User talk:Nilfanion/Archive/2008-09

Have a nice break

Enjoy your break, and hope to see you back soon. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Your contributions have been many and I'm glad to have had the chance to work with you. All the best meanwhile. ++Lar: t/c 18:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Hopefully, I'll see you sometime soon. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Nilf, you're a champ. Your work here has always been ace. Hope to see you back soon. (Orange slug agrees too.) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll probably be succesful whatever you do. Just keep up doing things like you're doing them. / Fred Chess 22:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fellatio1.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Fellatio1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

This is an automated message from User:DRBot. 14:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Felicien_Rops_69.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Felicien_Rops_69.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

69.177.203.221 00:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Welcome back - hope things are good & catch you around --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

welcome back indeed! There's lots to do when you're ready :) ++Lar: t/c 10:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Orange slug says: WOO WOO WOO WOO NILFANION'S BACK!!! :D --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you around again. Lar is a bureaucrat here these days so he should be able to give you your tools back... WjBscribe 17:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You are now a sysop (again)

I'll spare you the standard lecture. :) But thanks for coming back and offering to take up the yoke again, we're more backlogged than ever, it seems. ++Lar: t/c 01:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I'm quite surprised you deleted Image:Ms61renov.jpg and Image:Cabinems61renov.jpg, when they were added to fr wiki, I'm quite sure I verified they were properly added (with self picture license), and now they're deleted with 'no source'. That's not the first time a picture gets deleted I'm sure was correct.

Could you please verify it? Maybe some bot is buggy...

Gonioul 23:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• ok. it clear now. wikicommons - evil.--Berserkerus 19:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Restored, sorry for delay in response..--Nilfanion 20:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've seen a lot of good pics desappearing lately...

Could you please check Image:Cabinez20500.jpg from the same author, same day?

That's not urgent :p

Gonioul 22:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The deleted image

Hello! I am a poor english speaker, I am a native russian speaker. Please, explain me when are you deleted the image 56739.jpg? It isn`t have a lisense? How can I get it? It is a cover of a book and I use this image in the artikle about this book in Wikipedia. I hope the image will be restored. Yours faithfully Koroglu 11:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Tagging or editing unsourced images

Your NilfaBot just edited the source-information of a picture I had tagged with 'no source' [1] Should I edit such {{PD-self}}-images lacking source instead of tagging them {{No source}}, or are there other criterias your bot check as well in such cases? And secondly, should the 'no source tag' be removed now? Regards, Finn Rindahl 19:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_is_sufficient_as_own_work_statement. --Polarlys 16:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is the discussion taking place?

Nilfanion, I am increasingly puzzled. I'm trying to find where Elonka is discussing this, to no avail: the only mention I've found is her threatening me on English Wikipedia.[2] Unless I'm missing something, it would seem that this is being discussed through back-channels such as IRC. If so, wouldn't you agree that that's a little unfair to me?
I will nominate the image for deletion, as it fulfills several of the listed criteria. However, I want to get to the bottom of this. Administrators are appearing seemingly from nowhere. There's no discussion on article talk, none on your talk page, Krimpet's talk page, or Elonka's, nothing on the disputes noticeboard, nothing at the village pump…Proabivouac 20:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am actually interested in your feedback. Personally, I think this image ridiculous, but if Commons hosts this kind of stuff, this is probably too loose a forum for me; I'd only be a spoilsport. I see these galleries and think, okay, we're a free but serious museum, and Muhammad is a serious topic, what do we present? Generally, I'm also curious to learn what our policy is on user-created art.Proabivouac 07:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:LycéeBaggio.jpg

Bonjour, vous avez supprimé certaines photos que j'avais mises sur wiki commons. Étant débutant, j'ai certainement fait des erreurs de copyright, pouvez me dire ce qu'il ne fonctionnait pas sur ces photos ? Cordialement

22:35, 10 August 2007 Nilfanion (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:LycéeBaggio.jpg" (In category Unknown as of 19 July 2007; no source) --Fredton 11:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

...not sure about this one...

Image:Viry-babel maigret.jpg ...for two reasons, I don't speak french and I'm not sure how to tag something that appears to be a screenshot from a movie licensed {{PD-Self}} (with a different Author than uploader). Could you take a look? Finn Rindahl 00:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ludwig Guttmann image

Why have you deleted the image? Institut Guttmann

Which image is this?--Nilfanion 20:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

2006 Pacific season summary

You forgot to add Typhoon Xangsane in Image:2006 Pacific typhoon season summary.jpg. RaNdOm26 17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Tinside Lido

Your listing this on quality image candidates led to me going to the en.wikipedia article on it and improving it; thanks! Morven 02:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with image licensing

Hi Nilfanion, I'm a new user here at Wikipedia, recently I inserted five images in this Wikipage: Ehécatl (airplane). As you can see, they belong in the spaces lacking them. Despite that the proper procedures were accomplished to make the pictures stick, they have been deleted due to copyright issues. I forwarded the mail necessary from the creator and sole owner of the images, Hydra Technologies. I was wondering if you could check them out to clear their licenses -the exact heading of the forwarded e-mail is "Hydra Technologies Image Licensing". Thanks in advance and cheers from Mexico.

Eldalieva 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Eldalieva

LCAC

I noticed that you deleted the pabe LCAC on 14:24, October 4, 2006, with the comment Junk. I am recreating the page in concert with preparing a LCAC article on en.wiki, and adding legitimate free images of LCACs in USN and JMSDF service that are already on Commons. I hope this page now rises above the level of junk, as I have no way of knowing what was previously on the page. If this is not satisfactory, please contact me at the same usename on en.wiki, and let me know what can be done to improve the page before it is deleted again. Thanks for you kind consideration. - BillCJ 19:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Images from www.botanic.jp

You wrote about deletion of these images. I've received a more proper permission statement from Mrs. Shu Suehiro, which are forwarded to Wikipedia. epibase 06:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to verify this? The deletion discussion is still open. Thanks. --Tom (talk - email) 23:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: DRBot archival

Yeah, I agree those pages are becoming too long. Implementing a list of deletion requests with the result and the rational is very hard to program though. Maybe we should jsut switch to daily listings. That would at least be the easiest thing to do. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

RfO

NOT here to change your views :)

No - it is not needed often (& yes if we could deal with images that would be more useful). However few folk here do much RC stuff and there are pages like this. Not daily but certainly weekly. They could be dealt with. Sure it is not vital in this instance but if it was done maliciously (with an IP edit there is no way of knowing) then I would prefer to see it really removed than be potentially the source of trouble? I guess this is a midway one - I've seen more worrying & I've seen ones I probably wouldn't bother with. I still say having a fire extinguisher does not mean I want to spend time fighting fires. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Mail too --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied to email.--Nilfanion 16:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Email addy is now there - I'll take more of a look over the weekend. Thanks for getting it underway --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Beetle

If you scroll down, you can see the link to the original description page.

Click here

Jourdy288 23:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't it?

Here

It was user created by will let it be.

Oh. Sorry about that.

Query

Might be interested in commenting on this or not. There is now a "flora & fauna" heading btw which would allow the inclusion of a picture of dwarf oaks...... --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll get round to SOME uploads soon (I've had a very busy time IRL...).--Nilfanion 13:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Currently uploading yesterday's & Saturday looks good :) Catch you round, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Atlantic hurricane best track updates

Hello. Recently, the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis project updated the HURDAT database from 1915 through 1920 (click here). Intensities and tracks were adjusted, and new tropical storms were added to HURDAT. Can you upload new track maps for all storms during the 1915–1920 seasons? Thanks! CVW (Talk) 22:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree image

Hello, I'm new here so I'm not sure how to go about this... I'm pretty sure this picture is in no way free. It should be deleted right? Thanks, Indopug 16:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson image

What was your grounds for deleting Image:Kelly-clarkson-live-in-geelong-cropped.jpg as a copyright violation? It's a cropped version of Image:Kelly-clarkson-live-in-geelong.JPG, which remains in place and shows a free license allowing the creation of derivative works. Dtobias 22:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Baja_California_hurricane_tracks.png

Image deletion warning

Image:Baja_California_hurricane_tracks.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

202.156.226.110 19:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy kept, some IP (not nominator) had vandalised the image descr. Finn Rindahl 19:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Another opinion?

