User talk:Majora/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Tagging copyvios

Hi, When tagging copyvios, please inform the uploader. This is best done with the gadget. See in your preferences. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Logos

Hola. Ya modifiqué el logo de Jurassic World. Podrías quitar la etiqueta de borrado? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cygomezm (talk • contribs) 0:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC) (UTC)

@Cygomezm: The current version is fine. The previous version still has to be deleted. I have altered the copyright violation tag to say that. --Majora (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Machine translation: La versión actual está muy bien. La versión anterior todavía tiene que ser eliminado. He alterado la etiqueta de violación de derechos de autor para decir eso.

sorry, its my first time so I don't know my way around here.

I received an email from you so you can go here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Ermis_fc_logo_2.jpg

to see that its not the case.

Thank you in advance ... my user here is Enasaplos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enasaplos (talk • contribs) 04:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC) (UTC)

Answered on their talk page. --Majora (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Сoat of arms FC Tobol Tobolsk.png

Hello! I'm not an experienced user and maybe made some mistake. Сoat of arms FC Tobol Tobolsk.png - this is my job, and the official logo of FC "Tobol" from Tobolsk. As an amateur club - this image or where not recorded. The coat of arms was created fans, the fans used, is used on attributes, literature, etc. The license for the image did this because unscrupulous officials of the local Municipality may usurp logo, present their work, start to prohibit use without their permission (has been pretsident with the emblem of the city), do not care that the image belongs to all people. This is Siberia, hahaha. Therefore, I decided to make the license with the name of the author. Help me understand how to do better? Sorry for the bad language. Thank you! Герб раз Герб два

--Tobolsk fan (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Answered on their talk page. --Majora (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Why you deleted this photo? Szeged2012.png

Just explain me why. It doesn't need any copyright...... Its just a football team logo Teomatra (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Answered on their talk page. --Majora (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The logo is absolutely correct. Why you deleted that logo ? I am currently studying in that university and I have to upload the new one. Please undo that deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabsingh97 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Answered on their talk page. --Majora (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Snow white and the huntsman poster.jpg

FRENCH

Bonjour,

Je poste aujourd'hui ce message au sujet de fichier "Snow_white_and_the_huntsman_poster.jpg". Je souhaiterais savoir pourquoi ce fichier a-t-il été proposé à la suppression ? Sachant que la licence Commons utilisée sur Flickr pour ce fichier est CC-BY-SA 2.0.

ENGLISH

Hello,

Today, I post this message about file "Snow_white_and_the_huntsman_poster.jpg". I would like to know why this file has proposed the deletion? Knowing that the Commons license used on Flickr for that file is CC-BY-SA 2.0.

--Belpois30 (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Answered on their talk page. --Majora (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


Upload User Master xXx All File

คือผมต้องดำเนินการอย่างไร? ผมไม่เก่งภาษาอังกฤษ หรือ WIKIMEDIA ให้ใช้เฉพาะคนที่อ่านภาษาอังกฤษออก ผมพยายามถามไปทุกส่วนก็ไม่เห็นมีใครตอบ แล้วอย่างไง? ถ้าต้องการจะใส่ข้อมูลต้องอ่านภาษาอังกฤษออกใช่มั้ย แล้วอย่างนี้ข้อมูลใน WIKI จะถูกต้องได้อย่างไร?

Master xXx (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

File:โลโก้ วิทยาลัยเทคโนโลยีสยาม(สยามเทค).png

Dear Majora, I, Pongsathorn Rakkaew (User:Master xXx) possess the copyright of this image. I am the Assistant Manager Siam Design "Siam Technological College (Siamtech)" and I have the evidence document - The original files of programs. Please let me know how to submit the evidence to you and i will do the same. I request you to kindly restore the file as it was before. Thank You! Master xXx (talk)

File:Vizhi Moodi Yosithaal - Poster.jpg

Dear Majora, I, K.G.Senthil Kumar (User:kgs.kumar) possess the copyright of this image. I am the producer of this film "Vizhi Moodi Yosithaal" and I have the evidence document - Censor Certificate from the Government of India issued in my name. Please let me know how to submit the evidence to you and i will do the same. I request you to kindly restore the file as it was before. Thank You! Kgs.kumar (talk)

Answered on their talk page. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Noela Hjorth

Hi @Majora. I have already emailed permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and the Aus email too regarding the images for . I have permission to use them from the copyright owner Larissa Hjorth, for her recently deceased mother's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noela_Hjorth). In fact she asked me to put this page up. best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klarelanson (talk • contribs) 02:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC) (UTC)

  • @Klarelanson: If you have emailed OTRS with the permission please add {{subst:OP}} to the images as outlined in the instructions that can be found here. Also please note that the permission from the copyright holder must be specific and must allow us to use reuse and modify the images in any way at any time. The form that needs to be filled out can be seen at the link above. If you have further questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


Logo Elblotsen

Hello Majora, why did you delete our logo? We are the offical elbe pilots and this is our logo as you can see it on our homepage http://www.elbe-pilot.de/cms/. --Elblotsen (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Answered on their talk page. --Majora (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

D. J. Sindh Government Science College logo deletion

I would like to know that if someone has posted an image on Wikipedia, it can be modified and copied under CC license, right? So, I have done that, but still it was marked for deletion. Am I missing something? Also, if the original creator has to be credited, then where the credit should be placed? On the page? ZaeemAkhtr (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@ZaeemAkhtr: That depends on what it was licensed under at that Wikipedia. Certain projects allow something called fair use which is the use of copyrighted images in a limited and highly restricted manner. Logos on other projects are usually there under fair use. Commons does not accept fair use claims. Period. All images here must be free use and must be able to be used and modified for any reason (including commercial use) by anyone at anytime. Since all logos are assumed to be copyrighted unless proven, beyond a doubt, otherwise it was marked for deletion. If you are trying to place the logo on another project perhaps they allow fair use and you will not have to jump through the hoops here. To see if the project you want to use the logo on accepts fair use please see m:Non-free content. If you have further questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Universidad Nebrija logo deletion

I've tried to upload the new logo of university Nebrija several times. It has in Flickr (profile nebrijauniversidad) a free CC licence. I do not understand why it is always deleted. Thanks in advance for your help.

Unjust deletion

Majora,
You have suggested the deletion of almost all my uploads to the commons. In particular, the only available version of the OIT seal and a version that I myself have made. You have suggested the deletion of the Kiznaiver image based on the fact that it is promotional, however, in my country (USA) and according to Wikipedia, promotional images should not be deleted. Please refer to "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Promotional_photos" on the Wiki policy regarding fair use. I properly cited and applied the correct License to all of my uploaded images. Your actions have made Wikipedia less "free" and fair.

If done again, every university in our system will vote on a ban of the use of Wikipedia as an investigative research tool. Please thoroughly review your screening process in the future.

Thank you,

Takawa Shiro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.oppa.2 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mr.oppa.2: You seem to have forgotten where you are. You are on Commons. Not Wikipedia. They are completely separate and the category you linked to has absolutely no bearing on this site whatsoever. Commons only accepts free use images. Period. No exceptions. Your reference to fair use would be true if this was Wikipedia. It isn't. Please get your sites straight. And don't threaten to "vote to ban" because frankly Commons could not care less. Promotional images are not free and do not belong here. At all. If you have questions about uploading a fair use image to Wikipedia please see their help desk. --Majora (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a late, small note, the uploader uploaded the images using the cross-wiki uploader (in Visual editor?) on en.wikipedia, and most likely though s/he uploaded the images to Wikipedia. Josve05a (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. Érico (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Code issues in User:Majora/common.js

Hi Majora, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

  1. You edited User:Majora/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
  2. Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new jshint issue — the page's status is now having warnings. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
  3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!
  1. ISSUE: line 2 character 1: 'mw' is not defined. - Evidence: mw.util.addPortletLink('p-tb', 'javascript:importScript("MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js");', 'Perform batch task', 't-AjaxQuickDeleteOnDemand');

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 00:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC).

Kanwal Ameen image

Your tag on the :File:KanwalAmeen2.jpg is incorrect. Professor Ameen actually did specify a license per the email she submitted to permissions and copied to me clearly stating she is the owner of the image and I quote: "give my permission to Wikipedia Commons to use named image under the licence CC-BY-SA 4.0" Please remove your tag from the image. Thanks Atsme 📞 18:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Responded via email. --Majora (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Email didn't come through. Resend. Atsme 📞 04:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Vestavia Hills High School logo.png

File:Vestavia Hills High School logo.png 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 ∙ +/−

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. I'd like to delete all the pictures that I've uploaded. Could you please help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutaito0321 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Dealt with. Images were deleted. --Majora (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Noura Almoteari

regarding to your request [Ticket#2016102010012801] about my following photos : - نورا المطيري Noura almoteari.jpg - نورا المطيري Noura almoteari 2016.jpg - نورا المطيري - ورشة عمل منتدى تطور شبكات التواصل الإجتماعي Noura Almoteari - Citizen Media.jpg - نورا المطيري - إعلام مواطن Noura Almoteari - Citizen Media.jpg I sent by email a permission request to Telethon Media to send a free license release for my 4 images and free license release for all my images and also send the agreement sets out the details of the assignment between me and Telethon Media including the transfer of all rights to any copyrights and that all existing copies, including negatives and digital photographs belongs to me as purchaser. please note that I would like to give Wikimedia Commons full permission & a free license to use all my images. regards --Noura Almoteari (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

also I would like to inform you that I already published my photos in public and its now free to use , please check my twitter account: https://twitter.com/Noura_Almotairi/status/787587526483701760 hope this will be consederd as a free license release for my images --Noura Almoteari (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

ASSIGNMENT OF ALL RIGHTS TO PHOTOGRAPH

i just sent ASSIGNMENT OF ALL RIGHTS TO PHOTOGRAPH to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org , i hope you can now remove all Deletion requests for all my photos at : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Noura_Almoteari regards --Noura Almoteari (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Dealt with. --Majora (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Mosaic of the Female Musicians.png

File:Mosaic of the Female Musicians.png 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 ∙ +/−

Piledhighandeep (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

ANP Logo Dari

The community reviewed this work in 2012 and determined it should remain available. No substantive changes were made to the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umiami91 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion request for:

File:FN SCAR L (Standard) and FN SCAR H (Standard).jpg File:FN SCAR H (Standard).jpg File:FN SCAR L (Standard).jpg File:AK-12 - Final Production Model (Right Side View).jpg

I got them from imfdb (Internet Movie Firearms Database) which is powered by MediaWiki ("MediaWiki is a free software open source wiki package written in PHP, originally for use on Wikipedia. It is now also used by several other projects of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation and by many other wikis, including this website, the home of MediaWiki."). I looked at their privacy policy or any copyright information but I see none. So I do believe that these said images are free to use. Though if they are proven to violate the rules and regulations of wikicommons, I understand. If so, I do request to upload similar free use images of these rifles since they are needed for the articles that they are currently in used.

- Thank You! (Gun Lover) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gun Lover (talk • contribs) 03:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gun Lover: You don't seem to understand why I nominated the images for deletion. Just because they were uploaded to another wiki does not mean that they are actually free use. People can, and do, upload copyright violations all the time. That is why you can't just assume something is free use that you find elsewhere on the Internet unless you can prove that it is. There is no additional information on where they got that image from on IMFDB. For all I know they stole it from another website and committed copyright infringement themselves. The burden of proof is on the uploader whether or not the copyright licensing is acceptable and correct. If you have these weapons I encourage you to take a photo of them yourself and upload them. Otherwise, there is nothing I can do. Without proof the images have to be deleted. --Majora (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
You really helped a lot. Amitkumarjha8 (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Clarification

Dear, The logo that was uploaded was of Holy Cross College Agartala. That logo is the official emblem of the college and goes relevantly with the Wikipedia page of Holy Cross College Agartala. I am the head of Technical at Holy Cross College Agartala and I have been given the responsibility by the management of Holy Cross College Agartala to keep the Holy Cross College Agartala Wikipedia page updated. I could not find any place to upload the authorization letter while uploading logo to Wikipedia, or else I would have uploaded. It is very annoying that we work hours to update a page and moderators just tag those as inappropriate, copyrighted, promoting business and as a result 95% of the contents gets deleted. Please see what you can do in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samrat.hcc (talk • contribs) 14:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello Majora, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Map of female governors

Can you update File:United States Governor gender map.svg to reflect Iowa having a female governor (Kim Reynolds)) now? 107.145.77.108 22:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

This was done by another. In the future, I made it really easy to update the map. Just download the file and open it in notepad (or a similar text editor). The code will come up and you can edit the color codes from there. Then just save an upload a new version. You do need an account to upload a new version of a file but other than that it is really easy to do. If you have any questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear license reviewer

If you use the helper scripts, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named license+ and license-.

