User talk:Racconish/Archive6

You deleted some files, which I didn't finish adding source.

All Files I uploaded were from Files with inappropriate PDF format. There are mostly on Commons since years, it does not make sence to delete them immediately.

I added a upload-comment with Commons:Graphics_village_pump#Help_needed_with_Category:Files_with_inappropriate_PDF_format, therefore it is obvious where the files are from. (I did not rename any file.)

If you don't believe the source you should also tag the originals with {{No source}} or similar

• File:F._Berthet_NYC06_85.pdf
• File:PieroCostantino.pdf

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 19:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Apologies Johannes, I finally understood what you meant to do. — Racconish ^💬 19:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the Deletion-Request, and the two deleted files are marked already. (And sorry for getting inpolite.)  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 19:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

If a inappropeate file, is changed in a way that the original file will get deleted (f.e. {{FakeSVG}}) it does not make sence to define the file, which will be deleted, as a source? And if the file is deleted, it will be necesarry to add the OTRS ticket the the derived version. I know I'm not allowed to prove OTRS tickets, but I don't see a problem to "copy" OTRS-tickets to new files where only I added some work under the threshold of originality.

• Does it make sence to declare a file, which will be deleted, as source?
• If there is a ORTS ticket, am I am allowed to copy it to the "derived" version (actually only extracting is in my opinion not really any derivative work, similar as rendering SVGs as PNG is not a derivative work)?

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 20:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Johannes, in this case, I think it would be clearer to keep the original file and simply deprecate it, while improving the connexion between the two files with other-versions or dedicated templates. In the case of Berthet's photo, for example, it would be a pity to lose the original upload. — Racconish ^💬 20:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 23:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Deleted file listed commons as a source

File:Jack-o'lantern.jpg was referenced on another website, on a 2018 blog post, where it was sourced to Commons. As a result the Commons file was... deleted as a copyvio? Citogenesis :) Please restore. Happy new year! --SJ+ 16:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

SJ: fixed. Apologies and best wishes too. — Racconish ^💬 16:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Deleted Vilniaus_pilys.jpg file had an author as a source and was licensed

Could you please restore deleted https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vilniaus_pilys.jpg ? It was uploaded by an author, who granted rights to use it on Wikipedia. Why have you deleted it? -- Ke an (talk)

Ke an, I did not find on the page any evidence of an OTRS ticket relative to Regina Katkevičienė's permission. — Racconish ^💬 10:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Racconish The source and author who uploaded the photo was Regina Katkevičienė - what's why probably there is no OTRS ticket, since the author uploaded and licensed the photo himself. -- Ke an (talk)

Ke an, as far as I can tell, the file was uploaded by Liutaurasu. — Racconish ^💬 10:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Your "Turning NADAR" (or NADAR Autoportrait tournant)

Hello, Racconish. Before I knew you make the same work, I did this animation : http://perso.numericable.fr/gomars2/doc_p_forum/Anim_nadar4.gif. I stabilized some head position defects. My goal is to put such an animation under the board of 12 original photos in the fr page https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadar. Does it bother you that I publish this prefiguration in the Commons? Until you do better? (Your animation with a slow motion when the head is in front is quite elegant. This could be the best solution (after stabilizing the head)... Best regards, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Bernard de Go Mars, thanks for asking. No bother at all. My personal taste is to avoid what you call stabilization as it removes - for me at least - part of the charm of the old. Let me know if you need help. — Racconish ^💬 11:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. For my taste, or perhaps according to my culture and my age, there is little charm when the image jumps and the animation is not fluid. But it is, of course, a matter of taste... The big problem with the basic image (the 10 photographs) is its lack of resolution ... Friendly, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

It's online!: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadar. Thanks for all ! Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Bernard de Go Mars, il vaudrait mieux utiliser {{PD-retouched-user}}. Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 14:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Merci. J'ai mis un certain temps à comprendre les modifications du fichier des Commons. J'ai indiqué la source "PD-retouched-user". Je constate que ton revolving selfportrait est très utilisé. C'est une bonne chose car je crois que la jeunesse préfère des articles Wikipédia animés plutôt que statiques... En te remerciant, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Bernard de Go Mars, du coup j'ai retouché un peu ma version. Qu'en penses-tu ? Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 20:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Finally, I put a one-second delay when Nadar is in front. Note that for this work I used the free software GifCam that allows many things (and among others, sometimes reduce enormously the weight of the files). Best regards, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Tu me demandes "du coup j'ai retouché un peu ma version. Qu'en penses-tu ? " Oui elle est très bien (c'est une bonne idée de tourner dans l'autre sens. Dès que tu auras fait deux arrêts sur images comme moi, ta version sera meilleure que la mienne (à cause de sa meilleure résolution). mais tu me dis "du coup j'ai retouché un peu ma version". Si tu es "ducoupiste" comme beaucoup de gens en France, c'est que tu es Français ! Me trompé-je ? Amicalement, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Je préfère la vitesse variable aux arrêts sur image. Mais bon, c'est aussi une question de vocabulaire . Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 21:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hé bien, perso, j'ai trouvé très bien le fait que tu accélères les images où Nadar n'est plus de face (ce qui donne un effet de pirouette), c'est pourquoi j'ai fait de même. Perso toujours, je trouve que l'animation continue (sans arrêt sur image) ne permet pas de lire le visage de Nadar et pour moi c'est quand même rédhibitoire. La qualité de tes animations est due au fait que tu es parti de la planche plein format alors que j'ai dû partir de la planche en format réduit. Initialement, je ne voulais que suggérer une telle animation (c'est là qu'on m'a dirigé vers la tienne). En conclusion, mon animation reste meilleure pour l'Afrique (elle ne fait que 100 Ko) ce qui est une qualité, à mon sens, car il ne faut pas oublier les régions mal connectées. Amicalement, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Oui, c'est bien qu'il y ait un choix. Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 21:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, dear Racconish, is it you who had the idea to put my LEGO Steam Machine animation in "the image of the day"? If it's you, I thank you because it gives this animation a good celebrity ... Regards,Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes and you are welcome . — Racconish ^💬 15:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all ! Regards, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Undelete for OTRS ticket

We have got an OTRS permission ticket for these 5 image, some of which you deleted.

• File:RAF_Camora_Bonez_MC_"Palmen_aus_Plastik"_Cover.jpg
• File:RAF_Camora_Bonez_MC_Palmen_aus_Plastik_Cover.jpg
• File:RAF_Camora_und_Bonez_MC_"Palmen_aus_Plastik_2"_Cover.jpg
• File:RAF_Camora_(2018).jpg
• File:RAF_Camora_&_Bonez_MC_(2018).jpg

I need to see them for review before verifying them. Thanks in advance. Ww2censor (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

And a favor, can you also delete the oldest upload to this file page File:Harrison Hall, James Madison University.jpg that has no permission. Only the new image has a permission. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ww2censor:  Done — Racconish ^💬 04:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

File:ارج‌نامهٔ حسن عاطفی.jpg

Hi! I am an OTRS member. Regarding File:ارج‌نامهٔ حسن عاطفی.jpg which you deleted, we have received an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia in which the email's author has given permissions for the photo to be released under CC-BY-SA 4.0 but since I am new to the OTRS processes, I am not sure what the next step is. Can you please advise? Huji (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Huji: I have {{Temporarily undeleted}} the file for you review and {{PermissionOTRS}} or {{CopyvioOTRS}}. Let me know if you need something else. — Racconish ^💬 04:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! But how do we assign {{PermissionOTRS}}? As in, how do we check the originality of the claim we receive from an email to OTRS? Huji (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it's about making sure the photographer gave his permission. @4nn1l2 and Hanooz: can you please help out here? — Racconish ^💬 16:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure. I think we need a written permission letter from the publishing house (سوره تماشا). Something like this but a valid one. Hanooz 17:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean that in local law the photographer is assumed to have transferred his copyright to the publishing house? — Racconish ^💬 17:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

That was a quess. Hanooz

(talk page stalker) Hanooz, do you have a ticket number for this image? I'm an OTRS agent so I had a look around and could not find any ticket with a mention of this file name. The image looks like a book cover with it main feature being a photo, so we need a permission statement from the copyright holder, who may be the photographer or the publisher if they now hold the copyright holder, but you cant assume that. It does not depends on local law but on who is the copyright holder. Either way you need a verification statement we can be happy with. Ww2censor (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Ww2censor I'm not an OTRS agent. User:Huji is dealing with the ticket. Hanooz 21:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

undeletion request

Bonjour M. Racconish, je vous écris pour vous demander si vous pouviez restaurer ce portrait du XVIIIe siècle, de Maria Giovanna Clementi (1692 - 1761)

• File:Gemälde des König Karl Emanuel III von Savoyen.png

--Hemanuem 987 (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hemanuem 987, compte tenu d'un contexte particulier, je vous prie de contacter Ruthven, l'administrateur qui a supprimé ce fichier. Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 05:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Merci Racconish. En fait, il s'agissait d'un autre faux-nez O_o (j'ai pu faire un CU pour le confirmer) --Ruthven (msg) 10:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

undelete request: Mad Studies North East logo online.jpg

Hello Racconish,

I would greatly appreciate advice. I am running a Wikipedia-edit-a-thon and we are creating pages for local Mental Health charities and groups to raise awareness and ease access to support. All the images I have uploaded are ones sent by these charities to use for this purpose and a neutral group will be creating the pages. Do I need to get written permission from each charity? Will an email consent do or do we need a signature? I have tried to include an image of an email here showing that proof but who do I send this to?

Also I noticed larger charity pages have managed to have the logo on Wikipedia like “Mind”. When is “fair use” acceptable?

The edit-a-thon is on this Friday and the following 2. I was hoping to prepare the images ready.

Kind regards --JoCeppy (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

JoCeppy, there is no indication of a Commons compatible license on the source web site and Commons does not accept fair use, as the English Wikipedia does. Your quick solution is to upload it to English Wikipedia with a fair use rationale such as the one you had used here. Otherwise, if you wish to upload it to Commons, e.g. to allow its use on other projects, you need to obtain the explicit release under CC-BY-SA by the copyright owner in two possible ways: either you obtain from them a letter of release such as the exemple at COM:OTRS and then reupload the logo while sending the related email to OTRS and indicating this tranmission as explained on the OTRS page ; or you ask the copyright owner to indicate on a official webpage which can be checked by a license reviewer that this logo is released under such a license. — Racconish ^💬 09:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Racconish , I'm beginning to get somewhere now and appreciate the advise. I have directly sent permissions to OTRS and seeking further license permission from copyright holders. I think we just won't use the logos and avoid "fair use" as much as possible to make the page and image accessible to all. Many thanks --JoCeppy (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Please delete again

This image File:RAF Camora Bonez MC Palmen aus Plastik Cover.jpg that you restored was a duplicate so I'm not verifying it. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Racconish ^💬 09:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Mike-johns.jpg

Salut, Racconish. Could you please review this file's licence? For some reason the Flickrreview bot had a hiccup. Usually I would let this sit in the queue, but I have just undeleted it per request. De728631 (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done up for DR. — Racconish ^💬 14:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@De728631: sorry, forgot to ping you. — Racconish ^💬 14:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem, I'm watching your page. Thank you for raising your doubts. De728631 (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

DR

Hi Racconish,

I have removed the deletion tag and added {{Kept}} on talk page of images that were in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Axanina. Please verify. Thanking you. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 06:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Tiven2240. — Racconish ^💬 08:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Reply to "Deleted content" in User_talk:Etuardu about File:9-a UK reklambildo.svg

Hello,
I would like to reply to the message you left on my talk page about the deletion of File:9-a UK reklambildo.svg. The image is a vectorial version made by me of an artwork from 1913 which is on wikicommons itself.
Your message is very general about what is allowed to be on commons and you recommend twice to check Commons:Licensing before uploading something.
This is what I read in such page:

[...] Wikimedia Commons only accepts media [...] that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work [...]

[...] Many countries use such a copyright term of 70 years [...]

[...] Works published before 1924 [in the U.S.] are in the public domain [...]

These statements, in addiction to the fact that the original artwork was published in commons, have led me to think that uploading my svg was safe, and your message does not explain why this is not true.

Note that I already received a message from User:Patrick_Rogel about the flagging for deletion that was similarly unclear.

I understand very well that you are doing a lot of work to keep wikicommons free from copyright infringiments and I am perfectly fine with the removal of my media if has been decided that it violates some rule, but please send the users informative messages about the specific violation to make them understand what went wrong, assuming that we ideed tried our best at reading and understanding the manuals before publishing. Otherwise, in my opinion, you are just discouraging any kind of contribution, making a user who genunely wanted to share the result of her work with the community feel guilty and improper.

I hope this message is not only a rant from an annoyed contributor (which it is) but also an inspiration to improve communication across wikimedia projects.

