User talk:Natuur12/Archive 4

file:Hedi Schoop, 032.jpg

Why did you delete the file?

I see at this moment that wikimedia is processing the otrs permissions. Whoud dyou please restore this file?--Gerd Leibrock (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the file because you listed someone other than yourself as the author. I found the related OTRS-ticket and processed it. You can add the {{OTRS pending}} template to avoid deletion in future cases. Natuur12 (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Logo's BOB, BGA en GTS

Beste natuur12, ik heb deze vraag gesteld aan Dinosaur918. Misschien weet u de oplossing? Haagschebluf (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Oei, ik vrees van niet. Misschien kan deze vraag beter in com:VP/C gesteld worden. Natuur12 (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Васил Мечкуевски.jpeg

This is a picture of my Great Grandfather from personal possession. I am trying to upload it to his profile but am not able to. Can you please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolovh1 (talk • contribs)

Yes I can probably help but I am not sure if this file can be kept at Wikimedia Commons. Do you know who created the photograph, when it was taken and when it was published? Natuur12 (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The photograph was taken when he graduated from Officers Academy probably around 1908. It has been in my family's possession ever since. The physical photograph is very old and the paper as well. It is the original. I have more pictures of him as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolovh1 (talk • contribs)

Okay. Photographs are protected for 70 years after the photographers death in Bulgeria. 1909 is to young to assume that the file is out of copyright. I figure that this work is unpublished given the history of the photograph. Does the photograph mention a author on the back? Natuur12 (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

No, the back has no writing at all whatsoever. It is just the picture itself amongst many others from his life. I just thought this one suits his image best.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolovh1 (talk • contribs)

I just read the translation of the Bulgarian law on copyright and this states the following about unpublished works:

Art. 34a. (new- SG 28/00, in force from 05.05.2000) Everyone who makes available to the public a work after expiration of the term of protection of the copyright, if not published by then, shall have the rights under Art. 18. This right shall expire after 25 years, beginning from the first of January of the year following the year of making the work available to the public.

— in: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=280106

It seems that this could be a reason to keep the file at Wikimedia Commons. I will lik to this disucssion in the deletion request and ask someone from Bulgaria to comment. Natuur12 (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Does this mean the photo will be kept until you receive clarification on this issue? Also what timeframe are you looking at to resolve this? Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolovh1 (talk • contribs)

Between 7 days and a couple of weeks an administrator will evaluate this deletion request and decide if it should be kept or not but given what publication right means according the English Wikipedia there is a good change that the file will be kept. Natuur12 (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay that is good news at least. At that point will the image appear on his profile where it should be or will any further action need to be done? I am new to Wikipedia and do not know the outcome of things. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolovh1 (talk • contribs)

I added it to Wikidata. It should appear soon. If it doesn't appear in a couple of hours it is probably best to ask this question at the local helpdesk at the Bulgarian Wikipedia. Natuur12 (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok Thank You.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolovh1 (talk • contribs)

It appeared. Natuur12 (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I just refreshed and saw the photo. You were very helpful. I appreciate your time.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bcxfu75k exa.JPG

Thank you for closing this DR discussion and for your solution. This discussion was intended as a test case for a consenus on what to do with the rest of the large number of Google Chrome screenshots uploaded under the wrong licences at Category:Screenshots of Google Chrome. As the DR pretty conclusively showed Google Chrome is proprietary software issued under "all rights reserved" and the the Google Terms of Service and therefore screenshots of it are not eligible to be on Commons. This means the rest of the Google Chrome screenshots need a solution too. You could crop each one, but most of them are specifically to show the Google Chrome browser, not to show the website displayed and so cropping them will not meet the goal that they were uploaded for. I propose that based on the DR they should all be deleted instead. On en.wikipedia we have a correctly licenced fair-use image that illustrates Google Chrome instead, which is the correct solution.

I am keen to get your advice on how to proceed on this issue. - Ahunt (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Most can be fixed but there are some cases which cannot be fixed like File:Thèmes sur Google Chrome.png. Perhaps you could start a mass DR for the unfixable cases since history tells us that people will come up with tons of invalid arguments if you also nominate fixable files. You already noticed how hard the test DR was. The number of files that should be cropped is probably managable. Natuur12 (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Would you like me to nom the non-cropable files for deletion then? Who will take on cropping the ones that can be cropped? That latter job requires more than just software skills, as it requires seeing where all the files are being used and assessing where they are of any value if cropped. For instance if it is being used to illustrate Google Chrome then cropping out the browser interface to just show a website obviously would not work. - Ahunt (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ahunt: , there is a huge problem with your DR. The licensing is still in discussion, but you just ignored an important element, the Threshold of originality, Most of the elements ofthe UI consist just in simple shapes (like the Microsoft Edge UI), ane therefore, them are not subject of copyright in the US.

The Google Chrome EULA mentions its relationship with the Open source licensing of the Google Chrome source code (Chromium). The question there is if the BSD prevails over the EULA applied to the parts of Google Chrome derivated from Chromium, and why the EULA just supersedes the BSD.

Natuur12, considering the TOO, this DR with broad concensus, and also this DR of a Microsoft Edge screenshot, please justify your decision about cropping and hidding the previous version. --Amitie 10g (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe the arguments given in the DR justify the crop and hiding per com:PCP. First of all, we close DR's based upon arguments and the licensing argument seems to have been countered. The first DR you link doesn't contain valid and/or arguments at all. Secondly I do believe the browser is above TOO. Regarding the second DR. I fail to see how this can be DM. Natuur12 (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Why you considered the Google Chrome/Chromium UI above the TOO? (we are not talking about the browser, but its UI itself)

Anyway, I contacted directly to Google in the Request for permission to use Google brand features. Before taking any further action over the hunderd of pictures, I think that is better to wait for the answer form Google.

And finally, please read carefuly the Google Chrome EULA, thete are some interesting aspects about its relationship between the BSD license. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

UI? And I see no harm in waiting a couple of days. Natuur12 (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Amitie 10g: I don't know what you are talking about with regard to the Google Terms of Service which is the EULA. It does not mention the BSD licence. The BSD license is very straightforward in that allows the software under that licence to be used for any purpose and places no restrictions on the licencing of derivative software. This is why Google choose that licence rather than a copyleft licence, like the GPL, that would require require that, as it allows Google to take a mix of free software and proprietary software, as makes up Google Chrome, and issue it under a proprietary licence, which is what they have done. These arguments have already been proven with evidence in the original DR. - Ahunt (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

To make it clear I don't understand what you mean with "we are not talking about the browser, but its UI itself" (UI is user interface of course) Do you mean the source code when you talk about "the browser"? Natuur12 (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Because the Browser contains parts from several sources, licensed under several licenses (MIT, Apache, GPL, LGPL and the MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license, not just the BSDu; see Chrome://credits). The screenhsots depicts only the browser UI (the result of executing code mainly derived from Chromium), that is, IMHO, bellow the TOO in the US (simple shapes and common interfaces), that is not subject of copyright in the US.

Google can relicense the code released under the BSDu, but The Chromium Projects is still the copyright holder of the Google Chrome UI (relicensing does not mean taking the ownership; removing the copyright notices from code under the BSD is a copyright violation). If you mentioned that Commons:Deletion_requests/Google_Chrome_screenshots does not contain valid arguments at all, you (and Ahunt) should probe why several users were wrong all this time, and explain in detail why the Google Chrome Terms of Service (TOS) supersedes the BSDu license (and then the MIT, Apache, GPL, LGPL and the MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license licenses) and not the otherwise. See this thread at the VPC --Amitie 10g (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As much as you want this to be something very complicated, it isn't. The licencing for Google Chrome makes it very clear that it is "all rights reserved" under Google's Terms of Service. You aren't going to get an answer from Google that says anything else. If you disagree with that licencing and think it is invalid then you will have to sue Google in a US court, not try to win an argument here on Commons. As far as TOO goes, "no" it is not just simple shapes, the basic Chrome UI with only two tabs open consists of 21 straight lines, 11 symbols and five different element areas . Your argument is like saying Picasso's Guernica is not a copyrighted work because it is just a few dabs of paint on a canvas. It is a disingenuous argument. - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Amitie 10g: deciding if something is above or below TOO is always a bit subjective and every admin has their own view regarding this topic. If it gets to court every judge will have their own interpretation. (Doesn't mean previous rulings aren't taken into account of course). I could give you a lecture regarding what is a valid argument and what is not but I doubt it will be helpful at this point. I agree with Ahunt regarding his analysis that it is below TOO. Every person with a ruler could have created this and yet it has (or still has, complex case) a copyright. This being said, also the arranging can and likely is copyrighted. Natuur12 (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Amitie 10g: we already resolved those issues in the DR. Your opinions on these issues were not supported. Sorry that you didn't like the outcome. - Ahunt (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have come to a conclusion. As per my request above, how do we deal with all the rest of the images at Category:Screenshots of Google Chrome? Most would be of no value if cropped to eliminate the browser and show only a website, as most seem to be intended to show the browser. - Ahunt (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Screenshots of Google Chrome. Let's deal with those first. Than we can check which files can be kept after cropping and which files are out of scope. Natuur12 (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleted image

Hello. One of the two images i have uploaded yesterday was deleted because of copyright infringement and the other one might have the same fate for the same reason. As i stated here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kerbal_Space_Program_-_landing_demonstration.png and here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests#File:Kerbal_Space_Program_-_Rocket_launch.png those files were produced by me and nobody else in a simulation game called "Kerbal Space Program", being currently available only on my hard drive or my cloud accounts. jeanJVS (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