Hi - the sources of rivers has always interested me :) I walked past the head of the Plym yesterday & so took a photo. However looking at it it is indistinguishable from many other areas of the moors :) I know what & where it is but is it really worth uploading? Equally I see we have category:Rivers in Devon however I think policy/practice suggests "Rivers of"? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Tors wise I uploaded one or two more & I will certainly take pics of such rivers & tors as I wander past. I think I'll split the Dartmoor category some more as time goes by (I did this one). Probably a "tinners" one & - for me - a rivers/streams one I think. Hope all is good, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK - Devon rivers cat is now "of" for consistency. Also a new cats for tors and mines. There maybe should be one for waterways of some sort which would cover rivers/reservoirs & the like. Thoughts welcome - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Track maps

Good work, Nilfanion, but Peipah's Trackmap has a bad name Pepiah 2007 track.png and it seems that there is none for TS Podul. Have a nice day. --Matthiasb 11:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Podul map

I run Windows XP. I might be able to burn and run an Ubuntu LiveCD, however. Other than the colors, how do you like my track? Do you think it's up to quality? -- RattleMan (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:MediaWiki Update Bot

Hi, I am happy to run this bot if requested, but honestly I have not been approached that often. I am also happy to turn it over to someone else if they volunteer. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So help me...

If your bot goes through and tags every image I have ever uploaded which I admitted I also uploaded to flickr as requiring flickr review, I am going to go crazy. Your bot needs work in this matter ([3][4]). -mattbuck (Talk) 00:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I agree the bot's work does need to be done, we have a lot of stuff to catch up on :/ -mattbuck (Talk) 01:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally handle derivative works of commons images separately. The fact that the images originally came from flickr is generally not relevant. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

True. Oh, and I undid your adding hiddencat until such time as hotcat allows you to add/modify hidden cats properly. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Flickrreview

Hi Nilfanion, This query is related to mattbuck's just above. It's great that you've tagged so many images for Flickrreview, but a small number don't need to be reviewed, since they were uploaded by the same user on Flickr and Commons ([[|Image:ANA L-1011-1 (1992 Osaka International Airport).jpg|example]]). Is there any way to mark such images so that your bot doesn't mark them for review? Thanks, Pruneau^talk 14:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making categories species plants

Thanks for making the categories for plants. As I have more than 600 photos of plants on Commons and most of them in galleries it saves me time. Just a suggestion: please copy from the gallery also the names and the interwiki links. When creating a new category I copy the whole gallery page in the category page and delete the gallery part. Regards, Wouter (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

OTRS verification

I'm looking for someone with OTRS access to confirm that the uploader of Image:TrueBlueCover.jpg did indeed have permission. When typing "Gwen Stefani blue" into Google Images, one of the first hits was that image at the same low resolution, and it looks like a blogger who took it from a media source, so I'm hesitant to use the image. 18.238.6.206 03:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

These files are not covered by the OTRS ticket #910301. I've deleted the images and given the uploader a strong warning.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that. 18.238.6.206 01:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

NilfaBot Flickr reviewing

My SEP (Someone Elses Problem) field caught the fact that recently they re-reviewed a bunch of images from Flickr and remarked many where the license had changed. I lost an image that I was using on my user page during that event but that was a tolken and not worth the effort to challenge. Today, I am reverting those actions on another image which 1)was reviewed by your bot at 02:13, 26 October 2006 and then 2)re-reviewed at 14:56, 19 December 2006 by the FlickreviewR. I trust your bot and am of the understanding that once an image has a cc license it keeps that license.

The image is Image:LA County Museum CA1.jpg and if anything I have done is wrong, please feel free to revert it! -- carol (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked at my "talk" -- that is the reason I reverted it, heh. Your bot did not see the license correctly? -- carol (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I need a new battery for my old SEP field generator, obviously.... -- carol (talk) 09:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Even worse, I have been watching reruns of the 1965 Get Smart original series and yesterday I watched one where they had a psychiatrist testing people with this game like thing where the round peg was to go into the round place on the board. They were going to run the test without distractions and run the test with distractions and compare the time but in the episode, both the tested and the tester failed to complete the first portion. Too many distractions in the not distracted part. Yesterday, this was funny stuff.... -- carol (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hi there, I was the original person who discussed the copyright status of that Assyrian genie with Carol. What does Nilfabot do in cases where the flickr image owner changes the copyright of an image after it has been uploaded onto Commons. In theory, there could be hundreds or thousands of images on Commons lost in this case. I know of one case just recently where a Flickr image owner (Hans) changed the license of his image back from 'cc 2.0' to 'all rights reserved' about 2-3 days after I E-mailed him the official Wikimedia Commons license for his image and showed him where it was being used on Wikipedia. Could Nilfabot or a future bot cause this image Image:Sheshonq II mask2004.jpg to be deleted? It was reviewed by the Flickr review bot; I only uploaded it after the flickr owner agreed that it would be useful for Wikipedia's article on this pharaoh and changed the license to cc 2.0 generic. There are no other free pictures of it on Commons and all photography at the Cairo museum has been banned since March 2005. Sometimes a picture is a worth a thousand words. Will 1) Nilfabot tag this image with an uncertain copyright in future and 2) how does Nilfabot decide which flickr image is permissible and which is not? Does it reject images from flickr accounts which have been now been closed (meaning the original image source can't be verified)? I have uploaded several images from flickr in the past few days of historically important objects under the CC 2.0 generic license like this other example Image:Mask of Amenemope1.jpg without any problems but wonder if I should be concerned? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not getting all of my facts to go with the proper problem today, but what I learned from this incident is that Nilfabot finds images that need review and locates them into one area so that they can be reviewed. The situation that I was mentioning is different and more like the one you are presenting now. There was a rereview here and it was kind of not correct with the legal terms of the cc license and the "trusted user" approval here. Further, I just looked at Image:Sheshonq II mask2004.jpg and this should always be {{Cc-by}} although recent history here had a batch that was deleted Image:Toddler_eating_ice_cream.jpg was deleted in that wrong deletion process. Commons seemed to have gotten a lot of admin from other wikis who did not actually understand the things they were doing (my idea which I cannot and will not attempt to verify) at that time. Getting voted in to be an administrator while not actually having been involved is an interesting way to run a large thing like this, eh? -- carol (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, NilfaBot does not review images. Its task is to (1) Identify images from Flickr that have not been reviewed and (2) mark those images for review. It should not tag for review anything that has already been reviewed by a user or FlickreviewR - the only bot that actually reviews images. FlickreviewR will not ever re-review an image. Therefore none of the images from the Cairo museum will be deleted for Flickr license concerns. As long as the image is reviewed after upload (which should happen promptly if you use the From Flickr upload form) the image is safe, it doesn't matter what happens subsequently to the image on Flickr, once its confirmed its confirmed.

Carol regarding the toddler image:

1. You uploaded in December, the file was not marked for Flickr review and was not reviewed.
2. NilfaBot detected its unreviewed status and marked it for review in April.
3. 2 hours later, FlickreviewR reviewed the image and found the license was non-free.
4. The image was deleted in June.