Friendly,

--Etuardu (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Etuardu, I have undeleted your file; it would have helped to clarify it is derivative with {{Derived from}} and to use {{PD-user}} to highlight the fact the source is supposed to be PD. Since the source file is up for DR, I shall mention the existence of this derivative on the DR. They should either both be kept or deleted. Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 14:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Pardon?

Did you just delete a day full of work because I used a screenshot from their series?

Jim Stone88 (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Jim Stone88, I guess you refer to File:Kaks kanget br2nditud sisu.jpg. The file had been marked as copyvio and is available elsewhere on the web, e.g. here. A "screenshot of their series" is a derivative work which cannot be uploaded on Commons without the copyright owner's permission and you cannot claim to be the author of the work, as already explained to you here. Please note I have deleted File:Joekaldamargnavenemaa.jpg for the same reason, as it was published here. — Racconish ^💬 15:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Suppression images liées au site Marcel Montreuil

Bonjour, Je ne m'explique pas la suppression brutale des photos sur ce site alors qu'après les notifications au sujet des droits de ces images, j'ai répondu presqu'immédiatement à "permissions-fr" sur les trois fichiers mis en cause ? Qu'en est-il de ces autorisations ? Pourquoi cela s'étend-il aux autres fichiers non remis en cause lors premières notifications ? y compris au fichier du site Suzanne Morel-Montreuil ? Merci pour vos précisions. Ornithologia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ornithologia (talk • contribs) 12:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Bonjour Ornithologia. Les fichiers suivants ne comportaient aucune indication d'envoi de permission du détenteur des droits d'auteur à OTRS : File:Marcel Montreuil Noyers-sur-Serein Porte de Tonnerre huile sur toile.jpg, File:Montreuil Arles-sur-Tech huile sur toile.jpg, File:Marcel Montreuil 1966 .jpg, File:Marcel Montreuil et Raymond Triboulet, ministre des Anciens combattants en 1962 ©LDL.jpg et File:Suzanne Morel ca1940 © LDL.jpg. Pour quels fichiers exactement avez-vous envoyé une permission à OTRS ? Avez-vous un numéro de ticket ? Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 12:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Bonsoir, Merci pour votre réponse rapide. Voici les trois fichiers (uniquement "ciblés" par les notifications visibles) pour lesquelles j'ai renvoyé la demande d'une licence : CC BY-SA 4.0. - File:Marcel Montreuil 1966 .jpg - File:Marcel Montreuil et Raymond Triboulet, ministre des Anciens combattants en 1962 ©LDL.jpg - File:Marcel Montreuil Noyers-sur-Serein Porte de Tonnerre huile sur toile.jpg . Quant à la question du "ticket", je suis néophyte pour les dépôts d'image et je ne sais pas de quoi il s'agit. Merci pour vos conseils. Ornithologia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ornithologia (talk • contribs) 17:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Ornithologia vous devez avoir reçu un mail de réponse automatique d'OTRS avec un numéro de référence du type [Ticket#xxx]. Le "numéro de ticket" est un numéro unique attribué par OTRS à chaque demande et qui permet de la retrouver. Pourriez-vous m'indiquer pour chacun des trois fichiers en question le numéro de ticket correspondant ? Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 18:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Oui effectivement ! Voici : - [Ticket#2019011610008247].File:Marcel Montreuil 1966 .jpg - [Ticket#2019011610008274].File:Marcel Montreuil et Raymond Triboulet, ministre des Anciens combattants en 1962 ©LDL.jpg - [Ticket#2019011610008292].File:Marcel Montreuil Noyers-sur-Serein Porte de Tonnerre huile sur toile.jpg . Merci pour le suivi. O. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ornithologia (talk • contribs) 21:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC) Je viens de voir qu'il faut ajouter la signature plus "officielle". Je l'ajoute ici pour voir si j'y arrive ! Ornithologia (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Ornithologia, je vais rétablir ces 3 images avec les numéros de ticket. Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 22:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Bonjour Racconish, et merci beaucoup pour le message précédent. Du coup, j'ai déposé l'autorisation pour les deux autres fichiers mentionnés. Après vérification de votre part, pouvez-vous rétablir de même ? - File:Montreuil Arles-sur-Tech huile sur toile.jpg. [Ticket#2019012510047278] - File:Suzanne Morel ca1940 © LDL.jpg. [Ticket#2019012510047331]. Un grand merci pour votre suivi. Cordialement,Ornithologia (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ornithologia:  Done. — Racconish ^💬 20:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Reply to "Removing Carmine Tramunti and Tommy Lucchese pictures

This is why I dont donate to shitty ass Wikipedia. You removed two pictures from this site (which isn't monetized) that are literally posted all over the internet because you are afraid they aren't licensed correctly?

How the fuck is a 50 year old picture of a dead guy walking out of public court that is literally posted all over the internet something you need to license?

Fuck outta here shitapedia. Dipshits. The fucking pictures are literally everywhere. Is the AP going to sue you for damages if you use it in a non-monetized site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siihb (talk • contribs) 19:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Must be a lawyer, cares more about fucking licensing than actual fucking content

you fuckers have ruined the internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siihb (talk • contribs) 19:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Please close and remove tag, by Patrick Rogel

Bonjour Rocconish, Please close the DR and remove the tagging, as Patrick Rogel has withdrawn the DR, it seems like he made a mistake. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Una_%C4%90or%C4%91evi%C4%87 Please notify me and the uploader speedily about the edits. Merci bien, --Janwikifoto (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Una Đorđević and Janwikifoto:  Done; @Patrick Rogel: you could have closed it yourself. — Racconish ^💬 14:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Mera Dill.jpg

Hi Racconish. You deleted this file (at least one with the same name) back on December 21, 2018, but it's been reuploaded by another editor (my guess is that it's same editor new account). It still has the same issue as before and I think OTRS should verify authorship. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: deleted. Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 12:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you certain that these CC-BY files cannot be uploaded to commons?

See https://go.intelluslearning.com/attribution

I am referring to files such as File:MUPHYS1 12 Angular Momentum (Module Overview).pdf and File:MUPHYS1 18 Angular Momentum (Module Overview).pdf

(forgot to sign)

Looking back at my uploads, I clearly made at least one mistake, but will wait before attempting to upload more of these pdf files. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AVillage_pump%2FCopyright&type=revision&diff=336240881&oldid=336221978

The problem was that I attempted to load multiple files and got messed up when I tried to do the summaries of each one. It took me several tries and something clearly went wrong. Yours truly, Guy vandegrift (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Guy vandegrift, I can only apologize, this was clearly a mistake of mine. Let me know if you have other concerns with your uploads. Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 17:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Please close and remove tagging in error by Patrick Rogel

Bonjour Racconish, Please close and remove tagging in error by Patrick Rogel, for https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cristiano_Tom%C3%A1s for pictures https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mariana_Bandhold_-_The_Voice_Portugal_Gala.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mariana_Bandhold_-_iHeart_Radio.jpg. The Instagram pictures clarly says (verbatim copy) "This photo is free to share and adapt with the requirement of attribution under a Creative Commons license (CC BY S.A. 20)" in the picture caption. Maybe Patrick Rogel had no time to read the license... If the pictures are deleted - will it be "vandalism"? Merci bien pour votre attention immediat, --Janwikifoto (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cristiano Tomás, Janwikifoto, and Patrick Rogel: these 2 files are problematic as they are licensed by the sitter and not the author. — Racconish ^💬 05:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Desole, I do not understand " licensed by the sitter". What do you mean by "Sitter"? As I see it, the license is correct and clear, but maybe not verifiable in the manner commons would ideally like. However, it does look like the use really knows what they are doing. But explain the problem, SITTER, please. I can not give an opinion, unless I understand Sitter. --Janwikifoto (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The sitter is the person who is portrayed, not the author of the portray. A mere sitter's licence is unsufficient, not to say license laundering, and a proper authorization by the photographer needs to be given to OTRS. — Racconish ^💬 10:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hrm, maybe I understand what you mean, but I am not sure. If I re-phrase what you wrote, to what I understand, can you tell me if it is so? "The pictures are licensed by the subject/object/person in the picture, not really the actual photographer". Is this more or less what you mean? Hrm, Sitter, in this context, I do not fully understand. Do you mean more or less "Sitter: a person who sits for a portrait or a bust. Usually commissioned by the sitters themselves". That is the closest I found on the net. Janwikifoto (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the person who is portrayed is not the author and has no right to license the work. The photographer's permission is needed. — Racconish ^💬 17:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Great! Now I understand what you say! Well, I did write "maybe not verifiable in the ideal manner". But, what is needed now? Since to me, it looks like it might be much work to find the photographer. Not my upload, so I am not going to spend time on finding the photographer. However, I am very interested in finding out what you think is necessary. Please list all possible alternatives. Thanks, Janwikifoto (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

If I would be the uploader and very keen to have such a picture to illustrate an article, I would contact the portrayed artist, explain the problem and ask for help to obtain due permission. In any case, we cannot keep these files for the time being. — Racconish ^💬 17:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand the deletion motivation. But, you did not comment on my theory: Ronhjones wrote> "It's very unlikely that the subject took these pictures themself". My comment (no reply) was: "Do you mean "it is unlikely that the subject was holding the camera"? If so, I undestand what you write. But, would it not be likely that the artist was shows the picture (made either by a fan, or a friend-photographer), and the artist then asked "can I use it", and the photographer said "Yes, quote licens CC...". Or, do you mean the artist was trawling the net, found the pictures, and on purpose snatched the pictures?". So, what do you think about my theory, is it possible? --Janwikifoto (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Theoretically yes, here practically no. — Racconish ^💬 17:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Trainor image

I'm curious: how did you come to the conclusion that the image of Trainor you deleted was unfree when the image was a crop and redo of an image of Trainor that has been replaced in the article (and was there for years), and is considered to be a free image? Here's a clue: the original image is a government image, in the public domain, and absolutely is free. [1] Want to restore it now and put it back in the article? Seems to me you should. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Winkelvi, you are right, but please understand the deletion was based on the Flickr license, which admittedly is wrong. I shall undelete the file. — Racconish ^💬 17:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletions

Hi Thanks a lot for the message you left on my wall, yes all the photos are now share a like licensed please check them. thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Saleh (talk • contribs) 18:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@M.Saleh: I have now undeleted and license reviewed your files. — Racconish ^💬 19:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Medal created by de:Anton Scharff (1845–1903)

Hello Racconish, could you please double-check your deletion of File:Leo Simon Reinisch Ehrenmedaille Vorderseite.JPG and of File:Leo Reinisch Ehrenmedaille Rückseite 2.jpg? As I wrote on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gerfried Pongratz, to me File:Leo Reinisch Ehrenmedaille Vorderseite 2.jpg (which appears to be identical to File:Leo Simon Reinisch Ehrenmedaille Vorderseite.JPG) looked all good when I examined it on 22 August: This is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional object. The uploader = photographer thus rightfully claims authorship of the photograph, has added a good CC license and has specified the artist who created the depicted medal, de:Anton Scharff (1845–1903), who died more than 100 years ago. Unless there is a valid ground for deletion of these two or three files, could you please restore these files? Thank you in advance! --UV (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

UV, there is a copyright issue on the photographed 3D object. — Racconish ^💬 07:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

UV, I finally understood you mean the medal was created by Scharff whose work is now in the public domain. Kindly explain how we know this and I will undelete the related files. — Racconish ^💬 09:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Says so right on the medal. Undelete it and I'll add an image annotation. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@UV and Alexis Jazz:  Done. Please add this annotation. — Racconish ^💬 10:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done [2] - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you! Greetings, --UV (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Reply to "Deleted content" in User_talk:Rowisy about File:Sylvia González Bolívar - live.jpg

Hallo Racconish, my uploaded picture was deleted. I don't unterstand why because it's my work and no rights are violated. I would really appreciated it, if you could help me to understand. Thank you and kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowisy (talk • contribs) 06:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rowisy: these photos seem to all come from the web site of Sylvia González Bolívar. — Racconish ^💬 08:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Salvatore Esposito's photo was deleted

Hi, you deleted the Salvatore Esposito's photo that I uploaded: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salvatore_esposito.jpg saying: Missing essential information such as license, permission or source but the source had been indicated, informed and confirmed by the photographer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senzafiltro86 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Senzafiltro86: the file was missing a license and, more importantly evidence of permission by the photographer. See COM:OTRS. — Racconish ^💬 13:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Racconish: the author garanted permission for anyone and sent the mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senzafiltro86 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

This was not showing. Please tell me for each concerned file the related OTRS ticket number and the license. Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 14:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Exif Copyright OK?