Hi Majora, thanks for your request for license reviewer status. The request has been closed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. You can now start reviewing files – please see Commons:License review and Commons:Flickr files if you haven't done so already. We also have a guide how to detect copyright violations. Potential backlogs include Flickr review, Picasa review, Panoramio review, and files from other sources. You can use one of the following scripts by adding one of the lines to your common.js:

importScript('User:ZooFari/licensereviewer.js'); // stable script for reviewing images from any kind of source OR
importScript('User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js'); // contains also user notification when review fails, auto blacklist-check and auto-thank you message for Flickr-reviews.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons webchat on irc.freenode.net. You can also add {{User license reviewer}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your contributions on Commons! Green Giant (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Derivative work warning

Hi, Majora! I'm confused regarding your comment on File:Luis_de_Lión_de_Casa_Museo.jpg. The author of the modified image (Renata Avila) is acknowledged, and the license she grants permits modification of the image. Are you referring to the subject of the image, which is a reproduction of the government document published as Diario Militar? -- Shunpiker (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Shunpiker: The "derivative" image refers to the photo within the photo. You cannot take a photo of another photo and release it under a free license. The original copyright has to be taken into account. The source of the original photo is not listed so we don't know what copyright that on would be under. Guatemalan copyright lasts for 75 years after the author's death (or if anonymous 75 years after first publication). I'm not seeing exceptions for works by the Guatemalan government if this is the case here. Does that make sense? --Majora (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. The document in question appears in George Washington University's National Security Archive, where the policy is that you may "copy, reproduce and distribute materials" from that site: https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB15 Does this allay your concern, or would sourcing the image from the document as distributed there address the concern that you have raised? -- Shunpiker (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
We would need clear evidence that the image has been released under a free license or into the public domain. It being housed at that archive doesn't necessarily mean anything. An exact link would be helpful for determining whether we can keep it or not. Please provide one if you have it, Shunpiker. --Majora (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Terms of use for that site, including "License to Use Materials Posted On Web Site", as quoted above are here: https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nsa/terms.htm If that's not sufficient, I'm just going to cry uncle and edit it out of the page. I know I've got bigger fish to fry, and I bet you do, too! --Shunpiker (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@Shunpiker: I do want to be able to use whatever images we can use. Big or small fish isn't really the problem here. But I don't think we can keep it. That link does say that you can "copy, reproduce and distribute...provided that: you maintain all copyright, trademark or other proprietary notices." That notice is a basic "cover their behinds" type notice. You can use the images, provided you research and respect whatever copyright you do find. Also, copyright doesn't actually need a notice. It attaches upon creation. Now, I'm not 100% sure if Guatemalan copyright is the same but since I'm not 100% sure I don't think we can keep it. I'm sorry. I wish we could. --Majora (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I get it that you're just enforcing the policy. It's just that it's heart-breaking that we have to ask whether the government that abducted and extrajudicially murdered a person owns the rights to his image. But you can't win them all. Removing the image from the article. -- Shunpiker (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry, Shunpiker. Really I am. I don't know what article you were using it on but if the project allows for fair use (the English Wikipedia for example) then the use of a copyrighted image for the display of a deceased individual is generally allowed provided a fully free use image cannot be found. What article was it that you wanted to use it on? I'll see what I can do. --Majora (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
That's kind of you. I located the image on Flickr while translating es:Luis de Lion to en:Luis de Lión. The original did not have an image, but I thought I'd make a quick search to see if I could locate a free or CC-licensed image. -- Shunpiker (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing I can do about eswiki. They do not allow any fair use photos on their entire project. Enwiki is a different story. I'll transfer it over there today. --Majora (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done --Majora (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Hi there, there has been no copyright violation as you have suggested in your warning. Both images were taken by Nim Arnold who has made them freely available through her Flickr account and have both been used accurately to represent the page of musician Tim Arnold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetimarnold (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thetimarnold: Right...and I'm a three headed dog. We can't take your word for it. If they want to release the photos under a creative commons license they are going to have to prove that. The copyright holder, which is the creator of the work, will have to fill out the form located at COM:ET and send it into our OTRS team. Right now, it looks like license laundering and if it looks like license laundering it probably is license laundering. --Majora (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Majora, well goodness, I wasn't expecting a reply involving the word 'dog'. I can tell you now that I have very little experience with Wikipedia and would be grateful for your help. What I can assure you of is that I am in touch with both Tim Arnold, his PA Nim Arnold and was present when both photos were taken. It would be great if you can explain what we need to do because we've not done anything wrong on purpose. We just don't know Wiki like you do. many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetimarnold (talk • contribs) 23:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Majora, thanks for deleting our artist image even though we own it. Would you mind telling us WHAT image we can upload since you have threatened to shut the page down if we 'violate' again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetimarnold (talk • contribs) 23:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
We feel quite unfairly attacked by Majora on here. We don't even understand how to reply without starting a new thread, any help appreciated. Naomi Arnold both photographed and took the image that we uploaded as Tim Arnold's main image on Wiki. It belongs to her and Tim, the usage she made correct on her Flickr so that it could be used across the net. Majora seems to be intent or not hearing this. Can you help, can anyone help? Thetimarnold (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The copyright holder of the images, which is generally the photographer unless the copyright has been transferred by legal action or contract such as a work for hire, must read, fill out, and send in the form that I mentioned in my first response. There is a lot of evidence that the images are under something other than a creative commons license. This is standard practice to mark such images for removal until the information can be verified. In addition, you have numerous notices on your talk page regarding copyright violations. All of this was taken into account when the images were tagged. Posts here can also take some time to get a response as I'm not always sitting at my computer. You can edit individual sections by clicking the "edit" button near the section header. --Majora (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, okay, that makes a bit more sense. Please let me explain our situation and please let us know what we need to do. I am Tim Arnold, I sat down with my friend Naomi Arnold who then took that photo of me. I thanked her and we agreed it would make a nice photo for my new album as well as my website. We also added it to my Wiki page because we thought it would look consistemnt with all the other current images of me. Naomi (Nim) uploaded it to her Flickr account and we added it to Wiki. So, now that you've taken the im age down, can you tell us what we should do? Do I own it? Does she own it? We are friends, so there are no contracts or ownership issues. Essentially I own it because it/'s on my album cover and my website. But I don't want you to close my page down for getting something wrong so we'd really appreciate it if you could tell us what kind of commons my photo is and anything you can do to help us put the photo back on Wiki would be really great. As it stands, I may even write a song about this on my next album! Much love and light, Tim Arnold x — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetimarnold (talk • contribs) 00:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Thetimarnold (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Thetimarnold: Legally speaking, she owns it. Since there wasn't any work for hire type contract nor any legal transfer, by the letter of the law she owns the copyright to the image. As for your article it won't be taken down. Images and actual article content are two completely separate things. Here on Commons, we deal with multimedia. And only multimedia. The article on the English Wikipedia is different. As for the final notice that I left on your talk page, that was only for your uploading privileges here, on Commons. It is primarily left as a last ditch effort to get people to talk with us so we don't have to take that last step.

So, the next steps are as follows. Naomi must email our copyright response team acknowledging that she is the copyright holder of these images and that she is releasing them under a free license. To do this she needs to fill out the form located at COM:ET#E-mail template for release of rights to a file and send it into the email address mentioned there. It would be helpful if she also mentions exactly what images she is releasing. Either with the image title that it was uploaded under here or by attaching it to the email. Once our copyright team verifies the information the image will be restored. If you have any further questions about this process please let me know. --Majora (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Majora - that is super helpful of you, thank you so much. I will contact her first thing tomorrow morning and explain the situation and we will follow your instructions. Thanks again! Tim x Thetimarnold (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding images from solkka.titstory.com

Hello! You haven't tagged any of my files from the source but I wanted to clear something up. "Solkka" is a photographer for NewInStar from what I was able to gather based on his website and YouTube page.

  • All of his older photos, such as these, have "Solkka" watermarked on them and not "NewsInStar".
  • All of the photos in the main category here are listed as "NewsInStar - Solkka" (in Korean) as he is attributing the photos to himself. The title of his titstory is also Solkka [NewsInStar] in Korean.
  • Stuff like this Exid post, that has watermarked "Solkka" photos on them, has a video embedded. The YouTube channel is the "NewsInStar" YouTube channel where all recent posts are watermarked with that domain, which means that he runs it. There is also a channel description where he states that he's a professional photographer and everything on there is taken by him.

So these photos are his to put under the public domain.

I hope that clears things up! Nyantatata (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nyantatata: That's not true at all. If he works for NewsInStar then it is a work for hire contract. He does not have any right to those images at all. They are corporately owned and the copyright license is owned by the company. Not by the photographer. That is how work for hire works. --Majora (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: I'm not sure if he works for them or if he runs it; I'm looking into that now. There are a lot of files from that domain on Commons -- 95 in the "Images from Solkka category" alone, but many of them I have found aren't even properly categorized in there so it's definitely worth looking into and maybe posting on the Village pump. And if I may ask, do you happen to speak any Korean? I'm looking into it myself but my Korean is very basic and thus my research on the topic is quite limited. I'm looking for the post in which he changed watermarks to see if he says if he launched the site or if he just works for it. Nyantatata (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I've been looking into it for about two weeks now, Nyantatata. Unfortunately, I don't speak any Korea so I'm relying on bad Google translate. I couldn't find any mention of that Tistory page on the main NewsInStar page and I've continued to look for any link between them. I have found instances where the same pictures are on the NewsInStar site with an "All Rights Reserved" copyright line. That is the problem here. If it is a work for hire type contract then that photographer has no right to release them on their Tistory page. What a mess this is. --Majora (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Why have you targeted my image?

My image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vigen_sargsyan_nato.jpg has Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic right (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/). This allows for the right to "Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format". So what is wrong with my image and why are you unfairly trying to take it down? MosMusy (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@MosMusy: Did you read the notice I put on your talk page? Obviously not. NonCommercial and NoDerivs restrictions are not acceptable on Commons. See COM:FLICKR for a list of flickr licenses that are. Also, read the notice at the top of this page. Images must be able to be used or modified by anyone, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse). And don't flatter yourself. I'm not targeting anyone. I'm reviewing images. Just like I have been doing for a while now. --Majora (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

LR

since it got closed by Davey2010, I wasn't totally ready to jump in yet. Mostly because I was gonna postpone full-speed reviewing until a few weeks later. I'll put a new request later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artix Kreiger (talk • contribs) 22:59, January 27, 2018 (UTC)

Probably best not to apply for a right that requires such scrutiny unless you are fully prepared to use it. I never really looked at whether you were right for the permission since your opening statement showed that you didn't really want it. --Majora (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
yeah admittadly, I kind of hoped it would bring some scrutiny for some feedback. Admittadly, yes it was the wrong place. Any timeframe you suggest? a week or so? Artix Kreiger (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Are you actually going to take it seriously and commit to helping with the backlog? If so, perhaps three weeks to a month. Provided that everything else checks out. As I said previously, I haven't looked at whether you were actually right for the permission. --Majora (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

In the future, yes. I will commit to cutting some of the back logs.Artix Kreiger (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

How do I contact you? (moved from userpage)

How do I message you about the images that I am copyright owner on which are being deleted? I'm sorry if this is not the right medium, this website has a really confusing UI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmyLeeRobinson (talk • contribs)

@AmyLeeRobinson: Hi Amy, the instructions for doing so are within the notice that I left on your talk page. What you have to do is head on over to COM:Email templates and use one of the two methods to send a copyright release form to our copyright response team. The interactive release generator will just create the same thing as the email template so either will do. Please read, fill out, and send in the release form to the email mentioned and please send the email from an address that is associated with the content. Sending it from an official email for the company will help speed the process along as it helps with verification purposes. When you do that you should get an automated response back with a ticket number. If you just let me know that ticket number I can take a look at it. If you have any other questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Mai Dubai Logo font

Hi there!

I'm Chielou...need some help..May i know what font style is used in Mai Dubai logo? Need that kind of font..I've been browsing nearly 8 hours searching for that font. Hope you can help me...Sorry for being a bother.

Thanks and God Bless — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 180.191.127.51 (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't know. I just uploaded the image. I don't have anything to do with the company. I tried to do a quick search myself and came up empty. It is possible that it is a custom font designed specifically for the company. --Majora (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Ticket number

Thanks for your clarification. Should the ticket numbers be posted here, to the deletions request page, or should they be forwarded to you privately?

— Altman (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Altman: You can post the ticket number here. That isn't the private part of the permission email and it will be attached to any image anyways when permissions are approved. --Majora (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
— Roger that, thanks! There's more than one, as I had to track down someone from decades ago while I was at it. Fortunately, I still talk with her :)
Ticket#
ticket:2018012710006257
ticket:2018020410005138
ticket:2018020410005487
— Altman (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Everything appears to be fine with them. I just don't have the time right now to do my normal checks. I will get to them later today. Thanks! --Majora (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
— Thank you! Altman (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry for not getting to these sooner. I got through one. The other two I'm going to have to do tomorrow. One of which I'm going to have to get in contact with an admin to do some undeleting. Thank you for your patience in this and I appreciate you getting the permissions in order. Everything looks fine and there isn't anything to worry about. I just got distracted with some other things. --Majora (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: Mahalo, I appreciate your assistance. One question in regards to credits: if the copyright holder prefers a specific alternative to listing their full name under attribution, does that order need to be specified now, or—provided she uses her own account to do so—can she change the attribution field herself later? — Altman (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Altman: My apologies for not asking that. Yes, the creator can require any attribution that they want. Technically the copyright license chosen requires attribution for any reusers but what is actually being used as the attribution line is up to the copyright holder. In the interest of making sure they are comfortable with the images being hosted here I have removed the name from the file pages. I can also have it scrubbed from the page history if that is their desire. Again, my apologies. That is just standard procedure when we receive permissions due to the attribution requirement for that license. --Majora (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

About the copyright

You mentioned that my picture File:Andrawos-white.jpg is copyrighted, held by the photographer. I own this picture and I have took this picture in my camera for the photographer himself! He is a good friend of mine in Sweden and the picture is MINE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosheeko (talk • contribs) 04:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It is not only all over the Internet. But because you took it from Picasa you eliminated any metadata from the image. You also uploaded other professional photos that have other issues. What did you expect? Follow the instructions on COM:ET and sent in a release form to our copyright response team. --Majora (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

OTRS?

Hi Majora, as you cited an OTRS ticket in an edit at File:Jugulator amplissimus.jpg, are you a OTRS-volunteer? If yes, please put some userbox or similar on your userpage, so that one can easily recognize you as somebody with OTRS access. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Túrelio: I have the OTRS top icon on my user page and the notice on the top of this page in regards to OTRS matters. Were you looking for something additional? I'm not a huge fan of userboxes for user rights. I prefer the smaller, unobtrusive, top icons for those things. --Majora (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Justin Barrett, 2017 Ard Fheis (cropped) post

Hello, apologies if I am posting this in the wrong place.