See here. The only reason why I nominated it for deletion instead of deleting it right away is because I wanted to give you a change to prove that the files meet com:L. One reason could be that it was part of an animation made by a space agency but if it is a video game we need evidece of permission from the person who created the game that they agree with releasing it under a free license. Natuur12 (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I checked the copyright of the game and the official forums of it, specifically here: https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/en/?page_id=39 and here:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/102607-license-copyright-and-youtube/ , where one of the developers (KasperVld) gave permission to post screenshots anywhere, as long as they are "given credit, a mention and a link to our website is enough. You must also make it perfectly clear that we are the copyright holders of KSP.". I did not know this and i wish to know if there is a way to change the description of the image to give proper credit to the developers or if i can do so in future uploads. jeanJVS (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Your first link (which I can barely read because of the background) mentions some kind of non commercial license which is forbidden per com:L. I read the FAQ but this doesn't seem to be explicit enough to statisfy the requirements mentioned at com:L. The fact that they state that you may use it at Youtube doesn't mean that you may use it at a Wikimedia Project. (YouTube is often used for fanvids etc and Wikimedia Projects are used to share free content). Natuur12 (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

On the same forum thread, the developer said "of course, the same applies to posting videos or screenshots elsewhere.". Is there any way to satisfy that requirement by editing the image or to upload it again correctly? jeanJVS (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure that he is a developer and not a forum moderator? (Question remains if a dev is allowed to grant such a permission) They need to send a statement to OTRS that they agree with the release under a free license. Natuur12 (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

He is the official forum administrator, who is also part of the development team and i believe he is qualified to talk about copyright issues. I do not have contact with the developers, meaning that i cannot ask them such thing. Can you tell me if i would be allowed to upload other images on which i give credit to the developers? Because, if that is the only way to allow the image to stay on Wikimedia, then i am afraid that i will have to delete that image myself and never send any other images to Wikimedia again to avoid having any other legal issues that could ultimately result on my banning from Wikimedia and Wikipedia. jeanJVS (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

No it is not. They require a link to the website and this isnot possible when used in printed media. Also, their statement is not explicit enough and we cannot count some forum message as an extended permission. Expecially since the TOU talk about a non commercial license. Natuur12 (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Then can you tell me how can i delete the image myself in order to avoid more problems?

You can't. An administrator will close the deletion request in a couple of days. And don't worry about more trouble. It was a honest mistake so it is not a bid deal. If you have future questions about uploads you can always ask them at may talk page or in our com:helpdesk. Natuur12 (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Then thank you for your time and comprehension.

Removal of Rollback flag

Natuur12, I just noticied that you removed the Rollback flag. Could you specify what reversions you're considered wrong? For example, this could be a mistake (considering that PD-Mark 1.0 is not allowed in Commons), and this is a reversion of obvious vandalism. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It was indeed this revision. I left a message at your talk page explaining why I removed it including a link to the revision in question. The edit was done in good faith and it is more of a content dispute than just your every day mistake. This message proves it. The relevant policy states the following:

The use of rollback should normally be limited to combating vandalism, but the tool can also be used to rollback your own mistaken edits or the clearly mistaken edits of another user. It should only be used for clear-cut cases, as an automatic edit summary is provided without the opportunity for adding custom text (unless you use a script such as User:Kanonkas/rollbackSummary.js).

This wasn't a clear cut case. Natuur12 (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I agree. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

FOP in Museums

Yes. There is FOP in Museums. "Realizing the reproduction, emitting by radio diffusion or public transmission by cable, of the image of an architectural work, of a work of fine arts, of a photographic work or of a work of applied art, that is found situated in permanent form in a place open to the public". So I ask for a undeletion of File:Caliwood - 04.jpg --Sahaquiel - Hast du eine Frage? 19:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The FOP-section regarding Colombia isn't really complete but in most countries musea aren't covered by FOP and open to the public doesn't even always include public interiors. (See the German FOP-section for example). Surely we should have some kind of confirmation that Colombia has a rare FOP-provision that includes museum instead of reading a translation and interpertating it by the letter. See also this and this DR. (The second one is started by a native Spanish speaker who has a great deal of experience dealing with copyright.) Please cite me a source which states that museums are covered by FOP. Doesn't matter if it is in Spanish, I'll just ask a Spanish speaking user to take a look. I hope you find one since that means we can update our FOP-section. Natuur12 (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Логотип_Спортвики.png

(License review failed) The YT-video might be marked as CC-By 3.0, but the webpage (http://sportwiki.to/) screenshot is not licensed under that licese from what I can tell, and that webpage include copyrighted DWs (logo, text) the DW-image in the video-screenshot, which is a stockphoto not owned by the website). Please reconsider your closure of that file, or I'll start a new DR. Thanks, Josve05a (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Reclosed it as deleted. Natuur12 (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Miwa Fukuhara 1960.jpg

Hello Natuur12... Would you please look here User_talk:Materialscientist#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Miwa_Fukuhara_1960.jpg after your desicion. --Wikijunkie (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I will have a look tomorrow. Natuur12 (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be resolved. Do you require any further assistance from me? Natuur12 (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Anything new on this?

Hiya Natuur!! Anything new on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stephan Thiemonds.jpg? We have a backlog again! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hi,

• I just received an email today indicating that it could take a while. We could either let it open or close it as deleted and undelete the file after the ticket can be closed as "confirmed". Natuur12 (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair Use not claimed / Please Undelete =

Per: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ilsa-dohmen-interviewing-cortland-dugger-2006-february.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

I took this image myself of a public mural in a public space (Medford MA USA public library). This is made clear in the description. Given the subject matter, it's not unlike taking a picture of the Lincoln Memorial or Arizona Memorial. It's an important piece of information re: Colonel Dugger and should remain. Also, as stated, Fair use is not claimed.

Please restore this image. Jnewengland (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The file was a photograph of a photograph. Such files are not allowed at wikimedia Commons unless the underlying work is in the public domain. It is true that the nominator used a bad nomination template bat that doesn't change the outcome. Natuur12 (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Lowellcommuters2.jpg

Could you explain why in this edit you claim it is "Not an exact or scaled-down duplicate"? The files are from the exact same source - this LOC listing; they're mildly different crops but that's just from my recent upload and not significant to the content of the file. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

One does have a border while the other one doesn't. Therefor it is not a dupe. Natuur12 (talk) 07:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how that makes a difference - Template:Remove border states that unless the border or frame is historically significant, it can be cropped out - but I'd rather get other opinions since we disagree. I've opened a deletion discussion here. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Myrotvorets-Krym1.jpg

Hi Natuur. I saw the keep on this one, so I wanted to consult with you. The source given is to an edited version of the image with the woman's face covered. There are versions of this image at other sources online with her face uncovered: [1]. I don't see how we can accept a newer edited version as the original. If this source is the true copyright holder, they should be able to show a larger version of the original unedited image than is available from other sources like [2]. Thoughts? INeverCry 21:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I am a bit in doubt. You are correct but I am not sure if deleting or renominating is the course of action. The argument is new but on they other hand the outcome will be obvious. Let me think about it for a day or so and I will get back to you. Natuur12 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to waiting. This is up for license review, but it'll likely sit there for a while. I personally wouldn't take responsibility for passing a review of this image as things stand, but luckily I can dump it in your lap and go do something more interesting instead... INeverCry 22:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I renominated the file. Natuur12 (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of this stuff gets posted on social media first and then used by news sites; I think that's the case here too. INeverCry 19:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably. Luckly it was easy to spot in this case. Natuur12 (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

File:4架幻象兩千戰機緊跟在馬英九專機側邊 (2).jpg

You could see 两岸领导人历史性会晤 and 洪秀柱将启程前往中国 与台商见面拉票. Both cloud decrease she is VOA reporter.--KOKUYO (talk) 06:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes but we don't have a source proving that this image was created as part of her official duties. Natuur12 (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Dragons

On what basis you have removed my illustration of modern dragon File:LittleDrakon 2010 03 01.jpg? Here you completely ignored my arguments about my own image (not enough permissions? are you kidding?), and also Esa's drawing. I still can agree the arguments for other deleted illustrations, such as the DnD dragon, because there are ambiguous rules. But not here. --LittleDrakon (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

To sum it up:

Your drawing: Personal artwork created by a non notable artist / possible infringement character copyright

Book scans: clear copyright violation

Esa's: Personal artwork created by a non notable artist / forum post isn't enough evidence that he/she agrees with releasing the file under a free license / possible infringement character copyright.

Regards, Natuur12 (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• """Personal artwork created by a non notable artist""" - what does it mean here? And what of copyright infringement can be at _my_ drawing? No one has had more to copyright than I am.

And where a scan of the book?? Red Dragon is a scan of my pencil drawing, which was then colored in Photoshop. --LittleDrakon (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, you made a mess of your uploads and your comments and that's why I mentioned the possible outcomes. If you draw an image of an existing character it is a derivative of non free content. If it is just a made up dragon it is out of scope since it has no educational value. Natuur12 (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• I specialize in the theme "Dragon in modern culture and art" and I have illustrated the wiki-article in accordance with the modern image. "No educational value", it never said about my work. --LittleDrakon (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Q-music logo

You deleted the logo of the radio station Q-music here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Q-musiclogo.png

This logo is not a copyright violation, it does not have original authorship, and it is eligible for copyright, I think it is simple and free to use and I cannot believe that the link (where the logo was there) has gone. When I visit the page, it redirects to http://qmusic.nl/cookiewall/index.html?destination=/ where an error is there.

