User talk:Lymantria/Archive 4

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

File:P1010654bronze shield.JPG

Will the first image by the original uploader--uploaded in 2010--be deleted since there is no license? I notice the uploader has no notice of intentional copyright violations on his talkpage. Perhaps he said 'author unknown' due to this other image here: File:P1010631 CROP crop.jpg

I just ask here since this is a 2 year old image of an uploader who left Commons in late 2010. If the image is deleted so be it. But he has uploaded many other images with no issues except for one which had FOP issues. Just curious. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original image was uploaded with {{PD-old}} - which I put back. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coenophila subrosea.jpg

File:Coenophila subrosea.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 ∙ +/−

User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 07:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help

Can you please take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Diligent Terrier? These images are used on 100s of pages, but the uploader has now removed the free licenses he uploaded them under and requested deletion. I don't see any policy that allows this. I was thinking the DR should be closed as keep and the licenses restored. What do you think on this? And if keep, what should the requester be told? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 16:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the images can be kept. Licenses like the CC-BY at hand are irrevocable. Even if the author regrets to have done so. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Solved in togetherness Lymantria (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and for responding so quickly. I guess the licenses will have to be restored by hand for each of these files, as the uploader went thru the files and removed all licensing info prior to the DR. I can do that. I'll also warn the uploader not to remove them again and no more DRs. INeverCry 16:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Of course DR's are allowed if there is a valid reason - just withdrawing them isn't. Lymantria (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to warn the user against a repeat of the same kind of DR he just did and the licensing removal. If he does it again after I warn him, I don't think I'd be wrong in blocking him for vandalism. After having to restore these all by hand, I'll be in just the right mood for a good warning. ;) INeverCry 16:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And rightfully so! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Thank you for stopping in the middle of what you were doing in order to help me resolve an issue. I really appreciate it. INeverCry 17:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! And you're welcome. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rapid delete.svg

Did you read my last comment before doing the deletion? --Svgalbertian (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I did. But turning the image into a derivative work rather than an exact copy doesn't change the copyright situation. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:LymaBot

Congratulations! It has bot status now. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and thank you for mentioning! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Just created two new templates: {{Observado.org}} and {{Observado.orgUser}}. Regards, User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 11:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. I planned to do so later, but thank you for doing it. At some later time I will implement the templates to all of the observado-uploads. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LymaBot

I've moved LymaBot from users to bots on the AWB checkpage. INeverCry 17:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you so much for having run down the provenance on the File:Portrait of John Phillips.jpeg. I haven't been here in quite awhile, and when I checked back you had filled in the blanks. You really do deserve all those barnstars on your page! :) Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Open Access File of the Day

Hi Lymantria, thanks for nominating File:Equus africanus somaliensis.jpg for Commons:Open Access File of the Day - I put it in right away. Also thanks for signaling that Zoologische Mededelingen is open access too. We are considering to open a WikiProject Open Access here on Commons to complement its counterpart on enwp. What do you think of that? -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would happily join it. I am not so very active on en-wp, so I will not join the project there - although very interesting. I will also go through the Zoologische Mededelingen images to see if there are more good candidates for Open Access File of the Day. I see you have already done so. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

License for image

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_Le_CNED.gif This logo of public goverment company - what problem can be with license for this image? It's logo of Franch National Education department&

Even though it is a government company, their material is often copyrighted. Therefore permission is needed to show that it is indeed free for use by third parties. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pages: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dolom%C3%ADa_sinterizada.JPG and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dolom%C3%ADa_calcinada.JPG without justification

Dear Lymantria,

Why have you deleted my pages: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dolom%C3%ADa_sinterizada.JPG and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dolom%C3%ADa_calcinada.JPG, if I sent the permission of the enterprise to the following e-mail: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org?

Best regards,

--Calerita (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, you suggest I deleted your files without justification. Not so. The files did not have any license(-template). Without a license we'll have to delete them, as we must be certain that the images are free to reuse. But indeed, when permission is received by the OTRS and found in order so that a valid license can be added, the images can be undeleted. You can still send such permission. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Lymantria,

I sent the permission of the enterprise on 20 September but OTRS have not answered my request yet, so, what can I do?

