User talk:Fred J/Archive 7

Thanks

Thanks for voting in my RFA. I've been too busy at work do any Admin stuff yet, but will make a start soon. --MichaelMaggs 19:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for woting for my admin-ship. I'll try now to make myself usefull. Michelet-密是力 15:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for the information at the ANB page. I see you are competent enough to read the following deletion request: [1]. If you feel like voting, please do it. I will appreciate your honest action. Thank you. --213.199.192.60 19:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Post moved from top of page by Fred Chess

Hey, I would like to know the reasons-Image:Deutsche Meisterschale.JPG and Image:Webb Ellis Cup.jpg, were kept since you didn't give any. I do not think that counts as a drinking vessel, from dictionary.com- drinking vessel noun a vessel intended for drinking and this isn't intended for drinking and per Commons:Derivative works- Photographs of three-dimensional objects are always copyrighted. Even if the object itself is in the public domain. If you didn't take the photograph yourself, you need permission from the owner of the photographic copyright (unless of course the photograph itself is in the public domain). And the photograph can not be public domain because By taking a picture, you create a new, copyrighted work (i.e. the photograph). At the same time, the rights of the original still exists and don't go away. By publishing the picture, you do something only the original copyright holder is allowed to do. That's why you won't be able to use your own photography of a copyrighted work (except as fair use) unless the creator of the original gave you permission to do so.--Thugchildz 03:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User page

Hi - you got hit by an IP with rather a nasty comment. I've warned them but I'm going offline for a bit so I semi protected your page - hope that is ok - feel free to unprotect it when it suits you - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah ok, thank you. / Fred Chess 17:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Throphies

1. Image:FIFA World Cup trophy.png (ok)
2. Image:FIFA Worldcup Copy for Germany 1990.jpg (ok)
3. Image:LC 1.JPG (Undeleted)
4. Image:Deutsche Meisterschale.JPG (OK)
5. Image:Schalke DFBpokal 2001 a.jpg (unclear)
6. Image:Stuttgart-vfb-1954-dfb-pokal.jpg (OK)
7. Image:FA Cup's trophy.jpg (ok)
8. Image:Trophylibertadores.jpg
9. Image:Trophycopabrasil93.jpg
10. Image:Trophycopabrasil02.jpg
11. Image:Trophybrasileiro9305.jpg
12. Image:The Presidents Cup golf trophy.jpg
13. Image:Copa El País.png
14. Image:Ligue des champions NB.JPG
15. Image:Schneider Trophy 2006-08-10.jpg
16. Image:Vince Lombardi Trophy.jpg
17. Image:Grey Cup circa 2006.jpg
18. Image:A Stanley Cup Premiere.jpg
19. Image:Bague coupe lafleur 79.jpg
20. Image:Coupe Stanley.jpg
21. Image:Hhof calder.jpg
22. Image:Hhof campbell.jpg
23. Image:Hhof clancy.jpg
24. Image:Hhof hart.jpg
25. Image:Hhof jack adams.jpg
26. Image:Hhof jennings.jpg
27. Image:Hhof norris.jpg
28. Image:Hhof vault.jpg
29. Image:Hhof vezina.jpg
30. Image:Lady Byng trophy hhof.jpg
31. Image:Stanley cup closeup.jpg
32. Image:Stanley cup hhof.jpg
33. Image:StanleyCup.jpg
34. Image:StanleyCupAvs2000-01Engraved.jpg
35. Image:William Webb Ellis Cup.jpg
36. Image:Webb Ellis Cup.jpg
37. Image:Memorial Cup Trophy.jpg
38. Image:Hhof stanley cup.jpg
39. Image:World Baseball Classic Trophy.jpg
40. Image:Jules Verne Trophy.jpg

Hi, your decision on keeping some of the cups contradicted my actions on others. I feel they should either all be kept or all be deleted. What do you think? -- Cat ^chi? 15:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Cool Cat.

I kept those where people were voting to keep them with convincing arguments. I still don't know why you think they should all be deleted, as I also said on the AN. / Fred Chess 16:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I merely deleted them in the absence of keep comments and the cited deletion. You are more then welcome to undelete all of them (including the linked debate as rationale) -- Cat ^chi? 13:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have reviewed the ones you deleted. I'm still unsure about Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Trophycopabrasil93.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Schalke DFBpokal 2001 a.jpg. Those that were kept, I have asked Michael Maggs to weigh in on. Following his suggestion, we should be able to decide on these other two. / Fred Chess 23:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Undeleted image

Hi Fred

Could you have a look at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Image:RAID ant and roach.jpg and suggest what we should do, please? You undeleted the image but didn't close the request. But for the reasons I gave, I don't agree - it is a clear copyvio in my view. What should we do now? I'd like to Speedy delete again, but I won't do that if you disagree.--MichaelMaggs 17:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I felt it necessary to undelete because of the unclear situation, to give others a chance to see the image. But I think it is reasonable to assume that the main objective of the image is the logo, so you can speedy delete it at your wish. / Fred Chess 20:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Flickrreview

Hi. I'm confused by this, do you know what happened? /Lokal_Profil 21:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No problems, found paras comment in the deletion discussion /Lokal_Profil 21:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My email

Did you get it? Cary Bass ^demandez 15:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will do what it says. Actually I will read up on OTRS first, I hope there is no hurry about it. / Fred Chess 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin - activity etc

Watching as usual and on Meta too. Danny - I think he thinks he is no longer an admin Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Danny 2 though not in the archive (??) indicates that so maybe permission should be withdrawn? I would hope to have something in the way of a proposal for folk to tear apart this week! Hope this helps & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Danny is still an admin, as you can see. I requested that the admin status be removed on meta, but then I found some evidence that he wanted to keep it after all, and was told that he could ask himself. [2]. / Fred Chess 08:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes I spotted the request on Meta but as he effectively withdrew the RfA I imagined he no longer saw himself as an admin here. Maybe we should try and clarify that with him? Is the evidence he wanted to keep it public as his comment on the withdrawn one seems quite clear? Thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. I have asked him on his talk page. / Fred Chess 09:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Looks fine to me & thanks. Admin inactivity policy - a starter for 10 is now here regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to keep my admin status. Danny 12:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

