User talk:Holly Cheng/Archive1

Image:HenriCornet.jpg[edit]

Hi! I really don't remember, where is this photo from. But I'm sure, that on this site (where I found it) was wriiten that vevery photo on it is in PD. Maybe I could change the license description to pd-old, because the photo is older than 100 years, but I still don't remember the source adress :( Greets, Piter T. 19:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mt si and meadowbrook cows.jpg[edit]

Hello, Howcheng. This is listed as "copyrighted, but released for any use". However, when I clicked through to the source page, it is only listed as copyright. I couldn't find anywhere where the rights were released. Is this really a free image? Thanks!! Hike395 12:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About pictures from Nasa World Wind[edit]

Hello Howcheng! I have been using the {{PD-USGov-NASA}} template for a long time in all my uploads of pictures taken from the NASA World Wind software because I saw that this one was being used in that kind of screenshots. I didn't know anything about the {{PD-WorldWind}}. I will use it in my contributions since now. Thank you very much! --JMPerez 18:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siachen Glacier image update[edit]

The Earth Observatory Image of the Day (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/) gets republished to various appropriate Wikipedia enteries. Alas, we make mistakes from time to time, and my attempts to get the correct image (in this case of the Siachen Glacier in Kashmir) into Wikipedia have, so far, been for naught. Correct links and date information has been added to the appropriate page, but the image shown is of Nanga Parbat (Urdu for "Lonely Mountain": sorry Hobbit fans, but no Smaug flying out of the mountain). Earth Observatory got the corrections, but it is not clear how to propogate the corrections into Wikipedia.

Welcome to the Commons, Holly Cheng/Archive1!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: `[[:Image:Foo.jpg]]`, it makes this: `Image:Foo.jpg` If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: `{{bad name\|Correct name}}` For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

--gildemax 12:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eagle-moon-web-2.jpg[edit]

Hi Howcheng - I have to agree, on wing structure and pattern, it is a juvenile Bald Eagle. Though I disagree with the deletion request, it is a perfectly good photo! On the blackbirds photo, I was able to identify them by location and behaviour - Red-winged Blackbird is the only species of icterid blackbird occurring commonly in that area (Brewer's Blackbird and Yellow-headed Blackbirds also occur there, but not in large flocks like that). - MPF 20:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin[edit]

Howcheng, you are now an admin here on the Commons. Congratulations! User:dbenbenn 22:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, but please also note that deleted images cannot be undeleted, so be careful before deleting images, even though there are still many problem images that may require deletion.--Jusjih 14:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Katakana origin.png[edit]

Hi. I wrote under [1] that I got the image from en and who uploaded the file first. I added the info to the image's page. I don't where Adamrice got that file from. Maybe you want to ask him that question. --KAMiKAZOW 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese[edit]

Ok. (i don't speak English very well.) do must I rename them all? (AAGH!!!!!) Bye. --Broc 08:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons-l subscription[edit]

Hello Howcheng,

as per Commons talk:Administrators, I am asking all admins to subscribe to commons-l, a mailing list for Wikimedia Commons policy and project discussion. Since many admins are only on Commons infrequently, this is a good way to alert people about important happenings. The mailing list is nominally multilingual, but predominantly English.

If you are already subscribed to commons-l, I apologize for bothering you, and you are free to ignore this message. If you don't want to use your regular e-mail account, feel free to leave me a message, and I can send you a GMail invite. Traffic on the mailing list is relatively low, and we do not expect admins to read all messages to the list, but it would be nice if you could check on it at least every few weeks. Thanks for your time,--Eloquence 23:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification[edit]

Re my Dodge Charger picture - thanks! Morven 03:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Image:Statue Michael Jordan.JPG[edit]

I'm quite not sure about the reason that this photo is to be deleted since you didn't mention about it. I assumed it could be that I didn't refer to the source, so I added it. If there's any other things going wrong with it, please let me know before posting it to the deletion list.

Thanks. -- Galaksiafervojo 00:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RochesterCanal RochesterNY.jpg[edit]

Hi, I don't see where that image is released into the PD. That sites image usage policy: [2] Ccwaters 12:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (I'd probably respond faster at en.wiki)[reply]

Admin news[edit]

Hello,

If you consent for statistics to be published about your actions as an administrator, please sign here: Commons:Administrator permission for statistics. (I expect that most people will not have a problem with it unless you are especially concerned with privacy.)

