User talk:Ww2censor/Archive1

Archive1

Talk page • Archive 1 • Archive 2

---

Welcome

Welcome to the Commons, Ww2censor/Archive1!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Yann 04:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Austrian stamp copyright

-copied back from stan's talk page-
Hi Stan, I had some discussion about an Austrian stamp deletion with one of the Commons admins who initially answered with what I thought were offhand comments. Because I was unhappy with his answers and did not agree with some of the statements he made in reply I followed up with more detailed questions here but he has ignored me completely, just archiving my post. In my opinion that is very disrespectful, maybe even arrogant, but perhaps you can answer some of the questions I posed. TIA. Ww2censor (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
-end of post from stan's talk page-

Germans, what can I say... To tell the truth, I've never been comfortable with the quotations of the "official decrees" laws as establishing PD status for stamps - those are really intended to prevent publishers from attempting to control legal texts. For all we know, the (private) terms of the artists' and designers' contracts with the postal organizations are just a license to use, and leave the full copyright ownership with them, not the government. Crown copyright and US law are much clearer that the PDness applies to all imaginable works, for instance specifying "employees" and "official duties" so that personal snapshots don't become PD, etc. It just seems strange to me that Austrian (or Russian, etc) law doesn't seem to have anything as explicit and clear. So I'm on the fence, can't argue from authority on either retention or deletion. Stan Shebs (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

So do I presume, that without any confirmation to the contrary, you would use a 70-year criteria? Thanks for your thought on this topic. Ww2censor (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please follow directions

The deletion template has as step 3 to notify the uploader of a deletion request. I notice you missed step 3 and didn't notify me you'd nominated one of my files for deletion. Thanks a lot. -Nard the Bard 11:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

A pleasure Nard!! Oops, missed that one. Unfortunately I don't agree with the decision, but so be it. That specific passport style is not more than 50 years old. One individual element used on a less than 50-year old items does not give it PD, but I would really like to see the old discussion anyway. Ww2censor (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Estampillas

Respecto del archivo 1970-Ag8DiadelaArmada-GoletaJuliet1814.jpg : Aún si se dudara de que una estampilla es de uso público, la estampilla es de 1970 y verifica ser publicada por primera vez en Argentina hace más de 25 años (Ley 11723) dominio público. El cuadro reproducido es de alrededor de 1950 y su autor murió en 1977. Porqué debe ser eliminada?

En cuanto a Martín Garcia-Estampilla.jpg el autor de la pintura es el mismo por lo que su reproducción tampoco debería dar problemas.

Por favor espero su respuesta. Saludos. Quijav (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I read English and a little German and French. Translate if you need a reply. Ww2censor (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the file File:1970-Ag8DiadelaArmada-GoletaJuliet1814.jpg: Even if it strives for a stamp is for public use, the stamp is verified to be 1970 and first published in Argentina for over 25 years (Law 11723) public domain. The picture is around 1950 and its author died in 1977. Why should be eliminated?

As Martin Garcia-Estampilla.jpg the author of the painting is the same as the reproduction should not give problems.

You can use, like me:[1]

Quijav (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Argentina stamps must be more than 50 years old to be in the public domain. None of these stamps qualify per {{PD-AR-Anonymous}}. Argentina sellos deben ser más de 50 años de estar en el dominio público. De estos sellos no califican. Sorry. Ww2censor (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

copyvios by User:Mysticshade

Hi Ww2censor,
thanks for finding out the real sources of the many copyvios by User:Mysticshade. However, in such very clear-cut cases, it is easier (for you and the community) not to make an rfd, but to tag the images directly with the {{Copyvio}} template (providing the source, as you have done in your rfd's). Cheers. --Túrelio (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose I could have done that but now that I have the "nominate for deletion" button on the lefthand side toolbox, I just used that. Is there a way of adding other features, like I have on the en wiki, like tagging, wrning and "csd" deletion buttons? BTW did you look at this file. Because the majority of the files this editor has uploaded are copyvios, would it not be best to nominate them all for deletion as suspect. They are all different quality and sizes, have no metedata and those that do have been taken by different cameras in two different countries. I have only seen one valid upload. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way of ... - I'm not very knowledgable in that. Try on your userpage Settings > Gadgets. About the File:Flag of Ireland.JPG, as it has already a rfd it doesn't seem to be so urgent to me to speedy it. Would it not be best ... - maybe, maybe not. Some admins would do it, I'm a little bit more hesitant, and would first try to find the source. If you have the nerve to track down some of those probable copyvios (in case the images have any value a all) without loosing to much time, that would be great. Cheers.--Túrelio (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

stamp image violation

Sorry I did not get the policy of stamps after dec 31 1977. Sorry for being a pain! I will try not to be one again! :) Jonverve (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well actually you are!! You just uploaded the same image to the en wiki where the same rule applies. All post-1977 US stamps are copyright no matter where you upload them. You even used the same {{PD-USGov}} template which states the same dates. The only use of US stamps on the en-wiki might be under fair use rationale but even that is very restrictive for all copyright stamps and it does not allow the use of a stamp, as you have done with this one, to show the subject of the stamp, i.e., you cannot use a stamp in a biography to show the subject of the stamp. Sorry but we take copyright very seriously on the commons and the en wiki has pretty tight rules in this regard too. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not know the same policy applied to the en wiki as well as commons. I got the message. Jonverve (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's good but all you had to do was read the text of the template you added to the uploaded post-1977 images. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There is another new US-Stamp: File:RW75.jpg