Bonjour, some time ago you (correctly, in my opinion) closed a DR with the comment "Keep per EXIF", where the exif says "Copyright holder www.ideengruen.de | dipl.-ing. markus pichlmaier". It as https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Henryk-Wichmann.jpg sorry to say I did not see the exif... My question, can you give any COM: rule, regulation, general copyright knowledge, that says that only the exif copyright is enough for Commons.wikimedia? (I personally think it is ok, but I would like to see anyalysis/support). Merci pour aucune info --Janwikifoto (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Not really, but see Commons:Exif. — Racconish ^💬 04:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The Commons-Exif did not give much info. If I re-phrase my thoughts, can you tell me if I am "right"?

For the Henryk-Wichmann picture, the Exif "Copyright holder ..ideengrunen" was enough to support that the creator ("author") on purpose assigned the specified copyright.

Do I understand you correct (more or less)? (Note again, I am not complaining, I just need to understand better). By the way, how long have you been Admin in Commons? --Janwikifoto (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no set rule about exif, context matters and COM:AGF plays a role. My election is here. — Racconish ^💬 15:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I asked how long, because it looks like you really think before you delete. That is good, positive. I thought you had been Sysop longer. But maybe it because you are "active mediator"...? I can guess what it is, but please tell me more. If it is what I think, maybe we need it in Sweden. And for sure in Commons. --Janwikifoto (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Mediation is the process of dispute resolution described on en:WP:M. It is generally focused on content dispute, but may in some cases address personal conflicts. — Racconish ^💬 15:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Syro Malabar Church Official Flag

I'd be interested in knowing where that flag is in use (outside of Wikipedia, of course). Please.

You have, of course, seen the denial that it is in official use, sent a week earlier by an IP contributor living in the country where the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church is based. Theodoxa (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

See COM:INUSE. It is not up to us here to make editorial judgements. — Racconish ^💬 19:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. By the Wikimedia Commons definition of "in use", it is enough for the inventor of an "official flag" that is nowhere used officially to put it on at least one Wikipedia for Wikimedia Commons to judge it acceptable. I find it rather too daunting to try to get it removed, one by one, from the many Wikipedias on which it has been placed. Theodoxa (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, this should first be resolved on the related wikis. Should the file be removed there, then we couls acknowledge here it is not in use. — Racconish ^💬 10:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Again as I said, I find that too daunting. There are so many of them. I'll let it be. I repeat my thanks. Theodoxa (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Undo deletion request

Hi Racconish, we've received an OTRS email to release the following files, which were deleted by you yesterday. So I kindly request you to undo the deletion. Once you do, I'll add the OTRS permission details. The files are:

• File:YVS Devadasu 02.png
• File:YVS Devadasu 01.tif
• File:Bommarillu Vari Logo.jpg
• File:Seethaiah Poster.jpg
• File:Rey film poster (2).jpg
• File:Rey film poster (1).jpg
• File:YVS Laahiri Laahiri Laahiri Lo 02.jpg
• File:Nippu Poster.jpg
• File:YVS@Work.jpg

Thanks, KCVelaga (talk · mail) 06:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

KCVelaga:  Done. — Racconish ^💬 07:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks You. I've added the OTRS details. KCVelaga (talk · mail) 04:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker

Bonjour, Pourquoi cela ne va pas ? Cordialement, Yann (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Yann: je suis navré, c'est une erreur involontaire de ma part. Merci d'avoir corrigé. Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 12:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Deleted content

Hello Racconish, I noticed you deleted "File:SDSU Fraternity Row.png" citing it being a non-free image and wanted to clarify. I see that Wikimedia Commons only allows free-use images and understand that policy. However, I know Wikipedia itself does allow certain non-free images that match criteria as long as they are not registered with Commons. Can I upload a non-free image to Wikipedia without it getting involved in Commons and being flagged for deletion? Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azure1233 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Azure1233: see nevertheless en:WP:OVERUSE. — Racconish ^💬 11:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

MOTD - caption July 2017

I would change the caption myself, but the page is protected: It is July 2017, not July 1017 (that would have been the Battle of Hastings or something like that). --C.Suthorn (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Racconish ^💬 14:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

All photo deletions in the wikipedia page "24 heures de l'INSA de Lyon"

Hello Racconish,

You have deleted all images that we have added in the page because of a "possible copyright violation" due to watermark. Let me let you know that we are the association organizing the "24 heures de l'INSA" festival and these images have been taken by our official photographer partner named "Graines d'images" whose the watermark is used. That partener is an association too and they let us the right to use all their pictures free. We can send you a authorization from their president if you want, to prove it. Please, could you put back our image on the page.

Thanks,

John Ratignier, Vice president of 24 heures de l'INSA association. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.227.195.231 (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The fact the copyright owner lets you use these images for free does not necessarily imply he is willing to license them under CC-BY-SA, which includes any commercial use. His explicit permission for each image must be sent to COM:OTRS. — Racconish ^💬 14:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Mauriac ? I don't think so

You just uploaded a photo that you considered to be of François Mauriac in 1936. I don't think so. I strongly believe (not to say that I'm sure) that it is André Maurois ! which is a look alike... I don't know if you did the confusion, or Harcourt does, but it is urgent to clarify this point ! See this on google... Sincerely/Cordialement--LPLT (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

LPLT, the description of the file, i.e. Mauriac and not Maurois, matches the description at source (RMN) and here. — Racconish ^💬 17:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen, but I maintained that this is an error. See discusion on the file page.--LPLT (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Image Deletion of High School Logo During 7-day Grace Period

Hello Racconish!

I uploaded an image of a local high school's current logo on their page in order to replace the previous, obsolete image. I chose to upload without a license, allowing me a seven-day grace period to ensure its legal use and ultimately procure a proper license/permission, which I have since obtained.

However, this file was deleted not even twelve hours after uploading, which constitutes as a "speedy deletion." I've checked and double checked all of the guidelines for this process, and believe I did everything correct, which should warrant the grace period. The reason you gave was section F5, which again allows the grace period. Can you please cite a valid reason why this image qualified for speedy deletion? Thanks!

File:Sandradayoconnorhighschoollogo.png

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Relevanteditor (talk • contribs) 19:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Relevanteditor: I have undeleted the file. Please go ahead and add a reference to an OTRS ticket or a web page showing due license and correct the author field accordingly. — Racconish ^💬 20:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Relevanteditor: this seems to be an exact duplicate of File:Sandra Day O'Connor High School (Arizona) Logo.png. Which one do you want to keep ? — Racconish ^💬 20:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

My Father's Dragon

When I uploaded the book cover, I had to find copyright records for 1976-77, as the book was published in 1948.

Project Gutenberg says that "extensive research" did not find any evidence that the book's copyright was renewed.

The University of Pennsylvania library also says "copyright not renewed".

On the catalog of copyright entries (1976-77), I could not find proof that My Father's copyright was renewed (1976 or 1977), but I did find renewals for its sequels. Elmer and the Dragon (pub. 1950, renewed 1977 R674409). And The Dragons of Blueland (pub. 1951, renewed 1979 RE0000027781), which I found on copyright.gov. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Merci ! :3

Merci pour la retouche sur File:Corrida - St Sébastien - Espagne - 1902 retouched.tif ! ;) Lyokoï (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding "Onésime et le drame de famille (1914).webm"

Hi! Was this file transcoded from a DVD rip? If so, would you be so kind as to send me a rip of the original video, preferably unmuxed? There appears to be a problem with the way it's interlaced, and I'm confident that I can fix it given the source material. I can help you with this if need be. I look forward to hearing back.

Luigi970p 💬Talk📜Contributions 19:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Luigi970p, let me know what ffmpeg parameters you suggest and I would give them a try, I think it would be the easiest. — Racconish ^💬 20:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Be patient though, I have to make a telecine pattern for this. Luigi970p 💬Talk📜Contributions 02:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Luigi970p, I have deinterlaced it with ffmepg yadif. — Racconish ^💬 19:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

That should work. Try yadif=1 with -c:v vp9 at the bitrate of your choosing, Luigi970p 💬Talk📜Contributions 14:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Luigi970p, done, thanks. — Racconish ^💬 20:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Yuka Ebihara (Odetta), Jezioro łabędzie, Polski Balet Narodowy, choreografia Krzysztof Pastor wg Lwa Iwanowa, fot. Ewa Krasucka TW-ON.jpg

Dear Racconish, I am afraid there was some missunderstanding. The permission form Teatr Wielki - Opera Narodowa, for using this files was send to: permissions-pl@wikimedia.org, and the permission was registered under [Ticket#2018101210005483]. I hope it would be enought for you to bring back the files. Best regards, --Bebronka (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)bebronka

Hi I confirm that such agreement has been sent to OTRS and it is OK. It does not contain exact names of the files, but general descriptions what they contain and names of authors. This is an effect of formal GLAM-style cooperation with Polish National Ballet. The agreement was sent before upload, therefore I asked to contact me as soon as the files are uploaded, but it didn't happen, so I had not added ticket templates. It apply to all the files mentioned in Bebronka discussion page, starting from this: User_talk:Bebronka#File_tagging_File:Yuka_Ebihara_(Odetta),_Jezioro_łabędzie,_Polski_Balet_Narodowy,_choreografia_Krzysztof_Pastor_wg_Lwa_Iwanowa,_fot._Ewa_Krasucka_TW-ON.jpg. Ticket:2018101210005483. Polimerek (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Bebronka, Polimerek, these files are now undeleted. — Racconish ^💬 18:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you :-) OTRS ticket templates added this time :-) Polimerek (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Please undelete

Deear Racconish, kindly restore deleted photo of Philippine National Artist used in my bcl wiki/English articles, namely that of Atang de la Rama. I have an email permission clearly stating all photos in the Official Website of the National Commision on Culture and the Arts (NCAA) of the Philippines are in the Public Domain and may be freely used in Wikipedia. I also have [Ticket#2019033010002436] Confirmation of receipt (Re: release of Lucrecia [...]) from OTRS. Do I need to send a copy of the email coming from Mr. Rene Napenas of NCCA Public Affairs and Information Office? Ringer (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ringer: which file are you talking about ? — Racconish ^💬 20:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Obedience (1965).webm

File:Obedience (1965).webm 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!

Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyright

Mi scusi voi avete eliminato tutti i file che io avevo caricato nonostante io avessi i diritti per pubblicarle. Siccome voi mi avete fatto un sacco di storie io ho fatto scrivere alle persone che mi hanno fornito le immagini a wikicommons come testimonianza del fatto che avessi i copyright. La pregherei gentilmente di reinserire tutte le immagini che mi avete eliminato. Cordiali saluti Giovannicaciotta Giovannicaciotta (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Giovannicaciotta, vedi qui come confermare l'autorizzazione. Cordialmente, — Racconish ^💬 10:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Le ripeto che la famiglia Pontremoli ha rilasciato una mail dove dichiaravano che io avevo i diritti per pubblicare qualunque immagine sui Pontremoli. Cordialmente Giovannicaciotta

Kindly give me the OTRS ticket number for each of these files. — Racconish ^💬 10:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Ticket#: 2019042410004499this is the ticket for all file about pontremoli's family.

This is the ticket for Terragni and Covema's file Ticket#2019041810008167.Giovannicaciotta (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Giovannicaciotta, I have undeleted the files concerning the Pontremeoli family and added the OTRS ticket information which was missing. You still need to correct the author's name. I have not deleted any other file you uploaded. — Racconish ^💬 11:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Racconish I have a problem because Someone has deleted the files about Marco Terragni and Covema that I have uploaded because. Last week the person that has gived to me the file wrote to Wikipedia. This is the ticketTicket#2019041810008167. Probably the person that delated the files has not seen the mail. Can you do something? Your sincerely Giovannicaciotta (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Giovannicaciotta: you need to indicate yourself on the files an authorization has been sent to OTRS, using {{subst:OP}}.