Firstly, the licence has seemingly been approved by the flickrreview bot on the original uncropped image. However the cropped image seems to be running into difficulties, I presume since it is different in size to the original image. Do you know how it would be possible to clear up the cropped image's licence troubles now that the original image has been approved? And if so, could we please revert the removal of the image from the relevant wikipedia pages in which it occurs? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishpolitical (talk • contribs) 00:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Done, Irishpolitical. The logo, File:Identity Ireland logo.png, is still an issue however. It is far about the threshold of originality and the copyright holder would have to release it. Otherwise I can transfer it directly to enwiki under our fair use procedures. What would you like to do? --Majora (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Please transfer it to enwiki under fair use procedures. Relatedly, could File:National Party (Ireland) logo.jpg please also be forwarded to enwiki under the same fair use procedures? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishpolitical (talk • contribs) 00:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
The Identity Ireland logo has been moved, Irishpolitical. The National Party one doesn't need to be as it is below the threshold of originality and isn't eligible for copyright. --Majora (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Albanian FoP Files

Thanks for your work here. Having just finished looking at each file to see if it should be restored and then restoring it, I completely forgot that VFC would remove the {{Delete}}s now that the files are back in category. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh no problem, Jameslwoodward. I'm slowly teaching myself regex so that was a fun exercise. How to include different delete rationales but stop at the }}. /\{\{delete.+?}}/ A few hiccups along the way but now I know how to do that so...that's a plus. --Majora (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Dati Camera images

I'm sorry, I had no idea you were working on them: it's a very old import. Given the images were imported from a data dump (AFAIK), I don't see a compelling need of a direct link to each image. Besides, the kind of link you're adding (http://dati.camera.it/ocd/persona.rdf/p302138 ) is useless, because it's already on the wikidata entries which are linked to the images. You should just transclude links from the Wikidata entries, if you think they're useful to have on the page description. Duplicating such information here only makes things worse. Thanks, Nemo 09:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: Part of the license review instructions requires a direct source. The reason they were put in the license review category was because they all lacked sources. Wikidata is not a proper source and there are at least a dozen images so far, out of 300 that I have gone through now, that are not correct. The link I have does not include the image that was uploaded. Those require additional searches to find the exact link. Again, this is part of the license review process. Failure to have an exact link usually results in a {{Nsd}} tag. Wikidata can be wrong, has been shown to be wrong in the past, and since it is just another wiki it is changeable by those that are not trusted to do license reviews. That is not proper. It isn't duplication. It is a check by someone the Commons community has trusted to do such things. --Majora (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Nice that you found those mistakes! You don't need to trust Wikidata as a source, but you can speed up these checks if you use the links that the importer has already placed there. Let me know if you need help writing some wikicode or other to fetch such data. Ruthven mentioned he has a script to facilitate such URL fetch, maybe ask him too. --Nemo 08:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

License review tags

Why did you do make this edit? The flickr review template is specificly for flickr files which this is, so why replace it with the standard review failed template? Besides which the image is actually properly licensed at Flickr even though it is a screenshot of the file at Flickr. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: The template says why. This file has been nominated for deletion after failing a source review. It removes it from the queue and puts it in the holding pen that is Category:License review failed while the nomination is ongoing. This helps tremendously by cleaning out the "waiting to be reviewed" category to only those images that actually still have to be reviewed. The number of times I've opened an image just to find that it is already DR'ed or "no sourced" or at some other removal process was annoying. That category was created for that sole purpose so I decided to actually use it. I keep an eye on that category and any page that is no longer part of another process I double check to make sure what has to be done is done. We don't have a {{Flickr reviewed failed}} and the {{FlickreviewR/fail}} template doesn't categorize it that way so I just use the general one. --Majora (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I see your point but the problem arises that the image was not failed, the flickr review bot merely could not find the size but a human could find it quickly and it was placed into Category:Flickr images not found which is not a license failed category. IIRC the same tag is used when the "original" Flickr size has a different orientation to other sizes. In those cases, as in this one, the image just needs a human to look at it and give it a good review. In fact this image should, in my opinion, never have been sent for deletion and a deletion nomination does not mean it will fail a human review; I would have passed it. The thing is that it has not failed the license review, but maybe we need {{FlickreviewR/fail}} to keep it within the Flickr area. Obviously you do what you think best but I would not move such an image into the regular review space. Thanks for your explanation. Ww2censor (talk) 09:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
My use of the {{FlickreviewR/fail}} as an example was a poor choice. My apologies, Ww2censor. I know that the normal "fail" template put by the bot means next to nothing. It just means that it needs a human review. That is not what happened in particular instance however. Elisfkc, another license reviewer, nominated the image for deletion. I went to go review it, noticed it was DR'ed and put it in the "License review failed" category to remove it from the queue. Since it had already been looked at by another license reviewer I never felt the need to look at it again beyond seeing the DR notice. There are just too many images in the LR backlog to redo the work of other reviewers.

I will do whatever others want me to do. I don't want to rock the boat here. If you want me to leave them alone I will do so. If you want me to create a new {{Flickr review failed}} template with a Category:Flickr review failed category I will do so. I'm pretty agreeable either way. --Majora (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

File:C. J. Grisham official army photo.jpg

File:C. J. Grisham official army photo.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 ∙ +/−

Sandstein (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Recebi seu aviso!

Olá, vi seu aviso. Mas eu queria falar que todas as imagens são de minha autoria, modificados ou criados com base em outras imagens. Eu não acho que viola as politicas da Wikipedia! Mas se isso assim significar que qualquer imagens minhas violam quaisquer politicas da Wikipedia, como você me alertou, acho que ela esta muito burocrática. Por favor, não me leve a mal, é apenas opinião. Muito obrigado. --Ragnarök de Althar (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ragnarök de Althar: I don't speak Portuguese but I can put it through a machine translator. You have so many copyright violation notices on your talk page that that is why I left you the final warning. Logos such as File:LAD.png are assumed to be copyrighted. Marking copyright violations for deletion is not "bureaucratic" it is Commons policy and continual violations will result in the revocation of your editing privileges. --Majora (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Machine translate: Eu não falo português, mas posso traduzi-lo através de um tradutor de máquina. Você tem tantos avisos de violação de direitos autorais em sua página de discussão que é por isso que eu deixei você o último aviso. Logos como File: LAD.png são considerados de direito autoral. Marcar violações de direitos autorais para exclusão não é "burocrático", é política do Commons e violações contínuas resultarão na revogação de seus privilégios de edição. --Majora (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay then!
Beauty. I'm sorry if you found me aggressive or anything. I just posted other pictures and if you can please me the favor, I would like you to tell me if they violate the policies of Wikipedia. If you say they are, I can exclude you from being blocked for some time or as you speak for indeterminate blocks, "Blockade for Infinity!" --Ragnarök de Althar (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

File:RobertaPinotti.jpg, File:RobertoCalderoli.jpg & File:GiuliaBongiorno.jpg, File:TonyIwobi.jpg etc

Dear Majora,

Do you--or does anyone know if these images from the Italian senate are free? Someone has uploaded many of these images suddenly and I don't know the license. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: From what I can tell the Senate page is under the same CC-BY license as the dati.camera.it page. All of the images are fine copyright wise but they were all uploaded wrong. They are 3.0, not 1.0, and we need a direct source to to page they were taken from so we know that they came from the Senate site. --Majora (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. Actually, Ruthven would you mind giving your opinion on this? There is definitely a CC-BY icon on the Senate page but in the legal notice it says that the "extraction and use of multimedia elements is authorized for purposes non-commercial" (per finalità non commerciali). There seems to be some mix-up here with what the license chosen indicates and what the legal notice actually says. --Majora (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, they should all be with license CC BY, because uploaded on data.camera.it. @Leoboudv: You can find all the pages for all the people of whom the photo has been uploaded here. To be safe, it would be good to add the link to the source page and the license review. Majora knows the process well ;) --Ruthven (msg) 10:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven: : This image's license here: File:RiccardoAugustoMarchetti.jpg may be All Rights Reserved. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: : In this DR someone noted the CC BY license leads to a 404 page. I believe like you it is cc by 3.0 but if you wish to respond in the DR go ahead. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: I can't take one day off to play my new video game without everyone freaking out over some improperly sourced, but actually correct, images. I've responded to the DR and license reviewed the image. The Senate images are from http://dati.senato.it/sito/home. They are all under {{Cc-by-3.0-it}}.` --Majora (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: : Thanks for the important license link Majora. When I clicked on the CC BY license at the senato web site, I got nothing....which was what the DR nominator was complaining about. Please go ahead and play your new video game now and enjoy yourself. I read books or articles to get away from Wikicomons sometimes. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: Meanwhile I blocked User:JSBach16853, who was uploading all these files without the correct source, the Licensereview and without categorising; hoping that this will push him to read the instructions I left him about uploading files from external sources. Let's hope that we can have those files without complications now. --Ruthven (msg) 08:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven: : Thanks for your actions on User:JSBach16853 as he is a pain. But on this separate image, is the license All Rights Reserved or CC BY 3.0? Is it free or copyrighted?

When I see the words, "Camera dei deputati 2015-2018 © Tutti i diritti riservati" OR "Chamber of Deputies 2015-2018 © All rights reserved" it is worrying....although the link to a dati.camera.it option is at the top right of the webpage.

@Leoboudv: Long story short: www.camera.it hasn't changed the copyright line yet, so it appears "All rights reserved", however this website takes the data (e.g. the photos) from dati.camera.it, which is CC BY (accordingly to the new Italian recommendations for the public administration). This is the reason why the source should be "dati.camera.it" and the license {{Dati.camera.it}}, so there will be no confusion. Goodnight! --Ruthven (msg) 09:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Climate maps of Iberia by AriasUploads

Would you please delete the files File:Limatic map of Iberian Peninsula (1971-2000).png and File:Climate of peninsular Spain, Portugal and the Balearic Islands (1971-2000).png, which have been uploaded on March 31, 2018 by AriasUploads, because the files show the AEMET trademark, as they don't include derivatives.2602:30A:C0FF:A6E0:8432:6461:2630:A33A 05:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the power to directly delete them but I have nominated them for deletion. Thank you for bringing them to my attention. --Majora (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Psiĥedelisto

Hello. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Majora&offset=20180416043815&limit=31
But Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Psiĥedelisto does not contain a relevant discussion. Will you submit such a request? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: Nobody removed the {{Delete}} template after the DR was closed nor was it removed after the move was completed. So for all intents and purposes the file was still listed as being at deletion requests. VFC doesn't know the difference, all it looks for is the delete template. Probably one of the reasons why the file was never license reviewed actually. Why would a license reviewer look further once they see the delete notice? I'll go through and fix them. --Majora (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I asked explicitly the inept uploader to make cleanup – IMHO a justifiable demand since I spend about 45 minutes rectifying the mess with file names, let alone other people distracted with his clueless request. This last step was not done, for which I of course don’t blame license reviewers, but expect some consistency. If {{Delete}}, then an active deletion request. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
No big deal. They would have been caught eventually. I keep an eye on that holding pen category anyways. They are all license reviewed now. Thanks for letting me know. --Majora (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Sarbajeetevent.jpg

On what basis was this tagged as Copyrighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgd2828 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The tag says exactly why. "ALLRIGHTSRESERVED@SATISH KUMAR PHOTOGRAPHY in EXIF". All Rights Reserved is not a license we accept. --Majora (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Files deleted

Hello! I'm sorry about the inconvenience, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but the pictures are on the official website of the person that the article refers to as a Non-Commercial Share Alike 4.0, and additionally I requested the permission to upload the to wikipedia.

This is the website: www.nataliadenegri.com


Do I'm doing anything wrong? Thanks in advance for your help.


Rachel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Racheldrmk (talk • contribs) 22:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Racheldrmk: Non-commercial restrictions are not acceptable here. This is detailed in the notice at the top of this page. In order to be acceptable here the license must allow anyone to use and modify the image at any time for any purpose (including commercial use). "For use on Wikipedia" is also not acceptable. It has to be broader than that. For more information please see COM:L. --Majora (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Parabéns, você me libertou

Já escrevi muito essa madrugada por conta da orgia de eliminações e propostas de eliminação em cima do desmonte de minha contribuição dos últimos anos á Commons. Até de desonesto fui acusado por plágio de foto minha, kkkkkkkkk. Foi um circo. Em especial, atacam obras originalíssimas de minha autoria, inéditas e elogiadas. Pqp deu a louca nos administradores. Olha, de bobo carreguei mais cedo de novo 3 arquivos, mas depois que vi a profundidade do ataque vil e orquestrado, por favor, achem (não vai ser difícil, vocês foram bem minuciosos, no mal sentido mesmo) e deletem também. Please, me libertem desse jugo, que tô indo embora, falta pouquinho, qdo dormir tudo se desvanecerá e a Commons será apenas triste pesadelo. Ah, tem umas fotos também que vocês não eliminaram, deve ter sido esquecimento, seja coerente, vai lá e joga tudo fora também, não me importo mais. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hélio Aniceto (talk • contribs) 21:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

TechCrunch

Hi, Did you see that we got an answer? What do we do next? Regards, Yann (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I did, Yann. As you said, that answer seems to indicate what I had suspected. I can just pull the UDR out of the archive to go through the proper channels. Although, I'd like to hear Josve05a's response since he has not done so yet. I don't want to step on any toes here. If no response then I'll up the UDR out of the archive. --Majora (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The answer is laconic, so there will always be people for whom that's not sufficient... Regards, Yann (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I could write again to TechCrunch, but I don't know how to formulate the mail. I also fear that TechCrunch would say that they have provided enough information, and/or they don't bother to answer again (that's what I would think and do if I were them). Regards, Yann (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
At this point, Yann it is either write again and hope they can better explain themselves or let the images stay deleted. If they don't respond back we are in the same place anyways so it couldn't hurt. Perhaps say:

"Thank you for your response but I have a few more questions if you wouldn't mind helping me out with them. For legal reasons we have to make sure that everything is licensed correctly and I just want to make sure we aren't going to run into any issues down the road. Could you explain exactly how TechCrunch became the copyright owner of these images? Was it a work for hire? Also, could you please tell me your name for our records? Thank you for helping me out in this matter and I sincerely hope that we can continue to use these images on Wikipedia. If you have any questions about this please let me know."

