User talk:INeverCry/Archive 25

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 →

Copyright infringement.

Collaborator @Naldo Arruda: Comes carrying images probably without proper license or without authorization. See Category:Amazonas, how do I proceed in a situation like this? See the user's Gallery

--wu22222 • (talk to me) • (PT) • (EN) • (ES) • (JP) 15:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Brazilian Government Works

@wu22222: All images uploaded to the Category:Amazonas (Brazilian state), are regulated under the license Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Brazil. It works the Brazilian government, so no-infringement of copyright.

--Naldo Arruda (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Esperanto

Dear colleague! I can give to you an autoreview status at Wikipedia in Esperanto. Do you agree? Gamliel Fishkin 00:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Gamliel Fishkin: That would be great, thanks. I like to have autoreview on as many sites as possible because I process more duplicates than any other admin here, and I do a large number of file moves where I'm able to replace images directly with my account and not cause any need for extra patrolling. If you need anything here, let me know. I like to make sure trusted Commons editors have the tools they need to do the work they're interested in.

The right I want the most is "editor" on Russian Wikipedia, but Russian isn't a language that can be learned quickly or easily. I'll get there with continued study though; maybe another year or so... Ah, to read Pushkin in the original Russian! Gippius, Akhmatova, Tsvetaeva, Mandelstam, Tyutchev, Fet, Lermontov...poetry just can't be translated... lNeverCry 01:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done at Wikipedia in Esperanto. About autopatrolled/autoreview statuses, see my propose. And I wish to you a success in learning of languages after some time (
Москва не сразу строилась
). Gamliel Fishkin 05:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@Gamliel Fishkin: I've mentioned global autopatrol here at COM:VP and at COM:AN. I'm autopatrolled at 17 wikis and have edits at over 100, so this seems like a good idea. lNeverCry 06:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Hierarchy of effects.jpg and File:Dick and basus loyalty matrix.jpg

In response to your query about the above mentioned files:

Both files were created by me using Photoshop. Neither image is scanned from the articles cited as sources.

However, I would like to make the following comments about each file.

File:Hierarchy of effects.jpg This image is a simplification of commentary and a diagram that appears in the original 1961 article. A number of aspects of the diagram were inspired by the article, but are not identical to the diagram that appears in the article


File:Dick and basus loyalty matrix.jpg This image was created by me using Photoshop but contains the same elements as the original diagram appearing in the cited source. The content is the same, although the image that I created uses colour etc which is not in the original.


Thanks and Regards

BronHiggs (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@BronHiggs: Thanks for the detailed response. I've copied it over to the request at COM:UDEL so Jim or any other interested admins or editors can comment before the request is officially closed. lNeverCry 02:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Top 200 chemical images that should use vector graphics

Hi INeverCry. Where is the fresh one that you mentioned? --Leyo 08:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Leyo: Seeing that these pages were tagged for deletion by a bot, (McTopot), run by our fellow admin McZusatz, I would suggest consulting with him on this. When an experienced admin like McZusatz has his bot request deletions, I trust that he knows what he's doing and I do the deletions. lNeverCry 09:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for this. The bot was accidentally running in a tight loop, whereas it was designed to run at most every 24 hours. I will try to restore those. --McZusatz (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. --Leyo 16:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

User:RocketManRide

I blocked them on en-wiki. First 10 of so edits were garbage edits just to get the autoconfirmed flag! Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Thanks Ron. This guy likes to play games. He does a lot of Flickrwashing. He even named one of his Flickrwashing accounts "SpacemanSpiff" a couple weeks ago. If you see any file rename requests here where the file is a crop of any politician of India, it's likely Jhony, as that seems to be his chief interest (besides socking). Aside from me and Spiff, he focuses on Indopug quite a bit too. Jhony doesn't seem like a real abuse case; more of a pest... lNeverCry 01:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
No problem. I'll keep an eye out. Being admin in both camps helps :-). His sole task at en was to get autoconfirmed, then rush through a page rename, (Indian based, of course), en:Gurgaon district, which I reverted. Certainly not a set of actions of a (supposedly) new user. Ronhjones  (Talk) 11:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ronhjones: Thanks again Ron. The quickest ID of him here is that his first edits involve use of the crop tool, another thing a new user wouldn't be expected to do, and the uploads from Flickr are often from obvious wash accounts. He also mimics admin names at times and purposely asks admins who're familiar with him to do renames, etc. He's definitely not the type to hide. He'll probably name a sock or Flickrwashing account after you soon enough... lNeverCry 02:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll look forward to that - not easy to do a play on a real name! BTW - WhyUHappy is blocked on en now. Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Need some guidance

After their one week ban, the user has uploaded a file - File:Barsha Priyadarshini.jpg. Starting with 16 June 2016, the pic has appeared multiple times on the internet. But all those versions are of lower resolution as compared to the one uploaded here. So, how would you decide the real copyright owner? BTW, the description of the file states that it was taken on 30 September 2016, which obviously isn't true.

File:Marcos Trad.jpg's source (archived URLs: 1 & 2) doesn't seem to be clear about the copyrights. How to know the copyright status of this source?

Finally, I filed a deletion request - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gunnar about2.jpg. It seems a bit tricky. So, please have a look at it. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I've DR'd the first one. With an actress photo like that, there's no way the original photographer would've cropped so tight on her right side. The Brazil politician image would do better to be looked at by a Portuguese speaker. The DR you point to mentions an OTRS ticket, so talking to an OTRS member like Jameslwoodward might be better. lNeverCry 00:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward, thanks for the inputs at the DR, although I thought that it would be better to delete it, as per COM:PRP. Then again, I don't know much about the copyright issues. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I don't see any reason why PRP would require deletion. I believe that the actual photographer has given his consent to the license. That is all we need to keep it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Samuel Florence Baker 01.jpg

Hi INeverCry, Could you please specify more precisely your reason for deleting the file in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Samuel Florence Baker 01.jpg? It seems to me that it had what is needed to be kept. Also, the file was in use in several projects. Can it be undeleted on Commons and restored in the projects? -- Asclepias (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! -- Asclepias (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Change between redirect and actual file, perhaps delete redirect afterwards