@Ellin Beltz: in order to provide the ticket reference, I added OTRS received instead of OTRS pending for the files I had undeleted, which is probably why you deleted on April 26 File:Foto di Mario Pontremoli.jpg, File:Luigi Scalfaro e Roberto Pontremoli.jpg, File:Quadro Roberto Pontremoli 2 jpg.jpg, File:Quadro di Roberto Pontremoli jpg.jpg, File:Roberto Pontremoli jpg.jpg after I had undeleted ; would you mind undeleting them or letting me undelete them again ? Also, I notice you deleted File:Nomina mario pontremoli.jpg, File:Marco Terragni (1).jpg, File:Coextrusion Covema.jpg, File:Covema Twin Screw Extruders Silver Twin.jpg, File:Palazzo Covema coperto da tessuto di Raffia Covema Palace covered with Raffia cloth Palacio Covema cubierto de tela de Raffia.jpg, File:Estrusore Covema.jpg, File:Covema K1979 Dusseldorf.jpg. Please take a look at the above exchange and tickets information. Do you agree they can be undeleted pending further examination by an OTRS volunteer ? Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 06:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course you can undelete them to work on them for OTRS! Your volunteers do a ton of work and I do not doubt your efforts! Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: thank you for your sweet message. There is a little misunderstanding: I am not an OTRS agent, I had undeleted those files I had myself deleted based on the uploader's explanation above, adding the OTRS ticket reference to help further review by an OTRS agent, after which you deleted them again. There are two ways to go here, the files can be temporarily undeleted until OTRS examination or deleted for now and undeleted after OTRS review. I had chosen the first, you seem to have selected the second. This is why I wished to coordinate with you. My best, — Racconish ^💬 06:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi again!! I have undeleted all of them with reason "OTRS pending Ticket#201904181000816". I am also not an OTRS volunteer! So please keep an eye on these files & the ticket acceptance. Thank you for explaining, I am sorry I didn't realize what you were up to! Best wishes, Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ellin Beltz . — Racconish ^💬 05:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me what I have to do for the images?...How I can delete the warning of OTRS ticket? Giovannicaciotta (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Giovannicaciotta, what file(s) are you talking about? — Racconish ^💬 19:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Deleted Content File:Smileyfacepromo.webp

Hi! I am creating an article for the Smiley Face Killers TV series and am trying to add the logo for the show to the article. However, it seems you have deleted it for a violation of fair use. This is completely understandable and I am wondering if you would know how to go about adding the picture correctly. I'd appreciate the help! I am doing this article as part of my English class for school. Heres a link to my sandbox of the edit if you would like to look at it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hunter2714/sandbox Thanks, hope to hear back!Hunter2714 (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hunter2714, fair use is not accepted on Commons but is accepted on the English Wikipedia. You should upload a fair use image there. — Racconish ^💬 17:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		You are the real defender! Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for repairing of my errors! I wish to give you this award, since you are the real defender of the Wiki :) --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew Krizhanovsky. Please trust I am sorry I had to nominate for deletions two of your proposed MOTDs and appreciate your attitude. Cheers, — Racconish ^💬 07:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

File:El Tiempo (Bogotá) Junio 25 de 1935.jpg

Got a question for you. This Colombian newspaper from 1935, would it be considered a collective work and thus {{PD-Colombia}} or would it fall under the copyright of w:es:Eduardo Santos who died in 1974? Abzeronow (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Abzeronow, in the absence of any signed contribution, I think {{PD-Colombia}} applies here. — Racconish ^💬 07:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Evinisite

I have done everything I've been instructed, I filled out the template you sent me, but you keep deleting my material. I don't know how ese to convince you that all the material we have uploaded belongs to us, to Evini Films. --Evinisite (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Evinisite: I don't know what template you mean. You need to provide to OTRS the authorization of the copyright owner. — Racconish ^💬 08:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Karel Pečený

He died in 1965. https://www.csfd.cz/tvurce/86673-karel-peceny/ https://books.google.com/books?id=SUNxDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=karel+pe%C4%8Den%C3%BD+theresienstadt+1965&source=bl&ots=T1Vij4gp6T&sig=ACfU3U3jCz8hYDwDS1hrDMowZZavxVg4yg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjfqN_Q8pPiAhWSY98KHTZtDEkQ6AEwE3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=karel%20pe%C4%8Den%C3%BD%20theresienstadt%201965&f=false Abzeronow (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Abzeronow . — Racconish ^💬 16:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of DWs by Владислав Молдован

Hello.
Do you know Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. What is your concern ? — Racconish ^💬 08:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

These four files were already tagged as F3 with specific source link. How did you delete them? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you gave a link to images found elsewhere (what I stressed), to which the uploader had simply added a caption (what you stressed), the key point being it is not the uploader's own work as claimed. I understand your nuance, but I don't think it matters here. Should you be of another opinion, I am willing to undelete these files and re-delete them as DW. But is it really worth it? — Racconish ^💬 08:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Not really that important, but you IMHO had to read Special:Diff/349877559 before pushing the buttons. Listen to feedback next time, please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this last comment is very fair : I speedy deleted these four files further to your comment and ping on that talk page. You may disagree on how I deleted them, but please note I did it as a follow up to your request. — Racconish ^💬 08:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

According to Special:Log the files were deleted 60 minutes after my user_talk comment – a sufficient duration of time to notice a new posting. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly what I am saying: I saw your post, followed up on it and also made reference to it at the DR. Not sure what is the misunderstanding here... but I suggest we should move on with no hard feelings. — Racconish ^💬 10:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Deleted PD files: User_talk:Matinee71

Hi,

Regarding the deleted files as stated in User_talk:Matinee71. It seems that all of them were retrieved from this page: [3] and it is original work of the creator of this page, Sam Killermann, who announced that all his works are "uncopyrighted by his will" - which practically means that he released them as public domain. See: [4]. He also puts in all his works clear statement about "uncopyrighting". I think it is pretty much clear statement of his will for which we can use Template:PD-author and undelete all these files. Maybe uploader made some mistakes in description of these files, but all these files seems to be free. Polimerek (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Polimerek, I have undeleted the files from Genderbread. Those from Eige seem to be covered by a standard copyright. @Matinee71: FYI. Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 06:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Matinee71: Such uploads (from external sources) need a license review. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 06:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you :-) Polimerek (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Andraos.jpg deletion

Hello Racconish, thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia and all your help. I just realized that you deleted the pic that I uploaded "Andrew Andraos.jpg". I am able to get the license for it through OTRS. Is there any way you can help me request the undeletion for it and advise me on the best way to make the licensing process smooth?

Thank you again, I appreciate your help

Best regards, Haywon123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haywon123 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Haywon123, I suggest you do the following : Contact the copyright owner and ask for his agreement to license the file under a Commons compatible license. The simplest thing would be for him to change the license on FlickR as explained here. Then you can just re-upload the file, stating the license. Otherwise, you need to use the form here and send a mail to OTRS. In any case, it is simpler for you to make a new upload. — Racconish ^💬 18:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

PS: I just realize you have already opened a ticket. Then you have nothing to do. Just wait . 18:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Great, thank you for your help. The pic was changed to Public Domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haywon123 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Haywon123, this does not make sense. A Commons compatible license such as CC-BY-SA would be better. — Racconish ^💬 19:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Racconish, the picture was changed to CC-BY-SA. Is there anything I should do to undelete the file? - Thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haywon123 (talk • contribs)

As you were told at UDR, please wait for OTRS to process your ticket. Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 07:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

eliminado de archivos ya hablado con otro usuario

Hola @Racconish: te agradezco el aviso, ya había hablado con el usuario JuTa en su página de discusión ayer domingo 19 de mayo sobre ello, la web ponía que la licencia no podía se verificada, ya le comenté que era mi primera colaboración, estuvimos viendo la información disponibe y lo que puede aportar para verificarlo está en su página de discusión, al final no se puede aportar información que avale o desmienta el uso, existe un video con parte de este contenido que está en la filmoteca nacional y que se puede usar previo pago de canon, por tanto considero que no es posible su uso. Así que en conclusión no es problema si no es válido, lo comprendo y ya le comenté a JuTa que si no cumple los requisitos para permanecer pues es lógico que deba ser borrado, siento las molestias causadas, lo que no entiendo es porqué estando ya avisada me volveis a avisar de lo mismo, puesto que ya quedó solucionado ayer, en espera del borrado por parte del bibliotecario correpondiente, creo que yo no puedo hacerlo aún según la política de W. Muchas gracias por tu comprensión y ayda, un saludo --Ytha67 (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ytha67, these uploads on Bertha Trujillo had no license and the University of Virginia library says they have not been able to assess the copyright. Hence, I see no reason why they can be uploaded here. — Racconish ^💬 18:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Racconish: eso te he comentado, que ya está hablado ayer 19 de Mayo para ser borradas, por favor elimina las imágenes, no es necesario repetir toda la conversación de ayer, no he pedido que se mantengan.

I told you that, it was already spoken for deletion on May 19, please delete image, thanks Ytha67 (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Ytha67, I am afraid there is a misunderstanding. Which image are you asking me to delete? — Racconish ^💬 19:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

hola @Racconish: , no te he pedido nada. Tú me has puesto un aviso de borrado repetido que ya he hablado ayer con JuTa cuando me advirtió sobre las imágenes: Bertha Trujillo 1,2 y 3, hoy tú me vuelves a advertir otra vez sobre lo mismo. Soy yo quien no entiende nada de lo que tú deseas. No hablo inglés, así que es posible que no nos entendámonos bien. Si tu aviso es sobre las imágenes de Bertha Trujillo 1,2 y 3 pueden ser borradas no tengo nada que objetar, ya está aclarado con JuTa, y también me explicó lo que no sabía y Me parece correcto. Espero que quede aclarado ahora. ¿Por qué advertirme tantas veces? He aceptado lo que me han dicho la primera vez sin problema. Además ya han sido borrados, no sé qué problema hay entonces. Un saludo Ytha67 (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Ytha67, Disculpas por las notificaciones. Todo está claro ahora. — Racconish ^💬 21:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

deleted picture that was already approved.. why? File:Cube_-_3D_Printed_Lamp_-_Jiri_Evenhuis_2005.jpg

Hi Racconish, You have deleted several images of which I am the sole copyright holder. Work that I have made and photographed myself. The below files / photos had already been approved but still you deleted them without warning. please explain. Regards, Jiri

Cube_-_3D_Printed_Lamp_-_Jiri_Evenhuis_2005.jpg Paris - 3D Printed Stilettos for Dyson Showroom Exhibition - Jiri Evenhuis 2005 Ring Fabric Sample Displayed on a Coco de Mer - Jiri Evenhuis 2003 — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 116.86.33.104 (talk)

Trudelies, you were warned on May 13, there was no evidence you, as the uploader, were the same person as Jiri Evenhuis, nor of the fact the pictures were taken by Jiri Evenhuis. In such a situation, an OTRS release by the copyright owner, covering both the photograph and the photographed work, is needed. What do you mean when you say these pictures "had already been approved"? — Racconish ^💬 07:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Raconnish, Thanks for your reply. Please be informed that post May 13 Jiri Evenhuis personally send an OTRS concerning all files which have now been deleted. Please help me understand what else needs to be done to prove Jiri Evenhuis is the copywright owner. --Trudelies (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Trudelies, what date was the mail sent and what is the OTRS ticket number on their response? — Racconish ^💬 07:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Roconnish, The date was May 16th but the only ticket number I could find is the one below that was done at the same time. [Ticket#2019051610001399] release of Venus - 3D Printed Wall Sconce - Jiri Evenhuis 2005.jpg --Trudelies (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Then you should send an authorization to OTRS for the deleted files. Once it will be processed, the files will be undeleted. — Racconish ^💬 13:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

file: lubrification moteur jpg

Hi Racconish

This file is already deleted so I can not comment too much about its history. I think I remember that I only edited the file that was already uploaded in Commons, by someone else. Did you contact the original uploader?. Regards --Basquetteur (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. — Racconish ^💬 09:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Dioptra-principe.jpg

Hi Racconish!

Can you undelete the above file for a brief period so that I can import it to Wikiversity for fair use? Thank you in advance for your kind consideration! --Marshallsumter (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Marshallsumter  Done. — Racconish ^💬 07:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Transfer process complete! Thank you! --Marshallsumter (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome. — Racconish ^💬 14:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Sincèrement...

Les suppressions massives et sans discussion (speedy delete) de toutes les photos prises dans le cadre du projet WikiChallenge Ecoles d'Afrique, ça me fait de la peine. [5]. La majorité, sinon toutes, les photos prises dans le cadre de ce projet ne sont clairement pas des violations de droits d'auteur. Ce sont des photos prises par Georges et leur enseignants par des gamins d'écoles non connectées à internet, pour illustrer des articles publiés sur Vikidia (Georges était l'animateur du projet au Cameroun) https://fr.vikidia.org/wiki/Projet:WikiChallenge_Ecoles_d%27Afrique

La totalité des contenus créés via le WikiChallenge sont sous cc by sa. Oui, il est tout à fait possible que Georges n'ait pas mentionné correctement la source, la licence etc. Mais .... suppression sans même de discussion ?!?

