of) is the speedy delete function, which does not apply here. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, check my talk page....should we make deletion requests according to this list? --Typ932 (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Some of the images might be genuine. I noticed several of them (with Italian plates) were taken with a "Nokia 6234" camera phone. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Corvettec6r has uploaded another batch of these "Nokia 6234" images. I am very confident that these are his own work. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KODAK EASYSHARE M883 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Calandra_Lancia_Delta_MK3.JPG) Nokia 6234 --Corvettec6r (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for that. I will ensure that your Nokia 6234 and Kodak EasyShare M883 images do not get deleted. I very much appreciate your co-operation and honesty. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok --Typ932 (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is my creation http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fiat_Grande_Punto_Sport_Skydome_1.6_Multijet_16V_2009.jpg ci sono alcune immagini di mia creazione come questa ma nel fondo della pagina non è comparso il nome della macchina fotografica/telefono (Nokia 6234) perchè ho ritagliato e ruotato la versione originale http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grande_Punto_Sport_Skydome.jpg Non vorrei che la cancellaste perchè è un'opera mia solo ritagliata e ho anche caricato la versione originale... --Corvettec6r (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all

Delete all file except (but don't delete this file):

English: All of these images have issues:

From the above, I think I'll stick to my full list of images to be deleted. I hate to say it, but I'm not convinced, sorry. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italiano: Tutte queste immagini sono problemi:

Da quanto sopra esposto, credo che sarò fedele al mio elenco completo di immagini da eliminare. Mi dispiace dirlo, ma io non sono convinto, mi spiace. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nissan_Pixo.jpg (original) ok non fa niente, potete cancellare tutto --Corvettec6r (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you have proved your point with that one. What about the others? OSX (talk • contributions) 14:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OSX this file http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lancia_Granturismo_Stilnovo.jpg is a piece of this file http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lancia_Stilnovo_e_Granturismo_Stilnovo.jpg and this file http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lancia_StilNovo.jpg is a piece of this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lancia_Stilnovo_e_Granturismo_Stilnovo.jpg sono solo un ritaglio di un file caricato su commons quindi credo legali... ;-) --Corvettec6r (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those Lancia images are in fact legal, I have now removed them from the list. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this file are legal? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:04-05-hyundai-xg350-excar-3.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hyundai_XG_350 and all file marked excar.pl ??? I don't remember the other file created by me, then delete all --Corvettec6r (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC) ;-)[reply]

Not sure. As I said before, I cannot seem to find a reference to "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0" on the original web site, but that is not say that the image is not "Creative Commons" licensed. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and this file http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tata_Indigo_Sedan_1.4_86HP.jpg come from Flikr then are legal or not? --Corvettec6r (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that Tata Indigo image is in fact legal. Sorry for me not checking, but when you have to go through the number of images that I did, mistakes can be made. Thanks for pointing that out for me, I have now removed it from the list. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are these Alfa Romeo Visconti images legal Category:Alfa Romeo Visconti --Typ932 (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering they are absent of any camera metadata, I don't consider them to be legal. If Corvettec6r can provide the originals, then they could be removed from the list. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BMW F01 license plate

You know, you could at least remove the license plate on that F01 BMW 740i. Do you have the owner's permission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.84.92 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why, it's just a license plate? You see them on every single vehicle on the road. What's the difference if one looks at the plate in real life or as a photograph? OSX (talk • contributions) 23:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No permission is needed to get photographs of number plates. Person who owns a car, truck, bus, motorcycle ect do not own the number plates. Bidgee (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I would never, nor have I ever photographed a car on private (residential) property regardless of the license plate being blanked out or left visible. As soon as you move a vehicle onto government land (i.e roads, government car parks) or private non-residential property (i.e. shopping centre car parks) you do not really have a say in whether someone photographs your vehicle or not. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Infact you're free to photograph anything that is on a private property but as long as you're taking the photograph on/from public land and not trespassing. With shopping centre carparks, make sure it's owned by a local government body (They don't seem to care but still have the powers to tell you to move on) as if it's owned by the centre (Even though it's open to the public) they do have the right to tell you to move on (They, security, the public and police can not force you to hand over the camera, delete photographs but you should cooperate with police but they do not have the powers to delete your photos). Also Government land you should be careful of. See: http://www.artslaw.com.au/_documents/files/StreetPhotographersRights.pdf which also talks about Number Plates. Bidgee (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another handy site: http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php Bidgee (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. To quote the government source directly:

"A number of photographers have asked Arts Law whether it is illegal to photograph car number plates on the street. While State and Commonwealth legislation permits police and roads authorities to use various Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems (like Safe-T- Cam) to monitor criminal activity such as speeding, the law does not prevent photography of car number plates." OSX (talk • contributions) 11:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but the number of F01 740i's on Australian roads is so small (probably a few dozen, at most), that the car's owner could very well be identified by posting this photo. Also, although this doesn't apply here in Australia, in some parts of the US, such as California, you can actually look up who the owner of a vehicle is, based on the license plate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.84.92 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how the number of F01s makes it any easier or harder for the owner to be identified. All you need is a license plate, and even then the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) would not give away such information. Confidentiality and privacy laws would prevent that, and Australia is not California, so that facet of your argument is rather irrelevant here.
I cannot see how having a photograph of a car with the license plate visible is any different to driving behind a BMW F01 on the road (I've seen about three or four already in the six months they have been on sale). Either way, the number plates can still be easily obtained. Let's not forget about the 10s of 1,000s or cars listed of sites like CarPoint, Drive, and CarsGuide showing license plates and all. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocki

Please advise on my talk how I should improve the licence to the file, you question. As I wrote in the file discussion

I made the photo of the picture in my rightful possesion painted by Mr Blocki about 100 years ago. Ergo I hold the rights to it, I believe.