I can certainly see the point of Jcb and Jim. The response was a tad lacking. At the very least we should probably know who is sending the email and their position in the company. --Majora (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
No answer so far. That's what I feared... :( Regards, Yann (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Well that is disappointing. What a shame to lose all those images. I guess I'll run a search to see if there are any more that have to be taken care of. If we are going to do this I'm of the opinion that we should do it consistently. That was one of my main problems with this whole thing. The "decision" wasn't being applied evenly. --Majora (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure, I agree. I wonder if they just don't care, or what... Regards, Yann (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Sky-Logo2017.png

Hi Majora. Was wondering if you'd mind taking a look at COM:VP/C#File:Sky-Logo2017.png since it seems quite similar to the discussion about the Vodafone logo at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vodafone 2017.svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems to have been DR'ed already, Marchjuly. I'd have to agree with the DR to be honest. The shading alone in the logo raises questions. I'd have to hunt down what font that is too to see if it is a normal everyday font. UK TOO hinges on whether or not it is a "normal" font or a "custom" one. --Majora (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look. The DR was started by another editor after I made this post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank You Note

Dear Majora,

I don't know where you are based in but thank you for your help in reviewing my images. Best Regards from Metro Vancouver, Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh no problem, Leoboudv. I set up a feed so I can see the most recent license review requested images so I can, at the very least, keep the category stable. I do those quickly and then return to working on the older files. I just happened to be sitting at my computer when you uploaded yours last night. I'm from the US by the way. --Majora (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

3 images

Dear Majora,

I am retiring from M. Observer after these 3 images. If you could review them, I would be grateful

The species names are their current accepted names. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

  • I think I'll ask if Christian Ferrer can mark these 3 final images. Thank You Majora. I assume you are busy. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, Leoboudv. I was away from my computer for a few days so I didn't see this request until just now. I see that Christian Ferrer did review the images for you. If you need anything else please let me know. --Majora (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

8 images

Dear Majora,

If you could, please review these images then...as my final image upload from M. Observer since you were away earlier.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Majora (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

A weird problem using VFC for license reviews

Hello, I’ve been noticing something doing license reviews and I don’t know what it is. I thought I would bring it to your attention in the hope you have some idea. For the past week or so I have been doing license reviews with VFC for files in Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review. For the first several days everything worked just as it should and I had the time to get through a couple thousand US-PD files. The categories always updated to the correct number of files in that category immediately after each batch processed was finished.

Now here is the issue; now say I search a category such as, Special:Search/incategory:"Images by the Embassy of the United States in Kiev" AND incategory:"Flickr public domain images needing human review". Then use VFC to confirm some of the licenses. When I’m done if I open the files it shows the license being confirmed by me, but the number of files in the category do not change for hours. Truly hours then it will update to the correct number of files in that category that I have not looked at and do not have their license confirmed.

This was not an issue several days ago and I don’t know why it is happening. I’m really baffled. I don’t want to bring up a ticket on Phabricator (I never have before) since I’m not entirely sure I’ve described it correctly but I’ve tried to do the best I could here.

Simply do you have any idea why this is happening, have you ever heard of this before, and what could be done about it? Thank you and all the best, -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sixflashphoto: I'm pretty sure this is a known bug with "large" categories. There is a caching issue with them that can't be solved via purging or even though null edits. I believe it also has something to do with the replication lag between the various servers that the WMF runs which is why it will eventually update but not for some time. I can try to search for threads regarding it at the various pumps or on Phabricator but I'm pretty sure it is a known problem. --Majora (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Well at least it isn't just me. I'll say it really slows me down. I was able to get to much more a few days ago. Now it I have to wait for the categories to update. If there was a way to fix it I would be all for it, but replication lag does sound very plausible. I appreciate the quick response and I hope you enjoy the rest of your day, -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Sixflashphoto, I don't think there is anyway to fix it. I found an ancient open phab ticket from 2008 that details the problem. It can be found here: phab:T18036. A decade of talk really hasn't come up with a solution so I doubt it is going to be fixed anytime soon. --Majora (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Ashley Scott new.jpg

File:Ashley Scott new.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 ∙ +/−

Rapsar (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Two-factor authentication

You mentioned that non-admins can request this. Can you point me to where or who I can request it from. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Colin: You would request it at meta. Specifically: m:Steward requests/Global permissions#Requests for other global permissions. --Majora (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I've applied. -- Colin (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js

Hi Majora, thanks for taking care of scripts by Rillke. I extensively use the upload script for my files. Please let me know when you port it. Thanks! Jee 04:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Were you looking for any additional functionality on that script, Jkadavoor? There really isn't a point in me porting something over to keep it the same thing. Especially considering it would leave a lot of people who don't know about the fork in the dark to any added functionality. I only did it for the license reviewer script since there was actual functionality that was missing that could be added right now. --Majora (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I had used it for uploading big files processed from RAW through a slow and frequently interrupting connection. It worked fine for me. Last week I tried to upload a file using it; but it failed to complete the process after the upload is 100% finished. But it worked yesterday. Don't know whether it has any bugs now. Will let you know if faced further issues. Jee 04:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Could have just been a temporary bug or something got hung up somewhere along the line. Keep me updated and if there are any specific error messages please let me know. If you click on F12 (on most internet browsers) a window will come up on the bottom. From there you would click on a tab called "console". That is the active readout of .js scripts and if there are any error messages they would appear there. --Majora (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Will update. Jee 05:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

GODL-India

Hi, Thanks for looking into this. I tried to review a file, but it creates a new confirmed tag: File:3D Tactical Control Radar at rehearsal of Republic Day Parade 2015.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: It doesn't look like you updated your commons.js settings. I can't edit Rillke's .js files so I had to port it over to my own userspace. You will have to change the mw.loader.load('/w/index.php?title=User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); line to be my name instead. After you do that, purge your cache and then try a new one. It should work after you do that. --Majora (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

These 6 images

Dear Majora,

If you can find valid licenses for these 6 images feel free to pass them. If not, perhaps a DR is in order...or the language barrier is too great.

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay Leoboudv. I had told myself I would get to this yesterday and I forgot. Notes made above. --Majora (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • That is OK. Yesterday I was a bit sick and had to visit the hospital anyway for a check up. In Canada, there are many patients but not enough doctors due to our Government regulated healthcare system. My doctor's clinic says the doctor cannot see you today--we are fully booked so just visit your hospital's ER room. But in the US, if you get sick, you almost go bankrupt with huge bills to see a doctor let alone get treatment. Canada is not paradise either....and we have long waiting lists for surgery. Luckily all I had was a ear plugged with ear wax and the (free) CT scan said I was normal. Best Regards from Metro Vancouver, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I agree with your decisions and replied in one of your DR's when the uploader objected...in Russian. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Misclick

No worries about the misclick earlier :-) Just wanted to let you know that if you don't use Rollback except in bursts, it's possible to turn it off and on. I misclick most often when watchlist notices appear and disappear, moving the link I'm about to click up and down the page as I'm clicking. Anyway, have a good one! Storkk (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Storkk: Thanks for your understanding. My first reaction was, "oh no" when I did that. Pretty much immediately afterwards I added a confirmation script. That way if I know I want to use rollback for a few edits I can just hover over the enter button and still do it quickly while stopping myself in situations like this. --Majora (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Art Cinema.gif

Hello, since you checked the license, would you mind reviewing it ? There is also File:Fun Fail.gif. Cheers, — Racconish 💬 11:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

4 images

Dear Majora,

Please review these images if you can.

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Odd text replacement with VisualFileChange

Take a look at Special:Diff/308646420. The description in Template:Delete changed, while it should've not. 84.250.17.211 19:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You are correct. This was a mistake on my part. I set the replacement regex to be /(L|l)icense.?(R|r)eview/ instead of /\{\{(L|l)icense.?(R|r)eview\}\}/ Since I forgot the brackets it replaced every instance of the phrase "license review". Totally my bad. Thank you for catching it anonymous IP. It is appreciated. --Majora (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Sureesh Mehta CNS.jpg

Not seeing the license+/- button now at File:Sureesh Mehta CNS.jpg and similar files to complete the review now. Jee 09:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Did they ever have those buttons directly above the license review template, Jkadavoor? I can't remember if they did. The buttons under the edit tab work fine and I can't recall if I've always used those or not for those types of files. I know that the ones directly above the LR template appear for {{LicenseReview}} but {{GODL-India}} uses a different system. The only thing I did recently was remove the Panoramio portions of the script. Nothing else has changed. --Majora (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes; there were three buttons; [change license], [license +] and [license -] earlier. I made all my privious reviews using it. Only now I noticed those two options ([license +] and [license -]) under "edit". Its enough for me. Jee 02:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hi Majora! You seem to be well-versed in matters here, I am, I must confess, not. Could you offer input here? Thank you, Sam Sailor 05:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the sources, Sam Sailor. All taken care of. --Majora (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You have no right

You have not seen the page and you want to delete it read at the bottom of the image some rights reserved, understand now erase me that denounce that you do not know anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sando Alva (talk • contribs) 20:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about File:David Zepeda presentación.jpg, Sando Alva? The image has non-commericial restrictions on it. It isn't under a free enough license for use here. That was clearly laid out to you in the deletion notice on the file page and on your talk page. I have every right to nominate images that are not under an acceptable license for deletion. I review images. That is what I do here. Sorry if that upsets you but you should learn our policies before you continue to upload images that violate them. You can start with COM:FLICKR for a list of acceptable Flickr licenses. --Majora (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: --Sando Alva (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)So if you are going to put in the plan the image of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Notorious_B.I.G._graffiti.jpg has the same license in flickr, then, why do not you also delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sando Alva (talk • contribs) 20:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Sando Alva: It didn't at the time. That is what license review is for. Creative Commons licensing is permanent and cannot be revoked. Once put under an acceptable license that is it. Although that image was reviewed by a bot who could not see the derivative nature of the work. I'm going to have to do some quick research but I'm probably going to nominate it for deletion in a moment. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Majora (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: --Sando Alva (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Then help me please you can only upload an image of the actor David Zepeda because I do not know which is the right one so he does not erase it, would you help me to send him the flickr link so I can upload it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sando Alva (talk • contribs) 21:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Is this them, Sando Alva? Also please sign you posts by typing four tildes after your message like this: ~~~~. Thanks! --Majora (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: My conversation is very firm but help me to get an image for the Mexican actor David Zepeda. --Sando Alva (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Again is File:David Zep.png them? --Majora (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review request from WP

Dear Majora, could you, please, kindly remove from the image your “This file has been nominated for deletion after failing a source review" and also, please, confirm that the permission is available.

Source: Given by the author: https://www.facebook.com/AlekseyKamenskikh/posts/1649630481772676

Following this link you will find at the end of the introduction text the license permission CC BY-SA 4.0 given by the author. The picture in question is the last one in this album. Thank you for your kind attention. Wavepainter (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Thank you, Wavepainter. The image in question wasn't originally shown on the link but that seems to be fixed now. I've made the necessary changes. --Majora (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. It's very kind of you. Wavepainter (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Frans Hals - Portrait of Jasper Schade van Westrum CZE NG.O 638.jpg

You probably want to review it now, their {{Cc-zero}} statement is slightly hidden. Multichill (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

File:University College 1924.jpg

Hi Majora. Would you mind taking a look at this file? I tagged with {{Npd}}, but the uploader added a link which appears to show it being released under a CC license. It looks OK to me, but I have no way of knowing for sure that it's not an unintentional case of COM:LL. Anyway, let me know if the licensing is now OK and I'll remove the tag. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Assuming the 1924 date is correct, it is {{PD-Canada}}. I've updated the licensing tag on the file information page. --Majora (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Copyright violations

So sorry for the photo uploads to Wikimedia Commons. Copyright violations were not intensional. I thought all Flickr photos were in the public domain, thus free to use. After further research, I now have a clear understanding of the different creative commons licenses on Wikimedia Commons and will only use Flickr images tagged as (CC BY) or (CC BY-SA) in the future. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanwill (talk • contribs) 16:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Sign so the bot gets this section --Majora (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Image review request

Old

Dear Majora,

Could you review these 2 images please?

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Majora (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Majora,

Please review these images when you can.

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done I don't care if you ask me to review things but please don't keep making new sections. It just adds clutter. Thanks. --Majora (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Majora,

Please kindly review these 2 "great" images when you can.

They are a lot clearer, closer and higher quality than the other images in its species category

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Majora (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Majora,

Please review these images when you can.

Thank You kindly for your help. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Majora (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Majora,

Could you please review these images below please?

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Majora (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Majora,

Could you kindly review these images please?

Thank You always, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Majora,

Can you review these uploads by me please?

Thank You very much, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Majora,

If you have some time, please review these images please.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Majora (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Majora,

Please review this image when you can.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done @Leoboudv: I've asked you to stop making new sections like that. Again, I don't care if you ask me to review things but please stop cluttering up my talk page like that. Thanks. --Majora (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Embarrassingly, I mistakenly uploaded several files today which were not appropriately licensed. I realized my mistake pretty quickly and was wondering if there was a way for me to just quickly delete my uploads unilaterally. Thanks. Denniscabrams (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Only administrators can delete things, Denniscabrams. You can however put {{G7}} onto the file information pages and that makes it for "uploaded requested deletion". --Majora (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Iowa government images are public - feedback

Hi Majora - I wanted to get you an opinion I received from a law firm in Iowa regarding any images produced by the State of Iowa. I'd appreciate any feedback on the original deletion or process to get this clarified as official policy in Wikipedia for any images created by the State of Iowa. Thank you for all your work!


Summary: The State of Iowa is the owner of the official photographs of a Governor. The Iowa Open Records Act governs the state’s authority to assert any protections over state-generated or owned document- such as copyright or confidentiality protections. There are no exemptions under this statute for the photograph of a Governor. For that reason, state law requires the official photographs of the Governor / Lt. Governor to be public records and requires that they may be distributed for any reason.

In sum, the official photographs of any Iowa Governor are in the public domain at the moment they are taken, such photographs remain in the public domain permanently, and anyone has the right to use the image for the purposes at issue here now.

Detail:

The State of Iowa is the owner of any such image. Images enter the custody of the state either by being taken by a state employee (ex., the Governor’s office, the Governor’s transition office,) taken by a contractor with a state agency, or, by being taken by an outside entity and then donated to the state, like if a campaign paid for the picture after the election but before taking office.