Sorry for uploading one - but when I checked what which license was in new Stamps all had the {{PD-USGov}} template and I thought - than it is like it it in German stamps. That sounded reasonable, so I thought it is OK. --Kersti (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not done a thorough review but the Duck stamps are not issued by the USPS, so are not limited by the same copyright licence that post-1977 US postage stamps are. Because they are produced by a US government department it seems clear that these stamps do fall within the public domain so the licence {{PD-USGov}} seems correct. Thanks for your concern and honesty. Ww2censor (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, I was misled by the enwiki license tag as PD. -- Drini 17:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wirtland

Dear wwwCensor, Thanks for your notes regarding copyright of Wirtland's images. Wirtland has agreed to have the images of coin, postage, coat of arms, flag, snapshots pertaining to Wirtland to be published in Wikipedia as public domain images. Thank you for preserving the images! Regards, Witizen (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case you must either provide permission by an OTRS ticket, or specifically change the copyright notice on the website to indicate the images are freely licensed and released into the public domain which currently shows a copyright notice, otherwise they will be deleted by an administrator. Ww2censor (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

We will be glad to comply with your requirements. Please advise which copyright notice on the website are you referring to, and I'll make all necessary changes. The images themselves do not bear any copyright signs, except for the coin image. If you're referring to the coin image only, we can replace it. Thank you for your clarification. Witizen (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Coin image has now been replaced with the one without a copyright notice. Thanks. Witizen (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Either follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS or change the website copyright notice which is at the bottom left of several pages to a free license. The fact that the images themselves do not have copyright notice or watermark does not mean that someone does not own the copyright to the image and because these come from the Wirtland website which has a copyright notice on it, we have to presume the images from there are copyright too unless there is a specific notice to the contrary. You could of course put up a copyright page, or add a paragraph to the legal page, indicating that all images from your site are freely licenced and in the public domain. Do you understand that public domain images may be used for anything by anybody even commercial uses such as putting on t-shirts for sale? You may actually prefer a slightly more restrictive licence such as some of the Creative Commons licences. Check out this Commons:Copyright tags and especially this: Commons:Creative Commons copyright tags to make a suitable choice. Ww2censor (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you did not need to upload a new coin file under a new name, you can just upload a new version with the same name. Just click on the words: "Upload a new version of this file" near the bottom of the file page and follow the instructions to overwrite the old file. Now someone has to go and deleted it, so it makes more work for admins who are already too busy trying to keep the place clean. Ww2censor (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, and sorry for my mistake. I tried to delete the old file myself to save admins' time but did not get how to do that -- the Wiki rules take quite some time to understand for an average user. Now, I tried to change the website copyright notice, which you say is at the bottom left of pages, but could not find it. Sorry for being a dumb lamer. I am simply trying to follow the model article ATLANTIUM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantium), as I have been in touch with its author before. I don't see any difference in the copyright settings between Wirtland and Atlantium. Witizen (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen

(please indent your posts by adding one extra colon than the previous entry). The Atlantium website clearly states: This website and its contents are copyright 10500-10528 (1981-2009) by the Ministry of Communications of the Empire of Atlantium. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. at the bottom of the home page so if there are any images taken from their website they too should be deleted unless they follow the same instructions. You cannot delete an image or any other page unless you are an administrator. Sorry but I can't help you with your website. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Today I see that one editor (Kameraad Pjotr, a 18 year old guy) simply deleted important images from our article, including Wirtland's coat of arms, without ANY advance notice, and without allowing time for us to provide additional copyright information. This is not undoable, and there is no way I can "talk" to this editor. I cannot believe this may be in line with Wikipedia's policy, and I would like to fill a complaint. Regarding your edits and suggestions I have no objections. I am in contact with Wirtland's PR Office, which will issue statement that the images are in public domain (as was stated originally in the image descriptions). Please advise where should PR Office direct this official statement, in order to resolve the issue with images. Thanks. Witizen (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen

Don't tell me you had no notice that the images might not be deleted. That is what the copyright notices on your talk page clearly told you. Policy is that copyright images may be deleted at some future time or even sooner. Don't say you cannot talk to the deleting editor because you can of course leave a message for the deleting administrator User:Kameraad Pjotr and tell him that someone from Wirtland will be emailing an OTRS request per the information I gave you above. When that email arrives and an OTRS ticket is generated the images may be undeleted avoiding you having to reupload them. As a regular editor, I have already gone way past anything I usually do and cannot give you any more information right now. You just need to follow the rules that are clearly laid out for you but if you have any more questions I will try to help you. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

We appreciate edits and suggestions of editors and I trust you have noted that we are doing our best to comply with them. A statement to OTRS has been mailed from Wirtland, confirming all Wirtland images used in article are indeed public domain, as we have stated originally. Witizen (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Wirtland

Images shared by Paravis

Hello there, I have a quick question regarding images that I am publishing to the Commons. I have been capturing digital media (both video and images) during medical surgeries under the direction of Michael S. Schwartz, MD. In total, I currently have nearly 3000 images, with more to come. Now, I would like to release this media under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License, but because I am not the actual source (only the photographer/videographer), I must have written permission sent by Michael S. Schwartz regarding his release for use. Will I have to send permission for every single video and photo? Or is there a way that I can share them all under a "bulk" release?

