User talk:Ww2censor/Archive3

Talk page • Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 • Archive 4

---

deleted images

I have uploaded three images for the article Stanley Pranin. Unfortunately, those images have been deleted, i think because of confusion about the permission. I have tried to rectify this confusion but to no avail. Stanley Pranin owns the images and he has given me the images and permission for their use in his biographical article. The images are already in the public domain and their use is free. Please remove the automatic deletion so that these images can be inserted in the article for which they are intended.

file:stanley-pranin.jpg file:stanley-pranin-with-kisshomaru-ueshiba-1978-tokyo-sec.1-2.jpg file:stanley-pranin-morihiro-saito-1988-san-diego.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trowbridge Aikikai (talk • contribs) 20:24, 22 May 2015‎ (UTC)

This is a crosspost of what is essentially the same question asked at Commons:Upload help#Message of Trowbridge Aikikai. I've replied to Trowbridge Aikikai there. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The images were deleted because you did not provide a suitable licence and you have previously been given plenty of information on how to proceed. You need to verify that the images are in the public domain as claimed and perhaps the most important issues is that most often the subject of a photo is not normally the copyright holder so their permission is useless. The copyright holder will usually be the photographer and it is their permission you need. @Trowbridge Aikikai: Ww2censor (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Panoramio images

Dear Ww2censor,

Please if you can--only if you can--please help mark some panoramio images by this uploader who has messaged me here. I have marked many of his images including on June 11 and June 14 but I have other things to do too...such as mark other flickr images. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I occasionally do that but usually they are quite few or I am not able to verify the licence one way or another. I'll keep a look out for them. Ww2censor (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thank You. The panoramio uploader here is quite prolific. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Colm Keane.jpg

Hi,

Not sure if I'm posting this in the correct space but here goes anyway. The update is the photographer of the JPEG in question has emailed OTRS (he did this yesterday) regarding copyright clearance for this image. He has done so under the terms of Creative Commons Share-Alike 4. I presume this is sufficient. If not, please let me know. I also have the ticket number so can pass that on to you if required. Many thanks. Anne O'Donnell (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Anne O'Donnell: I am not a member of the OTRS team. If the copyright holder has been in contact with them everything will happen through the OTRS team and there is nothing I can do for you. I just review images and give you advise on how to proceed, Hopefully everything works out well and based on what you say it all looks good but be prepared for a delay as they are frequently backlogged up to 4 weeks. I see that an {{OTRS pending}} template has been added to the image. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Image problems

Sincerely apologizing, with kindest regards --Aristo Class (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Panoramio Review

The panoramio uploader has appeared. I marked about 45 images but have to stop soon. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help here. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

talkback from my page

Hello, Ww2censor. You have new messages at Leonardo85peralta's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo85peralta (talk • contribs) 10:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Overprints 1922 (16413903398).jpg, File:Postage Stamps (6890725719).jpg

Please have a look at those stamps and check their categorisation. Thank you. --Michael Romanov (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done: cleaned up details, renamed one and nominated the other as a dupe of the first. Ww2censor (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license has been found on File:Van Hool A280 STIC 217.jpg

File:Autorisation publication photo 217-03737$0.jpg

Good evening, I have the permission of this picture's author to publish it on Wikimedia Commons. https://www.flickr.com/photos/72769027@N05/8896072843/

Unfortunately @Olbaussart75: that is not good enough. The copyright holder must either change the licence of the image at Flickr to a free licence we accept or contact the OTRS Team to verify their permission. Just have them follow the procedure on the linked OTRS page. The Facebook screenshot does not state under what licence the image is being licenced, just that it can be used on Wikipedia and that is not detailed enough for us because we only accept image that have no commercial or derivative restrictions, so the exact licence must be stated. Right now the image on Flickr is "All rights reserved" and the easiest thing to do is for him to change it on Flickr which is quite easy. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Stamp GB Edward VII 2d Tyrian plum.jpg