Hallo, INeverCry, we worked on the same file while renaming, and now there is an issue: I’ve decided to rename Lunokhod.jpg to Lunokhod-2 model.jpg (see version history), unfortunately in almost the same time you decided to rename to the suggested name Lunokhod-2 in Moscow.jpg, therefore “my” version is also a redirect now. But the issue with “Moscow” is, that according to the file description the photo was taken in Frankfurt/Main (Germany). Since you are an admin I suggest you to switch between redirect and file and make a speedy deletion of the erroneously created name. — Speravir – 03:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, and thank you. — Speravir – 03:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Vladimir Korolenko, painted portrait.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Vsevolod Garshin, painted portrait.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Maxim Gorky in photography, portrait, close-up, front view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Nikolay Karazin, portrait.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
We do not know the price of what one has only when one is deprived of that Plautus ("Captivi"- IId c. b. J.-C.). Although you can always keep your customized signature and just copy and past the basic signature in the nominations. :) Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
If it were just the noms I do, I might go with copy and pasting, but I also do a lot of voting and closing now, so the game just ain't worth the candle (thats Alan Watts, a much greater philosopher than Plautus, by the way)... INeverCry (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
It's possible that the bug's BOT don't happen with vote or closure sections, it's maybe just in the section "nominator". The greatest philosophers can say the greatest nonsense while the idiots sometimes say wonders (though the greatest philosophers can also be the same idiots...) (that's from me) Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: You're probably right about the bot. I supported/opposed and closed dozens of noms by others and I didn't hear of anyone else missing notifications. BTW, I actually got the idea for lNeverCry from the color used in a modern translation I have of the journals of the Goncourt brothers. The journals are only surpassed by the letters of Flaubert. The prose of Joris Karl Huysmans is striking enough in English too, as is Zola's. Balzac, Hugo, and Dumas don't seem to have been that worried about it. Stendhal makes me wonder. The photo of Edmond and Jules sitting by Nadar is one of my favorites. Edmond certainly looks like a Balzac character. Maybe even Vautrin. But I'm wandering off aren't I...as idiots will often do... INeverCry (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Missing evidence of permission on File:TimHolmes2007.jpg?

You put a "missing evidence of permission" tag on this file. Doesn't it have an OTRS stamp right there? --GRuban (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I did that with VFC. I find it really strange that we have permission for a horrid quality thumb of him but nothing for the artworks in Category:Tim Holmes... INeverCry (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that is strange. I'll ask on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. --GRuban (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Category:Tim_Holmes_and_User:Musegaze --GRuban (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
IMHO< I think it is a matter of ignorance, not malice. Hopefully this user is educable. Montanabw (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

2nd set of eyes please

Heya! Could you look at this and see if you can help me source most of those old pictures. I did five for five tonight, I'll go back to it, but I know you have limitless energy for stuff like this and love a puzzle more than most. I don't know why they were all no sourced, but I do what I always do and look ahead in no source to see if I can find any. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

As exciting as that sounds, I'm gonna have to pass. I already half kill myself with all the stuff I do. I've started getting involved with VI, as you can see above. I even uploaded 1 of those. I have no camera, and FPC is like murderer's row, so VI seems like the perfect fit for me. I had to change to a basic signature for the VI bot to work with my nominations BTW... INeverCry (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate files for Rockstar Games

Hello INeverCry, I saw that you recently helped me out deleting File:Maxpayne2 logo.png, redirecting it to File:Max-Payne-2-Logo.svg. Many other suches cases are present, and I would like to kindly as you if you could check out Category:Rockstar Games logos and redirect the bitmapped versions to their SVG counterparts (especially the ugly Rockstar India JPG). Thanks! Lordtobi (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I also wondered if you could delete some other Rockstar-related hoax images? File:Rockstar Bogota Logo.png is a badly made image for an alledged studio that does not exist; File:Grand Theft Auto VI Logo.jpg is a badly made image for an unnannounced game that clearly is fake; File:Sdsa.png is an image that makes no sense, but uses the GTA logo; File:Ghent Theft Auto logo.png is a fake logo of a hoax formerly seen on English Wikipedia, which was quickly deleted; File:Grand Theft Auto Advance Logo.png does look good, but is not official as far as I can see, and was only used the Russia Wikipedia (evne though not anymore). All of the afformentioned images are now unused for just stored in a log here on Commons. One image I am not quite sure about is File:Rockstar games icon vector.jpg. It does have the original R* logotype in it, but is not official. As far as I can see, it is being used for a Rockstar Games userbox on the Spanish Wikipedia, which in turn is transcluded on 17 user (sub-)pages. A deletion would be justified, with the image redirected to the main File:Rockstar Games Logo.svg, and have it replaced on the userbox page. If you think it should not be deleted, maybe rename it to something that distinguishes it, e.g. "Rockstar Games task force icon.jpg" Lordtobi (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done INeverCry (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

Closely similar files

What should be done for closely similar files. I just nominated some of them. Is it right? --Mhhossein talk 06:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I would only worry about exact or scaled down {{Duplicate}}s. You're going to get a lot of similarity in a series, but we're not saving any server space by trimming a few out of a group (deletion just hides the file, but it stays on the server). INeverCry (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Image permission and deletion

Hi INeverCry,

I had a permission e-mail sent for the following files yesterday, but you removed them anyway. Is it possible to restore them?

460EXP vessel.jpg SSY.jpg Sanlorenzo Viareggio.jpg Sanlorenzo expansion rendering.jpg

Thanks for the help. --Federico Carozzo (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Once the OTRS permission is processed and confirmed, the file can be restored. INeverCry (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Jkffa

Hi INeverCry, when attempting to block Jkffa for uploading another copyvio, I found that you had blocked and immediately unblocked him today. Is there anything against blocking this user? --Túrelio (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I think they unblocked in response to my comment on COM:AN/V, since the user in question didn't uploaded another copyvio after final warning that time, but now they uploaded another copyvio again, blocking Jkffa is ok now. ★ Poké95 09:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I gave them another chance based on a technicality. We quickly saw the efficacy of this approach... lNeverCry 10:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

Hi INeverCry, I've noticed lately when I speedy my own shit and it's deleted instead of it saying "author req" it now says "author request" - Are you manually changing it ?, I'm only asking as if you are then I'll try to remember to put "author request" infuture :),
Anyway hope all is well :), Thanks ,–Davey2010Talk 22:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I use a tool available to admins that allows us to set a reason for deletion for all the files in a category. The tool then adds delete links to all files/images, and I can just click the ones I want to delete. "Author req" is too short of a reason. The tool accepts "author request", so I go with that. You don't have to worry about changing it. Typing "author request" into the rationale field only takes a second or two. lNeverCry 22:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Ahhh right, I suppose as a long term thing "Author request" does sound better than "author req", I mean I don't mind typing it myself as realistically my rationales should make sense and plus I should stop being a lazy shit lol, Anyway thanks for replying and for your explanation :), Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 23:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Erroneous deletion / correct display of heraldic images

