User talk:Josve05a/Archive 5

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sara Mörtsell 2015-05-07.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments weak ok, but ok. --Hubertl 05:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Torre Telecom Napoli

hello, this pics File:Torre Telecom Napoli.JPG is not mine, i have alert the author. tank you --Pava (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pava: Thanks! :) Josve05a (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your request

Report at Commons:Database reports/Getty Images. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consulta

Consulta
Hola amigo, quisiera saber cuál es el problema con la imágen que publiqué.

Es una imágen que renderizé yo. allí ya no hay fondos de terceras personas como en el anterior. Disculpas por usar este medio, es que no encontré otra. Espero su respuesta. Daniel_piscis92@hotmail.com Daniel Vásquez Vásquez (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daily gallery updater has failed on User:Josve05a/Packaging

Hello. This message is to inform you that a daily gallery in your userspace, User:Josve05a/Packaging, has failed. Due to software limitations, the bot has a hard upper-limit of 2000 files per gallery, while your gallery had 18375 images.

This usually happens because a gallery is too broad, encompassing too many subcategories. Please review the logs here and request that a subcategory be excluded, or narrow your category choice(s).

Please make your request for removal within 4 days, or your gallery will be subject to removal.

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (via OgreBot (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Daily gallery updater has failed on User:Josve05a/Packaging

Hello. This message is to inform you that a daily gallery in your userspace, User:Josve05a/Packaging, has failed. Due to software limitations, the bot has a hard upper-limit of 2000 files per gallery, while your gallery had 18926 images.

This usually happens because a gallery is too broad, encompassing too many subcategories. Please review the logs here and request that a subcategory be excluded, or narrow your category choice(s).

Please make your request for removal within 4 days, or your gallery will be subject to removal.

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (via OgreBot (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files uploaded by Josve05a (delete)

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Josve05a (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:50mm bear shoot (8981850367).jpg

File:50mm bear shoot (8981850367).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:50mm bear shoot (8981850367).jpg Natuur12 (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:A little smudge of focus (8545521304).jpg

File:A little smudge of focus (8545521304).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:A little smudge of focus (8545521304).jpg Natuur12 (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:"Golden" Malaysian Flag made up of 20 cents coins (15059571464).jpg

File:"Golden" Malaysian Flag made up of 20 cents coins (15059571464).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Golden" Malaysian Flag made up of 20 cents coins (15059571464).jpg Natuur12 (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:
Aechmea woronowii inflorescence.
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:
Pterodiscus elliottii.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files uploaded by Josve05a (delete)

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Josve05a (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your question

You asked me a question. It took me a littke while to answer it in the bast way possible but you can now read my thoughts on the subject on my talk page. Please feel free to ask any further questions. I'm not here on a daily basis (so you were lucky, today). If you don't see contributions of me on Commons on a day you try to reach me, best leave me a short note on my Dutch talk page. It won't take long for me to find it. It's OK to address me in Dutch, English, French or German. I'll prefer to respond is Dutch or English. Cheers, Wikiklaas (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for all your hard work. If there ever again is a tricky question which I fail to solve, I willl contact you :) Josve05a (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

Hmmm.... friend, are you sure you can have a dedicated Creator template? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 07:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason why not. Josve05a (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files uploaded by Josve05a (delete)

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Josve05a (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Owls are not What They Seem (12130594676).jpg

Per en:WP:MULTI this discussion is closed and will continue on the discussion where this is relevant. Please do not branch off discussion on multiple talk pages. A simple ping is sufficient. Thank you Josve05a (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider withdrawing Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Owls are not What They Seem (12130594676).jpg - the image is on Flickr with an acceptable license, and there is no reason to think the license is there in error. Davidwr (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files uploaded by Josve05a (delete)

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Josve05a (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category Undescribed species