Here is the latest information:

DescriptionNatuur12/Archive 4	English: Logo of the Dutch radio station Q-music Nederlands: Logo van de Nederlandse radiozender Q-music
Source	http://q-music.nl/cookiewall/index.html?destination=/
Author	Q-music

This logo is owned by Medialaan (De Persgroep) for the radio station Q-music. I think it is not a copyright violation and it is eligible for copyright. Please restore this image:

• File:Q-musiclogo.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Thank you. XPanettaa (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The work is original enough to have a copyright in it's source country the Netherlands. Natuur12 (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

So how am I supposed to do to have this image too simple to be copyrighted? XPanettaa (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing you can do except for citing a relevant court case in which was decided that a similar logo was found to be too simple to be copyrighted. Natuur12 (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I know it, but this image is not eligible for copyright in it's source country the Netherlands. XPanettaa (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

No since the work meets the criteria "het eigen, oorspronkelijk karakter heeft en het persoonlijk stempel van de maker draag". Natuur12 (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

So what happens when I tag this image with {{PD-ineligible}}? Would it not be original enough to have a copyright in its source home the Netherlands? XPanettaa (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be speedy deleted and you will be blocked since it is not allowed to reupload deleted content. And yes, it would still be a copyright violation. Natuur12 (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, wait a minute. Why do you nominate these 3FM logos for deletion? These are not eligible for copyright. XPanettaa (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Because they are eligible for copyright. They are way to creative to be out of copyright. Natuur12 (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I tagged these images with {{PD-ineligible}}, and I don't think that they are eligible for copyright. And I don't want these logos to be deleted. XPanettaa (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how this logo is less complex than the logo discribed in this court case or this court case. The discription is quite abstract but it doesn't sound like they discribe highly complex logo's. Natuur12 (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I want to keep these logos, and they are ineligible for copyright. XPanettaa (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Prove it. Another court case. The court suggests that the first logo is copyrighted. certainly less creative than your logo's. Natuur12 (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't want these logos to be deleted, because they are all ineligible for copyright. ): XPanettaa (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

What happens if I select {{PD-ineligible}} and/or both {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademark}} when uploading logos? Would it be ineligible for copyright? XPanettaa (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This is some sort of joke? Clearly the answer is no since those template's don't change the copyright status of a work. Natuur12 (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

No, this is not some sort of joke. When I select {{PD-ineligible}} and/or both {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademark}}, would it not be eligible to have a copyright in it's source country the Netherlands?

Here is the template of {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademark}}. If you see the line on the C (PD icon) on the template, that means that the logo does not meet the Com:TOO needed for copyright protection and is therefore in the public domain.

This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image may still be subject to other restrictions. See WP:PD § Fonts and typefaces or Template talk:PD-textlogo for more information.

This work includes material that may be protected as a trademark in some jurisdictions. If you want to use it, you have to ensure that you have the legal right to do so and that you do not infringe any trademark rights. See our general disclaimer. This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing.

XPanettaa (talk) 17:43 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

		Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2016 !
		Remember: Look sweet... Eat everything... Seek the warmest spots to nap and purr... Try to wait until after to demolish the paper and ornaments... -- Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you :). And a merry christmas yo you as well. Natuur12 (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Phalia Constituency Map by Tariq Imran.png

I'm wondering if you could expand a bit on your rationale for determining a "keep" result for this image as I did not find the one other particpant's arguments very compelling. The image is of poor quality, unused, and has a giant spam watermark for the user who created it over almost the entire thing. I can't see how it would ever be considered educational or useful. What am I missing? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It is the only file in the cats assigned to the image. As far as I can tell there is no other file to replace it and honestly, I am not going to look for it either since that is the nominators job. Also, there was no consensus to delete the file and having a watermark isn't a reason to delete it either. Natuur12 (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Admin supervote needed

See en:WP:NSUPER; I'm asking for editorial judgement on your part, not complaining.

You recently deleted the subjects of Commons:Deletion requests/File:GPYC1.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:GPYC Dusk.jpg, but I'd nominated them for deletion because they were similar, and both nominations said "but of course only one should be deleted". Would you mind undeleting one of them? I don't care which one, so please undelete the one you think is better. Nyttend (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am not sure what a supervote is and Commons doesn't follow en-wiki practises but both files are out of scope imho. Also the DR-process isn’t meant as some kind of ask the admins which version they like forum. I could have stated that I deleted both of the files as out of scope but on the other hand, this was pretty obvious. If you still want one of the files to be undeleted feel free to file a request at com:UNDEL. Natuur12 (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Please take a look

Please take a look at this talk page and see if you feel it's a bit promotional? Or what? Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the situation resolved itself. The files are clear copyright violation so I closed the DR as delete. I agree that it is a bit promotional. Natuur12 (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

In-use chemical images

Please wait a few days. I'm gradually working through them...many have multple mistakes to merit removal from use and/or replacements available. N.wp chem is working on a standard that will likely resolve many at once, but slow going due to holiday. DMacks (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Feel free to drop me a message after you replaced them so I can reclose the DR's I already closed. Natuur12 (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Jameslwoodward was too fast (and did not consider the arguments here and below). --Leyo 00:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, Leyo, you certainly know the rules. Commons Admins are not allowed to second guess editors on the WPs -- that allows our limited staff of volunteers to close DRs like these without having to wait until a chemistry expert comes along -- we can rely on the fact that the WP editors are supposed to know something about the subjects they edit, so if it is in use, it is kept. Have you never been in the middle of a fight between two editors over a national map? Or, even over chemical diagrams? I have been in many such fights and it is very useful to remind all involved that Commons does not pass judgement on the accuracy of images in any but the most extreme cases.

So, please don't try to blame me for catching your attempt to break the rules. I closed the DRs without any comment about what a nuisance it was to have to go through a long list of DRs that should not have been made in the first place. I think you should give me the same courtesy and not make nasty cracks about my work.

If you want to change the rules about in-use images, you are certainly free to try -- I would oppose it and I think most other Admins would also. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. You have been in fights over chemical diagrams? They are quite rare IMO.

Any admin without a background in chemistry is invited to leave non-trivial chemistry-related DR for an admin with a background in chemistry (e.g. DMacks, Edgar181, Hystrix, me) for closure. Not all of them are active during the holidays.

Concerning “we can rely on the fact that the WP editors are supposed to know something about the subjects they edit, so if it is in use, it is kept”: While I certainly agree for larger WPs like EN, DE or FR, I disagree when it small WPs such as EO. This WP has, to my knowledge, quite some editors working on topics like languages, history and geography, but very few in chemistry. Thus, due to the lack of on-wiki review, it may benefit from a quality control by expert users (in that topic) that are mainly active in other WPs and Commons. --Leyo 00:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Mass DR keeps

Hi Natuur12. As you can imagine I was fully aware that many of these incorrect chemical structures are in use in eo.wikipedia. I know the rules, but nobody needs to be more catholic than the pope. Since in eo.wikipedia very few users contributing to its chemistry articles, one single user may add a lot of nonsense to these article without being controlled/reverted. That's why in such cases, users with strong background in chemistry from other projects need to jump in for quality control. CommonsDelinker will then ultimately remove the factually incorrect structures form the corresponding eo.wikipedia articles.
There have been discussions on these structures on en.wikipedia and on de.wikipedia. Hence, it's not an action just be myself. --Leyo 21:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC) PS. In my nine years of Commons activity, I've replaced several hundreds of low quality structures used in wikipedias other than EN or DE with improved versions. Just to illustrate that I am doing all sorts of quality assurance work.

I know that you do a lot of good work regarding replacing bad quality structures. (If I remember correctly Sodium has a ionic bonding instead of a covalently bonding?) However, I don't think Commons should decide if projects are allowed to use a certain file because we believe it is wrong. When it comes to structures it is doable to check whenever they are correct or not but where do we stop? I am not comfortable with deleting files as out of scope when they are still in use. This goes for maps, COA's, structures etc. I do wonder why you didn't mention this to Yann when he mentioned that the files are in use at your talk page. Natuur12 (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's not the optimal way to go that way, but sometimes there is no good alternative. The goal is to remove errors from chemistry articles in all WMF projects. In that respect, I regard such a quality control not as a Commons task, but as a task done by WMF project chemists, even though the actual decision is taken on Commons.

To illustrate what I mentioned above (lack of quality control in eo.wikipedia): The article on eo.wikipedia that I've just corrected, had one single non-bot edit before. --Leyo 22:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC) PS. Removal by CommonsDelinker has the advantage that this bot is autoreviewed. Pending changes in eo.wikipedia need to wait for up to three years!

I do see your point. I did a little research and it seems that there are indeed only a few editors at that specific wiki which is quite problematic. Has someone tried reaching out to the local community? If the structures are wrong it is likely that the quality of his/her articles isn’t good either. Perhaps we should consider blocking this user if he/she continues to upload low quality files. Do you have a link to an en-wiki discussion regarding this topic? That would make it a lot easier to close those DR’s as delete if there is proof that there is consensus to delete those files. Natuur12 (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the discussion is quite long and focuses on the structures that were added to en.wikipedia articles. It should be noted that not all participants have been creating and uploading chemicals structures to the same extent themselves. --Leyo 00:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take a look later today. Natuur12 (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Leyo, if you think that these drawings are wrong, you can and should remove them from any page in any language. I don't know anything about chemistry, but otherwise I would do it myself. I frequently do that for the subjects I know. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

For Wikipedias with pending revisions enabled, but with a huge lag in review, removals by CommonsDelinker are preferable IMHO (see my comment above). --Leyo 21:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Changing Filename

Hello Natuur12, I would like tot have permission to change the filename of an uploaded file. I did (and will do) some mass-uploadings via GWToolset. I get feedback from users now and then and if something is wrong I can edit the metadata but would like to be able to edit the filename as well.--TeklaLilith (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you now should be able to change file names at Wikimedia Commons and the Beta Cluster. Natuur12 (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Mio Logo.svg