Salve --Wikidajlo57 (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thank you for bringing this to my attention. If the work is in fact as old as you say, then it would be in the public domain. If you could provide a link to another source confirming that the above is correct, I am sure that Bidgee will be more than happy to restore the file in question thank you. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

http://www.artlist.pl/Strona_g%C5%82%C3%B3wna/Biogramy/Arty%C5%9Bci_zwi%C4%85zany_z_artlist.pl/201-B%C5%82ocki_W%C5%82odzimierz_(1885-1920).html

this is the link to independent (from wiki) page on the artist. You may also check http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C5%82odzimierz_B%C5%82ocki

(these numbers are polish fonts encription - they may not work for you, type wlodzimierz blocki on polish wiki and follow from there.

Since the painting is in my family possesion since about 100 years (given by the artist by the way) I do not imagine I can give you any proof of its age or the fact that it is hanging 2m from where I am sitting. I will not bother to ask for a written opinion of a professional art dealer since:

-- it would cost me too much of my time

-- it would cost me too much in money

-- I do not see any reason to do it

-- I do not see any reason to believe that user [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee] (from Australia I believe) is any expert in polish paintings

-- Anyway you will ask probably for the proof that this opinion is from a professional

-- you will want a certified translation which would again cost money, time etc.

-- How, in fact, are any other photos of pictures accepted without the proof of the age??

--Wikidajlo57 (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I told you that I wasn't an expert on art work on your talk page, hence the reasons I gave you.
Just doing some searching tonight and I've not found anything stating this artwork or the author (I've been trying to verify if the painting was done by Wlodzimierz Blocki by the search has come up with a blank and the signature on the art work is hard to see [Bottom right hand side]).
I'm not requesting you to get the art work to get a written professional opinion of the art work as I do understand that it isn't cheap.
Maybe take a photo of the signature and upload on another and post the link here any I may undelete it (Please note that I will be limited from a computer for the next 2 days [as I'll be in Canberra] but I'll try and get on at an internet cafe if I can) otherwise request a undeleion of the photograph of the art work. Bidgee (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image from Flickr

OSX i have upload this file from Flikr:

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

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

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

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bertone_Suagn%C3%A0.jpg --Corvettec6r (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lancia_Ypsilon_1.3_Multijet_90CV.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alfa_Romeo_GT_1.9_Multijet.jpg

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alfa_Romeo_159_Sportwagon_2.4_Multijet.jpg

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

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fiat_PanDakar.jpg --Corvettec6r (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all those images are correctly licenced so I passed them all for you. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 13:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scusami ma il programmino che mi hai linkato non so come funziona/i don't know... --Corvettec6r (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot to mention that you need to validate your user account to accept "TUSC" logins. You can setup this here. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

today i have upload other file from flickr... --Corvettec6r (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My work are copyviol??

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lancia_Musa_logo.jpg

Per quale motivo deve essere cancellato questo file???

allora dovrebb essere cancellato anche questo http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ypsilon_logo.jpg  ???? --Corvettec6r (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested the file be kept here. The text-only logo is ineligible for copyright as it does not have much in the way of creative input. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
all file in catogory Automobile Badges are copyviol??!
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_delta.jpg this is a copyviol??
more of the file in the list http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Corvettec6r/Archive1 are copyviol... --Corvettec6r (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Logo_delta.jpg is not a copyright violation—it is just simple text, and this is not covered by copyright.
As for your images, I have made a request here: [1]. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok and why Lancia Delta logo aren't copyviol? Lancia Ypsilon logo aren't copyviol? And Lancia Musa logo are copyviol? !...What is the difference between Lancia Musa logo and Lancia Ypsilon/Delta logo???--Corvettec6r (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text-only logos cannot be copyrighted as they aren't very creative. Even if another user tags them as copyright violations, it means nothing—they are not violations, it's just that some users get hypersensitive when it comes to logos et cetera. There is no difference between the logos, they are all allowed to be hosted on the Commons. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can you delete this category plase? The Chevrolet Matiz M300 can't exist...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Chevrolet_Matiz_M300

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Chevrolet_Matiz_M3000 --Corvettec6r (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lancia Jetta?