PD-Sweden-photo

Hej Fred

Gider du mærke PD-Sweden-photo med at skabelonen er indstillet til sletning. Ja, du har allerede gættet hvem, der har travlt igen. Mvh Valentinian ^(talk) 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I øvrigt er det en lille smule påfaldende at de samme personer ikke indstiller PD-Coa-Germany til sletning samtidigt. Så vidt jeg ved er de billeder ikke PD efter hverken dansk eller svensk lov. Er der egentlig nogen der ved hvad status er for PD-US billeder inden for EU? Valentinian ^(talk) 21:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done, låt oss se hur vi bäst fortsätter. / Fred Chess 21:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Tak for hjælpen. For mit vedkommende vil jeg fremover ikke lægge billeder op på Commons men kun på den engelske og danske Wikipedia. Jeg gider ikke spilde min tid på tysk juristeri længere, især ikke når det ikke ser ud til at virke begge veje. Jeg regner dog med at lægge nogle af de danske billeder op på den engelske Wikipedia igen som fair use. Valentinian ^(talk) 21:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Om det bara är den tyska lagen som kommer i fråga så kommer naturligtvis inte radering i fråga. Men det låter vettigt att om alla större Wikipedior (inkl. engelska, spanska, portugisiska, och andra) vill ha bort mallarna så får de tas bort. Jag tror också att Lupo kommer se till att PD-Sweden och liknande tas bort från engelska Wikipedia, då han faktiskt tidigare argumenterade för att radera PD-Finland. / Fred Chess 22:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeg ville personligt bare ønske at man en gang for alle tog en afgørelse på om det er de nationale love eller om det er amerikansk lov der er det afgørende. Den nuværende situation er et kæmpe rod. Men jeg nærer ingen illusioner om at man vil træffe nogen klar afgørelse. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Jag förstår det, men har svårt att se hur den amerikanska lagen skulle vara irrelevant så länge WMF är baserade i USA och alla servrar står i USA.

Fred Chess 22:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Den nuværende situation er ét syndigt rod. Fx har vi NASA billeder, vi må formode er copyrightet i Europa. Tyskerne vil til gengæld have fjernet en masse henvisninger til Anden Verdenskrig for alle billeder hvori et hagekors indgår kan være ulovlige i Tyskland. Det er så til gengæld ikke et problem i de fleste andre lande, for Merkel har vist opgivet at få den lov gennemført på EU plan. Til gengæld har Commons polske, tyske, lettiske osv. officielle symboler uagtet at de må formodes at være copyrightbelagte uden for deres respektive hjemlande. Det må i øvrigt også gælde for billeder fra det amerikanske militær. Så vidt jeg ved har nogle få lande i øvrigt længere copyrightbestemmelser end USA, men det er noget der ignoreres. Vi har også PD-art, selv om det udelukkende er en amerikansk / tysk opfindelse. Det korte af det lange er at der er 1000 regler der stritter i hver sin retning. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

JAg tänkte gå och lägga mig nu, men jag kan svara imorgon. / Fred Chess 22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Vad gäller PD-Art så diskuteras frågan just nu, v.g. se Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Hakkors-begränsningar tror jag inte att vi bryr oss om. / Fred Chess 10:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Lupo#User:Lupo/Simple Photographs

The list referted to there and my comments should answer your question about the status in other countries. --rtc 23:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I remembered that :-)

Fred Chess 10:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Michelangelo_-_Fresco_of_the_Last_Judgement.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Michelangelo_-_Fresco_of_the_Last_Judgement.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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Yonatan ^talk 14:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Richard Réti.jpg

Hej, du tog upp diskussionen om denna bild på nytt på Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Richard Réti.jpg. En användare har tagit bort det du skrev. I nuvarande skick kommer ingen lämna några kommentarer om bilden. Thuresson 20:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Jag vet. Hur ska vi lösa det här? / Fred Chess 20:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Jag satte tillbaka det du skrev. Förra gången bilden var nominerad var det en person som ville radera och en som ville ha kvar den. För en bild som är så gammal valde jag då att avsluta diskussionen med att behålla bilden. Thuresson 22:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Okej, det låter bra. / Fred Chess 23:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Locri Pinax Of Persephone And Hades.jpg

Hi, Fred. In Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Locri Pinax Of Persephone And Hades.jpg, you determined that the image in question should be deleted, because it was a scan of a (presumably) copyrighted photograph of the subject. The image is back, uploaded by the same user who voted "Keep" (User:AlMare) in the deletion discussion, this time claiming to have taken the photograph himself. If he did, then that's obviously okay, but I'm concerned that that may not be the case. I can't look at the deleted image to see who uploaded it or whether its identical to this new image or not; you might want to take a look. Thanks! Powers 17:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the older version, and it actually appears to be a different image. The current image is considerably more blurry. The background is also different, the angle is slighly different, and the lightening is different. I probably shouldn't undelete it, so I hope it's ok that you'll just have to trust me.

Fred Chess 18:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Rtc

Hey Fred, would you please delete this user page (see history, Rtc has never had a user page) and also close (or delete, as you deem appropriate) Commons:Deletion requests/User:Rtc. User:Wegge seems to have lost his nerves and might need some friendly advice. I don't think such ad hominem attacks are productive in any way. Lupo 20:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is too late in the evening for me to engage in it now. I will do it tomorrow. / Fred Chess 21:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image Keith

Hi Fred, the image was uploaded in higher resolution (750 kb) as you asked for and is placed here [3] I hope my credentials are just fine now. Thank you Machocarioca 08:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

Yes, I think it is fine. Just make sure you tag it with a license, thank you. / Fred Chess 19:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WMF

See m:User talk:Anthere#commons:Commons_talk:Licensing#Pros_and_Cons. The "non-response" mentioned there is here. I'm posting this here instead of at the VP because I want to avoid that the whole discussion migrates now to her talk page there, flooding her with tons of messages. Whatever the outcome, I think we should tag such images that are not PD in the U.S. (Required anyway if we'll be allowed to keep them, and if not, we'll already have done part of the job and can easily identify affected images.) Lupo 19:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. So you think we should use the template template:Not-PD-US-URAA? / Fred Chess 23:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Something like that. I don't particularly like this tag: we'd end up with images tagged with {{PD-Old}} (which says that the work is PD in the U.S.) followed by {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} (contradicting this statement). Maybe a new PD-Old-Non-US tag that says that the work is PD in 70 years p.m.a. countries, but still copyrighted in the U.S. due to the URAA restorations, and replacing PD-Old on the images affected by this new tag (instead of adding Not-PD-US-URAA) would be a better way of doing things because the resulting image description page would not have that contradiction. (Feel free to copy this thread to Template talk:Not-PD-US-URAA.) Lupo 20:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi. Could you please delete Category:Maps of Jönköping which I just created. i thought better of it and decided for Category:Maps of Jönköping County instead to avoid confusion with any potential maps of Jönköping municipality. /Lokal_Profil 11:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Np, but I think it is about time you apply for adminship... / Fred Chess 23:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll definitly think about it. Won't make a decision until after my exams though. /Lokal_Profil 22:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Huddinge City Arms.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Huddinge City Arms.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Ysangkok 16:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also Image:Gotland City Arms.jpg, Image:Järfälla City Arms.jpg/.png, Image:Karlstad City Arms.jpg/.png, Image:Kiruna City Arms.jpg/.png, Image:Staffanstorp City Arms.jpg and Image:Gällivare City Arms.jpg /Lokal_Profil 20:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, all gone. / Fred Chess 22:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bromölla City Arms.jpg has also been replaced /Lokal_Profil 15:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, you got it wrong. The wheel has to be a millwheel. (as in "mölla" :-) / Fred Chess 16:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, and if you look att Image:Mölndal vapen.svg that has a kvarnhjul, also Image:Mjölby vapen.svg. It seems as though bromölla just decided to make theirs look non-standardized. /Lokal_Profil 16:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok I've deleted it. / Fred Chess 16:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And one more Image:Ystad City Arms.png, not completly happy with the black lines though so there might be an update at some point. /Lokal_Profil 01:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And Image:Norberg City Arms.png has now been replaced. /Lokal_Profil 01:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry...

