User talk:Ronhjones/Archive 7

Sock?

Hey Ronhjones,

I ran into an image from “Facebook” and saw the file was linked a couple times to the OgreBot maintainece pages. I saw the log and found multiple accounts uploading the same file but are not blocked. They are most likely socks by someone. Are they warranted to be blocked? -- 1989 (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: Any ideas? -- 1989 (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@1989: Perfil is just profile in Spanish, a very common image name and thus the numerous uploads by disparate accounts. The files are not the same image, so I don't see any socking here. I'll salt the name as contrary to COM:FN. Эlcobbola _talk 17:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@1989 and Elcobbola: Agreed, a huge variety of images, nothing to connect any of them Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Zhitnik Horilka with Tormentil & Honey.jpg

Hello there, I did actually take that pictures myself. It is not a copyright violation. I can take another picture of the bottle in front of my computer with your talk page open if you would like further proof. Regards Tito Jugoslavchenko (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jugoslavchenko: It's the copyright of the labels that is the problem, not the actual photo. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Ahh, ok, sorry, I am new to all this. So cropping the picture would not be a solution either in this case ? Also in addition can you explain why the picture of a Nemiroff bottle is ok in the wikipedia:Horilka article, surely there is a copyright on that label too ? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand the nuances. Thanks in advance for your time. Tito Jugoslavchenko (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jugoslavchenko: Because I had not seen it. With 50 million images, a few rogue ones will slip in. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

1t.jpg

Hello I want to make sure if the licence and description are now sufficient for my photo. Let me know if you require any additional steps from me. Thanks Popolzani (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Tolnai images

Dear Editor. I've made all of Tolna's world history pictures of my own work. The work was done in the 1908-1912. The history of Tolnai [1] was made in the 1910s, edited by Lajos Mangold (1850-1912) [2] and Horváth Cirill (1865-1941) [3]. Both authors have died more than 70 years, so their works are not protected by law. 12akd (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@12akd: Then it needs a correct PD license - not "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International" Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

And what should I do now? Reload it differently? Can't save it? Isn't it public? 12akd (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@12akd: I think you need to change the license that is there {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} for these two...

1. {{PD-US-expired}}
2. {{PD-Hungary}}

(both are required) and remove the {{No permission since|month=January|day=11|year=2019}} Banner. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

License review

Hello.
Sir, please, would You be so nice and confirm the licenses:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Miko%C5%82aj_Pawlak.JPG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Piotr_Wawrzyk.JPG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marek_P%C4%99k.JPG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marek_Konkolewski.JPG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marcin_Krupa.JPG
Thank You very much, sir.

Artur Andrzej (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

For information

Hello. For information File:S83 3277go3 NB.jpg. Same user, same file (but other name). Supertoff (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Supertoff: Already gone - I think quite a few others watch this page... Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:PancakesandPowerSlamsLOGO.png

Reuploaded.

IMO, PD-textlogo, but you marked it earlier as copyvio, so leaving it to your decision. Ankry (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ankry: I don't mind logos, but I do object to dozens of them having "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licence:" - it's so wrong, they are just blindly uploading, hoping someone else will sort it out. I did do that once, and they then added a whole lot more, just the same, so never again. There's no country of origin to check the TOO anyway - wouldn't work here in UK. As an aside, I note that recently almost every logo recently has been by an SPA - is there something out there telling people to make a separate account to upload a logo? I also added something to the undelete page. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Washboard Union in concert in 2014.jpg

I see that you have marked this file File:Washboard Union in concert in 2014.jpg for problem with its copyright status. I uploaded the file from Flickr user travis nesbitt, and he appears to have marked most of his photos public domain. It seems that he took all the photos himself judging by the cameras used, and I assumed that he had released these images for public domain. I now see that he had not used the right license, and it's my mistake to upload it. Should I try to fix it somehow or just leave it to be deleted? Hzh (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Travisnesbitt: Yes, PDM is causing some issues, sadly it's not irrevocable. The best advice is to talk to him and explain the issue, and ask if he will change it from "Public Domain Work" to "Public Domain Dedication (CC0)" (that's the actual Flickr text that gets shown). At https://www.flickr.com/people/travisnesbitt/ I see a website, Facbook ID and Isntagram ID. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 03:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Why?

Heya,
why did you add a no permission tag when it's pretty clearly licensed? What's the issue from your point of view? Cheers, --Jcornelius (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

NPD

If you doesn't agree my edits, please open new DR. Thanks. --Garam _talk 17:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Ronhjones: I have link about permission information. But the link is broken now because twitter user Roxicodon deleted his/her's own account. In this case, what can I do? Thanks. --Garam _talk 18:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Drone photos

Hello! The drone photos I uploaded and that you want to be deleted, were sent to me via Dropbox via Twitter DM. The photographer also sent me the permission via Twitter DM. It also happend in the past that photos that were sent to me by the photographers or right owners explicitly to be published on Commons were deleted. --Reclus (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Reclus: External image photos need to be reviewed COM:LR - if you have a link to a suitable permission statement then we can alter the pages. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no link for Twitter DMs except https://twitter.com/i/notifications – I quoted the message in the email to permission-de@wikimedia.org, but last time I did this for File:Donald Rooum.jpg (I quoted an email then, Ticket#2018080210003794) there was no reaction and the photo was deleted. I think the same thing will happen again with the drone photos. --Reclus (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Reclus: OTRS stopped accepting forwarded messages some years ago - they should have told you that. The permission has to come from the copyright owner direct. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC

File:Eingang des Wilhelmsstifts mit Blick in die Lange Gasse (2009).jpg

Zum Zeitpunkt, als ich das Foto hochgeladen habe, war das Foto frei, was auch von einem Administrator überprüft wurde. Da das Foto sich nicht mehr auf flicr befindet, bedeutet noch nicht, dass es nicht frei wäre. Grüße --Mewa767 (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mewa767: There is no trace of an administer review on the page. Es gibt keine Spur einer Verwaltungsprüfung auf der Seite Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

?????

I upload file, i take the photo from my own camera in a live WWE UK event... what's wrong?! And, i'm not WindFNX user... i'm confused. --Cabeza1990 (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the commons file selector went wrong. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

And now the reason of the nomination in "Facebook image"? Can you put the link of the Facebook to believe in your acussation? And now nobody can't take a picture of something and then upload to his Facebook page and Commons? Excuse me, but I think this way of proceeding is very stupid. Do whatever you want, i quit. --Cabeza1990 (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cabeza1990: Facebook license is not compatible with commons. We get hundreds of editors copying Facebook/Instagram/Twitter images to commons. Facebook always adds a special code to any images downloaded from their site so we can find them. If you wish to change the image for the proper camera image, then we can remove the banner. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Susan Hutchison

This photo is our own work, so in this case it should not be removed. We provided it to the Michael Medved Show for their use on his website blog. I was the Communications Director for the Susan Hutchison campaign, and I still have the email message in which I sent (via attachment) our photo to the Michael Medved Show. How do I replace the copyvio tag? I will forward you the email message in which provided our photo to the Michael Medved Show. - Steve Beren - press@susan4senate.com - (425) 785-2016 SteveBeren-Susan4Senate (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@SteveBeren-Susan4Senate: When images are found on the internet, which are before (17 Oct 2018) the upload here (21 January 2019). Then it always gets tagged as a copyright violation - always easiest to upload here first. You need to go to COM:OTRS to see how to validate ownership - that will need to be done by the copyright holder (normally the photographer - unless there is a signed written transfer of copyright), do note that any forwarded e-mails will not be accepted by the OTRS team. I also note there is no camera EXIF data - you could upload the full camera raw image to show ownership. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Miguel Ángel Gómez Naharro.jpg

Hi. The author of the picture has updated the license in Flickr. Now it is CC0, so I hope everything should be fine. If not, please let me know. --Hispalois (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hispalois: Confirmed - The Flickr owner has corrected the license, so we can use it. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hutchison photo

The Medved blog post was published and dated on 10/17/18 without any photo. They asked us to provide them with our official photo (our own in-house work) and we did so on 10/19/18. They added our photo to their page on 10/19/18 but did not change the date of their article. SteveBeren-Susan4Senate (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@SteveBeren-Susan4Senate: We have only the date that the web page gives, I see the image is dated 19 October 2018, 18:30:38 - that's still pre 21 January 2019. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:PEJERREY CONGELADO 01.jpg

Hi! Hola! Sorry but i don't speak English so i'm going to write this in Spanish: Hola. El problema que tengo con respecto a esta imagen es que tiene una licencia de dominio público en Flickr, la imagen fue subida por un organismo oficial del gobierno peruano, y supongo que al haberle otorgado esos derechos de imagen, o mejor dicho, habérselos quitado (licencia libre) no existe mayor motivo para su borrado. Saludos! MiguelAlanCS (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@MiguelAlanCS: English first then Spanish with Google.