The images are currently not publicly accessible through his website, www.drmichaelschwartz.com (simply because Michael S. Schwartz prefers it that way), but I could have a link posted with image license information that all images sourced from Michael S. Schwartz are released under the CC-BY-SA-3.0. Or ... ? Unfortunately, I am new to both the publishing/releasing of images and to the Wikimedia Commons, and so I would greatly appreciate any advice you might be able to offer.

I will have a written release for the 10 currently shared images sent in by the end of the day. However, for the remaining ~3000, I'd like to have a somewhat more concise method of releasing the rights to them :). Anyways, thank you so much for your help and advice. Paravis (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

OHH, sorry, I just re-read your post on my discussion page. I'll have the terms of use page edited promptly. And thanks again! Paravis (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the Terms of Use on the source webpage has been updated to specify all images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons to be licensed under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 License. Is the update (article 10/11) sufficient to release these images? I have updated all image sources to include the Terms of Use link for direct access to the licensing information. Is that all I need to have taken care of? Or is there anything else ... ? Thanks so much for your time and help. Paravis (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I don't know the exact answers to your question but have asked MichaelMaggs‎ to reply to you based on your questions above. He should be able to help you with all the questions these image pose. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks a lot for your help. Paravis (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Replying on Paravis's talk page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Stamps

Hi. I replied to your question on my talk page, though I'm sorry it isn't as helpful as either of us might wish. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Protest

I turn off the conversation and it is terrible. I regret very. --Carpkazu (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no conversation to be made here because everything about this issue is on the deletion page; Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Carpkazu‎. Why do we want to start any extra discussion here and break up the discussions about this matter? That is very silly because other interested editors will not see anything that you post here, so they won't know about it. Please keep the discussions in one place on the deletion page, unless it is about something different. Thanks. Ww2censor (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Solar eclipse images

Please, pay attention a little before you go about claiming copyright violations. Unless I am mistaken, all tagged images (1, 2, 3) have a license, that is in accordance with the Commons policy. This license has been applied to the images by the original author (User:Shehal on enwiki) after I personally requested it. Consequently, I have removed the {{copyvio}} templates. --Hydrox (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I do and I agree they are great images but you are also well aware of us being very concerned about copyright status. Indeed all images do have an acceptable copyright tag, however the source page clearly shows a non-commercial Creative Commons licence which is incompatible with the commons and different from that added to the images. Additionally the image are clearly watermarked which usually sends up red flags and will cause someone to question the copyright status. Normally we expect to generate an OTRS ticket to verify the permission to use such images under a different licence then its source, which is why I tagged them as copyvios. There is no verification of the permission other than your say so and the discussion on the uploader's talk page as mentioned above. We see far too many false claims, even if this is not one. Personally I would be happier to see an OTRS ticket for these images because later someone else may tag them again, so I advise you to arrange an officially generated consent. Ww2censor (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I Strongly condemn the deletion or discussion suggestion of File:Mola_pak3.jpg

I dont agree with the suggestion to discuss the validity of File:Mola_pak3.jpg because it is purely my own creation and can be proved whenever and whatever is required. I take full responsibility of its usage. It is purely my own work and no one claim on it. So the discussion suggestion is useless. As far as my other uploads are concerned, I have changed almost all controversial uploads / images and have also supplied appropriate licensing information on all of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckyaim (talk • contribs) 14:19, 4 March 2010

Then discuss it at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mola pak3.jpg. Ww2censor (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

PNG is inappropriate for photographs

I hope you have now stopped uploading photographs in PNG format - eg. File:Irl BoyneRiverBridge.png. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Then why is the advise at Help:Image scanning#PNG vs. JPEG to use png over jpeg and Commons:First steps/Quality and description says that PNG … is theoretically better for photographs? Do you disagree with that advise? Ww2censor (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Viking Mission 1978 Issue

Hi Ww2censor. I was informed by Stan shebs of the 'fair-use' restriction on 1978+ postage images in W'commons. Though no permission is required from USPS for 1978+ image use if use is educational, W'commons will not allow them. I will remove the Viking mission image if you have not already. My apologies. If there is an easy way to make use of this image where everyone is happy I would certainly be interested. I read a bit about fair use, and I could not find anything that was of help for the situation here. Gwillhickers (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Public domain von US-Briefmarken

Hallo Ww2censor, hier, auf der russischen Wikipedia-Seite zu en:Margaret Bourke-White ist eine Briefmarke

• ist diese Briefmarke (US stamp) Public domain)?
• Welche Briefmarken der USA sind public domain?

My englisch is not so well, so please excuse me to ask you in German. I friendly beg you to do the same. (Translation: In the russion article about Margaret there is a US stamp...

• is that public domain?
• which US stamps are public domain altogether?

