User talk:Lymantria/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

Combinatie van niet vrije foto en eigen lijntekening toegestaan?

Beste Lymantria,

Fijne vakantie! Dank nog voor de hulp bij de foto van Weymouth.

Ik heb een idee voor een leerzame type illustratie, maar ik weet niet of het is toegestaan. Wat ik wil doen is uit de wetenschappelijke literatuur een foto van een trilobiet kopiëren. De helft van de foto wil ik vervangen door een lijntekening, voorzien van lijntjes naar kenmerken waarnaar ik in het wikipedia-artikel wil verwijzen. Dat is natuurlijk informatiever dan alleen de lijntekening. De vraag is of ik nu iets nieuws creëer, of dat ik het copyright aan het schenden ben. Met vriendelijke groet, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In principe schend je dan de rechten van de fotograaf van de trilobiet. Dat is natuurlijk geen probleem als het om rechtenvrije afbeeldingen gaat, maar de meeste wetenschappelijke literatuur is dat niet. Lymantria (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This DR

Dear Admin Lymantria,

Please consider voting to keep this image and close this DR above. I decided to contact the CFC directly on the instinct that perhaps they hired the George Pimenthal Photography firm to take the photos at their own gala and just gave attribution to this Photography firm--just like the WEF does to images on their own flickr account. The CFC replied in the affirmative and that...they paid this photography firm for its services and own the image rights. I have made a reply in the DR. Please read it as it deals directly on copyright issues. The CFC is a reputable and trustworthy organisation in Canada where I live and Canadian movie producers like Robert Lantos who has an Order_of_Canada award would not attend a CFC gala function...if this was not so. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the DR. Thank you for your efforts. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Currency

Dear Admin Lymantria,

Could you please check the pictures Ninoy Aquino on ₱500 Bills and Ninoy Aquino, Jr.? I do believe there is legitimate reason to keep it... Thank You!--Wildcursive (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difficult one. Morally I would like to keep them, but on Commons we must allow commercial reuse. So I don't think the images can be kept. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Now I can make sure I know the boundary for this kind of pictures. --Wildcursive (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi again, this might sound like a dumb question, but I was wondering whether I have autopatrolled rights on Commons? I have filemover and patroler rights at present. Many thanks, and thanks as well for your help in the past. Best regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have autopatrolled rights included in your rights as a patroler (see Commons:Patrol#Autopatrolled). See also, for instance, here. Lymantria (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know. MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help deleting original version

Hello Lymantria, a user wants the first version of this file deleted, as it shows the license plate and he's uncomfortable about it. Could you do that please? He posted the request on my talk page, if you need to check it out. Thanks, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 06:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I hope this resolves the issue. Lymantria (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Véio Quevedo.jpg

Someone passed this image but its likely a flickrwash given it has no metadata, very low resolution (for a photo taken yesterday) and is attributed to a flickrwashing account. Please feel free to decide how to proceed. I've tagged several of this uploader's images for speedy deletion, as copyvios or as a regular DR. But this image was passed by a trusted user. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pleonastische categorieën

Beste Lymantria, Plotseling valt me nu op dat er een aantal pleonastische categorieën zijn onder de Category:Trilobita. Zo is er Category:Fossil Trilobita‎, maar ook Category:Fossil Agnostida‎, Category:Fossil Asaphida‎, Category:Fossil Corynexochida‎, Category:Fossil Lichida‎, Category:Fossil Phacopida‎, Category:Fossil Proetida‎, Category:Fossil Ptychopariida‎, en Category:Fossil Redlichiida. Bij andere groepen kan het natuurlijk zin hebben om een onderscheid te maken tussen extinct en extant taxonomische categorieën, maar natuurlijk niet bij taxa die integraal zijn uitgestorven. Dit handmatig aanpassen lijkt me een monnikenwerk, aangezien het hier gaat om 369 subcategorieën en bestanden. Lijkt mij iets voor een bot, maar ik ben niet zo van het programmeren. Zie je deze situatie als een probleem en heb je een idee hoe het eventueel kan worden opgelost? Dank en groet -- Dwergenpaartje (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beste Dwergenpaartje, Ik denk dat dit vrij eenvoudig op te lossen zou moeten zijn door inderdaad in de Category:Trilobita alle fossil ondercategorieën naar de "gewone" categorieën te verplaatsen en category-redirects aan te maken. Op zich heb ik niet zo'n moeite met een wat pleonastische naam, maar naast elkaar met de gewone naam zonder "fossil" is wat onhandig. Ik ga er later eens induiken. Groet, Lymantria (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:William Shakespeare Statue in Lincoln Park.JPG