Flickr has two Public Domain choices.

1. "Public Domain Work" - where the Flickr user believes it is already in the Public Domain - this one is not equivalent to CC-zero and is not irrevocable. If the material is already Public Domain, then it will need the correct Public Domain template. Flickr chows a "C" with a diagonal line.
2. "Public Domain Dedication (CC0)" - The Flickr user has donated the material to the Public Domain, and this one is equivalent to CC-zero, and is acceptable. Flickr shows a "0" in a circle.

We can only accept the second one, unless you supply a correct Public Domain template as well. Feel free to ask at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright - someone may have a better suggestion (and speak Spanish).

Flickr tiene dos opciones de dominio público

1. "Trabajo de dominio público", donde el usuario de Flickr cree que ya está en el dominio público, este no es equivalente a CC-cero y no es irrevocable. Si el material ya es de dominio público, necesitará la plantilla de dominio público correcta. Flickr muestra una "C" con una línea diagonal.
2. "Dedicación del dominio público (CC0)": el usuario de Flickr ha donado el material al dominio público, y este es equivalente a CC-cero y es aceptable. Flickr muestra un "0" en un círculo.

Solo podemos aceptar el segundo, a menos que también proporcione una plantilla de dominio público correcta. No dude en preguntar en Commons:Village_pump/Copyright: alguien puede tener una mejor sugerencia (y habla español). Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Sello Instituto Nacional Mejia.png

Hi. I have updated the file "Sello Instituto Nacional Mejia.png" to unknown author, because this is a derivate work from an unknown author. Is that correct? I designed the seal myself, but the original author might have been someone in the 1920 decade. Please help me, I'm new to Wikimedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sant3001 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sant3001: Tricky. I've tweaked the data, but it's not great. As far as I can see Spain had an 80 year copyright length in the 1920s, that means that it was still in copyright at URAA on 1/1/1996, which in turn means the US restored the copyright for 95 years post publication en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights. You should ask at COM:VPC, as it's rather complicated. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

2 revdels

Hi Ron. Can you delete this revision as well as this revision? The first is vandalism, second is an overwrite. Both users have been warned. Thanks, Corky 02:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan:  Done Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Corky 16:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

File:ДегӀастанан Ӏовхан кӀошт.svg

I am the only author of the map. There are no problems.--Дагиров Умар (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Дагиров Умар: Where does the base map come from. I don't think you drew the coast line / rivers / etc. from memory! Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Карта Северного Кавказа (файл 3).svg. --Дагиров Умар (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Дагиров Умар: Fine, I've added that to the file page. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank. I connected a lot of cards to get a good card. It was a long time ago, it seems 2015. I can draw cards.--Дагиров Умар (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi

THanks sir, I request those picture via Facebook, using Bicol Central Language, The owner agree to upload it to Wikipedia, but I don't know how to prove what I said here, Should I translate the conversation in English or not? THanks and may I request to retrieve this file?

• File:Mapa kan Sur-Subangan na Asya.jpg
• File:Mapa kan Subangan na Asya.jpg

because its all my work, THanks you very much --ShiminUfesoj (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@ShiminUfesoj: The link you gave (https://www.facebook.com/pg/Bicolandiaball/photos/?tab=album&album_id=415133079230439&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARDsAiTG6xCGtyym1mX_XbnaKMfJfTXvScc9gzBvTkyl5dHAzUqUWcikacEitrL5GpXovnGBmMzacQmFwRdJJdNnWHppkvsTYEw6sez0Ae4J9_KYUjKARtGlcyQyXKwJ5wjtrj9jiN6-trXqLrbp5h0yJTiOsheKGyFEzglncu1wWXFkkuEcB9EZKxo6R23CpjM_VCJLdcBTmZytAaQ5rLSk4Pe4X7w3X8BzMygGEZBAFPagMoB5D9NVPI87WCtGIdH9Fatn-CAz_KsgAgncBxlXtUm95HqKSxcM8wvgXCB4smBdhc-ubKGheybxGNErA00SXkREWhQNzJeHxtSuIrk&__tn__=-UC-R) just changes to https://www.facebook.com/pg/Bicolandiaball/photos/?tab=album&album_id=415133079230439&__tn__=-UC-R when I view it, and there are just the 4 photos, no text at all. I checked the 4 images in that album...

1. https://www.facebook.com/Bicolandiaball/photos/a.415133079230439/415133655897048/?type=3&theater
2. https://www.facebook.com/Bicolandiaball/photos/a.415133079230439/415133862563694/?type=3&theater
3. https://www.facebook.com/Bicolandiaball/photos/a.415133079230439/415134335896980/?type=3&theater
4. https://www.facebook.com/Bicolandiaball/photos/a.415133079230439/415134562563624/?type=3&theater

None of these image pages has any text on it. We need links to a suitable permission statement.

As for the other two images, I did not delete them, you need to talk to Yann or go to COM:UDR Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

thank you sir --ShiminUfesoj (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com/karlian.basallote/posts/946458678894258 here is our convertation --ShiminUfesoj (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Piet Retief Commando insignia ver 2

Hi I know you mean well but you seem be becoming malious. All Apartheid era badging of the defunct military pre 1994 has no ownership and all rights to them have been voided by the democratic government s post 1994. You seem to be looking for a problem that doesn't exist.

Then it needs to be described on the page. It's effectively 3D artwork, no date, no author, etc. We don't have crystal balls. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Some recently closed deletion requests

Please take a look on files mentioned in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by WisdomTooth3, Commons:Deletion requests/File:王徳光.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Пробіжнянський замок на карті Боплана.jpg. License tags are still invalid there. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Two deleted images

Hi, File:Bir al-Sabe in Palestine 1920-1948.png was nominated for deletion with a request that read only "SVG available File:Beersheba_Subdistrict_In_Mandatory_Palestine_1920-1948.svg." Then you deleted both the nominated file and the svg file, but added a redirect from the png page to the (deleted) svg. It seems to me that you didn't intend to delete the svg. Cheers. 203.7.120.118 00:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

{done}} No idea what went wrong there. All the best plans... Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Close

Please revdel the image discussed at this deletion request then reclose, the nomination was valid for the image version nominated, and the keep arguments were based on removal of the image. Thanks.--BevinKacon (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi! Thanks for the ping and info here. I will do so, hoping to solve the issue. Added note: I find it somewhat odd that it took a whole five months to get a reaction to this deletion request, and that the discussion/request was archived a mere one minute later. Five months and one minute. Something seems to be a bit amiss with this whole system, I think. All the best.—Paracel63 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Paracel63: There is a bad backlog - I cleared out about 90% of August last night Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Like Many thanks for your efforts (I gathered the backlog was the culprit).—Paracel63 (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Content removal

You marked some files with valid sources and valid licenses for deletion, such as File:Oktoberfest of Santa Cruz do Sul Entrance.jpg. Why? Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Saturnalia0: No Flickr Review was requested at upload time. When the page was checked (as COM:LR requires for Flickr images), Flickr returned a 404 error. Commons:License_review#Specific_procedures_for_Flickr says to add "Flickr no source" for such a situation and notify the user. The file was deleted 7 days later. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

That's too bad because there was a valid Flickr license. Perhaps make the review mandatory? Otherwise what's the point of even allowing it? Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Saturnalia0: I think the Flickr Upload Bot adds the {{Flickrreview}} template (now). Manual uploads are still an issue - I am trying to fix that - Commons:Bots/Requests#RonBot_2_(talk_·_contribs) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status