We are discussing in the german article about Margaret. You' r welcome --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Further questions: 1.) Could all the photos taken by Margaret in the Buchenwald Concentration Camp all be public domain? 2.) Which airial photos shooten by Margaret in 1945 could be public domain? (and could so be uploaded in Commons?) Do you know any exact references? By remembering Shoa for all times - Best regards from Hannover --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Mein Deutsch schreiben ist nicht so gut. Die briefmarken von USA sind nur im public domain vor Dezember 1977, nach diese siet sind sie Urheberrechts. Seehen sie Commons:Briefmarken#Vereinigte Staaten. Die meisten Fotos von Margaret-Bourke White sind immer noch Urheberrecht unterliegt ausser während der zeit wenn sie in der von der US-Regierung beschäftigen. Vielleicht keiner der Konzentrationslager Buchenwald Bilder sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Vielen glück. Ww2censor (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much: I copied the phrase from commons in certain places to the german wikipedia. I don`t know, when the Margaret stamp appeared, but perhaps also other user can help. You 'r welcome --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The stamp was issued on 18 February 1999, so it is still a copyright stamp. The original en image was deleted per this log. Ww2censor (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What's a pitty. But thank you very much--Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:FRL-4H.jpg

Hi. There are 5 more similar images in Category:Festiniog Railway Letter Service, you should probably add those too. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

While I prefer to keep as many appropriately licenced images as possible, the GB crown copyright of the stamps makes these copyright violations though I am sure one could make a fair-use claim on the en wiki for at least one image. Do you know if any letter were carried before 1960 though the Festiniog stamps may also be copyright anyway even with an OTRS ticket? Ww2censor (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No idea. I've informed the en.wp FR people of the DR, so maybe one of them will know. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I also dropped a note on the talk page. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

August 16 2010

Hello Ww2censor What is the reason to delete this file??? Allmetgonzaga ([[User talk:Allmetgonzaga|

What file are you referring to? Perhaps you mean File:Christina Aguilera Golden Globes.jpg which was deleted by an admin because it was a copyright violation. It was copied from this web page and there is no evidence this is your own work so you cannot claim it to be yours. Maybe it was File:Christina Aguilera MTV Movie Awards 2010.jpg which was deleted twice as a copyright violation. We take copyright status very seriously and you must respect other people's copyright images; don't claim they are yours. Ww2censor (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Categorizing Canada stamps by year

I found that the PD-Canada-stamp template automatically adds a year category (Stamps of Canada, year), if one writes it as {{PD-Canada-stamp|year}}, see for example File:Admiral Canada2-50c.jpg. We can use this convenient feature from now on. --Michael Romanov (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I discovered that earlier today and added details to the top of the Category:Stamps of Canada and created a few new ones while recategorising some of Gwillhickers stamp images. Check your email. Ww2censor (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, something like that would be handy for the masses of US stamps too... Stan Shebs (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Stan. The US stamps are a good candidate for this type of template, but who is going to do it? Ww2censor (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess we would need a PD-US-stamp template? Seems like something a bot could change, once the template exists. Stan Shebs (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's right. Unfortunately, I am not too much familiar with creating templates on Commons. --Michael Romanov (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Rename guidelines

Hi,

File rename on Commons is reserved to correct false information in the title, or to have some harmonization in the file names of an image set.

1. To rename a file removing an username, you should seek the original uploader's agreement.
2. The description is the place to describe the image, better than the title.

Rename should stay a rare operation, to preserve url stability. --Dereckson (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Australian stamp

Hi Ww2censor,
I've reverted your speedy-tag at File:Buchanan's Hotel Stamp 1973.JPG because the OTRS-ticket was obviously issued by the Australia Post. They can of course grant a side-license, independant of the regular copyright status. --Túrelio (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That is very strange. Are you really sure it came from Australia Post because I have never heard of a postal administration specifically giving permission to use its copyright images other than for press and media purposes. Perhaps a note should be made on the file to say who provided the OTRS permission so no one else questions the OTRS ticket. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to have an explicit confirmation about the OTRS-ticket you'll have to ask an OTRS volunteer. I'm none. --Túrelio (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Chollet_9.11.2010_2a.jpg

Have you seen, that the file is back again. I'm not sure wich template I should use to let it delete again. -- Badener  18:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have tagged it again. Ww2censor (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The stamp with Jackie Cochran

I am only glad to be of assistance. 巡 Mihajlo ^{_[ talk _]} 12:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Rename request

Any chance you can deal with the move request made on my enwiki talk page? Because this is not a controversial move, I asked Stan about a week ago but he has not been around for a while. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like someone has created it under the new name. I've deleted the incorrectly-spelled one. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:PD-NepalGov

Ww2censor, You asked for Template:PD-NepalGov here. I created a stub for you. Could you fill the blanks at Template:PD-NepalGov/en and Template:PD-NepalGov/doc? --Jarekt (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Cork_collage.jpg

Hi Ww2censor, I've just seen your post about my image File:Cork_collage.jpg and have replied to it. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Cork_collage.jpg# Is there any other information that I need to provide to you for this image? Previous images of mine were flagged as copyright violations because I uploaded them on Wikipedia as being free of copyright, but had them listed on my own website (which no longer exists) as being subject to copyright. At the time, I did not realise that this would make a difference. This current image is not available outside of Wikipedia and I do not subject it to copyright in any form whatsoever. Let me know if I need to provide further information.