Hello Josve05a, the Category:Undescribed species is only for species that are so new to science, that they have not yet been scientifically described, and have not yet a valid name. You added a lot of subcategories here, that are all known species. Please remove all those species, where just the taxonavigation section is missing.
If you like to add taxonavigation and links to those categories, you can download the java program WikipediaBioReferences. The Interwikis are on wikidata. Cheers --Thiotrix (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry. I just though, since it had been used this way in the past by other editors, that categories with out taxonavigation-templates should be placed in that category to be "described by us". Josve05a (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Thiotrix: Going through the list now. But I can't make the program you linked to create {{Taxonavigation}}... Josve05a (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To run WikipediaBioReferences, you need to have Java Runtime Environment installed on your computer (it can be downloaded from the web). If you have any problems, the programmer, User:Liné1, will surely help you. --Thiotrix (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I will help you. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello my(our) new friend,
On WBR:
  • click Options
    • click 'Select All Commons' (that will restrict the list of websites to those managed by wikicommons through templates.
    • in the list, activate 'TPDB' (I don't activate TPDB for extant taxon (TPDB is not a good site for those), but I activate it for extinct taxon)
It would be really helpful, if you could help us clean Category:Undescribed species.
I just begun with Category:Adolfiidae‎ that is known only by TPDB ;-)
I think, I will work on Category:Undescribed species, starting from the end (so that you can start from the beginning ;-))
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...and I will help from the middle. Cheers --Thiotrix (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Thiotrix and Liné1: What do you all think of a new maintenance category (which could be added automaticly using {{VN}} or similar) for Category:Biology pages without Taxonavigation? Josve05a (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It could be done. But I doubt that there are a lot of categories having a {{VN}} without {{Taxonavigation}}. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but {{VN}} still adds Category:Biology pages without wikidata link, while {{Taxonavigation}} does not. All these categories could be added to all these templates somehow I think. Josve05a (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Thiotrix and Liné1: I've started to manually populate Category:Biology pages without Taxonavigation whenever I encounter such a category and do not have access to my Windows-computer and/or can fix it myself. Josve05a (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had a lot of work for emptying the undescribed species-category. So I guess, the "Biology pages without Taxonavigation-category" would be very frustrating for the commons-workers: maybe most of insect-categories are still missing a taxonavigation, and "attractive" groups like Coleoptera and Lepidoptera have still their own taxonavigation templates. I propose to restrict the "Biology pages without Taxonavigation-category" just for upper taxon ranks. --Thiotrix (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have to know: if you add {{Taxonavigation}} + {{Genera}} to a genus category, then my bot will automatically create a Taxonavigation to all the species category and articles. Like this. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... and if you add taxonavigation which is not completely given by WikipediaBioReferences, you will have to copy the upper part from the upper category. Before doing this, please check from the listed database links, if the taxon is placed in the right category.--Thiotrix (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Pasque Flower (Pulsatilla vulgaris) (17022184800).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pasque Flower (Pulsatilla vulgaris) (17022184800).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on behalf of a banned user

Hi, Do not edit on behalf of a banned user. That is again the "Terms of user". Regards, Yann (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse me of sockpuppeting. THat's against the ToU (AGF). Reards, Josve05a (talk)
Let me reiterate my last statement. I, as an independent editor was talk page stalking Jcb's talkpage and read User talk:Jcb#Your closures of DRs started by Russavia. I acted on my own volition, and reopened the DRs. Yes, I could have rewritten it, I could have used the same text but within {{Quote}} and written (CC-BY-SA 3.0) if I wanted to use the same verbatim. But the fact remains, since I reopened it I took responsibility for that DRs wording. The mere accusation (and act on that accusation, despite being a teeny-tiny bit involved) is not in my book to assume good faith. I refuted the mere accusation of being a sockmeatpuppet, and as soon as I did one more edit, I was blocked. Josve05a (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked

{{Autotranslate|1=|2=|base=Blocked user}} Yann (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just in case I wasn't clear enough: I blocked you for editing on behalf of a banned user, and that is against the Terms of use. I will unblock you if you agree not to do that again. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification. (Despite me refuting this accusation in the section above.) Could I please ask under which section of the ToU you blocked me. (That's like saying "I blocked you under the blocking policy". Not very specific.) Thanks. Josve05a (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See James' message [1]. I hope this is clear enough for you, and that you won't do it again. I believe you are a responsible user, so I am unblocking you. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So to clarify (mostly for my own sanity), I was blocked for violating the ToU (retro-active policy decision, meaning it wasn't in the ToU when the block occured), but not enough to stay blocked, or be blocked by the WMF-Office. So, it wasn't a preventative block, but a block served merly to punish the user (me)? Am I understanding this correctly? Josve05a (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Editing on behalf of banned users is so obviously wrong that is is only wrt Russavia (where all common sense seems to leave and fly away) do we see people wikilawering to excuse their behaviour. It is sad that a few users in this community needed WMF to "clarify" this point. I am disappointed you are twisting things to claim this is a retro-active policy. There are lots of bleedin' obvious things we don't spell out in policy or ToU pages. I am surprised the block was lifted prior to any assurance that there would be no repeat. -- Colin (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've personally had correspondences witht he WMF and they do not belive this was a bad-faith violation on my part. The matter is resolved, the DRs havs been recreated (in parts) noticeboards closed, but please, do continue to kick a dead horse. Josve05a (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin - so if there is an obvious copyvio, Russavia socks to inform the Commons community of it, we then can't act to remedy the copyvio?
WMF have not said "Don't support Russavia". They certainly haven't said to some obvious admins and a bureaucrat, "Don't you support Russavia either". What they've now said is that "Don't enforce copyright cleanup if that is in parallel with Russavia, and it's a blocking offence if you do"! This is a policy put forward by the WMF's "community advocacy" spokesman, which just shows what little regard the WMF have for the divided community here.
Yann, in an act of remarkable hypocrisy, is now working on one of Russavia's DR's to edit images and remove their context, even though the DR is still open and there's little agreement that this is even the appropriate response to the issue. Why is it OK for Yann to go along with Russavia if they feel like it, but they'll block the minions and munchkins if they happen to do the same? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both of your replies are so removed from reality that I'm not going to argue the case, since you don't appears to be making good-faith attempt. The "copyright" issue is just a game you are playing and doesn't justify Russavia editing nor any user adding/restoring Russavia's edits. You both know there are other ways for Russavia to communicate, and the only dead horse being kicked is the idea that any edits by Russavia are beneficial or necessary. -- Colin (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, as precisely stated, care much for users or wiki-politices. I want the website Commons to good. I want the content on it to be good. If it just happened that a banned user draws attention to a file, or files, those should not be ignored. Idid not feel like paraphrasing, since i wasn't directly involved with the investigation, therefore I found it pertinent to keep the content as it was. Wasn't about "Russavia-bullshit here, or wiki-gaming there", it was about the issue at hand. If I at the same time violated a global policy I apologize, and I believe from my correspondence, that WMF doens't either believe I was acting in bad faith. If you guys want to continue this discussion regarding the block etc. please reopen the AN/UP-discussion instead. Josve05a (talk) 10:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You asked about your block being based on a "retro-active policy decision, meaning it wasn't in the ToU when the block occured". It wasn't a retro-active policy decision. Read the WMF text. They did not decide to create a new policy or ToU clause. They just clarified what is obvious too all except the Russavia deniers. The text: "editing on behalf of a banned user is, in itself, disruptive and against the Terms of Use" does not say "is now considered...". -- Colin (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not all that they said. We have previously had general principles that banned editors should be denied and that copyright should be respected. There has not previously been any conflict between these that I am aware of.
Now though, the WMF's comment is much stronger. It includes terms like, " these edits would fall under that." and " not separate enough to get away from the assistance issue." (implying that in this case, deny takes priority over copyright) It also notes " users are rarely 'required' to enforce a piece of the ToU " as a contrast to the current situation, implying that in the case of Russavia, editors are now required to enforce this, over and above considering the copyright issue. " the WMF will act to support admins who reasonably attempt to enforce the TOU and asks that the community does, too" is a very clear threat that blocks are to be used to enforce this.
This was a really bad block. There is space for legitimate disagreement between Yann and Jonathan over how to reconcile the twin problems of Russavia and copyright. After all, there is huge disagreement with the admins and others who actively support Russavia, yet remain unchallenged because one does not question the hierarchy. It is absolutely unhelpful to start imposing blocks on this basis, against GF editors who are simply trying to act in the best interests of Commons re copyright.
This is compounded by the fact that Russavia will not be going away, nor are his DRs consistently simply closed (even after this, see Special:Contributions/106.68.109.97 and the closures by Taivo today). The WMF's announcement here puts genuine editors into an untenable position. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you need to separate the idea that copyright issues can be discussed and whether Russavia should be allowed to edit (or his edits retained/restored). Unlike the WMF, it would appear, I'm not naive enough to think either of you are conflating the issue out of naivety but rather that you simply want to be POINTy about Russavia. Josve05a's only actions on those DRs were to edit-war over Russavia's edits, and revert admins without discussion, and not to actually engage in a discussion of copyright. It is worth noting that the images in doubt were uploaded by... Russavia. We need all of this like a hole in the head. Genuine editors do not engage in pointy edit wars with admins over the edits of a banned user. This much is so completely obvious, that I am puzzled why either of you waste time arguing otherwise. Russavia will indeed go away, once the small remaining handful of editors playing games here decide to grow up somewhat. -- Colin (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We now have a WMF threat of blocking hanging over us if we act to protect copyright in any way that a drive-by Yann sees as "supporting Russavia". We should not have to work under such conditions.
There is no mass support to deny Russavia. When I tried this, tagging one batch of his DRs as "Close per DENY" I was warned for "harassment". I want Russavia gone too, but I'm not prepared to ignore copyright problems (even when exposed by Russavia) to do so. We're turning more and more into a cabal-governed set of cliques, where the rightness of an action depends on whose friend did it, not whether it's constructive to Commons or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If a banned/blocked user can edit here, what is the meaning of "banned/blocked"? No; they can't whatever is the reason. Of-course they can communicate off-wiki through mail (eg: Special:EmailUser/Andy_Dingley) if someone is willing to hear them. Anything else like trying to report copyvios here using socks or IPs are COM:POINTy and need to be ignored per en:WP:RBI as Yann and Jcb did. They have my full support. Jee 15:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. Let's all DENY Russavia. Now what happens if another editor (as Jonathan did) takes the, "He may be banned, but he has raised an issue we still have to deal with" standpoint. That is an eminently GF action for the finest of motives; previously there has never been any prioritisation made between principles either. Yet now we're told by the WMF "community advocate" that it's a blockable offence. That is completely wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "He may be banned..." standpoint you claim, which is being generous imo, still shows a remarkable lack of wisdom when choosing to edit war with two admins. But then, we are talking about an user who thought that putting an image on his talk page would save it from deletion. So unwise and futile POINTy actions seem to be normal. Please don't bullshit me with "eminently GF action for the finest of motives". Both of you are playing games. And both of you know there are other ways Russavia can deal with copyright concerns than directly editing Commons. You should also both be aware that ultimately copyright is a matter between the rights owner and the uploader, and anything other Commons users or WMF may do is voluntary and not under any obligation (such as permitting banned users to edit, or editing on their behalf). I'm done with your games. -- Colin (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, please stop harassing this talk page with your offtopic lectures. --Nemo 06:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is experiencing a very longtime continued attempts to make disruptions through IRC. Same names, even after years. Josve05a may new and seems falling in the same trap. So Colin's advice seems worthy and useful. Elders' words are like amla - initially bitter in taste, but later on sweet. Josve05a is free to take it or ignore. Jee 07:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COM:AN/UP