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LanciaJetta2.JPG

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LanciaJetta3.JPG

OSX puoi cambiare il nome da LanciaJetta a Lancia Delta HPE concept car? --Corvettec6r (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Lancia_Delta_Hardblack can you delete this category? please... --Corvettec6r (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fiat_128_Berlina.jpg bad name! this is a Fiat 124... :-( --Corvettec6r (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have requested that the above files be renamed, but that could take some time. I have also requested for Category:Lancia Delta Hardblack to be deleted. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao Osx, caricando delle foto della Fiat Panda ho notato che è stato messo il template per cambiare il nome in questo file http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fiat_Panda_1st_series_pink_vl.jpg in effetti hanno ragione perchè l'auto fotografata non è una Panda ma è una Seat Marbella. Potresti cambiare il nome? --Corvettec6r (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated this one as well. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, thank you Bidgee for doing the renames for the Lancia Delta images above. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Osx can you delete this file http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hyundai_i10_rossa_italia_allestimento_base.jpg (bad contrast, this car is red, not pink... bad photo bleh)... ??? please... --Corvettec6r (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator, so no I cannot delete that file. You would have to ask an admin to do that for you, but I don't think poor image quality is reason enough to request deletion as another user could potentially fix that up using Photoshop, etc. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

scusa, pensavo che tu eri un amministratore... --Corvettec6r (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC) a chi devo rivolgermi per far cambiare i nomi ai vari file? (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chevrolet_Aveo.JPG questa è una Matiz M200 non una Aveo) :-( --Corvettec6r (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you don't need to contact anyone you just place the following tag on the image description page: {{rename}}.
More specifically, you would place something along the lines of: {{rename|Chevrolet Spark hatchback.jpg|incorrect model}}. This example includes the name you would like the image to be renamed to and a reason for the change. An administrator will then come along an perform the move. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Osx, I have one question: this file http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cadenza.jpg is copyviol?? :-) --Corvettec6r (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyviol

Hi Osx this file about Suzuki Alto-Euro and Opel Combo are copyviol

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NewSuzAlto09.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Opel_Combo_Modelle.jpg --Corvettec6r (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Osx ho messo l'avviso copyviol anche qui http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KiaCadenza.jpg
One and three have been tagged. I can't find any evidence to tag number two however (it does look dubious though). OSX (talk • contributions) 08:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maserati

what is this?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maserati_GranSport_06.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maserati_GranSport_11.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maserati_GranSport_12.jpg --Corvettec6r (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and this is a copyviol? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CarCheryQQ.jpg --Corvettec6r (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Car idents

They are based on information given by the local car dealership which can be also viewed online. Bidgee (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bidgee, I've fixed up the captions again based on the Wagga Motors link provided above. If you get a chance, it would be great if you could get both front 3/4, rear 3/4,a and interior images of these:

Image permission: done?

Hi, I found your comment concerning an svg I uploaded. Thank you for the suggestion. Since the permission has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system, can I consider the issue to be resolved? Daniele de Rigo (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniele, thank you for getting OTRS permission for the image in question. You can now consider the issue to be resolved. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Daniele de Rigo (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lancia Musa

Osx what is the different between the Lancia Ypsilon logo http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ypsilon_logo.jpg and the Lancia Musa logo? Why is cancelled??? --Corvettec6r (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean as both logos seem fine: they are just simple text logos that are not eligible for copyright protection, but are still quite possibly trademarked. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization Holden Commodore, etc.

Please read the edit summary and reconsider your reverts. Thank you and best regards. --MB-one (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reverts were justified, as detailed below.
  • Holden VE Berlina: the Berlina is separate from the Commodore, and thus should be placed in Category:Holden VE. It is also placed in Category:Holden VE Commodore as many people consider these to be the same cars (they are except by name).
  • Holden VE Calais: ditto.
  • Holden VE Commodore SS V: the SS V cars are separate models to the regular SS offering. In fact they even have their own specification level code (Commodore (excluding SS V) = 8VK, Commodore SS V = 8VP, Berlina = 8VL, Calais = 8VX). They are included in both categories for convenience. Having the car listed under two categories is not excessive.
Thank you. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Escape Plug-in

I would like you to reconsider your deletion of the category for Ford Escape Plug-in. This is a completely different powertrain than the regular Escape Hybrid (see here in the Wikipedia article). Several other carmakers are also currently testing their fleets of plug-ins and the Commons also have those pics in separate categories.--Mariordo (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you're more than welcome to reinstate it. I merged it with the regular hybrid category yesterday when I was fixing up all the wrongly-named sub-categories of Category:Ford Escape, Category:Mazda Tribute, and Category:Mercury Mariner. I could not work out if the official name for the PHEV was "Ford Escape plug-in hybrid", "Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid" or "Ford Escape PHEV" so i decided to leave it out. If you know the exact name/exact capitalisation, please feel free to fix that up. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As spelled by Ford it is "Ford Escape Plug-In Hybrid" (see here) and that is the way it is spelled in en:wikipedia. See you around.--Mariordo (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota Celica ST184

First, this Celica generation is 1990-1993, facelift model is 1992-1993. Not 1991-1994, although the facelift model was released in late 1991 (model year 1992), and the last stocks were sold in 1994. Second, the black SX Liftback shown is facelift model with (T) emblem on hood, 5-spoke alloy wheels, and dark red frame tail lights, but the front bumper had been replaced with the older model (before facelift). The facelift bumper has fog lights on the corner. Celica21gtfour (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right the image, File:1991-1994 Toyota Celica (ST184R) SX liftback 01.jpg is the facelift version. However, the date 1991-1994 is correct. In Australia, this car was released in 1989, facelifted in 1991 and replaced in 1994. U.S. model years differ slightly, but model years are not widely used in Australia as we use calendar years. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your opinion. When I was in Sydney, I found in the library a book about all cars in Australia. This book listed the facelift Celica is 1991-1994. The 5th gen Celica was released in Australia in Nov '89 (SX), or Feb '90 (GT-Four). Facelift Nov '91. Last production of 5th gen Celica was in Sept '93, export in Nov '93, when the 6th gen arrived. The remaining stocks '93 were sold in '94. In wiki, or other general worldwide view, I always said 5th gen Celica is 1990-1993. Celica21gtfour, 22 May 2010