Also, please be aware that we now have a Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Please put it on your watchlist, if you haven't already!

cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem[edit]

Hi, I uploaded Image:Kite and the Fury on cattle.jpg to Commons from the English Wikipedia. I was too hasty, however, and thought that it is a GFDL image, but obviously it isn't. What is the copyright status of the image, isn't it possible to upload it to Commons? -Aslak 17:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, because we don't know for sure that it's GFDL, it can't stay on Commons. However, I've left a message for the uploader so that she might clarify the license. howcheng {chat} 17:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Przysiega Kosciuszki[edit]

If what you say is true, the you should upload it to enWiki only: this picture was not published in US first and is protected by Polish copyright, which covers 70 years after authors death. I'll make a regular deletion request for this file. A.J. 16:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin news[edit]

Hello,

Also, please be aware that we now have a Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Please put it on your watchlist, if you haven't already!

cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC) P.S.: Pardon if this is a repeat (bot debugging...)[reply]

IMage status[edit]

Hello there Howcheng. Perhaps you would like to help us clarify the status of Image:BethanyLighthouse CDCanal.jpg, since as it's stated, the license is not valid Drini 00:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an email to the given address requesting clarification. howcheng {chat} 18:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Strong oppose template[edit]

Please see my comments on this subject at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates. -- Alvesgaspar 17:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KootenayLakeFreeFerry.jpg[edit]

Hello,

Looking this pic, I interrogate me about the license. On website mentionned, the crédit is Courtesy of Kootenay Rockies. For me that just said than Digital Media Library can use on it site this pic, not than the owner of the pic accept other use of this one by third party (like redistribution free even in commercial use).

By other way I'm not able to find where is the original to verify licence. If you got a official agreement It would be interresting to mentionned it with more explanations.

Sorry for my bad english. Friendly. Oxam Hartog 10:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I was probably blind when I looked at this page et too obsessed by the terms of credit. The next one I will take care to read correctly.

However, how is it possible to keep the sources when link is definitively broken (sometimes on these sites after severals months). Perhaps the description would be make mention of public domain more clearly. Oxam Hartog 17:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My uploads from Flickr[edit]

I'm very afraid of that. When I selected from Flickr all those images I took care only to choose the ones remarked with a Creative Commons License. I didnt imagine that Commons has a commercial purpose, so I did a mistake without conscience. About the images, many of them yet utilisied into wikipedia, I've two questions and one request. 1- How could I ask to the proprietaries of the images a further release for Wikimedia Commons? 2- May I upload the images with license creative commons non commercial directly into Wikipedia? I hope that you'll wait the necessaries before removing all the images. Cheers, --Grifomaniacs 14:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Image:NaomiSzeto 2006-01-13.jpg[edit]

I think that this image should be deleted. The file name includes the name of the subject, who is a child. This is a bad thing on a couple of levels. I have deleted it from the the English Wikipedia article Child for this reason. Herostratus 16:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be shame to lose it just because of the filename. I'll reupload it under a different name. howcheng {chat} 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rte66btwnOatmanAndKingman.JPG[edit]

The download page at source [3] says commercial use is prohibited. Hence it should be deleted as being {{Noncommercial}}. -- Paddu 22:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh, I believe they changed it. I was very careful when I grabbing images from the byways.org library. Oh well. howcheng {chat} 07:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

Source for the image you tagged: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Pienaar.jpg .. Jacoplane 01:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Picture of the Year 2006 Competition[edit]

Interested in honouring the best of the best? Vote now in the
Commons Picture of the Year competition 2006
Voting to select the finalists is open until 14th February.

The arrangements for the Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition are now complete, and voting will start tomorrow, Feb 1st. All Featured Pictures promoted last year are automatically nominated. As a past contributor to Featured Pictures, we invite you to participate in the competition (but please wait until tomorrow to vote). --MichaelMaggs 20:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CocaCola C2.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning

Image:CocaCola C2.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Jeffness 00:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category redundant to page???[edit]

Can you explain what this means, "Category redundant to page" ? I don't necessarily mind that you deleted some categories that I had created - but I do wish that you would have notified me before deleting and removing them, so that I could at least have had some input in this. Smee 08:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What I mean is, you had both a page and a category that were essentially the same content. This is redundant. I'm in the middle of cleaning out the US politician categories (believe me, it's a huge mess) and I think when you see the finished product you'll agree it was the way to go, but I do apologize for being heavy-handed with it and not informing you ahead of time. howcheng {chat} 17:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation and apology accepted. I'm sure that when I see the finished product I will appreciate the work you are doing. For now I'll just watch... Yours, Smee 10:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Image:BarroColoradoIsland QB 2002mar29.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright

Image:BarroColoradoIsland QB 2002mar29.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

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

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

The source page does in fact say "using QuickBird data copyright DigitalGlobe". I didn't see anything there about it being released to PD. Davepape 19:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CozyDogDriveIn SpringfieldIL.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright

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

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

24.14.105.215 04:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ocha05e.jpg[edit]

Hi! I got a problem with a Japanese speaking user who uploaded this image. I am not sure if this is his own work or something he has copied from a website. He has contacted me on my talk page and written some on the image page. But it seems like his English is quite bad.