Thanks Assorti (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

See the deletion discussion. Ww2censor (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Covers

These images are related to postcards etc: Category:COVER, any suggestions as to a correct category ? --Tony Wills (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a new subcategory Category:Postcard albums. What do you think? Certainly where they are is not useful to anyone, though most of those images are unlikely to be useful at all so I would be happy to get several of them deleted. Ww2censor (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Note on FOP

The problem is in some non-European countries it might be longer than 70 years like 90 or even 100 years after an author or creator's death but there is a timelimit on FOP. But all I know is that in France, Belgium, Italy and Russia, they follow the standard US rules of author + 70 years. So, there can't be a standard template sadly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I was not suggesting a standard template but a notation under the France specific FOP entry COM:FOP#France that shows the time limit. But where is the verification that the French FoP terminates? Ww2censor (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• I got that information from Admin Jastrow of France. No other Admin has disputed that the 70 year rule does not apply to any European country with no FOP. The 90 or 100 year after death ususally rule applies to a few specific Latin American countries. I think there is a page but I don't recall where it is sadly on Commons right now. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment: I have to go out now but I note that there is even a license tag and category here for the 70 year rule for 2D art. Here is something for 3D art in Finland--it also references 70 years. In Canada where I am, copyright expires 50 years after the author/architects's death but Wikipedia is based in the US and the 70 year rule still takes precedence here. I hope this helps. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Shibe Park photos

Your nominations for deletion are out of line. If the guy says he was born in 1922 and took them in 1943, then he did, unless you can prove otherwise. I'm becoming convinced that you're incompetent. I'll see you at the user complaints page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Ww2censor -- no worries -- if anyone is out of line, it is User:Baseball Bugs.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It is ww2censor who's out of line. His reaction to this set of photos reveals massive ignorance on his part. But that's par for the course for deletionists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll respond there, but civilly, not like Baseball Bugs! Ww2censor (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

File:5631556598 165d4e0b6c s Igor.jpg

Please delete this file entry as I have edited the original and I hope resubmitted with full permissions, texts etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbkidd (talk • contribs) 09:49, 10 August 2011

File:RicardoSanz.jpg

Dear Sir or Madam: I have modified the Flickr Licence of this picture to CC Attribution 2.0 as requested. Will you please remove the Flickr review message on the file. Thank you so much for your help. --ODS40 (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume that you, ODS40, are also Flickr user Oscar Del Santo though you might mention it on your commons user page. Anyway, I have now passed the image flickrreview and have seen the new licence. Thanks for asking. Ww2censor (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. --ODS40 (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ww2censor. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--BBKurt (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Walterlippman.jpb

Can you explain to me whether or not this image is or isn't appropriate based on the following? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#United_States I.e. it seems to be that it is in the public domain. However, you deleted it and I don't know if there is another copyright law that makes more sense? Thanks. Regards, Warrenfish (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

First, I presume that you are talking about File:Walter lippmann.jpg though you did not give me a link so I could check it. Second, I did not delete any image because I am not an admin and lastly, all post-1978 US stamp are copyright which is why the image was deleted, so we can't host them here. According to this website the stamp was issued in 1985. Hope that helps. Ww2censor (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess I meant "marked for deletion." And duly noted on the other points. I had bad data regarding the date of the stamp. Thanks for your help. Warrenfish (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Talking Back

Hello, Ww2censor. You have new messages at JMOprof's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JMOprof (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Proving yet again no good deeds go unpunished, I have a few more questions on my talk page. I did however want to also leave a word of thanks here.JMOprof (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I've done it. Thank you for your insights, advice, and mentoring. I did learn a lot. If only there were Wikimedia barnstars.

...all the best, JMOprof JMOprof (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For Ww2censor's help in ensuring my sources were true sources, and that the images could be verified for two dozen files. Many thanks for showing me how it's done. JMOprof (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

File:RicardoSanz.jpg

This File:RicardoSanz.jpg is NO LONGER IN FLICKR and HAS NO LICENSE OR PERMISSION, PLEASE REMOVE IT IMMEDIATELY!!!

This file File:Pilar_gomez_acebo.jpg has no license or permission and is not in Flickr, please remove it immediately!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.81.148 (talk • contribs) 18 September 2011

It does not matter that there is now no permission or licence and while you may have removed the image from Flickr, you did release these two images under a Creative Commons licence and you cannot just revoke the licence at will; that is part of the licence agreement you released them under. These images were properly licenced at the time they were uploaded here and there is no reason they should be removed. The licence you gave them at the time was proper for wikimedia commons use. In future if you don't want others to use you images then you should licence them under a more restrictive copyright licence or maybe not upload them to Flickr at all. Please do not refactor the information on the image pages again. Thanks. Ww2censor (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