I don't know if Innotata should have transferred this image to Commons since this statue is in Chicago. If the image is deleted, perhaps it could be restored at wikipedia...when it was originally uploaded. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statue was created in 1893, from 1894 at its current location. So it is in public domain and no license-trouble. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sorting out the US Mail in a rail car 1910.jpg

Hello, I've just seen that you've deleted the above file. Please note that pic pertains to 1910 and hence qualifies for PD-US. I therefore request you to restore the file. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

✓ Done I have added the license-tag (which was missing). Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Thank you. for thoughtfully restoring the file and adding the license tag. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

This user's uploads

Do you think this is the uploader's own work? The uploader sources the images to an account in his image but there is no online link. Its hard to be sure and I don't notice anything specific except the rather low resolution of the images. Maybe he just scanned the images from his school photo albums? Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My first impression is that these images are out of project scope (personal pictures of low quality). I would suggest to start a mass DR on these. I could do so if you wish. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please launch a mass DR on these images. I was never good at doing mass DRs. I forgot to consider the project scope issue as I was looking more at copyright. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Lymantria (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few book images?

This uploader uploaded many book cover images. These are just some I noticed that have been missed by an Admin. If you think this merits a mass DR, please file one on them. Admin Jim filed a DR on one or two images by this person but it looks like one will get a large response from this uploader.

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume these 2 personal images are OK then:

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leoboudv, I need a second thought on this. To me this seems a flickrwash, and I am not convinced about the validity of any of the uploads of this user. I think this afternoon I will decide what to do (probably in the morning for you). Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr Human review

Dear Admin Lymantria,

File:Jules Rimet replica.jpg, File:Jules-Rimet-Pokal.jpg & File:FIFA World Cup Trophy, 2010.jpg

If Commons cannot keep any of these images--including the last image--please consider filing a mass DR on these 3 photos. The first image has a unique license template. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • PS: This user's talkpage has 2 images which have to be deleted ASAP--De Olivera and Asma Assad. They were tagged as copy vios...and he removes the tag--and gets away with it. I just flickr failed one image--Asma Assad. This is not acceptable. The uploader should be given a mild warning not to remove copy vio tags but to dispute them if he wants to. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I think the first Jules Rimet replica has a special status, I don't think deletion is necessary there. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you for acting on the copyrighted Olivera image. I have made a comment in the DR you filed. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image

Stefan and I discussed this minor image. If you think that its OK, please kindly flickr pass it. I had voted in this DR by him but it was in Sweden. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is another question mark. I don't know if it should face a npd tag.

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Lithuanian animal rights picture is a border line case. I would pass it as the minimins, but that could certainly be disputed. But I think the main object is the table with stuff to sell. I do agree with you and Stefan about the Swedish image.
The Tribu Ait image was at Flickr under a "All rights reserved" license, in addition the book it was taken from is from 1984 - that is, it clearly is not released under a free license. I deleted it. Thank you! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Layout sweet home 3d.jpg

If you believe this image isn't a copyrighted derivative image, please feel free to pass it. I don't know here. Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These 3 images

What does one do with these 3 images below? They could be PD-old but they could also be copyrighted. The uploader may control the flickr account but I am uncertain and anyway, his record with copy vios is very bad.

If you think the images are OK, please remove my flickrfail and pass them. I did not mark one of the images. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have marked them "No source" as essential source information is missing. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the uploader has attempted to give a better source. This one I have marked therefore. I cannot find the date of death of the writer of the book, however. As she was born in 1849, it may well be indeed more than 70 years ago she deceased. I will be off for the weekend, and spend more time on it next monday. Happy weekend. Lymantria (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Work of a spammer?