The relevant and only controlling statute over any such state executive branch work product is Iowa’s open records law, Iowa Code Chapter 22. This law establishes the guidelines and processes for any state employees’ affirmative duty to release executive branch materials to anyone and to the public generally. In the absence of a specific exemption under Iowa Code Chapter 22.7, state employees - custodians of records - are required to make any document public. The exemptions, generally speaking, are for documents containing personal information, investigative reports, financial statements, and items of that nature. Such a photograph does not fall under any exemption under that chapter. For that reason, the state of Iowa considers those images to be in the public domain.

Specifically, Iowa’s open records law prohibits a state agency / custodian from asserting restrictions in distribution / rights of use, and indeed affirmatively distributes photographs of that nature to any entity or person upon request. In specific terms, if an editor of Wikimedia contacted the Iowa State archivist, and asked for all the several Governors’ photographs, expressly for the purpose of using them on this or any other public site, the images would be delivered to that site for public distribution. The images are assumed to be public; for example, Wikimedia or any other entity are not first required to a submit an open records request.

The only restriction available under state law is that the state may charge a reasonable fee for reproduction of any photographs. That is not material here given these are electronic images.

Wikimedia staff are more than welcome to contact the law office of (Redacted) with any specific questions.

Sources: Iowa Code Chapter 22, “The Open Records Act” The Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs, Office of the State Archivist (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imageupdater499 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Imageupdater499: first please never post real name and contact numbers here. This is a fully public page and any information like that should not be left where it can be found by potential malicious parties. Second, the opinion of a lawyer is, unfortuanately, not good enough for our purposes. It would have to be a binding precedent set by a court. We do have permission from the Iowa General Assembly to use their photos (see template:Iowa General Assembly official portrait permission) but that is the legislative branch. The Governor would be the executive branch and not fall under that permission. Finally, the leading authority that I like to use in such situations is the Harvard Library's state level copyright information pages. Iowa's page does not indicate that the images are definitely under something we can use so we have to air on the side of caution. In order to be uploaded here it must be under a license that allows anyone to use or modify the image, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse). That last part is usually the one that gives people pause and this would have to be confirmed to be true. We have a procedure for this. It is via our COM:OTRS system. The form that would have to be filled out by the copyright holder, of someone who is expressly authorized to release the photos under a different copyright license, can be found here: COM:ET. Again, we already went through this for the General Assembly. We just need further confirmation for executive branch photographs. --Majora (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

File talk:Sinasos Church of Saint John.jpg

Majora, I would like to than you for taking the trouble to ask me before tagging for deletion. I think that it is important to make contact and try our best. Many thanks for that. --FocalPoint (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Dmitry Medvedev in China 15 April 2011-2.jpeg

Thank you for the license review on this file, but please see my edit. The template is not a license itself, although it should be re-coded as such by anyone who knows what they’re doing. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: Oh? I assumed since it said the license and contained a link to the Creative Commons definition of said license that it was acceptable. The template even says that you can "distribute and modify" as long as you attribute. Which is basically the same thing as any of our CC templates. I'll keep that in mind for the future though or I can just modify the template myself when I have a second. --Majora (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, in theory it should be fine with just the Kremlin.ru template but I came across the file because it was listed at Category:Media without a license: needs history check. If you look at the version which you license-reviewed, it was automatically categorised in the hidden Category:Files with no machine-readable license, and subsequently tagged by YiFeiBot. Feel free to add the license to the template but note some files from before 2014 would have cc-by-sa-3.0 too. Green Giant (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Green Giant: Would it be easier to just add machine readable tags? It doesn't appear to be that hard to do and I'd be happy to take a crack at it. If not the switch already exists for version. It would just have to be set to actually do something. Also shouldn't be hard to do. Either way I can take a look at it if that would make it easier for patrollers. --Majora (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely! Go ahead and make any necessary changes. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrator

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ +/−

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Majora, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard an it subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons-lr webchat on irc.freenode.net. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin webchat.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading. You can find the admin backlog overview at COM:AB.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations! Yann (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey, congrats Majora. I would have wholeheartedly supported, but it looks like I missed the RfA all together. Best of luck! GMGtalk 14:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Commiserations on your demotion to Janitor, 1st Class! Feel free to ask for help if you are unsure about anything. —Green Giant (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you everyone! I'll make sure to ask questions if I'm unsure about anything. There are so many new things to explore. --Majora (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Question about deletion

انا صاحب هذة الصور وانا اللى رفعها ما اللذى علية فعلة لحل هذة المشكلة — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahmoudelghazy (talk • contribs) 02:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mahmoudelghazy: Please see Commons:آثار مشتق. Just because you took the images doesn't mean you can upload them here. The image within the image has its own copyright that has to be respected. --Majora (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

why did you delete my artwork

( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoom rr (talk • contribs) 16:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Zoom rr: In order to be hosted here the image must be under a license that allows any one to use or modify the image, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse). The license you chose, {{PD-USGov}} is only for federal photos taken by federal employees as part of their duties. The State of Nevada is not a federal entity so that template would not apply. States can copyright whatever they want according to their own laws and Nevada does not release their images under any license we can use. So the logo could not stay here. Sorry. As a side note, please do not reupload files that were deleted. If you want to appeal a deletion decision please use COM:UDR. If you have questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Question Regarding Watermarks

I have been delving into the WMF's opinion regarding the removal of watermarks Wikilegal/Removal of watermarks from Commons images in regard to this image: File:Kathleen Hanna 2013.jpg. What is your opinion on the removal of the watermark (the © symbol and the name of the copyright holder) on an image licensed by CC BY 2.0? I'm left with a variety of opinions and I'd like yours. I'd be curious what you think. All the best, -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sixflashphoto: My person opinion on the matter is that the CC BY licenses explicitly allow for the modification of an image and the creation of derivative works. Forcing a watermark onto an image and then banning the removal of it defeats the purpose of a derivative allowable license. So any attempt to do so would defeat the purpose of the license and go against the spirit of the entire process. That is my opinion on the merits of watermark removal. My opinion on the legal ramifications is much the same. I do not believe that the use of a visible digital watermark is a nonremoval CMI. Considering the "BY" part of the license also requires attributions that appears to be enough for me. If people are concerned about such a thing they can always move the copyright information into the EXIF. The data would still be there but hidden away. So it is probably not a violation to remove the watermarks both in the spirit of the law and by the actual way the law is written since CC licenses require attribution anyways for reuse to be valid (and don't get me started on the additional 4.0 restrictions that permanently bar violators from using the image ever again in some circumstances). --Majora (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: I've thought about this more, I've re read it and I'm still conflicted. I would argue that because attribution will be required by the requirements of a CC-BY license there is no intent to facilitate copyright infringement. That being said I do think reading this you leave with the impression that the DMCA includes watermarks especially ones that could be interpreted as a "copyright notice". Also it is hard to make the case that removing a watermark is a creative transformation. But that violates the letter and spirit of any CC license. And as you said attribution will be required regardless of any change or not (assumingly to the copyright holder). I still come back to intent and considering these are CC licenses it's hard to say there is intent to facilitate copyright infringement on a CC-BY licensed images in the context we're talking about. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Well...intent is more of a criminal liability phrase. When we are talking about copyright infringement it is more of a civil matter but yeah. It certainly is a gray area and the legal opinion from the WMF plays both sides and then ends with "the projects should decide" which doesn't really help. My personal opinion is still that the removal doesn't constitute infringement until such a time that there is a clear, Supreme Court, opinion on the matter instead of various district and appeal decisions that end up on both sides. --Majora (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it is a gray area and there is no reason for Commons to change any policies until consistent district rulings or as you said a supreme court ruling. I'm glad I got your opinion. I would like to clarify that the reason I was stuck on the word intent was because I kept thinking you're not removing attribution from a CC-BY license and one of the principles of any CC license is the principle to transform an image in any way. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

My pictures deleted

Hi Dear,

Yesterday, I uploaded some pictures/ material from PTUDC for using in articles on English Wikipedia. I see that you have deleted those, kindly let what should i do to prove that its open work/ given for Wiki by authors ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umar shahid (talk • contribs) 06:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Umar shahid: Seeing as the actual website is listed as All Rights Reserved and that is where you took all the images from you can't really do anything on here. Someone who is authorized to do so who works for that group must email our copyright response team with a proper copyright release form stating their intention to put the images under a copyright license that allows anyone to use or modify the image, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse). The form can be found here: COM:ET and it must come from an email address that can be associated with the group in some way for verification purposes. The images themselves are clearly copyrighted at this point and there is nothing that can be done without a release form. --Majora (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Media deleted

Hi Majora, I am currently updating a wiki page on a Marching Band in Iceland: https://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%BA%C3%B0rasveitin_Svanur All pics got deleted in the last 24 hours. They consisted of the logo of the band - uploaded by the band (its representative - me a boardmember of the band). Pictures of 2 LP's that the band recorded decades ago. As well as 2 posters for concerts of the band. I designed them my self and corroborated that in the upload. Please reinstate this as soon as possible. I see no reason for deleting this. Best regards - TH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sultaninn (talk • contribs) 08:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to assist you here, Sultaninn. First, we are going to have to confirm permissions and that the images are under an acceptable license. Please fill out and send in the form located at COM:ET to our copyright response team. The email should be from an account that can be linked in some way to the band.

An alternative method would be to create a page on the official website with the pictures you want to host and an explicit message confirming that the images are under an acceptable license. This message can say "The images on this page are under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 License" (or any free license that you want). This method would actually be easier and quicker since permissions can be more easily confirmed this way.

Once that is done let me know and I'll see if it is acceptable. If so, I can undelete the images. If you have any questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

WTHL crest2.png deletion

Hello Majora ,

Could you assist on how the above mentioned picture could be restored and be put in the infobox on the Winnipeg_Table_Hockey_League Wikipedia page?

The image mention above was given permission by the original owner and he sent a "template for release of rights to a file" with the permissions-common. Any assistance would be appreciated? Bambino4 (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bambino4: I've uploaded the image locally to the English Wikipedia under their "fair use" standards. While fair use is not acceptable here it is over there in certain circumstances. If you wish to use this logo on more than just the English Wikipedia you would need to have the copyright owner agree to put it under a license that allows anyone to use or modify it, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse). If they agree to these terms they can fill out the form located at COM:ET and send it into our copyright response team. If you only wanted it for the English Wikipedia article it doesn't really matter. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance Majora and quick response in helping to find a resolution to this matter.Bambino4 (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for helping out with this Majora. I wasn't aware of this thread when I pinged you in my last post on Bambino4's user talk, but it appears from above that everything has been sorted out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Mannafull islam Rafi.jpeg

Hello,The image mention above was given permission by the original owner and he sent a "template for release of rights to a file" with the permissions-common. Could you please restore the picture to the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannafull islam Rafi (talk • contribs) 02:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

It was deleted because of scope issues. Commons is not here to promote yourself. Neither is Wikipedia. See COM:ADVERT. --Majora (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
File:Mannafull islam.jpeg might be a reupload of the same file. Also, it appears that the editor is trying to write an "article" about himself on his user page. Such a thing would probably get tagged for speedy deletion per en:WP:U5 on English Wikipedia, but I'm not sure about Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

File:ImperialOrderofMuscovitesFez.jpg

Hi Majora. What's your take on this file's licensing? The photo might definiltely be "own work", but it does look like the one found here. At the same time, even if the photo itself is not an issue, I'm not sure about the copyright status of the underlying logo. I don't believe COM:DM can be argued here since the primary purpose of the photo seems to show the logo. According to en:Imperial Order of Muscovites, the organization disbanded in 1921, so the logo might be old enough to be PD. I'm just not sure if that's something which needs to be verified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: It appears that that page was created sometime after the upload here. The earliest archive I could find was from 2011. According to that page that was the logo of the organization which would have been published before 1923 in the US and therefore be in the public domain. So probably no problems with the logo. I can not find any evidence that the image existed online before it was uploaded here. I'm guessing it is fine. --Majora (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Anne Curtis Photo.jpg

...it is happening again. I think I'm going to block on en-wiki. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Majora. The uploader was indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia. It was explained to him/her at en:User talk:Shaira Ofianga#September 2018 what needed to be done for Commons to accept a new image to use in en:Anne Curtis. The uploader said he/she understood this, but then goes and uploads File:AnneImage.jpg and uses an IP to en:WP:EVADE. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether {{End of copyvios}} or a block is the best thing to do here. FWIW, I thought some progress was being made with this editor, but maybe I was too optimistic. There's also likely some undisclosed paid editing go on as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
@Drmies and Marchjuly: I'm gonna give them one last chance. Although now they are license laundering so I'm probably being a little too nice here to be honest. Sharia Ofianga, please stop uploading things unless you are the copyright holder. The copyright holder is the photographer unless the copyright has been transferred by legal action or contract. If you continue to upload copyright violations I will have no choice but to block you from Commons. If you have any questions about what is and what isn't acceptable please let me know and I will be happy to help you. --Majora (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

redirect delet

Why did you remove my delet requests here and here? I made some typo in the file name (preister instead of priester) an other user moved the images to the correct name and nobody nees the wrong file names. --TheRunnerUp (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@TheRunnerUp: Per Commons:File redirects. These redirects should almost never be deleted. There really is no reason to delete the redirects and there is no harm in just leaving them. If you want to delete the redirect please file a DR. There is no valid speedy criterion that allows for such things except for, maybe, general 2. And it is not really that implausible if you made the same typo. --Majora (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Logos of the Santa Ana Winds FC soccer club

This notice is to let you know that proof of the Santa Ana Winds FC Partners' ownership of all marks and logos is forthcoming. Initial communication was made with a partner who will retrieve proof of ownership from the designer, Slavo Kiss. The designer will be informed of this Wiki Commons matter and asked to take steps or communicate via "OTRS."Santaniego (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Anne Curtis photo copyright violation

Hi Majora,

My sincere apologies if I got confused on the licensing of the photo I uploaded via commons. I was under the impression that I can use photo via flickr because I do not own the photo and was only given to me by Anne Curtis (taken by her, with her permission to publish via Flickr). Can you walk me through what type of photos I can use so I won't get violation the next time? Or ways in which Anne Curtis herself can probably request to change the photo?