FYI: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Yann and excessive zeal in DENYing Russavia Andy Dingley (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brevbärare.jpg

File:Brevbärare.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brevbärare.jpg Threecharlie (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ringklocka.jpg

File:Ringklocka.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ringklocka.jpg Threecharlie (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Asian Brown Flycatcher (Muscicapa dauurica) (15489798050).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Asian Brown Flycatcher (Muscicapa dauurica) (15489798050).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:
Cypholoba alveolata, dorsal.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Talk about deletions

Please come in my talk page. You'd better respond, I didn't like the last time I contacted you and you didn't respond. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just becuase you wrote "You'd better respond", I will not come to your talk page an endulge Threecharlie witch a hours long conversation what can be copyrighted and what can not. And what is specified in the Italian legisative law and caselaw. If he'd like meto do so, hecan come and ask me himself. I do not appreciate you (and admin) coming to my talk page with such aggression. THis si supposed to be a drama-free zone, and free from pointless agression. Josve05a (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And that is a lie. The last message you left, I answered within 5 hours. User talk:Josve05a/Archive 5#Creator. Josve05a (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I was not insulting you. I have visited Sweden countless times, my brother has lived there for 38 years, my sis-in-law is Swedish, my two nephews are Swedish too. I wrote that usually Swedes are kind and polite so I didn't want to get hard with you because I suppose that if I explain things calmly I manage to get understood by you. It's not a good policy to open RfDs on Italian subjects when you do not even know who the author is. No-FoP is not an umbrella for dumping every thing built in the 20th century in Italy. As well as I don't open RfDs on subjects regarding other countries because I don't know their laws in all their nuances. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I may have caused us to get off on the wrong foot. WhileI can see your merits of not RfD stuff with unknown authors, however the Commons policies such as PRP and DW trumps that. Instead of having the RfD-nominate having to prove who the author is to get it deleted, it is up to the uploader to prove that it is ok. (Uploader should present evidence that it is ok, if not we should alway assume it is not, hence if no author is give, we should assume it is not ok). That is at least how I've interpret the global policies on Commons (COM:PRP, COM:DW). Josve05a (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear friend, the file must be in scope and usable. A blurred photograph of a postman is not an usable photograph (unless you want to use it for illustrating some technique of voluntary blurring, which is not the case). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW of RfD: for the Italian law a subject is in PD even if its author is unknown (not Anonymous) and more than 70 years have passed since publishing / building.
@Blackcat: It is in scope, since it is in use. No matterthe images terrible quaity. As an admin you should know these policies. Josve05a (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aroa discalis (Banded Vapourer) in VI

File source is not properly indicated: File:-method.JPG

File:-method.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:
Chalcolepidius virginalis, dorsal.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

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:
Heliocopris andersoni, female.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Borttagande av bilder

Hej!

Fick ett mejl om att du ville ta bort nåra bilder som jag laddat upp, men lyckades inte begripa vad problemet bestod i.

Har varit med om detta nån gång förut, och fick då en bra förklaring av vem-det-nu-var. Det var nåt med copyright, och jag gissar att det är det nu också.

Det är absolut inte viktigt för min del, men det är klart att man blir nyfiken på orsaken. Även om vissa copyrightlagar är knasiga, så uppskattar jag verkligen att Wiki-folk anstränger sig för att hålla det hela på rätt sida lagen (och nej, jag är inte ironisk, utan menar det verkligen).

Jag brukar ibland ladda upp lite semesterbilder med tanken att det åtminstone är ett litet sätt att återgälda vad (andra) wikipedianer gjort för mig och att därmed bidra en gnutta till mänsklighetens fromma. Som sagt, no big deal, men om du har ork och lust får du gärna langa iväg en rad som förklaring (kanske lär jag mig rentav nåt på kuppen).

Hälsningar

Mikael Parkvall

Hej Mikael Parkvall!
Förlåt att jag inte svarat tidigare. Problemet med bilden jag tog upp var att det är ett foto av andras upphovsrättsskyddade konstverk på affischerna som syntes och var huvudfokuset för bilden. För att läsa mer om "bearbetningar av andras verk", se COM:Derivative work.
Allt gott, Jonatan. Josve05a (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3wl7zNEQdp6z9Vb

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files uploaded by Josve05a (delete)

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Josve05a (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC28276, Monterey Bay Aquarium, California, USA (5381165659).jpg

File:DSC28276, Monterey Bay Aquarium, California, USA (5381165659).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:DSC28276, Monterey Bay Aquarium, California, USA (5381165659).jpg Ies (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rhododendron lindleyi poss R. megacalyx (7006374284).jpg