Tu va me dire... eh oui, il faudrait que ces gamins non connectés à internet et généralement scolarisés en zone rurale se débrouillent pour aller se créer un compte quelque part en ville pour pouvoir téléverser le petit dessin qu'ils ont fait eux-même à la main pour illustrer les rites de circoncision. Moi je te répondrais... merci de ton aide précieuse qui garantit que le projet reste bien européen-américain. Anthere (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Anthere, Geugeor, ces fichiers, sous licence CC-BY-SA, avaient pour seules précisions : "source=Collection Ecole publique de Malang Groupe 3 au Cameroun" et "auteur=Ecole publique de Malang Groupe 3", aucune réponse n'ayant été apportée au message d'EugeneZelenko le 18 mai [6]. Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 07:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Panorama du boulevard Saint-Martin.jpg

Copyright status: File:Panorama du boulevard Saint-Martin.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Panorama du boulevard Saint-Martin.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Racconish ^💬 21:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Deleted photos: File:Saytek Logo.png

Thank you for deleting my arts! It's OK because it's useless! Yeah.. (I'm not disappointed at you)

But, I don't know what is my mistake in those not-my-art photos that I upload, like Saytek Logo.png.. Maybe incomplete reference? Wrong credit use? Tell me please? I'm sorry to bother you... And sorry if I'm too lazy to read the "Licensing" guides or something..

- IDK 1312 IDK 1312 (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

IDK 1312, I deleted these files not because I deemed them "useless" but because an authorization of the artist was needed. It may very well be that you are this artist in real life, but here you are an anonymous contributor and such authorization is needed. Concerning the logo of the school, it is the same issue: the authorization of the copyright owner is also needed. See here. Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 14:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

- Hi Racconish, thanks for your reply. I've already do the OTRS or something. Then what to do next?

Back to arts, yeah I know it's not "useless", but I decided to delete these arts before you delete it bacause I know that I'm only an anonymous artist and I'm only using it by myself, so thanks anyway! :) IDK 1312 (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

IDK 1312, you have nothing else to do. Just wait for OTRS answer. Good luck, — Racconish ^💬 11:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Deleted image Martin_Warner_Cannes_2016.jpg

You deleted this image, but the subject Martin Warner owns the copyright for the photograph. Please can you re-instate. Here is what he sent me:

I hereby affirm that I am Martin Warner, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Martin_Warner_Cannes_2016.jpg and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Martin Warner Copyright holder 20 May 2019

Please send to OTRS the authorization of the copyright owner (not the sitter). Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 09:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Deleted image Devyani_Saltzman.jpg

Hi, you just deleted an image of Devyani Saltzman that I took and hold the copyright too. I realize it's on Flickr as well under a different license, but I republished it here for use on her page. Kaparica (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Kaparica, in order to get the file undeleted, you need to send Katrina Afonso's authorization to OTRS. — Racconish ^💬 06:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

deleted picture File:-2 PETERS ROSE MAI 19 3.jpg

Hi Racconish, You have deleted an image of which Mr. Marco Rose meanwhile has given permission for the german, english and france page of: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Walter_Peters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Walter_Peters https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Walter_Peters

CC BY-SA 4.0 2019-05-11 

"Eine Genehmigung des Urhebers bzw. Rechteinhabers zur Nutzung dieser Datei wurde am 20. Mai 2019 per E-Mail an permissions-de@wikimedia.org (OTRS-Ticketnummer 2019050410002099)OTRS-Bearbeiter: --Krd 18:42, 20. Mai 2019 (CEST) geschickt". Regards, Gelsomina

Gelsomina~dewiki, I will then undelete the file. — Racconish ^💬 11:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrait de -2 PETERS ROSE MAI 19 3.jpg

Bonjour Racconish, l’image de M. Marco Rose "-2 PETERS ROSE MAI 19 3.jp" a été supprimier en: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Walter_Peters CC BY-SA 4.0 Image:-2 PETERS ROSE MAI 19 3.jpg édifié: 2019-05-11 Une autorisation du titulaire de l’auteur ou du droit d’auteur à utiliser (Marco Rose)ce fichier a été envoyée le 26. Mai 2019, 14:39 à é-Mail: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (Ticket #2019051310003893). Salutations, Gelsomina

 Done (you could have done it yourself ).— Racconish ^💬 11:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

PS: can you please double check? You gave me two different ticket numbers for the same file! 11:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrait du lien Charles_compagnon.jpg

Bonjour, vous avez supprimé ce fichier alors que l'auteur Nathalie Mohadjer a donné sa permission et envoyé un mail type comme demandé. Merci de bien vouloir me dire pourquoi cette image a t-elle été supprimée.

Bonjour Mmarion75, aucune indication relative à la permission sur File:Charles compagnon.jpg, alors que le problème vous a été signalé le 21 mai. Avez-vous un numéro et une date de ticket OTRS ? Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 10:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Je ne retrouve pas le numéro de tickets mais voici la permission envoyée par la photographe. j'espère que cela vus conviendra

Je confirme par la présente être l'auteur et le titulaire unique et exclusif de l’œuvre

https://www.lhotellerie-restauration.fr/journal/restauration/2015-02/reussite-charles-compagnon-je-me-suis-lance-sans-savoir-ce-qui-se-passerait-apres.htm

Je donne mon autorisation pour publier cette œuvre sous la licence CC BY-SA 4.0

Je comprends qu'en faisant cela je permets à quiconque d'utiliser mon œuvre dans un but commercial, et de la modifier dans la mesure des exigences imposées par la licence.

Je suis conscient de toujours jouir des droits extra-patrimoniaux sur mon œuvre, et garder le droit d'être cité pour celle-ci selon les termes de la licence retenue. Les modifications que d'autres pourront faire ne me seront pas attribuées.

Je suis conscient qu'une licence libre concerne seulement les droits patrimoniaux de l'auteur, et je garde la capacité d'agir envers quiconque n'emploierait pas ce travail d'une manière autorisée, ou dans la violation des droits de la personne, des restrictions de marque déposée, etc.

Je comprends que je ne peux pas retirer cette licence, et que l'image est susceptible d'être conservée de manière permanente par n'importe quel projet de la fondation Wikimedia.

27. Mai 2019

Nathalie Mohadjer 53 - 55, Boulevard de la Villette 75010 Paris

Mmarion75, il faut envoyer cette autorisation à OTRS en rappelant le nom du fichier pour qu'il puisse être restauré. Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 11:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Lead Candidates for the Commission presidency (47058512794).jpg

I notice you recently deleted File:Lead Candidates for the Commission presidency (47058512794).jpg as lacking source information. The source posted on the photo was the European Parliament's official Flickr account. An editor tagged the file as missing source information because the image included portraits of individual candidates and thought the description should include a separate source for each one. It seems to me that this is an error, and that multiple source information is only required when the Wikimedian draws from multiple sources and creates a composite image - not, as in this case, where the image was compiled by single entity that releases the entire work at once under a compatible source. This would be different if we had reason to believe the original source did not properly attribute their component images, but I haven't heard any reason to doubt that the European Parliament would have their own photos of their own members.

I attempted to discuss this with the tagging user on my talk page, but could find no instructions within Commons on how to formally contest the deletion - whether I should post on the talk page, simply remove the notice, or something else. At the very least I feel that this is absolutely not a clear-cut case that warrants speedy deletion, and that the image should have had a deletion discussion.

On the whole though, I'm pretty confident that the image was properly licensed and attributed. In summary 1) every part of the image came from the listed source, there was no transformation done to the image as originally posted, 2) the listed source had a compatible license, and 3) There is no reason to believe the source did not have permission to post the image under the license they did. I request that you restore the image. MarginalCost (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

MarginalCost, I still think it is a derivative work, but I give you a community discussion is more appropriate. — Racconish ^💬 13:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds fair. In the future, what is the best way to contest a speedy deletion? MarginalCost (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Nominate it yourself for deletion . — Racconish ^💬 14:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

You need to help Patrick Rogel make the correct tagging

Dear Racconish, once again Patrick Rogel is wasting my time. He "accidentally" tagged a picture for deletion, then removed the notice from my talk page (so I would not see it and think all was fine), but Rogel did NOT remove the tagging - in order to make sure the file was deleted, without giving me any way of objecting. That is a misuse of tagging. It would be appropriate to block Patrick Rogel from editing, for at least a week. I have boldly remove the tagging by Rogel, on File:Kenza Zouiten 2c651 9590.jpg so that there is no further problems. Please note that it costs me money, to tidy up after Patrick Rogel, to answer his notices, and so on. Does anybody know Patrick Rogel personally? Or is it a puppet? If Patrick Rogel is real, how do you or anyone else know that? I am sorry to trouble you with this, but there are too many wannabe-admins out there, who do not think, and do nor care about the problems they cause. Best Regards from Jan / --Janwikifoto (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have had other exchanges with Patrick Rogel and no, I don't think it is appropriate to speculate here on his identity. Patrick Rogel, please do me a favor: kindly acknowledge Janwikifoto's message and give him the apologies/reassurance he is asking for, so that we can all move on. Please note I have answered the inappropriate part and kindly focus on the tagging. Thank you very much in advance, — Racconish ^💬 11:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Janwikifo hasn't let me any message but I can reply him right here if you wish. Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Patrick Rogel, please do. — Racconish ^💬 15:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Janwikifoto: . Following Racconish's demand please find a reply to your message above. I've indeed tagged a file by Ariam with {{No permission since|month=June|day=18|year=2019}} because there was no permission at http://bloggers.in2pic.com/. The script I use notifies automatically the original uploader. As soon as I found out that it was you (and since we are not in speaking terms) I erased it as well as the notification on your talk page. Sorry for the "trouyble" and the extra costs it caused to you. Kind regards, Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Patrick Rogel. Now Janwikifoto,kindly acknowledge the fact Patrick Rogel intended to avoid bothering you and let's all move on . — Racconish ^💬 15:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Merci bien, yes, I just logged in to check the status. Yes, all is ok, merci pour le mediation (corrcet language ??). --Janwikifoto (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Side note: Copyright is a really tricky legal stuff, it does not work with automated scripts. You need to think. You need to be sharp. You need experience. Something an automated system can never ever have. --Janwikifoto (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Side note 2: I think a system with know established white-listed picture uploaders, known identity, who we may trust, is the system forward. It might be the only way to allow uploaders to work in peace, to have a system with trust. And in the end, using somebody elses pictures, is a system of trust. Did you get the right license? Will the copyright owner sue you anyway, just to be a bad ass? If you get sued, even if the license really is correct, you personally will have to take the time and hire legal experts, to get the case through courts. So, can you trust the one giving you a license? (Rethoritcal question, no reply needed). If we can get personally identified people, like the Wikimedia chapters uploading projects pictures, whitelisted, then they do not have to swear at M. Rogel and his likes. Maybe such a system would even give Patrick Rogel an opportunity to be a real net positive contributor..? It is just an idea. But like now, it is chaos. Now it creates personal tension. Maybe if we could get rid of some personal aggressions, it would be better? --Janwikifoto (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Janwikifoto, on the other hand, experienced uploaders know how to upload files in a way which will not raise suspicion or they will anticipate and resolve problems in advance. This is a collaborative project where contributors are free to decide how they contribute and "net positive" contributors are not only those who upload many pictures, but also those who categorize them or simply patrol new edits to help clean out the vast amount of trash. Many times, signaling a problem in a standardized format is the best way to resolve it quickly and efficiently. If you want Patrick Rogel to respect your contributions, please show him respect too, for example by avoiding to consider him as a robot, thanking him for signaling you problems, or for his efforts to fix relational issues with you, or by explaining him simply situations he might not have understood in order to build mutual understanding. I am sure a little effort on these matters will be amply rewarded. Cheers for now and happy contributing, — Racconish ^💬 18:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean anything bad really about Patrick Rogel. He is only an example, that I know well, of how the "system" at Commons work. It is this system that should change. I can explain in detail, over the phone, why some copyright notices are not "compliant", but still should be considered ok. If you feel like having the time... drop me an email and I will send the phone number. Cheer to Racconish, Best Wishes to Patrick Rogel, and I agree to happy contributing. --Janwikifoto (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Ana Lena Rivera.jpg

And also:

• File:Κήποι του Πασά .jpg

This file has not been uploaded completely due to a software problem (see phab:T190988). Please re-upload it by clicking on "Upload a new version of this file" link below the section titled "File history". Then, please remove the {{Incomplete upload}} tag from the file description page. At least 30 days after the addition of the tag, volunteers will assess the quality of image and may crop it if being in use or deemed useful. Otherwise, the image may be deleted summarily (CSD#F7).

4nn1l2 (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

4nn1l2, already cropped. — Racconish ^💬 17:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

File:A Corny Concerto (1) (cropped 2).png

About this file, File:A Corny Concerto is of public domain, I´m not understand why delete this archive. ¿Or is the cropped? Thank you for attention. --Villalaso (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Villalaso, it is a screenshot from a copyrighted character, taken from a copyrighted cartoon. — Racconish ^💬 15:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1924 and 1963 and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed. Unless its author has been dead for the required period, it is copyrighted in the countries or areas that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works, such as Canada (50 pma), Mainland China (50 pma, not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany (70 pma), Mexico (100 pma), Switzerland (70 pma), and other countries with individual treaties. See Commons:Hirtle chart for further explanation. This is in the information of the archive. --Villalaso (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

You would have to prove this. The copyright of this cartoon has been transfered on April 28, 2003 under V3492 D216-298 P1-891 [7]. — Racconish ^💬 15:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the copyrighted files

Your effort of identifying these infringements are greatly appreciated.