Best regards,

--Calerita (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that you have to be patient. It may help to resend the mail. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you. I will wait and resend the e-mail.

Best regards,

--Calerita (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calerita. Your emails are received, all three of them, but as I don't speak Spanish I cannot handle those. I'll contact a Spanish volunteer. Trijnsteltalk 12:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken articles of Russian Wikipedia

Several spoken files of Russian Wikipedia (see User talk:Andrew ivanovs) were deleted. These files (are spoken version parts of one huge article about "Liberalism"):

As I understand, User:Andrew ivanovs added license tag to first and the last part of this article, but he forgot about license in files 2-4. I can identify that these 5 files have the same voice of dictor User:Andrew ivanovs. Could you restore these files and I will add license information.

Also the spoken article File:Ru-wiki Диабет.ogg about "Diabetes" (recorded by the same speaker) in Russian Wikipedia was deleted. Could you restore it as well? -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 09:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Lymantria (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. License tags and categories were added to these files. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

License Review

Hi Lymantria,

I have asked the author to review the license of these two files, and he has already done:

Could you please review the licenses and "restore" these files?

Regards.--Marcric (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Lymantria (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Marcric (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rubia.tinctorum02.jpg license review

What would you say about this? It's non-commercial. Mithril (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. It should have been better to start a deletion request in stead of a speedy through "No permission". I have converted to a DR. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 09:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trisquel screenshots

Hi, please comment on the deletion request, because you had approved these images. Hekerui (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I approved is that the images were available under the mentioned license at the mentioned source. That is what LicenseReview is about. Lymantria (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't throw shade, only requested input because you were involved. Regards Hekerui (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I gave the input Lymantria (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anezka Charvatova (5731039135)Crop.jpg

File:Anezka Charvatova (5731039135)Crop.jpg

source from: File:Anezka Charvatova (5731039135).jpg --Dendrofil (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that clears things up. Thank you. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader gave a source for these 4 images--own work

The images have the same camera model and appear to be recent work. Its up to you to decide if they are OK since you tagged them.

Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For me it is still unclear that Timothy Kirkpatrick is the same person as the uploader. I will leave him a note and see if he reacts. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I thought this could be own work because 1. the uploader could possibly be a newbie since his earliest upload was on September 11, 2012 and in this earlier upload by this person: File:Mourning Dove DSCO2554.JPG, the camera model is still the same high quality expensive Sony DSLR model. But its your decision...and I could be wrong as in this separate image the uploader says the source is 'lighning pics' and the author is 'Timothy kirkpatrick'--which is consistent--but the camera is a Canon, and not a Sony model. Rather strange....but there could be a simple explanation; it may be an older camera model since the picture was taken in May 2011 while the more recent 2012 images were taken with a Sony DSLR. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photos from Anefo

Hi, is there any problem with the Anefo photos? The Nationaal Archief made available under CC-BY-SA those files, but since you speak dutch and you are involved with nl-wiki community as an admin maybe you are aware of something that I'm not. Cheers. Lobo (howl?) 14:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a problem. Not ALL Anefo photos are available. There is a set of photographs on glass negatives from Anefo (I believe it is 2.24.01.01) which is NOT part of the set released under CC-BY-SA. You can see it at the source page - the photos with correct license do indeed carry the tag CC-BY-SA. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
E.g.: http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/afbeeldingen/fotocollectie/zoeken/weergave/detail/q/id/a9b76946-d0b4-102d-bcf8-003048976d84 does not mention CC-BY-SA and mentions "Dit item kan niet besteld worden" (This item can not be ordered), while http://proxy.handle.net/10648/a9996734-d0b4-102d-bcf8-003048976d84 does mention CC-BY-SA and the item (a hardcopy) can be bought ("in winkelwagen"). Lymantria (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm going to revise and delete those unfree files as soon as possible. Thanks for letting me know! Lobo (howl?) 14:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categorie aangepast

Hoi Lymantria. Ik zag dat je Cateogry:Atopsyche iana aangemaakt had - ik heb Category:Atopsyche iana aangemaakt en vervangen. Trijnsteltalk 22:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dank je. Het overkomt me helaas wel vaker. Groet, Lymantria (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:René Goscinny.jpg