Please check a licence tag of "File:Swat_Singapore.01.jpg File:Swat_Singapore.02.jpg File:Swat_Singapore.03.jpg File:Swat_Singapore.04.jpg File:Swat_Singapore.05.jpg File:Swat_Singapore.06.jpg File:Swat_Singapore.07.jpg File:Swat_Singapore.08.jpg File:Swat_Singapore.09.jpg File:Swat_Singapore.10.jpg " and "File:SSAT̠01.jpg File:SSAT̠02.jpg File:SSAT̠03.jpg File:SSAT̠04.jpg File:SSAT̠05.jpg File:SSAT̠07.jpg File:SSAT̠08.jpg". I fix it. --Ko-ta niimu (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Flickr is showing the "Public Domain Mark". This is not equivalent to cc-zero. It is all explained in the template on the images. The images need the correct PD template (if there is one), and the cc-zero template to be removed. Often the Flickr user has used the wrong license selection - they need to use "Public Domain Dedication (CC0)" - the easiest way is usually message the Flickr owner and ask then to change it. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Чортків - Пам'ятник Катерині Рубчаковій - 260.jpg

Hi! And this file. --Микола Василечко (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Garter Banners

Hello You marked Garter banners for deletion, they aren't copies of sources provided and reused elements are indicated with templates is the same case as other flags and symbols. Regards --Heralder (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Whistles, dragon heads and castle were drawing by my based on sources but they aren't copies. Thanks you --Heralder (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Heralder: We can only go by what is put on the page. They have a single source of a single Facebook page. When the Facebook page is viewed, there is no permission - external sources need to be reviewed COM:LR - Feel free to change the data to show something different. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I added other sources . Are the files correctly quoted now? Thanks so much --Heralder (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Banners removed Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks --Heralder (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

File:PentaceneSynthesis.png

File:PentaceneSynthesis.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!

DMacks (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Original uploader notified. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Raleigh, NC Police photos.

The flikr photo of the Raleigh PD 2014 Ford Interceptor Utility was removed. Is it because i didn't have it linked to anything? If so i added a new picture and have it linked to its original posting. If i did something wrong, let me know please and i'll correct it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raleigh_Police_Department

Thanks, Ronald. 1/28/19. 04:18PM — Preceding unsigned comment added by RonBerrye (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@RonBerrye: As per COM:LR, Flickr images must be reviewed, normally by the uploader adding {{Flickreview}}. The bottom of http://blog.leithford.com/raleigh-police-department-follows-national-trend-adopts-ford-interceptor-utilitity/ says "© 2019 Leith Ford Blog. All Rights Reserved" - we cannot use such data. The Flickr source of the deleted image was https://www.flickr.com/photos/leewilson/13919632295 - that to has "All Rights Reserved" - no good here. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Undelete Witness - Passing the Torch of Holocuast Memory, Polish Edition.png

Thank you
for telling about the support ticket.

What about this specific removal of yours?
Can we settle it here?

Best,
Arvids.

--5.45.44.187 15:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Ronhjones!

Please look at this page:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Witness_-_Passing_the_Torch_of_Holocuast_Memory,_Polish_Edition.png

Magdalena Kosińska is the copyright holder of the photo.

She got a response ticket:

Ticket#2019012410018604

Please elaborate on removal.

What do you need for a second look of the case?

Best regards,

Arvids.

--5.45.44.187 14:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The ticket is not in the permission queue, it's in the photosubmission queue complete with an attached image. It has not yet been accepted. It does not reference the deleted image. The agent will upload the image from the e-mail if they approve it. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Licencing

Hi, you tagged an image I uploaded (Sala tributes.jpg) as having unclear licencing. The author has released the image into the public domain (I contacted them directly and they kindly offered to do so). If the current licence is insufficient, could you inform me which one would cover it? Kosack (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kosack: The flickr owner has probably used the wrong public domain selection. There is more info in the template on the image page. There are two PD options in Flickr...

1. "Public Domain Work" - this is where the user believes the work is already in the PD - due to being old, from a known PD source (e.g. US gov), etc. The Flickr symbol is a "C" in a circle with bar through it, it is known as a "Public Domain Mark". It is not irrevocable and most certainly is not equal to cc-zero. Images with this mark cannot use a cc-zero template here (unless the Flickr owner has expressed in words on the same Flickr page that he is donating to PD - See also COM:PDM), and must therefore replace any CC-zero template with the correct PD template (if there is one!)
2. "Public Domain Dedication (CC0)" - this is where the user donates his work to the PD. Flickr symbol is a "0" with a circle around it. This one is equivalent to cc-zero (it's show in the Flickr option as "(CC0)"), We can use these images.

The usual fix for these is to ask the Flickr owner to change the license. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Could I not use Template:PD-author? Kosack (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kosack: That would be the choice if the Flickr page explicitly stated in words that the author is donating the copyright. Where there is no dedication, then the license is not acceptable. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Very well, I've messages the author with a request to change the license. Kosack (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The author has responded extremely promptly and updated the licence. Could you check if it is now sufficient? Kosack (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kosack: That was nice of him. All perfect now. I've passed the review. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Kosack (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Help

Hello Ronhjones, apologize if I am at a wrong place. Can you have a look on this discussion and do needful. If you can't, no problem at all. Thanks. -Gazal world (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

File:45212 Waiting in platform 3 at Keighley.jpg

The photograph of 45212 at Keighley on the KWVR is my own photograph, not one took by another person and uploaded claiming as mine. The flickr page is also mine and does have very similar photographs to that on Wikipedia as I usualy take more than 1 photo within a second.

@Moylesy98: That's OK. I guessed as much. No point in having a flickr link on it that shows your album without the image. I've changed the description to reflect "own work" instead. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Jon Taffer Photo

Hey...I'm reading your message to me and I don't understand why you see the photo is non-compliant. I sourced where I found the photo and the license is correct. Please let me know what is missing. Thanks :.) EastWestern (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@EastWestern: See reply to message immediately below - same problem. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Just letting you that I got this fixed...thanks for bringing this to my attention. EastWestern (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@EastWestern: Image tidied up and review passed. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Request to undelete File:Macau IMTF Award 2018.jpg

This file has been cleared by Hongsheng Culture (as per credited by the link you provided) for public use. This photo is being used in various articles on various sites as it was released to be used freely. I also have an email that allowed the use of this photo as public domain. I've noted on this post that it was cleared of copyright. Please kindly undelete as soon as possible. Thank you. Kievew (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kievew: Same file at two locations File:Wang Leehom - 2018 Golden Lotus Awards for Best Actor .jpg deleted as copyvio of https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0910966/mediaviewer/rm890532864 by Hedwig in Washington, then restored by Ankry and then changed his mind and deleted again five minutes later. Plus File:Macau IMTF Award 2018.jpg deleted as copyvio of https://stars.udn.com/star/story/10090/3552463 and is still marked "All Rights Reserved". I think the only solution is via COM:OTRS to get this restored - note they will not accept any forwarded e-mails, they will need to contact the copyright holder direct. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kievew: I could add to the above that my doubts originated from the fact that the CC-license was declared on the subject's profile, so it was not declared by the photographer. There is no evidence that the photographer has transferred copyright, and we even do not know who they are (while the license clearly requires to attribute the author). Ankry (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The original photo was released from Hongsheng Culture, and while each of the publishing sites have their own copyright wording, I shouldn't have to keep proving this photo is free to use whenever someone finds the same photo on one of the sites that uses it. Thank you for the recommended way to get photo restored. I will contact COM:OTRS to get this settled. In the meantime, I am still hoping you can undelete the file so at least it is still showing while we get this mess cleared up. Thank you again for your help.Kievew (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Just contacted Hongsheng Culture; they will send an email to COM:OTRS with a release statement for File:Wang Leehom - 2018 Golden Lotus Awards for Best Actor .jpg Hopefully this will clear it all up and file put back without having to repost again. Thank you both for your help. Kievew (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Licence File:CalligrammeMuet.jpg

Hello Ron,

Answering to your message, I sent to the authorization for publishing the file referred to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

Anne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koalabray (talk • contribs) 18:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Koalabray: I added {{subst:OP}} to add the "OTRS pending" for you, and removed the other one. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Request to undelete File:MertensPayBackDay.jpg

The licence on the Flickr page has been adjusted to correspond to the requirements (CC-BY-SA). --LLogghe (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@LLogghe:  Done Thanks Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

CICE.gif WAS attributed

Ronhjones: Sir or Madam, you are incorrect. CICE.gif WAS attributed on the Wikipedia page for CICE (sea ice model) to data in Roberts, A. F., Hunke, E. C., Allard, R., Bailey, D. A., Craig, A. P., Lemieux, J., & Turner, M. D. (2018). Quality control for community-based sea-ice model development. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 376, 17. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0344, for which the data is in the public domain on Zenodo, and referenced in the mentioned paper. Since I generated the data, wrote the paper and produced the movie, but am new to Wikipedia, please tell me what I need to do to correctly upload CICE.gif again. It is difficult not to take offense as a scientist in this field at being told I have ripped off my own work. --Proteanplanet (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Proteanplanet: Well I'm a mad scientist as well (retired UK safety chemist). Anyway, we don't go hunting. All the relevant data must be on the image page or it will get deleted. The image pages says...