I've now understand that there are legalities involved in uploading images via commons. I will also duly comply with the policy for paid individuals. I'll add a statement or template to User:Shaira Ofianga disclosing my employer and the client I'm editing on behalf of once the block is lifted.

Again, my apologies, and thank you so much! Shaira Ofianga (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Shaira Ofianga: Only the copyright holder can release an image for use here. The copyright holder is generally the photographer, not the person in the photo. Anne giving you permission really means nothing I'm afraid as she probably doesn't own the copyright to the photo. Again, the photographer does. We would need their permission. They would have to fill out the form located at COM:ET and send it into our copyright response team. They handle these releases. --Majora (talk) 04:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Shaira Ofianga. Another possible solution might be for you or someone at your agency just to find a digital camera and take a new photo of Anne Curtis. Don't post it anywhere online, but instead just upload it straight to Commons. If another person takes the photo, they just need to create an account and upload it. Most digital cameras these days embed photos with EXIF data that should also be uploaded to Commons with the photo; so, the more detailed the EXIF data, the easier it will be to verify copyright ownership. If you do this, verification via email will be unnecessary because you can use the "Interactive Release Generator". The really important thing to understand before anything is uploaded is that when a copyright holder uploads an image to Commons they're bascially agreeing to let anyone anywhere in the world download the image at anytime for any purpose, including for commercial and derivative works. Furthermore, such a license can't be canceled at a later date if the copyright holder changes their mind. This is one reason why many professional photographers are reluctant to release their best work under such a license. Uploading an image to Commons does not mean they are is giving up or transfering their copyright ownership over the image to Commons, but it does means that are losing quite a bit of control over how their image might end up being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

OTRS ticket #2011011410009399

Hi Majora. Since you can access OTRS, are a Commons admin and have lots of experience working with files on Wikipedia and Commons, maybe you can help clarify the OTRS ticket being discussed at User talk:Jeff G.#File:BC-5 (Yellowhead).svg. I realize there's only so much OTRS volunteers can discuss on public pages, but perhaps there's a way for some internal OTRS discussion to take place regarding this ticket. This ticket has come up inanumber of file licensing related discussions on Wikipedia and Commons, but the OTRS volunteers participating seem to have differing opinions on whether the ticket is acceptable for Commons/Wikipedia's purposes. How do know how OTRS volunteers typically resolve disagreements among themselves, but I'm assuming there is a way it's done. Anyway, if OTRS establishes an internal consensus that the ticket is fine, then that's good enough for me; however, there the disagreement over its validity makes me wonder whether its application to new file uploads should be temporarily frozen until things can be sorted out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't overlooked this Marchjuly. The ticket just has a lot of information on it so I need to have a little block of time to go through it all. I will get it to soon, I promise. --Majora (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Donetsk72

Hi Majora,

A user with not very good English asked me to draw your attention to the issue - those stamps are not of Ukraine but of unrecognized quasi-states (DNR / LNR), so PD claim is dubious as well. Thanks, Sealle (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sealle: The "country" is only recognized by one other partially recognized break-away state. So for all intents and purposes it is still part of Ukraine and internationally recognized that way. So by that logic the laws of Ukraine would apply. Correct? --Majora (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, yes, but I don't think Ukraine treats these images as official symbols, so the laws hardly apply to them. Sealle (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok. But per Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Ukraine (which I used to make the close decision), all stamps that were created with specified face value and state that serve as a tool of payment for postal services fall under the {{PD-UA-exempt}} template. I guess I'm a little confused here. The Donetsk People's Republic does not exist by international and Ukrainian law. Their stamps are accepted for postal services just like any other Ukrainian stamp and the laws of Ukraine apply to that region. So I don't see the problem here. But perhaps a posting at VPC is warranted to get other's opinions on the matter? --Majora (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree. This was my first suggestion too. @MBH: на водокачку. Sealle (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Why do you think that this stamps are accepted by Ukraine's postal service? It's very dubious statement. This stamps isn't stamps of Ukraine's regions "Donetsk oblast" and "Luhansk oblast", this stamps are invented by the authorities of this unrecognised "states". I think, this stamps are accepted only on territories, that is under actual DNR control. And, of course, this isn't Ukrainian postal stamps, from the point of view of the Ukrainian legislation this is just pictures drawn by a private person. MBH (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Video with copyright

Majora You should check this video because I think it has copyright 1-Because the video has a standard license 2-Because the video is from a newscast and the channel does not seem to be the owner of the video https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Chavez_nuestro_que_est%C3%A1s_en_el_cielo%22,_as%C3%AD_reza_la_oraci%C3%B3n_de_los_delegados.webm --Derasu (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hannah Arendt

Hello Majora, I apologize for not responding earlier to your comment on stamps: I made a confusion as I had made this DR together with Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hannah Arendt on stamps. The reference at NPG and the Smithsonian does not relate to a publication. As far as I know, the photo was first published in Europe, with copyright, certainly in Portraits de l´exil, Paris-New York (1933-1942) (cover, 2011) and maybe Deutsche portraits (1961). For previous instances of DR with copyright to the Fred Stein estate (Peter Stein), see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stamp Albert Einstein 2005.jpg. Thanks, — Racconish 💬 07:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Racconish: , it is not that I don't believe you but do you have a link that proves that it was published in Europe? Frank Stein fled the Nazis during WW2 and moved to the US (as did Hannah Arendt). So the photograph was definitely taken in the United States. I guessed that "Printed 1987" was the original publication date per the National Portrait Gallery but I could be wrong. Although that does raise an interesting question as to copyrights of images taken in one country but published in another. I'm not familiar with how those are handled but I'm assuming it would depend on the country. --Majora (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Printing a photograph is not the same as publishing it, particularly in the absence of distribution [1]. The photograph we discuss is the cover of the catalog of a 2011 French exhibit of the Stein family archives [2] which "focuses on the personality of Hannah Arendt, as about 20 previously unpublished photographs of her have been discovered in the Fred Stein archive" [3]. I have not yet been able to read this catalog and I would agree the statement is only partially true for our photo since, as you know, part of it was used in the - now deleted at Commons - 2006 German stamp celebrating the 100th anniversary of Arendt's birth. In any case, per the principle of precaution, it is up to you to prove the photograph has been published (and not simply printed) before 1989 in the US without notice. — Racconish 💬 07:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
First of all, I am completely aware of what publication means in terms of copyright. I would expect all admins on a site that primarily deals with copyright to know such things. So linking to that was totally uncalled for. If I didn't know what published meant, don't you think I would have said 1944? Second, I did my due diligence. That is why it took me 24 hours after first noticing the DR to actually render a decision. You were the one that DR'ed two images under a blatantly false rationale that was incredibly easy to refute (it took me all of 60 seconds to determine it wasn't a stamp). You are the one that continues to use multiple dates (2011, 2006, etc.). Don't use PCP to disguise your decision to do absolutely no research and don't use that here when I took the time to actually look at the photograph in question. If you want to use PCP as a rationale for deletion, file a new DR. Someone will probably get to it by January. --Majora (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize if I offended you. Such was not my intention. I will do exactly what you suggest and dig into the matter, starting with the French 2011 book. In the mean time, if you have the patience to shed some light on why you consider the photo was published in 1987, it would be helpful, but I certainly do not wish to bother you with this any further. So please don't feel you have to respond. Regards, — Racconish 💬 21:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
After checking the 2011 catalog and the Cornell table, I renominated the files for deletion. Regards, — Racconish 💬 17:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Editing page Kim Seokjin (BTS)

Hello I would like some help to update the photo image to a recent photo. And also add Visual as one of the positions besides vocalist and songwriter. JINvenchy (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@JINvenchy: I'm assuming you mean en:Kim Seok-jin but I can't be sure since you never actually said. For reference sake, this is Commons the repository for free media. You are probably taking about the English Wikipedia. These are different projects. As for updating the photo, it would have to be licensed under a copyright license that allows anyone to use or modify the image, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse). Unless you personally took the photo this will probably be difficult as most things you find on the Internet are copyrighted under a license we cannot use. The current image on the page being an uncommon exception to that rule. For more information on our licensing policy please see COM:L. If you have any questions about this please let me know. --Majora (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Deji Olatunji Smiling.png

Hi Majora. Would you mind taking a look at this file's license and making sure it's not a case of unintentional COM:LL when you've got a bit of time? I'm concerned since the file is described as a screenshot taken from a video, but it's not clear how the original source is licensed. It seems to come from here, but I can't find a copyright tag for the video; so, maybe the only thing it's covered by in the standard YouTube license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like license laundering to me, Marchjuly. Even if it is not, a public domain mark is not a valid legal instrument and cannot be used by itself. I've marked it with {{Flickr-public domain mark}} --Majora (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Hi, Thanks for reviewing the speedy deletion requests I filed. I took your advice and have filed a CFD for Category:Occupied territories. An SD was declined for Category:Sikkim National Party, such a party does not exist, though it may have in the past; it is absolutely unlikely that any media exists related to it and more probable that the category will end up getting abused like it was (the cat was populated with the unrelated image of the previous flag of Sikkim). The category was created by as a POVPUSH by a vandal IP; like many other pages created by them. Please tell me how should I proceed, with an SD or CFD. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

You have abused our speedy deletion processes in an what appears to me to be POV pushing on your end. w:Sikkim National Party certainly exists. You also blatantly lied numerous times stating that accounts were blocked when they were not. We do not have a "delete on sight" policy like enwiki has regarding blocked accounts anyways. So to do this is both a misunderstanding and an abuse of our processes. Either learn our processes or stop filing clearly wrong speedy deletion requests. --Majora (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I had no intention of doing that, while filing reports for multiple such pages edited and created by a sockpuppet I might have mixed things up and I apologize for that. I respect your decisions regarding the rejection of some of the requests. I had already filed an ANI report while I was tagging the pages of the sockpuppet which were deleted by other admins. I tagged the above category as the intention of the IP was to portray that the party currently exists and is engaged in secession which is clearly not the case. If there are any other problems please let me know. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from New Ulm, Brown County, Minnesota. LOC sanborn04352 009-1.jpg

This was deleted as vandalism. I am the uploader of the original file. Can you restore it please? It is part of one of the largest batch upload projects here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

My apologies Fæ. That was an accident when I was cleaning up after a vandal. All fixed. Again, sorry about that. --Majora (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

File Boiry.jpg

Hello @Majora: , I am the owner of the picture File:Boiry.jpg
When I uploaded it in 2016, Hab'rtix asked for deletion arguing that the person died in 2014, so the picture could not be my own. To prove that it was my own I uploaded the picture ːFileːAraucanieboiry.jpg, which was the original one and which has Exif datas. The only difference between these two pictures is that I added by photoshop the collar. Racconish came then and wanted a higher resolution, which I dont have. So the original reason for the deletion request was no more valid, as the Exif datas for ːFileːAraucanieboiry.jpg where at a date where this person was still alive.
So please undelete the [[ːFileːBoiry.jpg]. I uploaded again ːFileːAraucanieboiry.jpg, where you can see the Exif datas. Iexplained this already on the Commons talk page but it seems that it was not clear. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scola45 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)--Scola45 (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Scola45, I deleted File:Araucanieboiry.jpg as a recreation of a previously deleted file. You should either wait for Majora's answer or ask for undeletion. Thanks, — Racconish 💬 11:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

ːHello@Racconish: , File:Araucanieboiry.jpg has been previously deleted by myself. If you would go back to the talk on Commons, you will see that I uploaded this file only to prove that ːFileːBoiry.jpg is my on work an that the original picture has well been taken by me in 2011. I even asked in the thread if I can delete File:Araucanieboiry.jpg again after verification of the Exif data by Hab'rtix. I dont want File:Araucanieboiry.jpg existing on commons, that's why I will delete it again once ːFileːBoiry.jpg will be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scola45 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)--Scola45 (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry Scola45 but neither of those photos had proper EXIF data on them. They both said photoshop. Which is fine but that does not prove that you are the owner of the images nor is it what Racconish asked you for. That coupled with the fact that the photo can be found on other websites without a free license means that we would need COM:OTRS permission to restore the image. You are welcome to request undeletion but I will say as much there as well. At this point in time I stand by my closure of that DR as delete. Please follow the procedure outlined at the OTRS link or you are welcome to appeal at UDR. --Majora (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Imperial Pacific Logo.png

Hi Majora. I appreciate that you closed this DR, but there is another file listed in the same DR File:Imperial Pacific Logo 400.png which should be deleted as well. Thanks! --Wcam (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done My bad. All set. --Majora (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

"Totally unnecessary to have all the information here." FoP Provision of Indonesia

Dear Majora,

My last edit on [FoP Provision] was done with good intention, because I see that the regulation referred to in the previous version are not valid anymore. Other than that, the things you consider as "Totally unnecessary to have all the information here." there IS ACTUALLY NECESSARY. If you don't like it because it's too long, please revert to my last edit version and I'll give you the simplified one. Or at least give me access to my last edit because I also need it as a source for my other article.

Thanks.