Natuur12, you deleted the file as above the TOO in China (assuming People's Republic of), But the logo is from the Republic of China (Taiwan). Does the RoC have the same TOO as the PRoC? --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, unless proven otherwise we have to assume that their copyright law is similar. Taiwan has know many different rulers in the past (even the Dutch had it as a colony for a while) but it has been under the control of China for such a long time (since 1945) that it is quite likely that the laws are mostly the same or at least harmonised. Natuur12 (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense, and I agree that the logo is stilized. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Why you delete our company's brand logo? If you need me to provide evidence,you can tell me how to provide?Thanks!Pong.chiang (talk) 10:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, please follow the instructions listed at com:OTRS. If you contact them you will get a ticket number. If you provide me with the ticket number I will arrange the rest. The logo has been deleted because we can't validate that you are really a representative of that company. We have to deal with a lot of imposters on a daily basis. Before your contact OTRS please read this FAQ though. Natuur12 (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

two of my images of general hershy bar were removed for supposed copyright violations...they are not. i clearly lic them to the commons. what is happening?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:General_Hershey_Bar_on_Hollywood_Boulevard_in_front_of_Grumman%27s_Chinese_Theater_1979-81.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

as a newbie i spent some time to learn how to upload and add images to general hersheybar page. there were no images of him. i had some slides of him shot in about 80. i put them in the commons, and filled out the lic detail, and linked them on wiki pedia. now all that work is gone.

don't you guys all want contributions? help? what did i do wrong?

thanks

since posting this originally i have submitted an undelete request for the two pages that were deleted. thanks Diatom.phage (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the notice. I won't object if an other admin decides to undelete. Natuur12 (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy new year! Estonian winter. Taivo (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! HAppy new year to you as well! Natuur12 (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Fireworks from the Philippines to celebrate 2016
	Happy New Year Natuur12! I hope you still do your great work in 2016! ★ Poké95 05:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Also the best wishes to you and a happy 2016! Natuur12 (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Permission from the artwork author

Hi! Some days ago my photo of "Laika vīrs Krīvu krīvs" monument was deleted. In what form should I provide permission from the author and owner of the artwork, so that the photo can be published? With best wishes. Spekozols (talk) 11:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Spekozols,

The copyright holder needs to contact the OTRS-team. Instructions are listed at the page com:OTRS. Please let me know if you need any further assistance. Natuur12 (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Classical, but still... thank you for your work on Commons! Yann (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy new year and thank you for the advice you provide me with every now and than :). Natuur12 (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The traditional greeting

	Dear friend
	Happy New Year and best wishes!! Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy new year! Natuur12 (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Trademark Naturalis

Dear Natuur12,

See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:NCB_Naturalis_logo.jpg, it not a matter of originality but of a trademark and common decency. See

• http://www.justitia.nl/merkenrecht.html
• https://register.boip.int/bmbonline/details/trademark/show.do?markNumberType=REG&markNumber=633216&markID=106956 and similar

Other messy cases:

• File:Monumentenbord-2014.jpg is a private download from a website, RCE did not want to release the original designfile officially for fear of abuse.
• File:KLM logo.svg gives a warning.

What is really needed, is an OTRS-procedure with consent like shown for

• File:Nationaal-archief-logo.svg.

It is obvious that you can't just take the logo/trademark of an organisation and distribute it freely without their consent. Regards, Hansmuller (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Saw your additional warning, thanks. Still, it is not fair that a logo can stay on Commons against the will of the organisation. Futhermore, Template:PD-textlogo in general is irrelevant, it's not about creativity etc. So please reply. Cheers, Hansmuller (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hoewel ik me prima in het Engels weet te redden is mijn uitdrukkingsvaardigheid in het Nederlands beter. Vandaar dat ik in het Nederlands antwoord. Iets kan pas een auteursrecht hebben wanneer het werk origineel genoeg is of voluit "het eigen, oorspronkelijk karakter heeft en het persoonlijk stempel van de maker draag". Bij de logo's van Naturalis is dit niet het geval. Het gaat hier om een vrij standaard font in een standaard kleurtje. Van enige auteursrechtelijke bescherming is dan ook geen sprake. Dit is precies het sjabloon PD-textlogo aangeeft en is om die reden relevant. Het logo bestaat enkel uit tekst, bevat geen creatieve elementen en derhalve is het niet auteursrechtelijk beschermd. Overigens zijn fonts in de VS over het algemeen niet auteursrechtelijk beschermd. OP dit punt voldoen de logo's van Naturalis aan com:L. Er rust geen auteursrecht op de logo's in het land van herkomst en de VS.

Merkenrecht is geen auteursrecht en het gebruik van een logo is niet per definitie een inbreuk op het merkenrecht. Gebruik ik het logo voor mijn fictieve adviesbureau "Natuur12's ecologische adviezen" maak ik geheid inbreuk op hun merkenrecht maar plaats ik z'n logo in de infobox van een Wikipediartikel doe ik dit waarschijnlijk niet. Het beleid rondom logo's beschermd door het merkenrecht is hier te vinden. In het kort, zolang de logo's geen inbreuk maken op het auteursrecht mogen ze geupload worden. Een mailtje sturen naar OTRS is niet nodig. Dat het niet helemaal netjes is klopt maar dat is op Commons zelden een reden om een bestand te verwijderen.

Om in te gaan op File:KLM logo.svg. Dit logo is wat ingewikkelder maar ik verwacht dat de meeste Commonsadmins toch zullen oordelen dat dit logo te simpel is om een auteursrecht te hebben. Het logo bestaat enkel uit simpele geometrische vormen en de rangschikking van die vormen is nu ook niet echt bijzonder creatief. File:Monumentenbord-2014.jpg is wat lastiger. Het schildje is imho niet creatief genoeg om auteursrechtelijk beschermd te zijn maar het gaat hier om een foto die letterlijk overgenomen is van een andere website. De meningen of deze foto creatief genoeg is voor een auteursrecht kunnen uiteen lopen. Zelf denk ik van niet omdat de foto enkel technisch van aard is. Een pasfoto voor een paspoort of ID-kaart is ook niet auteursrechtelijk beschermd. Maar nogmaals, dit is een beetje een grijs gebied en het zal van de afhandelend moderator afhangen of dit bestand verwijderd wordt of niet. Natuur12 (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Dank je wel voor de uitleg. De onlogica kunnen we hier blijkbaar niet oplossen (subjectiviteit/willekeur auteursrecht, OTRS vereist stellen, merkenrecht handhaven), vraagt blijkbaar om een algemene discussie. Goed nieuwjaar! Hansmuller (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Steve Vai G Clef Image

Hello Natuur12, You recently removed a file by the name of "SteveVaiGClef.jpg" under suspicion of a copyright violation, which was an update to the Steve Vai Wiki page. We (who represent the subject) own the photo, and would appreciate if you would reinstate it to the Wikimedia Commons library!

Thank you,

Kav2015 (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Kav2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kav2015 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 03 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi the photographer / copyrightholder has to send a decleration to our OTRS-team. Natuur12 (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Van Westendorp (Price Sensitivity Meter)

Dear Natuur12,

You recently removed a file by the name of "VanWestendorp1.svg" under suspicion of a copyright violation, which was my contribution to the Van Westendorp's Price Sensitivity Meter page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Westendorp%27s_Price_Sensitivity_Meter) I have personally designed the illustration in Adobe Illustrator and happy to provide a source file if needed.

I would appreciate if you would reinstate it to the PSM page or provide additional information on the topic.

Cheers, Lev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levasha (talk • contribs) 22:40, 04 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I am not the deleting admin so I cannot help you. You will either have to contact the deleting admins or file a request at com:UNDEL. Natuur12 (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, Natuur12. This is my first time through the process. If you were not the deleting admin, please help me understand why the comment "Not own work and I doubt that this is below TOO" was signed by your username: Natuur12 (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)?

I nominated the file for deletion and an administrator deleted it. It is quite uncommon that we get such good quality graphs so we are a bit carefull. Natuur12 (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll take it as a compliment then :) Filed a request for undeletion - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:VanWestendorp1.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levasha (talk • contribs) 23:28, 04 January 2016 (UTC)

Shocking Decision

• File:Flag of East Pakistan.png
• File:Coat of arms of East Bengal.png

Is it a new policy of wikicommons that everyone can upload what they want without source! Both files above are bogus without source! I can bet, no one can provide any evidence that those file were even exist. Just take a look on uploader talkpage! He might be one of the Pakistan POV-pushing vandal (also known as replacement guy). I suspect that some of the so-called "provincial symbols" (see : Spanish wiki Thai wiki Russian wiki French wiki etc. etc.) in other articles, added by the same anon over the last few years may not be legitimate either. By the way, some of these images by the uploader are also currently being considered for deletion at Commons.---78.34.62.253 23:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You nominated those files because you believe they are fake. They where in use and Commons policy forbids me to delete files which are in use, especially when it comes to maps, COA's etc. See com:NPOV. You really shouldn't be shocked since I just followed Commons policy. I believe you can tagg them as fake. Natuur12 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Done! Is it ok to use "Tags for incomplete or missing license info"? The uploader has been blocked for a month!---78.34.62.253 00:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes and you may also renominate them if you believe they are copyright violations. Natuur12 (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Kiefer AEIOU 2013-6.jpg

Hi! This is an image of artwork permanently placed in the public space. In Austria is the Freedom of panorama including the artworks. So please recover the image back. Thank you! --Gampe (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I restored it and converted it to a regular DR. My appologies for using the wrong deletion rational. Not sure how that happened since it wasn't deleted as part of some mass DR. Natuur12 (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Steve Vai

Quick note to say the Steve Vai image has been uploaded again by the same user (who purports to be working for Vai) here:[[3]]. Karst

Deleted it again. Thanks for letting me know. They will have to contact OTRS in order to get this file restored. Natuur12 (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Cheers. Karst (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Tösstaler Frauentracht (Mitte 20. Jh.) im Ortsmuseum Wila.JPG