I can see in the administrator list that you speak both English and Japanese. I would very much ask you for assistance in this case. If you can clear out what this user is meaning we could solve the case in cooperation. Thank you. --|EPO| 11:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to forward your request to User:LERK, who is an admin and a native Japanese speaker. I think this is beyond my abilities. Sorry. howcheng {chat} 22:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Geraud Reveilhac.jpg[edit]

Hello,

I'm a bit surprised, by your This media file is missing essential source information, the source is indicated on the page:

Originally scanned from: Review Le pays de France n°27 (April 22, 1915), Ed. Le Matin

Isn't it enough ?

Best regards. SalomonCeb 11:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... very curious. Don't know what I was thinking. Sorry for the inconvenience! howcheng {chat} 16:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Flickr photos[edit]

(already sent this to your en: account)

I've grown increasingly unhappy with licensing my personal family photos as cc-by-sa, so I've changed my Flickr default. However, any photo of mine that does not contain people as its main subject can be assumed to be cc-by-sa; I've put this in my Flickr profile too. Morven 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For further help, I've changed the license for that image on Flickr. Morven 09:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Loudness 20060318.jpg[edit]

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

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Loudness 20060318.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. MECU≈talk 16:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PearlHarbor Sm.jpg[edit]

Hi. I loaded Image:PearlHarbor Sm.jpg from the german Wikipédia more than two years ago (as the interwiki indicates), but now it does not exist there anymore, having been replaced by the image in Commons. So, I cannot tell you today where the german Wikipedia copied it from in 2004. Thanks, Mschlindwein 10:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Frederic Chopin photo.jpeg[edit]

Hi, thanks for saving my previous version and uploading it on a different name (sepia). However, since the old black and white photo is worse quality, I have photoshopped the better copy and converted it to grayscale and then uploaded it. FranksValli 01:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Featured Picture[edit]

Great find and upload on Crops Kansas AST 20010624.jpg. Thanks, KP Botany 19:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Image:Grande_Torino_1947_coulerd.jpg[edit]

Ciao, il lavoro è sotto GNU, l'autore è un mio amico e ha rilasciato l'immagine su un forum dedicato ai tifosi della squadra del Torino sotto libera licenza. Gli ho chiesto il permesso di caricare l'immagine anche su Wiki e non ha obiettato, dicendo "Per quel che mi riguarda, quando metto un'immagine su internet questa diventa libera". Se serve lo stesso l'autorizzazione, vedo di farti avere una sua lettera: a chi devo inoltrarla?

Hy, the photo coloured is a work under GNU license: autor is a friend of mine, and released image on a Torino's fans forum. I asked him if I can put here image, and his aswer was "For me, all the images hat I made and put over internet there was free". If necessary, I ask him to write me an email where he confirm his autorization: so, to I do resend?

Bye, Rck Rck S.

No, perhaps he isn't so old to take the original b/w photo (taken on 1947, so the autor could be still live with 90 y.o. or more), neither is the son of the autor to have detention of copyright: the took the image from an archive, that us imagine is not copyrighted, but we haven't the idea if this supposition it's correct or not.

So I suppose that without permission image must be deleted... How we do make now to have a declaration to use?

I know the "addetto stampa" (I don't know the english name, is the man that in a Society works for the relationship beetween press and Society, in that case President, CEO and players) of Torino F.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torino_F.C.), the team that could be had original archive.

I followed same path to have permission to put the new logo on italian's wiki pages.

If I ask him, could be is a good idea?

Rck S.

Image question[edit]

Can you do me a favor, and take a look at this image, Image, just to double-check that it can be transferred to the Commons ? You are more of an expert at this stuff than myself. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 22:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sure, Commons can host any free license image and this one has a free license. howcheng {chat} 22:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick feedback. I have trans-copied the image to Commons, and will replace its versions on the English Wikipedia with this one: Image:Lisa_McPherson_profile.gif - Could you just take a quick look at the image description to make sure I did it correctly? Thanks so much again for your time. Smee 23:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please add the URL to the web page that you got the image from. Other than that, it looks good. Thanks! howcheng {chat} 16:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think I did that, can you double check? Smee 22:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. Smee 03:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

State Parks in Arkansas[edit]

I redirected Category:State parks in Arkansas, which you recently created, to Category:State parks of Arkansas. Note that all state parks of the United States are in a category State parks of <state name>. DanMS 03:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Recently" = March 2006 (over a year ago). I think most Arkansas categories were "XXX in Arkansas" at the time, or they didn't exist. howcheng {chat} 06:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! My error. I saw "March 29" and somehow missed "2006"! DanMS 01:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio[edit]

Image:MountainBiking MtHoodNF.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright

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

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

--CyclePat 09:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MountainBiking MtHoodNF.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning

Image:MountainBiking MtHoodNF.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.

This is not a copyright violation in my opinion. I listed the image for deletion as a procedure. --Lucasbfr 10:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KobeBryant 20060409.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning

Image:KobeBryant 20060409.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.