...if I wasn't accurate. The images I took from brochures are File:Enna45-Settimana Santa.jpg, File:Enna42-Settimana Santa.jpg and File:Enna46-Settimana Santa.jpg. All the other ones are original. Some of them, like the photos that have been deleted lastly, haven't a so high quality because I took them from photos, that I had printed before, with my camera. So those photos should be de-deleted, because I took them myself and they aren't a copyviol. Can you do that, please? --Max 19:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the images that came from http://ennaturismo.it/ ?

Fred Chess 19:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I sent an email to that site in order to ask permission for using those images, and they immediately answered that I was able to, adding that I could freely upload all the photos in that website, with the only condition to link it. Did you re-uploaded the images you deleted? ..Max 14:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's be honest here.

File:Enna43-Settimana Santa.jpg

image:Enna43-Settimana_Santa.jpg

Isn't this image from a book? Isn't there a page fold at the upper right corner?

Fred Chess 15:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I took some images about holy week from a brochure, but all the other files you deleted about Enna (the ones you can see linked red in the history of that page) are asolutely original, and I really don't realize why you've deleted them. However, those images must be uploaded again, and I suggest you to ask me before you delete files, since, as you can see, I'm honest, and I'm admitting I've taken the image above from a brochure. If you find other images you think should be deleted, please post me a message in my talk and I'll tell you if it is to be deleted or not. So, you may control right now and see if you find images you don't like, and in this way we'll solve this problem once and for all. But in the midtime, re-upload the other photos (and explain me what the evidence is for which you deleted them, because this keeps on being a real mystery to me!!!). Bye --Max 19:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

RAID image

I continue to maintain that Image:RAID_ant_and_roach.jpg does NOT primarily concern the logo, and I am unaware of any compelling arguments that it does. Regardless, the image has been deleted AGAIN, and I no longer have an easily accessible copy of it for myself. Can you at least email me a copy of it so that I can alter it to remove the logo? --[[User:Dante Alighieri| | [[User talk:Dante Alighieri|Talk]]]] 23:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't see any reason to do that. Apart from the logo it is just an ordinary spray can. / Fred Chess 15:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sakes, can I please just have a copy of the photograph that *I* took and modified for my OWN goddamn records then??? PLEASE? --[[User:Dante Alighieri| | [[User talk:Dante Alighieri|Talk]]]] 18:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

De-admin etc

Well Fred - one thing first would be good!

Can I seek your view on closing the "deadminship though inactivity" bit? In a sense the others are linked but so is anything about admins and to get one bit done would be good? I'll happily work on the "getting the tools back" one (would you prefer "policy" or "guidelines"?) & I do see your point, but I would rather it was a separate proposal. The "ex admin" one is a good idea - I'm not sure that my knowledge of Commons history is extensive enough to allow me to contribute much to it but I will happily try. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, we should finish that. But how to do with email confirmation? Opinions differ. Does it hurt to send out email confirmation? Ok, probably not, so lets go with that. I've changed that part.

Secondly: Herby, is it your own invention to add that the admin must show activity after the message has been sent out? Or can you please direct me to a thread where this has been suggested? Otherwise, would it be OK to change it to "the admin will retain his adminship if he answers that he wishes to do so. If he answers otherwise, or doesn't answer at all within 4 (2?) weeks, he will lose it."?

Fred Chess 16:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Another thing: we'd have to make a list of users that are inactive, and whether they have been asked yet, and how long they have to answer. / Fred Chess 20:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

OK - email doesn't worry me much, it is not worth disagreeing about!

However, your second point... I am against allowing continuing adminship to inactive admins who merely say "I want to keep the tools". This - to me - does not make them active and if they have not edited at all they will not be up to date with the processes in the community. People who would respond like this would not have a reason to keep what are really tools for keeping Commons clean? I feel that they should actually then make five admin actions within the 30 days (meaning they are "active" in terms of this policy) - if they cannot find five files to delete they no longer know their way around Commons!

I imagine a table with user name, last admin action, talk page message sent, email sent, 6 month inactivity date, for example would work. There are quite a few admins (as well as yourself & Eugene) more than happy to look after that sort of process I think? Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it matters regarding inactivity. An admin could just delete and restore the same page 3 times, if he is forced to. The idea of voluntary giving up the admin bit is then lost, and it is precisely the voluntary bit that I am a proponent of.

Also consider the scenario: If an inactive admin had made his last 2 deletions on January 21, then he only has to make another three deletions before June 21. And then we would have to ask him again, because the edits from January are no longer within the 150 day time frame.

Another problem is that you require five admin contribs within 150 days and I don't know how to calculate that with our current tools. Because you can actually only see when the user made his last edit (or admin action), and how long before that he made his 50th. But even if the tool was rewritten, I'd still personally prefer my suggestion of just one admin action per 150 days. It would still result in more than 25 admins today being asked.

I don't think it is that big a deal if we have a couple of inactive admins; I just want them to be aware that the community is watching their activity. And I think it is also better to start slow; this activity requirement wasn't in effect when they became admins. If we want to change the admin requirements, then there should really be consensus on the issue, not a majority poll. I actually do support your proposal, but do you think everyone does? / Fred Chess 16:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fred Chess 16:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You are making me think again!

I guess your reasoning of just returning to make 5 edits was something I had against the idea of sending an email - at least if they log in they are sort of active. That aspect I am going to think about - I'm beginning to agree with you I think. I'm going to point Bryan towards this too as I know he is interested in this. As we cannot stop them merely returning, taking five actions and then going into hibernation again why worry about it. I guess my real reservation would be what we would do if it happens again with the same inactive admin?

As to the "five actions" issue, I wondered about that. I got the activity page (yesterday), saved it as a text file, stripped the "active" ones out, marked the truly inactive (more than 150 days to any admin action) & then looked at the logs for the rest (high numbers of days to 50 admin actions). It didn't really take me any time worth speaking of and once the process starts there should be relatively few to look at. I imagine that it would not be done very often - every two months or so maybe?