Hi Natuur12... Happy New Year! I hope you are well. Could you please take a look at the above? In the deletion log, you stated "Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pracownicy RZI Szczecin podczas uroczystosci.jpg" -- but that seems to be the DR for a different file. I can't find a DR for File:Tösstaler Frauentracht (Mitte 20. Jh.) im Ortsmuseum Wila.JPG, indeed there are no inbound links at all (apart of course from the one I'm just creating). I ask because there is a ticket concerning this file at ticket:2015112610022638. Thanks, Storkk (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, happy new year! It seems to be a different picture. Not sure how this happened (and it was never nominated for deletion) but the main problem is that it is the photograph of a "sculpture" and I rather doubt that this is covered by some kind of FOP-provision since it is neither permanent situated nor is it sure if FOP applies to museum's. Likely some leftover from this mess. This DR includes some files from the same source. Natuur12 (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks... I'll leave a note on the ticket and then leave it for a Commons admin who can see the photo and describe the situation better to reply to. All the best, Storkk (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Insignia Hungary Political Party KDNP.svg

Hello,

This is to notify you that I am renominating the file File:Insignia Hungary Political Party KDNP.svg for deletion. I believe you made an erroneous decision when you closed the previous debate with a "Kept." The image quite plainly goes beyond the threshold of originality, and the only argument in favor of keeping it ("Heraldic work that has other appropriate licensing") is demonstrably false: there is no license whatsoever attached to the file. I trust that the second time around the correct decision (deletion) will be reached.

Best,

--Malatinszky (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, why do you think that this file isn't the uploaders own work as he/she stated? There is a license, please check the license section. When doubting the "own work" claim off a an experienced collegue who donated plenty of heraldic files it takes a little bit more than "above TOO" or "there is no license". For example, is it a exact copy of the original or used he/she copyrighted elements? Natuur12 (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we should discuss this at the deletion request page itself, for the benefit of others who might have an opinion. --Malatinszky (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marsz Młodzieży Narodowej w Częstochowie. Marzec 2015.jpg

The request was closed as kept. Amitie said, that no source was provided for suspected copyvio. Actually this was false. Túrelio showed it in "other versions" part of infobox, it was published in August 2014 and the photographer was Witold Dobrowolski. The file was uploaded into Commons in November 2015. Why did you kept the file? Taivo (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

This seems to be an error. I trusted that the statement provided by Amitie was legit. I will reclose the DR as delete. Natuur12 (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure review

Hi Natuur12!! Re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:ESCUDODEAYUTLA.png, since the work is labeled "Escudo de Armas creado por el Prof. Domingo Salvador Guitron" and has no source, please review? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, this is a reason to delete. I will delete it. However, having "own work" as a source and possibly being made by a non notable artist is not a reason to delete a COA since most of the COA's uploaded at Wikimedia Commons meet those two criteria. Natuur12 (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chevrolet Captiva.jpg

Hi Natuur12, please could you explain the decision in this case in more detail? Take a look in the history: I mad two days before the decision to keep the file, because of no deletion rationale, no specified redundant image name as a replacement was given by User:OSX. OSX reverted this (i didn't noticed this) and one day later you delete this file. Maybe you overlook this? As far as i can see, File:Chevrolet_Captiva.jpg is not a low quality image and there is no obvious reason to delete it.--Wdwd (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, well that is a dirty trick he used. I didn't noticed that he reverted your closing and I restored the file. Normally I don't check stuff like the history of the nomination page since it would be an impossible job to do for every DR. The file was deleted because we have many better quality images about this specific model but you do have a point, there was no real urge for this DR and it is a bit annoying that people flood the DR pages with DR's like this. The DR you mentioned is not the only DR he reverted. I also found this, this and this DR. I will restore those files as well but I am not sure how to proceed since there have to be some consequences for this kind of behaviour. I also found this case which also includes problematic reverts. I will make a post at com:AN/U regarding this user. Natuur12 (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes his DNs are for his own photos... he took lesser quality ones before, and is replacing them with better images. Those DNs I can support. I'm not at all in support of him reversing Wdwd's closures. I don't see any other recent reversions. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

thank you, Natuur12. A note on COM:AN/U seems appropriate.--Wdwd (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

"kerembarut"

Hi, "kerembarut" has no meaning; therefore the name ("Maslak kerembarut") of the image I requested to be renamed ("File:Maslak kerembarut.jpg) has no meaning, either. "To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image displays" complies with "Maslak skyline" does it not? --E4024 (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Kerem Barut is the name of the uploader. Sorry but this new name is only slightly better and the old one isn't completely meaningless. Natuur12 (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I have asked for many moves and it is the first time something like this happens to me in Commons. I guess that means something is really meaningless here. --E4024 (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Nel Benschop

Hej Natuur, kan jij effe naar iets kijken voor me? Collega Cees Boede heeft recent een massa bestanden geüpload die volgens mij allemaal een auteursrechtenschending van Nel Benschop inhouden (zie ook hier). Benschop overleed in 2005, dus haar werken bevinden zich nog niet in het publieke domein. Boede is dan wel zelf de auteursrechtenhouder van de muziek, maar ook daarvoor ontbreekt de benodigde toestemming. Ik heb niet veel zin om alle bestanden stuk per stuk te gaan nomineren, dus ik zou het fijn vinden als jij er even naar kan kijken. EvilFreD _overleg 08:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Zie Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cees Boede. Er zal of een verdraaid goede verklaring gegeven moeten worden hoe Cees Boede de rechthebbende van de tekst is geworden of familie van Nel Benschop dient een verklaring op te sturen naar OTRS. (De identiteit van Boede moet ook gevalideerd worden via OTRS natuurlijk). Natuur12 (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Voor de goede orde : ik ben niet de zoveelste pleegzoon van Nel Benschop maar uit de Afbeelding Nel Benschop blijkt haar persoonlijke waardering voor het geschreven. Ik wil die nog wel een keer uploaden maar word een beetje moe van dit wetenschap bedrijven...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cees Boede (talk • contribs)

Beste Cees Boede,

Ik snap dat het vervelend is maar we zullen toch een aantal verklaringen nodig hebben omtrent de rechten van deze werken. Anders kunnen we niet zeker weten of we deze bestanden wel mogen hosten onder een vrije licentie. Weet u misschien wie de rechten van de tekst geërfd hebben? Het is altijd wat lastig uitzoeken wie nu precies de rechthebbende van een werk is geworden na het overlijden van de auteur. Natuur12 (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi, I saw you delete this file, it's made by the author, and he wants to upload with cc-sa, how can he upload it?--Martinligabue (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Martinligabue,

The file has been published elswhere before being uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The copyright holder needs to send in a statement to our OTRS-team using an email we can use to validate this persons identity. Natuur12 (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Media without a license as of 13 December 2015

Hi,

you forgot to delete two images after closing the deletion request:

• File:Naszvad.svg
• File:Trencsén.svg

--Regasterios (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the message. Deleted them. Natuur12 (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

unnecessary moves with hundred of linkfixes

Hello Natuur12, what do you think about this unnecessary move? I had declined that already. It's just another language and nearly a hundred articles in different wikis shall be renamed to that new name now (I've pointed to this while declining the move, see here). I'm seeing now that it's still waiting on User:CommonsDelinker/commands/filemovers that all those nearly 100 linkfixes in all those Wikipedia articles will be done. Wouldn't it be better to move the file back and protect it from moving, so that there are not so many unnecessary moves and linkfixes are being made for every move of the file? I saw that you have blocked that user already because of that. What do you think about it? Or doesn't it matter in any way, if a file is moved all the times and a hundred of articles have linkfixes for every unnecessary move? Can a file also be moved, if thousands of articles use it or is there any limit? I didn't find a rule for those cases. Are there files that get protected from moving, if there are too many articles using it? Regards --Bjarlin (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Ymblanter who moves replacements to User:CommonsDelinker/commands. Do you also take a look at high numbres of replacements and if those many linkfixes really are needed? --Bjarlin (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinging involved users: @Kwasura, PsichoPuzo, Armbrust, and Wieralee: ★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

As a filemover, I  agree with Bjarlin. Before moving a file with nearly 100 filelinks in all Wikimedia wikis, it should be thinked carefully. Just because it is "file renaming criterion 1" (Original uploader's request), it means it should be moved. Also, moving/renaming a file in another language is controversial and must be discussed. It seems the old name (Standard of the Ukrainian Defense Minister) is already fine and is the most meaningful name for me. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 Info @Bjarlin: Unfortunately, -revi moved all requests from User:CommonsDelinker/commands/filemovers to User:CommonsDelinker/commands, which also includes the unnecessary move. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Can that not be reverted? What a mess. --Bjarlin (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sure, it can be reverted.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any other way to stop the bot than blocking it globally for a while and take the request out of the bot's to-do list. If the file is moved again, the bot gets a second request and moves all the links and back again, then there are 200 linkfixes instead of 100. Or how should this get reverted, when the bot already has begun to fix all requests? --Bjarlin (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I also think that this new name is fine. The original one had been File:Shtandard MOD UA.png which can be argued to move because of the spelling (which seems to be a transcription of the cyrillic name). But one move should be enough, now there are two already. So declining the move has been counterproductive and lead to two moves instead of one. If the second move will be revoked before linkfixes will be done, that would be better. It can be discussed further, but the lots of linkfixes should not be done before a discussion. I also don't see any need that all the English and other articles with Latin letters now shall get a Cyrillic name. Then it would be better to upload the file once more under another name in such a case, so that it can be used with Latin and Cyrillic letters and not only with Cyrillic ones. That would be a better compromise than moving it here and there with all the linkfixes every time. I would prefer uploading it twice instead of moving it, but that hasn't been discussed yet. --Bjarlin (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I announced several days ago that I stopped doing Delinker replacements for some time. The main reason is that users continue to make bad moves (in particular, Latin-only to Cyrillic-only names) even after warnings, and I do not have the energy to move everything back and to argue with them. I would be happy if someone else can take the lead. I expect not to be back on this task in at least a month.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Magnus Manske: Can you cancel the universal replace of File:Standard of the Ukrainian Defense Minister.png to File:Штандарт МОУ.png? Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolution is simple: move it back and it will appear on CDC's queue again. — regards, Revi 12:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that everything will then be moved twiced instead of once and the linkfixes will double from 100 to 200. Isn't that the case? The bot has it already in its to-do list now and I don't see, how it could be stopped without blocking it globally.