== {{int:filedesc}} ==
{{Information
|description={{en|1=CICE sea ice movie}}
|date=2019-01-21
|source={{own}}
|author=[[User:Proteanplanet|Proteanplanet]]
}}

== {{int:license-header}} ==
{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}

[[Category:Sea ice]]

Anyway, reading this we see that it's designated as a "CICE sea ice movie", and then you claim it's solely your own work and claim unique ownership of copyright. It does not make any sense, so it gets tagged as a derivative work. The source should be the URL of the image, so we can verify the copyright (If the image is not in the document then you need to fully explain how it comes about). ; Authors is self-explanatory; License should be correct (if it the RS opensource, then it's wrong (I just looked and https://royalsociety.org/journals/authors/open-access/ says it CC-BY-4.0). When there is a license page then you need to add the permission parameter in the Information template to point to the permission statement if it's not in the source url. The image was up for 7 days to allow for editing and you were notified about the issue, but nothing happened. I'll give you another 7 days to sort it out. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 05:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know if you noticed, but there is a advisory on the image page - Note: Due to technical limitations, thumbnails of high resolution GIF images such as this one will not be animated. Thr wiki software will not animate such big files - It's a 50 Megapixel limit,as I recall - I assume that's the size x the number of frames = 1358 MPx. It normally stops wiki making the small versions in the article move as well. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 05:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

this image

Hello, where can I discuss this?

This image is a very simple drawing of no artistic value, distributed in every election more than a hundred millionfold during election times in India, Bangla desh and Sri Lanka for several decades. There is no copyright here. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 05:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Furfur: Someone designed it and it's not a simple shape either. Amount of usage does not equate to a free image. Whoever designed it gets the copyright until 70 years after he dies. I'll change it to a DR for you to comment on Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Confirmtktlogo.png

Hi sir, As per your advice i have gone through the image submission guidelines and have submitted the persmission from copyright holder to permissions email Id. [Ticket#2019020110003358] Confirmation of receipt. Please do the needful. Thank you --Maverickindian (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Maverickindian: Banner changed to OTRS pending. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Deleted File:Nipmuc Regional High School.svg

Hi Ron,

You deleted the file File:Nipmuc Regional High School.svg with the comment "non simple logos are NOT allowed on commons". Can you please explain to me, if this is in fact the policy (with no exceptions), why no other high school pages include their logos? For example, w:Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology and w:Centreville High School (Fairfax County, Virginia) both include logos as "non-free use".

Those two images are not on commons - non-free use is not allowed on commons. As I would expect they have both been set up properly as non-free logos on en-wiki en:File:Tjlogo.png and en:File:Centreville High School logo.png. Logos here either have to be either...

1. Free - that will mean the organisation donating the copyright via COM:OTRS
2. Non-free - The logo must be on en-wiki and have a en:WP:FUR and a Template:non-free logo license
3. Free - as it's very, very simple and can use {{PD-textlogo}} - File:Nipmuc Regional High School.svg can never qualify for that option.

Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

York City Badge

Hi,

you keep deleting every York City FC badge I put on their Bulgarian wikipedia page, and I just can't understand why as there are already a number of York City FC wikipedia pages in other languages that are using it.

I would appreciate if you answered why this is the case and also how to get permission for using it, if one is required (although I highly doubt the Greek version, for example, has any permission for using it, yet theirs is not deleted).

Cheers,

Tsvetan Chukanov

Chukanovich (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chukanovich: See answer to previous post - only very simple logos are allowed on commons, or ones with copyright release from the organisation. Most logos tend to be used under "fair use" rules, which vary between wikis - m:NFC. English wiki allows Non free (600,000 files there!) and so does Greece. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Kyler Murray (44814888842).jpg

Hi, I'm a little confused as to why File:Kyler Murray (44814888842).jpg and its derivative image are up for deletion. It was posted to Flickr with the Public Domain Mark 1.0, indicating that the author released it into the public domain. Is the issue a question of whether the author actually intended to license it as such? If so, why is that in question? I can't think of a more airtight way for a private citizen to release a work into the public domain. How is it possible for me to resolve this? Denniscabrams (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Denniscabrams: See User:Ronhjones/PDMreply Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: I sent the author a private message on flickr because he apparently disallowed comments on the photo. He replied

Yes I put it in the public domain on purpose just hoping that someone could get some use out of it. So feel free to do whatever you want with it. Brett

Is this sufficient? I can't imagine how I would go about providing proof of this conversation.

@Denniscabrams: You can't provide proof, so you are somewhat stuck if he won't change the Flickr license - it literally takes a few seconds. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Why would he need to change the license if he's confirming that he intended to post it with the most permissive license there is? Denniscabrams (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Denniscabrams: As per COM:LR - It need a reviewer to approve the page, without a verifiable clear donation text, a PDM will not work. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

That's wild. I don't think I care enough to bother this poor, generous photographer any further. Denniscabrams (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Deleted File:Logo MW 11 2018.png

Hello,

I don't understand why this has been deleted. It is the official Logo of our Party and I am the chairman of our Party. We gave this Logo to government organisations. This can be seen here: https://www.bpb.de/politik/wahlen/wer-steht-zur-wahl/hessen-2018/275324/menschliche-welt.

Please excuse me just loading it up again, I didn't expect it to be an issue.

Is it possible to bring the Logo back up again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freudig7 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Freudig7: If you can show me where it says "cc-by-sa-4.0" on https://www.bpb.de, then it can be undeleted. Commons is very strict about permission being explicit. Otherwise you will need to go through COM:OTRS - the copyright holder will need to prove that (s)he is in a position to give away the copyright. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Insignia of Mauritania - why the nomination for deletion?

It's the official insignia/emblem of a country - it is in no way a logo and should not be treated as such. Such designs are often not copyrighted by their country of origin, Mauritania in this case. Дрейгорич (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Is the link for the DR I started for the image. The issue when tagging this image with the template "logo", it makes it a speedy deletion and with how many projects it was one, wanted to take it a slower approach and get your thoughts on the issue. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Bujar_Kule_Graal.png

Hi Ronhjones, I uploaded the file "File:Bujar_Kule_Graal.png" by providing the Commons:OTRS tag in the "source" section, and the author of the book has sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org regarding the licence, as per OTRS procedure. The message on my talk-page reads: "This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Book Cover", it doesn't seem very informative to me. Can you please clarify what should the author do for the file to not be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardit Dush (talk • contribs) 16:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ardit Dush: Sorry. my error. fixed. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Mix-up Peak seen from Sahale Arm.jpg

Hi Ronhjones.

You have stated my file File:Mix-up Peak seen from Sahale Arm.jpg does not have sufficient licensing information. However the source from Flickr clearly states Public Domain. Please look. ````

@Ron Clausen: Sadly no text to release it - Please see User:Ronhjones/PDMreply Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

File tagging File:Lučki most.jpg

Hello and thank you for the message. I know the photographer personally (he was the photographer at my sister's wedding) and I asked him via Facebook (chat) if I could use the photo for the Wikipedia and he agreed without any hesitation. Maybe it is not enough, but that is how it happened. – KWiki (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@KWiki: He just needs to put the license (CC-BY-SA-4.0) on https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10210557072018423&set=a.10205570365353873&type=3&theater and it will be OK. All external images need a license review COM:LR, and the permission has to be validated. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

OK. Could you tell me how it can be done? I am totally unfamiliar with these things. I saved the photo from the link and uploaded it from my computer after I asked him for approval. He does not deal with Wikimedia stuff at all. – KWiki (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@KWiki: "Sanjin Fajić" needs to just add "cc-by-sa-4.0" to https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10210557072018423&set=a.10205570365353873&type=3&theater. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

OK. I will send him a message these days although we have not been in contact for a while. (He is less active on Facebook than before.) – KWiki (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Recently deleted

Hi Ronhjones.