Subaru Liberty

Nice shot of silver 4th gen Subaru Liberty in Cronulla. Could you mention the model grade (example for Celica: SX, ZR, GT-Four) for each cars you pictured? Celica21gtfour, 23 May 2010

Hi, thank you Celica21gtfour. I always try to get the exact model grade where possible, but with the Subaru Liberty models, I find it difficult to do so as the only main difference between the model grades are the wheels used. Even then, different model grades use the same wheel design. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File mover

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]

:-)

OSX what do you live?? I live in Italy, (Avellino)... --Corvettec6r (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Syndey, Australia. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1998-2003_Alfa_Romeo_GTV_Twin_Spark_coupe_01.jpg
uh the GTV 916, in Italy is very rare! In Italy ci sono tante auto italiane, molte Lancia, Fiat e Alfa! Nella tua galleria ho visto molte auto giapponesi (Toyota) da me solo la Yaris e la Aygo vendono parecchio, le Corolla/Auris e le Civic sono dei flop! Ci sono delle Lancia in Australia??
The Alfa Romeo GTV is rare here too; I don't see them often. The Japanese cars sell very well in Australia, even luxury brands like Lexus which have very little presence in Europe. Lancias have not been sold in Australia since the mid-1980s. Brands like Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Peugeot, Citroen and Renault are all low-volume niche brands here. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota Celica ST204

Toyota Celica 2.2 SX (ST204)

Nice shot of a nice car. Not so common these days to find white ST204 in stock and good condition. Do you know why it has black license plate? What does it mean, how about white or yellow plate? Do you live in Sutherland Shire area? Celica21gtfour 8 July 2010.

The black license plate is one of several styles offered in New South Wales. I believe that combination is an extra-cost option; they are usually personalised when configured in that style. The yellow plates are the standard ones, and the white ones (known as "premium" plates) are a bit extra. And yes, I am form the Sutherland Shire area. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toyota Celica 2.2 SX (ST204)
Did you photograph this red ST204 from front? Celica21gtfour 20 July 2010.
No, just the rear. Sorry. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent uploads

Hey I blocked you for 5 minutes, you seem to have forgetten to fill your information templates when uploading. Sry for the inconvinience--DieBuche (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Error

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Innocenti_Reagent

can you delete this category? --Corvettec6r (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator. If you want to delete catgeory, edit the page and type as follows:
{{badname|Name of new category}}
An administrator will then come around and delete it. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Italia_Motori,_William_Street,_Darlinghurst,_New_South_Wales_(2010-07-16).jpg

great photo! :-) --Corvettec6r (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copyviol

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hyundai_i20_interior.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hyundai_i20_Side.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hyundai_i20_Rear.jpg

this is a copyviol --Corvettec6r (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They most certainly are, so I have tagged them. OSX (talk • contributions) 21:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daewoo Chairman

You'll be happy to know that there is finally (after fourteen months of sitting empty), a photo placed in the Category:Daewoo Chairman. Hooray! Mr.choppers (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Badname

Hi OSX, Thanks for your contributions on Commons. I noticed you are placing {{Badname}} on File-page redirects. Please use {{speedy| reason here}} instead since a redirect is not a duplicate.
{{Badname}} is to " indicate duplicate files that been re-uploaded under a better name. Although {{Rename}} is preferred, sometimes the user has already re-uploaded it". On a sidenote, please know that it is recommended to keep redirects instead of deleting them after a rename, with the exception of files that been uploaded recently and weren't used anywhere yet. Reason being that other wikis (public wikimedia wikis, private ones and external wikis by third parties using InstantCommons to get images from our repositary). –Krinkletalk 01:41, 18 December 2010

Hi, I will make sure I remember {{speedy| reason here}} from now on. Since I update all Wikimedia pages that use the file prior to tagging the redirect for deletion, there is no issue with proceeding with the deletion. However, the Commons is not supposed to be used for linking images onto other sites. People that wish to do that would need to copy the image onto their own web sever like ImageShack. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's incorrect beyond doubt. Usage on other public Wikimedia wikis is just one of the many references. It's the only one we can track (Special:GlobalUsage), but just because you replaced those that doesn't mean the file is no longer referenced. There is lots of references that we can't track:
There is absolutely no reason to delete them. It doesn't help anything in any way (it doesn't save space either, and even if it would, the other reasons would justify the space). –Krinkletalk 14:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Location of homes

Sydneybuilding0179 is in Wahroonga. Sydneybuilding 0151 is in Centennial Park. Thanks for your help with these files.

Sardaka (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Automobiles members

See: Commons:Deletion requests/Category:WikiProject Automobiles members

An IP has nominated this cat for deletion, I don't know if you've looked at it recently but the template is not adding people who add the infobox to the categoryKTo288 (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Workaround to template not working by adding the category to each user page by hand which means I can close this as a keep, you'll need to find someone else though to help you fix the template though.--KTo288 (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is {{Userbox}} doesn't have usercategory = so it was just a dead tag within {{WikiProject Automobiles}}. I didn't want to play around with the Userbox as it is used throughout the Commons project, so I have added a code within the WikiProject Automobiles template which automatically add the category when it is placed on the userpage. Bidgee (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing it up Bidgee. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto--KTo288 (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

photos of 1997 starlet

I declined them as they are, for {{Badname}} we to know where the duplicates of the photographs are situated. If you could locate the dupes, and use that template again, it would be most helpful. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa MiTo

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

can you rename this? --Corvettec6r (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and descs?