@INeverCry: good to see your diligence with regards to the proper display of armorial bearings on Wiki. Please see following by way explanation and I should be more than happy to advise further as required :

QUOTE

Hello 86.242.244.222,
Thank you for your notification above to which I have replied at User talk:86.242.244.222, viz :
"I notice that you have unilaterally decided to delete various coats of arms I have uploaded on to Wiki Commons, citing that they are copyright of European Heraldry! These COAs cannot be copyrighted by European Heraldry or anyone other than the bearer of such arms, who in all cases died so long ago that they were never subject to any copyright laws. In any event, the only legal body who has any control over such coats of arms is the College of Arms, and even this august institution is not empowered to issue legal sanction. Its role is, however, to advise on the appropriate use of heraldic images, and can recommend legal proceedings (but not authorise legal sanction) if COAs are inappropriately used, eg. relating to the wrong person. Any legal action could only be brought before the Court of Chivalry, but this is not the case here, because :
a) they are appropriately displayed;
b) the bearers of these arms are no longer alive.
Please bear this mind & reverse your unjustified deletion of these heraldic images. Many thanks."

UNQUOTE

Many thanks again.

Best, L'honorable (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

What files are you referring to? lNeverCry 23:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by L'honorable. I'm not sure how I'm involved, but I have no counter-argument to Storkk's deletion vote. lNeverCry 23:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: voir (Retrait du lien Arthur,_duc_de_Bretagne.jpg, supprimé sur Commons par INeverCry ; motif : Copyright violation, see c:Commons:Licensing) sur l'Armorial des Plantagenêt. Un grand merci et cordialement, L'honorable (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The reason for that deletion is given as: {{copyvio|1=drawing by Jean Claude Colrat (still living heraldic drawer), as can be read on the signature. See his webpage : http://jean-claude.colrat.pagesperso-orange.fr/1richemont.htm}}. lNeverCry 23:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry: it is most important for Wiki to note that anyone even making a claim to copyright someone else's coat of arms is acting unlawfully, insofar as they have no right to do so. I hope this is crystal clear but shall be happy to clarify further should this fundamental point of law still be misunderstood. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

If this COA was drawn by Jean Claude Colrat, as stated above, he would own the copyright to it, no? lNeverCry 23:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely NOT. In fact, if anything, he was contravening the laws of heraldry himself (but only by adding finishing twirls to the image which might not have been strictly contemporaneous). Nonetheless he definitely had absolutely no right whatsoever to claim these arms as his copyright in respect of Arthur, Duke of Brittany.
I have no familiarity with the law on copyright of COAs. It would probably be better to address this deletion at COM:UDEL. I have no objection to this file being restored if everything checks out. lNeverCry 23:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: thank you & much obliged - in fact I am not so bothered about these particular images (because it is arguable whether they are of great artistic merit, but one thing is for sure, namely that they are valid representations of the armorial bearings of the subjects concerned; thus they are more than satisfactory until someone provides better appropriate images for Wiki). This is the fundamental principle of the laws of arms, qv. www.college-of-arms.gov.uk. Anyway I had already made a representation on COM:UDEL which please see. Many thanks. Best L'honorable (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Halo INeverCry : (Starting mass deletion request using VisualFileChange) was stated in respect of 86.242.244.222's seemingly anonymous intervention regarding coats of arms. How to reverse mass deletion using VisualFileChange but this time with full justification & explanation by an identifiable editor?! Many thanks. Best L'honorable (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

There's no reversing it, but if your arguments are found to be conclusive, then the mass DR can be closed as keep by an admin. lNeverCry 01:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Great - look forward to hearing then. Best L'honorable (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Where are my contributions

I just saw that some of my recent contributions are not shown. I'm sure that I just tagged some of the files for speedy deletion. To my surprise, I can't see those edits of mine! --Mhhossein talk 13:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If you tag something for speedy deletion and it gets deleted, your edit gets deleted with it. Only admins can see your deleted edits. INeverCry (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Is there anything behind the deletion of those edits? Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 11:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
No, it's just how the software works. Many files here have deleted edits "underneath" them, from older uploads under the same name, from revision deletions of vandalism, or from simple deletions as in your case. I've got about 70,000 deleted edits of my own. lNeverCry 22:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
WOW! That's a great number! --Mhhossein talk 14:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for your contribution in license review.keep on ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you my friend. License review is mostly easy stuff that I'm used to reviewing, but then you get a few files where everything's tied up in knots... lNeverCry 22:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Salma del Beato Nicola da Gesturi.jpg

Hi, are you aware that we do not do URAA deletions? See Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA - Jcb (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that URAA was involved. I just saw Commons:Deletion requests/File:Salma del Beato Nicola da Gesturi.jpg, an uncontested deletion request by Ruthven, a trusted editor, and so I deleted it. If this is a mistaken deletion, I don't object to restoration. URAA isn't something I'm really all that familiar with. lNeverCry 23:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
No problem, I will fix it. I had the file on my watchlist after an erroneous speedy nomination, but somehow I missed this nomination. Jcb (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it to me @Jcb: . So even if it's not PD under the US law (published after 1976), it's the Italian law that is applied in these cases (PD if published at least 20 years ago). --Ruthven (msg) 17:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes. If a picture is free in the source country, we don't delete it for not being free in the US. This subject has a long history at Wikimedia Commons. There has been a time that we deleted all affected files if they were uploaded after March 2012, but long discussions leaded to undeletion of all those files in 2014. Jcb (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Jcb This has nothing to do with the URAA, and your close is wrong. The work is 'obviously' not the subject of a restored copyright, as it was still copyrighted in Italy on the URAA date (January 1996). The work was simply 'never' PD in the United States, and is a violation of COM:L. It is copyrighted in the US due to the failure of the US to apply the rule of the shorter term, and a bilateral copyright agreement that goes back to 1892. Reventtalk 18:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

URAA is about restoration of copyright in the US. The problem is that this never fell out of copyright in the US, and therefore this is, a revent said, a violation and have nothing to do with URAA. This should clearly be deleted. (t) Josve05a (c) 18:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, and I have speedily deleted this as a obvious copyright violation. I suggest you consult the Hirtle chart, where you will see that this is copyrighted in the US for reasons that have nothing to do with the URAA. If you have a problem with that, you know where COM:UDR is. Reventtalk 18:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey

The thing pointed out by Administrator "Jcb" is pointed out when he didn't check the lisence of the pictures. So, this problem is already solved in User talk:Jcb".--고려 (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Did I do something in relation to this image? lNeverCry 06:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
User_talk:INeverCry/Archive_23#Bro_.21 you mentioned. "...You were warned by Jcb not to re-upload copyvios. ..."--고려 (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The image referred to in that discussion was one that contained a COM:DW of a screen. File:2012 Busan International Motor Show in Heo Yoon-mi (3).jpg is an image of a woman. As long as you avoid COM:DW, you're OK. lNeverCry 06:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Escudo de la Liga Encarnacena

Hola porqué se ha borrado este archivo "File:LigaEncarnacenaEscudo.jpg" del artículo en español de Liga Encarnacena de Fútbol, siendo que la fuente FutParaguay dice "Este documento pertenece al Archivo FUTPARAGUAY, y su copia total o parcial es autorizada a toda organización o persona que brinde a sus autores un reconocimiento adecuado." Y como autor y fuente se ha dado el reconocimiento adecuado. Robslpy (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done lNeverCry 22:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Los siguientes archivos me parecen que cumplen también con {{PD-Textlogo}}, podrian ser recuperados? File:Logo_Confederacion_Paraguaya_de_Basquetbol.png del artículo en español Confederación Paraguaya de Básquetbol, File:Liga_Deportiva_Paranaense.png del artículo en español Liga Deportiva Paranaense y File:Liga_Deportiva_del_Amambay.png del artículo en españo Liga Deportiva del Amambay. Saludos! Robslpy (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done Source/author for these should probably be a link to the team's website though. lNeverCry 21:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zwarte Piet.jpg

Hi INC,

Could you please undeleted the photograph you have deleted? It was already kept once by me since there was no copyright concern but the uploader ran into a little fight at another wiki and now he wants his stuff removed from commons resulting in dishonest behaviour.

A lot of DR's for this users own uploads have been closed as kept since there are contradicting stories and the uploader was instructed to contact the OTRS-team. Natuur12 (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done @Natuur12: Looks like a history split may be needed. I'll leave that fun task to you... lNeverCry 22:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done I redeleted the old file since that one seems to be deleted as a good faith courtesy. Natuur12 (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

User:Corey.liesener

Hello INeverCry, thank you for granting the speedy deletion requests of the images of the user's head (or somebody else's) superimposed on Conor McGregor's body which were used to vandalise en:Conor McGregor. The user also uploaded images presumably of themselves, where do they stand? Should they be deleted as well or are they fine to remain. I was unsure hence I didn't tag them, but given the user is a vandal can we trust the description, surely they serve no purpose. Here's the images in question: File:Brandon Peske.png & File:Brandon Lee Peske.jpg.jpg. — DUCKISJAMMMY (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done User CWV blocked, uploads nuked. lNeverCry 07:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. DUCKISJAMMMY (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Aleksey Pisemsky, by Ilya Repine close-up.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Taras Shevchenko in art, by Ivan Nikolaevich Kramskoi.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Portraits of Fyodor Dostoyevsky, by Vassili Perov.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Undo the delete of this given Categories page below.

Hello, You have deleated a page of Categories: Pratik Bavi reasoning it as Out of project scope: promotional content! This is unexpected because it not a kind of promotional content nor out of project. You must Undo that delete. Thank you. Bott Usawiki (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Political campaigning is out of scope on Commons per COM:ADVERT. The page you created wasn't even in the proper namespace. You would have to create Category:Pratik Bavi for images of the gentleman. Any biographical content should go on Wikipedia. lNeverCry 09:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aaron-presnall - Flickr - Knight Foundation.jpg

Could you revisit this close? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The scope question is iffy. I don't even see an article on WP about the Jefferson Institute itself. lNeverCry 22:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Er, sure; however that's an issue for en.wp. In en.wp terms rather than Commons, an established Foundation meets en:WP:NGO and is therefore eligible for an article, which would include its President, it is irrelevant whether an article exists right now. On Commons the barrier is much lower, as there is literally no "notability" requirement, so the determination of whether photographs of key board members in national NGOs (Foundations) should be hosted is very easy, they should as the photographs have clear educational and historical value. --Fæ (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I have no objection to restoring the image as long as Ellin Beltz and Taivo are OK with it. lNeverCry 22:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Decide as you want, I'm not going mad about that, but neither the institute nor its president are not mentioned in en.wiki, they are probably non-notable, so I suggest not to restore the photo. Taivo (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
After a second try, I looked for and found an en:wiki page on the foundation: John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and a Commons category Category:Knight Foundation where besides a whole series of these head-shots there are over 1000 photos from Knight Foundation Flickr stream, probably 500 uncategorized from bot uploads. The enwiki article has "multiple issues." I don't have an issue with restoring this or not, but someone could get busy in that category getting images categorized, it shouldn't be that hard if they're all "Knight foundation", would be a few thousand edits for the old edit count. For this one, yes, undelete. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Taivo: , Commons content is not determined by whether a Wikipedia article exists, nor by English Wikipedia guidelines. However should anyone wish to create an article on a Wikipedia, there are sufficient sources found by doing a simple google search. This selection would be sufficient to create articles about Presnall and the Foundation (it's a Foundation, not an institute):

  1. Religion, State, and Society: Jefferson's Wall of Separation in Comparative Perspective, 2008, ISBN 9780230617865.
  2. http://www.jeffersoninst.org/blogs/aaron-presnall - lots of cross-references to events.
  3. http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/06/knight-news-challenge-aaron-presnalls-data-viz-project-hopes-to-help-small-papers-picture-the-news/ - article by Ben Cohen, 2009.
  4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/20/AR2010082005127.html, 2010 Washington Post quote.