I just wanted to point out that File:Governor Ned Lamont of Connecticut, official portrait.jpg had an open OTRS as I've been working with the copyright holder to get their permission verified. While it was essentially the same as File:Governor Ned Lamont portrait.jpg, it was different in that it had the full metadata. Furthermore, File:Governor Ned Lamont portrait.jpg was accidently uploaded under public domain rationale - that was my mistake and I've apologized profusely for it ever since. I'm torn now whether to request undeletion or just tell the copyright holder (who isn't familiar enough with the Commons to upload it himself) to just give up and not bother with the OTRS. Woko Sapien (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Woko Sapien: OK, undeleted and tidied up - let the OTRS team finish - I will note I found nothing in OTRS (but searching is difficult at best). Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Thank you! I'll send them a reminder to send it if they haven't already. Woko Sapien (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Woko Sapien: If they have sent it, they get a ticket number by auto reply (not approved, of course). I can change the "OTRS pending" to "OTRS received and waiting" if I know the number. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Copyright holder got sidetracked this weekend with work, but will have it sent soon. I'll get you the ticket number ASAP! Woko Sapien (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: The ticket number is 2019020510008471 Woko Sapien (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Woko Sapien: Added to page Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

AOC plaque

Ron, I've been in contact with permissions at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org about this; I didn't even want to upload it until they reviewed the permissions email, but they said to upload it.The lorax (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@The lorax: Replace the banner with {{subst:OP}} - this must be done for OTRS as the backlog is so long. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, can I remove your tag if I replace it with that other tag? --The lorax (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@The lorax: Yes, that's what I meant Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Sanjay Pradhan OGP Asia-Pacific Regional Meeting 2018.jpg

Hi, would you please restore File:Sanjay Pradhan OGP Asia-Pacific Regional Meeting 2018.jpg? Permission has been received in Template:OTRS ticket along with proof that the photographer transferred the copyright to the Open Government Partnership. Anachronist (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Done, ready for you to add ticket. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected source, author, and licenses, and tagged. Anachronist (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Headquarter EckesGranini.jpg

Hello Rhonjones, you marked File:Headquarter EckesGranini.jpg for deletion. Please let us know if we made a mistake. Thank you very much in advance. EckesGranini Kommunikation(talk) 11:27:00, 05 February 2019 (UTC)

@EckesGranini Kommunikation: Image has been on commons before and was deleted (25 October 2018) as a copyright violation (File:G 9285.jpg) of https://www.eckes-granini.com/unternehmen/presse/bildmaterial/ - this will need to be processed by COM:OTRS to be on commons. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Need help resolving photo issues

Hello, all photos under user name: zoe340 are being marked for deletion due to your finding them in violation. All photos except for the photo with Warren Beatty are fully used either by permission or are directly owned. Please advise on how to best resolve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe340 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zoe340: Permission can only come from the copyright holder. I see there is "Copyright holder ©2016MikelHealeyPhotography" in the camera data. Thus only Mikel Healey can provide the permission - see COM:OTRS on how to validate. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Paola Sambo 2018.jpg.

Hello Ronhjones, help me to understand where I'm wrong? Other times I have deleted photos and yet they are on Flickr and only free. Could you help me? thank you--Valerialucatello (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Valerialucatello: These are Public Domain Mark only - see the template on the image page and User:Ronhjones/PDMreply Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Android 8.0 Oreo Pixel.png

File:Android 8.0 Oreo Pixel.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!

Piramidion (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete Request of the photos by SCRATCH1234

You can delete the photos, but how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCRATCH1234 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@SCRATCH1234:  Done Only admins can delete. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Synthesis of 1,3-dithietane.svg

Hi, I've just notice that your image of the synthesis of 1,3-dithietane has an error in it. Specifically the starting di-chloro compound should be a sulfoxide rather than a ketone. See the images here doi:10.1021/ja00434a061. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Synthesis of 1,3-dithietane

@Project Osprey: Oooo, your are right. No idea how I missed that. Still had the original skc file on PC. Now fixed. You may need to purge cache to see change. Thanks. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks. I only caught it as I was checking to see if I could wiki-link any of the chemical names in the article text. --Project Osprey (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Tagging for Flickr review

When tagging files for Flickr review, could you avoid tagging files with the {{Extracted from}} template? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I normally do. I might miss the odd one or two. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 03:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

As I was doing some maintenance work, I noted files with the (much less used) {{Derived from}} template generally should also be excluded. (don't know if you already do) I had found quite some extracted files you tagged for review though, from several runs I think. How do you select them? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I was using User:RonBot1 to make a list in user space - but the search system has been a continuous improvement program and I remember adding that option not that long ago. The Flickr ones have now been automated as User:RonBot2 - this definitely excludes the "Extracted images", and looking at the files selected - it's not selecting them. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Medal 70lecia polskiej informatyki.jpg

This is not a picture of a Polish coin (or any other), but only a picture of the Medal of decorations, where there are no restrictions like [currency # Poland]. Please retract this disclaimer. Iszkowski (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Replied on deletion discussion. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

File:SX13.png

Hi, I’ve added permission on my SX13.png. The creator of the file has allowed people and websites to share their work.

@IdeaFan128: Fair use not allowed here. See m:NFC for the wikis that allow non free content. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

If for en-wiki you need to upload on en-wiki, It will need a en:WP:FURG and a suitable non-free license - en:Template:non-free book cover. It will get reduced in size to 100,000 pixels (254x392) automatically to comply with en:WP:NFC. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Help me

Hello, Sometimes I create Mongolian Wikipedia pages and link to the English. When I use the photo link, it worked for jpg and not worked for png. Then I re-upload png files, they're got deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superduperusukhu (talk • contribs) 10:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Superduperusukhu: You can only use files from other web sites , where there is an explicit creative commons license (either cc-zero, cc-by or cc-by-sa. That usually means nothing from Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Youtube, etc. These are "sharing" sites and we cannot use the image as they do not allow commercial re-use. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Sonja van der Gaast picture

You flagged the picture of the image of Sonja van der Gaast's sign in de Kargadoor as derivative, which it is I guess? BUt I have 0 clue how to fix this and what category it should be in so it doesn't get taken down? --Ennemuk (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ennemuk: In Holland, a photograph cannot become Public Domain by being displayed - See Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Netherlands#Freedom_of_panorama - therefore you need the permission of the photographer. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Joaquim Ferreira dos Santos picture

Hi, there! I've tried for the second time to upload the picture Jornalista_Joaquim_Ferreira_dos_Santos.jpg for which I have the rights. I've emailed the support team but it didn't answer me. How can I have my picture uploaded without being removed? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verônica Raner (talk • contribs) 17:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Verônica Raner: If you send in an e-mail, you must add {{subst:OP}} (as shown in COM:OTRS) to stop deletion as OTRS is very slow. Also you need to add the url of the image in the e-mail. I've annotated the e-mail in OTRS with the url, I've restored the image (File:Joaquim Ferreira dos Santos em foto de Ronaldo Câmara.jpg) and added the "OTRS processing" banner for you. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

My picture

Dear Rohnjones, the picture you've mentioned is from the National Museum in Warsaw, is on public display and finally derives from 1470. So I think there is no restriction in this case ... But please do let me know if I am correct or mistaken, Best Luklsok (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Luklsok: OK with the date Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:VinFast logo under lighting.jpg

This file is a photograph of an object made by Vinfast company, hanging on a wall, depicting the logo of Vinfast company (https://vinfast.vn/ which is an automaker), in the same way as File:Mercedes Benz emblem.jpg is photograph of an object made by Mercedes-Benz company, depicting the logo of Mercedes-Benz company (similar files can be found at Category:Mercedes-Benz_stars). The copyright notice of the source of derivative work will be similar to most of the files in Category:Mercedes-Benz_stars. Am I correct? Tttrung (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tttrung: It has the same problem as File:VinFastLogo.png - it's a full 3D logo and not a simple shape. Maybe a DR will be better, but that is never quick. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

There are many photographs of 3D objects depicting logos of companies in Commons (as pointed out at Category:Mercedes-Benz_stars). A 2D photograph cannot reveal the "full 3D" aspect of an object, due to simple geometric limitation. Could you explain what "DR" is? I have voiced my opinion at [4], am I doing it correctly? Or should I place my vote somewhere else, in a different manner? Tttrung (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tttrung: DR=Deletion Request. That was the correct place to comment. Merc shape is 3D, but square on is just simple straight lines. This one is much more complex - needs someone more at home with COM:TOO Germany. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyright was granted by original owner of File:Fisayo Fosudo.jpg

Dear Ronhjones, please be advised that the original owner of the image was contacted to upload this image via the OTRS Release Generator after older image Fisayo.jpg was deleted. I believe Fisayo Fosudo.jpg was tagged appropriately on Fisayo Fosudo Kindly restore. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akinbankeee (talk • contribs) 14:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Akinbankeee: Neither File:Fisayo.jpg or File:Fisayo Fosudo.jpg has the required Template:Tls:OP added to show there was an e-mail being sent. I've checked OTRS, I cannot find any mention of either file. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

PD-UK license application

Hello. I'd like to ask for help someone who is both copyright-experienced and English. Can you please help me with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Archibald Wavell, 1st Earl Wavell.jpg? I tried to resolve who is right about PD-UK-unknown being applicable in this case. I studied licensing information according to website but then I found out that it might not be a reliable source for it. As of authorship, they claim only a photography studio Bassano Ltd. which could mean the author is unknown and so it is PD. However, I am not sure whether the copyright itself was not claimed by Bassano Ltd. and I don't know how UK law applies on this. Thank you. Best regards, --Mates (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mates: You pick some nice cases to sort out...! My thoughts...