Spellcast 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Black hebrews Dimona people.jpg[edit]

Hi, could you please forward the email you received regarding this Flickr image to OTRS? You can find the email address and other instructions on what to do at the linked page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 17:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't, because it's a flickr web mail : i have note the email in thunderbird. I copied my message and the answer of sethfrantzman in the page of the photo. If you want to verify with sethfrantzman, it's easy : you can use his flickr adress here : sethfrantzman flickr mail. But you need a flickr (or a yahoo) ID. Christophe cagé 17:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. It's done. Christophe cagé 17:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:World_Map_1689.JPG[edit]

Hi, You can find low reselution images and more info on this page. Thanks --Tarawneh 07:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:DH84 Dragon.jpg[edit]

Done! I don't mind doing OTRS verification on-demand, but in the future, could you please give more information about the e-mail you sent in? At least the address you sent it into (commons or wikipedia) and the approximate time you sent it (1 day, 2 days, etc), it will help me in finding things easier. Thanks! MECU≈talk 01:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Image:Foxholememorial clr.jpg[edit]

All I know about this file is that I found it at [4] where Stsmith uploaded it in 2005 and marked it as public domain. It looks like someone's already asked him to clarify the licencing; [5]. Bryan Derksen 18:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stooges2.jpg[edit]

Hi! I saw your message about this photo. I'm really sorry for my mistake, because I put in the description of this image a wrong flickr link. The correct link is this and I correct it! As you can see, the photo is released with a cc-by-sa license. Nice to meet you, --Claudio Sanna 21:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

admines[edit]

hi, are you really an administrator, then why so many warning messages around here--Andersmusician $ 23:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because people misunderstand how things work. Out of all these warning messages, only two are legitimate. One I just misread the NASA page, and the other was so not obvious that it was a copyrighted press photo (the Kobe Bryant image). Only one other has been deleted and that's because it was an image that was on Flickr but is no longer there and so is no longer verifiable. howcheng {chat} 00:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

all right then --Andersmusician $ 02:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CarnegieMellonDownCut.jpg[edit]

Hello, thank you for the warning. But I believe I didn't upload that ? --Manop 05:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you did. See [6]. howcheng {chat} 16:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trillium undulatum in the USA.svg[edit]

Hi. I saw that you changed the license on my image to GFDL since it was based on a GFDL image. Am i allowed to dual license the image under GFDL and cc-by-sa-2.5 if the original is GFDL? Also the "original" is based on another image which is PD-user, so really this is based on a PD source. I'm not that up to date on the interlicense compatibilites. /Lokal _Profil 13:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying here. I don't think you can dual-license the image because one of the conditions of the GFDL is that derivative works are issued under the same license. By dual licensing, this allows the possibility of future versions to not be used under the GFDL, but someone more familiar with the licensing may have better information. As for the original source being PD, that's OK, because a new work generates a new copyright, which can then be licensed as the copyright holder sees fit, although I would never create more restrictive licensing myself. howcheng {chat} 16:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But since the GFDL licensed image is but a simplification of the PD-image can not "my" image be seen as a derivative of the PD image instead, thus allowing any (free) license to be used? /Lokal _Profil 17:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because you based it off the GFDL image. If you had started with the PD image and made changes that ended up looking like the other one, then you would be OK, but you specifically used the GFDL one, making yours a direct derivative of that. Hope that makes sense. howcheng {chat} 20:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Type99.jpg[edit]

Hi. Tell me, please, what's wrong with the above image? Gridge 18:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This is a copyrighted photo produced by the government of China. Only works that the copyright holder allows anyone to use for any purpose are allowed here at Commons. howcheng {chat} 00:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Thanks. Gridge 14:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Karsh[edit]

I know it's a moot point, but Portraits of Greatness doesn't appear in the renewal records of the US copyright office. The picture of Einstein wasn't renewed in the US either. -Nard 03:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beslan_school_no_1_victim_photos.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning

Image:Beslan_school_no_1_victim_photos.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.

Madmax32 01:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nikki Sixx.jpg[edit]

Deleted contents[edit]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Hello Holly Cheng/Archive1,

the following content you uploaded is not free and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:

Nikki Sixx.jpg

The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files which can be used for any purpose, including:

use in any work, regardless of content
creation of derivative works
commercial use
free distribution

See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on the Wikimedia Commons. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on the Wikimedia Commons: "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.

Please make sure that you only upload works you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial to understanding how the Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 21:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Loretta_Lynn_house.jpg[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Loretta_Lynn_house.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.

Image:AndreEthier_20060726.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning

Image:AndreEthier_20060726.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.