File:Stamp GB Edward VII 2d Tyrian plum.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Nickpo (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

File move

Hi, I was wondering if you could please do a quick file move for me. See File:Violinist CARRIE REHKOPF-BRUSTAD EVENTRE SUITE 5th mvt.ogg. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done, but please provide a description and date in the missing fields. BTW, there is no need to SHOUT. Ww2censor (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by shouting. You mean asking here at your talk page? I was in the middle of doing something that requires the new name, so just wanted to get it over and done with. Sorry if coming here was inappropriate. At least I didn't use ALLCAPS.  :-) Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

No it is not inappropriate; asking is just fine, but actually you wanted to use virtually ALL CAPS. It's regarded as shouting, so its better to use uppercase & lowercase letters unless it absolutely imperative to the title. It is just calmer. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Someone else named the file in the first place, not me. Your lower case version is better, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Flickr problem

Ok, sorry man! Mulgs (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

talkback from my page

Hello, Ww2censor. You have new messages at Leonardo85peralta's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo85peralta (talk • contribs) 10:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ww2censor. You have new messages at De728631's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

No problem. It' s been deleted. Ww2censor (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Amber My Ember.jpg

I was talking with the members of the band and say me the image don't have Copyright. --Cristianho19 (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Well @Cristianho19: that just means they don't understand all the complexities of copyright. All images by their very nature are copyright in some form or other unless they are in the public domain. Usually the photographer is the copyright holder and not the subject of the photo, so as I presume the band did not take the image themselves even though you attribute the image to them, but a photographer took it, did they commission the photo and in the contract, verbal or written, have the copyright transferred to themselves and now don't wish to make any copyright claim to the image and so place the image into the public domain, or does the photographer still hold the copyright? Maybe a friend took the photo for them. Even they would hold a copyright to the image. Anyway, the copyright holder, even if they want to allow the image to be used freely, must verify that permission by following the procedure found at COM:OTRS because we don't find the image elsewhere under a free licence, or the band can release the image freely which they need to understand means that anyone can use it for anything including commercial or derivative use. Hope that helps but if not just ask again. The OTRS Team just need to verify who the photographer is and that it is freely licenced. Ww2censor (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Eliot-54920005 -1.jpg

You placed a {{No permission}} on the photo, however the photo is CC0 (Public Domain), so no explicit permission is needed from the owner. I therefore removed the no permission template from the photo. Mbch331 (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

French Stamp file to delete

Please note that File:Cezanne-france1961-CardPlayers.jpg is designed and engraved by Pierre Gandon (1899-1990), and therefore is NOT copyright free as mentioned on La Poste official website: here. Yours and sorry for the demand. --Spiessens (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This is one of those situations where the stamp is basically an image is of old painting that is out of copyright and the additional text placed around the image does not create a new copyright. Pierre Gandon did not create the original painting, he just added a few words which do not pass the threshold of originality (or the French seuil d'originalité) so no real copyrightable new work was created. I've been working with copyright issues for a long time so if you disagree with me then you should nominate it for deletion.

I've already tagged several images for deletion and some are already gone but many of the images that start "WIKITIMBRES.FR" are in fact still copyright and need to be tagged for deletion. The problem is that it takes quite some time to figure out who designed or engraved each individual stamp. Ww2censor (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this very clear explanation. The copyright thing for French Stamp is a nightmare. Regards, --Spiessens (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You are correct and it is not just France. Just look at Commons:Stamps/Public domain and see how many country's details are missing. Ww2censor (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to ask me documents/links/PDF or anything I could get to provide and help the WP community i.e. for french stamps. Yours, --Spiessens (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Altie2.jpg