--- Thank you for you response, I have informed you in writing through other channels that the duration of the license has expired and that there is no legal case for their use according to the C.C license. In short, there is no License for these pictures and that THEY ARE NOT IN MY FLICKR ACCOUNT. If you want to use them you do so at your own peril. You have in no way, shape or form my permission to do so. I am informing the two people involved and that they may take whatever actions they see fit for fraudulent use of their image. I have tried to remove the non-existent and deceitful links and there is not more I can do from this end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.81.14 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 18 September 2011

I don't know what "other channels" you are using but you are ill informed because unfortunately the Creative Commons licence is not revocable so it does not expire. Did you ever read it? Sections 3 & 7 state that the licence is perpetual, thou you can use a different licence for other uploads, so you can't take it back here just because the image has been deleted from Flickr. I discussed the licence of File:RicardoSanz.jpg with the editor who uploaded it and he changed the licence on Flickr, so I don't know who you are, so unless you log in here as the person who uploaded the image I will ignore any more posts from you because the uploader is obviously the same person who had the image on Flickr and I don't have any evidence that is you. Even so the licence is still valid. Ww2censor (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

--- Thank you for deleting one of the pictures, I appreciate it, I hope that the other one can be deleted as well! I am sure that you can find others with no License issues if you wish to do so. Please forgive me that I did not make it clear that I am User:ODS40 you can see it from the IP address. I wrote to Wikimedia about this issue.

Permission there now

Added permission as requested. Mercy11 (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed it again and removed the deletion notice. A link to the file would have made the image easier to find; like this File:Rio Pastillo near PR-501 at Km 4.6 in Barrio Marueño (DSC02292A).jpg. Good luck Ww2censor (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Missing permission?

Hi, you nominated one of my uploaded pictures File:Tetra Pak forest and package.jpg for deletion, but I don't understand why. It is uploaded by the author on Flickr under this url: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tetrapak/5957462674/in/set-72157628342553177. I have now added the URL as "source". Is this enough? Otherwise I do not understand what it is that is missing. Many thanks, Tartesauxpommes (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

When I reviewed the image there was no link to the Flickr image so that the licence could be checked. We don't always have time to go looking for the source for each and every image where an uploader has failed to provide one but my deletion notice got you attention and you fixed it. I will remove the notice. Please give complete details in future and you will avoid such problems. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate

Hi, I noticed you marked File:Seoul-Namdaemun.Market-lingzhi.jpg as a duplicate. The template you used is solely for exact or scaled down duplicates. This file however was cropped, not scaled down. If you still think it is unnecessary, you'd best start a deletion request. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, you are correct. Perhpas I was working too quickly or was tired and did not see it as a cropped version of the other image. Ww2censor (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. :) We all suffer from fatigue every now and then... Lymantria (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Permission problem

Hi Ww2censor. I'm new here at Wikimedia Commons and have uploaded my first image: File:Arieliv3.jpg. The image belongs to a good friend of mine, and he wants me to use it on Wikipedia and so do I. I uploaded it once already, but then it was deleted. So I asked him to upload it on Flickr and add a permission for everyone to use it, I asked him to select "Attribution" under "Owner settings", because I though it was the right thing to do in order for me to be allowed to use it. Should he select something else? Can we somehow make it acceptable by using Flickr? If not, what else can we do to proof that I'm allowed to use the image (I've tried reading the instructions but I'm not sure how to solve it)? I would really appreciate some help. Rbwiki 20 december 2011 kl. 10.32 (CET)

Unfortunately the Flickr page linked to is set to private so there is no way we can verify the licence. We need to be able to access the image otherwise it is just your say so and while we assume good faith there are too many copyright issues with uploaded images. An attribution licence will be fine. The other thing he could do is verify his permission by email our OTRS team by following the procedure found at OTRS. Ask again if you still have a problem. Ww2censor (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Sorry, I didn't release that the image was set to private, I can understand your problems with copyright issues. He changed it to public just now, so is everything fine then? Rbwiki 21 december 2011 kl. 22.45 (CET)

This image has now been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arieliv3.jpg. Ww2censor (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Bokken with saya.jpg

Hello, if you take a look at the history of this image you will see that it previously passed flicker review, the original creator has now decided to take back permission and has removed permission from flicker and asked that the image be delete, I reverted this request as the original creator has no right to take the image back after it was already approved with the appropriate license. Bokken with saya history samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

If you are entirely happy it was properly licence when you uploaded it then just revert to this edit. Thanks for the heads up. I was just following on from the FlickreviewR fail. Ww2censor (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

*Thanks, good idea. samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2012 (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:Watsonian Squire logo.png

Yours sincerely Stefan4 (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Intellectum Journal_Covers

Dear Ww2censor,

About a month ago, I uploaded the cover of Intellectum7 & today the cover of Intellectum8. Before doing this I got an e-mail of approval from the editor-in-chief, so I think that there is really no problem with my upload.--Agnostosgnostos (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

When you upload copyright images and you claim to have permission to use them under a free licence it is necessary for you to get the copyright holder to confirm that permission to the OTRS Team by having them follow the procedure found at Commons:OTRS. The image File:Intellectum7-Exofyllo 2010 wikipedia1.jpg is attributed to Dimitris Karlaftopoulos- Mike Karakostas and sourced to the magazine and you are not any of those people so we can't tell if the licence applied by you is valid or not. Please have the copyright holder email us directly. Forwarding their email is not a verifiable course of action. You can get File:Intellectum08 exofyllo small-web.jpg, that was deleted, reinstated if they send permission for that too giving its name. Any other questions, just ask. Thanks and good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ww2censor,