Can you consider tagging deleting these person's uploads on April 22 plus this April 18 upload as potential copy vios...or are they OK. Right now they just lie stuck in flickr human review. They're all faulty uploads except for 1 image. It looks like the uploader is spamming or promoting a wikipedia article Here Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


3 images...one with written limitations which may prevent its use on Commons?

Dear Admin Lymantria,

Please consider marking these 3 images below: The first image below has some written limitations on its use stated by the author on the source link even though the license is 'cc by 2.0 generic'? Woould you pass or fail the image below?

The second image seems OK but as I marked one of two images uploaded by the uploader from these account, I'd prefer if you check this one, just to be sure:

The final image below is from a new 1 month old flickr account. I'm not 100% confident in marking it as I had stated to Eugene Zelenko here so I'd prefer an Admin like you to mark it...just to be safe. I don't know if I can trust a 1 month old flickr account.

I hope you can mark and pass or fail them. Thank You and Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Leoboudv, I understand your concerns, but I think all three of these images can be marked and I have done so. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there is some discrepancy between the added text "All rights reserved" and the licensing "some rights reserved". In my opinion the text cannot overrule the license. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ezio Auditore Cosplay.jpg

I had flickr failed this image but I also launched a regular DR on it. Anyway, someone I respect says on the DR that its not copyrightable. Then I notice, the uploader--who was warned about uploading copy vios on his talkpage--removed the DR notice. I placed back the DR notice on the image but decided to order a new {{Flickrreview}} and request that an experienced Admin like you mark this image...please if you can. This uploader's behaviour is a bit frustrating but maybe the image is not copyrightable then? I don't know; I thought this was similar to a Superman costume but perhaps I am in error. I have no strong opinion here. Anyhow, its better that a third party mark this image. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for drawing my attention to this. I think the image can be kept. I reacted in the DR and marked the image. Lymantria (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: A video game character costume is not copyrightable here because his costume is not complex enough then? Sometimes, it can be hard to tell what image is copyrightable and what is not. Thank You for marking the image as a neutral third party had to mark and pass or fail the image. Sadly with Admin Morning Sunshine being away, there are few other people marking flickr images sometimes. Kind Regards and Goodnight from Vancouver where we are 9 hours behind your time, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the costume is not quite an exact copy! It IS quite complicated stuff, and as a continental European citizen it is sometimes hard to understand USA laws. Under that law normal clothing you might wear in the streets is not copyrighted. Lymantria (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that even the costume of Superman cannot be copyrighted as this image exists of his costume on Commons. One learns new things every day. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr human Review

There are about 11 .ogv extension flickr human review files that my old computer cannot access. Please see if you can review them if you can. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you can Lymantria, please send a reply to licensed reviewer Stefan4 regarding this question he asked me on my talkpage. Please reply on Stefan4's talkpage about derivative rights. It concerns the .ogv files in flickr human review. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: That is appreciated. Stefan4 asks a good question on video files. Most of Common's policies deals with images files. He knows more about copyright issues than me actually. So, if he is puzzled, then he really does need help. Regards from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stefan4 asked a question to you. Just to let you know. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a heads-up

In 2011 you participated in Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb_(de-adminship 2). That discussion ended with User:Jcb losing his administrator privileges.

This note is to inform you that User:Odder proposed Jcb have unconconditional access to administrator privileges restored.

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (readmin) is scheduled to close on May 20th.

Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:香港七一大遊行"把一個劉曉波關進去, 還有千千萬萬個劉曉波走出來!"聲援被中國囚禁的民運人士 Hong Kong Protest Supports Liu Xiaobo, Dissident & Political Prisoner by China.jpg

If this large banner is not copyrightable, pls feel free to mark this image. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC) And this one has a derivative picture but I can't say if it is a dominant part of the image below:[reply]

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think both images are OK. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This DR

Please feel free to make a very brief comment in this DR--if you wish. (you don't have to) I assume it is just an innocent error by the Azerbaijani nominator...as the uploader, Yerevanci is Armenian. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This one is clear enough, I think. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Complaint Here

If you have time, please look at this uploader's images. Glabb says that this user steals images from various sites...and uploads them here. This user has a panoramio and a flickr account but I wonder if he is just steals images here from other web sites. Perhaps they both have to be added to a blacklist? I just commented on a DR on an image uploaded by him here. Also this DR taken from a web site originally. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: Wow! This uploader (Bru 216) now also has a picasa account where he uploaded a stolen image in one of the DR's I mentioned. I don't know how many copy vios he has here on Commons--or how many I may have accidentally marked in the past by this uploader. I hope he doesn't have a fourth account. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I've nominated all files uploaded by this user which originated from Flickr user Geomeng. First I made individual nominations for some files that I found elsewhere, then I made a mass nomination with the rest, assuming that it's all copyvio. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bru216. I think that 94046063@N04 needs to be added to the Flickrwashing lists, so that people are warned before reviewing any file from that account and so that the bot lists the files as Flickrwashing.
Left to do:
  • Check if there are any files from this Flickr account which were uploaded by a different user or by one of the Flickr bots.
  • Check files from other sources (Panoramio, Picasa, other Flickr accounts) and files listed as "own work". --Stefan4 (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The flickr account should be blacklisted. I wonder if the panoramio account could be blacklisted too? Glabb was right. He just takes images from other sites and uploads them here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost all files by the user have now been nominated for deletion. Left to check:

File:Duke Kahanamoku Statue a0002467.jpg & File:Duke Kahanamoku Statue a0002470.jpg

I hope that someone will deal with the mass DR of Bru216's images in the future. Anyway, can these 2 images be kept? One image must be flickr reviewed by a person. Its a statue in the US. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure Bru216's DR will be dealt with, I have blacklisted the Flickr-account. I think the images you mention can't be kept. I started DR's. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I will commented in the DR. You have placed Bru216's guomeng flickr account on the blacklist. That is good. Sadly, he also has a panoramio account and I don't know if that can be blacklisted too since a person will have to mark images uploaded from that account instead of a bot. Anyway, thanks for your help, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eed koning Willem-Alexander.jpg

File:Eed koning Willem-Alexander.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 ∙ +/−

Pbech (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lehigh Valley Visions Borough of Nazareth.ogv & File:Waterfall 2013-05-04.ogv

Since you can access video files, perhaps you can mark these 2 older uplods and see if they are OK? One is from April.

As for this DR, I don't know if I was right by giving the uploader a pass but now I am not certain if we can keep the image after I checked his talkpage for copyvio notices. The story the uploader gives seems plausible. Some people may create a flickr account sometimes just to have another person to upload an image for their own wikipedia account. But maybe you can take a second look? I don't wish to have an image deleted if it has reasonable metadata, I suppose. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two videos I have seen. For one I have started a DR, the other is passed. About the DR: the photograph seems okay. I would have preferred a route through OTRS in stead of Flickr. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laila Zaid.jpg

If this image seems OK to you, please feel free to pass it. This flickr account dates to 2006 and yet it has few images--only 108 photos. There is a very high resolution option that the uploader did not select. I don't know if it is OK. But you may. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also feel free to pass or file a speedy delete on this derivative image uploaded by a bot. I don't know if its copyrightable. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only 6 images on this flickr account. Is it a copy vio? I had marked the second image but this images may require a formal DR if they are 'suspicious.' --Leoboudv (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is OK and I uploaded a higher res. The second I have started a DR about. It may be that it is uploaded by a bot, I think the image is copyrightable but discussion is possible - I shouldn't prevent that by speedy. No hurry. The final pair of images I don't see any problem. I think you have mistaken, the flickr account has 14,100 images. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3 Video files

Dear Admin Lymantria,

If you can, please consider marking these 3 video files on flickr human review. These are the last video files on human review and 2 of them are a month old--thereabouts.