Hi OSX, I noticed that you uploaded a number of pics without description and category. While the file names are self-explanatory the template messages about missing information in the summary boxes are somewhat annoying. Apart from that, keep up the good work. De728631 (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

The latest reverts are very strange[2][3], I finally agreed that two of the redirects should be deleted as they are recently created redirects as the result of multiple renames of a file, and tagged them appropriately with {{Speedy}} and you changed that back to the wrong process {{Badname}}! They would have been deleted very quickly in my experience when properly labeled, now I expect they will take a little longer while someone tries to work out what was meant (as there is no duplicate file to delete as is implied by {{Badname}}). Even if you still disagree, at least I can see that you have read my comments about the misuse of {{Badname}} above[4], otherwise you wouldn't have deleted them. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add this here (as seems relevant point). Redirects resulting from file renames should typically be kept. The most important exceptions are if the old filename is misleading (eg File:!My_cuTe!!_MOUSSE.JPG to File:Dutch_pet_rabbit.jpg), insulting filenames (eg File:Stupid fat bitch.jpg to File:<Name of the person>.jpg) and for recently uploaded files.
If a non-recently upload is moved, it is important to keep that redirect, even if all uses are replaced on all Wikimedia projects. The most significant rationale is that Commons is a free media repository. Downstream users (outside Wikimedia) need to be able to backlink to the source, it might even be part of the license requirement for them to do so. If we move the file, and don't leave a redirect behind their backlink gets broken. We have no way of knowing if the file is used outside Wikimedia so its best to err on caution and keep the redirect for old uploads. Its not a problem for recent uploads as these are extremely unlikely to be used elsewhere. In general (the exceptions are like those I mentioned) a redirect is harmless so "cluttering up" file space is a non-reason to delete.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Vitara vs. XL-7

As far as I know; this model was marketed as a variant of the Grand Vitara (brochure cover 1, brochure cover 2) . Hence the rear badge. Best regards --MB-one (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agree, but I belive the two models should be categorised separately. The actual name is "Grand Vitara XL-7", however, the car was generally marketed as the "XL-7". I think we should rename the category and keep the two separate. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They were separate, after my second edit. The general tendency is to have separate categories for different nameplates of identic models. Plus, I can't see more generality in the XL7 name compared to Grand Vitara XL-7. --MB-one (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I didn't notice that in your second edit and have reverted back. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 08:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Hi,

I realise this is a repeat message from May - but if you move a file, generally the redirects should be left behind. This is particularly important if the file is not a recent upload - and last year is not a recent upload(!). The only really important exception to that is if the old file name is incorrect or misleading. So for example:

  1. File:1977 Holden LX Torana A9X sedan 02.jpg to File:1977 Holden Torana (LX) SLR 5000 A9X sedan (2008-10-10) 02.jpg should be kept because the original file was uploaded to that location over 2 years ago and the filename is not incorrect, merely less precise than it could be (a Torana SLR 5000 A9X is a type of Torana A9X after all).
  2. File:1977 Holden Torana (LX) SLR 500 A9X sedan (2008-10-10) 02.jpg to File:1977 Holden Torana (LX) SLR 5000 A9X sedan (2008-10-10) 02.jpg should be deleted (and has been) because the file was only at that location for a brief period, and that filename is incorrect (a SLR 5000 is not a SLR 500).

Thanks.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Hi,

File redirects should normally be kept. The exceptions are essentially those listed for COM:RENAME: That is when the redirect is from a meaningless filename, an offensive filename, or if the redirect is misleading (Mouse.jpg -> Cat.jpg). If the file is recently uploaded, it may be deleted.

A redirect from File:1990-1991 Holden MF Barina GS 3-door hatchback 01.jpg to File:1990-1991 Holden Barina (MF) GS 3-door hatchback (2008-09-19).jpg is not offensive (clearly), it is not from a meaningless name (the original describes the car), it is not misleading (its from a Holden Barina, to a Holden Barina after all!) and it is not recent - you uploaded the file over 3 years ago. Therefore, the redirect should be kept.

If you have an objection to this, you can file a deletion request - but reverting my action as an administrator is not appropriate. Neither of the two files is appropriate for speedy deletion.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:1999-2000 Land Rover Discovery II Td5 5-door wagon (2011-06-15) 01.jpg

Hi OSX, if I understand you right, you want the last version by Kobac have deleted as it's identical to your last version (overall the 2nd one), right? However, the problem is that even admins cannot version-delete the currently active version. If you want to have your username on the active version, you would first need to reset to your last version. --Túrelio (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. Thanks Túrelio. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Stalking

I have not been stalking you, though I realise why you may feel like that. I apologise for giving that impression. The cause of this is basically:

  1. I routinely check Category:Other speedy deletions for inappropriate requests
  2. File redirects are typically inappropriate requests, and they are obvious at a glance
  3. You have been nominating a number of redirects recently

You may have noticed that I did not object to File:1990-1995 Volvo 940 GL sedan (2011-06-15) 01.jpg - as its arguable that file name is misleading, when its a picture of a 1990-1993 model.