As to whether people agree? Well no one has really spoken out against it (on Wikibooks it would have been argued to death by now!) and there does seem to be quite a few people who appear to see things similarly - the only way to find out in the end will be to ask. I guess I am more after getting the principle in than all the detail.

I'm emailing you my list of ones I see as candidates rather than clutter your talk page - you may well want to put the listing elsewhere. There are a couple of queries with it too.

Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I see Fred's point. We can solve it in two ways: all admins must be reconfirmed after a year, like meta's policy, or we can just allow people who want to stay admin but don't meet the limits keep the admin bit. In order to avoid complicate matters, we should maybe just do the latter one. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking for a compromise - how about trying this. They can say "I want to keep my rights" after six months. However after a further six months, not making 5 admin actions, they are then desysopped? Makes it a little more complicated to administer but maybe kinder & more acceptable (these people have been useful to Commons in the past)? Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The compromise is  Supported by me! If it is as easy as Herby says to derive five admin actions from the logs, then I also  Support that part.

To have admins reconfirmed after a years has struck me. They have it on Swedish Wikipedia too. Problem is that Commons has almost 200 admins, while meta and sv.wiki only have around 70-80. Do we want to spend time voting for admins all the time? I am undecided if I support this idea -- it seems to work for meta and sv.wiki, but we don't know if it would work for us. So I am  Neutral to that suggestion.

According to meta:Meta:Administrators, a former admin can request his adminship back at any time. That's real cool of them. But, as I have argued before, I prefer that such requests be posted at the COM:AN.

Commons differs from meta in the following ways: (1) users often use Commons in their normal Wiki-editing, so most users would find the admin-bit handy. (2) You can do more damage as an admin on Commons than on meta.

Fred Chess 20:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• reset

Agreeing with Fred almost completely I think I will copy this back to the talk page and work on finalising the policy (but not including the re-applying for now, I'll do that one after this bit) - hope that is ok with everyone. Maybe other folk will add to it. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lerum arms

What do you think about this one Image:Lerums kommuns vapen.png with the official version here? Are they not to similar? /Lokal_Profil 19:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that the png was derived from the municipality, so that's not good. Are there other ways to draw a bulls head? / Fred Chess 12:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I've made a svg version which is based on another image which is how I found this one. I think all of Morph's muncipality arms are probably "made in photoshop" in a similar way. Image:Ale kommuns vapen.png compared to [4] and Image:Trollhättans kommuns vapen.png compared to [5]. /Lokal_Profil 19:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, a good thing we've found out and can remedy the situation without too much difficulty. / Fred Chess 21:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've marked them all as copyvios and removed them from articles where they were used. /Lokal_Profil 10:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Björnskalletjärn.jpg

Hello, I saw this image uploaded from enwp. It has {{GFDL-presumed|Fred chessplayer}}. Could you fix it? -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Arms of Swedsih municipalities

Just want to give you heads up on the fact that I've started going through the coat of arms to find the ones from International Civic Heraldry (and therby Riksarkivet) and the ones directly derived from the same source. Giving you a warning since many of thouse images are images which you uploaded a long time ago. /Lokal_Profil 11:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It was bound to happen. / Fred J 23:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Badimages

Hi Fred J. I think that this template, created by Yung6, is redundant (there is already {{End of copyvios}}). What do you think about? Thanks --Trixt 03:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are completely right. I have redirected Badimages to "End of copyvios". / Fred J 07:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Vänersborg_City_Arms.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Vänersborg_City_Arms.png. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you. Lokal_Profil 00:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Örebro City Arms.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Örebro City Arms.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Lokal_Profil 00:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Source of Image:Wikipedianism.png

Ah, forgive me for making a bad license description of the decidedly loony file Image:Wikipedianism.png. I changed the license and sourcing accordingly, but if it isn't satisfying, I'll grateful for further notes from you. This licensing stuff is somewhat confusing, and it would be good to learn from others. Rursus 15:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Template editing question

Hello Fred- I saw your name on a template category page and thought you might be able to help me with a question. I noticed a problem with the English in a template that I used to license an image I uploaded (Chevaux2_GR76A.jpg). Under the Licensing heading, the template produces the line I, EHM02667, the copyright holder of this work, has published or hereby publishes it under the following licenses:. It should read: ...have published or hereby publish..., but I can't find the template to edit it. Can you point me to where I can do that? Can you please answer me on my EN talk page? Tack! EHM02667 05:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. The template to edit is commons:Template:Self :-) (Suggest changes to its talk page) Fred-J 11:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Fred! EHM02667 12:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning

I strongly suggest avoiding the removal of copyright related warnings (All links to Commons:Licensing) from 19 April 2006. People seem to wish to get rid of it completely rather than parts of it. -- Cat ^chi? 11:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Canon HV20

Hi, I have just put an answer on the above subject, in connection to rejection of the image. Could you please advise Thank you. --[[User:Capbat|Capbat]] 13:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Images deleted

After some weeks I don't attend Commons, I've seen tonight that many images of mine haven't still been restored. Apart of the ones I admitted to be copyviol (because I didn't know they were so when I uploaeded them), all the rest must be restored, because it's very bad and sad that a part of my work is destroyed without any valid reason or any evidence. You deleted my files, and now, if you are correct, you have to restore them. I'm so tired of asking you to restrore my files many times, that this can make me do request to some administrators to control your work, because it's dangerous to have people who cancel other's work or part of it. I hope that this time I've been clear, otherwise I will talk to admins: I really can't stan all this trouble any longer! --Max 22 June 2007, 20.51 (UTC)

I have done what I can. You do what you have to. / Fred J 20:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What do I have to do? I posted a message at Italian Bar to make other users know my situation, I'll ask to admins to restore the files of mine which are not copyviol, whereas you don't want. --Max 27 July 2007, 21.21 (UTC)

Brukernavn

Hei Fred. Kan du titte på User_talk:Kjetil_r#Endring_av_brukernavn, User:Anorexorcist vil bytte navn. Hilsen --Kjetil r 21:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Japp, klart :-)

Fred J 23:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Inactivity etc

Hi Fred - realising that what I am working on may affect what you are working on & vice versa the bit I am doing is here. It is only work in progress but I would hope to put it out by the end of the week for the community for discussion. Thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A Swedish image

Fred, could you take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:MarcusWallenberg2.jpg, please? Maybe contacting the foundation would even get us a CC-BY license for these images. Lupo 22:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well -- I'm not going to try and convince them why they should allow their images for commercial use, so I guess the image must be deleted.

Fred J 12:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

THANK YOU! Cburnett 04:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Potentially fraudulent public domain image

There is an ongoing dispute on the Wikipedia article Yoshiki (musician) regarding the image in the infobox. The previously used free image (which according to its description was taken during a convention last year, which the artist attended) has been replaced with unfree alternatives repeatedly in the past, now with yet another one, this one tagged as a self-made public domain image, uploaded with a previously unused account.