--Fæ (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion/

Yes, I understand wanting to protect against copyright infringement. Yes, I understand that volunteers check the release of right permissions as fast as they are able. Yes, I understand that deleted files can be quickly restored. I'm a bit less clear on why I had to release my rights twice for the same file(s), once through the Upload Wizard and again through an email. Moreover, the original PDF file clearly indicates that the material was released under a Creative Commons 4.0 BY-SA license; does an email from the free account that is attached to this user name really supersede the licensing notification in the original document? Given that the original is clearly marked with a CC 4.0 BY-SA license, couldn't this file be allowed to remain accessible while it works its way through the OTRS queue? Bearmo2 (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It was tagged as missing permission on 29 October, and still didn't have that permission in place as of my deletion more than a month later. I think waiting for the OTRS permission is the most reasonable thing to do here. It can't be long before it's processed considering the time that's already went by. As for an email from a free account like gmail, that doesn't usually get through at OTRS. I would think the creator of a professional/academic work like this could do better than a free email account. lNeverCry 23:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure, it can wait. However, just to clarify, it was eight days, not more than a month. As far as free emails are concerned, that's the one I used when I signed up for a Wikipedia account, six years ago. Sure, I still have access to my old university account, but I completed my MA program five years ago, and am no longer affiliated with the institution as a researcher, only an alumnus; in any case, the university uses gmail (admittedly with an edu suffix). Incidentally, as a professional, I have used a gmail account as my primary email contact for years, with no problems.
In all fairness, would it really make a difference if I purchased a domain name and paid for hosting just to have some @blahblahblah extension? Anyway, thanks for the response. I suppose I will resend it from my edu email, just to cover my bases. Bearmo2 (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
An edu suffix would make a big difference. lNeverCry 23:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, then I will definitely resend it from that address. Although, I'd be remiss if I didn't also point out that my entire workflow is through FLOSS tools (e.g., QGIS/GRASS/SAGA, LibreOffice, Zotero, GIMP, Inkscape, Scribus, etc.), so a high quality work product is available to all. Admittedly, my choice of profession (archaeologist) does entail high volume of written output, which provides me with practice in executing a professional looking deliverable, it could be just as admirably produced by a dedicated avocational researcher. Cheers. Bearmo2 (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello INeverCry, You are deleted my uploaded files, and I will glad that you tell me reasons and help me , that next time I will not do same mistakes, best regards (Lusfuz (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC))

Please review COM:CB, COM:NETCOPYVIO, and COM:DW. You have to be the copyright holder of any file you upload to Commons. This usually means that you took the photograph yourself, and you didn't photograph anything that's copyrighted by someone else, like a TV screen or a poster. lNeverCry 22:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

Images of October 26 not labeled QI despite promotion

Hi INC, I just wanted you to put your attention on the fact that several of the successful QI nominees (including four of mine) of 26 October are not acknowledged yet as QI. They also did not receive the notion "This is already a QI". Could you please clarify? Thanks for your time. Cheers, --AWeith (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict):Hi INC, I had a look, and it seems like many of the pics achived on Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 26 2016 did not get their QI status on the files' pages and the nominators did not get any notifications either. Bot failure? Guess this is admin-work. cart-Talk 12:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Tnx Christian, there might be other users out there who don't know how to fix this though. cart-Talk 12:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I've never uploaded a QI in my life, so I had nothing to miss out on. VICbot doesn't like my signature though, so I have to copy and paste the standard signature in my VI noms, but that's the closest I've come to having any real bot problems. I noticed that they were having trouble with the Flickr Review bot shutting down yesterday too. As for fixing problems with bots, the first person to see is the bot's operator. If he or she is out, you probably want to post at the VP. If you end up asking individual editors and admins, I'm not your guy, because if the buttons don't work, I don't work either. You can maybe go to Steinsplitter or Krd or Fae; somebody who just might have a clue what the problem is. lNeverCry 21:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing us in the right direction. You may not "the guy" for this, but you are the admin we know and trust, so we ask. :) Anyway, Christian and I added the QI templates manually to the files, hopefully the nominators will notice that at least. Cheers, cart-Talk 11:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Olympic mascots

Hey! Would is your take on this category? I think a lot of those files are not permissible. What do you think? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a complex question since different countries are involved, sculptures, people wearing mascot costumes (COM:COSPLAY?), etc. I would suggest two options: post a question at COM:VP/C and/or do small concentrated deletion requests for files you're reasonably sure will end up deleted. Or you could walk a completely different path (the one I walk, of course), which is to pick the low-hanging fruit: you could easily roam around in Category:All media needing categories as of 2016 or even 2015 for weeks and months picking off copyvios and out of scope files with no worries and few if any questions or wonderings. lNeverCry 03:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Naa, that's not how I know you. :-) I did my internship here in the no category dungeon. ^_^ As soon as I am bored I'll go ahead and sift through the category. C(_) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey you have to leave me some low-hanging fruit... I'm still harvesting from Category:All media needing categories as of 2016 and 2015!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
You guys ought to try out COM:VIC. I've put through almost 20 so far. lNeverCry 07:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
No, I am soooo sick of these Kindergarten pages. There needs to be an overhaul. A no-comment vote could do. Wrong, secret no comment vote. And you have to buy tokens to vote and to nominate. I bet we could buy another two servers / year. (_*_) <- love this one! ●°.°● --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey

아니 그러니깐 Administrator "Jcb"이 제대로 라이선스를 확인하지 않고 제게 경고한겁니다. 그러니 저 경고는 무효입니다.--고려 (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're on about. Please review COM:DW and follow what it says. Nobody can take a picture of a copyrighted screen or object and then release it under a free license. lNeverCry 04:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
그러니깐... Administrator "Jcb"께서 제대로 라이선스를 확인 하지 않고 경고한겁니다. 과거 토론에서 Administrator "Jcb"의 경고를 받았음에도 불구하고... 라고 말씀 하셨는데 저 경고는 Administrator "Jcb"의 잘못된 경고라는겁니다. 관리자 께서 저에게 사과 하셨으니 저 경고는 무효라는걸 말하고 싶은겁니다.--고려 (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, pictures of a woman posing by a car are fine. Just don't upload photos of video screens. lNeverCry 04:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
So, the warnings that " Jcb " are telling me are invalid. Did you understand?--고려 (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
No, the warnings aren't invalid because one image out of many was found to be OK. You've had numerous copyvios deleted by several administrators. Don't upload further copyright violations, or you'll be blocked. Be careful that your uploads follow the policy at COM:DW. Now stop with these repeated messages. They're wasting both our time. lNeverCry 04:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok... I was requested for translation help but I was just busy. (I'm sorry to flame the dead thread... :P) He wanted to say "Jcb's warning is due to his not acknowledging proper license, so his warning is improper". Anyway I told him to use English when talking with people unlikely to speak Korean. — regards, Revi 15:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:최순실 검찰 출석 현장영상 0.26 minutes Scene.jpg

Hello. I nominated a file for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:최순실 검찰 출석 현장영상 0.26 minutes Scene.jpg. I thought to notify you since you had reviewed it. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I'll see how that DR goes. I may even be the one to delete the file. I'm too busy to do much investigating myself, but I'm sure you and others will get things figured out. I can blacklist the Flickr account also if necessary. lNeverCry 21:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to say thanks for deleting all those speedy deletions I have been submitting. I'm trying to only do about 15 a day so I don't swamp the system but I still appreciate the help. Reguyla (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Your overriding of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Свод законов Российской империи том 11 часть 2 (1912).djvu