1. The images claimed by the NPG are still here - e.g. File:Georgiana (Spencer), Duchess of Devonshire by Sir Joshua Reynolds.jpg
2. Bassano Ltd active until 1962 - https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp08062/bassano-ltd - so not Alexander Bassano (deceased by then) and therefore unknown
3. https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw69467/Archibald-Percival-Wavell-1st-Earl-Wavell says whole-plate film negative, 19 November 1936; Given by Bassano & Vandyk Studios, 1974. No mention of any restoration
4. en:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute is based on the amount of work it took to digitize and restore them - This is not a scan of an framed oil painting, it's just a simple action to get a positive image, but any restoration in UK probably world gain copyright - I would guess no restoration based on the untidy black edges on left and right, any decent restoration would sort out those areas.

Since company is wound up, photographer is unknown, no restoration in my view, so on balance I would go with {{PD-UK-unknown}}

Hope that helps. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It helped. For the future, do I get it right that according to UK law a digitalized PD work might be copyrighted if notable restoration work has been done to the derivative file (despite the original is PD)? And what if the original is not from UK author (i.e. if it is from US author – should we apply UK law or US law then?). Please pardon the late night timing. Regards --Mates (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mates: UK is always difficult :-) The COM:TOO United Kingdom is so very low (and also some of the countries we used to own) - look at the classic case of File:EDGE logo.svg - that would be PD anywhere else. As soon as someone picks up a pen or a brush and starts making some "marks" then it so easy to gain copyright, UK signatures aren't allowed either. My guess is if there was a PD work, that gets some restoration in the UK then the original would be OK, but the restored work would need to be carefully evaluated. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I look for the correct licence

Bonjour, vous avez supprimé File:Ali Nesin ICM 2018-1.jpg en disant que le copyright n'était pas correct. Quel est la licence qu'il faut mettre quand elle est marquée : Public Domain Mark 1.0 ? Merci d'avance, ManiacParisien 17:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@ManiacParisien: Please see User:Ronhjones/PDMreply Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Bon merci, j'ai bien l'impression que c'est compliqué. J'ai dû naïvement faire des versements incorrects. ManiacParisien 18:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Create a bot together

Also we have sometimes different opinons, I noticed that you are very helpfull, if someone asks for help. I hope this helds true. :-)

Since I seem to be too stupid to create a bot on my own, I would like create a bot together.

I would like to extract PNG/JPEG from Fake SVGs. this is pretty simple: Any immage in that category conaints a <image with one of the attribute xlink:href=", depending it if is a JPEG or a PNG the following value occours:

• xlink:href="..."
• xlink:href="..."

What we need to do is base64.exe --decode svg.txt > Image.png with svg.txt containing

• /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAgAAZABkAAD/7AARRHVja3kAAQAEAAAAHgAA...
• iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAA...

And copy the description from filename.svg to filename.png and mark the old SVG with {{Duplicate}} and Upload the Image.png to filename.png

I could write a shell-script that extractes the png from the svg (You could also write it in Python since it is just textediting).

I hope you can help me?

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 19:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I can probably do this. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz and JoKalliauer: OK, Alexis - please have a go - I can see how the flow goes. I've never created a new file with python, would need some checking to find correct api call. I did try B64.exe from https://sourceforge.net/projects/base64/, seems to work OK - I took File:Indicative (Saudi Aarbia Road Sign).svg, chopped off everything before "iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAA", and used B64 to get a working png (didn't need to chop off the end rubbish). I was thinking of a python split using "iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAA" as the split variable, then joining the second and third parts back up for the B64 conversion. NB:I did find a file with TWO raster images File:2013 Presidential Election map-Iran.svg, I would assume we would have to skip those. However I am on the rewrite of two bots on back on en-wiki at present and this one would have had to take a somewhat back seat. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@JoKalliauer: I won't convert this:

• File:Cbj8n-bms6u.svg smells like copyvio
• File:Mario Gonzalez Sanchez.svg copyvio
• File:TonyBellew.svg copyvio
• File:80daysRally Map1.svg was already converted
• File:80daysRally Map2.svg was already converted
• File:80daysRally Map3.svg was already converted
• File:Epizentro diagrama euskaraz.svg was already converted
• File:Auslandsjournal Logo 2018.svg was already converted
• File:Illu01 head neck eu.svg was already converted
• File:Illu mouth new eu.svg was already converted
• File:626Byzantium.svg was already converted
• File:Wear OS.svg
• Some others I forgot
• Everything in Category:Fake SVG that requires review‎

I'll try to convert the others. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@JoKalliauer: I never want to do this again. What a mess. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 02:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@JoKalliauer: That message was to be taken as "I am done" btw. I processed Category:Fake SVG to the degree reasonably possible. There is no need to process Category:Fake SVGs by Allice Hunter because Allice Hunter works on converting them to real SVGs. If you want I might look at some of the other subcategories, but only if they have reasonably consistent wikitext, everything in the subcategory actually needs to be converted and the images are 100% fake SVGs. A PNG with some SVG text overlay is not that and can't simply be extracted. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: I did not want to go into details from beginning, since I expected help much slower. I knew that there some FakeSVGs contain several images. I would have skipped those. I'm not sure if those should be considered as FakeSVGs or BadSVGs. I talked with @Sarang: not even a year ago about this splitting FakeSVGs from BadSVGs (User_talk:Sarang/Archive/2018#BadSVG_in_FakeSVG_und_sinnvoll_eingebundes_PNG_trennen?), and later @Perhelion: introduced it into his User:Perhelion/simpleSVGcheck.js.

@Alexis Jazz: Thanks! That was faster than I expected. FakeSVGs are created mostly by User who have less experience and mostly don't know the difference between JPEG and SVG and do something "strange". Therefore I expected that there are several problematic files.

Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates is unclear how to treat FakeSVGs. There was a discussion about it in June2018 (User_talk:Perhelion/Archive/2018#Löschpolitik_von_Bad_SVG partly in German, mostly in English). My Opinion is that FakeSVGs should be converted to realSVGs. But in most cases nobody will do that, therefore I would mark FakeSVGs as duplicate, but maybe we should start a general DeletionRequest (for those which most likely won't get converted to realSVGs).

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 11:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz and JoKalliauer: Wild idea - is it possible to "grab" the png from an svg image page. e.g. File:2013 Presidential Election map-Iran.svg at 1,281 × 878, and wiki makes a pre-formed png with link on the page for 1,281 × 878 at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/2013_Presidential_Election_map-Iran.svg/1281px-2013_Presidential_Election_map-Iran.svg.png - that would solve all the "text overlay"/"multiple raster"/etc. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

There are often scaling issues. Compare File:Djebel Umm ad Dami.jpg and File:Djebel Umm ad Dami.svg. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: If you call for the largest pic - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Djebel_Umm_ad_Dami.svg/1280px-Djebel_Umm_ad_Dami.svg.png is damn close to https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Djebel_Umm_ad_Dami.jpg, just a slight (1 pixel?) white border right and bottom (which is in the svg when I loaded it into Scibus), and not an artefact of wikis conversion. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that "damn close", the .svg.png is clearly more blurry because it's scaled. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Well they look the same on my big moniotor. I just put

• https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Djebel_Umm_ad_Dami.svg/1280px-Djebel_Umm_ad_Dami.svg.png
• https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Djebel_Umm_ad_Dami.jpg

into photoshop and cropped a small distinct area in both and they look the same Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I clearly see the difference, and my monitor isn't even that big and this particular photo quite forgiving. There is a clear degradation in quality which means such a PNG can never supersede the fake SVG. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: I am against grabbing, since it would be a lossy, inefficient file.