Maybe I'm overly skeptical but the sudden appearance of another free use image (which is also not your average free-use-shot of a celebrity but a focused close-up of the artist during performance) seems awfully convenient and I was wondering how this could be investigated. - Cyrus XIII 11:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Pfctdayelise/WikiProjects community

Hi Fred, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about this idea of mine for changing the model of the Commons community. cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Juiced lemon and his re-re-reversion game.

Hi! Please, if you have time and you wish, could you mind to read the advice I've posted in Administrator's notice board, related to Juiced lemon?. Thanks a lot. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 09:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Norberg,_Norbergsån.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Norberg,_Norbergsån.jpg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you. Lokal_Profil 18:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Borås_Stad.jpeg

Image deletion warning

Image:Borås_Stad.jpeg 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

—LX (talk, contribs) 21:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Private correspondence

Hi, I want to ask you something privately but you have your email link off here, would you be willing to email me or point me to another wiki where it's on? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 00:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, strange... well I think my email should work now. You are welcome to email. / Fred J 08:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lund in Sweden.png

Image deletion warning

Image:Lund in Sweden.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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--84.141.81.74 09:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin activity

Hi Fred - gunther's tool is "broken" (I think he is inactive!). However with some pointers from folk and some time on the toolserver channel this is a new and useful offering clearly highlighting those with low admin actions. Bryan is also working on something but this may be useful - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to work right now, I'll try again later...

One cool counter is meta:User:VVVBot/M:AA. I've asked the person who runs it if it can be run on Commons, but he didn't answer me.

Fred J 15:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The tool is his - it may be a little slow as you will not have been the only one trying it out. If you continue to have issues let me know I'll get them on IRC, they have been very helpful. The Meta one is semi static whereas this one is current but may be slow (it is faster than it was at first!) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just got a three month one out & I know Cary had a six month one earlier (now sortable which it wasn't last time I tried it) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I just did a 6 month one (quite quickly). In round figures there are 50 admins that have less than 5 actions in the past 6 months! Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't get anything in a reasonable amount of time.

It is important to also check for Mediawiki edits (as the meta count does). Some admins, such as user:Väsk applied for adminship specifically to do translations, and are doing a good job at that.

Fred J 14:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Dead for me too now. I'll try and get one early in the day and let you have it. Wikitable sortable on all column including "blocks", "protect", "mediawiki edits", "deletes" & Total actions. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• reset

Mailed to you - it must be the db size etc, I can get en books quite easily, regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:CNCourthouse1913.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:CNCourthouse1913.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Meno25 16:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Svalbard flag

Hi,

I have been away for a while. I noticed Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Svalbard Flag.svg. But the image is still not deleted (Image:Svalbard Flag.svg). And a "new" one has popped up as well (Image:Flag of Svalbard (local).JPG).Inge 13:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The image was restored by User:WarX with the summary "Do not cut heads when you have a headache". [6]. I don't know what his problem is, very strange acting.

Fred J 18:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I don't understand that comment either. I'll ask him. Inge 19:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

svalbard flag

This file was (and is) used on pl.wiki with caption that this is unofficial, not internationaly accepted proposal of flag of Svalbard.

You have deleted it without delinking from pl.wiki so AFAIK you have broken policies first.

--WarX 20:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous -- delinking is not necessary anymore, there are bots to do that. And the reason for its deletion is still the copyright issue.

Fred J 22:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy saying that administrators must delink any copyright violations they delete. COM:DG mentions that "it is good practice to run CheckUsage and orphan the usage of that file", but this is only a suggestion, and as Fred points out, these days it's usually handled by bots.

What we do have are templates that tell newbies not to recreate deleted content outside of process and to remain calm and collegial (this means you shouldn't use edit comments to shout at administrators for acting according to consensus and that you'll probably want to be a bit less liberal with your unreferenced accusations of policy-breaking). We really shouldn't have to direct those templates at administrators. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Your change of the cc-by-sa 2.0 license template

Hi Fred, your change of the license template for cc-by-sa 2.0 contains a mistake. It is not allowed for users to change the license of derivative works to a "similar cc-by-sa license". Derivative works have to keep the cc-by-sa 2.0 license. This is said if you follow the link to the license text on creative commons. Could you please remove this notice from the license template? Thank you, Longbow4u 12:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the license page actually says "a same or similar license" [7] which I why I felt I had to change it because "identical" is simply wrong. With "similar" they basically mean a later version, such as 2.5 or 3.0. Anyone who wonders what "similar" refers to, has to check the license page and that should be OK since the template only contains a brief summarization. / Fred J 15:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right. I checked again under legalcode (4 b), and they allow a change to later versions. I was puzzled about the sentence A new version of this license is available. You should use it for new works, and you may want to relicense existing works under it. No works are automatically put under the new license, however. on the summary page. Sorry for the interruption. Greetings, Longbow4u 14:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. I also used to think that one had to use an identical license. / Fred J 14:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Images

What's the problem? --Melancholyblues 19:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Image:Jackson_Antunes.jpg

The uploader savaman on flickr probably doesn't upload his own photos, or what do you think? Please, reply at the deletion request. / Fred J 19:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Usurp request

Hello there. Someone was kind enough to point out that you might be around. If so, I just made a usurp request at Commons:Changing username. If that's a bureaucratic area you might handle, would you consider taking a look? Thank you!   user:justen    talk   08:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Take care,   user:j    talk   08:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Hi Fred,

Thanks for correcting the info regarding Japanese Electronic Dictionary picture.

Leave me a message if you ever need help with info in Spanish. Take care, --CrazyMomo 19:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

that (Commons:Announcements) seems a handy little gadget! How come you don't have one? :) ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I am the one who manages it (at least right now) :-)

Fred J 21:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So... your claim is that you know what you're doing, then... is that it? :) ++Lar: t/c 04:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I was thinking more in the lines of how I am watching the announcer carefully as it is.

Also, I couldn't reply until now -- was away for a couple of days. I hope I will be able to manage this thing (as you warned me that stuff like these tend not to be managed). I was supposed to add it to all admins' usertalk pages which I have not had the time to do yet (thought I start with you). I hope they will not be bothered too much (I would think they'd appreciate it...)

Fred J 22:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for message

Hey, thanks for leaving your message when I went on break. I'm back and hope to carry on as I left off now.--Nilfanion 10:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm my message seems exagerated now that I read it -- you did say you were coming back, LOL.

Fred J 22:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrative notice

Deutsch

Hi. This message is sent out to you because you are an administrator on Commons, and you made little use (or no use) of the admin tools lately: less than 5 times in the last five months.