I had requested that file be kept so that a test case was available for phab:T86611. BJorsch (WMF) (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@BJorsch (WMF): could you please be less rude when communicating with users at this project? It can be quite intimidating for volunteers who spend much of their free time serving the project when they are addressed by a staffer in the way you do. Normally you start a post with "Dear user" (or something similar), than you make your request followed by a polite ending of your message. Let me give you an example of how to communicate properly:
"Dear INeverCry,
I noted that you deleted File:Свод законов Российской империи том 11 часть 2 (1912).djvu dispites the fact that it was previously kept via a DR. This file is still required as a test case for phab:T86611. Could you please restore the file for me? Regards,"
See, it isn't that hard. Natuur12 (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
A staffer who has a no-commons (Cite: "full of boneheaded politics (and boneheaded users!)" ) template on his personal userpage. Explains a lot - sigh. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps someone who wants to deride all regular Commons volunteers as "boneheaded" should avoid writing anything on Commons using their employee account. @BJorsch (WMF): , do you think your WMF colleagues who are trying very hard to work with volunteers would be happy to see you actively taking the piss out of the same committed volunteers you are supposed to be supporting? Please delete that stupid offensive userbox that you are responsible for creating, from the English Wikipedia project if you ever want to be taken seriously by us "boneheaded users", though as you used your sysop powers to restore it in 2012, no doubt you will firmly defend its unpleasantly divisive message just for the lolz.
If not, well expect to be on our confidential "arsehole list" of WMF employees to avoid at all costs. --Fæ (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done Restored. lNeverCry 21:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Bandera provincia de almeria - 2.png

You deleted this file. Please notice that

@Amitie 10g: The gif was deleted over two years ago, by someone else. But yes, in nearly all cases a redirect should be left when deleting a duplicate (as noted at COM:Duplicate). Reventtalk 23:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
We have an automated script that processes duplicates. It deletes the file and redirects it automatically to the duplicate. I don't know why this didn't happen in this case. Looks like a malfunction of the processing tool. lNeverCry 23:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I rather assumed that you must have deleted it 'manually' instead of with the tool, since it didn't leave a redirect. Reventtalk 23:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Szm again

Hi, see here this IP is an obvious IP sock of Szm020730. Blocked on enwiki (see also luxo:36.250.86.198, former IP address.) Can you please block this IP? Many thanks. --サンティ [talk] 00:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC).

✓ Done lNeverCry 00:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Jhonny jhonny sock

~viley (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . Indopug (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done lNeverCry 00:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

AutoCAD2014 logo.png‎‎

Hello, INeverCry. How do you do?

There is a slight problem with File:AutoCAD2014 logo.png‎‎: The first three revisions (red ruby with a red background) are non-free. I think they should be hidden.

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done lNeverCry 06:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. You're the best. :) Codename Lisa (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Dabiri (John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation).JPG

Hi Jeff, I don't understand why you deleted this file. The images are free licensed, in the page of the source "....a Creative Commons license: CC-BY. Credit: John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation" and this is confirmed in the licensing page of the web site, section "MacArthur Fellows Images and Video". Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I deleted it because the DR was started by a trusted user, and a comment was made by an admin, with no contestation of the actual DR. I deleted quite a few of these earlier. I often trust in the judgement of experienced editors when it comes to DR nominations without taking a very close look, but that doesn't always work out. lNeverCry 05:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Now that I look at it again, there was a big mass DR because of some licensing error by the MacArthur Fellows if I remember right. I think Fæ can explain this one better. lNeverCry 05:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scarpa con natura.jpg

Hi INeverCry. Regarding the above group nomination; you missed deleting the image in the header (File:Scarpa con natura.jpg). Thanks so much for all you do. Diannaa (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Done. It's good to hear from you. I hope you're doing good as we head into winter. I've always loved shovelling snow, so I hope we get some here in Reno. When I was a kid in the 70s and early 80s, we used to get several feet of snow each year, but for the past 10 years or so, that's really started to change. We hardly get any snow any more, and we have a lot of weirdly warm days in the winter months... lNeverCry 23:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
We have had unseasonably mild weather so far this fall, other than a fairly massive snow dump in October. People say the weather is beautiful, but no, it's global warming . Thankz for your help. Diannaa (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa: And here we go electing a president who denies climate change. But that's the democratic party's fault for running Hillary Clinton instead of Bernie Sanders, even though he polled higher against Trump. But soon enough it'll become too obvious a problem for even our republicans to ignore or deny it. I'm old enough (48) that I'll likely be dead before the really serious problems begin (massive coastal flooding, extinctions, etc), but it still saddens me to see humans destroying nature. This comes from our erroneous idea that we're somehow outside of nature and separate from it and so must conquer it. Many people don't realize the truth that we grew out of nature just like an oak tree or a rose bush. lNeverCry 00:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for undeletion

Hi, INeverCry. I see that you've deleted the locator map of the Municipality of Novo Mesto (File:Karte Novo mesto si.png). We have reached consensus that this map and others similar are not copyrightable; see here. The source of the image has been stated in the upload history: "Karte der Gemeinde Novo mesto in Slowenien. Hergestellt von Benutzer Plp der sl.wikipedia. {{GFDL}}" --Eleassar (t/p) 08:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done @Eleassar: Can you check to see if everything is as it should be? lNeverCry 08:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Everything ok, except that the file has already been removed from articles across Wikipedias. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@Eleassar: I've reverted the delinker for all the articles it was used in. lNeverCry 09:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, great. Thanks. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Gleb Uspensky, painted portrait by Nikolaï Yarochenko.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Nikolay Zlatovratsky, painted portrait, by Nikolai Karlovich Grandkovsky.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Request for undeletion

Hello. Could you please undelete this file, File:Схема экспериментальной установки.jpg. There is an email sent to OTRS, and I'd like to take a look at the file. Many thanks! ··· 👦 Rachmat04 · 💬 03:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done @Rachmat04: Let me know if you need it re-deleted. lNeverCry 03:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, the file I mention was deleted on Nov.4, however the creators of the file have sent their permission to OTRS over email on Nov 5-7, could you please look into restoring the file? Thanks a lot. Nina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neenoune (talk • contribs) 09:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

As soon as the permission email is processed and confirmed, OTRS will automatically restore the image. I'm not an OTRS member, so I have no access to the email. You can check on progress at COM:OTRS/N. It can take a week or more, as OTRS is very busy. lNeverCry 20:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Why did you delete most of the pictures from my article?