It is definitly not Rhododendron megacalyx, which has pedicels and calyx whitish pruinose. Another possibility is Rhododendron taggianum, but this species has leaf petioles that is not grooved (grooved in the photo). I am quite confident this is Rhododendron lindleyi and change the file name accordingly. Uleli (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Josve05a (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


File:Mirpur stadium.jpg

File:Mirpur stadium.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 file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. 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 ∙ +/−

Gunnex (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euphydryas chalcedona anicia

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Josve05a (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Changi Airport will welcome the worlds first Star Wars themed plane by ANA on 12 November 2015.jpg

File:Changi Airport will welcome the worlds first Star Wars themed plane by ANA on 12 November 2015.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Changi Airport will welcome the worlds first Star Wars themed plane by ANA on 12 November 2015.jpg Helmy oved 08:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Peacock/Hans Olav Nyborg - Norwegian images

Hey mate, you might want to organise for speedy deletion of the following images:

David Peacock

Hans Olan Nyborg

Whilst most of Norwegian's images should be ok I've been in contact with both photographers in the past and they said no. At least by deleting them, it will prevent them being re-uploaded in future. Ly722 (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:Josve05a/Norwegian

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Josve05a (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...?

look this Every time and time I have to clean his mess, and you gave more power, and attested his work? Look here: Category:Files uploaded by The Photographer from Flickr, I bet my eyes that you will find tons of copyright violations and out of the scope images, you totally ignored those facts and act all by yourself. So sad... -- RTA 20:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And try to use one of those, barely none have the rights categories, right description, right name...
Have a look at these instead User_talk:Josve05a/Archive_1. Doesn't mean he doesn't understand copyright and licensing enough. He will not review his onwn images, and he has appropriate knowledge. I conferred with other users on IRC first. You were the only one contesting this (publicly at least). If you find a license review he has done in error, then please report back. Josve05a (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"normally do copyvio ignoring CC-by license including his name as the author [1]" I gave one example, but this is very present in his editions, did took this into consideration? Read here: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Horse anatomy.svg, you will see how far he knows about license. If you want more samples that you was wrong approving, I can show you more of his talk about license... or more of his actions (LOL) -- RTA 21:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Hamad bin Hamdan Al Nahyan- your email to us

We are very new to this and have no idea why you want a deletion ! I have tried to post a rejection to the demand for the photos deletion - I don't know if It has been successful. ? Can you enlighten us, as we believe there may have been malicious attempt to damage the information recently by "alleged" advisors who have now been blocked by Wikipedia. Following is what we said : The photo is factual. It was placed with the consent of the party. Statute of limitations prevail. A disgruntled Wikipedia Blocked user maybe attempting to damage the image. The same blocked user is now using another IP address only. The so called representative (complainant) has not been identified legally. The Sheikh is a person of international interest and fame.The copyright is clearly held by us and with the consent of the page subject. Unless proven by a Court of competent jurisdiction , we object to its deletion. Shoujaa. Regards

Shoujaa (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove/revert a review done by another reviewer or admin

Please don't do this. You can initiate discussions, if you disagree; but no reverts. Jee 10:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really think it's time to stop relisting these images for deletion. Consensus is against you. You can of course continue with discussion on this topic on the administrator's noticeboard, but that should be regarding the PD images as a group. If there is consensus for deletion there, then deletion requests will be worth considering. There is no point in starting deletion requests, having them closed with near unanimous consensus, and reopening them again the next day. Blythwood (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015 Morón Air Base Open House (27).jpg

Dear Josve05a,

I think it is reasonable to assume that images from the Ramstein air force base are by US military personnel and that this is a US military controlled account. That is what I felt and that is what Revent must have believed when he uploaded images from this flickr account. Many of them are now here of course. Please contact Revent if you have any questions. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as he comes online, I'll ask him to tag them as such. Thanks. Josve05a (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Purwin.jpg

Dear Josve05a,

Do you know how to deal with this image which is presently licensed as cc-pd 1.0 but never went through a flickrreview. The current license tag is wrong...and this uploader has 3 copyvio tags. I'm sure its an honest mistake by Nyttend but two of the copyvios also mention 'Purwin.' This uploader also uploaded this image which no one has marked yet. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leoboudv. FOr the first file, we can only go on what we can see, and since the FLickr-account is not part of Flickr's "The Commons", it should not be able to mark inmages as "No known copyright", and it should be retagged with {{subst:Flickr-public domain mark/subst}} {{Flickrreview}}. Sorry Nyttend but that review is in error. As for the second image, we can only assume Flickrwashing and ask for evidence of permission with Template:No permission since. Josve05a (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you are here, mind explaining why you did this? https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Former_Primitive_Methodist_Chapel,_Cunliffe_Street._Currently_the_Masonic_Hall._(16524934687).jpg&action=history Josve05a (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I passed that image you mentioned on November 23 but on November 24 I realized the difference between {{Cc-pd}} and {{Cc0}} and specifically promised Revent that I would no longer pass any further flickr cc-pd images and I have kept my promise from that day on. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I thought you did that after that "message". But then I understand, thank you for clearing it up. Josve05a (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologise for any misunderstanding that I caused in my mistake but I will do my best to rectify it if I can. Thanks for your good work on copyright. Regards from Metro Vancouver, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:T-shirt from my brother. Just in case (8330215255).jpg