An email was sent by Mr Tsilonis directly to Commons regarding this cover as well as any future uploads of upcoming covers of the Intellectum journal. Thanks again for your advice and assistance!--Agnostosgnostos (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope that works out for you. Ww2censor (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope that too! I cannot really understand why the system is so strict, although I presume there must be good reasons! --Agnostosgnostos (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

So, if you were the copyright owner of a magazine and we host an image of yours under a free licence which we did not verify, you would not be happy and you might sue us for breach of copyright. Ok. BTW, do not remove the deletion notice from an image while the nomination is still open. An admin will close it and either delete the image of remove the notice. To date no OTRS ticket has been issued for the image to verify the licence you added. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Flickr files

Got you messages. I will keep that in mind next time. Thank you! --Kondicherry (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, just watch out that any images you upload are freely licenced. It may be more useful for you if you use the Flick upload bot at http://toolserver.org/~bryan/flickr/upload that makes life easier. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Ww2censor. You have new messages at oleksiy.golubov's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:Poffertjes-Portion-01.jpg

Hello, Ww2censor. You have new messages at Jocian's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kelly Rowland

Hi, I have found these images of Kelly Rowland from flickr, they have "some rights reserved" could they be uploaded? Image 1 Image 2 Image 3 Image 4 Image 5 Image 6 Image 7

Thanks for your time. --86.145.194.147 19:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but why so many. Have a look at her enwiki article and choose one of two appropriately useful images that would enhance the article rather then just dumping them all in. Very similar images to your #2 and #5 images are already being used, so there is little point as they are unlikely to be better and therefore may not even be used. I would advise you to try and find images that would improve some of the non-illustrated sections. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Alexandra Burke

Hi, Is it possible you can upload this image of Alexandra Burke from Flickr? --92.30.190.33 18:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Which image? A link would be rather helpful! Ww2censor (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Haha, so sorry. Thought I sent it. This image. --92.30.190.33 20:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Done as File:Alexandra Burke-Battlefront.jpg. Ww2censor (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou, your awesome! --92.23.125.10 08:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

about the louis tomlinson with sister

i asked if she wanted it on wikipedia and she obliged i told her to make a flickr account and license under share alike but because she was confused and she asked me to do it so i did and now how i can i know prove and that she give me permission AdabowtheSecond (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The proper way to verify permission is to get the copyright holder to directly email the OTRS Team per the instructions on that page at the section "Declaration of consent for all enquiries". Hope that helps. Ww2censor (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks AdabowtheSecond (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Xilocapedia images

Hello, Ww2censor. You have new messages at DSB1's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- User talk:DSB1#Xilocapedia images

Hello, Ww2censor. You have new messages at Lymantria's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- User talk:Lymantria/Archive 3#Xilocapedia images

Admin suggestion

I have been observing your contribution so far and I think it's time for adminship. Please tell me whether you accept or not. Regards Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence but I really don't have the time or the inclination right now to devote more effort into wikipedia and wikimedia and have lots of other stuff I should be doing. I was also asked at the enwiki some time ago but turned down the offer there too. Thanks again. Ww2censor (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Nominations for deletion

Hi, I am a little confused what the problem is with File:Harnisch card.jpg and File:Sparky Lyle.jpg. Your notice says that there is no indication of permission for these images, but the link I provided for each of them has that information on the page. They are both flickr pages with a section in the bottom right that says "License." That's sufficient, isn't it? --Jprg1966 (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

While you are correct that the Flickr page has a licence, it would appear that these are copies of a baseball cards and a publicity photo for which the Flickr uploader, without doubt, does not have the permission to assign copyright. Some of his images have various logos on them, so you have to be immediately suspicious. Just because there is an acceptable licence on a flickr image does not mean it is proper to the image, we have to be very careful which is why there is Category:Flickr images needing human review and even the bot reviews are not all proper. Also see Flickrwashing. For these two images we could go through the lengthy process of a formal deletion if you would prefer but they obviously do not a free licence given by the copyright holder. BTW, your other uploads appear to be good. Thanks for asking. Ww2censor (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, that satisfies me. Mark them for speedy deletion, I guess. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately while downloading from Flickr can be easy, being careful with the licencing can be a tricky subject we deal with every day. Just ask if you have any questions and I'll be happy to help you out. Ww2censor (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Post_boxes_in_Luxenburg

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

Jwh (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Images marked for deletion

Hi, I have multiple images that have been nominated for deletion. They are my own work as I work for THINK Global School. Can you let me know the appropriate actions I need to take? File:Roslingstockholm.jpg

Thanks -------Lee622 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee622 (talk • contribs)

Because you claim to work for the school, as an employee, unless you have a specific contract giving you the copyright to images taken while working for your employer, you need to have the copyright holder, i.e., the school, verify the permission by following the procedure found at COM:OTRS. Then the image/s will either be restored or not deleted as the case may be. Hope that helps. Ww2censor (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you please check my files?