1. File:2013 Presidential Election map-Iran.svg conatins two pictures: Open the file in Firefox press Ctrl and u at the same time then you will get view-source:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/2013_Presidential_Election_map-Iran.svg. Then scroll a bit down and click on the blue text then you see the picutures in Full resolution. Then scroll down to the end then you see there is another image, much smaller than click onto this than you see a second smaller picture which is above the other one. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/2013_Presidential_Election_map-Iran.svg/1281px-2013_Presidential_Election_map-Iran.svg.png is blurry and therfore will need more filespace and has a lower quality at the same time. Files with more than one immage should not just extracted to PNG/JPEG, and maybe should not even be consindered as FakeSVGs, since it can be desired.
2. File:Djebel Umm ad Dami.svg: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Djebel_Umm_ad_Dami.svg/1280px-Djebel_Umm_ad_Dami.svg.png is in my opinion an artefact.
   1. I extracted a PNG with inkscape with 300dpi (1280x855) and it does not contain any white border.
   2. <svg... width="409.60001" height="273.60001" viewBox="0 0 409.60001 273.60001"...>
      ...
      <image width="409.60001" height="273.60001"... x="0" y="0"/>
      ...
      </svg>

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 20:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Grabbing the largest png should not be an issue as the png is lossless format - and the largest png offered is usually the same size as the svg nominal size. The border seen is probably the 0.6 pixel, wiki cannot code with fractional pixels. Nothing is even easy in wiki! Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

If you grab File:2013_Presidential_Election_map-Iran.png at 1280px or at 1282px you

• need more filesize
• and get a lower quality

than with 1281px

it is independent that png uses/allows lossless compression. Because scaling with non-natural factors has to interpolate pixels, which leads at the same time to increasing file-size and a lower quality

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 21:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

deleted file: Regisseur Karl-Martin Pold auf dem Filmfest München 2017.jpg

Dear Rohnjones,

I have all rights on this picture and I already send to the permission mail of Wikipedia. So I don´t know where is the problem and why it was deleted again. Please help me to know what else I can do to prove that this picture. I have permission of the copyright holder to upload this image and can provide such permission via e-mail. Thanks for your help All the best volcanus99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volcanus99 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Volcanus99: I found one e-mail with "Volcanus99" in it - it refers to Filmregisseur_Karl-Martin_Pold_bei_der_Weltpremiere_von_"Sie_nannten_ihn_Spencer"_auf_dem_Münchner_Filmfest - is this the file - we have no file with that name. I see File:Regisseur Karl-Martin Pold.jpg(deleted 22:32, 12 February 2019); File:Karl-Martin Pold auf dem Müncher Filmfest.jpg(deleted 02:47, 24 April 2018); File:Regisseur Karl-Martin Pold auf dem Filmfest München 2017.jpg (deleted 00:36, 28 September 2018). None of the 3 files had the required {{subst:OP}} added to show they have an e-mail being sent, and you never replied to the OTRS agent's e-mail of 31/08/2018 02:41 asking you for the exact url of the image. Decide which name you want, I will restore it and add the required template - if you have not got the e-mail, I can resend it. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Concerns Media:Ks Andrzej Kobyliński.jpg

Hi Ronhjones, The person in the picture, Andrzej Kobyliński, gave me the full right to dispose of this photograph. What should I do to legally place them on Wikimedia Commons? With the permission of Andrzej Kobyliński, I edit his page on Wikipedia Andrzej Kobyliński. He asked me to put his photo. If necessary, I can provide an email address to Andrzej Kobyliński. Please help. Best wishes, Chphoros — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chphoros (talk • contribs) 07:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chphoros: Have a look at COM:OTRS. If you send in an e-mail, let me know and I will undelete to allow the OTRS team to sort out the permission. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yellow vest movement, globalization folder

I am not sure what you want but I am with the yellow vest movement myself and hand out these folders during demonstrations. The guy who made it told me he had no objections. But do you want there written approval or something? No idea if I changed the information correctly either. I am not sure what to fill in. :shrug: ... AntonHogervorst (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay please tell me what you want me to do, because I am sure I can settle this. Do you want an email from the people who made the flyer? I know these guys so it would be no problem. And they want their point to be known so publishing this, it would make them háppy even. AntonHogervorst (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@AntonHogervorst: Whoever designed it, holds the copyright - they need to read COM:OTRS to see how to release the copyright. If they send in an e-mail then remove my banner and replace with {{subst:OP}}, to stop deletion, as OTRS is rather slow Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 03:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I will try to contact them. Maybe get a better picture too even! AntonHogervorst (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I have found them. What email address can I use to send the email? AntonHogervorst (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@AntonHogervorst: All the data you need is on COM:OTRS Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Working on it.. I think I found it. The guy (not me) has to do this https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTRS/Mijn_eigen_afbeelding#Wat_is_de_oplossing? And I presume doing the email in Dutch is okay, it does not have to be in English.AntonHogervorst (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Since I now have the original file my colleague sent to the printer, I have made a second image file, AntiGlobalism2.png. For this I will also ask the original creators permission. AntonHogervorst (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@AntonHogervorst: Most languages are OK. OTRS has a wide variety of agents. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Has someone now sent that mail or not? I found them on facebook, (yellow vests Maastricht), they agreed that the picture could be used. But I have the impression that they are all looking at each other who is going to send the official email and nobody does anything. That is rather frustrating as you might imagine. Either send the email or say I cannot use it. AntonHogervorst (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@AntonHogervorst: Nothing on searching, and I checked the last couple of weeks in the Dutch queue - nothing matching there. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 13:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Follow up Flag

Just confirming that I added the right information to the Alianza por Un Nuevo Pais flag in which it was a political coalition. --Albahas (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Albahas: The flag was made up of four distinct parts. Each part needs it's own permission (from the copyright holders) and license statement. If you can get all those permissions, then use COM:UDR Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Isechika uploads

{いせちか国際空港)

• File:田園調布在住和氣あず未.jpg (hist • logs • abuse log)
• File:心斎橋に実家がある菅沼千紗.jpg (hist • logs • abuse log)
• File:武蔵小杉在住鈴木絵理.jpg (hist • logs • abuse log)
• File:田園調布在住和氣あず未と武蔵小杉在住鈴木絵理.jpg (hist • logs • abuse log)

They've uploaded some new ones; accounts already locked. Regards, -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 19:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@PlyrStar93:  Done Accounts marked as socks Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 19:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

New uploads...

File:代官山在住の長島光那.jpg (hist • logs • abuse log)

File:ビジパフォに乗り込む立花理香.jpg (hist • logs • abuse log)

File:紙屋町出身成海瑠奈.jpg (hist • logs • abuse log).

All accounts are already locked so far. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 13:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@PlyrStar93: User:インターネットかじるスパム - uploaded an image uploaded by User:Cafe＆Bar DINGO. I thought it was quiet... Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that one! Yeah he's sort of coming back these couple days. Another one: ミリナノは金巻裕也とマブダチ. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 21:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:180720 KimberlyGuilfoyle 248.tif has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, image...

Hi RonHJones,

I believe I made the appropriate fixes to not delete my photo and to have it post on Kimberly Guilfoyle's page. Please advise as this is my first attempt on Wiki and want to ensure she has my image upon her page.

Many thanks,

Jill Lotenberg February 17, 2019 Jillphotography (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jillphotography: It says "Metropolitan Magazine Cover Photo", if it's on a magazine, we cannot take it, as the copyright will normally be with the magazine owners. If it's your photo and you still retain the copyright, you need to go to COM:OTRS. If you send in an e-mail then add {{subst:OP}} to the image page. (if it gets deleted before then, then come back here for undelete as re-uploading is not really allowed). Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

CGP

Hello, you have put a notice that several images of CGP Coating Innovation do not respect copyright laws could you please explain why ??? Those images all belong to CGP Coating Innovation and were offered to the Wikipedia community for free use. I guss we will not share any of our historical images ever again. But please explain WHY???