By the way: Is it possible for filemovers to remove such requests from User:CommonsDelinker/commands/filemovers, so that this doesn't happen again? There shouldn't been moved such requests that are in ongoing discussion. I think that's quite strange. It seems to me that those moves with so many fixes doesn't matter at all to many people, otherwise such things wouldn't happen. What happens, if a file has thousands of linkfixes and is moved? I'm wondering, if there is any limit for moving widely used files from one language to another (or any other similar unnecessary move of such files)? --Bjarlin (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don’t know how to fix any of the technical aspect but it is really troublesome that this user reverted so many file renames and admins who declined his requests. Policy does allow users to rename files just because the uploader requests it but the request has to be reasonable. As a courtesy, nothing more. When the file is widely used such a request isn’t reasonable. I honoured a couple of requests myself when the files weren’t widely used and before I realised what this user is doing. Problem is that PsichoPuzo seems to have a problem with understanding English which makes him misinterpreting our policies causing this giant mess. I think we should have a general discussion regarding the naming of those files. Natuur12 (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• It is a little bit unfair to change the uploaders native language in his file names. It would be better if the file was protected after the first revert... Wieralee (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wieralee: But the uploader requested to rename his file from English to his native language. That's unnecessary, potentially controversial, and waste of time for a bot. But yeah, it seems to be a little bit unfair to change it back to English... Both filenames are correct actually. But because it is potentially controversial, it needs to be discussed. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bjarlin: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We appreciate it. We hope that together we will find a consensus about the names of the National military units and organizations here in Commons. My recent edits include Correction and proper categorization of the Ukrainian Air force shoulder sleeve insignia. These are brigade, regiment, branch, band, school insignia, etc. I hope everyone will agree, that there is nothing wrong about having the right name for something that have the name, there is nothing harmful, questionable or confusing, I suppose. The main question is: what pattern this names will have. i am seeing the Commons as serious storage space, and think that it will be only natural to have a unified pattern, as to prevent all possible conflicts in the future. If English is the only language supported by the Commons I, personalty, have no problems seeing all Ukrainian files be named in English as long as it is a unified pattern. If someone thinks differently i would love to hear his opinion. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) User:Kwasura, the only rule for filename harmony is that there’s no filename harmony. There are guidelines for new filenames and, while it is not «anything goes», there’s no requirement for names of related files (like all images of traffic signs) to follow one coherent system. More importantly, there are guidelines for file renaming that are even more distant from a goal of filename harmony: Basicly it says that there should be no file renaming unless the current name is very bad — and then it lists what "bad" means: Not being harmonious with thousands of akin filenames is not a reason to delete rename^{​(corrected on 05:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC))} (except when such harmony is used by a template or some such, as, e.g., images of pages of the same book). This might be a bit of a shock (it was for me when I started in Commons, based on my experience with the very strict filename discipline of FotW), but try to adapt and focus on file content and curation, not on file naming. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Pog Collection.jpg deletion

I just received the message that File:Pog Collection.jpg was deleted. Why was it deleted. Isn't there supposed to be a period where I could address the issue. The day the message was sent to me was the day it was deleted.--ZeWrestler (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It was a Derivative of non free content. Flippo's are protected by copyright law. Natuur12 (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I see, thank you for the quick reply --ZeWrestler (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Salah-Abdeslam.jpg

Hello,

could you help me achieve some clarity as to why this file was deleted, the links show the photograph is governmental, wouldn't this indicate it is free, similarly to Crown Copyrighted material? 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

could this be used? http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1469589/abdeslam-salah-arrest-warrant.jpg (taken from http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/belgium-police-find-paris-attackers-bomb-factory-hideout-1536843) 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, no, the file is from a Belgium website which licensing conditions that don't comply with com:L. The other files you link would probably also fail com:L and com:PCP. (One could argue if an photograph like that is creative enough to warrant a copyright but that is hard to prove and there are not much sources regarding Belgium law available online to back up such a statement. Natuur12 (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Kwasura and Latin to Cyrillic renamings

Greetings, would you be so kind to check this out and explain me what is it exactly did i do wrong? Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Pogs.JPG

On January 17 you removed my file Pogs.JPG. That image is a photograph I took of pogs I own. How can that possibly be a copyright violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoTalkMan (talk • contribs) 01:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear NoTalkMan,

The photograph is indeed your own work however, it is a photograph of a couple of flippo's. The designe of those flippo's is protected by copyright law which makes your image a derivative of non free content. Such files are not allowed per Commons policy. If you have any more questions feel free to ask them. Natuur12 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trigrams near cave entrance in Burro Flats.jpg

Kindly un-close the deletion nomination: first you closed it with a vote for keeping, and then you enforced that supervote with a further vote. A trip to COM:ANU will follow if you ignore this message. Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Nyttend: your actions are even more questionable [4], [5] Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Nyttend: yet again you are trying to get what you want by intimidating another admin. This behaviour isn't tolerated at Wikimedia Commons so please don't do it again. You seem to confuse Commons with the English Wikipedia again by trying to enforce their practices while we have practices of our own and one of them is that it is perfectly fine to close a DR as keep when the only comment comes from the nominator and the other one is that we don't renominate files without addressing new arguments and/or discussing the closing with the closing admin. Your expectations are a bit unreasonable especially since there are only ten admins at best who close DR’s at a regular basis and most of them keep unopposed DR’s every now and then. Sometimes with a clear motivation and sometimes with a really short statement as “no reason to delete” since it is obvious that the DR is invalid. If you want to change the way admins in general close DR’s feel free to start a general discussion so we can update our policy’s.

• You really have to change your behaviour and forget about EN-wiki policy’s, practises etc and start learning ours. Especially forget about supervotes since this seems to be a term that is often abused by EN-wiki users when they disagree with an administrators decision. It would become a huge mess if we would start importing practises from the French, Dutch, German and Spanish Wikipedia for example just because one of our admins is also an admin at one of those projects. Furthermore, we have talk pages so please use them. Commons is about being mellow and building a respiratory of free media files. Not about having some catfight over a basic DR.

• If you want to report me at com:AN/U go ahead. You will only make a fool out of yourself. I did nothing wrong, (at best one could argue that I shouldn't close the same DR twice but even this is not uncommon) however, you clearly violated our rollback policy. Natuur12 (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Follow-Up/ Orangelbex67

Hi,

I just sent an email to your OTRS-team and received the following Ticket#: 2016011410020152. The photo is a "profile" photo, a white/brown-spotted dress with a blue office background. I just added another image--Arizona State University grants permission for the use of this photo

Business-Classroom

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Professor_Adriana_Sanford.jpg

Again, I am not sure of what step I am be missing to show permission. I requested another ticket number as it is a separate issue---Ticket#: 2016011410021115.

Would you be able to walk me through this process?

Thank you!

Dear Orangelbex67

Someone from the Arizona Board of Regents who is authorised to license their intelectual property needs to send the declaration listed at Commons:Email templates/Consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org so we can validate that they agree with licensing the photograph. I undeleted the file mentioned in the OTRS-ticket. Natuur12 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok Thank you. I will send this to ASU and ask that they make the request. I just uploaded another image taken by a friend. I will make the same request.

Great. If you provide me with the ticket numbers after they mailed OTRS I will look into those mails as quickly as I can. Natuur12 (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Natuur12

I just received the ticket number that Arizona State University received after they submitted their release and the image. Is it possible for you to undelete? Ticket#: 2016012510014041/File:Professor_Adriana_Sanford.jpg The second image was provided directly from PBS to permissions commons and PBS received the following Ticket #2016012410010528. Would you be able to assist in uploading these images to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriana_Sanford Please advise. Thank you679699sof (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Request File Adi67.jpg be Undeleted/ Permission granted by Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) /Ticket #2016012410010528

Dear Natuur12

I was informed by PBS that they emailed permissions-commons. PBS has granted the use of Adi67.jpg in the following site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriana_Sanford Could you please undelete this image or advise me on who can assist with this process. I was told to contact you--the ticket number is #2016012410010528. Thank you.679699sof (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear 679699sof,

It seems that someone else already took care of the ticket. Natuur12 (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Test video upload.webm

Don't forget to rename this file (and one subtitles page) Thanks for testing :) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this great tool :). Now I can finally upload YT-vids without getting annoyed. Renamed it. Natuur12 (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Familiealbum

Ha Natuur12, zou je hier even naar willen kijken [6]. Ik weet niet precies waar het onder te schuiven, maar om hier een familiealbum neer te zetten lijkt me ook niet de bedoeling. mvg Agora (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Beste Agora,

Dat is inderdaad niet de bedoeling. Zie Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by HansDesmet1970. Natuur12 (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hallo

Can i upload this foto to commons? --Rašo 17:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

I am afraid not. The cc-icon at the file page indicates that this file is releaced under a non commercial license. Natuur12 (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought so. Thanks anyway--Rašo 21:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Orientation of Bombay Reef image