Now you can contest the deletion if you want (at COM:UNDEL), that part of the process had nothing to do with me. However, when NilfaBot marked the image for review it had never had the license verified. The only prior edit was yours on uploading and you are not an administrator, a bot or a user trusted to review Flickr images. Therefore we had no user, trusted by the Flickr review system, verify the license. There was no bot malfunction (in NilfaBot or FlickreviewR), the reason it was deleted is because it failed its Flickr review.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Nilfanion. Thank you so much for your clarification on Flickr bot review's inspection process of flickr image licenses. That was what I was concerned about. I had contacted the flickr owners of the images and they both agreed to let it be used on Wikipedia (and changed the licenses) One of them even told me how happy he was that his images were actually being used in something useful such as an article. With kind Regards --Leoboudv (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

FlickrLickr

Dear Sir, I was just checking through this backlog of 1.800+ pictures here that failed Flickr reviews and many were uploaded through FlickrLickr. How would you determine which photos should be deleted? Do you check its usage or relevance? With FlickrLover, one cannot know if the original license was legitimate or not. This seems to be the worst of both worlds since it failed Flickr review but may have been originally legally uploaded through FlickrLover. The pictures here appear to be in a legal 'void' so to speak. I avoid using such pictures but wonder what is your criteria for deleting them as an experienced Admin? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This is the kind of non-free flickr image which should be deleted. Its not even being used and...we don't really need it on Commons. Image:Man-taking-leak.jpg --Leoboudv (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

All images uploaded by FlickrLickr were available under a free license at some point, because thats all that bot allows its users to upload. Therefore no image in that category from FlickrLickr should be deleted because of the license alone. Images in that category from other users are the real problem and I'd probably not speedily delete them because of the complexities, which should be discussed by the community at COM:DEL. Personally I'd consider the following factors (amongst others):

1. The time between the upload and the failed review
2. The nature of the image
3. The nature of the photographer
4. The uploader - is it a experienced Commons user or a new one.
5. The usage of the image on Wikimedia projects - if orphaned there is no harm in deleting.

The image you refer to is free (it was uploaded through FlickrLickr). I agree with you that the image isn't useful as well, but I've deleted it anyway as I feel it falls outside of project scope. However, that sort of matter is best determined on COM:DEL, not through speedy deletions.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• So the images on FlickrLickr were indeed once legitimately licensed. That's what I was driving at. I had a talk with Carol about this yesterday because I had the wrong impression that people could upload a failed flickreview image and then keep using them. Carol had said that it was not justifiable to use them but I suppose there are exceptions and shades of grey in this case. These images are 'grandfathered' I suppose although I wholeheartedly agree that the peeing image was simply useless and orphaned. Thank You for you crisp and clear replies to my questions. I appreciate that. You have been kind and curteous with me. I thank you for your time sir. With kind Regards, Fabian from Canada --Leoboudv (talk) 08:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Illegal images?

Dear Nilfanion, According to your userpage, while most Flickr images are uploaded correctly, some circumvent the process. What do you mean by this statement? Can you be a bit more specific. In my opinion, the biggest issue with flickr images is that the person who allows an image to be uploaded may not be the actual photographer. Sometimes, they copy images from someone else's flickr photo. I've even seen images on Commons that people copy and then place on their flickr account. (ie: the Commons image is the original image) That is why whenever I see a flickr image which may be useful, I have to check the flickr owner's other pictures to see if person X or Y really was on a trip to Museum X or Y before I even bother to contact the flickr image owner about possibly changing the license. However, your userpage statement hints at something more nefarious or illegal

As an Aside, the flickrbot review states that this intriguing image by a certain uploader (not me) needs human attention. Is there something incorrect with it: Image:Triumphus Tiberii Boscoreale.jpg Is it because the uploader took a picture of an item but never bothered to specify the source which may be a book, etc? What do you see as the problem here? Thank You. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is strange: I found these 2 Commons photo files with the correct flickr license and flickr image. Only one BIG problem--there isn't any image in the Common's file: Image:Deir el-Medineh (Thèbes Ouest, Egypte).jpg and Image:La tombe de Sethi 1er (KV.17) (Vallée des Rois, Thèbes ouest) -5.jpg Don't know if the problem can be righted (and the image placed in) since the person clearly placed a lot of information in the description box. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Most images are uploaded correctly by people using the from flickr upload form. However, some (like this one are not uploaded using this form and so never get tagged for review. This is merely me implementing internal process, and has nothing to do with legality. In fact the things you check on your images before upload are the legal issues; and its good that you do check and not just blindly upload.

Bots are not intelligent and only do the tasks they are programmed for. FlickreviewR does not and cannot assess if the Flickr user is the copyright holder of their work, as that needs human judgement, the primary purpose of the review is to confirm the license we have matches the original on Flickr and not to stop all copyvio uploads from there; this prevents free images from having to be deleted if the license is changed. Therefore when it got to Image:Triumphus Tiberii Boscoreale.jpg it looked to see if (1) the license is the same on Commons and Flickr and (2) if the image is identical. However, the Commons image is not an identical copy of the Flickr image - its a slight crop. Therefore FlickreviewR isn't sure if the images are the same or not which is why it asked for human attention - not because it said "a book scan, that's suspicious".

The problem with the 2 Egyptian images you mention is bot related too - in those cases Flickr upload bot malfunctioned and did not upload correctly. Its readily fixable, but the bigger issue is the malfunction not the lack of images - that can be corrected by uploading the file (use the "You can upload it" link at the top of the image page).--Nilfanion (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thank Nilfanion. I didn't know bots made mistakes or malfunctioned. This is news to me. Anyway, I have uploaded another image for only one of those two flickr images. I'm normally not comfortable uploading over other people's work. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong image name

Dear Nilfanion, Can you as an Administrator change the title of an image picture here: Image:Luxor, Tal der Könige, Grab von Thutmosis III. (1, 1995, 800x570).jpg. On Wikipedia, one can easily change an article title by selecting the 'Move' button but this seems impossible for WikiCommons. I have been told by a very reliable source that this is actually the tomb of Ramesses III based on the names in the royal cartouches in the photo; in short, it is actually photo of KV11, Ramesses III's tomb. Not Thutmosis III. What I wonder is whether you can 'rename' this image as Image:Luxor, Tal der Könige, Grab von Ramesses III. (1, 1995, 800x570).jpg instead by switching Thutmosis for Ramesses? (the uploader mixed up Ramesses III for Thutmosis III) I notice that attaching a wrong image title to a picture is one of the more common problems people make on Commons...and all it creates is confusion. What do you think? --Leoboudv (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Nilfanion, Could you please examine these three images and see if you can or cannot approve it: Image:Mastaba of Meresankh III (Giza).jpg, Image:Image-La tombe de Sethi 1er (KV.17) (Vallée des Rois, Thèbes ouest) -3.jpg and Image:Ramesses III KV11a.jpg? I don't understand the problem. The flickrbot review says the image is not there on the flickr link but that's impossible. I just accessed them. I never crop images which I first upload from flickr. The bot approved this separate image: Image:Ramesses III KV11b.jpg by the same flickr uploader. You noted that the flickr review bot occasionally malfunctions...but this is the first time it has not correctly viewed flickr images which I personally uploaded. (There is a first time for everything sadly but having 3 images rejected is not very acceptable) Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Unlike articles, images cannot be moved. If a file is uploaded at a bad location, either re-upload at the correct location yourself or tag it with {{Rename}} and someone will eventually do it; once that is done the original badly named file can be {{Duplicate}} tagged and deleted. Admins have no more ability to move files than normal users.

Note that the fact that the bot did not reject the images, it merely got confused for some bizarre reason. Its just been placed in a category for human review at some point. I've tried reverting the bot on one of them to see if it corrects itself on another attempt.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm trying to upload another image of this file: Image:Mastaba of Meresankh III (Giza).jpg with a different name. Can you delete this image which did not pass flickr review? Thank You. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

NC use and one deleted image

Why did the WikiCommons Board decide to prohibit images that feature a no-Commercial use restriction. Someone told me it was because Wikipedia couldn't control what people did with the images. However, I thought an image on Commons only meant that it could be used freely on Wikipedia and not in a book or newspaper article. I was told by a friend of mine on the Wiki Ancient Egypt Project that even though he has freely licensed images on Commons, people still contact him for permission to use his images for other non-Wikipedia projects. I was just curious here, that's all.