File:T-shirt from my brother. Just in case (8330215255).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:T-shirt from my brother. Just in case (8330215255).jpg Pibwl (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Hi Josve05a I hope I am doing the right thing here. You sent me a message about deletingFile:Maze1.PNG. . I made that picture using Google images. It contains other peoples images. I don't know how that would affect copyright. I am happy for the picture to be included in the commons, but I don't know much about uploading images. I will read up on the subject, but in the meantime, please advise me on what I could do to alter the status of this picture. There is a steep learning curve around here. thanksKardinalCypher (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I have tried to grant commons permission for this image. I have sent an email to them. Sorry I'm so slow catching on.KardinalCypher (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read COM:OTRS. Josve05a (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flickr_public_domain_images_needing_specific_licenses

Category discussion warning

Flickr public domain images needing specific licenses has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Stefan2 (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WLM photos with PD-mark 1.0 by Manuel Urrutia

Given you have been tagging as not having a license the images:

How do you think should the permission request be phrased when asking the author for permission so it can be tagged with PD-author? -- Platonides (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Platonides: Either by:
  1. including thw wording "Do you grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law"
  2. ask them to relicense to CC0 (or a more restrictive license such as by/sa). That would be the easiest way.
  3. give a link to {{PD-self}} and ask if they agree to those terms specified there.
Those are the ways I suggest. Josve05a (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallaca, bollo and hallacon

A gift of Christmas
During these Christmas holidays, I wanted to let you take advantage of this delight, I hope you can enjoy them with love. --The Photographer (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merci! Josve05a (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Specie categories

Hi! When you upload images about species, is important and essential to add the species categories too, because without these you can't find them. You have uploaded too many files without categories! Please fix them!--Patko erika (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Patko erika: As a long-time contributor to Commons I know this, Hence why I have added maintenance categories too all my uploads so I can review and categorize every singe one of my uploads. Josve05a (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restore file

Hi Josve05a, while going through my deleted edits I noticed that File:Royal International Air Tattoo 2015 - Panavia Tornado IDS - German Air Force - 45+88 (19881255636).jpg, which I approved the license for, was deleted. So I checked it out naturally. It seems to have been deleted on bureaucratic grounds that it did not have the right tag. As you can see it was public domain, and can still be found at Flickr. If there is another reason for deletion, please clarify. Otherwise, could you please restore. Note on this facebook page, the link on the bottom right to flickr. From which I assumed the SPL copyright should not be a problem. If may be wrong but I think a regular deletion process would be welcome. Thank you, Taketa (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Taketal: Please see the box on my userpage, earlier discussion above/in archive as well as countless AN-discussions and one VP-discussion and one RfC (links somewhere above/archives. Flickr's Public Domain Mark-tag is not a release of rights and is not explicit not non-revocable, hence not applicable with Commons. Sorry for writing such short respond but it's New Years and I'm on a phone. Happy 2016! Josve05a (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong ping; Taketa. Josve05a (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of that. I will leave all public domain tags on Flickr allone in the future. And have a happy new year :). Taketa (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 images by a foreign government & a US state government

Dear Josve05a,

Can you please decide if these 2 images can be passed because they are issued by government agencies rather than private individuals? They would appear to be PD...at first glance but maybe you can decide here. If it was a federal US government agency, I would pass them. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Leoboudv: The first image is release by an Uruguayan governmental institution, which I do not believe we have a specific PD-reason for, and the second one is not by a governmental institution, rather a 'office of'/PAC/other non-governmental foundation which is not covered by the PD-tags we have either. Josve05a (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Child of Gaza (4672843169).jpg

Critically evaluate Flickr licenses
File:Child of Gaza (4672843169).jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. You may have preserved the information shown on Flickr correctly when transferring the image here, but the Flickr uploader is not the copyright holder of this image. Either the image was created by someone else, or it is a derivative of someone else's work. As stated in Commons:Licensing, only the copyright holder may issue a license, so the one shown on Flickr is invalid. Always remember to critically evaluate Flickr licenses. Photostreams with professional-looking photographs, album covers, posters, and images in a wide range of styles or quality taken by many different cameras often indicate that the Flickr uploader either does not understand or does not care about copyright matters. See Commons:Questionable Flickr images for a list of known bad Flickr users.

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ magyar ∙ português do Brasil ∙ italiano ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ français ∙ македонски ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ українська ∙ svenska ∙ sicilianu ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−

—LX (talk, contribs) 01:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

Response to User_talk:Ezarate#Public_Domain_Mark.

Hi, I use this argument "similar discussions elsewhere, in particular here, here and here, have concluded with the decision that this is more a mistake by the photographer than a licensing problem", so in Flickr are in PD because the uploader (and the owner of the image) choose it, I see not reason for deleting nothing --Ezarateesteban 20:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezarate: Then may I please use this argument: "per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Councilmember Kshama Sawant with Nicole Grant.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Chaeng Watthana Government Complex and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Atotonilco el Grande, Hidalgo, Mexico.jpg.