Hello could you please check my files that were immediately tag for speedy deletion. But I don't agree as they are properly licensed please check. I will highly appreciate your kindness I give you the link for the two of them. Well I just checked and they already deleted one. It is really strange: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zach_Cregger_2.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fxz100 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 2 September 2012

This image File:Zach_Cregger_2.png was clearly a copyright violation of this image [2] which is copyright to Getty Images and clearly attributed. File:Trevor Moore 1.png is a scan of a magazine and the new magazine image does not gain a new copyright which still remains with the magazine publisher. If you can prove that you own the copyright of this image, then verify it by sending an email to our OTRS Team, however, all the indications are that you don't own the copyright. Most images you find on the internet are copyright to someone else and whatever you do to it does not make it yours to licence as you wish except in the case of images that are clearly identified as being freely licenced. Ww2censor (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Watsonian Squire logo.png

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

FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

User rights

I've added the filemover and rollbacker rights to your account in the interest of making sure a trusted user like yourself has the tools you need. INeverCry 20:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good addition for my work here. Ww2censor (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

In the drop-down list in the right hand corner next to the search box you'll see a "move & replace" function. Click that and enter the new name to move files. INeverCry 23:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I eventually found that thanks. I'm well aware that the original file name is left as a redirect, especially when the file is already been used in an article or page. However they seem entirely useless if unused, so what should one do with such redirects as I have noticed that some editors delete them? TIA Ww2censor (talk) 09:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If it is of importance for you: I can think of external uses. If files are not used in an article or page they may not be "unused". They may only not be used in Wikimedia projects. By deleting redirects, external links are broken. --PigeonIP (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I had not thought of that aspect. Ww2censor (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI. If you don't want to leave a redirect, you have the "move" function. Click that and de-select the box next to "Leave a redirect behind". INeverCry 19:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no "Leave a redirect behind" checkbox when I use the Move button, just a "Watch source page and target page" checkbox. Ww2censor (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The old file page ends up deleted when I move without a redirect, so that option probably only shows for admins. ;) Anyways, you can always use {{Speedydelete}} if you need to have a redirect deleted. They're mostly left alone unless the original name needs to be used again, is offensive, etc. INeverCry 05:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

little mischief: First option, on top, is move. With Files there is a second option at the bottom of this selection/menu: move and something. There is the check box INeverCry mentioned. But for us normal users it is out of function, so we don't have this option. ;o) --PigeonIP (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Ingrid Chua-Go

Hi! Sorry about that. I was unsure as to the guidelines when posting the OTRS pending template. I looked in a couple different places and couldn't find any guidance. But now I know. Thanks again! I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Ww2censor (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Photos

Hello, I just asked thehauntingwhisper41 to make the photos visible for everyone. You can check them at Flickr now. -- Hemmeband17

Please give me a clue (i.e., the URLs) as to which images on Flickr you are referring to, otherwise I cannot help you. The Flickr mainpage is no use to me as some of the images here have already been deleted, so I can't see the source links. For the non deleted ones I can see the source but I vary much doubt that these are thehauntingwhisper41 own photos as he has only uploaded 8 image as far as I can see and that smacks of Flickrwashing. However, you may be better of asking the deleting admin to review the sources as I don't have the rights to access the deleted images. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Atta

Thank you for taking care of File:Formicidae Atta sp. 03.jpg. Flickr upload bot and Flickr2Commons v2 threw errors at me all day today. Flickr2Commons v1 worked for some reason. jonkerz ♠talk 22:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help out. Ww2censor (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Mount Brandon

I have fixed the stitching error. Thank you! --Imehling (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

fair-use

hey man or women, the two images i uploaded recently you marked them for delete, look at this image File:Alexandra Daddario.png, it's from the same source but it hasn't been marked or something. it's fair use mate nothing else.--Jake Muller (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but the common does not accept "fair use" images. Fair-use, in the US anyway, is a legal claim used when you are using a copyright image but we only accept freely licenced images, so if they don't fit that description don't upload them and don't get all pissy over our rules. If you found them on the internet they are probably copyright to someone, so you are actually stealing them by uploading them here. If it is entirely clear that an image is freely licenced, you should not upload it. BTW, the source for the image File:Alexandra Daddario.png is inaccurate; it does not link to the image that was uploaded, but to one you uploaded, and it is most likely a copyright violation too. Ww2censor (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

File:אסתרית בלצן.JPG

Perhaps you know an Israeli Admin who can make sense of this image's source. Most people can't read Hebrew including me. This is not usually a good sign though when its the person's only upload. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't know any and can't read Hebrew either. Perhaps a request on the Israeli wiki would get a result. Ww2censor (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: Since someone now says its from flickr and licensed freely, I might ask Lymantria for his opinion. At least its fair. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I searched around Flickr a good bit and could not find it there or on Tineye but the same image, cropped closely, is attributed to "Astrith Balzan (PR)" in this Google translation. That might be construed as bring her own PR image but there is no evidence it is freely licenced and currently no source can verify that it is. Ww2censor (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: Lymantria filed the npd on the image file so you should contact him about the image's copyright status. Anyway, I will send him a link to your message. Thanks anyway for your help, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)