• BTW, this was a picture Image:LA County Museum CA1.jpg which, I believe, was originally uploaded through the old FlickLickr system. Yann deleted it because I had complained to Carol that it had failed Flickreview and she contacted Yann. Of course, now I was wrong...and I freely admit it but Yann has not done anything about it probably because he is busy with other discussions. It is/was a picture of an Assyrian winged genie and had been used in this article here which was created by Dbachman, an Admin on Wikipedia. Perhaps you could consider restoring it? I hope Commons has abandoned FlickLickr system to avoid any future confusion here. I sincerely apologise for my misinterpretation here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That image was not uploaded through FlickrLickr, so there is (unfortunately) no reason to restore the file.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. That clears things up on *that* picture. Do you know anything about the NC use restriction? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The images which are hosted here are to be allowed for commercial use. --

carol (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Do you mean commercial use anywhere (in books, the web, etc) or just on Wikipedia? BTW, I hope someone goes through the images for speedy deletion catalogue and deletes them. I uploaded at least 2-3 images only to be told by a friend whom I consider to be reliable that the flickr source labelled it wrong like this: Image:Image-Mastaba of Meresankh III (Giza).jpg and this: Image:Ramesses III KV11b.jpg I am plain embarrassed and will now only upload images of objects which I am certain is correctly labelled. I guess one learns a new lesson every day about the reliability of individual uploaders on flickr! --Leoboudv (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

ToL categories

So, is there an attempt to finally make a classification system that works, or do we still have to endure the current state of affairs til it comes crashing down on us?

Because the status quo is becoming more and more rotten. Content ist strewn all about the site, I spend 2/3 of my Commons time trying to locate stuff that ought to be accessible in a precise way (that is immediately intuitive to any person who knows what "ToL" stands for here), and ideally in this one way only. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What is your experience with the search button? -- carol (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Who are you directing that comment at?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That was a question asked of Dysmorodrepanis. There are suggestions of problems often from this group in which I find I have no problems with. Everything that was mentioned here is not a problem if the search button is used here or on the other wikipedia. -- carol (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding butterflyfishes, I rm'ed the cat because that was the shortest way to arrive at a common denominator for Chaetodon which has loads and loads of species pages and few species categories.

Some might enjoy to work through loads of images to have them clog up a genus cat that presently only contains spp with one image only, rather than decatting a handful of images. I have better things to do in my time...

That is the problem here: genus cats become tedious to unusable for their original purpose if species pages are accepted. But they have to be accepted, there is no other way to properly sort and annotate content. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is if you remove categories, you remove those images from the category structure. ToL developed its guidelines before categories matured fully and search tools that depend on the category tree to function. I'm not saying get rid of species galleries - that's dumb. But I am saying that removing categories is equally dumb. The current status is messy, I agree.

The solution is to create species categories even if there is only one image and it is included in a gallery with just that one image. If you want to declog a genus category, create the category. This may appear redundant, but categories and galleries are different. Obviously this would take a lot of work, but there is a hideous mess in ToL-related categories already.

Oh and "immediately intuitive to any person who knows what "ToL" stands for" should not be the goal, it should be "intuitive to any person", with the caveat they understand about taxonomical vs common name.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am trying to make progress on this not just complain about it. I think I'll have a go at tackling Category:Chaetodon now, see what you think when I'm done.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, it took me 162 edits and about 1 hour to completely sort Chaetodon into species categories. That category is now fairly tidy and should remain so. Now except for the last 20 or so (the ones in the genus category but not in a gallery), a bot could easily replicate that pattern of edits and move thousands of species like that - not just 50. If such a bot was wanted, coded and began editing it would resolve ToL category structure into a stable and usable version. There is one thing Category:Chaetodon lacks, a gallery at Chaetodon. This page is a very useful gallery - there is no reason why all (multi-species) genera shouldn't have one like it.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Species categories are a pain to maintain and add redundancy... has the "fossil/extinct [taxon]" category thing been sorted out? I'd very much like to try out mving the species cats to a separate common-name tree (as common names hardly change and for sundry other reasons) so they can be interlinked: non-ToL users will always create common-name pages (underscoring what you say about "usable for everyone"; my approach would be to run the tree hierarchy independetly as scientific and folk taxonomy just don't mix) and this can be accomodated by simply keeping two trees, interlinked but separate.

As regards Chaetodon - see the page on en: which I rearranged... I would not have put any effort in categories there; none of the single-picture species is likely to remain in this genus ere soon :( (this is precisely the reason why I chose against categories there - any more content sorting would increase the amount of future cleanup work, and with categories, the amount of work is increased more than with galleries)

(In fact, gallery pages could technically be handled by software almost as easily as categories. The only difference is that the category info is in the wikisource and the HTML output, while the page info is in the HTML only. I wonder why this gets overlooked)

(I am very much in favor of Echium style approaches, but I would likea solution that avoids content cluttering up categories. With scientific training, having to sift through the unordered mess of a large category is quite annoying) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Pain to maintain, is that only the "categories cannot be moved" thing or am I missing something? As for redundancy, it would be have been more logical to have categories-only and not galleries-only. However, that's not what existed in the past which is why we have the problem now.

I agree about keeping two separate trees - the trouble is what language would the folk tree be in? En-only would work, but Commons isn't En-only and "use local language" in the style of cities would be far worse. I don't know enough about the fossil/extinct problems to comment on that.

I'm not too surprised at the mess re Chaetodon. The thing is, bots can handle this stuff if someone programmed them and we let them, and if we did the amount of human effort required would be less than with humans moving galleries about (one edit to an order-the-bot-around page vs a few dozen page moves).

Using galleries like a category seems inherently flawed to me. We have a developed category tree for all levels above the species, why should it swap to a different structure at the lowest and most important level? Maybe at the technical level we could have galleries behave identically to categories - the question is why bother when we can just do that with a category in the first place?

With regards to your last point, that's exactly what species categories solve. It also frees up species galleries to be more useful. Say I upload an image of a angelfish and submit it at FPC. 5 different edits are uploaded in that process and one of those gets promoted. We only want to highlight the featured version, but the other 5 (especially the original) should be still be categorised. A species category could have them all in, but the gallery could have only the FP.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing I've noticed is this tendency to say "scientists constantly rename things", which is true of course. However, I think Wikipedia is not a crystal ball is a relevant point here on Commons. We should strive at all times to accurately reflect the current taxonomy, and when things change change our mirror of it as rapidly as possible. "The taxonomy is probably going to be revised soon" should be no reason to leave things in a mess. I know I have probably wasted a fair bit of effort there - the point is if I was a bot noone would care.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion category

Strange. Doesn't anyone go through your speedy delete category each day on Commons or are the Admins here a bit more leisurely at reviewing images in this category? On Wikipedia, articles and fair use images can be deleted within hours if they are succesfully speedied. I have had this image speedied and its still there: Image:Ramesses III KV11b.jpg. It was an identification errors made by the original flickr source--and I'm just trying to get it removed from Commons (as I was the uploader here unfortunately) before someone uses them for a project/article. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Dear Nilfanion, I incorrectly uploaded this image here: Image:1531 sculpture of St. Martin of France (Gulbenkian Museum).jpg by the cc by sa 2.0 license rather than the generic cc by 2.0 and the flickrbot noted my error. Question: does this mean the image can be deleted in future. I uploaded a few other images today under the right cc 2.0 license but wonder if my error here may cast some doubt on the status of this image sadly. What do you think? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If the tag is green, the image will be kept. If the tag is red, the image may be deleted. That image will not be deleted, but please try to take care not to make that mistake at upload!--Nilfanion (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank You. I uploaded a batch of about 5 flickr images all with the cc by 2.0 license and this was the one I made an error on. I am sure someone will value (and use) that beautiful sculpture. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Nilsfanion, Can you please delete this disaster: Image:UBC clock tower2008.JPG. I have uploaded the correct image here: Image:Image-UBC clock tower2008a.jpg Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Image naming or deletion

Do you know as an Admin why it can be hard to make a final decison to either delete or rename an image from Thutmose I.jpg to ThutmoseIII.jpg? There is a prolonged debate on either deleting or renaming it here. The image is causing all kinds of confusion and error on the non-English web sites. My point is: would anyone use an image of Bush II for Bush I? This makes little sense. Someone has to act. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Flickr Review

Dear Nilfanion, Can you order another flickr review for this image which first failed the review process sometime ago: Image:Temple of Dendur- night.jpg. I checked the current flickr license and it is "cc by sa 2.0" which would pass the review (it is currently licensed as cc by 2.0). So, you could change the license a little and carry out another review...if possible. What do you think? It is the picture of an actual Egyptian temple which was sent to the New York Metropolitan Museum in the 1960's by Egypt in gratitude for the US helping save the massive Abu Simbel temple from being flooded by the Aswan dam project. It is culturally important and is used on 9 wiki sites. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You could have done this yourself.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. I wasn't sure how to do the code for flickrreviews of an existing image that failed this process. But, thank You, for your help, Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Any objections to a move to Commons?