Nov. 10, 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco den Ouden (talk • contribs) 20:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

I have an article on file waiting for approval. It is about Gene Keyes, one of the first people in the Vietnam War era to burn his draft card and also a cartographer of note.

You deleted the files as noted on this page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Esperanto41

Esperanto41 is, in fact, Mr. Keyes himself. I had contacted him to get photos to use in the article. Some had been published before in Wired Magazine credited to him. And he had a number of additional ones as well. Since he was a Wikipedia contributor, he uploaded them to the commons. As the subject of all the photos uploaded, I figured he would be allowed to upload to the Commons granting permission.

So how come you deleted all those photos? Sort of messes up my article and I am not a happy camper.

I tried undeleting them but that did not work.

In any event, I noted the info line that said "Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status." and have contacted Mr. Keyes and ask him to re-upload the photos to meet those requirements.

Best regards

Marco den Ouden (that's my real name) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco den Ouden (talk • contribs) 20:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

If you can get sufficient info together to get these restored, than that would be good. I have no objections. lNeverCry 21:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard

just noted you removed this cat from some of my images. Not that I would mind - I just wonder why you remove a category which was placed there by the upload script. --Pentachlorphenol (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It's been decided to phase this category out and then delete it. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard. I just remove a few here and there to help out a bit. There's only 9 million files to go. lNeverCry 21:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletionof File:Florence Li Tim-Oi.jpg

Hi there. You deleted File:Florence Li Tim-Oi.jpg stating that it had no permissions but I had put the appropriate template on it stating that permissions were requested and I sent the permissions details by email to Wikimedia commons, with the ticket # 2016110210028354. Can you clarify as to why this was deleted? Caorongjin (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

My deletion was done because the 1 week period allowed by the no permission tag was up. If OTRS permission has been received, the file will automatically be restored if everything checks out. lNeverCry 21:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Wolverine

What do you think of File:The Wolverine Trailer Exclusive (2013).webm? The source still has the license as listed, but it appears to be a promotional YouTube account (now promoting "Logan" instead of "The Wolverine" film). Since there are duplicate versions of the video across YouTube on more prominent channels (directly from the producers rather than side promotional accounts), I'd now be inclined to think that the promo account had an error in licensing if the producer YouTube accounts don't use the same license for the same uploads... Thoughts? czar 16:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: My advice would be to follow COM:PRP. If, in your best judgement, you're not reasonably sure that the video is freely licensed, then I would recommend you talk it over with the uploader, and either arrange to delete it yourself speedily or file a deletion request stating that you're no longer confident that your review was correct. lNeverCry 23:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Ya, was just looking for your second opinion czar 23:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: You can also count this as an agreement from the keeping admin in the DR that that keep can be overridden with no objections from me. lNeverCry 00:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Change of Montravia's block