This isn't Goscinny but Morris

You took the wrong person: http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/afbeeldingen/fotocollectie/zoeken/weergave/detail/q/id/abc0be90-d0b4-102d-bcf8-003048976d84

Gonioul (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morris - Maurice De Bevere.jpg, they're swapped! - Gonioul (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked on the Commons:Bistro#Inversion if someone can do it. - Gonioul (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have swapped the files. Merci for bringing this forward (and on nl-wiki it was noticed as well). Lymantria (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrexham War Memorial

I uploaded this image to include in my article on Goscombe John but you have had it deleted. Here is the image on Flickr.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/matprice/3368675792/

Please check the licence from which you will see that image does allow commercial use.

Weglinde (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrexham War Memorial

Oh dear! I must need my eyes testing. Of course you are 100% correct.

I have asked the owner of the image to change the licence to allow commercial use.

Please accept my apologies

Weglinde (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Let's hope the flickr-user is willing to change license. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello again, and thanks for your help the last time around with the painting of John Phillips. I wondered if you might take a moment to have a look at this discussion, Commons:Deletion_requests/Post-1922_paintings_of_Juan_Gris. I believe these images are in fact within the public domain, and would value your opinion. Many thanks! MarmadukePercy (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that the nominator is correct here. Public Domain issues are extremely difficult in the USA. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for taking the time and for your opinion. I understand. Best regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robbins of Dudley short sword.jpg

Hi Lymantria. You set one of my files to delete because of wrong or missing License. I upload now over 800-900 of the same files. If you set the picture bigger you can see that it is an drawing and no photo. We discuss this many times here in commons and more in de.WP with the Team for Copyrights. This files i load up don't need License because they are drawings of my own hand. Every drawing I do so that they are not 100% Copys so there is no "Schöpfungshöhe" (sorry. This word I don't know in English). If you do an Drawing with 100% correctness you need an License, but for this my drawings are not perfect enough. Maybe you can read some of the discussions in the other deletion requests on my discussion site. Greetings --MittlererWeg (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC) P.s. Sorry for my bad English :)[reply]

Hi MittlererWeg, Ich verstehe etwas Deutsch, und denke dass es gnügend ist zum Lesen wenn Sie auf Deutsch schreiben hier. Also, kein Problem! Fremdsprachen sind immer etwas shwierig weiss ich als Einwohner der Niederlanden. Mein Englisch ist aber etwas besser als mein Deutsch, also jetzt wechsele ich zu Englisch, entschuldige. I understand your explanation above. I was triggered by the book title you mentioned with the source as "Beleg" and that made me ask for permission, although I saw you produced a drawing. I have changed "Beleg" in this image description into "drawn after", and suppose that is correct. Of course the permission-issue is resolved then. Tschüss, Lymantria (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lymantria. Thanks very much and greetings to Holland. Tschüss Lothar--MittlererWeg (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2012 (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:
Hibernation Euthrix potatoria Caterpillar.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Why was immage deleted?

Hi. I have been editing an article on Wikipedia titled Declawing of crabs. In that article I linked to an image here on Wikemedia Commons titled Declawed_Stone_crab.jpg. You have deleted that image indicating "No license since 6 November 2012". What license is needed? This was an extremely important image for the article and I would like to replace it if possible. All the best. __86.144.141.76 18:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images published on commons need to be free to reuse - "normal" copyrighted images are not allowed. Please, read Commons:Licensing for more information about licensing. Lymantria (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was confused that the publication was from a US State publisher rather than a US Federal publisher - apologies for the inconvenience and thanks for the explanation. __DrChrissy (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Things _are_ confusing sometimes. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert all interlaced JPGs

Hello, can you by any chance give a look at this bot work request? Thanks, Nemo 10:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I work with AWB and so I think I can't handle it. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 11:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and sorry for disturbing you, --Nemo 12:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. If I can help, I am willing to. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Logos

Hello Lymantria, I have seen that you deleted the Logo I have uploaded for my text (Rudolph Logisitc Gruppe). I guess I did something wrong concerning the licening. But I don´t know how to do it right and how to reload the Logo again. I have the permission to use this Logo. So how do I reload. Please give me an examplefor how an exceptabel description needs to look. Thanks for your help!