Can this image here on Wikipedia: [5] be moved to WikiCommons? Or are there any FOP issues involved here? The image is likely legitimate since it contains the correct metadata. I have to ask you since a Wikipedia Admin will not know the answer? BTW, this image is not in the Commons category for 'Statens Museum for Kunst' and would be a good addition, I suspect, if this is permitted. Any views, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Consult COM:FOP for issues relating to freedom of panorama. This indicates photos of sculptures in Denmark are not free in general. However as the sculptor died in 1933, the artwork is in the public domain - so the image is free and can be hosted here. When you upload to Commons, select an appropriate name.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Nilfanion, Is there a way to determine on Commons how long copyright remains with the author of a work after his or her death in country X or Y? Or is the default assumption always 70 years. I thought (perhaps wrongly) that some countries had copyright laws as short as 30 or 50 years after a creator's death. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Flickrbot malfunction?

• Notice: You may have a problem with the flickreview bot.Even your poor but hardworking trusted user Sterkebak noticed the problem: [6] I can tell you that it hasn't run now for more than a full day. I uploaded 12-13 pictures more than 24 hours ago and they are still waiting to be reviewed. I mentioned the problem first on Village Pump. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Tagging the wrong files

Hi Nilfanion, Can you prevent you bot from tagging images like this. It's own work which happens to be available at Flickr too. Maybe we could use a template like {{It's my own work, but i uploaded it to flickr too!}}? Multichill (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

File:1923 Atlantic tropical storm 4 track.png

File:1923 Atlantic tropical storm 4 track.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--Patrícia ^msg 12:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

hi nilfanion, are u student? do you have collection of children story book? are you interest become donature of that book for my sosial student?Muliawaty (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

De-adminship warning

Deutsch | Español

Dear Nilfanion/Archive/2008-09. I am writing to you to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you

+

Welcome back. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Odd, it seems you've missed this... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Lewis Roberts' botanical illustrations

Thank you so much for your kind help and advice. I have left a message for you at User talk:John Hill. Thanks again, John E. Hill (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! I have just finished uploading all the Lewis Roberts images I have on my computer so far. He visited here briefly today and is pleased that this is all happening. He has done quite a number of illustrations since the ones I already have copies of. I will ask him sometime if he would like to have more scanned and uploaded.

Thank you so much for all your help and advice and for smoothing the way for me to upload all these files. It did take a while - but I certainly enjoyed looking at them all again, and am very happy they will be available now for others to enjoy and use. Sincerely, John E. Hill (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"view" type one

Not sure where you think this might be useful? (if at all). Smalljim also has a view type one which he has annotated with the tor names on - useful? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Re landscape stuff - more discussion I guess - on the Dartmoor pages somewhere I think. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(copied to User talk:Nilfanion/Dartmoor)

Thought you'd gone. Been working on that area just now. Will look some more. If still around enjoy - if not hope you did! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

OTRS

Thanks for the OTRS tag on File:TJ Rooney photo.jpg!--Blargh29 (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Blason de chartres sous le 1er Empire

Bonsoir, Vous avez fait enlever le blason de chartres sous le 1er empire donnez moi la raison merci bonne soirée--Dunkerqueenflandre (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

la licence est

self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0

sorry pour l'oubli --Ssire (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

EPSA

Hello Nilfanion! Why have you deleted EPSA logo on my contribution on the European Pharmaceutical Students' Association wiki page? I am the responsible to upload on wikipedia a description about our association in order to enlarge the knowledge of the pharmacist students around Europe about our work and projects. I don't know exacly how to give references about our photos or text because EPSA and myself are the owners of these files. If you could help me on the autentication i would be thankful. Regards, EPSA Information Officer

The Stroll

Why did you delete the picture of "The keel on land" from the Diosa Del Mar web page? It is my picture and I released it into public domain. I put it back and please leave it alone.

The Stroll

moved from your userpage. best regards, Huib talk 18:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Insuffiicient permission on OTRS)

Hello, i saw 3 files i uploaded were deleted.I had sent an email myself as well as the creator.Did i forget to do something? The permission was going to be this one {{en}}.Megistias (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The files were "File:Cavlegillyrien final.jpg" ,"File:IllyrianFootmanDiscHelmet.jpg","File:IllyrianFootman.jpg" .And there are some more from the same creator.ThankouMegistias (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I received a mail from permissions at the 6th of September saying they received my mail.I dont know about the creator's mails.Megistias (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok i dont know when will the email i sent them will get processed but David told me that he didnt have the time and that he will sent this weekend.I can forward you the mail if need be.Megistias (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you restored them till this is resolved,if not thats ok.Megistias (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

While i received a thanks from Permissions the creator received this. "permissions-common@wikimedia.org  : Apparent dead links, i have every time a mailer-demon..." He sent them twice this weekend.Megistias (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Its sure this is not a ticket? Re: [Ticket#2009083110028551] license information for images? It was the title of one of their emails.Megistias (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok thankou , i have emailed them, the creators emails are coming back daemon failiure.Megistias (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Licensing

Hi, in two of my picture files (File:Aluminium pigment paste.JPG and File:Aluminium_pigment_powder_.JPG I found a "no license"-tag. If you look into the files, you see PD-self. I always thought this is an information about the license. If not please tell me what I have to do. Please note that all my pictures you find here are self-made and Public Domain. CU, --FK1954 (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hum

Like the way the QI one turned out - nice one & deserves QI. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ramblings

Headless crosses - generally crosses (Petre's cross I have uploaded but it ain't - now - a cross) are crosses. However if that is a menhir (not looked into it) then you are right.

Rocks in reservoirs - not tors imho (though point taken about pre reservoir maps.

More generally

I think we should be looking for QI/VI & FP on some Dartmoor material. I'd be inclined to look carefully at categories before going for any VIs to be sure we have good definitions (I'd be inclined to break up crosses for example into "older" & "modern").

On that subject this one anyway should be QI - conditions obviously not wonderful for many more from that trip. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. On "sets" I agree that is the direction to take. Maybe a discussion page somewhere in due course.

On panos - maybe worth a Dartmoor panos cat. 1 uploaded at the time of typing this - the other will follow soon. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Worthwhile I think :). I'm quite pleased so obviously others will disapprove of something! Even zoomed at 150% there is one issue I am not certain of but I'll work on that. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't see anything fascinating on the left but it does frame the image quite well?

I think we should look at a cat for Dartmoor clappers (maybe a Dartmoor bridges -> D Clappers)? Just uploaded an Avon clapper one (& a couple more from that walk following). Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

& a "menhir" one too (sub of Archaeology?)? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyway.... If you follow the track out from the moor gate (zoomed almost fully) you can see the spot? Yours is well to the right of the actual location.

Meh - might be somewhere between. Harbourne Head would be a better description but either the OS location is out or it is to the left of the wording. Looking some more later. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - I've changed it, tho not quite the same as yours & amended the description. Now if I knew an admin I could re-upload with a better name & get the old one deleted get it renamed ......--Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Off out but 697651? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes - apologies - rather hasty this am trying to get stuff done, yours was much closer than mine.

Harbourne Man (or more strictly Maen if you wish) would be the best name for it. The "com" is 'cos not everything is on commons....

Cats I'll look at this week. Gone now, honest! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

On cats - I would happily be bold - I created quite a few of them anyway but it would seem sensible to try and co-ordinate it with the Dartmoor pages sp some thought first I think? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hadn't realised I had uploaded there under both accounts. Probably they should be transferred to Commons anyway. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it should really be "Rivers of Dartmoor" etc etc ....:) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I want to know the reasons you delete File:Escuela103.jpg Do you read the discusion?. I believe, I don´t need more arguments.

and what happens in?:

• Estatua_de_educadoras_chilenas.JPG
• Paro_de_Federici_(De_Gloria_Maldonado).jpg

(excuse me my bad english) --Ciberprofe (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

OK:

I will try to put the pictures again. When i make it I m new in wikipedia and I dont Know, how it is the correct way.