You are the creator of the images, but that doesn't mean you control the image page, which is a wiki page like any other. The description can be changed, translated, categories added by anyone. The file can be renamed by anyone too, if you uploaded a picture of a Ford, and called it a Volvo, anyone could correct this - even if you insisted it was a Volvo. What people cannot edit is the legal information (the source, author and license).

As for the filename, you do have a fair amount of choice over the name, and moving them is ok. I'm not preventing you from doing this.

What you can't do is then supress the resulting redirect, and what I (and others) have repeatedly said in various threads above. If the file is recently uploaded, it can go. If the original name is misleading, then it can go. If it is an old file, and you've just moved the image because you like the new name better, it should not be deleted. The reasoning for this has been explained on numerous occasions, so I will not repeat them. The fact you as the creator don't like the old name, and prefer the new one, is not a reason to delete the redirect.

Ultimately what this means, is if you stop inappropriately nominating redirects for speedy deletion I won't interact with you. I would ask that you consider the names of your files more carefully - why move a file twice in the space of a minute, surely you could have gotten it right on the first move?

Regarding File:1999-2000 Land Rover Discovery II Td5 5-door wagon (2011-06-15) 01.jpg, Túrelio has explained above why the speedy could not be done at that point. I am sorry I did not explain that issue better at the time.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunbeam Rapier Series III.jpg

Hi OSX, in order to improve image quality I would suggest to crop-away the lower part of this image with the shadow of the photographer. --Túrelio (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. I am currently uploading all 956 of Sicnag's images from Flickr. It is not me doing the upload, but Flickr Mass. You just enter the Flickr username of the photographer, and this bot will upload every single image from their account! I will hopefully get to edit some of them eventually. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 09:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category removals -- Block warning

Example: File:2008-2010 BMW M3 (E90) sedan 01.jpg

I note that you have repeatedly removed Category:Automobiles facing right from this image. Although you may think that the category is pointless, it has more than 300 images in to, so it is clear that the community disagrees with you.

I can also tell you that often editors assembling images for a web page or print media will look for images that face into the page, so this category would be very useful for finding an image that would be placed on the left side of the page.

In any case, your repeated removals amount to vandalism. The next time you make such a change involving either "...facing left" or "...facing right", you will be blocked from editing on Commons.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P76 image

I just took the liberty of uploading an "improved" version of your image of a Leyland P76. I hope you will forgive me. I could have asked you first, but then it would not have been possible to show you what I had done because then I hadn't done it. Anyhow, if you do not like what I did, please advise and I can apply to have my version of your image removed. (Or we can simply overwrite it with the original.)

I was moved to make the changes by the adjacent P76 which distracts the eye from the star of the picture. Sometimes one can do this by grassing over the intruding wing of the adjacent car, but in this case I could not have done that discretely due to the inconsistent quality of the Aussie grass courtesy of the Aussie sun:rain ratio. So I simply cropped that bit off the picture. And having got out the scissors I got carried away and cropped the stone pavement edge off the other side. As a result, the image is a bit more "in your face", but it's a reasonably clear shot and as far as I can see it the photographer stood neither too near nor too far, so I don't think enlarging the car in the frame matters. Anyhow, as another wiki correspondent used to write in the edit summary when "improving" stuff I'd uploaded, "please revert if objecting". And good things for 2012. Charles01 (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles, wow, I'm impressed by your thoughtfulness. By the way, the image in question is not actually mine, but a Flickr image that I uploaded. Also, you are welcome to "improve" any images of mine for whatever reason. Just upload them straight over the top of the existing version. In fact, you should re-upload your improved image over the top of the original and have the other image deleted.
Regarding the grass quality... for areas close to the coast (where most people live) it's more to do with the sun burning the grass in summer than the lack of rain. Most of these grasses come from Europe where the sun is a little bit more subdued. It really depends where you go. Here in Sydney, we get twice as much rain as London, but that doesn't seem to have an affect on peoples' perceptions that "it constantly rains in England". OSX (talk • contributions) 12:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted cars

Hey, OSX! I wondered if there is any list of cars that need decent pictures, or that need any pictures at all. Last month I uploaded the facelifted VW SpaceFox and better pictures of the last-gen F-150 Raptor. Previously, I uploaded pictures of cars crashed by LatinNCAP and some Latin American cars like the Chevrolet Celta, Fiat Palio / Siena and VW Saveiro. There are lots of new Chinese cars around here, so I wanted to know which are wanted. See you! --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not very knowledgeable on the cars unique to Latin and South America, but I know we are probably lacking in many of those models.
We now have Great Wall and Chery in Australia, but I have not had the opportunity to photograph them yet. I think we have pictures of most of the common Chinese cars now, but in general the image quality is low. I think we need to re-photograph most of them for this reason. Mr.choppers may be able to help you out with Chinese cars as I don't know much about them.
Love the blue Raptor SVT! Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 02:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2011 Range Rover Evoque - First Drive - Flickr - NRMA New Cars.jpg