Commons has a new policy on admin activity, Commons:Administrators/De-adminship, taken into use on June 13, 2007 (after a poll among users). According to that policy, admins who use their tools infrequently will be asked whether they still need their adminship, and if they do not respond or require them the removal of the tools will be requested.

If you feel you still need your admin tools, please sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days from the date this message was sent out. However, if you then don't make 5 admin actions in the next 5 months, you will lose the adminship without any notice.

This is not a comment on the considerable help you have given to the project in the past but reflects the wish of the community to see active administrators and to ensure that possible security breaches are minimized.

This message is sent out by bot. If you want to give feedback on it, you can do so here — 08:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~bryan/commons_admins.php is a live one. May take up to a minute to load. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: RfA

Thanks for your comments and interest in the discussion. Feel free to ask me any more specific questions, but a brief summary of the entire en issue is: I am a very active user. The more active one is, the higher the likelihood of stepping on somebody's toes. This is further increased as I edit many areas and don't back of from controversial subjects. But, as you noted, I don't use my admin tools in any unethical way, and I can even hardly imagine how one may abuse them here. I would also strongly oppose the argument (which I have seen in many places, common in en RfA): "User X is controversial, so to be safe, let's not make him an admin". If it's "no big deal", why should we care if somebody has been involved in some disputes? It's their conduct that counts, and if they abuse their tools, they will be desysoped (something, which despite being open to recall, has not happened to me on en wiki - this should prove something, I believe :). Take care, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Backlog

Well, I think it's useless, because we are backlogged on almost everything. But it does no harm in having it. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we really backlogged on almost everything? Hmm that's not too good, I'll look into it. / Fred J 19:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyways I think the template should be used for the really big backlogs so to prioritice. / Fred J 19:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Winboard 4.2.7.png

Hi, you removed the Template:Screenshot template from Image:Winboard 4.2.7.png. The image shows some Windows widgets (titlebar, close, minimize,maximize buttons) which probably are under copyright. The following text can be found on Category:Windows Screenshots: "Screenshots of non-free software and screenshots including copyrighted Windows widgets will be deleted in accordance with Commons:Licensing#Screenshots.". Commons:Licensing#Sceenshots also says that to be safe, all screenshots should be made using a free skin, which the Windows GUI is not.

To be on the safe side, the title bar should be removed from the image to avoid any future problems. If the screenshot is in fact free it should be tagged with Template:Free screenshot to avoid cunfusion. Pafcu 07:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not interpret this page and this page as saying that those widgets are copyright protected. I also don't want to delete them because anyone who objects to the inclusion of the widgets, can simply download the image to their computer, cut away the copyrighted part and re-upload.

If you still want this and other images with windows interface deleted, please nominate them for normal deletion which you can do by clicking "nominate for deletion" in the toolbar of the image page.

Fred J 10:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Johan Tahon images

Hi, I noticed you reverted 2 copyvio templates i put (Image:Johan Tahon 4.jpg and Image:Johan Tahon 1.jpg). Are you sure User:Zwartsven are original author of those images? --Tomia 17:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly: no, I am not. My reasoning was that he is probably the copyright holder of Image:Johan Tahon 2.jpg so I thought he was the artist. Do you know how to make a deletion request with four images? / Fred J 19:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Help:Mass deletion request might provide some guidance. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've done it myself. / Fred J 21:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mona Lisa.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Mona Lisa.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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

This is an automated message from User:DRBot. 08:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks

for improving Help:Mass deletion request. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Need help

Hello. I have a problem. I see you are a bureaucrat. Maybe you can help me. I'm badly know English and i have difficlties of retelling full story. In short, there is undeletion request where discussion went about 4 months and were very complex. But suddenly in the middle of discussion it was closed by admin O. I asked him to substantiate the closure or continue discussion. Also i have give him my arguments why i think the closure should be undone. O has refused to comment closure and refused to continue discussion. I think using admins power must be substantiated by responsibilty, not just ignoration of arguments of non-admin opponent. Please help me, tell me what should i do... What rights i have... 82.199.102.55 16:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Translation request

Hi Fred, could you see whether the following permission is valid, or is it a Wikipedia only permission?

>Ja, her er et bilde som jeg tror kan brukes til Wikipedia.
>
>Jeg tillater at det vedlagte bildet av meg (Merete Morken Andersen), som
>jeg
>har rettighetene til, kan publiseres på wikipedia etter en GFDL-lisens, som
>gir enhver tredjepart fri adgang til å kopiere, modifisere og gjenbruke.
>

Thanks, -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Should be OK. The last part says "I allow that the image of me (M M A), which I have the rights to, to be published on Wikipedia acc. to a GFDL license, that allows any third part to freely copy, modify and reuse. / Fred J 12:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please delete urgently GrabadoAntiguo Alcoi

Hi Fred: My name is Rafael Rufino, from Spain and I am user of vikipèdia in Catalan. I am RafaRufino or 83.50.226.221 . The image GrabadoAntiguo Alcoi.jpg is illegal, it is a etching of Enrique Bofí (Xeraco (Spain). 1956), please see Enrique Bofí Planes . The legal owner of the image is Enrique Bofí not La Federación Valenciana de Municipios y Provincias (The Valencian Federation of Municipalities and Provinces), and Enrique wants to eliminate that image with GNU Free Documentation License Enrique agrees with the use of this other image Image:Gabrat d' Alcoi 1616. (Enrique Bofí).jpg

Aquesta imatge té drets d'autor. Ha estat extreta de la web d'Enrique Bofí Enrique Bofí. El permís d'ús d'aquesta obra s'ha rebut al sistema m:OTRS. Si us plau, contacta amb algú amb accés al sistema per a confirmar el permís. El propietari dels drets d'autor autoritza la divulgació de l'obra o parts de l'obra només amb fins culturals en llibres i altres mitjans amb la condició expressa que li demanen permís per escrit i conega la finalitat de la publicació en l'apartat de contacte de la esmentada pàgina web.

This image has copyright. It has been extracted of the Web of Enrique Bofí.. The license for using this work has been received to system m: OTRS. Please, contact with somebody with access to the system to confirm the permission. The proprietor of the copyrights authorizes to the spreading of the total or part of the work with cultural aims in books and other means under the condition that they write to him to request permission to know the purpose of the publication.

Please delete urgently the other image

Thanks and All the best

Rafael Rufino Valor

Spanish National Orchestra Music Librarian --83.41.7.205 09:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have deleted the image immediately.

Regards, Fred J 19:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

New upload of deleted images?