However it would be even better if you could spare some effort on placing notices on their corresponding Wikipedia page. I originally uploaded them according to these false PD claims.

Thank you.

Tomskyhaha (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Tomskyhaha, this is a collaborative project and you can do it yourself. Let's take a practical example. The sources given in The Dover Boys are obviously self-published, hence unreliable. — Racconish ^💬 16:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Racconish: I think I'm done with American animation, therefore I would no longer participate in this area.Tomskyhaha (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Tomskyhaha, I understand your frustration but we all learn from our mistakes . — Racconish ^💬 16:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Racconish:Thanks a lot for the understanding! But actually, after enjoying these for years, the cartoons become increasingly sadistic for me, besides those unethical approaches of humor. I intended this uploading effort as my last tribute to the creators, uncredited workers on these projects and The Golden Age of American Animation. Then have no part of it in the future. My intention has thus far accomplished. Hopefully the WMF could survive into the 2050s and therefore can witness either undeletion or reuploading. Tomskyhaha (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Tomskyhaha, trust me, there are still tons of PD cartoons and films awaiting to be uploaded and the hunt is fun. — Racconish ^💬 18:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Case of the Missing Hare

Salut, Racconish. Je ne sais pas trop d'où tu sors précisément la liste de films supposés encore sous copyright (?).

J'ai suivi ça (faut rectifier si c'est faux). J'ai remarqué que tu as marqué comme invalide tous un tas de films de la Warner.

Mais si le dessin animé nommé ci-dessus dans le titre est encore sous copyright, alors que fait-il là-bas ? Ces histoires de films baladeurs et les hésitations sur Commons (quelques unes de mes images de cartoons finalement revenues quasiment sous la même forme après avoir été effacées, et des films complets sur le site actuellement) finissent par m'exaspérer, à vrai dire.

Cordialement, --Warp3 (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC).

Warp3, Internet Archive n'est pas une source fiable, aucun argument n'y est au demeurant avancé, et le document auquel je me suis référé est un transfert de copyright disponible sur le site du US Copyright Office. En revanche, s'il existe sur Commons une discussion communautaire dont il résulte qu'en dépit de ce transfert, il existe un consensus local pour considérer que ces fichiers sont libres de droit, je te prie de me l'indiquer. Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 08:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Je te prie de m'indiquer en quoi consiste exactement ce que tu appelles "transfert de copyright" et en quoi cela modifierait (éventuellement ?) le non-renouvellement/invalidité de copyrights entre 1924 et 1963. Les lois US sont différentes ? (et je n'arrive pas à accéder facilement à la page "cocatlog..." qui sert de motif.) --Warp3 (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC).

Voir ici. Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 05:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Images de dessins animés

Salut Racconish,

Je t'avoue que je suis un peu perdu (et un peu dubitatif) au sujet de demandes de suppression de plusieurs images extraites de dessins animés considérés domaine public. A priori, le simple lien fourni pour chaque demande me semble plutôt faible comme raison de suppression. En tout cas, ça manque d'explication pour que le lecteur de la demande de supppression puisse comprendre. Mais je ne connais pas le sujet. Alors, avant de me rendre sur les pages de discussion et pour éviter que j'y écrive n'importe quoi, je me demande si tu pourrais m'expliquer davantage de quoi il retourne et le raisonnement complet qui te fait partir d'un de ces liens et te fait arriver à la conclusion de supprimer un fichier. Ci-dessous, je mentionne ce que je peux comprendre de la chose pour l'instant. Je compte sur toi pour corriger ou compléter les aspects qui m'échappent.

Comme exemple, prenons le fichier File:CaseOfTheMissingHare Title.png, proposé à la suppression dans Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Case of the Missing Hare. C'est l'image de la carte titre extraite du film Case of the Missing Hare.

Si je comprends, le raisonnement habituel sur Commons est le suivant. On considère que le film, sorti en 1942, est dans le domaine public parce que, à la suite d'une série d'acquisitions entre diverses sociétés dans les années 1950, les droits de copyright sur ce film (et sur d'autres films de la même collection sortis avant 1948 ou 1950) sont passés successivement de Warner Bros à Associated Artists Productions, puis enfin à United Artists Televison, cette dernière société s'étant trouvée finalement être la détentrice du copyright vers 1970, lors de la période où un renouvellement du copyright aurait été nécessaire pour éviter que le copyright se termine, mais elle n'a pas procédé à un renouvellement. Donc le film serait entré dans domaine public à ce moment. D'où le bandeau PD-US-not renewed sur Commons. On considère aussi que le personnage de Bugs Bunny est sous copyright. Donc, on considère que les images du film qui montrent Bugs Bunny ne devraient pas être versées sur Commons, mais que, puisque le film est dans le domaine public, les images du film qui ne montrent pas Bugs Bunny peuvent être versées sur Commons.

Apparemment, tu souhaites contester cette position habituelle de Commons sur la base du lien que tu fournis. Toujours si je comprends, il s'agit d'une liste en rapport avec une dévolution (ou transfert) de copyright faite vers 2003 entre deux entités corporatives du groupe Warner. Là où je ne suis plus, c'est le sens que tu donnes au contenu de cette liste et de cette dévolution et quel rapport elles pourraient avoir avec le copyright du film. Comment une entente privée entre deux parties en 2003 pourrait faire revivre un copyright qui n'existe plus ?

Plus précisément, je ne vois rien qui permette de supposer que, par cette entente, une entité Warner prétendrait avoir un copyright sur le film ou sur l'entièreté du film. Il semble plus plausible d'interpréter la situation de façon compatible avec ce qui est connu par ailleurs (la position habituelle de Commons mentionnée plus haut). Si on tient compte de ce contexte, il semblerait probable qu'une entente de ce type aurait à peu près le sens suivant : «dans la mesure où la société 1 peut avoir des copyrights dans des éléments de cette liste, alors ces copyrights sont tranférés à la société 2». Je ne pense pas que l'entente prétende que Warner aurait des copyrights sur la totalité du contenu de la totalité des éléments de la liste. Seulement que les copyrights qui existent sont tranférés. En pratique, dans le cas du film Case of the Missing Hare, cela pourrait par exemple signifier que les copyrights qui existent sur le personnage de Bugs Bunny, dans la mesure où il apparaît dans le film, sont transférés, sans que cela nie le fait que le reste du film est dans le domaine public. Bref, le sens de l'entente serait exactement le même que ce qui est compris dans la position habituelle de Commons.

Au final, la seule chose qui importe c'est si les faits retenus dans la position habituelle de Commons sont exacts. S'il y a certitude que le copyright n'a pas été renouvelé, ça dispose de la question. -- Asclepias (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Bonjour Asclepias, il ne s'agit en aucun cas de contester une position consensuelle sur Commons. J'ai bien vu que l'argument du non-renouvellement du copyright était invoqué, mais j'ai également constaté qu'il était invoqué systématiquement et sans aucune justification de recherche pour toute une série de dessins animés de la même origine, à commencer par File:Thugs with Dirty Mugs.webm. Je n'ai vu pour le moment aucune argumentation fondée sur une recherche précise dans les renouvellements de copyright. Par ailleurs, comme l'indique l'US Copyright Office, une recherche de renouvellement peut donner de mauvais résultats et n'est le plus souvent pas conclusive à elle seule [8], ce qui n'est pas sans rapport avec la prohibition des travaux inédits. Au cas particulier, le document auquel je me suis référé est le copyright assignment V3492 D133-215 P1-891 entre Time Warner Entertainment Company, LP et Warner Communications, Inc. intitulé The abominable snow rabbit & 30,007 other titles, publié sur le site du US Copyright Office, dans lequel ce dessin animé figure. Ce document me semble constituer une présomption de titularité qui justifie l'application du principe de précaution. Il est par ailleurs mentionné dans un avis donné par l'Université de Stanford au Copyright Office [9] comme un exemple de recherche de copyright et dans cette source secondairecomme une preuve de copyright. Par ailleurs, il existe d'autres documents datant de 1982 à 2003 relatifs au copyright de ce film sur le site de l'US Copyright Office [10], en particulier celui-ci qui concerne l'utilisation, entre autres, du copyright de ce film en garantie d'un prêt consenti par Bank of America. Il me semble raisonnable d'estimer que les juristes d'une banque n'auraient pas demandé des garanties sur des actifs inexistants. Donc non, je n'ai pas une certitude, mais il existe une raison sérieuse, jusqu'à preuve du contraire, de mettre en œuvre le principe de précaution et je ne vois aucune raison de considérer, comme tu sembles le faire, que la mention de ce titre dans ces différents transferts ne signifie rien quant à la subsistance de droits sur ce film. Cela étant, je suis d'accord avec toi sur le fait que le problème est accru pour les images du dessin animé représentant un personnage sous copyright. Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 10:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Help

@Racconish: Please request your help for you to detain the user Alexis Jazz, he accuses me of being a sock, what is obvious that is false, I do not know him very well, but he insists that I am a sock, please stop him.--Xoaw (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Xoaw I have no idea what this is all about, but you may consider a RCU against yourself to clear the air. — Racconish ^💬 17:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Racconish: How to apply an RCU ?, the situation goes like this, I explain, I send my request to be an image reviewer, but Alexis Jazz responded and accused me without proof of being a sock.--Xoaw (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Racconish: Here is my request to be a license reviewer, Alexis Jazz answered by accusing me without proof, please, could I be kind and resolve this conflict? He wants me to be blocked, please do not allow it. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:License_review/requests --Xoaw (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Xoaw, see COM:RCU. — Racconish ^💬 18:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Xoaw: RCU against yourself, not against another user.--Roy17 (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Racconish: And another favor, could you approve my application to be a license reviewer?--Xoaw (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't honestly do that. — Racconish ^💬 18:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17: Sorry I'm a novice, how do I do an RCU--Xoaw (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

RCU won't work, at least not for any of the known accounts. They are more than 3 months old. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the tag

Hi! I am sorry for my initial tagging of no source. I had tried looking in the linked account's photostream but could not find it. I also tried reverse search but many results turned up, so I jumped to the conclusion that the actual source could not be found. However, I tried reverse search just now and noticed a quote of the photographer. I followed that to the photographer's flickr and finally found it in his photostream. 20px--Roy17 (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Roy17 no problem. — Racconish ^💬 17:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy

Bonjour, As-tu une idée du copyright de ce film? Commons:Deletion requests/File:Driving Around New York City - 1928.webm Est-ce que cet extrait est la bande-annonce, qui aurait été publiée auparavant sans notice ? Par avance, merci. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yann, il ne s'agit pas de la bande-annonce mais d'extraits du film, dont le copyright a été renouvelé en 1956 [11]. Je n'ai pas l'impression que la bande-annonce originale ait survécu. Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 18:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Le temps efface la mémoire

Comme annoncé, j'ai réintroduis mon image en floutant le fond pour rendre le "panorama" neutre : Le_temps_efface_la_mémoire_2.jpg. Si ce fichier pose de nouveau un problème quelconque, .... je suis toujours ouvert au débat. Salutations. - C'est moi (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Paul.schrepfer, quel est l'intérêt encyclopédique d'une telle image ? Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 06:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Son titre est explicite : Charles Péguy est un auteur français de premier plan, certes un peu passé de "mode" bien que souvent cité lors des enterrements. La preuve ? Peggy ! Et c'est quoi Peggy : la culture américaine qui prend le dessus sur nos tradition ! .... la philo, c'était il y a 15 jours, je suis encore chaud. D'une manière générale, tout est encyclopédique. Mais tu n'as pas répondu à ma question : as-tu quelque chose à reprocher à cette image qui pourrait être plus encyclopédique si le fond n'était pas flouté car cela permet de situer la région ou se situe ce panneau et qui n'est pas sans lien avec Charles Péguy. Il est clair que lorsque l'on censure partiellement une image, son contenu est moins fort, c'est habituellement le but de la censure : on commente à par faire baisser l'intensité, puis on se questionne sur l'intérêt résiduel. - C'est moi (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

La page que tu indiques précise : "Peut être utilisé dans un but éducatif". Ne penses-tu pas que mon explication, ci-dessus, est tout à fait raccord sur ce point ? Ne penses-tu pas que le fait qu'un auteur de premier plan soit surclassé dans la mémoire collective par une patineuse est un marqueur de notre époque, ......... pour moi c'est indiscutable, et je pense que l'image que tu as fait supprimer, sous un mauvais prétexte de liberté de panorama, pouvait compter, modestement, parmi les images ordinaires les plus chargées de sens de Commons. La nouvelle est plus faible, mais reste tout à fait pertinente. - C'est moi (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Dans ce cas, je te suggère de recadrer sur le haut en supprimant la carte. Si toutefois tu veux conserver l'image, il vaut mieux la flouter plutôt que la déformer. Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 06:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Video lectures (in Russian) from ecologists

Point of view of a biologist on an urban park (in Russian)

Dear Racconish! I found good videos related to ecology at YouTube. I asked authors to change the license from standard YouTube license to Creative Commons BY. They changed the licenses. Yesterday I uploaded the first lecture about city park. Please, could you check the correctness of the description?