OsamaK 12:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg[edit]

I just wanted to give you a heads up that someone posted Who Is Trying To Delete The Picture Of Rumsfeld And Saddam Shaking Hands? on Digg, as though there is some conspiracy to delete this image on the commons.- (en-wiki) PhantomBantam 23:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. howcheng {chat} 16:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Greta_Garbo_1925_by_Genthe.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning

Image:Greta_Garbo_1925_by_Genthe.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.

BrokenSphere 06:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled your change back, restoring my comment[edit]

See my talk, or better, let's take this to Licensing discussions, it needs more than just you and I to resolve. All the best... ++Lar: t/c 03:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BullDurhamMural CollinsvilleIL.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning

Image:BullDurhamMural CollinsvilleIL.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.

--Evrik 02:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Blue horseshoe.svg[edit]

Image deletion warning

Image:Blue horseshoe.svg 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.

--24.250.193.241 21:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York politicians[edit]

You might want to weigh in at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/01/New York politicians; two very similar categories probably need merging, but which way? -- Jmabel | talk 01:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atomium[edit]

Hi Howcheng,

I don't really know where to post this, your contact is on my discussion page, so I try here. I've a problem with the uppon page. I think this page is made of incorrect assertions. I posted the US law on its discussion page. Is it a way to have a decision regarding this matter on Commons ?

Best regards. SalomonCeb 10:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated[edit]

Your fix is appreciated, but I think it should be in plain English. A single word "Attribution:" isn't clear enough. Badagnani 04:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "green" license, for example, says:

"The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that Flickr user: mune67 (the photographer) and http://www.flickr.com/photos/mune67/ (Flickr user: mune67's Flickr page) are credited." Badagnani 04:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest, to make things as simple as possible for license tag users, leaving out the numeral "1" (is that in case there are multiple creators who need to be credited?), and just using the "|", as the "green" license does. Badagnani 04:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For "green" license, it's very easy to use, without remembering to use the number "1"; the code is as follows:

{{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|'''Flickr user: mune67''' (the photographer) and '''http://www.flickr.com/photos/mune67/''' (Flickr user: mune67's Flickr page) are credited.}} Badagnani 04:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you don't really need the 1; that's only there in case your parameter value has an equals sign in it (as might be the case with some URLs), for example:

{{cc-by-2.0|http://example.net/?a=b&c=d}} -- in this case, you'd have to use the 1.

As for the wording, the only way I see improving it would be "Give credit as" or something. I'll bring it up at Commons talk:Licensing. howcheng {chat} 05:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text in the "green" tag would be perfect; again, it reads as follows:

"The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that Flickr user: mune67 (the photographer) and http://www.flickr.com/photos/mune67/ (Flickr user: mune67's Flickr page) are credited." Badagnani 07:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pictures from grand power[edit]

Hi, I have received your info about permission from Jaroslav Kuracina, Grand Power s.r.o.. I have a question - Is this permission only for one picture (logo) ? Or contains a list of more pictures ? Send me info which pictures are in list (if it is possible), please. Kuracina had promised that he would have sent permission for more pictures ... Send me info to user:Baran Ivo on commons or user ivob:on slovak wikipedia. Thanks. --Baran Ivo 06:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sholle4.gif[edit]

Permission for this image has been secured and was emailed to permissionswikimedia.org. I would be happy to forward you the permission if you would like, but I would request that you remove the tag currently on the image, as it is incorrect. If you don't want to do it yourself I'd be happy to do it, but I'd rather avoid getting into a snit over it. Iamblessed 01:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not fully complete. I am handling the OTRS ticket and I haven't been able to get a clear statement from Mr Sholle. I tagged it as no permission so that in case he never replies to me again, it will be handled even if I forget about it. howcheng {chat} 17:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket 2008030910007261[edit]

Hi. Hope you don't mind me replying here instead of through OTRS. This was in reference to Image:La guerra contra el terrorismo. versión para wikipedia.pdf. I was going to nominate it for deletion anyway on scope grounds, so I really don't care that the licensing was confirmed. -Nard 22:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket 2008030810008252[edit]

This was in reference to Image:Kafka101.jpg and Image:Karel Kafka.jpg. -Nard 22:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MarkBunker-addresses-anon.jpg[edit]

Thanks for clearing this up. Cirt 05:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bunker photos[edit]

I am doing this because a spammer is putting his name on the photos. I am doing this to deter him. Block me and I will go elswhere, I don't give a shit I will upload to en wiki and I wont be able to use on foreign projectsAdam.J.W.C. 08:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Celine_Dion_headshot.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning

Image:Celine_Dion_headshot.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.

Polly 04:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Schulstruktur CJD Koenigswinter.png[edit]

Dear Howcheng, you forgot to correct the author, which is quite important while using GFDL. Regards, Code·is·poetry 17:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BamIran.IKONOS.2003dec27.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning

Image:BamIran.IKONOS.2003dec27.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.

TheDJ 19:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SanFrancisco_dtwn_IKONOS_28aug04.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning

Image:SanFrancisco_dtwn_IKONOS_28aug04.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.