I think I solved the issue for you, because this logo was not very original (see File:Rudolph Logo 4c.jpg). In other cases, if you have permission, this should be handled by the OTRS-team. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help now it works :)

File:Simona Caparrini portrait.jpg

Dear Admin Lymantria,

If you don't find the purported OTRS permission message for this image, then I would think that this image has to be deleted or face a formal DR. It has been in Commons for about 1 week now. This flickr account is new and has only 1 image but at least there is a contact address. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: As an aside, can you also mark this rare image below? This image from this unique web site is licensed as 'cc by sa generic 3.0:
  • File:ErmitaSanMiguelGonzarri.jpg

Kind Regards and Merry Christmas, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Leoboudv,
I have added a "OTRS-pending" to the portrait of Simona Caparrini. The image is also found here and the name of the photographer is consistent. So perhaps this photographer is indeed willing to release one photograph of the actress.
The other photograph I have marked, I did change the license into cc-by-sa-30-es (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/es/deed.eu has the part /es/, which shows that you are pointed to the Spain national version of the license). License reviewers can mark licenses from website using {{subst:Lrw|<website>}}. Feel free! Kind regards and a Merry Christmas to you too! Lymantria (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hans Speidel.jpg

Is this 52 year old photo a derivative? I don't see any permission from the author. The uploader just uploaded 3 images to Commons on Sunday. If you think it is, feel free to take any action you wish on this image. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for mentioning. I think it is best to treat this image as "missing permission". Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ohio_Glass_Making_Centers_1888.jpg

Ohio

Hello, I took a Wiki file Image:OHMap-doton-Fostoria.png, added two circles and a header, and uploaded the file as Ohio_Glass_Making_Centers_1888.jpg. I am using the file in the Novelty Glass Company Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, it was deleted because of the license. I am not an expert at uploading files other than photos that I have taken or pre-1923 files. What do I need to do to permanently restore this file, or is that not possible? TwoScarsUp (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the file, in order to give you opportunity to add a license. The original of your map is licensed {{GFDL-en}}. I think it is therefore best to license the file {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I have fixed it. I must admit that I'm not sure what I am doing in this case, and learn best by seeing examples. TwoScarsUp (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have fixed it. If you have questions in the future, feel free to ask! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anefo

Hoi Lymantria, ik zou niet teveel tijd in Anefo uploads stoppen. Net zoals de RCE gaan we binnenkort de hele Anefo collectie denk ik wel hier online gooien :-) Multichill (talk) 23:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goed plan. Het is wel superveel en interessant materiaal! Ik ga nog wel wat neuzen bij de "possible rijksmonementen". :D Groet, Lymantria (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

copyrighted

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Red-belted_Clearwing_Synanthedon_myopaeformis.jpg

This file is now marked as copyright all right reserved at Flickr. Right click on image.

I see it is and it may be. The file was not copyrighted at the time of the upload (and that is verified) and {{Cc-by-2.0}} is irrevokable. So the file can stay here. Lymantria (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Valued images/Recently promoted

Hello,

Could you add a category for your image in this page using the VI categorization tool? Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done (I hope correctly). Lymantria (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tsvilenev Nikolay Fyodorovich

Why did you delete the photo? Repin (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which photo do you mean? I can't find a deleted photo with the above name. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moths & Butterflies

Hello Lymantria I might be wrong here. Category:Photographs by Hsu Hong Lin had some categories with redlinks. When uploading Flickr.com images, please check if the moths & butterflies categories are blue linked, please. Happy New Year. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that some of the images have some red links. I do take care with my own uploads, but I was not the only uploader. When I was recently renaming images by this Flickr-uploader into useful names I indeed saw that many uploads had red categories and I created most of the categories needed. I will go through the list shortly to finish this job. Kind regards and a Happy New Year to you to, Lymantria (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. Category:Lepidoptera is enormous, one alone can do "nothing" here ;) Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I checked all of the images in Category:Photographs by Hsu Hong Lin to have blue categories. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pyewipe and Lincoln Area gifs