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • PS: On June 6, June 7 and June 8, this user uploaded 2D derivative posters of images from Lebanon. But Lebanon has no FOP. they should all be deleted. I did file one DR here. But maybe you can consider filing a mass DR or a speedy? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Leoboudv, The computer I am currently dealing with cannot handle the video files properly, but later this week I will have a look. And I will have more time as well. I have speedydeleted the Lebanese image you DR'ed. But here also, I will go into the other uploads later. A quick look doesn't give me a reason for a mass DR though. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: OK. When you have time, please mark the 2 racing car videos. I decided to mark the last Washington monument video file--my computer could barely cope with it but at least the music was disabled and the image was from a US government site. So, I gave it the benefit of the doubt. PS: This image file here keeps getting marked every hour it seems. Very strange. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for fixing the problem. Dennis marked the 2 car racing video files so everything is now empty at flickr human review finally. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Yesterday was more busy than I expected. Lymantria (talk) 05:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Just a brief note. Flickr, Panoramio, and Picasa Human Review all have no images to mark but no one marks this Category where there is 660+ outstanding images. A month before it was maybe 500 images but no one is experienced enough to mark these unique License review images except an Admin like you. Morning Sunshine used to mark these images but he stopped almost all his Commons activity in early April...and now no one marks them and I cannot either. Perhaps you can leave a message on an Admin board for other Admins to mark these images. If not I believe the backlog will grow to 700+ images, Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are some imagereviewers that do mark images from time to time. I am one of those - before Morning Sunshine I was one of the people who kept the image as clean as possible. But there are a lot of questionable images in the category nowadays and it is slow working.
    • There certainly are images in the category you *can* mark.
      • For instance an image this one is not difficult. The website clearly confirms the license.
      • this one is really easy to check as well: clearly from a US military, and thus PD. I prefer to mark those {{PDreview}} and in fact there even is a seperate category for these images. You might say it was misplaced, but anyhow, not a difficult one.
    • Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps but I think that in many cases only an experienced Admin knows if this image is OK or not. That was why I suggested posting this message on an Admin noticeboard somewhere. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, indeed, there are many images that have a complicated background as well. I have posted a short message on the noticeboard and hope there will be some assistance. And you deserve many thanks for the loads of accurate and precise work you are doing. If I am a bit short in my replies, that is because in fact in daily life I am really busy, not because of negative feelings about your input. On the contrary! You are a great help. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE:File:Tahoces-comision-industria-Xunta-Praza Publica.png

Thanks for the advice, I'll will try to contact to the newspaper to obtain more details about the photo. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. The newspaper site is a great source, but I hope you understand that we have to keep critical minds on copyright issues. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Commons and Wikipedia can not keep copyright material in any way. If I can not obtain a correct response from the newspaper in the nomination for deletion period, the file must be deleted. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What happened Here

Some new user suddenly appeared and removed an image file's license in this edit and then uploaded a higher resolution image over it. Do you know what to do or is this new image OK? The former image was heavily used. I don't know what is happening here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Uploading a substantially changed version of a file is not okay. I have reverted that. The same picture was uploaded seperately as well and deleted for flickrwashing. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to tag this image? The uploader is new and he doesn't know about non-free fair use images. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This User contributions

Can you file a mass DR on this user's June 14 uploads? I can never do this. The flickr source says they are all video screenshots. For example, Wtf14.png is from here & AINL1.png is from here I think now the "okgo" flickr source account likely should be placed on a blacklist for freely licensing screenshots sadly since the account profile says nothing and the images date to June 2013. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may well be the "official" Flickr-account of the band. Therefore I chose to mark one of them npd and see if a permission arises. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Letter from Louwerens to Marshall, Director of Imperial Institute of Entomology.pdf

Would you mark this image with this flickr source? I don't know if its a derivative. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image is from geograph. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr Human Review

Dear Lymantria,

When you have some free time, please feel free to have a look at this category and see if you can mark some of the video files that someone uploaded. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't marked this image but I tagged it with pd-70 yrs but it may need a pd-US tag too. I don't know if that is necessary here but its your decision to tag it with a US pd tag and to mark it if you wish. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it is old enough for PD-1923, but is it actually a "publication" if you write and send a letter? I guess so. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Krönung Zürich-Witikon