Also could you check and approve {{License review}}?

One more question. Does exist a tool to upload video from YouTube to Commons? Now I am using the video2commons tool. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Krizhanovsky, I would rather say: Point of view of a biologist on an urban park. I reviewed your file. Video2commons is a good tool. Do you have problems using it? — Racconish ^💬 07:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reviewing and for correct translation!

Video2commons is a very good tool. I am using it heavily last days. But somedays it crashes 💥 :) And the parsing of video (even with 16 threads) is much more slow than the same uploading and transcoding at YouTube. Thus, I suppose that computer servers at YouTube are much more power that at Wikimedia :( --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you delete a few files for me if you have the time?

Hi, Racconish! Hope you are doing extremely well! I enjoyed watching the video on your user page. Can you please delete the following files for me (I have tagged all of them because I have encountered problems):

• File:Limpopo Premier Chupu Stanley Mathabatha.jpg (File is of low-quality. I want to make way for better images of Mr Mathabatha. I have contacted somebody in the Limpopo provincial government who will supply with images of him.)
• File:ANC Provincial Chairperson Zamani Saul (cropped).jpg & File:ANC Provincial Chairperson Zamani Saul.jpg (Flickr account I downloaded the photo from, actually screenshotted it off another platform. I have once again contacted the Northern Cape provincial government for photos. They will supply me with photos.)

I hope you can find the time to help me. It will greatly be appreciated. ;) Lefcentreright (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Racconish ^💬 05:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello there! Please close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minister Naledi Pandor delivering speech, June 2015 (cropped).jpg as delete if you have the time. I have asked many admins for help. None of them helped me. A user named Alexis Jazz said that it is in fact COM:NOTCOPYVIO, because " © is not a problem nor incompatible with the free license." Even Mr Rogel agreed, yet some admins didn't. I have tried contacting the original photographer but to no success. Since nobody wants to help me resolve this, please delete it. It will greatly be appreciated. Thank you in advance. Lefcentreright (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Racconish ^💬 04:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Lumière company archives

Bonjour, Que penses-tu des droits sur les films de la société Lumière ? J'ai vu récemment que plusieurs caméramans ont tourné des films. Peut-on considérer que l'auteur est anonyme s'il n'est pas mentionné ? S'il faut consider qu'Auguste Lumière (mort en 1954) est auteur ou co-auteur, on ne peut importer ces films avant 2025. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• File:High Street in Marseille, France, Apr 11, 1896.webm
• File:Frederick Street in Berlin, 1896.webm
• File:A Trip Through Paris, France, Late 1890s.webm

Yann, réponse courte : cela dépend des opérateurs [12]. Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 10:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Super ! J'ai donc supprimé le premier, et restauré le dernier. Merci. Yann (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Je me demande aussi s'il faut garder le son (ajouté après coup). Au départ, cela me semblait une bonne idée, puis j'ai maintenant des doutes. Ou faire 2 versions ? Cordialement, Yann (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• File:Visual Tour of Ireland, April-May 1902.webm
• File:Visual Tour of Ireland, April-May 1902 (with added sound).webm

Yann, outre le problème de droit d'auteur, je ne vois pas ce qui justifierait qu'on le garde. Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 13:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Un droit d'auteur sur ces bruitages ? Yann (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

A mon avis, oui. Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 13:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, j'ai demandé sur COM:VPC. Y a-t-il un moyen de supprimer le son sans supprimer le fichier et le réimporter ? Cordialement, Yann (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Yann, oui, c'est facile et rapide avec ffmpeg: ffmpeg -i foo.webm -vcodec copy -an foo2.webm. Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 15:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Deleted picture

Hi Racconish, I saw that you deleted some pictures developed by my studentes, such as "Formação da ligação suprafacial e antarafacial.jpg". They made the pictures by themselves. How can they add these pictures without problem? Thanks. Roboliboni (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.132.106.81 (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Roboliboni, File:Formação da ligação suprafacial e antarafacial.jpg had no license. Is it the same license as File:Formação da ligação suprafacial e antarafacial.png ? — Racconish ^💬 17:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Racconish Yes, Ricardo made all pictures that he uploaded himself. Roboliboni (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Roboliboni  Done — Racconish ^💬 18:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Racconish Thank you! -- Roboliboni (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Photos by Gijsbert Hanekroot.

There are two photos from this website that I want to post on Wikimedia: this photo and this photo. How can I use them without violating copyright laws? CHICHI7YT (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

CHICHI7YT, you need the photographer's written consent to license them under a CC-BY-SA license to upload them on Commons. — Racconish ^💬 04:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Racconish, I emailed the photographer and he allowed me to use the photos on Wikipedia. Do I have to show the messages as proof that he allowed me to use them? CHICHI7YT (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

CHICHI7YT, you should follow the procedure indicated here. — Racconish ^💬 06:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag

Hi, Racconish, could you please clarify, complete this page Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag, with some specifics for France? Or let me know. Question arose with this file [13], (artist, deceased 1960). Thanks.--DDupard (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

DDupard voir ici pour la signature, sans préjudice de l'éventuelle originalité du fond (il faudrait vérifier si ce jugement a été modifié en appel). Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 18:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks Racconish, albeit somewhat strange when thinking about signature forgery in general--DDupard (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Contrary Photos

Hello.I have a list of images that violate our policies, can you delete them or suggest deleting them? ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Please refer to the commitments you took at COM:ANU and the procedure indicated in the related proposition you have accepted. Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 16:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Joint à lèvre-genres.jpg supprimé

Salut Racconish,

J'ai remarqué que tu avais supprimé ce fichier avec la justification "Insufficient or doubtful author or license; OTRS validation required". Est-ce que tu aurais plus de détails sur la raison ? Qu'est-ce qui t'a fait penser qu'il n’avait pas été créé par @Nerijp:  ? The RedBurn (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

La source de l’œuvre originale n'était pas indiquée, dans le contexte de nombreux autres téléversements problématiques. Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 06:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Betty Boop copyright discussion resurrection

Hi, I've resurrected a very old deletion discussion here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Betty_Boop_copyright_discussion_resurrection 84user (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@84user: after re-reading carefully all Fleischer/Avela decisions, I would support a new DR. — Racconish ^💬 14:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Trois robes Lepape 1913.png

File:Trois robes Lepape 1913.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!

Mutter Erde (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, — Racconish ^💬 14:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Steamboat Bill, Jr.

There is question about the license for this file at en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Steamboat Bill, Jr.. Please comment. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

File renaming

Hello again Racconish, sorry to bother you again, (you are the only French speaking sysop I know here), I made a really big mistake on the date here: [14], it is not 1932 but 1934. Could you please help rename the file. Thanks a mil.--DDupard (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

DDupard, j'ai fait le renommage, mais il y a un problème. La mention de la BNF n'est pas suffisante pour Commons, la BNF supposant par défaut que tout le contenu d'un périodique est une oeuvre collective, ce qui ne s'applique en tout cas pas à une publicité. Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 18:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks Racconish, Bnf indicates: "Rights : public domain Identifier : ark:/12148/bpt6k65410922Source : Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Littérature et art, FOL-V-5554 (BIS)Relationship". I'll double check.--DDupard (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Je t'ai déjà répondu. Il y a de nombreux cas où cette mention, seulement liée à la date de publication du périodique, a été jugée insuffisante pour établir que l'oeuvre était tombée dans le domaine public. Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 20:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

That was not a question, I'll double check what supersedes what.--DDupard (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zampoña tubos.jpg

Hi Racconish. You marked the file as "kept" in this edit, but failed to close the DN. Please do so. Thanks. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

P199  Done — Racconish ^💬 22:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

Hi, I see you have made a suggestion directly to the two parties who are the subjects of a current vote at ANU. If they both accept mediation, this does not automatically supersede the on-going community vote. You would need to address this via community discussion, effectively having a majority of the community agreeing to close the current vote in preference to a mediation outcome.

This is an observation for your consideration, so I have neither linked the parties nor notified anyone else. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course. Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 10:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"as I have some experience in similar matters and if you are both willing, I can try to help you work out a way of resolving your issues."

You are brave. I have some experience with de-escalation myself. But this, I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. And not just because I'm kind of involved. This isn't just about Yann and Jcb, either. You should include me in those talks as well, because Jcb attacked me. And Guanaco, because Jcb attacked Guanaco as well. Oh, and Magog the Ogre obviously, because Jcb attacked Magog as well. And Natuur12 said "by blocking only Yann you are rewarding Jcb's bad behavior", better include Natuur12 as well. That's why mediation would be so insanely difficult in this case. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I would not touch anything with a ten foot pole: I'm too clumsy . — Racconish ^💬 18:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

And where is the permission?

Hi!

• File:480 009 Holló IC.jpg
• File:480 002 Csornán.jpg‎
• File:470 007 Kiskunfélegyházán.jpg‎

These photos are from Facebook and Instagram. Where is the permission of the photographer? --Regasterios (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Regasterios, these files were either kept at DR or uneleted at UDR. I think a speedy deletion is therefore not appropriate. Please consider a proper DR. Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 17:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

OK. --Regasterios (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

A small request

Can you please license-review this image? I suspect that Indian Navy might relocate it’s source after sometime; maybe a few weeks, a month or year— A normal review process might not find the image on the stated source.( BTW, I copied your signature style. )Regards, — Vaibhavafro ^💬 18:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Racconish ^💬 19:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Racconish: Thanks, but I think you have to do it in the manner it has been done in this image.-— Vaibhavafro ^💬 19:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sorry, I had not reviewed these for a while. — Racconish ^💬 19:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Closures on AN/U

You just closed a lot of discussions on AN/U with {{Atop}} and {{Abottom}}. This is fairly unusual as most discussions are just closed with {{Done}} or a similar template. Personally, I prefer the less unobtrusive closures visually, except when closing a discussion is required to avoid beating a dead horse after a decision has been made. Also, I think closing the discussions will now actually delay archiving for another 7 days. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Srittau: fine, I won't do it any more then. — Racconish ^💬 10:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

fr:Rod Taylor

Hi Racconish, could you check the history of the above page? the bottom portion (Bibliographie) seems weird. Thanks. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done See [15]. — Racconish ^💬 11:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Driftroute der Polarstern.png

Hey, bonjour! tu as clôturé la nomination mais l'image n'est pas effacée... Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: merci ! Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 15:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

File:WLANL - mystic mabel - Parfumfles, ca 1400.jpg

You didn't just nominate a 600 year old bottle for deletion because of copyright issues, right? Multichill (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Multichill: I wouldn't dare (with my glasses on). — Racconish ^💬 21:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyrights sur la page de Jean-Luc Maréchal

Bonjour,

J'ai relevé vos retours sur des questions de droit d'utilisation sur la page de Jean-Luc Maréchal ( https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Jean-Luc_Maréchal ).

J'ai corrigé les droits liées aux monnaies en France, qui bénéficient d'un droit d'utilisation spécifique.

Je me renseigne sur les médailles (qui dispose des droits, sachant que nous pouvons disposer de ce que donne le graveur - mais ce n'est pas certain que ceci suffise -> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M%C3%A9daille_IMA.jpg notamment

Concernant la plaquette de la récompense remise au gagnant, quelle peut être la permission : la personne ayant reçu la récompense met à disposition ce document - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ICDC_004.jpg

Merci pour votre aide ! --MathieuMa (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

J'ai lancé une discussion de suppression pour les photos de pièce. Les droits sur la plaquette n'appartiennent certainement pas à M. Maréchal. Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 07:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Media of the day

Hello Racconish!
I saw that you created today's MOTD page. Since I found a media file that I think is worth becoming a media of the day I wanted to ask you if there is a special page for nominations or if I can just add them to the list. --D-Kuru (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@D-Kuru: , just follow the instructions at {{Editnotices/Group/Template:Motd}}. — Racconish ^💬 11:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Racconish: I got to that page through research and I already have all templates filled in for my file. I just did not save the pages yet. What I meant was that it seems that there is no system for nomination, no votes, no one who approves or declines the media files. So unlike QI, VI or FP there is no group decision needed to make a media file the media of the day. Is that correct? --D-Kuru (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. — Racconish ^💬 13:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Featured video UserBox

Hi Racconish,

If you wish you can use the new userbox for FV which shows

This user has uploaded featured media to Wikimedia Commons.