Hi INC (also pinging @Ellin Beltz: )... I hope you are well. I restored talk page and email access for Montravia since they cannot otherwise repudiate their threats. I also declined Mbch331's unblock request since it was conditional and in any case didn't come directly from the user. I hope I have not tread too far by not consulting you first on the restoration of talk page and email access. Obviously, if you are emailed without a full repudiation, please either restore the block yourself or ping me to. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I've proactively re-disabled email (but kept talk page access) after re-reading Ellin's report. I'm off to sleep now. Storkk (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: This user sent intimidating emails that threatened Ellin and I with legal action. These emails were also very hostile and insulting. I oppose any unblock. I've never heard of someone making multiple clear legal threats getting a quick unblock. lNeverCry 01:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and the unblock request has been declined. Since they have not (yet) abused talk page access, I think they must be allowed some means to fully and unconditionally repudiate their legal threats. I have not said (and did not mean to imply) that taking the legal threats off the table would be wholly sufficient for an unblock, merely that it was required. I will not unilaterally unblock without assent on your and Ellin's part. Storkk (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I would oppose any unblock of that user due to the emails (more than one) which I received. Also I have added the rest of their band-spam to the Commons:Deletion requests/File:SamsomProductions01.jpg started by Hedwig in Washington. If you read this person's website, their first CD was put out on 7 October 2016. The self-promotional bandspam started here after that, obviously a promotional effort as the CD itself was copied along with three smaller than Facebook images, with no metadata, which somehow passed COM:OTRS despite the uploader being the subject of one of these images and all claimed as own work. I still don't see how that is possible - but OTRS or no OTRS, this is pure promotionalism at work. I appreciate your understanding of how rattled this got me, I sent copies of the emails to WMF legal. The letter included pokes about where the writer thinks I live (which means internet research was done on my name) and also open and veiled threats of legal action against me for doing nothing more than what I do as a volunteer here all the time. Thanking you both for your understanding. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Complete BS. Begins to annoy. Left comment, got coffee. C(_) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I haven't read the emails he/she send you but this user merely panicked and feels as harassed as you do. Also, please realise that this users was struggling with his/her English and didn’t understand what was going on. I am not stating that this user should be unblocked but the situation should have been handled differently. Please try to see the situation from the “offenders” perspective. Natuur12 (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Natuur12 I haven't read the emails he/she send you but this user merely panicked and feels as harassed as you do. is a statement which you need to retract to retain credibility with me.
Until you actually receive and read these emails, I respectfully ask you to stay out of the discussion. You have no idea what was said, how it was said, what was threatened or how. I do not like having my real life stalked - I don't think you would either. I do not see "panic" or "harassment" in their letter or in my response. You are making unsubstantiated allegations without any documentation. As has been stated before by others, "harassment" is a very tricky legal word and in some areas a legally actionable word. I expect you will utterly retract that statement which is unfair, incorrect and stressful. I am very upset that you said that, from your former behavior I would never have expected this from you.
As a non-recipient of the original correspondence, I do not think you have anything to say about how this was or was not handled, or whether that was "correct" or not in your opinion. For your information, I did not do the block. I took no action at all, other than forward the letters (note: more than one letter) sent to my email to WMF legal - which is what we are required to do. I feel I have done what I'm supposed to do in a reasonable and polite manner. I await your retraction. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Ellin,
please calm down.
I based my statement on ticket: 2016111110012881 which contains a lot of reactions from Montravia who was asking for help regarding the current situation. This user was trying to resolve the situation in a decent manner via the OTRS-venue. I also read the Dutch text on Montravia’s talk page. He states that he was merely seeking for legal advice because he was accused of uploading copyright violations and that he didn’t make any legal threats. Violating someone’s copyright is a criminal offence in the Netherlands.
Harassment is a tricky legal term but I described how this user feels based on the OTRS-ticket I read. That's all I did. Speaking of tricky legal terms. Stalking is another legal term and accusing someone of stalking is something that shouldn’t be done over inappropriate emails and some back ground checking since sending them and doing so just isn’t stalking. It is uncalled for nonetheless and certainly blockable. And yes, I do know how frustrating it can be when someone sends nasty emails or tries to find out your real life identity.
I should have clarified what I meant when I stated that the situation should have handled differently. One of the users involved should have asked someone who speaks Dutch to assist this user. That could have prevented a lot of troublesome behaviour and perhaps we would have had a different ending. I know that it is possible to reason with this user.
I might miss some substantial pieces of the puzzle but I am not the only one. Natuur12 (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Natuur12. You are missing a lot here. You have incomplete information. You have not read the threatening emails I received, nor the ones sent to INC (which I have also not seen). You are basing your complaints about me on some correspondence which I cannot see. Star chamber much? That is very unreasonable.
No one knew she didn't speak English until well after the perfectly written in English threatening letters had been received. There was no reason to go for a non-English speaking administrator - until after she claimed on her talk page that she didn't speak English - no one could have known that. I am not - and have never claimed to be psychic.
I am not sharing all details from the letters and other things which have happened you also know nothing about "stalking" or lack thereof in this context. I would appreciate it if you would stop making unfounded accusations on this.
You have not proven that I am not calm, therefore there is no reason to (a) calm down or (b) obey your orders.
You are missing another huge piece of information which seems very odd. You are dealing with a woman who submitted the pictures, you keep saying "he" and "him" but the person who wrote me the letters identified as female, and named herself as the female singer in that self-created and self-published "musical group" depicted in the images.
Perhaps you need to read more carefully before making "you should do this" and "you should not do that" comments. I do not feel that the situation "should" have been handled any way other than it was handled. "Should" is a judgement, you are not higher than me to make any judgements. I have never told you what I think you should do. I do not have access to the ticket you reference, I am not part of OTRS team. I am not uncalm, merely flabbergasted that you - of all people - would fall for this game. I await your retraction of the unnecessary statement of "harassment" as I have not harassed anyone. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to quote INC, see above: This user sent intimidating emails that threatened Ellin and I with legal action. These emails were also very hostile and insulting. I oppose any unblock. I've never heard of someone making multiple clear legal threats getting a quick unblock That's good enough for me, I don't need to read the emails and I don;t want to. This is not a case of misunderstanding or something lost in translation, but unacceptable behavior of someone not getting his spam established on Commons. I think that two reports from two established admins is enough to establish harassment. The contents of any OTRS conversation have nothing to do with threatening emails sent. I totally understand that our two admins are not inclined to be nice about it. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ellin: Wait, what? I am not complaining about you other than my comment about you using the word stalking. I merely made a statement about the entire situation and the only reason why I did is because of Hedwig’s comment which is pretty rude one. Secondly, I am not giving you orders. I made a request and gave my opinion. Thirdly, the Star chamber comment applies to your accusations as well.
Regarding stalking. I am not 100% sure about US law but under Dutch law this simply cannot be stalking since those emails are an incident and are not structural/systematically. This user her (force of habit made me write him) identity is known so please avoid such accusations. And no it doesn’t matter if she sends 1 or 20 letters in one or two days.
And finally, I never accused you of harassing anyone. I stated that this person feels harassed. Those two statements differ greatly Ever encountered a bully who genuinely felt he was the victim for example? It’s a fact that the bully feels bullied but that doesn’t mean that he is actually bullied.
@Hedwig: I don’t expect admins to act nice about it but I do expect our admins to act professional instead of pushing someone who cannot defend herself in a corner as you did at her talk page or making the kind of comment as you did at 23:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC). Subsequently I expect our admins to be able to look at a situation from the offenders point of view so they can decide if a claim for mitigating circumstances is credible. Natuur12 (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Natuur12: This individual was very clear in her threats to me and Ellin and she even had the clearness of mind to make fun of my username and try searching where Ellin physically lives. She also claims that she contacted a lawyer, which sounds very coordinated and planned out to me. She's manipulative, and it sounds like maybe she's suckered you in a bit. Otherwise why would you be attacking fellow admins, and especially Ellin, who you used to defend? If this is the kind of thing you're going to come with, take it to COM:AN/B and try to get Montravia unblocked. In any event, you're no longer welcome here at my talk. lNeverCry 23:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of images

Hi there. You deleted two photographs of Dr MacLaren that I took myself!!! Can you please explain why there was a copyright violation? I have uploaded them again. I hope this is OK but please advise if more information is needed.

Thanks

Merton2016 (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Re-uploading them is not ok. The 1st one was deleted as a copyvio per: {{copyvio|http://curechm.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Robert-E-MacLaren.jpg from http://curechm.org/gene-therapy-trial-results-released/}}. The 2nd one was deleted per: {{copyvio|https://www.ndcn.ox.ac.uk/team/robert-maclaren}} . Since these have been previously published on the web at different sites, you should send a permission email to OTRS to establish authorship and license. Please don't upload them again on your own. lNeverCry 23:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

File:UZTS-sov.png

Не могли бы вы объяснить почему вы удалили мое изображение. Olegivvit (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

OTRS/ru - УЗТС (Ульяновск). lNeverCry 20:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

А нельзя поподробнее. Какие конкретно претензии к моему изображению?Olegivvit (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the logo of UZTS (Ulyanovsk). It's a complex logo owned by the team. We need a representative of UZTS (Ulyanovsk) to email permission for the logo to OTRS. lNeverCry 09:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Why do you think it is owned by the team? What team? Existing UZTS factory has a different logo.Olegivvit (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't look closely, but in English the title resembles that of an association football team. Regardless of whether it's a team or a factory, there's a copyright holder. The company that owns the factory most likely also owns the copyright of the logo. As it stands, the copyright holder of the logo must give permission through OTRS. lNeverCry 23:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I think you should look closely when you delete somebody's work. Should you prove that there is a copyright holder to delete my image or I should prove that there is no copyright holder to keep my image? Olegivvit (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
See COM:EVID. lNeverCry 09:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

UnDR of File:Alex at Launch.jpg

Did you mean to delete this after closing the UnDR as "not done"? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done lNeverCry 23:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for promoting me

Thank you for promoting me to an autopatroller. I do not intend to abuse the privilege. RobDuch (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:INeverCry/Archive_25&oldid=303805517"