THANK YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CGP Coating Innovation (talk • contribs) 09:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC) @CGP Coating Innovation: Then you need to prove that CGP Coating Innovation has give permission. Anyone can create any user name so that does not give permission. Images from companies need to be processed by COM:OTRS Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:02, 18 February 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:Cynthia Nixon Weds Christine Marinoni.jpg

Yours sincerely, BevinKacon (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I took the moonlight photo

I see that you want to remove the photo of my cat. I took that photo, and it is copyright free. Please do not remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron Justin Giebel (talk • contribs) 22:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Aaron Justin Giebel: If images are uploaded here, and are found to be already on another web site, then they will almost certainly be deleted. One needs to upload here first and nowhere else for a while. The only way of keeping such images is to go via COM:OTRS to prove ownership. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

File:José da Costa Nunes visitou Timor 1937.jpg

Hi Ronhjones, I've taken the liberty to replace your no-perm by OTRS-pending, as the permission for this upload from 2013 had been sent to OTRS shortly after upload. --Túrelio (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Túrelio: OK, another 30 days won't hurt. I can find no match in OTRS - but searching is never easy, especially if they don't use the file name (not unknown!) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

File Deleted by Bot: Commons: File:David-Arata-Screenwriter.jpg

Hi,

This image was removed by a bot even though the copyright holder i.e. the photographer of the photo uploaded it himself. What do we need to do to get this photo of David to stay up? Is there anyway you can help? We have tried two different ways and both have been taken down. I was under the impression if the copyright holder uploaded it there wouldn't be an issue.

Drsammyjohnson (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)DrSammyJohnson

@Drsammyjohnson: There are no bots deleting files. All deletions are done by active admins - I'm only up to 37620 deletion, there are admins with deletions magnitudes higher - it's a very busy part of an admin. The image first appeared as File:DavidArata.jpg, uploaded by yourself 22:47, 17 December 2018, with a source of https://www.flickr.com/photos/145801137@N04/31419770587/in/dateposted-public/ and deleted some two weeks later after being tagged as a PDM (Public Domain Mark). PDM is not an acceptable license, unless the image is very old, or very obviously PD - in which case it needs a PD license. PDM is not equivalent to cc-zero. Then the file got re-uploaded by Scenic1, all re-uploads are flagged automatically, no matter what file name or user name, as we normally only allow a file to be uploaded once. That had a license of {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} - when files are uploaded as "own work" and they exist elsewhere first, then that always gets a copyright violation - we have no way on site of quickly validating any user's credentials. For "own work" one needs to upload here FIRST or use the COM:OTRS team to validate permission - note they will need the photographer to send in the permission, not the subject. Normally the quickest way to resolve a PDM is to get the Flickr owner to change the license on the Flickr page - he (you?) has obviously made a bad mistake - and then ask for undeletion once changed. See also User:Ronhjones/PDMreply to show what the Flickr option should be. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 04:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@ronhjones - thank you for the helpful information. The Flickr permissions have been updated and we have submitted for undeletion. your help is appreciated in learning to navigate Wiki.

Drsammyjohnson (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)DrSammyJohnson

Krustyland photo

Hi Rohnjones. I was the photographer of this scene. I blanked out the faces (using Paint on my Mac) as I did not want anyone to be identifiable.Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wyatt Tyrone Smith: You did not blank out the 3D Simpson artwork of a copyrighted character. No FoP for 3D artwork in USA (Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Freedom_of_panorama) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Rohnjones, I was not aware of that. Please delete the image, thanks.Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wyatt Tyrone Smith: Don't worry, it catches out a lot of people. I think that's a reason why Disney built in Paris and not UK - French FoP is worse than US, and UK FoP is virtually photograph anything... Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

While I have your attention: I posted another picture in the same batch as Krustyland, File:Church of Scientology Info Centre.jpg which is a building in LA that was built after 1923. Am I going to have the same issue with this picture?Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wyatt Tyrone Smith: Buildings are find and so is that photo. You may get an issue with File:Pokemon Go VR Character in Soweto.jpg, but the copyright bit might go through as COM:DM, but the name is in the title... also not sure about File:Nelson Mandela Artwork at Apartheid Museum by Marco Cianfanelli.jpg, depends on FoP of that province. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for checking.Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

ISECHIKA

Two more today:

• 大宮駅で喧嘩を起こした津田美波 (talk · contribs)
• 仮面ライダーにいちゃもんをつける西中行雄 (talk · contribs)

-★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 14:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@PlyrStar93: Now add Needle Light feat. Miyoco Kawahara (talk · contribs) - I recognised the upload. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Runbox.png

Thanks for alerting me about the lack of permission information for the logo File:Runbox.png on Runbox. Would you mind providing an example of a license that would be appropriate for a company logo that we have produced ourselves?

GeirThomasAndersen (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@GeirThomasAndersen: The copyright of a company logo is obviously owned by the company. It does not matter if you copy the logo direct from their web site or make a copy any other way - it's still a copy of a copyrighted work, and needs the company's permission. For Wikipedias that allow it, typically logos are uploaded locally as a non-free image (like there are 600,000 non-free images on en-wiki, and I would guess that about one quarter are logos) - see m:NFC to see if your wiki allows non-free (fair use) files. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: I understand all this, and I am the author of the logo on behalf of the company Runbox Solutions AS. However, it isn't clear exactly what the permission or license should state. Compare with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FastMail_Logo_with_wordmark.png (company logo with copyright) and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amazon_logo_plain.svg (under the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection). Since you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject, can you provide advice on the appropriate action to take? GeirThomasAndersen (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@GeirThomasAndersen: en:File:FastMail Logo with wordmark.png is a non-free logo, properly set up on en-wiki. File:Amazon logo plain.svg is a simple logo below the US COM:TOO using {{PD-textlogo}} as a license. So these are the choices...

1. Non-free on en-wiki - need to have an autoconfirmed account to upload locally (10 edits and 4 days old). There is a lot of text on en:File:FastMail Logo with wordmark.png - but if you click edit to view the source, you will see most is auto-generated - it would make a good model for a logo upload - use en:Special:Upload and bypass all the wizards and enter directly everything in the box.
2. {{PD-textlogo}} on commons, - but you need to be sure that the logo is below the COM:TOO of the country of origin.
3. {{PD-textlogo}} on en-wiki, - but you need to be sure that the logo is below the COM:TOO of the USA, and it may then need a "Do not copy to commons" template - sometimes used for logos from common law countries (UK, Australia, NZ, etc.) where the TOO is so very low.
4. Free image - that has a license like {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} or just {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Since all editors can pick any user name, they are effectively anonymous - therefore the permission has to be sent in from the company by e-mail.

Hope that makes some sense. The difficult part is deciding if a logo is below the TOO of the country of origin - there's no hard and fast rule, it can be very subjective. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Thanks for all of that information. It sounds like option 1 (Non-free on en-wiki) is the appropriate one. Should I remove the logo and upload it again as you describe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeirThomasAndersen (talk • contribs) 19:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@GeirThomasAndersen: Get your en-wiki images sorted out first, then let me know and I will delete (you cannot delete). Make sure the non free image is placed on the Runbox article as soon as you have uploaded it. There are bots which will tag it as an orphan image if it is not. There are also bots to sort out the sizing of the non free image - some are mine - don't worry, all re-sizing to the correct guideline size is automatic. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yennello Photo Deletion

Centaurtamu (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC) I have noticed that the image of Dr.Yennello uploaded to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherry_Yennello was deleted citing copyright references to centaur.tamu.edu. This Wikipedia account has been created on behalf of CENTAUR TAMU using the official e-mail id, which you can verify if you would like to. CENTAUR wishes to create Wikipedia pages for all the scientists affiliated with the research program and shall be using the same images as those we have got on the website. Please resolve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centaurtamu (talk • contribs) 16:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Centaurtamu: Fatal flaw in your argument - no one is able to see your e-mail address - it's locked away by the system for security reasons. To verify an account with an official e-mail address you will have to go via OTRS - see COM:OTRS. Once they have verified it, they can undelete the image. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Centaurtamu (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC) Will do that. Thanks!

Confused by request for Permissions on File:Art + Feminism Transgender Mark.png

Hello, I am confused by your flag on File:Art + Feminism Transgender Mark.png uploaded by RyanMinkoff under my supervision, saying "This media file is missing evidence of permission." The work is derivative of extant work on commons. See Category:ArtAndFeminism logos. To my knowledge this is not a situation where an OTRS release is needed. Please explain what we need to do, or remove the template. --Theredproject (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Theredproject: In that case you must state the file that was used as the base image - you just stated it was a derivative - that could come from anywhere, it did not say it was on commons. Add the link and you can remove the banner. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. --Theredproject (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)