Hello. Thank you for your work on File:Bombay Reef 1.JPG today. I was wondering if it would be appropriate to rotate File:BombayReef.jpg so that it has the correct orientation for north-up. You can see the correct orientation in satellite view if you look on Bing Maps. I guess if this was appropriate, I should upload it as a new file name, such as File:BombayReef(NorthUp).jpg and then relink it on the various wikipedia pages that use the photo. Thanks in advance for any advice you can offer. --Strolls (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, just to be on the safe side it is probably best to upload it under a new file name but I have to admit that I am not an expert on this subject so someone more experienced in this area might give you other advice. Natuur12 (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply. I'll have to see if there's a wikimedia help portal. --Strolls (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Translation needed:

Hi! Could you please translate this watchlist notice into NL? Thanks in advance! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

[[Commons:Photo challenge]]''': Time to vote for [[Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - January - Diagonals/Voting|'''Diagonals''' (January)]] and [[Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - January - Wheels/Voting|'''Wheels''' (January)]]. Submit your entries for [[Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - February - Mailboxes|'''Mailboxes''' (February)]] and [[Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - February - Reflections|'''Reflections''' (February)]]

Hi Hedwig,

I would love too but I don't know how I can update it myself. Here is a Dutch translation:

[[Commons:Photo challenge|Fotowedstrijd]]''': Het is tijd om te stemmen voor de categorieën [[Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - January - Diagonals/Voting|'''Diagonalen''' (januari)]] en [[Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - January - Wheels/Voting|'''Wielen''' ((januari)]]. Ook kunt meedoen in de categorieën [[Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - February - Mailboxes|'''Brievenbussen''' (februari)]] en [[Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - February - Reflections|'''Reflecties''' (februari)]]

I did change the wording a bit since it would be a gramatical disaster otherwise. Natuur12 (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I added your translation. Here's the diff for you to have a peek at, just in case you want to do more translating [7]. Thx again! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Corsham-middlewick-house-1907 57816.jpg

Hi Natuur12, I hope you are well. You closed the above as Keep, but it was deleted as having no license from two days after you closed the DR... was the license removed and then the image tagged {{Nsd}} ? Storkk (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

There was never a license to begin with. Normally I don't update licenses and leave it up to the people who want to keep it to add it. (If someone want's to keep a file, they can take any legal risks) {{PD-anon-70-EU}} and {{Pd-1923}} should be the correct licenses though based on the info provided in the DR. However, another argument was mentioned in the edit summary when the no-license tag was added. We don't know the publication date and given the nature of the work I have to admit that this editor does have a valid concern so perhaps it is best to leave it deleted. Natuur12 (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Kikirpa

Hej Natuur, moet ik me van deze copyrightclaim iets aantrekken? Het schilderij is gedateerd 19e eeuw, de foto 1914 en de maker van de foto is onbekend. Als ik op "Afbeelding downloaden" en vervolgens op "voorwaarden" klik, krijg ik een tekst voor mijn kiezen dat beweert dat ik 30 euro verschuldigd ben aan KIK voor het reproductierecht. Een recht dat KIK volgens mij niet heeft over dit werk of de foto ervan en waar ze dus ook geen betaling voor kan eisen. EvilFreD _overleg 23:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Die kan je gewoon uploaden. Ik geloof dat je {{PD-art-70}} moet hebben. Natuur12 (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much. EvilFreD _overleg 23:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Megachile montenegrensis, M, Back, Greece, Aegean Islands, Lesvos, Mytilene 2015-02-12-15.33.56 ZS PMax (17230657016) (2).jpg and others

Hi Natuur12, you uploaded a lot of files like the linked one with mysterious descriptions. Do you want to clean that up somewhen? --Arnd (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

No I won't clean them up since I see to compelling reason to use another file discription than used at Flickr. Natuur12 (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

COM:INUSE - how come?

Hi. I do not completely understand why the reason of keeping this file - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arms, House of Basarab.png - is COM:INUSE. I did not nominate the file because I don't like the colors. But I would've liked to see an academic source which would state that the CoA actually looked like that. My suspicions on Viuser's original research come from this discussion - Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_53#User:Dan_Mihai_Pitea (see Dan Mihai Pitea's latest comment). //  Gikü  said  done  Monday, 15 February 2016 11:40 (UTC)

The file is used at other wiki projects which means policy doesn't allow admins to delete the files. Commons admins don't decide if local projects can use a file or not. (Though, there are some exceptions like LTA's adding hoaxes cross wiki but that's not the case here). Asking for an academic source is a bit much imho (not everyry reliable source is academic) but it is not up to commons admins to settle content disputes via DR's. You can always tag the file as "disputed". please realize that original research is not forbidden at Wikimedia Commons. Original research is allowed and sources to support the accuracy of an image are not mandatory. Natuur12 (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand. My further reading was Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. Thank you for your time. Regards, //  Gikü  said  done  Monday, 15 February 2016 13:56 (UTC)

COM:AN/B

Hello, I invite you to join this discussion where you are involved in this discussion at COM:AN/B. Your input is expected. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 12:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Expect all you want but you won't get it. I have no desire to get myself involved in yet another moot catfight. But remember this, think twice before you threaten other users and make baseless accusations. (Civil hands make civil blood unclean) And honestly your little essay about what happened is kinda inaccurate. Natuur12 (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Arne Bang-portrait with cigar-1970s-family archive.jpg

Hi. The subject file appears to still exist, despite your closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arne Bang-portrait with cigar-1970s-family archive.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mdann52: I just noticed you added the OTRS-ticket after the DR was started. Could you please comment here before I take any actions? My closing might have been wrong if there indeed is permission. Natuur12 (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Other speedy deletions

Hi, could You please process Category:Other speedy deletions once more (that should be all, now)? It is quite urgent. We realised that although the pictures were taken before 1945 and the author (person) is unknown, the copyright did not expired yet (You can see my discussion page at cs-wiki, however in Czech). Thanks a lot. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

I deleted them. Thank you for taking care of your uploads. (For future reference permalink to the relevant disucssion) Another problem with anonymous photographs is that we need a reliable source which states that the author is unknow btw and it doesn't look like the source did much effort in making sure that they gave the actual authors credit. Natuur12 (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Speed limit sign copyvio re-uploaded

Hi Natuur12. Please note that File:Victoria Australia 85 mph sign.jpg, which you speedily-deleted earlier, has been re-uploaded as File:Australia 70 MPH sign changing to 85 mph speed limit N.S.W.jpg. - Evad37 [talk] 09:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Deleted it again. Natuur12 (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Peggy Guggenheim

̴Bonjour, vous avez supprimé l'image ː File:Peggy guggenheim.JPG pour des raisons que je n'ais pas eu le temps de comprendre. En effet j'avais laissé des commentaires sur la page de discussion de l'image File:Peggy guggenheim.JPG qui a été supprimée aussi. Pourriez-vous répondre au texte de la page de discussion ici si vous préferez ? Cordialement Garitan (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

My French isn't that good but "photographie de Peggy guggenheim issu d'une colelction privée" and the nature of the work indicate that the photo isn't own work. @Yann: could you please explain my rational in French? Natuur12 (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Deleting File:Vitalie_Rotaru_-_Digital_Feelings_--_Tunguska_E.M.S._for_Creative_Commons_(track_12).ogg

What grounded reasons did you have for deleting page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vitalie_Rotaru_-_Digital_Feelings_--_Tunguska_E.M.S._for_Creative_Commons_(track_12).ogg

The rational is listed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vitalie Rotaru - Digital Feelings -- Tunguska E.M.S. for Creative Commons (track 12).ogg. Natuur12 (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

There I can read just "No evidence that the file is licensed under CC, it seems rather copyrighted", as for me it is not looks like grounded reason. If I'll write such requests below 1000 files placed on Wikimedia, will you delete all of them ? So in that couse I have asked you. And that's why I didn't get grounded reason , I am askin about it once more

And the last thing. Please follow the link http://tunguskagrooves.com/forum/index.php?topic=3.0;wap2 use google translator. And now tell me pleace: 1. under which type of license that album was published ? 2 and what music composition placed there under the 9 number ?

Well, you got what you asked for. You didn't asked me to give an additional statement you just asked me for the deletion rational. The DR mentiones the ticketnumber ticket:2016012010017547 which means that there is a related OTRS-ticket. (See com:OTRS). This means that there has been a complaint from someone who claims to be the copyright holder. I haven't examined the ticket in the same extend as the agent who dealth with the ticket since it is not an admin job to do the investigation all over again but at first sight the complaint seems to be valid.