User:Blythwood, your cites are off point, because they have been relicensed on Flickr as CC-0. The PDM is not a license and can't be kept here.

— Jameslwoodward
The PDM is not a licnese, as we have already established, and the kept ones, which Blythwood used as arguments has been relicensed on FLickr, so they should be kept, but these which you have kept has the PDM-tag on Flickr. Please reconsider, or I'll be forced to take this back to AN. Josve05a (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pluse we can't assume things, per the PRP. The uploader hasn't release the images, they may not know or they may know certain things, but we can't "assume". Josve05a (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that is your opinion and I respect it but there isn't copyvios and nothing fatal for delete the picture, let's try to keep them Ezarateesteban 20:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not just Josve05a's opinion, but the opinion of Creative Commons and most of the Commons Admins. A PDM is simply a label. It is intended for use on old works that are obviously PD. Since it simply expresses the opinion of the person using it, it has no effect on the copyright status of an image. Since it can be changed at any time, it does not satisfy Commons requirement for an irrevocable license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apollo 8 Liftoff View (24246227076).jpg

This image is courtesy of NASA/JPL. So is it public domain and can it be passed or not? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is ok, but NASA is always tricky since they might use contractors. Pinging Revent who has been working with NASA-images a bit, but seems to be on a wiki-break... Josve05a (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoboudv: Sorry for the wikibreak, back-ish. Uploaded the 'official' version of the image, from the JSC archive... higher resolution, slightly wider crop, but better color. From the angle (from the north), this image would be from an automatic camera located near pad 39-B... it would be impossible for an unofficial image of this launch to be taken from this location (the space center boundary is several miles north, across a quite wide lagoon) , and that it was archived by JSC (as S68-56050) means it was an official (i.e. NASA) photo. Revent (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To make it more clear, any unofficial photo from this angle would be from much farther away, and have a distinctly different foreground (a miles wide lake, and probably the other tower (pad 39-A) unless very cropped). The location this was photographed from (based on the position of the tower compared to that of the launch vehicle, and the foreground) would be about 90 degrees NE of the press area, and well within the exclusion zone. The possibility of this not being from either an automatic camera (or more likely, a frame from a television camera, given the quality of the image from the archive) is very minimal, and the official archive gives no other attribution. http://www.apolloarchive.com/ (the 'owner' of that Flickr) is Kipp Teague, a moderately well-known net dinosaur (see http://www.retroweb.com) ... while due diligence applies, he's IMO both a pretty reliable source for provenance, and unlikely to have material that is not PD. His own personal photographs are alos impressive. Revent (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chewbacca seperated at cocoon with December Moth (23350523746).jpg

File:Chewbacca seperated at cocoon with December Moth (23350523746).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Kersti (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kersti Nebelsiek! Josve05a (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
hi, thank you for the message in relation to Genie 4.jpg. Actually i act as Genie's administrator to create her wikipedia page with all the information given by her. But i face the problem of that pic in her page (last pic) whereby i couldnt add text right below her page. Will you be able to assist??

Thanks.


forrestation Forrestation (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Forrestation. What is needed to be done is that the copyright owner (most likely the photographer) send Wikimedia Commons' OTRS-team a letter of pemission. Please read en:WP:DONATEIMAGE. Josve05a (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JosveO5a. Thanks. Those photos of Genie Sugene(Genie 1, Genie 2, Genie 3 & Genie 4) were all taken many years back. Doubt can locate back the photographer way back. Since Genie is the owner of these photos and provided to me to upload in her article (created by myself), do i still do a letter of permission to OTR? any waiver or exceptions is allowed in this instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrestation (talk • contribs)
@Forrestation: If you have been give the permssion/copyright for the images, then you need to send an email, yes. Josve05a (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of possible copyright violation for File:Platine n°193.jpg

Hi Josve,

I'm currently working for Platine magazine and i can assure you there is no copyright violation about this picture.

Sincerely,

V. Dégremont

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Degremont (talk • contribs) 19:49, 29 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi Degremont, you may have permission to use the image, hoever for the image to be stored on Wikimedia Commons (this site) we must see evidence of such permission/ownership, so we can be sure that you have those rights. Please read Wikipedia:DONATEIMAGE on how to do so. Josve05a (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Don't attack me. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gastón Cuello: I'm not attacking anyone, I'm currently processing all past images uloaded from FLickr with the ({{Flickr-public domain mark}} on FLickr, whcih need to be deleted from COmmons, per out licensing policy. Nothing personal against you. Josve05a (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
El informe me molesta, porque no me interesa. Tonto. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I can do about that, it is automatic. Josve05a (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain Mark 1.0-related deletion requests

Hi Josve05a - rather than put these File:Antrostomus vociferus, Lancaster, Massachusetts 1.jpg, File:Antrostomus vociferus, Lancaster, Massachusetts 2.jpg in for deletion requests, wouldn't it be better to contact the photographer at Flickr, and request that he change the license so they can be kept? I don't understand the complexities of why one form of public domain license is not valid on Commons when others are, so I don't know how to make the request. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there have been discussions about this at many places, bur a new page is beinf written (Commons_talk:Flickr_files#The_PDM_Mark) to clarify such things. I'll try to contact the user as well. Josve05a (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hope you're successful, as those are important pics, the best of this species :-) MPF (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like I was successful :) Josve05a (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The current consensus seems different. See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#We_need_a_clear_end_to_this. It is a discussion opened by you. Then why are you ignoring it and making new DRs? Jee 02:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Lotus flower (978659).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lotus flower (978659).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I uploaded the imams online logo which you have nominated for deletetion, may I ask why?