Bye

The answers

• 1) 1 it`s my own camera. It`s my photo. Somebody take me the picture with my camera, then It is my work.
• 2) Thank
• 3)It a text from Students`s federation of the university where I studied. . Universidad de Chile. The author was a ("persona jurídica" en español) authorized person in name of the institution. This text don`t need permission

Thank. Excuse me my bad english--Ciberprofe (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: (put=restore?? ok its no important)

OK Thank... I will go next week to the institution--Ciberprofe (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Hi! I would like to know what is the problem with the File Iraola Lezama.png, that you deleted. It was an own work photo by user Jatamendi, what's wrong? Electro07 (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouh! it's great that you discover that! In fact, Jatamendi was expelled from spanish wikipedia some months ago. Thanks for the explanation Electro07 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of photos

Nifanion:

Emails were provided on Sept 8, 2009 (in two separate mailings), to the permissions-commons@wikimedia.org email address, as follows:

To: Wikipedia Commons @Wikipedia Commons.........re: File:Martha_Cohen.jpg I represent Martha Cohen (age 88) and by virtue of this email, I declare that the photo “Martha Cohen” is owned by her, and Martha Cohen has full rights to grant its usage as she sees fit. As such, I am granting permission to Wikipedia to exhibit the following photo at its site:

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

David Cohen C. Correspondents (6) Please note the C. memorialization at the bottom, a step that was taken so that various "concerned parties" could be apprised of the fact that permission was granted, then sent to Wikimedia Commons. I am now providing those same concerned parties with memorialization of this message to you. C. Correspondents (11) Guest disputant (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Nifanion:

Emails were provided on Sept 8, 2009 (in two separate mailings), to the permissions-commons@wikimedia.org email address, as follows:

@Wikipedia Commons.........re: File:CohenBrothers.jpg To: Wikipedia Commons

I represent the Harry B. Cohen estate and by virtue of this email, I declare that the photo “Cohen Brothers of Canada” is owned by the estate, and the estate has full rights to grant its usage as it sees fit. As such, I am granting permission to Wikipedia to exhibit the following photo at its site: File:CohenBrothers.jpg Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

David Cohen C. Correspondents (6)

Please note the C. memorialization at the bottom, a step that was taken so that various "concerned parties" could be apprised of the fact that permission was granted, then sent to Wikimedia Commons. I am now providing those same concerned parties with memorialization of this message to you. C. Correspondents (11) Guest disputant (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit]Memorialization of a Discussion with WIkipedia Editor Vejvančický Concerning Photo Permissions (Martha Cohen and Cohen Brothers of Canada)

Here is the memorialization taken from the discussion page of WIkipedia Editor Vejvančický pertaining to emails sent to permissions-commons on Sept. 8, 2009. Obviously this Wikipedia editor erred in his assessment of Wikimedia Commons competence since they either failed to receive the emails or chose to ignore them. Maybe you could explain what happened????

[edit]Wikimedia Commons Vejvančický: As requested by Wikimedia, emails granting permission for use of the following pictures were sent to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on Sept. 8, 2009, yet WikiMedia has yet to remove the labels threatening removal by Sept. 13 of the two pictures listed below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Martha_Cohen.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CohenBrothers.jpg

Is there any way you can check to ensure that the emails were received by Wikimedia granting permission to use the photos? Would hate to see the photos removed, then have to go through the trouble of placing them up again. Thanks very much. CanadianBiographies111 (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Canadian, the files were "prodded" on 6 September, so if you've sent the e-mail two days later, it should be OK. I can't check it, but I have some experience with this procedure, and it has always worked well. The correct procedure is described in the "How to Obtain a Free Image" guide, check it, please. We'll see. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Guest disputant (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of pictures from the page Precision Glass Moulding

File:Precision_glass_mould.PNG File:Precision_glass_mould2.PNG

I have sent the permission to permissions@wikimedia.org: Am I allowed to restore the picture?

Best regards Marian

Cohen Brothers of Canada photo (File:CohenBrothers.jpg)

Nilfanion, something has gone wrong with the ROTATEBOT......allmost an entire day has passed since photo rotation was requested, yet the photo position has NOT been corrected.

Please advise.

Guest disputant (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

PHOTO

Can you please tell me what I did wrong, I took the picture, have all the rights to it, and I guess you erased it because I did not file it correctly. Thanks. --Renemesis (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Even though your tone indicates you are in disbelief, I uploaded it avoiding the website. I dont feel like arguing so I will email you. Please restore picture. thank you --Renemesis (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hallo Nilfanion! You have once deleted the file File:Joachim_Gauck_IGFM_01.jpg due to missing license. I have received a proper permission through OTRS. Could you please undelete and add {{OTRS received|2009090210033508}}? I will take care of the rest. Nillerdk (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your fast reaction. I have filled in the required information and closed the ticket. Nillerdk (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Dartmoor

1. Yep agreed
2. ??

Looks good so far. Courses now started so on wiki time will be very limited. I'll try and get some uploads done. I got some yesterday including panos & the flag flying on Steeperton. Soon hopefully. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Vénus d'arles

Je ne comprends pas pourquoi vous avez enlever la photo du bronze de cette statues. Des informations capitales ont en outre été perdues concernant l'autorisation donnée pour cette photo (date et nom de la personne dans la société). Dommage. C'est contreproductif. Cordialement. Alain Darles

(Sorry for the English) I deleted File:Bronze-venusdArles.jpg as it came from http://www.expertissim.com/statuette-bronze-representant-aphrodite_o861207.html . The photograph is copyrighted irrespective of the status of the statue and the replica.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of ICYE

Why were the two pictures I uploaded to Wikipedia Commons deleted? I e-mailed a certificate to the Commons e-mail address as requested. I also sent an e-mail to ask why there had been no response to it. Those are pictures that are owned by an organisation I work for that would be used for a page about this particular organisation - and this organisation accepts them being openly distributed. How can this be SO difficult?!?!?!?! Vmujunen (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Rodin_Auguste_Cupid_and_Psyche_1905.jpg

This picture was uploaded from permissed sourse, marked as recommended in common Wiki rules. The reason that categjry was "undefined" was just my own lack of the catefories. Please give more detailed explanation about this spesific case. Timmpa (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC) September, 2009

The picture is located on the following exact adress: http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/image.asp?id=13398. According to the paragraph Help:Public domain image resources the image can be used and I see no reasons to delete it. Of course, it is nessesary to define the rights of using and it could be my fault not to ask for help in this case. Timmpa (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion request

I have received a permission for File:Ivo Lollobrigida sw.jpg. {{otrs received|2009090910028467}}. Please undelete. Thanks for you time. Nillerdk (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance please

I noticed, over on the wikipedia, that the commons delinker had removed File:Canadiancoast_guard_improve_version.jpg. The record shows that you removed it, stating "no source".

My recollection, from the summary information from that image, is that the uploader claimed he or she drew it.

I checked, there were some similar, smaller proprietary images. But this image was not only of higher resolution, but it differed from those images. I took the uploader at face value that they had used a drawing program to draw a brand new image.

I'd like to ask you to tell me who uploaded the image. Have they logged on since the image was challenged? Are they a relative newbie? Am I incorrect that the summary clearly said the uploader drew the image? If not what would it have taken you to believe their claim?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I got your reply. Thanks. I agree. You are correct, his upload logs do look suspicious. I left a couple further questions on my talk page. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Orgue

I saw your have suppresse Louis Vierne ( 1927) picture of St Nicolas du Chardonnet Church with carillons of Westimsonters

Why??? --BAILLEUL (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Images-deleter!