Lincoln areea GIF - I have wirtten permission form the person who drew this diagram - hence the fact I have credited the author. PYEWIPE 1955 - this was a locally produced (1955?) and distributed sketch. Whilst you are technically right that it does not have permission I would very much doubt that anyone is going to dispute it some 57 years after publication. let me know if you require any other information. --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best if you communicated the permission through the OTRS - perhaps by making a scan? We cannot base ourselves on trust that someone would or would not dispute permission. We need to be sure that there is permission. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks will do in next couple of days--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I marked the images as "OTRS-pending". Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Die Gartenlaube

Please stop the rotating wish in Die Garetenlaube immediately! This is part of abook an will not be rotated!!! The picture will be extracted and then the extract will be in the optimal rotation. This is for the whole project!! I will undo all pages I found with this. --Jörgens.Mi Talk 12:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I will stop. But the images are already 8 months old and I did not see any progression. Lymantria (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much. It' about 40000 pages and we are working at the german language wikisource on several volumes, we will fix this when the according volume is on work.

All small pics get extracted rectified and optimized too. If you are interested you can help us by extracting and rotating the pictures As an example: http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Die_Gartenlaube_(1863)Bilder The completed picture gets an b_ in front of the pagenumber. if there is more than one picture on a page a counter will follow the page number

Original book page: "Die Gartenlaube (1863) 157.jpg" extracted picture "Die Gartenlaube (1863) b 157.jpg" or "Die Gartenlaube (1863) b 157_1.jpg", "Die Gartenlaube (1863) b 157_2".jpg if there is more than picture on a side --Jörgens.Mi Talk 12:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


Wie ich sehe sprichst du auch deutsch, dann kann ich etwas schneller schreiben. Es stimmt es ist ein sehr umfangreiches project und wir kommen mit der Arbeit nicht so ganz nach mit der kleinen Zahl von Mitarbeitern. Die Bilder ausschneiden und zu drehen und die Belichtung anzupassen, erfordert doch ein bischen mehr Kenntnisse, so das das nur ganz wenige, darunter ich mache. Ich mache es meistens für einen ganzen Band (1 von 47) oder auf Wunsch wenn gerad einer den entsprechenden Artikel bearbeitet. Und nebenher mache ich halt auch noch eine Menge anderer Sachen in Ws und de-Wp. Freundliche Grüße aus dem Südwesten Deutschlands. --Jörgens.Mi Talk 12:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

  1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
  2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
  3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 11:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year[reply]

This DR

Dear Admin Lymantria,

If you can, please close the DR here as keep and mark the image that was under DR. I withdraw my DR request. Thank You in advance and kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also this is a final image by user Orangetree3 that has no source that I could find. Whenever I found a flickr source, it was always unfree and a copyvio. The flickr source he gives has no such image.
  • File:Portadasalonpleno.jpg

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the DR for you, although I think it is on the borderline of copyrightable architecture. Yes, it seems Orangetree3 is becoming a pain in the ass. But in this case, I didn't find a copyright violation and marked the image "no source". Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank You for closing the DR by me. User Orangetree3 is a nightmare. He kept me looking up flickr for many author's photostreams just for 1 picture and sometimes they don't exist. I filed one DR here after I couldn't locate the image and he named 3 Authors? Unbelievable. Of course, he must be lying...but without a source this image will be on Commons for 1 week. Well anyway, thanks for your help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mana Village.jpg

If you think this is own work work by the uploader, please type in 'self' by the license. Uploader uploaded 3 images. They appear the same with the same digital metadata but strangely...this is the one where he forgot to say own work. Now it looks like he's left Commons. Could be own work but who knows? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other uploads I found a source at Flickr for. I marked them as No permission. But this one I don't see a problem. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubbele RCE afbeeldingen

Hallo Lymantria,

Ik zag een tijdje terug dat jij wat RCE afbeeldingen die dubbel waren aan het opruimen was. Voor de upload heb ik dit lijstje gemaakt van alle afbeeldingen van de RCE. Aangezien ik het zelf niet kan (geen mod hier) wilde ik vraag of je dit lijstje langs zou willen gaan, en net zoals bij de andere afbeeldingen de versies die er als stonden redirecten naar de nieuwe (grotere versies) evenals het overnemen van mogelijk relevante informatie (RM-nummer)? Mocht je ermee aan de slag gaan zou je dan op het lijstje aan willen geven welke afbeeldingen nog niet geupload zijn (of geen nieuwe versie hebben)?