TheDJ 19:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bankstown Bunker photos[edit]

Hi. Do you think it would be appropriate to delete these Bankstown Bunker photos due to the recent controversy and misunderstanding concerning the name of the author. I think it might be better for me not to have these pictures against my name and maybe have the owner re-upload them if he wants. Adam.J.W.C. 00:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permission forwarded[edit]

I believe I forwarded the permission to use Image:Yao Ming Interview.jpg to you (from user Jeffbalke on Flickr). However, you did not add the "ticket" of permission, and it could be deleted. Could you post the permission (I've forwarded it again)? Thanks. Noble Story 03:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template ngw[edit]

Howard, one more remark on the template ngw, which you have protected on my request; on the older version of the template there was the sentence , could you please add that line again, it makes it easier to distinguish which pages have already the appropriate template and which are still missing. Thanks !Knorrepoes 07:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatoon map images[edit]

Hi, and thanks for the tip about using the {{PermissionOTRS}} template for future uploads. Do I need to specify a particular ticket or id? Drm310 23:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just use the same ticket as the last map. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RichardHakluyt-BristolCathedral-stainedglasswindow-whole.jpg[edit]

Hi, thanks for adding OTRS tickets to two of the three images. You also need to add a ticket to the above image, and delete the e-mail correspondence on the talk page if you feel that it's necessary to do so. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deprecated function in your monobook.js[edit]

Dear user, I noticed that you use the includePage function in your monobook.js page.

This function is now obsolete, as the importScript function was introduced with rev:35064 to the MediaWiki Javascript core library wikibits.js. It also keeps track of already imported files.

To allow us to remove includePage from Mediawiki:Common.js I'd kindly ask you to replace its use with importScript (same syntax!). Thanks! --Dschwen 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token 72065c33b11c9b0f26ca994cdd85e614[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Image:Laurent Cantet.jpg[edit]

There is a problem at this photography, isn't it ? At "Permission" there is a bad templates, no ? Can you look at this problem ? 82.254.61.33 04:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Looks OK to me. howcheng {chat} 05:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket 2008060310009077[edit]

Hello. I just wanted to leave a note about Image:Julian Barnes.jpg. The uploader didn't inform the copyright holder about the possible licenses to be applied to this image and the copyright holder didn't say anything specific other than "yes, feel free to use this image". In my opinion it does not quite qualify for an upload under a free license... One of the admins is contacting the uploader, but I would like to ask you (I saw your nick as the ticket owner), if you could take a moment to look at the permission emails, if they detail the license to be used, if the copyright holder has been instructed about the possible consequences of applying a free license to their picture. Warm regards. Wpedzich 08:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. The owner simply wrote, "You are welcome to use the attached image," so I sent the ticket back to the uploader to obtain a more specific statement of permission. howcheng {chat} 16:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and question[edit]

Hurray! Thank you Howcheng for adding permissions to this image. Would it be all right if I add the cc-by-3.0 template? The copyright holder chose cc-by but I am still learning the protocol for OTRS and not sure how that works. Thank you again! Susanlesch 19:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh, I wasn't paying attention or I would have done that myself. Yes, please do. howcheng {chat} 20:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The ticket made my day. Best wishes. Susanlesch 20:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:USS_Commodore_Perry.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning

Image:USS_Commodore_Perry.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.

20.137.18.50 15:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Berg[edit]

Would you be so kind as to review the OTRS for:

Much thanks! Evrik 17:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Philbert, Eric Berg only wrote, "i don't see any problem posting Philbert," which is different than "I agree to terms of the GFDL", so I need to get a more specific statement for that one. And I have yet to see a reply to your email with regards to Mario (but that might be further down in the queue and I haven't gotten there yet). howcheng {chat} 00:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actuallly, what he said on 25 Apr 2007 was, "i don't have a problem with you using that photo from flickr under a free license. please list me as the sculptor." On the email from 9 Jun 2008, he then said, "you have my permission to use the photograph with accompanying notation "Eric Berg - sculptor" as is currently appearing with image." Those were in response to the emails I sent. Please let me know how we can fix this. Evrik (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, then I need to have the specific free license he wants. What I'm trying to avoid is the misunderstanding of what "free license" means — I don't want him to think "Free = Free for Wikipedia" and then be upset to find it somewhere else at a later date. howcheng {chat} 16:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pinkdinosaur_VernalUT.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning

Image:Pinkdinosaur_VernalUT.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.