Dear Lymantria, because I'm new at Wikiepdia, I don't know, what is else to do that to send a license from the photographer, which has sent his agreement this week. Here I send you the licence, he sent to commons:

Hiermit erkläre ich in Bezug auf die Bilder [File:Maria Krönung Kirchturm.tif , File:Maria Krönung Witikon Lichtführung.tif , File:Maria Krönung Witikon Innenraum 01.tif , File:G5G82310.tif], dass ich der Fotograf oder Inhaber des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts bin. Ich erlaube hiermit die Weiternutzung des Bildes/der Bilder unter folgender freier Lizenz/folgenden freien Lizenzen:

w:en:Creative Commons
attribution share alike
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany license.
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.


Mir ist bekannt, dass damit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritte das Recht haben, das Bild zu nutzen und zu verändern. Dies schließt auch eine gewerbliche Nutzung ein.

Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann und kein Anspruch darauf besteht, dass das Bild dauernd auf der Wikipedia eingestellt wird.

Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, auf Grund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen.


Zürich, 3.Juli 2013


Roland Kniel

Please help me to know, what is wrong with this license. Today an other picture from this article has been automatically cancelled. Thank you for your help! --Charly Bernasconi (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the license above, it was simply missing. Therefore I added it to the image description. So this part is cleared up now. Now the OTRS-team will handle the mail you sent (the text of which is quite okay) and verify the sender etc. Thank you. Kind regards/Tschüss, Lymantria (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr human review

Dear Admin Lymantria,

If possible, could you post a message at an Admin notice board asking other Admins or trusted users to mark flickr human review images? I will be marking much less images on weekdays (since I have a job) and there will be a backlog now. I don't see anyone else is stepping up to mark images in this category above. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: I can mark 15-16 images today. But after today, I have to concentrate on work and there are no more guarantees. Commons has many trusted users but I don't know why they don't more actively mark images. Usually, someone else picked up the load but now it seems few people do sadly. Maybe User poco a poco a little but that's about it. If the backlog grows, I'm sorry. Please feel free to make a comment in this DR But I will have to reduce my activities soon, I'm afraid as I have to study and concentrate on work this summer. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can do so, but last time I did there was not much reaction. I am afraid that the backlog has to be more huge in order for someone to step forward and mark. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC) P.S. Congratulations with your (new?) job. I am afraid that my activities have reduced a lot as well and I don't see them growing soon (busier job....)[reply]
  • Thanks for your honesty and your reply. I have to study and work too this summer. That is why I have less time. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I marked the flickr human review images on the weekends but now I can mark only 3-5 images at the most on weekdays. If I have time. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have marked some 30 or 40 last week and this week I will be able to mark a couple as well. Thank you for your efforts, you are always carefull and communicative. Very good. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's Uploads

You deleted 1-2 images of this users flickr uploads on August 13 for having ARR licenses but I notice he/she also uploaded images from other sites on August 13 and August 14 which may be copyrighted. Such as this Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

Aren't sources owned by governments mostly free? Yes, you did delete the photos uploaded from the Daily Nation and other sources. So why did you delete the ones that were sourced from Vision 2030 which is a website belonging to the Kenyan Government (an open data website). The website's whose purpose is to provide info for its citizens. this Regards, --Nairobi123 (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, note the bottom line of the http://www.vision2030.go.ke/ website, it states "Copyright 2011 Kenya Vision 2030 (c) All Rights Reserved". I am sorry, but that to me is clear. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I have to got to bed soon but Admin Stan Shebs here once told me to never upload an image from a private website without OTRS permission because no one licenses their images for Commercial use. That was maybe 3-4 years ago and he was right. If I had, the images would have been deleted within 1 week since the person who ran this web site (of ancient Egyptian objects) refused to even reply to my E-mails to license any of his images freely. Too many people assume that governments and private websites license their images freely like the US Federal government but it doesn't work that way. Best Regards and Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is {{PD-KenyaGov}} though, but this Kenya Vision 2030 isn't exactly the government. The government of the Netherlands does explicitly license {{Cc-zero}} but as sometimes clearly photographs are not taken by or on behalf of the government, many images taken from its website are still deleted. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2013 (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:
Miltogramma punctata.
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:
Chaetosa punctipes.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