Mvg, Basvb (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Basvb, Prima. Daar ga ik in de komende dagen wel mee aan de slag. Vandaag stuitte ik trouwens op een ander soort dubbeling, zie hier en hier. Ik heb die voor de zekerheid maar even niet zelf opgeruimd, om nog een ander te laten kijken. Groeten, Lymantria (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Multichill heeft ontdekt waarom de bot geen versie van bijvoorbeeld File:Borssele De Witte Pauw kleur.jpg geupload heeft. Jij hebt vlak voor de upload een paar bestanden met 1200px geupload. Deze zijn dus exact (elke pixel, via nl:Hashfunctie) hetzelfde als de afbeelding die de bot wil uploaden. Als de bestanden 100% overeenkomen wordt er geen nieuwe versie geüpload. Bij deze bestanden zouden we dan handmatig nog wat gegevens kunnen aanvullen (RCE-author etc.) Basvb (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: File:EstadioNacionalCR.jpg

Oh, sorry for the copyright infringement. I thought it was available for upload.

Now this leads me to a confusion. Why isn't it compatible with Commons? I understand that it is a Non-commercial licensed file but I uploaded it here since Wikimedia is a nonprofit project, so it's supposed we're not using the image for commercial purposes.

--AndSalx95 (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we are not supposed to upload images here that are not suitable for commercial re-use. That is, commons itself may be noncommercial, it is about re-use. Somebody from a, say, newspaper or journal should be able to use an image from here. And newspapers or journals are considered commercial mostly. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, now I understand. Thank you, and once again, sorry for the infringement. --AndSalx95 (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ja-gea-si

Hallo Lymantria!
Du hast dieses Bild gelöscht: File:Ja-gea-si3.jpg. Die Berechtigung des Autors sollte aber unter folgendem Ticket vorhanden sein: #2012071510000212. Kannst du das nochmals überprüfen und mich informieren? Falls da nichts zu finden ist, werde ich den Autor fragen, die Berechtigung nochmals zu senden. Vielen Dank. Rubadur (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Das Bild hatte kein Lisenz, aber ich habe ein ähnlig zu File:Ja-gea-si2.jpg zugefugt. Ich kann selber kein OTRS-Tickets lesen, dafür soll man jemand vom OTRS-Team habben müssen. Aber es reicht jetzt, denke ich. Lymantria (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Super! Danke. Rubadur (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Usually I don't get smashed here, however, that one Herby, others and I have been dancing with their vandalism in various means here and xwiki. Not fair when the invisibility cloak slips off!!! So thanks for the revert.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Lymantria (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) and if it matters, the LTA is w:ja:LTA:ISECHIKA  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Question

Since you are Dutch, maybe you know who is the copyright owner of this image of a Dutch princess. I don't know if the image can be marked as its on the ING Nederlands photostream on a cc by sa generic license but the camera metadata names another copyright owner. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph is made clearly in an ING-setting, so I wouldn't doubt the copyright-ownership of this bank. ING does attribute the photographer on Flickr. I don't see a problem. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see now. That is how it works--attribution by ING Nederlands. I asked you this since I was concerned about the legalities of the image, not because your country's royal family is in the news today. Thank you for resolving my concerns. Best Regards from Vancouver, Canada/California time where we are 9 hours behind you in mainland Europe and its 12:25 AM, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm, I think it is a good thing that we have extra attention to the rights of images of our soon to be queen (and king). So thank you for checking and raising questions when you doubt. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem at all. Sometimes uploaders make innocent mistakes because so many flickr account owners license images that they take online freely on their accounts like this DR I filed. Sometimes no. Everyone is different. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bibliotecaparlamentaria.jpg, File:Patioparlameto.jpg & File:Portadasalonpleno.jpg

Dear Admin Lymantria,

If you can, please delete these 3 images above in the 'unsourced flickr images' category. The npd tags have been on them for 1 week now. The same uploader also uploaded one image I DR'ed here Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Lymantria (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is morning here. Lymantria (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted?