I am still waiting on email back from the owner of the website that did the article that included this picture. If it does not come with in timeframe. I will just go the the building at a later date and take a picture myself. This is located in my hometown. I did remove it from the main Wikipedia site until get email. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Reb1981 (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me point out first that the website owner may not be the copyright holder. That is usually the photographer but on the source webpage it states that Rick Spears is the designer, but who is the photographer? Is it also Rick Spears? Any photograph of this sculpture is a derivative work and as such it requires two copyright licences; one from the artist/designer of the sculpture and one from the photographer. You could take a photo and release it freely but you still need a free licence from the artist. The copyright holder for each licence requirement will have to follow the procedure found at COM:OTRS. If you take a photo you will just need to state that the photo is your own work. Derivative works are a bit of a pain copyright-wise. Hope that helps, if not just ask again. Ww2censor (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleted IFSCL files

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

(David Pérez Esteban talk) 17:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, more news that always seem to be the last ones, but they aren't. I need this to be done soon, just before I get crazy. David Pérez Esteban (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Dina H Powell.jpg

Ww2censor-- I replied on my talk page. You can proceed in deleting File:Dina H Powell.jpg. I uploaded another image that I have documentation on the rights. Thanks for your help! I'm new to Wikimedia Commons. --Koalafarm

Unfortunately File:Dina Powell, Goldman Sachs.jpg is also a copyright image. Ww2censor (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

HI. I am new to Wikipedia. I uploaded the images from Facebook and included information as to why I thought they were public domain. I personally checked the Facebook 'rulebook' to make sure I could use them. Do you mind telling me the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koalafarm (talk • contribs) 00:18, 25 September 2015‎

I'll happily explain as copyright is a rather complicated issue at the best of times. Most images you find on the internet, while they are available to view by the public, are not in the public domain or even freely licenced. Wikipedia commons only accepts image that are verifiably freely licenced which means they do not have any commercial or derivative restrictions. Actually I don't recall having ever seen a facebook image that was clearly marked as being in the public domain, so I don't know what you are reading. I'm reasonably sure you are confusing "available to the public (to view on the internet)" with "public domain". You can always ask the copyright holder of the image, who is usually the photographer and not the subject of the image, to give their permission by following the procedure found at COM:OTRS. I have a page on the enwiki that goes through the issues that images have so you may like to read my image copyright information page for some additional info. BTW, the Goldman Sachs image EXIF data clearly stated "Fuller-Kling, Lucie G" who works for Office of Corporate Engagement at Goldman Sachs" but you claimed it as your own work which was not true. It was copyright to that person or their employer. Just ask again if you need to. BTW, please sign your post with 4 tildes per the note above when editing. Ww2censor (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Got it. On the image owned by Lucie G Fuller-Kling, I have permission from her to upload to Wikimedia -- thus why I said it was my image, though I realize the distinction. I saw where I can submit an image for undeletion so imagine I can submit documentation from Lucie passing along ownership/rights to me there? Let me know if that's totally off base. Sorry for image kerfuffle Koalafarm (User talk:Koalafarm 13:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

But remember that a Wikipedia use only is not acceptable. Also ownership and copyright holder are two different things. The copyright holder must release the image under a free licence that allows commercial or derivative uses. Just point them to the COM:OTRS page or forward the email to them and see if that works. Don't bother with undelete; they will do that when they are happy with the permission. BTW, a talkback is to tell an editor there is a message elsewhere for them not to tell them there is a message on their own page; a few days ago I left you talkback to tell you there was a message here. I hope that's all clear now. Ww2censor (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Beans (4235458552).jpg

And also:

• File:BBQ Pork and Fries with Hot Sauce! (7403280296).jpg
• File:Pork (4234684725).jpg
• File:Dessert (4181722094).jpg
• File:Dessert (4181721410).jpg

Yours sincerely, Ies (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Aromatic savory spices (4180957045).jpg

Yours sincerely, Ies (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Glass of Red Vino (4489795983).jpg

File:Glass of Red Vino (4489795983).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Ies (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: File tagging File:Jung Yong-hwa in 2012.jpg

The license isn't missing, there's a cc-by-2.0-kr icon at the end of the webpage, next to the tags. --ChoHyeri (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

At the same time, there's a cc-by-nd-2.0-kr icon in the sidebar, which is a different (non-free) license. I think some clarification as to what actually applies is needed. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Response

Hello, Ww2censor. You have new messages at F123's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by F123 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Cropped?