Please see Special:Contributions/F6f_hellcatpilot, I believe these two identical images are teh same that you deleted yesterday. Happy editing Finn Rindahl 16:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

yes you are right, and I deleted the images again, thanks. / Fred J 18:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Paul_keres.jpg

Hello. As you can see, that image was uploaded by me from en: wiki (Original uploader was Mtoom at en.wikipedia). So that is impossible to provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS by me, please ask Mtoom at en: wiki. Regards pjahr ۞ 16:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that Mtoom was the uploader what I wanted to inform you none the less. Mtoom has made exactly 1 edit in the last year and I also find his PD claim very dubious -- I find it useless to try and contact him about it. Be prepared, that the images will be deleted. Regards, Fred J 20:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Images? Not image? No problem, delete it. I saw that image with good licence to upload onto commons and I did it having good intention. Regards pjahr ۞ 20:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes image. Yes I know you had good intention. / Fred J 20:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Osby kommunvapen

Hej. En fri tolkning av vapnet finns nu på Osby vapen.svg så jag antar att Image:Osby City Arms.png, som ser ut att vara härled från denna upphovsrättsskyddade version, kan raderas. /Lokal_Profil 21:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Palmkvisten var härledd, ja. Ok, raderad. / Fred J 20:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Inactives"

Seeing the D-Kuru one - should there be anything about it on the main admin list? I always think that maybe people look at the list to see who they might contact? Any bright ideas for kick starting the remaining admin policy bit (if only to get the "quick return" in as policy)? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I made a mistake. Will correct now. / Fred J 08:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think that once he is inactive (in January) he should be marked as inactive on the adminlist.

And I would appreciate trying to implementing the quick-return stuff, but I have argued so harshly for it already that I would like to take a step back.

Regards, Fred J 08:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your opinion

Thank you for your expressing your opinion at Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Jeff G.!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, re "about time", you could have nominated me.  :)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tamil Wikipedia Before Installing Indic Support Windows2000, nologos.JPG

Image deletion warning

Image:Tamil Wikipedia Before Installing Indic Support Windows2000, nologos.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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

—Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Could you take a look at the deletion request pages for yesterday and today, User:Maria lo sposo and User:Michele Bassi has made a lot of very strange edits trying to nominate som images for deletion. I've tried to do some clean up, it does not seem to help. It's pretty obviuos cases, seems they just tried a not very straightforward approach to renaming, but it messes the deletion pages up horribly. Thanks, Finn Rindahl 18:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd

Hej,

Was there a purpose to keep this deletion debate in the picture page? The debate is archived anyway. PatríciaR ^msg 20:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This was a year ago, but I think that my idea was to be nice to those Wikipedias using the image. This was before there was a delinker and maybe this image was used on lots of places, and I didn't have the energy to remove it from everywhere? But of course, it can be deleted now. / Fred J 20:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, tack :). PatríciaR ^msg 21:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Camtek images uploaded by Kipflur

Dear Fred, I am the Marcom person for Camtek Ltd. and the images on Camtek Intelligent Imaging Wikipedia page are all property of the Company. From your comment, I understand that I should have listed Camtek Ltd. as the owner of the images I uploaded. At any rate, the page in question has been deleted and we (Camtek) are in the process of preparing an alternative page that we hope will be more appropriate as an encyclopedia entry. We intend to provide information about how Automated Optical Inspection (AOI) is used in the semiconductor/PCB industry.

If we choose to use illustrations created in our office, how should I upload them to correctly reflect that I am doing so as an official representative of Camtek Ltd?

Thank you for your instruction. --Kipflur 05:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in uploading your work on Wikimedia Commons.

It is essential that you know that Commons only contains "free contents", that is, material that can be used by anyone for any purpose.

If your company agrees to license it work in such a way, then please send an email from your company address to permissions@wikimedia.org stating that your company agrees to license its work under a free license and mention the image names on Commons.

Also, it would be helpful if you posted the same comment on the deletion request (here) that you posted here.

Best regards, Fred J 11:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin activity script

It doesn't but I can easily make it into doing so. Also there is a problem with the toolserver databases, which causes the script to show data that is out of date for 25 days. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Quick-delete2.js

You created MediaWiki:Quick-delete2.js on April, splitting from MediaWiki:Quick-delete.js. Now, this means duplicated code and duplicated efforts to keep them up to date (when Mediawiki changes, to add compatibility with secure (see talkpage)...). Any reason to keep it separated? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Platonides (talk • contribs) at 18:32, 5 Sep 2007 (UTC)

The only but important reason is that the nr2 is included on the default monobook page MediaWiki:Monobook.js! So it adds the "nominate for deletion" to monobook per default, and that's it. / Fred J 20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Alingsås City Arms.jpg

Hej. Jag taggade Image:Alingsås City Arms.jpg som tycks ha undkommit tidigare med copyvio. /Lokal_Profil 14:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hittade även Image:Strömstad City Arms.png. /Lokal_Profil 14:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, no problem. Thanks mate. / Fred J 14:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Two more, Visby City Arms.png and Emmaboda City Arms.png /Lokal_Profil 16:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Svenska/Swedish Polling Templates

Hi. Would you please take a look at Category talk:Polling templates#Credits? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

De-admin issues

I did intend to get back to you earlier today but other things intervened as they seem to!

1. Exemptions. I don't see an issue here certainly with some. It was pointed out to me elsewhere and quite some time ago that if you removed Brion rights he can probably do something about it! Equally User:Duesentrieb seems fine with toolserver issues (& now appears more active?).
2. Chasing up others. I would do nothing more at all - if we have made reasonable efforts & they cannot be contacted that is that as far as I see it.
3. Removing admin labels. I would do that without any worries. I guess it would be best if a 'crat did it and I think a nice note on their talk page would be helpful (to them and anyone else looking).

I do want to get back to the admin policy one for a whole lot of reasons such as re-admin and CU activity but it will be October before I have any time for it I think (& so far my attempts to get others interested have failed - I might do a posting before I go and see if anything happens while I'm away!). I hope this covers it but let me know if I can help more - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message!

Fred J 11:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes - watching the page. I think de-admining Brion is fairly pointless (although maybe a response would have been useful) however I do not see any other people who have not responded who should not be de-admin'ed. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I just wanted go thank you for your kind words on my which to become an admin. I hope you have time to activate my user rights soon because I wanted to bring Commons up to date with Icelandic asap. Thanks. --Steinninn 02:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I took care of this. :) ++Lar: t/c 11:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lar!

Fred J 13:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Project Country Categories

Hallo Fred, das Projekt ist wohl deine Arbeit. Da ich nicht weiß ob du es noch benötigst, meine Frage ob du es bitte in deinen Benutzernamensraum verschieben oder löschen kannst. --GeorgHH 10:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't need it anymore. I have deleted it. / Fred J 10:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Columbia Supercompter images

Hi Fred. I think you may have missed Template:Columbia Supercompter images when you deleted the images at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Columbia Supercomputer Top View.jpeg. Cheers, --Iamunknown 20:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I missed it. I've now replaced it with a copyvio template. / Fred J 17:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks, Iamunknown 19:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Better than a herring?

clearly NOT a self portrait?