This user undid several actions by the flickrbot which I now found was because the images were reportedly from a blacklisted flickr account. However, the flickr account image from Doha Stadium Plus doesn't seem like a typical flickrwashing account as you can see here...with high resolution images. Only an experienced Admin will know what to do here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blue marlin larvae.jpg

Hello! Do you mean that Strasburg, Gehringer and Bartlett with coathors (or whoever made these certain drawing in their papers) all worked for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service? Mithril (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not, I did just refer to the source, which stated "Strasburg (1970), Gehringer (1956), and Bartlett et al. (1968) in Development of Fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service". I thoght it better to correct NOAA to FWS then. Lymantria (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm.. Well, these three pictures can be found in the fifth volume on page 185, but U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not a copyright holder yet. Probably it had been more appropriate for the case to put no-permission template there however it's the same copyvio thing. Mithril (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to do so, but perhaps a regular DR is/had been the best. If not straightforwardly clear, that is the best solution IMHO, as discussion is possible then. I found the image as "No license", which obviously wasn't the case - the edit summery talked about NOAA and indeed I found FWS following the link. Without discussion it is hard to see what the nominator means. And after all, both No license/No permission and Deletion requests stay in for a week. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've already notified the uploader about license problem but seems to me he isn't no longer active. However one more week lag after four year of copyvio doesn't really matter. I prefer to put npd then. Mithril (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Lymantria (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is trusted user GrapedApe doing?

Why is trusted user GrapedApe Ordering new flickr reviews on images that passed review in 2009? In all 4 images here, I saw that either the flickrbot or Juliancolton passed the image in 2009..and I had to type in the original flickrpass after someone failed them today in 2013. It was GrapedApe who typed in the new {{Flickrreview}}:

It looks like he doesn't trust the uploader is the flickr account owner and just wants the images deleted...even when the images already Passed flickr/human review! Suddenly, I'm wondering if maybe GrapedApe cannot be trusted anymore when he does this--to get passed images deleted. This is very incorrect behaviour and he should be warned to stop this. Once an image passes flickr review, it is considered passed for life unless there are copyvio problems. Evidently he thinks so from this DR

This image was never passed by flickrreview but from the high resolution and same uploader, I wonder sometimes if it is by the same flickr account owner...since he obviously changed the license on his 4 other earlier images from 2009 above until now:

As an aside, feel free to decide if this image below of the UBC University in Vancouver, Canada, below is own work or not. The flickr account only has two images:

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These images

Dear Admin Lymantria,

The uploader sources the first 2 images to a blog website:

However, this third image below is supposed to be own work from early 2012. I don't know if it is true or not.

From the uploader's talkpage, he/she has no history of copy vio notice's before. So, the third image might be a problem even though there is no metadata. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The blog/promotional site links to Flickr, where all three pictures are "All rights reserved". Copyvio. I removed them. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the Sherlock Holmes in me Lymantria (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have know that. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: I marked this image sourced to a Cdn film organization. If you agree with the flickrpass, then feel free to do nothing. If not, feel free to file a speedy delete. I have No Objections if you file a speedy delete. I hope that I did the right thing by typing in an attribution to the photography firm but I am not 100% sure
  • File:Robert Lantos.jpg

The thing is I filed a DR on another image 10 minutes ago. Thank You and Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a "no permission" or DR is the good way to deal with this. The same for the other CDN film organization image you mentioned. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robert Lantos.jpg

Hello, I am the uploader of File:Robert Lantos.jpg. I commented on your deletion request of that file. --Puramyun31 (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