FunkMonk (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Big_Eddy_Bridge.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Big_Eddy_Bridge.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. -Nard the Bard 06:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attack Cake[edit]




The attack cake is NOT a lie. Enjoy. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 06:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

conditional statement.[edit]

1, 2, 3, 4

Hello, Howcheng. Thank you for your contribution as a OTRS helper, I come here to say about your deletion on a conditional statement. The photographer only grants her images in 800 by 600 pixel size, not in the original size. Therefore, the conditional statement should be written there. I also promised to write the condition as such. If someone visits the original site, and find the bigger size, she or he would misunderstand the bigger size of the image would be also okay to use. I don't want to lead people to misunderstand the photographer's permission, so restored the statement on the pages. I hope it would clear up the thing. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Thanks for the note. howcheng {chat} 23:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foxhole - Lebanon - Beirut - July 1958.jpg[edit]

Hi, you just deleted a version of this file which was in higher resolution than the one you left, because the file was in use. But doesn't quality have more importance than usage? After all, the good quality image can just replace the worse quality one on a given page. FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't compare the two images myself. In this sort of case, you should just upload it over the existing image, which will accomplish both goals of having better quality and reducing the work necessary to replace one with the other. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Could you maybe recover the description and copyright info of the deleted file, since it was more accurate than that of the "surviving" file? FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to reproduce the entire LOC page here, but I'll use the {{LOC-image}} template and a more accurate licensing tag. howcheng {chat} 16:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awright, I've uploaded the larger version. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Topitoxx[edit]

Hi, the request was made about all the Logos the user Topitoxx (talk '· contribs) uploaded, shall we delete all or should i reopen the request? I personaly would add all his uploads to the request, some of them are watermarked, non of the image contains metadata... --Martin H. (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I only deleted the ones listed specifically in the request. If you can add a list of all of them to the DR, that would be very helpful. I'll re-open it in that case. howcheng {chat} 19:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. sculptures[edit]

Re your message to the mailing list: Patry argues a fine point whether photos of 3D objects are derivative works. However, please note that even if such photos are not derivatives, they are still copies of the 3D object. 17 USC 101 defines copies as "material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." 17 USC 106(1) gives the copyright owner of the 3D object the exclusive right to "to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords". Hence the photographer would still need to get the consent of the copyright owner of the 3D object to even make a photo. Patry acknowledges this himself, read the comments on the blog article you linked, in particular this comment: "yes I think a picture of a copyrighted object is a reproduction of that object". Also this comment from a follow-up blog post on this issue: "even though a photograph isn't a derivative work of the object photographed doesn't mean there might not be violation of the reproduction right. If I take a photo of a copyrighted work of art and sell copies, I am violating the reproduction art even though my photo is not a derivative work of the art work." So, it doesn't matter for us: for photos of copyrighted artwork, we need the consent of the rights holder of the artwork shown in the photo (plus that of the photographer, if he isn't identical to the uploader). Lupo 14:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I knew there had to be a catch. It didn't seem right that this case had been decided so long ago, but that there had been no corresponding acknowledgment on Commons about this, especially since we rely on Bridgeman v. Corel so extensively, and that was issued just the year prior to SHL v. Artisan. howcheng {chat} 17:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of looking at that is, are reproduction rights separate from copyrights? If so, since we already limit ourselves to worrying about copyrights, what if we foist that responsibility onto the re-user, similar to what we already do with personality rights, or even contracts where an admission ticket to a museum or sporting even limits the usage of those photos to noncommercial only? howcheng {chat} 19:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not separate from copyrights. The exclusive reproduction right is part of the copyrights. See 17 USC 106. Lupo 08:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A photograph is not a reproduction of a 3d object. It does not serve the same purpose, it does not convey the exact information or enough information that someone else could use it to reproduce the original work. It is merely a depiction of that object, which the courts have spefically upheld as not being a violation of copyright. Clothing and furniture are copyrighted, but we do not have to show only nude people standing in the dirt. 68.58.23.141 00:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, clothing and furniture are not copyrighted because they are utilitarian objects. See COM:DW. howcheng {chat} 00:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Detail2 - Rockefeller Center.jpg[edit]

A follow-up to the above: are you aware of the (fairly recent) changes to COM:FOP#United States and the discussions at Template talk:PD-US-statue/proposal? In brief, Carl has shown a reasonable argument for pre-1978 U.S. sculptures having been published when they were erected in a public place (without prohibition on photography). As published works, they would have needed to have a copyright notice to have been copyrighted, and there would need to be a renewal for it to be still valid.

Now, we have no way for searching for renewal of sculptures erected before 1950 (for later ones, the renewals should be in the online catalog of the U.S. Copyright Office), but it appears there is a consensus amongst the participants in that discussion (which, I admit, were only a few) that either an external source saying the work bears no notice, or a detailed SIRIS entry that doesn't mention a copyright are ok for at least {{PD-US-no notice}} tagging.