I'm an italian user of Wikipedia, so you could find some mistake in my english :) but I'd like to know... why did you delete the image od the Gravina in Puglia's panorama? That's my city, and I think that image was very very beautiful... and it wasn't any trouble of copyright... I don't know... I would'n like to get angry, and I don't want to offend anyone, paticurarly because you're an admin and I esteem you, bue I DEMAND an answer!!! P.s. you should answer me on my discussion page... go to Wikipedia in italian and search Discussioni Utente:Antonello Zito, and plaese answer with simple words ;) --Antonello Zito (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Sharp Tor, Bolt Head.jpg

Hi Nilfanion, I remved some CA from your image and saved my edit over your original. I am not sure I've done a good job, so please do delete my two versions, if you like your original one better. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

some licences needed

please check your gallery, there are some pictures that will needed licence information--Motopark (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Uploads

Done a few from the north moor. Not placed any of your pages cos I'm a bit short on time. Cosdon I have put in "Tors of" which is not really true but...? Equally I've uploaded a couple of circles & I guess a separate cat will be needed.

Maybe Steeperton should have some military related cat? I have annotated it. Will try and get some work done soon. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Von.Dreyse.J.N.jpg

I have restored this image. It is clearly PD and was PD reviewed. Online sources are not required and this is so old it is obviously PD. Personal collections are valid sources, but I've found it still online and inserted that anyway so there should not be an issue now. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Mohsen Subhi

hello, i need help meeting the copyright requirements to undelete "MohsenSubhiMawasem.jpg", (it was deleted from Commons by Nilfanion because: Copyright violation: cd cover.) similarly, Mohsen-Subhi-Oud.jpg‎ has been flagged for "missing evidence of permission." these two pictures --from his CD--are everywhere on the web, and i have no access to any member of the deceased artist's family. what options to i have? thanks,— Preceding unsigned comment added by July271997 (talk • contribs)

Nilfabot

I find Nilfabot's behaviour to be very strange. It fixes licenses by removing the flickr pass as in this action It has done this to hundreds of images. (I added back the pass for this 1 photo) This is asking for problems. Anyone who does not see the pass will assumed it did not pass the review and will nominate the image for deletion if the license is not free today on flickr. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: Thanks for the clear explanation. I was scared there for a minute that this would cause a cascade of needless DRs in the future. I reverted my actions here and here Regards from Western Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Bur logo 90.jpg

Hi there. Image File:Bur logo 90.jpg was tagged with {{OTRS pending}} template - maybe we should wait a bit longer before deleting this file? Bot automatically replaces this template with subst:npd after 30 days. --Leafnode 22:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand the case now. Thanks for clarifying :) --Leafnode 06:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Note

In this DR, your bot was criticised. Just thought you should....know? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

FlickrLickr cat

Admin MGA73 has succesfully placed all the FlickrLickr images in this FlickrLickr Category with his bot. Now his bot can detect unmarked flickr images which are Not FlickrLickr images and subject them to a {{Flickrreview}} Just letting you know about this category. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

unlinking image

I think your edit here is a copyright infringement, because File:Questionmark copyright.svg is licensed with GFDL/CC, editor must be noted if you don't have the permission of the uploaderauthor to unlink the image. Greetings,--Luxo 16:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Lady_Young.jpg it will be Public Domain

From reading WS logs, I see http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Early_Reminiscences.djvu/135&action=history and that you deleted Lady_Young.jpg. The image will have been taken from a File:Early Reminiscences.djvu which is out of copyright. Could you please return the picture, and I will then look to apply requisite information. Not sure how we can resolve the issue of images used at Wikisource being notified for nomination for deletion, and the process is a bit sucky. :-( Thanks Billinghurst (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Paro de Federici

I talk with people of Federation of Student (FECH) and they study to publish the picture like own in commons. I will send the document to give the rigth and in a few moment they will have an answer. (van a estudiar si pueden publicarla ellos mismos como propia, si no me van a firmar la plantilla habitual cediendo derechos. Están en elecciones y viene el cambio de autoridades ... habrá que esperar)

Other question: How is the license here [File :Derecho en Paro UChile de AlejandroJimenez2.JPG]] it`good? I will put in the article. --Ciberprofe (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Please see:

File:Arquitectura en paro de Federici.jpg

I dont put en page of wikipedia while I wait for your opinion. It is OK?.

Bye (No la pongo aun en wikipedia hasta que la revises la licencia)--Ciberprofe (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah - no time....:)

However this page has some early and fairly dire images on (with apologies to those who uploaded them). They are generally not good res ones never mind hi res. Maybe one of us will get to it :) Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - didn't know the page existed. I uploaded quite a good pano of Paignton yesterday (not QI but ok) which indicates the edge of the moors quite well - hence finding the Dartmoor page here was not good. Hopefully a Torquay one soon too. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What??

Hi! It seems you deleted some files on Commons and that made problems on dawiki [7]. Will you look at it? --MGA73 (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Laminate

I just wanted to know whether "meta-data" refers to the image captions, the category, both, or something else I missed. TIA, Paradoctor (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Globi.jpg

Hi

You deleted the above image because of "no permission". I'm a bit confused about this, because I am almost sure that there was an OTRS-Ticket around for that image as part of the image description. Maybe I'm misstaken, but could you please cross check for me? --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

OTRS received

I've been working at the no permissions backlog for a fair bit. I know you are very active on the permissions queues on OTRS, so I'm frequently coming across {{OTRS received}} templates that you've added to images. As there are a number of reasons why the email is insufficient, I think it would be helpful if when you add the template you could also add why the permission is insufficient (permission to use only / unsure if email is from copyright holder) etc.

Its not a big issue for me personally (as I can just check the ticket), but if you could provide that bit of extra info when you tag it will enable admins to act on the {{No permission}}, and be reasonably confident about the situation of the email.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can do that without violating the confidentiality of the OTRS. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know we can't do much. However would saying "an email was received on OTRS but was not sufficient because it was not an explicit release under a free license" or "...it is unclear if the release is from the copyright holder" (or whatever) be a breach? I'm not convinced it is. Actually that leads to a second thing: Some people who clearly are not the copyright holder send release statements. Obviously the correct thing on OTRS is to reply in the hope they actually chase up a valid release. However adding {{OTRS received}} in such cases is probably be a waste of everyone's time on Commons - it might be better to add {{Npd}} instead (where it doesn't already exist).--Nilfanion (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be useful, but would prefer to run it by an OTRS admin. We could have an optional parameter to {{OTRS received}} such as reason=no free license, or reason=not from rights holder. However, I do think this would be worth running by an OTRS admin or posting to otrs-permissions-l just to be sure we aren't violating anything. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Test case of the OTRS received template created at Template:OTRS received/working, appearance at User:Stifle/test. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it should be run by the OTRS community/admins. Mailing list and/or OTRS wiki would be good ideas. New template design certainly works, thanks.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Admin reviewed Flickr images

Category discussion notification

Category:Admin reviewed Flickr images has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--The Evil IP address (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Been wet :)

As these show - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Peace Barnstar

		Peace Barnstar
		I hereby award you the Peace Barnstar for the work you're doing on Freedom of Panorama. Thank you! I do not know how it all will end up, but your efforts deserve that award anyway.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Hope that it does turn out well...--Nilfanion (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you see my question in my talk page? Deror avi (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A belated "heartily deserved" from me for your work on this. Thanks muchly. ++Lar: t/c 03:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, easy to get jaded when you have this sort of dispute going on. I have to get some real work done and upload some pics!--Nilfanion (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

General lock because of a few users

I see you locked Commons:Freedom of panorama also for ordinary users. I understand that the weaker block doesn't help against the users involved, but I wonder whether it is necessary to block a page for two weeks because of a conflict between a few established users.

Blocking a page for such a time is quite a drastic measure. Couldn't one instead ask the users not to touch the section and block any of them that cannot refrain? In that way the disturbance would be limited to those users. Or, a milder variant, revert any changes done to the section during those two weeks (if the dispute isn't settled).

One could put a protection banner on the section instead:

This section has been protected because of an edit war regarding FoP in Israel. Please do not edit it before the dispute is settled and this banner is removed by a neutral party. Any edits will be reverted.

I do not know about Commons' practise, I just wonder.