Lymantria, you have removed three images from Commons that were on the Dutch motogymkhana page. These were pictures I put there, they were given to me by the photographer, a friend of mine, everyone involved told me it's ok to post the pictures. Why were they removed? I did spend a lot of time figuring out what boxes to check and what license to use, before I could post the pics. X10 (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi X10, You mention that you spent a lot of time figuring out what license to use, but in the end the images were posted without a license. That is the reason that they were eventually deleted. Images here do need to have a free license. A second point of thought is that apparently you were not the photographer. It is then best to send an email by the photographer in which the permission to publish under a free license is granted. This can be done through the OTRS. You can still do so and the images can be restored if the permission is received and judged as sufficient. Good luck. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC) (P.S. Nederlands is ook goed, hoor)[reply]

Picture William Weymouth

Beste Lymantria, Een paar maanden geleden heb ik een stub-artikel gemaakt over William Weymouth. Later vond ik een foto op internet. Gezien de overlijdensdatum zou die foto rechten-vrij kunnen zijn, maar ik heb eigenlijk geen idee hoe ik daar achter kan komen. Zou u misschien eens kunnen kijken en mij kunnen adviseren of (een uitsnede van) deze foto op commons zou mogen worden geplaatst? Vast veel dank voor de hulp, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beste Dwergenpaartje. Het ziet er naar uit dat je de foto kunt gebruiken. Volgens het stickertje linksonderaan is de foto afkomstig van "Crawford, 62 Murray Street, Hobart" als ik het goed lees. Volgens deze bron is de foto dus gemaakt uiterlijk in 1908. Dat betekent dat niet alleen {{PD-Australia}} gebruikt kan worden, gezien de sterfdatum van het onderwerp was dat al geen probleem, maar ook {{PD-1923}} waardoor de foto ook zeker rechtenvrij is in de Verenigde Staten. Onder plaatsing van die twee sjablonen en een kleine toelichting op de talk-pagina moet de foto kunnen worden geüpload hier. Groet, Lymantria (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfree Derivative image

Dear Lymantria,

Please if you can, vote in this DR here and give a reason why. I already received a message from this uploader on my talkpage asking me not to delete 1 of 2 images from this book cover--which is clearly not the flickr account owner's own work. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I speedy deleted both as copyvio. In the future you may point users to Image casebook#Book covers. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This is the real Elizabeth I (with wrinkles) as you can see in footnote #1 in the image file. Admin Coetze knew how to access the photo from the disabled flickr photo source after I asked him...but I had to upload it:

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Lymantria (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. All the other portraits of the queen show her perfectly immaculate with no wrinkles--in the best of health even in the 1590s when she was old. Its all just propaganda! The Telegraph paper had 2 stories on the authenticated portrait and I included them in the image file. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm, propaganda might be a modern idea. It may have been fear by the painters in stead of propaganda. That's part of why this painting is special: Elizabeth I accepted it...
  • Yes, its very strange that she didn't have the painting destroyed since in 1596 (the next year) she passed a law prohibiting any negative depictions of her. The painter crossed the line to depicting reality here. Maybe she trusted M. Gheeraerts not to publicise the painting too much on pain of facing royal sanctions...which was very severe in her time. He could see the fate of several of the six wives of Henry VIII, Elizabeth's father. Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ninoy Aquino's "Testament from Prison Cell" signed by Cory Aquino in 1983.jpg

Dear experienced Admin Lymantria,

I got this message from the uploader of the book cover here:

I don't know if the image will pass Commons' requirements BUT it appears that the flickr account owner, K. Ponce took this picture. I think it may not be a flickwash--but I'm not 100% sure and this flickr account by K. Ponce has a mix of normal images and a few (not many) flickrwashing images on her photostream....which makes one's job difficult. Please look at the image and tell the uploader (on his/her talkpage) if it is acceptable or a copyvio that has to be deleted. This looks like a personal autograph by en:Corazon Aquino, wife of the late Benigno Aquino Jr. So, it could very well be 'own work.' as its supposedly addressed to the flickr account owner and her sister. But what do I know? Just let the uploader know about the copyright status of this image as he is new to Commons. The image might be OK but even I'm not sure! Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat difficult. But IMHO there is nothing on the picture that is beyond the threshold of originality, except perhaps the part of artwork at the left hand side. That however might be covered by Commons:De minimis, it might also be cropped off. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lymantria/Archive_4&oldid=93213365"