. -- Eatcha (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Eatcha: thanks — Racconish ^💬 09:40, 15 October 2019 (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:Vin de pays 05.jpg

And also:

• File:Vin de pays d'Aigues.JPG

Yours sincerely, Fæ (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Behind the Door (1919).webm

File:Behind the Door (1919).webm 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!

SilentRobert3 (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Tagging of old video uploads

Hi Racconish, I noticed you tagged some files with {{No source}} like for example File:Krijg ik jodiumtabletten.webm which was uploaded by Vera in 2017. Why did are you tagging files like these? https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/copyright/ clearly states cc0 and you can see in one of the online archives, the file was actually there. Multichill (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Multichill I tagged as {{No source}} because the page indicated returned a 404 error. The link you provided did not allow me to check the video. Any suggestion ? On the other hand, if you are confident it is OK, please feel free to review it yourself. Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 19:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Self-reviewing is not allowed per COM:LR. But I see no need. The archived page clearly shows there was a video with that title and subject. The actual video can be seen right here on Commons. COM:PRP doesn't say we must be suspicious of users inserting unfree content into free videos before uploading. This is part of why I made my proposal, but it isn't doing well. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It would not be a self review as the uploader is a different contributor. I don't know what else to do when the file to review is not to be found at stated source. Again: suggestions welcome. — Racconish ^💬 20:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

When it's reasonably obvious that the file uploaded here was indeed available at the source and available under the stated license, just watch it here. If there is reasonable doubt the video was edited by the uploader, nominate it for deletion. If the source has vanished, isn't archived anywhere and nothing similar has been uploaded here from the same source, no source may be in order. (though I'd prefer a DR, a source can be dug up in some cases) - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

What's the problem with File:Free Software Foundation Europe - Public Money, Public Code (de).webm? The source is indicated, but not even needed as the license is stated inside the video. Besides, File:Free Software Foundation Europe - Public Money, Public Code.webm is reviewed. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: thanks for your help. — Racconish ^💬 20:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

But you're not removing the no source tag? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Racconish ^💬 05:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

First steps

Hi Racconish, could you please check this nomination,[16], not sure I followed the procedure all together. Thanks--DDupard (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems fine. — Racconish ^💬 07:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Image : Rose Jacqueminot

Thanks Racconish for uploading a larger version of the file, however two versions are available from Bnf: [17]. For page layout and color balance when used in an article, I prefer this one [18] softer and less contrasted. Could you please look into it. Thanks again.--DDupard (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Racconish ^💬 06:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Francesco Clemente Anthony d'Offay Gallery.jpg

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

Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Plan de Saint-Léger.jpg

Merci infiniment, Racconish, pour ce GROS coup de pouce : je commençais tout juste à m'atteler à ce travail, mais techniquement, je ne suis guère à la hauteur…

Pardonnez-moi encore mes erreurs et mes manœuvres intempestives ; du moins ai-je modifié les images qui n'allaient pas dans mes articles sur Irène Némirovsky et son roman David Golder.

Bien bien cordialement, --Marlaguette (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Flag Raising on Iwo Jima film

Hi again. I've been organizing images and media in Category:Battle of Iwo Jima. I'd like ask if you could upload "Flag Raising on Iwo Jima" a short film that has been put on YouTube by the National Archives. It's a more complete compilation of film shot in February 1945 by Marine war photographer Bill Genaust. At present, the Commons has only a snippet of the flag-raising, excerpted from newsreels. Those videos and screen captures from them are in Category:Media by Bill Genaust. The fuller version of his film would be a helpful contribution. And maybe you have a better source than YouTube. Thanks in advance for your help. — WFinch (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@WFinch: will do in 1~2 weeks. — Racconish ^💬 09:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I really appreciate it—thank you. — WFinch (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S. if you find the time — The National Archives also did a 4K scan of the 1945 documentary To the Shores of Iwo Jima and put it at YouTube: here. The film is uploaded here, but this is higher quality. (A brief bit of the Genaust footage is used in the film.) — WFinch (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm uploading https://catalog.archives.gov/id/76433 with video2commons, but it's very slow. (a 6 minute clip and it looks like it'll take an hour or so) - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 02:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I also added https://catalog.archives.gov/id/13089 to the queue. Will probably take forever. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 02:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@WFinch:

• Flag Raising on Iwo Jima
• To the Shores of Iwo Jima, reel 1
• To the Shores of Iwo Jima, reel 2

Can you check categories and stuff? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 06:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Oh my stars, those are big files. Thanks for pitching in and uploading them here. I'll look at the categories, and nose through them to upgrade still images, as well. WFinch (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@WFinch: I'm back, but it looks like what you were asking for has been done by Alexis Jazz. Do you need anything else? — Racconish ^💬 08:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy to see you back — no, everything I was hoping for was done. I have a feeling I'll be back in touch with you again sometime, though. — WFinch (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Collective work and copyrights

Hello Racconish, per our previous debate on collective works and PD Bnf, could you please verify this file [19] and the original scan on gallica [20]? Thanks.--DDupard (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Racconish ^💬 16:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

MOTD Notification

⭐ A file you uploaded is on the main page! ⭐ File:A Few Moments with Eddie Cantor.webm, that you uploaded, is on the main page today. Thank you for your contributions to this project.

//EatchaBot (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Publication d'images de cerfs-volant de Joseph Lecornu

Bonjour Racconish ! Un contributeur, peut-être toi, a apposé un bandeau d'incertitude de droits dans les deux pages de description des vignettes ci-contre. L'auteur de l'ouvrage numérisé par Google Books est mort en 1931 (d'après fr.Wikipédia). Cela doit suffire (avec le fait que Google le pense libre de droits) pour que cette image soit libre de droits. Ceci étant posé (qui aura, j'espère ton agréement), je me suis rendu compte que j'ai mal nommé le deuxième fichier. Il faudrait raccourcir son nom actuel en "Planeur_multicellulaire_droits_et_obliques_de_J._Lecornu". Pardon pour l'erreur et la complication que cela crée. Quant au premier fichier, il faudrait également retirer ", GoogleBooks" de son titre puisque j'espère en faire une nouvelle version (avec une meilleure définition) d'après l'ouvrage papier. Re-demande de pardon ! Je ne sais si tu pourras faire quelque chose pour ces problèmes... Amicalement, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Bernard de Go Mars, j'ai en effet corrigé tes téléversements sur plusieurs points. Tout d'abord, la date à retenir est celle de la création de la photo ; l'auteur est le photographe ; comme il semble que Lecornu soit représenté et que rien n'indique que Lecornu lui-même a pris ces photos, il s'agit d'un auteur inconnu et il y a le choix entre deux bandeaux de licence, {{PD-France}} et {{PD-old-assumed}}. Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 09:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Merci pour ta réponse. Tu as raison sur la question de l'auteur de la photo. C'est très embêtant. Bien sûr, il y a de forte présomption que tout ce beau monde soit mort : d'une belle mort : le photographe aurait 127 ans s'il avait 10 ans au moment de prendre la photo ou lors d'un conflit mondial ou un autre (ce que nul ne souhaite). De toutes façons, ce qui m'importe, c'est que cette publication aux Commons demeure, puisque j'en ai besoin pour ma revisite de l'article fr.wikipedia "Ailette en grille". Amicalement, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Clarification please...

You closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Queen Street West and Broadway Theatre.jpg as delete, with the closure:

"License at source not compatible with Commons :"Copyright was transferred to the City of Toronto by the copyright owner. Use for anything other than research or private study, i.e., publication, exhibit, broadcast, in a film or video, or on a website, requires written permission of the City of Toronto" [21]. — Racconish 💬 18:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)"

Clarification please, you realize that holders of intellectual property rights are entitled to distribute the material they control under multiple licenses?

So, why should the general license you linked to, from the city of toronto archives site, be relevant, when this image is one the subset of their collection they published through the flickr site, using a cc-by-sa license?

The nominator made the absurd claim that a rogue employee posted the image to flickr, with a free license, without proper authorization. Did you discount this ridiculous claim, given that the flickr account has been employed by used by employees of the archives, in an apparently professional manner, for almost a decade, to upload thousands of images? Geo Swan (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Geo Swan, in such a contradictory situation, I think an explicit permission from the copyright owner is needed. Nevertheless, if you disagree, please feel free to take it to COM:UDR. — Racconish ^💬 15:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• The passage you quoted says, in part, "...requires written permission of the City of Toronto." I suggest that the explicit permission employees of the library chose, when they uploaded, should be considered fully and unambiguously equivalent to "written permission of the City of Toronto." Is there something I am missing, some reason you can offer why we should not consider this license as fully and unambiguously equivalent to a written permission? Geo Swan (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

At this point you have two options : reach out to the City of Toronto, ask for a written permission and forward it to OTRS ; or ask for another admin's opinion at COM:UDR. — Racconish ^💬 17:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• I read your comment at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests.

First, Racconish, is it possible you are tempermentally unsuited to exercising administrator authority? Your replies to my reasonable request? It reads like a Foxtrot Oscar, as if you were one of those individuals who has grown unwilling or unable to ever consider the possibility that they may have made a mistake.

Second, you wrote: "In an ideal world, the discrepancy between the license on the library's web site and the license at FlickR would have been already addressed in the DR." Hmmm. Your comment makes me doubt you actually read the DR.

We are all fallible. I am fallible. I know I am fallible. I consider it extremely important to bear in mind my own fallibility when someone voice a question, challenge or concern. I do my best to understand the points they are trying to make, even if they express themselves poorly. And, if I found their points convincing, I say so. If they got me to change my mind, I'll say so. It can be extremely unpleasant to own up to having been wrong if a discussion has grown heated, or the other guy has been insulting. But I am committed to making the effort any in case. I think I manage to do a pretty good job at that.

Now maybe our interaction was atypical, and you generally do only close DRs when you have read them thoroughly. Maybe you don't generally blow off contributors who ask you civil good faith questions. Maybe you are, generally, able to consider the possibility you may have made a mistake. Okay, fine, please make an effort to do all those things, with me, if we ever interact again.

But, if our interaction was typical of how you exercise administrator authority then I would urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to reconsider whether you are tempermentally suited to be an administrator. Geo Swan (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Geo, I hope that you won't mind me butting in here, but I see nothing impolite in Racoonish's interactions with you. They suggested a way for you to have your concerns heard, you started an undeletion discussion as suggested, and ultimately a consensus was reached to restore the image. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Geo Swan, please trust I feel sorry for not having grabbed the perch, but remain grateful for the opportunity of improvement . Kind regards, — Racconish ^💬 05:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know the term "grabbed the perch".
• I don't think you understood what "Foxtrot Oscar" means. Foxtrot, Oscar, Tango and Whisky are NATO letter codes. So, "Whisky Tango F'oxtrot" spells out the acronym WTF, which stand for "What The Fuck". Similarly Foxtrot Oscar spells out "Fuck Off". Since I raised substantive policy-based questions, and your reply showed no sign you had considered those points, it was a Foxtrot Oscar.
• I wrote an essay, w:User:Geo Swan/opinions/every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment. Its audience is people who blow off good faith questions, as you did here. In my opinion, the WMF projects just can't afford to have administrators who blow off good faith questions. I urge you to read it. Geo Swan (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for the gallicism, here is what I meant . Please rest assured I know the meaning of the expression you used and I am sorry you felt this way. I agree with your essay (although I did not consider you as a "new comer"), which is basically why I wrote hereabove I was "grateful for the [missed] opportunity of improvement". I have also read with great interest your essay on apologies. If you read French, this essay of mine may interest you. Kind regards, — Racconish ^💬 08:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Geo Swan 02:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Files in Category:Rawlings Gold Glove Award

You recently closed Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Rawlings Gold Glove Award, which had 4 files nominated, as "keep". However, only one file—taken in Canada—was argued to be kept. The other three were taken in the US, and seemingly should be deleted?—Bagumba (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba:  Done thanks. — Racconish ^💬 14:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey you !

Hy Racconish ! Je viens d'éditer un nouveau fichier. Selon les termes d'utilisation de selon la source de Gallica, cette photo tombe dans le domaine public. Ai-je bien opéré ? Très bonnes fêtes de fin d'année à toi Raccoun

Amicalement, Ruyblas13 (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Ruyblas13, l'image est dans le domaine public en tant qu’œuvre collective. Il faut donc utiliser {{PD-France}} et non CC-BY-SA. Bonnes fêtes ! Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 20:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done  ; merci pour tout  ! Ruyblas13 (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you ready for 1924...?--Maher27777 (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Maher27777 By all means ! . — Racconish ^💬 16:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

--Maher27777 (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)