And the link you provided is an interesting one since it mentiones a No Derivative license which is forbidden at Commons. Non derivative licenses fail com:L so I doubt that the license mentioned here is correct. Natuur12 (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Natuur12, Bit random but I wanted to apologize for my comment this morning, At the time it looked like you were looking for an excuse to get rid of him .... but then again everyone's entitled to their opinion and me badgering you over yours wasn't helpful in any way, shape or form,
And plus the "I think you mean delete not remove" comment was a dickish thing to say!,
So I apologize for both of the comments this morning which I've now struck,
Have a beer on me! :) Thanks & Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 15:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Davey2010,

There is really no need to apologise. It was late and well, your comments weren’t that out of the ordinary according to Dutch standards anyways ;). Given what admins got away with in the past I am not surprised that this seems like an attempt to get rid of HJ. But hopefully we can let the past be the past and start having higher standards for admins so people will start thinking better of Commons in general. Natuur12 (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Natuur12, Oh ok lol, Well according to UK standards I was a grumpy twat! ,

Usually on EN if someone makes a baseless accusation they're told to back it up, If they don't it's then considered bollocks and that's more or less the end of it .... the accuser and "the victim" would move on and that's it but I realize each WMF site has different rules etc .... It's just weird going from EN to here where it's all completely different,

To be fair I should apologize as I was pissed off and shouldn't of got so annoyed with you especially over a !vote so yeah I'm sorry :)

Happy editing! :) –Davey2010^Talk 18:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

2 logs and anchor

Hello. I do not agree with you in this nomination, and I'm not alone (see "ru:Википедия:Форум/Авторское_право#Два бревна - объект авторского права?", [9] and [10]). This is not a sculpture. First object is a museum exhibit on the street (built in 1809), second object is standart anchor. That I ask you to restore these 2 files to another discussion by "Commons:Deletion_requests#Appealing decisions". - Insider (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Здравствуйте! Я не согласен с Вами в этой номинации, и не я один (см. "ru:Википедия:Форум/Авторское_право#Два бревна - объект авторского права?", [11] and [12]). Это не скульптуры. Первый объект, вообще, музейный экспонат на улице (1809 года постройки); второй - стандартный якорь. Прошу Вас восстановить эти 2 файла для отдельного обсуждения, по "Commons:Deletion_requests/ru#Оспаривание решений". --Insider (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Why didn't you mention in the DR that the museum object is from 1809? That means it is PD and makes the discussion regarding fOP moot. Regarding the anchor, thi seems to be a sculpture and I fail to see why such an anchor would be below the treshold of originality. More simpler artworks have gotten a copyright in at least the US. I will restore the image of the museum object but I won't undelete the image of the anchor. Following your difflink there is no clear consensus at ru-wiki regarding that one either. Natuur12 (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not that it's 1809 (it was stated in the file description). The idea that it is 2 logs. Year does not matter. OK, I create discussion Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Якорь на набережной, ростов-на-дону.jpg --Insider (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion Request Question

Just a question I raised a deletion request for File:Crash site of flydubai Flight 981 at Rostov-on-Don Airport.jpg as I could see any evidence of the claimed licence. Lots of "yes it has" but I need a big clue as I cant see any mention of a cc-by-sa-4.0 mention anywhere on the linked page, in fact it doesnt have any licence info at all. MilborneOne (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

OK solved my own problem not everybody can see the comments on the page it comes up as just the image presumably because I dont have a facebook log in, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, only one of the two links shown at the file page directs you to the comment. This one should work. Natuur12 (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

IRC logs

And don't forget to revdel these revisions too: [13] [14] [15] ★ Poké⁹⁵ 02:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

They seem to have been hidden by now. Perhaps it has something to do with me being a mailman in my free time but when it comes to non public media the highest level of discretion is appropriate. Natuur12 (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• User:Pokéfan95/IRC attacks by Yann should also be deleted. ColonialGrid (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Has already been deleted. Thanks for pointing it out :). Natuur12 (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Affected:

• File:Onofrio Pepe Sculpture in the EUI Library Garden with snow (6829941019).jpg

And also:

• File:Onofrio Pepe Sculpture with Snow at the EUI Library (6829942329).jpg
• File:Open Day at the Historical Archives of the European Union (17018414754).jpg
• File:Open Day at the Historical Archives of the European Union (17018417714).jpg
• File:Open Day at the Historical Archives of the European Union (17018421274).jpg
• File:Open Day at the Historical Archives of the European Union (17020594313).jpg
• File:Open Day at the Historical Archives of the European Union (17453095538).jpg
• File:Open Day at the Historical Archives of the European Union (17453360050).jpg
• File:Open Day at the Historical Archives of the European Union (17638526242).jpg
• File:Open Day at the Historical Archives of the European Union (17640951335).jpg
• File:Open Day at the Historical Archives of the European Union (17641032921).jpg
• File:Open Day, Villa Salviati 10th May 2014 (14145861006).jpg
• File:Open Day, Villa Salviati 10th May 2014 (14166305612).jpg
• File:Sala Alcide De Gasperi, Historical Archives of the European Union (8956008801).jpg
• File:Sala Alcide De Gasperi, Historical Archives of the European Union (8956013025).jpg
• File:Sala Alcide De Gasperi, Historical Archives of the European Union (8957209530).jpg
• File:Sala Alcide De Gasperi, Historical Archives of the European Union (8957212156).jpg
• File:Sala Alcide De Gasperi, Historical Archives of the European Union (8957213484).jpg
• File:Sala Alcide De Gasperi, Historical Archives of the European Union (8957214376).jpg
• File:Sala Alcide De Gasperi, Historical Archives of the European Union (8957217114).jpg
• File:Snowing at the EUI Badia (6542988483).jpg
• File:The Colophon of the Exhibition (8956017297).jpg
• File:The EUI panel at SoU2012 (7171343940).jpg
• File:The State of the Union 2012 - Florence (7171343696).jpg
• File:The State of the Union May 2011 - A. Vassiliou (7171320770).jpg
• File:The State of the Union May 2011 - G. Napolitano (7171321048).jpg
• File:The State of the Union May 2011 - J. Borrell (7171320588).jpg
• File:The State of the Union May 2011 - L. Sefzig (7171321504).jpg
• File:The State of the Union May 2011- J. Buzek (7171322562).jpg
• File:Visitors to the exhibition (8957723972).jpg
• File:“Alcide De Gasperi - the Western Preference and the Construction of Europe” (15633035627).jpg

Yours sincerely, Natuur12 (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

UnDRs

Thanks for all your cleanup -- the page was getting very long, but I don't feel comfortable closing UnDRs where I am the only one that has left a comment. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome and I am glad that you comment. Otherwise admins would have to close them with zero extra input. Natuur12 (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

file:Halo of Flies.jpg

Hoi Natuur12, Bedankt voor het terugzetten: [:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-03#File:Hood_.281995.29.jpg.2C_File:Hood_play_the_Sausage_Machine.jpg_.26_File:Iggy_.26_the_Stooges_.282005.29.jpg]. Ik constateerde dat er nog een bestand verwijderd is, file:Halo of Flies.jpg. Wil je die ook terugzetten? Overigens, ik was hierover niet geïnformeerd. Weet jij hoe dat kan? En hoe kan ik achterhalen of er nog meer zonder kennisgeving verwijderd is? Alvast bedankt. Tekstman (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Beste Tekstman,

Ik heb het bestand teruggeplaatst. Je kan checken of er nog meer verwijderd is via deze pagina. Is een upload naderhand verwijderd is de kleur van de logboekregel rood. Natuur12 (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thomasdehaan

Zou je hier eens naar willen kijken. Deze afbeelding heeft in de Weekkrant gestaan en is gemaakt volgens deze website door Maaike van Helmond. Ook dit portret en deze foto zijn geen eigen werk van de uploader en zeker niet rechtenvrij. Ik vermoed dat dit geldt voor meer afbeeldingen. Gouwenaar (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Beste Gouwenaar,

De overduidelijke heb ik alvast verwijderd. De rest moet ik later nog eens goed naar kijken. Natuur12 (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Dank, Gouwenaar (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Deze en deze afbeelding zijn afkomstig van deze website. Bij klikken op het fotootje linksonder in de grote foto verschijnt de afbeelding met vermelding van de fotograaf Rob Essers. In de metadata van deze afbeelding staat dat de rechten toebehoren aan Dick Breedijk. Gouwenaar (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Inmiddels heeft deze gebruiker het OTRS-pending sjabloon toegevoegd aan een aantal afbeeldingen. Ik denk dat we dat wel kunnen afwachten. Gebeurt er niks worden de afbeeldingen over 30 dagen verwijderd. Natuur12 (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see

[16]. 177.192.176.34 20:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

An OTRS-agent will deal with the ticket in due course and will ask for th restoration of the files. Since the ticket is written in a language I cannot read or write I cannot help you out especially since this tickets needs some work. Natuur12 (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Snark

Hi, diff read in the context of recent actions as deliberately unpleasant sarcasm, possibly hounding. Could you back off and do something nicer to help the project? I'm sure that you can drop a note to other admins if something appears to need an action or warning. I am commenting casually here, rather than inflame anything further. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

There are some who words alone will not reach. I noticed that this user made several policy violations in a short ammount of time so I will surely ask for a block if this continues but for now I hope that the sarcastic mirror trick will work. Natuur12 (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, I know that (thanks to notifications), and I know what you mean, Natuur12. It seems to be a problem with my words. Just say it directly, I don't need your sarcasm. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 00:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe, because I am responding at the administrators' noticeboards, and you think that I am intimidating the admins here. I don't meant that, I just wanted to help (what is bad on it?). Also, this is not always what I do on Commons, I also tag copyvios, countering vandalism, and sometimes, participating at COM:FP and COM:VI. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 00:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Pokéfan95,

If I wouldn’t have been sarcastic you would probably not have thought about what you might have done wrong. The main problem is that you currently don’t have the experience nor the skill set to deal with the requests at the administrators noticeboards.

For example, not knowing the impact of the word Nazi’s in a lot of cultures indicates that you miss the cultural baggage to asses situations. When you nominated files kept after a DR for speedy deletion you showed that you don’t have the temper and the patience to deal with different viewpoints. When you assigned Dennis the LR flag you forgot about Dennis his wishes. Perhaps he didn’t wanted the LR flag. This indicates that your people skills aren’t developed enough.

I understand you are trying to help and I doubt anyone is intimidated by the likes of you but your current behaviour is annoying. Getting yourself involved in discussions without knowing the actual back ground story’s is not a smart idea and in some cases it can even be dangerous. I kicked enough lunatics from this wiki and my other homewiki to know. I even ended up in some national newspaper because I deleted the article about a certain columnist ;). My point is, most people here know what they get themselves in to when they step into the arena. Currently we are speaking of a pretty simple case but you also get yourself involved when the discussion and the drama is far too complex for you to fully understand. I am basing this assignment on the comments you have given so far during several occasions.

I understand that this post sounds really harsh but you do have to change your behaviour and there is no nice way to deliver this message. Natuur12 (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)