--Hilmanasdf (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Your changes are in the history. Like all edits are. And having all that on a page that is dedicated to one specific slice of copyright law is completely unnecessary. If you want to put all of that on Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Indonesia that would be far more appropriate. Putting 10,000+ bytes of extraneous information on a page that has to contain information on 154 other countries is excessive and will continue to be removed if you put it back. --Majora (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For taking a comprehensive approach for a complex DR like Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Collections of the Museum of FC Barcelona. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Protected padlock icons

Hey! I'm the original author of the enwiki's new padlocks and I forgot to implement some suggestions from others (mainly minor typographic error fixes) into the grey shackles variant that were already implemented into the original designs. The up-to-date ones are uploaded at Category:Page Protection Padlock Redesign - (Grey shackles) (2018) and they have file names starting with Z. Please upload the new ones as the editing have been restricted. Sorry for the screw-up. XYZtSpace (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@XYZtSpace: ✓ Done These files should be edited as minimally as possible due to the server load required to change them across all the pages that they are, and will be, used on. So for now done but going forward please be aware of that. --Majora (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Mp4 files, ground nesting bee

I only just noticed File:דבורי אדמה.webm from the same uploader (it was deleted, so I didn't notice before). The translation says "drones". Possibly this was the same video? I'd prefer a file that's uploaded by the author. It was deleted for not having a license (V2C is tricky with that), but we could just copy the license from the mp4 (like I did when uploading File:Ground Nesting Bee bzz bzz.webm). - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: It was the same video as File:Ground Nesting Bee bzz bzz.webm. Would you like me to undelete it and then delete your version? --Majora (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Assuming the quality is also the same, yes please. Perhaps redirect File:Ground Nesting Bee bzz bzz.webm, the new filename the uploader picked is RTL which is confusing for those who are used to LTR. I checked the other uploaders btw and added a {{Tick}} to a bunch more videos on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:MP4 files. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: ✓ Done File:דבורי אדמה.webm. I'm not entirely sure what to do with the source box on the file page now but I'm ok with leaving it even if the names no longer match. Also I got the new ticks on the DR. Thank you for doing this work. It is appreciated. --Majora (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
For the Ground nesting bee, I simply changed it to {{Own}}. I created {{Converted MP4}} only for those cases where I (or someone else who is not the author) uploads a converted video. I know from experience that a red link in the source field is dangerous, so when the uploader does not match the author this needs to be explained. It's not needed in cases where the original uploader reuploaded the video. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cherenkov Wavefront.svg

  • The original, a valid SVG file a broken librsvg (but not other SVG renders) had problems with.
    The original, a valid SVG file a broken librsvg (but not other SVG renders) had problems with.
  • The copy made solely to work around the librsvg bug.
    The copy made solely to work around the librsvg bug.

Re: "nor any valid reason, to delete this file that I can see". The file is a duplicate of another file. Glrx (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

There are obviously a lot of other things going on that make that file not just a duplicate, Glrx. Therefore, that rationale is invalid. They can coexist together perfectly fine. --Majora (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. The earliest version of CW had text on a straight line path converted to rotated text. The second and only other version had the text converted to paths. There's nothing remarkable or interesting in either version. Yes, the versions can coexist, but the whole point of CW was to be a functional duplicate of C2 that librsvg could rednder. librsvg renders C2 without difficulty now. Glrx (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry you disagree but I don't consider that reasoning valid and there was not consensus to delete the image anyways in that DR. You may renominate the image for deletion if you wish but the result will most likely be the same. --Majora (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Uh, Sarang voted keep but said there should be only one image ("perhaps C2"). Perhelion voted keep but later deferred to Sarang and JoKalliauer; JoKalliauer gave reasons to keep, but then recently struck his keep rationale. I see no support for keep, and the image is not used (except on your talk page above). A second workaround version of C2 has already been deleted. Glrx (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring in user_talk:HutheMeow‎‎

Please, note that Commons:Talk page guidelines don’t state that IPs may purge user_talk of registered users at will. You seemingly started an edit war against Jeff G. who uses his rollback privilege to combat disruptive editing by one (or more) users from Australia. Your edit summary reflects your personal opinion—that is of course allowed—but you should carefully distinguish your recently acquired rôle of a Commons admin from your private disputes. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me? Perhaps you shouldn't assume what is going on in other people's minds, Incnis Mrsi. I don't have any dispute with Jeff. Public or private. Never had as far as I'm aware. And not surprisingly COM:Rollback explicitly says that rollback is only to be used for vandalism. Period. "Disruptive edits" as you put it aren't vandalism. So by your own admission, what Jeff did was abuse of the right. Oh and no where on the talk page guidelines does it say that they can't. IPs are users too. Oh, and also, one edit is not an edit war. I stopped a brewing edit war. My "recent" acquiring of the admin right is also totally irrelevant but your veiled threat and obvious put down is noted. In any case, I highly suggest that in this instance, where you, by your own admission are so very clearly in the wrong, that you mind your own business please. --Majora (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Flag of El Monte, California svg.png

Hi Majora. Do you think this file's name should be tweaked to File:Flag of El Monte, California.png to remove the double file extension? The file appears to be a png file (at least when I try to download it), so not sure if it was originally a svg and converted to png, or the svg was added by mistake. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: ✓ Done --Majora (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that. Was wondering if you'd also mind taking a look at en:WT:NFC#File names of new versions of non-free files since it also involves something similar with updates made to non-free files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Replied on that page. --Majora (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Why I can't upload my own photos which i payed for and those which was taken on my iPhone ?!!!

why I can't upload my own photos which i payed for and those which was taken on my iPhone ?!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Always777 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

iPhone? Then why did some of them have Canon metadata and others had no metadata at all? By "taken on my iPhone" do you perhaps mean screenshotted from IMDb where they all were previous to being uploaded here? --Majora (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Peru 1970 National Football Team (digital restoration).jpg

I don't know if there's such a thing as cross-wiki canvasing, but thought you should know about en:WT:FOOTY#Eleven-Men Football Photograph Deletion Discussion. I'm not sure if the editor who posted that really understands that Commons and Wikipedia are separate projects with their own policies and way of doing things. FWIW, I only stumbled upon this because the editor had added a non-free photo that WT:FOOTY discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Marchjuly. Unlike enwiki where it is a full guideline, COM:CANVASS is just an essay here. The reason is because Commons has a lot more leeway to ignore such things. DRs and UDRs embody the idea of !vote by allowing admins to throw away rationales if they do not fit with what is being discussed. Since in most cases what is being discussed is a file's copyright status this makes things a lot easier. If the reason for the DR is purely copyright based, 50 people could say  Keep on it and it wouldn't matter if none of them actually shows evidence that it is under a free license. It is up to the people to want to keep the image to show evidence (and that one is policy). While it is distasteful that they did it it isn't going to change the outcome unless someone over there has knowledge about the file's copyright status that others do not. It does explain the random person showing up and expressing their opinion though. --Majora (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Understand. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI

Following the CU procedure on dewiki (de:Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Nachfolgeantrag_Meister_und_Margarita_5) it's obvious that user:Pinneberger_Bote with all his insults and offenses [4] was/is the same person as user:Meister_und_Margarita who started to harass me after the block of the aforementioned.

Thanks, --JD {æ} 10:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Well that isn't really all that surprising, JD. Their blocks here are indefinite so it is not like they are going to continue here. If anything else does come up please let me know. I'm not one to tolerate harassment like that in any form. --Majora (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The users Parmeggianino (talk · contribs) (confirmed by CU in enWP and deWP), Christian Michelides (talk · contribs) (confirmed on enWP) and MichelidesPeralta (talk · contribs) (confirmed on deWP) are also likely sockpuppets of Meister und Margarita. --CorrectHorseBatteryStaple (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The "The Living Daylights" Screenshots I Uploaded On Sunday 2nd December 2018 ...

I am not claiming copyright on the "The Living Daylights" screenshots I uploaded on Sunday 2nd December 2018. I am not that stupid. You stupid Wikipedia admins just don't have a good place to put all such images. I did say that they were all screenshots from "The Living Daylights". I had the VLC Media Player program automatically add the subtitles to the pictures while playing the film, and Wikipedia readers need to see the pictures to understand what I am talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolHipDude (talk • contribs) 17:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@CoolHipDude: First, no personal attacks please. Second, the images are from a copyrighted movie. What you created was a derivative work of a copyrighted object. Which cannot be here. Please see our licensing policy for our requirements and do not upload any more of those images please. --Majora (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion

Why was my page deleted? My page was along the same line as another Broadcaster know as Don Steele. Why was mine singled out? The Real Steele

@The Real Steele: You seem to be a little confused as to where you are. This is Wikimedia Commons. The central repository for free to use media. This is not Wikipedia. This is not the place to write a biography. On this project the use of your user page in that manner is considered inappropriate. You were not singled out. That is how Commons is run. --Majora (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
But I searched Don Steele and he is listed here. The Real Steele — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Real Steele (talk • contribs) 21:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@The Real Steele: He has an article on Wikipedia. Again, this is not Wikipedia. --Majora (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
And why am I being switched here when I try to upload a photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Real Steele (talk • contribs) 21:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@The Real Steele: Commons is the central repository for free to use media. We don't have encyclopedia articles here. Only photos, videos, audio, etc. that are under a free license. You were brought this project when you uploaded a photo because that is what this project is for. We have a very specific purpose here. And it is not an encyclopedia. And please sign your posts. This can be done with four tildes (~). --Majora (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

File: Rivais da Primavera

Acredito que tenha me denunciado de plágio indevidamente. Eu recriei o pavilhão desta agremiação do interior do estado brasileiro chamado Minas Gerais, a cidade é Juiz de Fora e publiquei no wikipédia para melhor ilustrar como é a identidade visual da escola. Passei bastante tempo editando a imagem para que chegasse ao ponto de me acusar de plágio, assim como foi feito com todos os outros trabalhos que carreguei ao longo de três meses. Acredito na sua honestidade para que meu arquivo volte a vigorar no site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DougSouza24 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@DougSouza24: I'm sorry but I don't speak Portuguese. But please read Commons:Trabalho derivado. What you created was a derivative work incorporating copyright logos whose copyright is owned by other people. That is not acceptable. We would need permission from each individual copyright holder stating that their logos are under a free license that allows anyone to use or modify the image, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse). Without that I cannot restore the images. Sorry. --Majora (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Machine translation: Me desculpe, mas eu não falo português. Mas por favor leia Commons: Trabalho derivado. O que você criou foi um trabalho derivado que incorpora logotipos de direitos autorais cujos direitos autorais pertencem a outras pessoas. Isso não é aceitável. Precisamos de permissão de cada detentor de direitos autorais individual declarando que seus logotipos estão sob uma licença gratuita que permite a qualquer pessoa usar ou modificar a imagem, a qualquer momento e para qualquer finalidade (incluindo reutilização comercial). Sem isso eu não posso restaurar as imagens. Desculpa. --Majora (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Emberá-Wounaan (Panama).gif

Hi, you deleted the file I uploaded showing the coat of arms of the indigenous region of Emberá-Wounaan in Panama due to copyright violation. However, per the text under Copyright section of the Disclaimers and Copyright of the website:

Most text and images contained in the website are made by the contributors themselves. If the contributor states the source of the information, we report it, otherwise we assume it is new material and the copyright is owned by the contributor. Our editorial policy is to include images only when we can ascertain that we have permission to use them. However, it is often the case that an image is provided to us with little back-up information associated with it. In such cases we try to assess if the image is owned by someone before posting it. If you encounter an image which you think may be from your site and used on FOTW without permission, please contact the editor of the page to advise him. Our intent is to provide as complete a collection of the world's flags as possible, and we would be most grateful to be able to use your image. If we know where it comes from, we will credit it.

Some pictures are derived from cliparts of graphical programs. Cliparts normally can be incorporated into drawings without any copyright problems. Therefore we add them to the website without declaring anything about their origin.

You can freely use any material copyrighted by the contributors of the website, provided that:

  • you limit your use to a maximum of 5% of the images or content of the website
  • you quote the author
  • you quote the website (as "FOTW Flags Of The World website at http://flagspot.net/flags/")
  • you do not alter in any way the images or the content of the text
  • you use the material for non-commercial and non-political purposes only
  • if you distribute our material by a non-Internet way (e.g., floppy disks or CD-ROM) you must add this copyright text on every copy of the medium
  • if you distribute our materials by a non-Internet way (e.g., floppy disks or CD-ROM) you cannot sell these media
  • If you want to reuse FOTW GeoIndex maps and boundaries' data, read these rules

I included the source of the file and the name of the original author, and also the above text under the Licensing section of the file. Earlier I had uploaded the file Flag of Los Santos Province (Panama).gif from the website. Could you please explain why this file was still deleted? JackintheBox (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@JackintheBox: Please take a look at our licensing policy or the giant box at the top of this page. In order to be here it must be under a license that allows anyone to use or modify the image, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse). Those terms contain both non-derivative and non-commercial restrictions. So it can't be here unless it is too simple to be copyrighted. Which it isn't. Sorry. --Majora (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. JackintheBox (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

雷晴雯_Winnie.jpg and others

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=330331048#File:雷晴雯_Winnie.jpg

I don't know why the IP made the request. It appears the files were uploaded by various users and mostly deleted by INC errrr Daphne Lantier. They were deleted as the result of DRs from B dash with rationales like "Likely an image found on Internet, not own work".

B dash does not have a good track record when it comes to this. That doesn't mean he was wrong in the cases on the UDR, but if you can't find an image anywhere that clearly predates the Commons upload, that's food for thought. Not much else I can say without having seen the files, but it seems like many people are playing games here. And I think this may be one of them. Also note that the IP is from HK (just like B dash) and also suggested de-adminship of Jcb, while keeping in mind one of the users who created Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 4) (though I've never seen the contents, I don't know if it was serious). I doubt that's a coincidence, but what it means I don't know yet. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: It really appeared to be just plain old disruption to be honest. It is a little annoying when people don't at least give a link to back up their claims, and I may be in the minority here, but when I'm closing DRs I always do my own investigation to make sure what I'm doing is sound and can be backed up if someone comes questioning. All those DRs were valid so requesting undeletion on them with no further evidence that they are under a free license really does seem like simple disruption to me. Whether or not anything additional comes of it, who knows. We deal with so much nonsense on a daily basis it all kinda runs into each other at this point so if it continues it'll just be another to add to the list. I'll obviously keep an eye out for things but beyond that just deal with it when it comes up I guess. Just as a side note, it also doesn't really help further along legitimate complaints when people constantly file disruptive ones. --Majora (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes what appears to be purely disruptive is actually a well-researched request (I don't know why, but I've seen it before). If for even a single image you have found yourself an external source that clearly predates Commons, I'd be confident it was just disruptive (or the quality of their research shitty enough to ignore the whole list - I've seen that too). And often they're just clearly random. But this one wasn't random, so it piqued my interest. I'm not sure if you are in the minority regarding investigation. Sadly, only investigations by admins really matter. What license reviewers and regulars think as well as the evidence they come up with don't really matter, so the whole responsiblity of investigating DRs comes on the shoulders of administrators. Which sounds kinda crazy, probably, but it's not my opinion. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessarily true. I always take into account other's opinions on the matter. It just so happens that sometimes other's opinions have nothing to do with what is being discussed or don't fit with our actual policy. Such as when people {{Vk}} on a copyright discussion with the comment, "it's an important image!" Which makes it kinda hard to go with what they say when we are supposed to follow policy (and I'm a big believer in following policy). The problem with DRs is that so many of them are just nominated and left to clean up by whomever eventually gets to it, even when they meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This leads to massive lists of 1,000+ DRs every month that have to be looked at with little to no input on the vast majority of them. Since people can be mistaken I don't feel it would ever be right to just take their word for it. Hence my own investigation just to be sure. Of course this slows everything down as each nomination is checked for verification and leads to crippling backlogs which is what we are experiencing right now. --Majora (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I was referring to the comment of another admin: "Please note that in the five months this DR was open, not a single administrator has stated that these files could be kept." (italics are not mine) The issue was copyright, not scope. Three (!) license reviewers voted keep plus the original copyvio spotter who admitted to have made a mistake. You'd think they should know what they're talking about. But if they get ignored, why should anyone who isn't an admin even bother to look at a DR? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

MP4 files

Don't need Category:MP4 files now anymore either.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Majora (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

OTRS for transferred files

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 71#File:Animation Tetrabrot.gif

Now I run into it again: File:Marie Jahoda and Nicholas van Hoogstraten appearing on 'After Dark' with host Henry Kelly.jpg.