Although only Siebrand is apparently an actual herring, (see this revert. :)), please accept this token of my esteem anyway, in gratitude for this one, which was also muchly appreciated. I knew there was something "fishy" about those socks I blocked earlier this day... :) ++Lar: t/c 02:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, you are too kind. Thanks. :-)

Fred J 21:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Grateful Dead

Might want to see some subsequent comments on the noticeboard. Basic reason for blocking was because it was a copyvio (band names after they have been used cannot be used again. Consider this: somebody uses an image that was licensed under an attribution license, and attributes the band name because of the username. —O (说 • 喝) 03:59, 01 October 2007 (GMT)

Yes that is a valid point, but it is discussable. As the images are currently described, see for example Image:Red Rocks Grateful Dead 8-11-1987 deadhead girl with basket-tray handing out roses at Red Rocks, Morrison Colorado.jpg, the author is stated as Mark Knowles. / Fred J 08:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to stop by and thank you for helping me restore Dr Ignacio Alcocer.jpg If you ever need help in responding in french or spanish I would be pleased to give you a hand just let me know .

About Image:Jurij Aleksejevič Gagarin (Юрий Алексеевич Гагарин).jpg

Hi, i know you was the man who deleted that image, that image was used in spanish wikipedia for yuri gagarin article's image and result that we doesn't have that image, please can you take that image back because we need it for spanish wikipedia, Thanks.--69.125.75.220 16:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Fred please i need that image...

Sorry but it is a copyright problem, as explained on Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Jurij Aleksejevič Gagarin (Юрий Алексеевич Гагарин).jpg. If you don't trust me, you can nominate the image on Commons:Undeletion requests. / Fred J 15:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tanum_City_Arms.png

Image deletion warning

Image:Tanum_City_Arms.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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Lokal_Profil 17:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Can you check the license please, i have just uploaded this photo (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:DaisyWheel.jpg) from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DaisyWheel.jpg with Commons helper, but i see you already erased it. Thank you. --Grook Da Oger 00:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The image is not GFDL. It comes from flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/psd/7907966/ (uploaded in 2005) and is under a non-commercial license... / Fred J 08:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Somerights20.png

Image deletion warning

Image:Somerights20.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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Mormegil 14:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

King Songsten Gampo's statue

Hi Fred,

You added this comment today on Image:King Songsten Gampo's statue in his meditation cave at Yerpa.jpg: "I took this photo myself in 1993 and I am happy for it to be in the Public Domain". Is it the truth, or is it a round-about way to say you are not OK with it ? Croquant 18:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually John Hill, the uploader, made that statement. I just used to CommonsHelper to automatically create an information template.

It appears you did the same in an earlier upload. (see the information in the filehistory page) But if you want to change the information on the image page, it won't work to upload the image again: you have to edit the page itself (as one would edit this page).

/ Fred J 19:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My second uploading of the image was just a mistake, as I didn't see it was already present in Commons. The information is OK for me, and I don't need to change anything, hoping it's OK for John Hill too. Croquant 07:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Suecia_Söderhamn.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Suecia_Söderhamn.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. OsamaK 02:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

JS deletion request closing

Contrary to what I had written yesterday evening, I have encapsulated my Javascript now. Just add

includePage ('MediaWiki:DelReqHandler.js');

to your monobook.js and reload. That should do it, but it's only tested on monobook on Firefox. Lupo 09:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks promising, Lupo. I have Firefox and will try it when I get home. / Fred J 14:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that it didn't seem to work for you. It should work now, I've fixed a little bug [8] that I hadn't noticed before. It still worked for me, because I had a different function getElementsByClassName in my own monobook.js... You didn't, and the getElementsByClassName function from wikibits.js expected different parameters than mine. When I removed my version from my monobook.js, it didn't work for me anymore either. Anyway, that's fixed now, so you might try it again by adding the includePage given above! Lupo 06:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok good. I've installed it and will test it later :-)

Fred J 18:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for this, much appreciated. Believe me, I've realized well and truly by now that I was never ready in the first place; and got a bit angry with people when they disagreed with me all mighty. I realize I was being a tool and I think it'll be quite a long stretch of happily clicking before I apply again - to demonstrate that the message has been hammered home. Regards --Pumpmeup 00:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Files by Arthur Rackham

Image deletion warning

Files by Arthur Rackham have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these images, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. If the files are up for deletion because they have been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the files may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new files. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Länsvapen

Hej. Undrar om du skulle kunna ta dig en titt på den här diskussionen. Bilderna i fråga är dessa. /Lokal_Profil 00:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hej Lokal_Profil!

Eftersom Thuresson påstår att han skapat dem själv förlitar jag mig på det. Jag ser ingen uppenbar anledning att misstro honom.

Fred J 16:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Vad jag reagerat på är att bilderna är inscannade och att Thuresson (upprepade gånger) har undvikit att svara direkt på frågan hurvida han har ritat bilderna eller bara scannat in dem från en annan källa. Samma fråga stälde jag även i det arkiverade inlägget. /Lokal_Profil 17:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Tja, jag tycker att han själv får svara för vad han gör. / Fred J 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:SM1910.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:SM1910.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Siebrand 11:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mural crown on Swedish city arms.png

Pay attention to copyright

Image:Mural crown on Swedish city arms.png 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.

Lokal_Profil 00:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bilder utan källa

Hej. jag undrar om du skulle kunnna ta dig en titt på Image:Switzerland flag ZS.svg, bilden är märkt med {{PD}} taggen men har ingen källa som styrker det. Alla försök att märka bilden som "no source" har återställts av uppladdaren (Reisio). En liknande situation har uppståt för Image:Coat of arms of Western Sahara.svg. Ska varna för att jag för tillfället är i en konflikt med Reisio som anser att bilder som är märkta som PD aldrig behöver en källa och att det är upp till andra att bevisa att sådana bilder är ofria snarare än upp till uppladdaren att bevisa att de är fria. Anledningen till att jag ber dig ta en titt är att det skulle vara skönt att veta ifall det är Reisio eller jag som är helt ute och cycklar. Tack /Lokal_Profil 10:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Michel foucault.jpg

Red cross, been like that for a while. Delete it? Feel free to do so... Cheers! Siebrand 15:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this was from back in the days when there were no delinking bots and Wikipedians also didn't like to have their images just removed. Deleted. / Fred J 15:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot

Yes, it runs, see Special:Contributions. It does of course not work for complex deletion requests involving multiple images, etc. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, just checking... / Fred J 10:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Från min diskussion

Hej, Jag är nästan aldrig inne på commons. Därför har svaret dröjt.
Ja: Det verkar som att SJ har ändrat statusen. Om det är fritt för en upphovsrättsinnehavare att göra så innebär det antagligen att bilderna inte passar under licenskraven här. //Laserpekare 23:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)