What's the problem with this file? -- RE rillke questions? 16:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the meta data copyright. 10:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
So we should disallow uploads from NRMA? -- RE rillke questions? 11:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we just need to be careful as a couple of the images are the manufacturers images, the vast majority are fine. The NRMA is a major insurance company in Australia, but they have team of journalist working for them to publish a motoring magazine NRMA members every two or three months. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2012 Montevideo Motor Show

Hello, OSX! I attended the 2012 Montevideo Motor Show, which is our aperiodic event in Uruguay. Sadly I went in the evening and couldn't activate the flash, so several pictures got blurred or dark. The lighting isn't the best either, they prepare the stands for visitors, not photographers. Anyway, I uploaded 40 pictures, most of them better than the existing ones or covering Wikimedia holes. I hope that you like and use them. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the photos—as we need photos of Chinese cars. I've added the ones I know to the English WP articles. It's a shame about the flash on some though. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 10:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that. Later! --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Takes the Australian War Memorial

Hi. You're invited to Wikipedia Takes the Australian War Memorial on 25 August at the Australian War Memorial. --LauraHale (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1937 "Chrysler Royal" Sedan

Hi, just been reading with interest your note to the above image. I am ready to be corrected with evidence but I think a Chrysler Royal was called Royal because it was really a Plymouth with Chrysler labels built in Canada (in Windsor) (and never in USA) for export within the British Empire so it could claim Imperial Preference on duties. You will note the original source of the name of the town Windsor to get a link to Royal. I think the last Chrysler Royal was assembled in Australia about 1966 and It may have been made in Ghent in Belgium. To be honest I don't think anyone will mind whether or not the note on your image is absolutely strictly accurate I have enjoyed trotting out quite useless information in case there is anyone will read it! Thanks! Eddaido (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS There may have been a need to put a product out there to protect the trademark Chrysler? Eddaido (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the note is not mine, it came directly from the Flickr page that the image is sourced from. Feel free to correct this as I know nothing about this car and only uploaded the image using an upload script/bot. Thanks, OSX (talk • contributions) 13:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I apologise for that. Was just so excited to find something I thought I knew about. Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts without explanation

Hi OSX, you reverted quite a lot edits of me without any explanation in the edit summary (example 1, example 2. Why? --MB-one (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the category is intended for pictures of license plates not any car that just so happens to fitted with a license plate (incidental only; plus all road-going cars have such plates). This would be like categorising each car in the "wheels" category merely because the car shows the wheels in the photo. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that is no valid reason to revert. Even, if that kind of categorizing isn't compulsory, it isn't wrong either. On the contrary, over time, such categorizing could help to create better metadata. Best regards --MB-one (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about your photos

Just curious - why do your photos appear in literally every single article on cars on Wikipedia?MisterZed (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... every page? OSX (talk • contributions) 05:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not every page, but you get what I mean. I guess what I'm asking is, why do you feel it necessary to add your photos to all of these articles, rather than allowing others to post theirs? Do you feel yours are somehow better? Just curious. Isn't the point of Wikipedia to allow everyone to contribute something? Imagine if half the articles were written by the one person. MisterZed (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering you have not contributed any photos I'm not sure why you are so emanating a sense of envy. But I ask the question, have you seen how few users upload images? I will insert one of my images if I believe it to be the best available. If another image surpasses it in quality, then sure use that image instead. It's about quality, not equal allocation of photos for each user. Also, IFCAR's photos are a lot more widespread than mine. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IFCAR is American, though. The US is (or was) the largest car market in the world, so it makes sense to show pictures of US-spec models. Why show so many photos of Australian-spec models, though? There are 200 other countries in the world, yet in many car articles on Wikipedia, we see US and AU spec cars, and very little else. For example, take the article on the BMW X5. 3 out of the 7 photos in the article are yours, 3 are IFCARS, and another is American as well. There are NO photos from Europe at all (nor from Asia). This is despite the fact that the car is from a German manufacturer.MisterZed (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been enjoying this exchange so much that I couldn't resist joining in which is probably a lousy idea by me.
Australia does have a lot of interesting cars in it, and for much of the year in most of Oz/Aus you get good light. If you can get a good shot of a car - not too much shadow on one side rather than another, yet sufficient light and clarity that the panels gaps are sharp and clear, not too much reflection in the windows - then Australia can be a good place to get pictures of cars that are rare elsewhere. In most of Europe and America we get more precipitation and more cold and we use MUCH more salt on our roads. Our cars therefore tend to rust quicker and before they die they often get to look pretty ugly in later life. I am sure OSX only links pictures to articles where (1) there is no existing picture illustrating whatever aspect of the car it is that needs to be illustrated or (2) where the picture he is linking is MUCH "better" than what is there at the moment for showing what the car looks like (or for highlighting a particular detail/aspect). What do I mean by "better"? There's the rub. No doubt your judgment, dear MisterZed, will not always be the same as mine or as OSX's. BUT where you are satisfied that one of his pictures (or one of yours or one of mine) is less good for the purpose(s) identified than another picture that you have identified in Commons (whether by him, you, me or A.N.Other), then it's open to you to replace it. If you have time (and sufficient confidence that you are "right") you should do it. The "control" on that is that in order to be taken seriously you should be willing and able to explain why you did it if someone challenges you, but in practice that is a control that seems to work reasonably well quite a lot of the time. There are one or two folks who do indeed seem to delight in uploading lousy pictures of cars, but (1) you and I might not agree on which they are and (2) I don't myself think OSX is one of them and nor, as far as I can tell, do you. Happy day. Charles01 (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Charles, I've always wondered, where did your collection of old car photos come from? What's the story behind it?MisterZed (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure it's fair / appropriate to clutter up someone else's talk page with an answer on that, but the summary answer is already at the foot of my "user page" on anglophone wiki. When you were young I guess you maybe spent your spare time drinking, trying to figure out how women think - men, too for that matter, playing ball games or possibly even revising for the next set of exams? Well I did a little of some of those things too, but I also spent a certain amount of time wandering round photographing cars. Still do. Regards Charles01 (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can kind of understand where you're coming from, but why photograph cars which were ordinary and common at the time? I mean, I like to photograph rare or expensive cars sometimes myself, but I don't go out taking photos of Hyundais, because they're a dime a dozen....MisterZed (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stalkermode: I too photograph cars that might be of interest. My thinking was influenced by seeing my dad's photos from his youth: there were always photos of Ferraris and Mercedeses and such, but the everyday gray automotive porridge was rare. So I too take the time to photograph regular cars. What's amazing about Charles is that he started doing this at a time when film was costly and had to be used sparingly, it's much less of an investment with digital! I also notice a preponderance of Australian spec cars in articles, mostly due to a combination of good weather and lots of available photos. I do what I can to adjust this, by carrying a camera as often as possible. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 23:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2012 Summernats