Please, look at File:Larissa Manoela-005 (cropped).jpg you have just approved.

The cropped image is different from the other one!

Tks. Yanguas (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Yanguas: Just back from hols. Oops, yes you are correct. Thanks for fixing it. Ww2censor (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

New Talkback

Hello, Ww2censor. You have new messages at rudy23's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Rudy23 (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ww2censor. You have new messages at Rudy23's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Rudy23 (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Sculpture

Hi, Just to explain about this. We start with the same facts and we reach the same conclusion. However, we don't follow the same rationale to get from the facts to the conclusion. I prefer my rationale. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You can of course have a different opinion from me but you stated your reasoning was because the sculpture was in the US when in fact it was in France and I suggest that your reasoning should be based on that fact alone. US FoP had no bearing on this. Ww2censor (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleted image

The case: File:Patrik Kvalvik Svendsen.png. What do I need to do to get this image accepted? Under the original image, there is a license statement.

You find the original image here: http://tonicbreed.com/media.php?sideID=media/photos_2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suittheday (talk • contribs) 10:54, 06 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually I do not see that it was ever deleted and now that you have pointed out where the image is I have found the licence information and given it a good licence review. There is nothing else to do. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you please check your recent uploads?

You have recently uploaded many files which belong in Category:Birmingham, Alabama to the incorrect categories Category:Alabama and Category:Birmingham (the latter being a city in England). Could you please correct them? Thanks. - Takeaway (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
PS As these files are mainly images of food that have been ordered in restaurants in Birmingham, Alabama, perhaps you could create Category:Restaurants in Birmingham, Alabama while you are at it, and also remove the extremely broad Category:Restaurants from these files. - Takeaway (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Those categories were all automatically added by the Flickr2commons bot and I have not even had time to review the upload much less fiddle around with new cats or remove inaccurate ones. BTW I think the restaurants are actually all over the place, not just Alabama, as I seem to recall seeing New York. Right now I won't have the time but will look at them when I am available again which, unfortunately, will not be before mid-December as I am travelling abroad from early tomorrow. Thanks for the heads up. Ww2censor (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... Perhaps next time you shouldn't just copy the Flickr categories as these are not so much categories as in Wikimedia Commons but more tags. They also tend to overload main categories and simply copying them pushes the workload of correctly categorising them to others. - Takeaway (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that but I think it is all or nothing. One either allows the bot to tag all the files based on what it finds or add no categories at all unless one applies the same category/ies to all the images in an upload. Perhaps you are damned you do or damned if you don't. Either way these all need a look after upload. If you do some corrections while I am away, try to do it from my upload list starting at the earliest (which are less than 100 from the newest) and let me know where your stopped, so I know where to restart. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll not be going through your uploads 1 by 1 to remove the Flickr crud. I'll just change it from certain categories with Cat-a-lot so some of the crud will still need to be removed manually when you are back. Perhaps best to upload to a private category next time and then correctly categorise them from there instead of polluting main or incorrect categories with Flickr uploads. Takeaway (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

That sound reasonable enough. I'll have a look when I return and as you suggest make a special cat for future uploads. Ww2censor (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

License descriptions of images from trainpix.org

All photos from trainpix.org have license descriptions. File:Di3.616.jpg has zero license tag in description of license (Лицензия) field in the box Information about the photo: (Информация о фото)

See examples of free photos from trainpix and another license tags at this discussion: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:AS4MU-073.jpg — Xenotron (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: File:EN94-40 - wnętrze.jpg