It does not violate copyright.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaashif Awan (talk • contribs) 11:48, 08 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it does not seem to have any educational value fo WIkimedia Commons to host the file. Please read Commons:Project scope. Josve05a (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Epitriptus

Something went wrong. Fix it, please...
Good luck! Wieralee (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at it after school today. Josve05a (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abtk-logo.png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abtk-logo.png

This image is property of Åstorps Bordtennisklubb. I am the web master for their website, astorpsbtk.se.

Why is this media a violation? This is the club's logo since 1957.

Rgds / Johan Linder

Hi, you need to send an email to our permission verification team that the copyright owner/holder of the logo allows to license it under a free license, so it hcan be hosted on WIkimedia Commons. SInce this is not done (yet) it is a copyright violation (for Wikimedia Commons; this site) to host it on our servers.
If you are the copyright holder, please email our permissions verification team (VRT).→ VRT

Josve05a (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plane-1186843.jpg

File:Plane-1186843.jpg is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

This file is a duplicate of the following files: File:testing again.

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Revent (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, disregard, found the bug. Sorry for making you my victim. Revent (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:"Dale" - the Dall Sheep. (6230368453).jpg

File:"Dale" - the Dall Sheep. (6230368453).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Dale" - the Dall Sheep. (6230368453).jpg Yann (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typo correction (hopefully)

It looked almost certain to be a typo, so I corrected this. I hope you don't mind. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see by my latest edit summary it was a bad copy+paste, which I didn't recognize in time. Josve05a (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non transparent discussions

You said you work as proxy, so I guess someone discussed on commons about something, there was the conclusion and you open deletion request. But we are not an open project? The fact, I cannot contribute to the discussion is not much transparent.--Juandev (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IT was discussed on Commons' IRC channel, and then asked me to open the request, since I opened another discussed minutes earlier. I can provide the usernames, and you are free to discuss it on the DR. (in class, so can't write more now) Josve05a (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well no problem, keep studying. I just wonder, why those, who coin the idea of a derivative work does not show up.--Juandev (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

You did not revert my edit or adjust the content I modified, therefore, please don't use the edit summary "Undo revision 189226339 by Riley Huntley (talk)". It unnecessarily pings me and causes confusion. Riley Huntley (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to clear the summary field, my bad. Josve05a (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2 (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC) File:A deleted scene from Wayne Wang's 1985 film "Dim Sum- A Little Bit of Heart".jpg

" one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue."

Dear "one person", or Josve05a I, Nancy Wong, aka "Edmunddantes" created this file and I own the copyright. Please do not delete. Thank you, Nancy Wong aka "Edmunddantes"

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Cory W. Watts

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Josve05a (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hernán Gené.jpg is CC

Hi!

Why you delete this image?

http://www.hernangene.com/director/trabajos/george-dandin-de-hernan-gene/hernan/

Regards! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.37.128.122 (talk)

✓ Done Thibaut120094 (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File was undeleted. Josve05a (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:N169HQ (aircraft)

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Josve05a (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abutilon sandwicense and other botany

Please put your images in Categories. Thanks WayneRay (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WayneRay:
Notice All my uploads are added to a cleanup category; a subcategory of Files uploaded by Josve05a.
I will get to all images some time, but in the meantime, I am currently tagging all my new uploads with {{Uncategorized}}.
Please do not send me mesages saying "you should categorize your images"; I know, and I am doing that, one-by-one, manually. Josve05a (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josve05a (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kool, No problem. One of my projects is Botany in the Uncategorized images so it's good to know. I'll label a few if you don't mind. Keep up the good work. WayneRay (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This category

Dear Josve05a,

If you have some time, please feel free to pass images by US Army, Navy USAF or USGS (US Geological Services) images as they are clearly in the public domain. I mark 4-5 a few but it is almost midnight now and I don't know if anyone knows about this category and Revent is away. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you pass or launch a DR on this old image? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for late response. I started a DR. Josve05a (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

I love your user page, it makes me want to steal it. ;) Riley Huntley (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I stole it as well (and modified it a bit). See edit comment on [2]. ;) Josve05a (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Riley Huntley: Ok if I stael yours now? ;) Josve05a (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Always. Riley Huntley (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WBR

Hello my friend,
A version 499 of WBR is available.
In fact I changed the syntax of {{SimpleTaxa}} and modified WBR accordingly ;-)
So with your current WBR, you generate syntax no more accepted ;-)
Don't worry about the exsiting, I will run my bot.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Downloaded and using it right now :) Josve05a (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Josve05a (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Josve05a/Archive_5&oldid=372583282"