Hi OSX, Bidgee suggested I contacted you. I recently uploaded the photos in Category:2012 Summernats and the photographs could do with some further categorisation under make/models. Might you be able to assist with some of that? Cheers, russavia (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spent around an hour doing some, but that's all for today. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 06:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks kindly mate. Was surprised we didn't have any photos from the Summernats previous to this upload. Is there any other specific subjects that you can think of that we need more photographic coverage of on Commons? If so, I can try to find them on Flickr or other sources. russavia (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I can't think of any—that said, I never attend such events either. I sometimes go to the motor show in Sydney though. Enjoy your weekend. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No pics anymore?

Hey OSX, you were always one of the members on Wikimedia Commons uploading a lot of pictures. In the last months you did not upload any picture at all. What is the reason? Kind regards M 93 (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I find that photos are very time consuming. I still have heaps of pics from 2012 that I have not yet uploaded. Hopefully I can get those uploaded within time, but for now I don't envisage that I will be taking any new photos for some time (well not in any great quantity anyway). My last photos are from October 2012, and my last uploaded photos are from November 2011. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My German vandalismus

Thanks for fixing my talkpage, but he was actually correct: I have "no in the Head but think [I] is the best!". Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 23:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor @ ar.wiki

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) 07:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Ford Escape (ZD) photo is incorrect

The photo you provided of the ZD Escape which you labeled as 2008-2010, is in fact of a 2010-2012 model. 2008-2010 models had a 3-bar chrome grille, which was replaced in 2010 with a black honeycomb grille:

Here's the photo you provided of the "2008" Escape:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008-2010_Ford_Escape_(ZD)_wagon_03.jpg

And here is what one actually looks like:

http://resource.digitaldealer.com.au/image/Splash19564508575267b5bea863a830490160_1_640_480.jpg

As you can see the difference is obvious.

MisterZed (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a check, the vehicle is a 2009 build. Bidgee (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2009 build, maybe, but 2010 compliance. It didn't go on sale until Feb 2010. In any case, 2008, as stated by OSX, is incorrect.MisterZed (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have renamed it as 2009 as per the NSW RMS website. I found other Escapes with that grille with 2009 build dates. Thanks for letting me know. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr-washing?

Hi there,

I nominated a number of car advertisements for deletion on the basis that they're (apparently) incorrectly licensed, and I notice you had uploaded a number of them from Flickr via the File Upload Bot.

I don't know if you're familiar with the term "Flickrwashing" (i.e. images from Flickr being wrongly passed for upload to Commons because the Flickr user plastered a free license on something that wasn't theirs to freely license in the first place). Since you've apparently been on Commons for a few years, I assume you've possibly come across the concept if not the specific term?

Anyway, I was planning on nominating more such images for deletion, but I thought it would be better to ask you beforehand for any background info on why these images were uploaded.

Would appreciate your feedback, thanks. Ubcule (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Most of the images by the user in questions are his own. However, he has uploaded some scans of advertisements. I used a Flickr upload bot to upload his images en masse, simply for convenience. It is okay to delete any of the advertisements as far as I am concerned. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 00:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... I'd assumed there might have been a fair reason I'd overlooked or been unaware of, but apparently not.
To be honest, I would expect this to have been checked before or immediately after the bulk upload. I appreciate that using the Bot makes bulk transfer of legitimate material a lot more convenient and practical, but it doesn't absolve one of the responsibility to check when the source (i.e. Flickr) is well-known for its users mislicensing non-free works.
In at least one case you must have viewed the image after uploading it, since you categorised it yourself. My immediate thought on seeing that would be that it's blatantly a recent (within standard copyright terms) commercial work, almost certainly not the user's own and- at the very least- requires checking that it's legitimately licensed.
Basically, you bulk-uploaded material from Flickr which a long term user- like yourself- would (or should) know contains unreliably-licensed material, but didn't check it, and even *after* having categorised one obviously commercial image you didn't go back and double-check?
Ubcule (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OSX/Archive_1&oldid=170457781"