I guess it's okay but without an OTRS member confirming it, I simply can't tell if this is forged or not. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: , lets see now. The permission was added by Moonriddengirl AKA Mdennis (WMF). That alone is enough in my eyes as I know for a fact that Maggie is extremely competent. I was a little concerned at first that this was a ticket from 2011 since the rules back then were rather lax compared to now but the ticket is acceptable even to today's standards. It was confirmed to come from someone at Open Media which would have owned the broadcast of that show and the permission is valid. --Majora (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
How do you even see Moonriddengirl AKA Mdennis (WMF)? I see an image that was uploaded (transferred) by Finavon. The original upload log states AnOpenMedium was the original uploader, who was "Uploading a free file from somebody else". I see the OTRS box, which tells me "Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication" and that "This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member". The ticket links don't work for me, obviously. So I check the history tab. "OAuth Uploader, OTRS permission added by non-OTRS member". If I didn't know any better, I'd say that means that "This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member" is false. Long story short: I can forge OTRS permission that looks more real than this. And I honestly don't know how I can ever tell the permission for this file wasn't forged? And if I can't, any re-users certainly can't. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I can see the ticket and who it was assigned to. So I can see who answered it and who processed the permissions. Worst case scenario I'll ask an enwiki sysop to take a look at the deleted file for me. I talk to quite a few of them on a daily basis on IRC and I've never had an issue looking up the content of a deleted file that I can't see. The problem is, there isn't a way for normal individuals to keep that information in the file history during the transfer process. Administrators can use Special:Import to move everything, including edit history, from other projects to here but that ability is highly restricted as it can be quite disruptive in the wrong hands (server load in the transferring process). We can't even add that flag to other accounts, only stewards have that ability. So I'm not really sure of any way to really solve your apprehension regarding these files except for asking whenever something comes up. --Majora (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I could probably find a way to allow any OTRS member to re-add the permission and trigger the "PermissionOTRS" tag. I'm thinking of something along the lines of replacing (with VFC in case of large numbers of files) "permissionOTRS" with "otrs". Or you could put something specific in the edit summary and make the tagging filter respond to that. I can't really test what works because I'm not an OTRS member, but I'm sure there's a way. It does require some action from an OTRS member, but how many files with OTRS get transferred from other wikis? Is that really a huge number? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Without digging too deeply, a total of 546 files were transferred from other projects with OTRS permission tags. See [5] and do a ctrl + f for "wikipedia". --Majora (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Hussain Sajwani, DAMAC Properties.jpg

Hi Majora. Was wondering if you'd could take a look at this? This editor's short history of uploading files is not very good so far; so, I'm wondering if it might be a good idea to have this OTRS verified. I think this is the website of the photographer who took the photo (at least the photographer according to the exif data), and it's possible this was a work for hire, but not sure. The uploader might be involved in some undisclosed paid editing over on Wikipedia which again makes me wonder if this is really their own work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Just want to update that was tagged by another editor as a copyvio and then subsequently deleted as a result. You can still see it of course if you want to check into it further. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Oh yeah, that would need OTRS permission from the copyright holder. A work for hire would require some sort of documentation to go along with it. Either way, we would need proof that the copyright holder has authorized the release of that photo under an acceptable license. --Majora (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I thought that was probably the case, but thanks for double checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Did what you requested for image that was deleted

Hi Majora, per your suggestion here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive#File:stephanie_march.png_undeletion_request asked fellow fan to follow your suggestion and re upload the image with meta data and correct license. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Stephanie_march.png Not sure what they mean by claiming somemone else's picture. this is a simple case of a fan uploading a picture to flickr because she didn't know how to use commons. Chiwilkson (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Responded to the UDR request. --Majora (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Portrait of William Newman.png

Here's another one you might be able to help clarify. It was just moved to Commons from en:File:Portrait of William Newman.png. The subject en:William Newman (computer scientist) seems to be still alive, but the file's description states "Contributed under Creative Commons by the subject's wife, who holds power of attorney on his affairs." I'm not sure if that means she or her husband are the copyright holder's of the photograph. It's not a selfie, and she could've taken it; however, there's no way to verify that, right? If the license is not OK for Commons, then the local file will also have to be deleted per en:WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It would need OTRS permission as well, Marchjuly. I have marked it as such. We would need proof that it is under an acceptable license. Not just a statement that it is. That would never be acceptable by today's standards. --Majora (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Rebecca Renner.jpg

Hi Majora. Need to bother you again about this file and User talk:Mary Alice Mo#File:Rebecca Renner.jpg (also see en:User talk:Mary Alice Mo#Image removed from Rebecca Renner article and en:User talk:Rtbailey99#Rebecca Renner image as well). FWIW, this file was licensed under a non-commercial license when I tagged it and the changes to the media kit a Flickr page were made very shortly thereafter. That might indicate the uoloader and Renner are the same person, which is not really an issue for Commons per se. If the new licensing is OK, then I have no problem with the speedy deletion tag removed from the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, Marchjuly. I took a few days off from Commons/Wikipedia. Anyways, it looks like it was DR'ed by another person. I haven't really taken a good look at it but it does look like it is a professional photograph. In that case, we would need either proof that the license was transferred or for the photographer to email OTRS. --Majora (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Files in Category:Photographs by Felix O

Thank you for your effort at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Photographs_by_Felix_O.

You said "In the future please do not create DRs like this. The sheer level of confusion and work it causes is not worth it. The minute you realized that your original reasoning was not going to work this should have been procedural closed and new DRs opened. Multiple, smaller, DRs that actually group problematic images into singular rationales would have resulted in this being worked though a lot quicker."

I apologise for inadvertently grouping in images that weren't part of that (flawed) bulk import- and thus not covered by the rationale. I'd have understood if the request had been closed for that reason and I'd been asked to reopen it (although I wasn't!).

Regardless, I *had* struck out the wrongly-included images myself; those that remained should have been correctly covered by the original rationale (i.e. bulk upload without due diligence having been done, with deletion being the assumed default behaviour unless others wished to prove otherwise).

I'd assume that- in itself- was acceptable?

Ubcule (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Messy

Thanks. Now I understand: there are two files, one above the other, with the same name. Please check: [6]. The older one it's Flickr PD. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The PDM is not an acceptable license Ganímedes. So the Flickr license is meaningless. --Majora (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Uffff more messy. But in this case permission is given for the file below. Is it a way to divide the files and recover the previous one? Or is it better to delet and request to reuploaded with a different name? --Ganímedes (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Forget it. Already done ;) --Ganímedes (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

your opinion please...

In User talk:World's Lamest Critic#Blocked you wrote What occurred at enwiki is really none of my concern. Bringing enwiki problems here is also not something that people should be doing.

I am afraid World's Lamest Critic is, however, still carrying fights from enwiki here. WLC was wikihounding me on en.wiki, in the months prior earning that indefinite block for malicious outing of the real world identities of vulnerable en.wiki contributors.

What this has to do with the commons is that after their en.wiki indefinite block WLC transferred their wikihounding to commons. The most recent instance was today, at tagging File:USMC_Sergeant_Remedios_Cruz,_on_an_endurance_hike.jpg

I am not suggesting that carrying over their wikihounding of en.wiki contributors to their contributions to the commons should be sufficient to re-instate that indefinite block. But perhaps you could offer me some advice as to how to request an interaction ban be imposed on WLC?

FWIW I think Neptune's Trident also experienced WLC carrying his wikihounding from en.wiki to commons.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: My block on Wikipedia is entirely unrelated to any interactions we had on Wikipedia. If you upload images with invalid licenses, you should expect that other Commons users will nominate them for deletion. I keep an eye on your uploads because of your history of poor judgment. If you took more time and care with your uploads it would deprive me of the opportunity to nominate them for discussion. By the way, I was going to nominate File:Screen capture from a DoD video about Remedios Cruz -a - 2015-12-18 (cropped).png and related images for deletion because of the orange rectangles marring the images. If you wanted to fix the sources and upload new versions without the rectangles, that would be great. Thanks! World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I left my reply on User talk:World's Lamest Critic -- which they erased. Short version? Their comment, above, is nonsense. Geo Swan (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Geo Swan, WLC's block and unblock was for a completely different reason than hounding or whatever you wish to call it. As far as I'm aware they have not broken the terms of the agreement to not do what got them blocked in the first place again. Also, while archiving is preferred, people are also fully within their rights to remove material from their talk page. That is seen as recognition that they have read it. As for the image in question, while it appears in the video you mentioned it is a still photograph that was put into the video. While the video itself seems to have been made by a federal employee during the course of their duties it uses material that may not be. Making it a derivative work with potentially violating content. While this new revelation may make the image incompatible with speedy deletion it still raises questions about its provenance. In any case, the image has been deleted by Hedwig in Washington. In the future, World's Lamest Critic, if someone converts your speedy deletion into a DR please just comment on the DR. It will lessen the tension (and it happens quite often). {{Copyvio}} tags here are not the same as speedy tags in other projects that must be reviewed by an administrator unless clearly incorrect. I don't see anything actionable right now, Geo Swan. Especially seeing as it has nothing to do with the original block/unblock that I imposed. If you wish to request undeletion of the image so a full DR can be done please do so at COM:UDR so there is an official request. --Majora (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Having a Corporal XYZ of the Marines take a video doesn't tell me if it was made within his/her duties. This is required per com:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Works_by_the_US_Government and {{PD-USGov-Military-Marines}} I don't see this fulfilled on some other, unofficial, Marines website without backlink to the original. C(_) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I followed that link, and I don't see any of its point saying we need proof that images credited to GI weren't taken when they were off-duty.
Corporal James Marchetti, the videographer, was also employed to write the following stories, published on the official DoD site dvidshub.net. Perhaps you aren['t aware that in the 21st century, every battalion, USN ship, air base, air wing, navy base, or army base, above a certain size, employs a dedicated public affairs officer. Guantanamo's Public Affair Office employed several officers and dozens of enlisted personnel.
The above articles are from the first couple of screenfuls from https://www.dvidshub.net/search/?filter%5Bmember_id_credit%5D=1302602&sort=date which also includes thousands of photos taken by Marchetti. Geo Swan (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Majora, further information about WLC's first indefinite block here on commons is interesting. Thanks. Note, I said I wasn't requesting you to re-instate that block, based on their harrassment of my efforts, here. Rather I asked your advice on how to get an interaction ban imposed on WLC. If you didn't answer that question because you have no experience with interaction bans, that's okay.
  • With regard to the idea that James Marchetti may have included a proprietary still within his DoD video, let me repeat something I wrote in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Richard_J._Leon.jpg. A nominator noticed that this image was taken by Beverly Rezneck, a private photographer, in 2018. However, I had uploaded the image in 2010. I found other photos from our library, credited to Rezneck, which were explicitly credited as "Photo by Beverly Rezneck/Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts". I wrote there
Is it possible that in the time between when the photo of Justice Kennedy was published and when I uploaded the photo of Justice Leon, Rezneck quit her job, and Leon paid for a private photograph, for his official picture, even though another official photographer had taken her place, and would take his photo for free? It is possible, barely possible.
But if we are going to take the precautionary principle to this length then practically none of the fifty million photos volunteers worked hard to upload here is safe from being challenged.
I don't want to seem disrespectful, but I am concerned that you and Hedwig may be taking the precautionary principle to unreasonable lengths. You don't know that the video IS a derivative work. Rather, you are merely imagining a scenario where it might be a derivative work. If we start imagining unlikely scenarios where the free license of our images might not be legitimate, then a large fraction of our images would suddenly be open to be challenged.
I've uploaded thousands of images here, that I took myself. I sure don't want someone to delete them, if a magazine, or website, re-uses the image, without crediting me, because they assumed I uploaded a proprietary image. I uploaded a panorama of images I took on 2014-04-09, the day tunnel boring machines started to excavate Toronto's Eglinton Crosstown LRT. The image I took of the hole where the tunnel boring machines were inserted, was widely re-used, including here. Sorry, but I think extending too much caution to the precautionary principle can be disrespectful to photographers, like myself, who have put their image in the public domain. Geo Swan (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@World's Lamest Critic, Hedwig in Washington, and Geo Swan: Hi, Regarding the deletion procedure of File:USMC Sergeant Remedios_Cruz, on an endurance hike.jpg, every user has the right to convert a speedy deletion to a regular deletion if s/he thinks that the request is not warranted. That being said, I have no clear opinion of the validity of the deletion itself. My 2 Rs. of (talk page stalker) Regards, Yann (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Understood. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: Since you referred to me in the third person in your comment on my talk page, I assumed you had meant to put it somewhere else. I understand that you are still upset that your friend Joshua Boyle's Wikipedia account and details of his conflict of interest editing were published in the New York Times and elsewhere. I don't want to debate this again, but it was determined not to be outing. It is clear to everyone that you are trying to have me blocked here because I question some of your uploads. As I have said before, be more careful and I will have no reason to contact you. Can we leave Majora alone now? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Majora/Archive_1&oldid=372479013"