Source: http://www.garnek.pl/ficek/30136268/wnetrze-en94-40, under the picture you can find: cc: by with link: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/pl/. There was no problem with this or this photo by the same person (Ficek from Garnek.pl) and uploaded in the same way. Muri (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that was so small I missed it completely.Thanks for pointing that out so I have now given it a good review. Ww2censor (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

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

(talk) 00:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)}}

Copyright

Hi!!! I am a newer on Wikipedia. You just sent me message about my pictures which I uploaded on Common wikipedia. What can I do? User:Phamthuathienvan — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 14.203.198.127 (talk) 11:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I did post you deletion notices but there is nothing you can do for these images; these are all copyright images. Are you also the Flickr user under whose name they were uploaded there? If so, and even if not, if you are not the copyright holder then you must get permission from the copyright holder and if you copied them for a website you cannot then give them a free licence because you do not have any rights to the photos. Copyright is quite a complex issues and generally speaking most images found on the internet are copyright to someone unless they are specifically marked a freely licence. If you are not the same Flickr user then unfortunately you have been fooled by them and because we take copyright status very seriously we review many images for that is known as Flickr washing. Have a look at this image - the description already tell use this is an AP, Associated Press, image so we immediately know this image licence is falsely given by the Flickr user. Ask if you have any specific image you want reviewed before uploading as this will save everyone time and frustration, especially as a newbie you will not know all the ins and outs of copyright. I've been here 10 years and don't know all the copyright issues. BTW @Phamthuathienvan: please sign all posts to talk pages by adding four tildes, like this ~~~~ to the end of your posts. and always log in to your account so we can reply to you properly. Ww2censor (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Josuevg (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

HELP!!!!

Saludos!!! Necesito tu ayuda porfavor validame o confirmarme estas fotos: File:Cristina Pedroche 2013.jpg --Campeones 2008 (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hallo; This is source of file:Mariana Ochoa H Extremo.jpg.

File:Zachary taylor stamp.JPG

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

Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Esame visivo di Aceto Balsamico Tradizionale.jpg

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcordb (talk • contribs) 13:20, 5 February 2016‎

Comments altered / deleted

Hello,

Could you please tell me why you modified my comments and also removed the ones from Amitie 10g, Stefan2 and Thibaut120094? Could you please restore it the way it was, I don't think it is good practice on Commons or on any other project...

--Scoopfinder^(d) 15:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Scoopfinder: There was no intention to remove any posts, so I'm not sure exactly what happend. I think I've restored everything. Ww2censor (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Good to know Things like that just happen sometimes. Thank you for the restoration --Scoopfinder^(d) 22:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of license review tags

Please don't remove License review tags added by bots or trusted users. Don't forget that the CC licenses are irrevocable. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Av. da Amizade ao fundo com a UEA.jpg

The image was taken directly from flickr license (CC BY SA 2.5), but I don't know how to post the name of the author, his name-there is DSC00911, owned by Gabriel E. Levy B. Reviewer of articles. (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that now the image has a source but it is not freely licenced. The licence is NOT (CC BY SA 2.5) as you claim but cc-by-nc-nd-2.0 which we do not accept. You do not have review privileges and you added a flickr review which is clearly false. Please don't do that because you may be blocked from editing for making untrue edits. I have nominated it for deletion because the licence at Flickr is not allowable here, so you cannot fix it unless the Flickr user changes the licence to a free one. Ww2censor (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks, sorry for the error, I'm still learning how to use WikiMedia commons since I emigrated my account from Wikipedia I not quite understand right the permissions of the images. I just don't need to be aggressive with me.
Reviewer of articles. (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Duplicate file