--LPfi (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Protection is an extreme measure I agree, and I'm not particularly happy about it. I did suggest altering to the neutral version, which Pieter appeared fine with. However I did not get a response from Deror/Drork etc. Seeing as the current version of the page is their preferred version, if they don't agree they are liable to complain and just put it back again (like Deror did earlier in the dispute here). Given the strong feelings on the talk page, I'm not convinced it would be left untouched if the non-neutral sentence was removed. If someone continued the conflict, they would need to be blocked (as you suggest). However, as a blocked user cannot contribute to the discussion, this would be more detrimental to resolving the dispute than the page protection.

There is {{Editprotected}} for any requests to other sections (if need arises), so I see no real harm in keeping the protection going for a bit longer. It probably won't run the full 2 weeks, but that's another matter.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you can probably judge the situation better than me (although {{Editprotected}} is cumbersome and we quite probably loose some good edits). --LPfi (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I beg you to bring the Israeli FoP discussion to an end. Reading Pieter Kuiper's last arguments clearly shows he tries to drag us into an endless discussion. I don't know what his motives are, but I honestly suspect they are not pure. I base that on the way he floods the discussion with irrelevant data. He is clearly a talented man who knows a thing or two about data retrieval. Nevertheless, he clearly does not understand what he reads regarding the Israeli law. His last remarks about the Israeli flag being copyrighted were probably nothing but an attempt to tease. His suggestion that there is distinction between local and nationwide authorities in Israel with respect to copyrights clearly shows that he just throws in data without understanding the meaning behind it. I am not surprised - after all, my knowledge about the Netherlands or Sweden is similar to his about Israel, only I do not pretend to understand the nuances of the Dutch or Swedish laws. The Israeli users on the Commons spent hours in explaining and clarifying the issue of FoP. There is not a single aspect of this principle that has not been addressed and clarified. I hate to think that this debate would be a precedence to future discussions on the Commons. I don't think we should give Pieter Kuiper or any other user a veto right, nor the option to drag a discussion forever and weary other users. You have shown a very good approach and discernment in the past few days. Please, please, make your best effort to keep the Commons a welcoming site and a place of reason. Drork (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Upon your request, I would like to show you some example of 2D FOP application in Israel. The problem is that the images I've found are not free, namely, they were published in copyrighted books or magazines, so I cannot upload them to a Wikimedia project and they should be used only for this demonstration purpose. Could you tell me how I can send you these images? Drork (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr Presanti's new book

In her new book she is even clearer. I have added a quote here I do not think that an exact quote (though translated) from a leading book on the subject can be in dispute. Deror avi (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wet

Yes - Burrator one is good. See what you mean about the pano - hugin? Might upload something from yesterday myself later (or soon anyway). Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - stood there, wondered the same thing, took the same pic :) Not uploaded it tho. I think the "area" is interesting (head of each river) - not sure the detail is that important?

Just back from wandering over Holne moor. V wet, fairly cold and the sun didn't :( Might have got an ok pano and one of Vennford. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hum - not even geo tagged yet but I have taken worse. I need to work on it some more and will re-upload in due course but comments welcome. Strangely Hugin did not like it so at present it is an MSCE one but I think it is worthwhile. Hope you enjoyed the walk and got better weather than I did. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll annotate it too - there is quite a bit of interest on there other than obvious features (leats, mine, cross etc). Worth looking at full res though I am sure you would :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Not too bad even if I say so myself :). Call then drafts for now so annotating can wait but feedback would be good. One would have been bigger but easier to crop than fix stitch errors. Some useful features can be annotated? Thoughts? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I guess as much as anything I wanted to know if you thought they were ok before further work :) Doubt it will be quick but I'll get to it --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - I'll look at crops or maybe some brush action before I "finalise" them. (might get them tagged later as that won't change!) Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Vote on Commons talk:Freedom of panorama

Good morning (at least here ). I've noticed the vote being held in the page mentioned above. What are the rules for such a vote in this project? should it take a week and be decided by the majority of voters? will this end this farce and the decision become part of the project standards? Tomer A. 06:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not a simple majority vote, and its not going to run for one week (as both of those facts would make it very vulnerable to vote-stacking). I'm thinking at least 2 weeks and the objective is to achieve something close to a consensus result. If no consensus can be achieved, then the vote will end up with a no consensus result. There isn't any real urgency, so best to let it run until the result is obvious.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks, i still may have more questions in the future. Tomer A. 21:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nilfanion,

It has been almost 16 days since you started the vote, and I would like to know whats going to happen since practically nothing happened in the vote itself in the last week (only 1 new vote). Kooritza (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Cross - Nun's cross area

Could be called Hutchinson's IIRC? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - S L H rings a bell - think he was a naval officer (then I might be confusing it with Goldsmith's - think he was).

I think looking ahead the best you might come up with would be sub cats such as Abbot's Way crosses or similar which could have VIs? The whole lot would pose problems I think. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

TC tracks

I think most of the Atlantic is done, except for perhaps a hundred or so that didn't fit the AWB search criteria. Any ideas as to how the rest of the files can be narrowed down or divided up to make recategorizing the other basins more convenient? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... Cat:Tropical cyclone tracks actually seems to be part of the template, so I'm not sure how to remove it from just a set of files. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Pacific hurricanes are now  Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking through NIO cyclones, most of them are not categorized properly, so I'll try to find a way to compile a list of them. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Meh

Agreed there is something there but b hard to work out what - I'll think about it and get back to you.

As to "out" I would just go! The sun looks v good so anywhere should give you some good images really. Around china clays works (need some stuff from there), Nattor area maybe. Just jealous is all! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Some background

Thanks a lot for your comment on my talk page. Perhaps some background is needed to understand why some of my comments seems as if driven by antagonism. It goes back to several "crises" between me and admins on this project. The most significant one was the launching of the "Pikiwiki" project. This project was (maybe still is) the flagship project of Wikimedia Israel, and it relies on cooperation with the Commons. I felt it was not being received well by the Commons' admins. Many criticized it, but too much money and energy had been spent on this project by that time, and it was too late to change the strategy of relying on the Commons. This project turned quite successful eventually (less than we expected, but still rather successful), however the interface between "Pikiwiki" and the Commons is still its Achilles' heel. One of the most problematic issues in such reach-out project is rejecting contributions. A person whose contribution was deleted might not come again to share better images, not to mention becoming an agent of bad publicity. There are many contributions deleted before they reach the Commons, and in some cases I favored deletion of images that seemed unsuitable. However, knowing the potential damage, I am very concerned about deleting images, and especially imposing unnecessary restrictions on uploaders. The FoP principle is very much embedded in everyday's life here, and rejecting images of murals, mosaics or certain posters just because of the vague risk that an Israeli court decide sometime in the future that the interpretation of the law should be more strict than it is currently is, will deter many potential contributers. Drork (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Seasonal greetings

Fresh off the camera - with thanks for your support in 2009 and regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Plus

Think this one is about as good as it is going to be now. Can't see any errors so annotations welcome. I'll get some on as soon as I can. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know that so tip appreciated :) Thanks for the start - I'll add the leats/mine workings etc (I think Horns cross should be almost on there). Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

When you have a mo

Working on improving the north moor stitches that I uploaded a while back. Uploaded a much larger version of this one so far and hit issues with annotating/cache? I've had this with panos I've updated before. If you look at the Hangingstone firing flag (you can just see it full res!) and where the annotation is (for me) you should see what I mean. If you get a minute maybe you could try an annotation yourself? I'll likely upload the other two but maybe not annotate for now. Many thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

+ I think you thought there was a tilt on this one IIRC. If (as I think) it was CW (either way actually) then we either live with a minor tilt or loose quite a lot of an encyclopaedic image :( --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Tilt one - thanks - realised what I was doing wrong now...:) (note to self - work on tilt first not after cropping:)).

As far as the basin one is concerned the annotations - including yours - are still pretty far out (your tors are floating in the sky!). Any way of fixing it? I've cleared cache/reloaded etc - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

All in all I think delete that Teign basin one with the annotations probs (this one) if you don't mind. I'll re-upload it tomorrow then & start over. I have no fp intentions but I'd probably try it on qi I guess. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - looks good. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)