Feel free to override this decision, or to voice concerns at Template talk:PD-US-statue/proposal. (That proposal, BTW, is, as far as I see it, more or less ready to go live, but needs some work on hashing out the precise wording.) Lupo 14:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verrrrrry interesting. Going with this reasoning then, I just transferred Image:RocCt-LeeLawrie-Wisdom.jpg to Commons. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Quit English Wikipedia[edit]

F Y I kind sir: [7]. EmilEikS (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fountain of the Waters[edit]

Hi. Just saw the note you posted at Category:Fountain of the Waters. Four images of related works mentioned on the same SIRS inventory page were recently deleted as derivative works (1, 2, 3, 4). Should the images be restored? - EurekaLott (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had tagged those as derivatives. I should have checked the SIRIS records back then too. All 4 are restored; thanks for the note. howcheng {chat} 07:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

editprotected Van Gogh[edit]

Hi, I'm just curious: What was the reason to protect this one portrait for just ~one day? Thanks, Wolfgang 06:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot that uploads images to the English Wikipedia when they're on the Main Page is temporarily disabled, so for the time being I'm just protecting them on Commons to prevent vandalism. howcheng {chat} 17:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Happy editing, and have a good time, NEVERTHELESS ;))) [w.] 19:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with photos[edit]

Hi, I am user of Czech version of Wikipedia and I creaturing articles about WW2, Waffen-SS and Wehrmacht officers, but I have a serious problems with posting of photos of these officers. If I dont know who is author of this photo and I want post a photo. What I ll have to do? btw. This photos are very old, in many cases are older than 60 years.

A small example: After one week you delete photo of Hans Baur. On this photo he was in the uniform of Bavarian flying unit and this photo was from WW1. This is more than 80 years and this is Public Domain isnt it? --TonyZ (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyZ: No, unfortunatly it is not. Rules say: "Death of the author plus more than 70 years" or, if such is not to be known, a minimum of 100 years (in some cases, even 150 years) after the piece was obviously published.

I (for myself) would like such material to be allowed on COM, but such is not possible, due to legal (mainly: European) concerns. In case there are national WPs where you'd be allowed to upload such, please_do_so. On enWP, e.g., you might choose "Fair_Use" in case there is an article which uses that file "for good reason" AND if you fill in an appropriate "Fair_use_rationale". See, as an example, en:File:Caesar Cardini (Cesare Cardini) 1896-1956.jpg

Best, &sorry, that there can not be done more about such, on this place. [w.] 20:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, W. howcheng {chat} 21:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays![edit]

Enjoy the holidays, Howard! ;) Thanks for all your hard work! I hope you'll have a great new year. --Kanonkas_(talk) 00:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal SPAM.[edit]

Hi, I'm aware that Christmas greetings are more-or-less to be considered to be SPAM, but I can't help:
Here is one more, which is from me.
Although I might have [and might in the future] disagree with you, I'd like to ascertain you that I respect and love you. Believe it or not. [w.] 16:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category sorting problems[edit]

Dear Mr. Cheng: I have now just about completed the category that you and Mr. Kuipier so kindly helped me start last month. I cannot figure out why the subcategories are alphabetized in such a strange way on both pages/screens [8] and (page 2) [9] Seems it should be possible to create more symmetry in those listings - and avoid the split-up between the two pages where part of the J group and the letters K and L seem to belong on the first page (???) not the second. Can't figure it out. Can you give me any advice on this or find someone who might know what the problem is? EmilEikS (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a technical issue. I'm not exactly sure how the software decides which letters appear on which page, but trust me, it's not unique to you. howcheng {chat} 18:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir, and best wishes for the New Year! I had indeed seen the problem on many other category pages, so there was no idea that it is unique to us. What forum would be appropriate to use to ask (kindly of course) if anything can be done about the general problem? EmilEikS (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not exactly sure the right location to ask. I would send an email to info-en

wikimedia.org and one of the OTRS volunteers (besides myself) can probably get you to the right location. howcheng {chat} 05:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Emil: This is just to inform you about a workaround which I recently found for "my baby", to overcome same problem: See Category:Vincent_van_Gogh#Content, a manually made TOC. For your 42 sub-cats, such would be quite a lot of work, and it's up to you to decide whether it's worth while to do it ;}}} -- best, [w.] 12:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I'd suggest to remove pics form the parent CAT if they're in a subcat -- I'll do so with "my favourite" as soon as I'm through whith "honest" descriptions (which will not happen before February). It would be by far easier to "care" about a category (to keep it clean) if no items from subcats do show up there. [w.] 12:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, gentlemen, for this very helpful info which I will make good use of as soon as I round off the image project. Since I have found another 50 or so images of general interest in our files, we are processing them now and will upload them in the next day or so. That will be it, unless some solitary picture is added or improved upon in the future.

Explanation re: subcategories: My idea is that if all the images from Southerly Clubs - and only those images - appear in the parent CAT we'll be able to keep track of what we have done and are doing there. The subcategories can then be added to by other editors who may have images of their own in those particular subjects to contribute in the future. How's my line of thinking? EmilEikS (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]