Would you be able to sort out what needs doing here? You carried out this move earlier this year. There is a duplicate file at File:Gun Powder Office, Dublin Circa 1890.jpg, but this has been restored and is of better quality. I suspect all that needs doing is deleting File:O'Connell Bridge and Sackville Street, Dublin in 1890.jpg. What do you think? Carcharoth (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think it better to keep File:O'Connell Bridge and Sackville Street, Dublin in 1890.jpg and delete File:Gun Powder Office, Dublin Circa 1890.jpg because the former is more accurately named and is the older upload. Keeping File:Gun Powder Office, Dublin Circa 1890.jpg would IMHO then require renaming the remaining image. Ww2censor (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Taking another look, there is not that much difference between the two files. Maybe ask for opinions elsewhere or put them up at a deletion discussion? I have no idea how Commons usually handles this sort of thing. Has there been any progress with reviewing the uploads of Foxhunter22? Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree there does not seem to be any appreciable difference though File:Gun Powder Office, Dublin Circa 1890.jpg has had some work done on it but I can't see it. My original thoughts have not changed on that image. Normally I would just use the duplicate tag, like this {{duplicate|name of image}}, for the one I wanted deleted. I tagged a few specific Foxhunter images for deletion and most of those are now gone, but Taivo started a mass deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Foxhunter22 which are mostly just the Nelson's Pillar images. However, having not tagged each image when I wanted to use the script Help:VisualFileChange.js I cannot see the nominated images as they do not show up as such until they are each tagged, so that needs doing first. I was going to ask Taivo first. Keep in touch or I'll drop you a TB when I start another mass nomination. Ww2censor (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Foto de María Paz Santibañez

Hola:

Yo saque la foto desde este lugar: https://www.flickr.com/photos/consejocultura/14130060531/in/album-72157644568998955/ , el cual claramente tiene los símbolos que tu pides. Reconozco que la modifiqué y quizás fue error. La foto manda a un link (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/) que dice Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) lo cual es (creo) aceptable en commons. La verdad es que no entiendo donde dice en flickr "Todos los derechos reservados". Reconozco que me manejo poco en licencias y es primera vez que uso foto de flickr así que te agradecería mucho que me explicaras.

un abrazo - Roberto Ciberprofe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciberprofe (talk • contribs) 16:40, 20 March 2016‎

Por favor, disculpe la traducción de Google. El enlace que ya ha proporcionado muestran claramente la licencia de derechos de autor cc que tiene la restricción comercial. Siento decir que no aceptamos cualquier imagen con restricciones no comerciales o no derivados. Se podría pedir al usuario de Flickr para cambiar la licencia para una libre pero eso no funciona muy a menudo. Buena suerte. Ww2censor (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ahora entiendo...pensé que no eramos comerciales pero obvio que en terminos juridicos es diferenmte.. Gracias por la explicacion...un abrazo--Ciberprofe (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

 Info: Como es un trabajo del Gobierno de Chile, {{CC-GobCL}} aplica, independiente de la licencia en Flickr.

Ww2censor, you should notice that the Ord. 112/14 of 2010 apply to every content published by every organism of the Government of Chile, including its own Websites and external services like their official Flcikr accounts. I requested its restoration at the UDEL. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - February - Mailboxes/Voting

Hi Ww2censor,

I'm sorry but I had to remove your votes from this challenge. Voting is only open to the end of the month (March). -- Colin (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarr Cat (talk • contribs) 16:02, 25 March 2016

Ed Waterstreet

Bonjour, le photo vient de ce site http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/File:Edwaterstreet.jpg et pas http://www.gettyimages.fr/license/103572604 car ce site est protege avec la signature mais sur Muppet.wikia, il n'y a pas de signature donc c'est libre non? merci de m'expliquer. --Halyna Haiko (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Le problème est que la personne qui a téléchargé l'image sur le Muppet Wikia n'a pas la permission de Getty. L'image lien Getty attribue clairement l'image à un membre du personnel Getty. S'il vous plaît excuser la traduction de Google. Bon soir Ww2censor (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

ok, je comprends et j'accepte. Pas grave pour la traduction de Google. Je suis cool. A plus et merci --Halyna Haiko (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Screenshot