File:Ibn Insha, Ashfaq Ahmed, Muneer Niazi and A. Hameed.jpg

Thanks for your comments above. By the way, if you agree that this is own work from 1959, please feel free to pass this image. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to mark this image too although there may be a higher resolution image on the flickr source. Goodnight from Vancouver, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first I marked copyvio (this clearly is a photograph of a printed photograph from newspaper or magazine), the second I marked and uploaded the full resolution. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These Images

Dear Lymantria,

Perhaps you know a French speaking Admin who can contact the uploader about these images. It seems likely that they require COM:OTRS permission from the blog website operator. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have simply marked them No Permission, as there is a French translation as well. Hope that is sufficient. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2013 (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:
Discomyza incurva.
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:
Mintho rufiventris Lateral view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

This unsourced Image

Do you have any idea what to do with this unsourced image reportedly from flickr? I haven't any idea. Maybe you can find it on flickr if its truly free as someone just noted (in a rough translation) Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • As an aside, I passed this image below by an artist who died in 2013. If it is a copyrightable 3D art rather than a simple generic art, please revert my flickrpass and feel free to delete the image:
  • File:Ruth-asawa-wire-sculpture.jpg

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I marked the first "No source". I didn't find any match on Flickr and a Google search increased my doubts. The second is a clear derivative work IMHO. I started a DR. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Thank you for your clear statement on the first image. When its the uploader's only remaining image, one wonders if it is OK or not. Presumably then it was taken from another website. As for the second image, I thought it was a bush at first until I saw that it was someone's art work. I thought it was somewhat generic...but of course the artist's estate might not think so. So, I felt I should contact an Admin for a second opinion. I will make a reply in the DR. Thank You. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: WW2censor made a comment on the image you placed an npd tag on. He says that there is no evidence that it is freely licensed. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. No problem. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Commercial Use???

I don't really understand the difference between Wikimedia Commons and the local Wikipedias, but why aren't photos licensed for non-commercial use allowed, as this is a non-profit organization? Second question, if non-commercial isn't allowed on Commons, is it allowed on local Wikipedias like the standard English one? I ask because I am trying to make an article for Cristóvão Tezza, and in the "How to Improve Your Article" section there is a link to "free images". When I tried uploading the image found following that link, it looked like everything was good for uploading to the English page, and then at the last second it asked if I wanted to move it to Commons as well. Not knowing the difference I said yes. Would it have been okay if I had said no instead and just uploaded it to English Wikipedia and not to Commons?

Thanks, Vojen (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an understandable question. The goal of wikimedia-projects is to present free information, free to reuse that is. Therefore we require, although the WMF itself is a non-profit organization, that all information should be available for commercial reuse as well. Note that "commercial" sounds more clear than it is - some activities you might not immediately think of as commercial may be considered as sucht. There is some difference in accepting among different wikimedia projects on the item of fair use. Indeed the english language wikipedia accepts fair use, where commons and many other language wikipedias do not. I hope this cleared things up a bit. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's good to know the policy. Maybe I'll try reloading to the English Wiki only. Thanks for the feedback.Vojen (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr human review

If you have some time to mark a few flickr images (say 10 or 12 images), please feel free to mark some photos. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admin Lymantria,

I request that you please Delete this image and BAN this uploader for at least 10 days to 2 weeks. He uploaded this image again today after you deleted it. I asked Turelio yesterday to ban this uploader but Turelio was busy...and the uploader just totally ignores all your notices and warnings. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the reupload, again, and blocked the user for 1 week. That should be sufficient for a clear statement that his uploadings are disturbing. When he uploads again this image, please inform me and he will be blocked for a longer period. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lymantria/Archive_5&oldid=106821534"