Hello. I've uploaded two screenshots ([1], [2]) from a YouTube video. Can they pass the License review? I just wanna make sure if they won't be deleted in the future because i'll leave Wiki soon. --Eurofan88 (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell that the YouTube licence is the standard one that does not allow reuse, so unfortunately the images will have to be deleted. The licence you added {{YouTube CC-BY}} is not the licence on this YouTube video. When you click on the "Show More" text you see the YouTube licence and it MUST state "reuse allowed" and this one does not. Ww2censor (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah thank you for explanation, i thought Wiki allows to upload screenshots from every YouTube video, but now i understood. Today i will upload a few more screenshots from videos which all state "reuse allowed", i will write you once again to check them. --Eurofan88 (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Happy to explain. There is no need to ask as most new uploads are reviewed by a bot and if the image is not found it get added to a category for human review. You just need to be careful to only upload image that you really know are freely licenced and even then some Flick users falsely licence copyright image with a free licence and we then have to get them deleted. Ask again if you ned to. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page on the enwiki. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I've uploaded this, this, this and this. Check to see if they are not against the rules, so I will continue to upload. --Eurofan88 (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

As I told you, they would be tagged for human review if the bot could not find than and that is what has happened, so need to ask directly. Someone will do it soon. I'm busy right now. Cheers Ww2censor (talk)

User:Larraizi

I appreciate your help hunting through Larraizi pictures. I have already hunted through over 100 pictures that Larraizi uploaded, trying to find the correct source. In the other cases, the url actually included a way to get to the pictures. In the most recent ones, the pictures weren't there. I ran them through Google Images and Tineye, both of whom came up with nothing. Since the images were not where Larraizi said they would be, I tagged all of them with the No Source template. If you came up with a script that is able to run through all of Larraizi's images and find them on Flickr (which it seems you did, based on the edit summaries from File:118 Gure Bizitza Elkartea marrazketa ikastaroa - Gure Bizitza Elkartea curso pintura.jpg), that would be amazing and so much better than spending hours copying the source and adding the flickr review template. Elisfkc (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no script. I know how tedious it can sometimes be to find sources, even though in ones heart one knows that having found the source it will not be freely licenced. Sometimes, even when Tineye and Google images does not throw up any clues, I just try to find the Flickr user by their name or use all or part of the image description and maybe then troll down through several hundred images to find the right ones. For the file you mention, tineye and google did not find anything, so I just pasted the file description "Amarauna Bilduma" into the Flickr search bar and it popped up 1000+ images but I found the one I was looking for about halfway down the resulting image page. So, no there is no easy way AFAIK and yes it is time consuming. BTW, there is no need to thank me for such edits every time, but thanks. Good luck and keep up the good work. Ww2censor (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel

Сan we appeal to challenge this decision and revoke it? --Michael Romanov (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure we can make a undelete request. I only noticed the deletion discussion existed and was already closed. I wonder why all the stamps in Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel were not also nominated for deletion. I do not know which stamps were deleted made by the artist de:Peter Emiljewitsch Bendel. Do you? Can we link to them? I presume the Einstein stamps is this one, the John MacLean is this one. Do you know the others, so we can show them at an undelete request. Is this the same Bendel listed here who designed other USSR stamps? I presume these 1964-65 stamps are also his work. Ww2censor (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your interested and prompt response. Yes, all the stamps you are referring to were made by Peter Bendel. We can recover the images of the deleted files as follows (they are still in the Google cache):

• File:1975 CPA 4529.jpg
• File:1976 Даль.jpg
• File:Albert Einstein 1979 USSR Stamp.jpg
• File:John Maclean. USSR postage stamp. 1979.jpg
• File:Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value. Albert Einstein, 1879-1955 -en.svg

Please let me know if you are able to open the Google cache links to the deleted images. Appreciating your assistance, --Michael Romanov (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I can open all the images though the Google cache may well go away soon. I see you also have the 3 images I did not find. Colnect.com does not have those years for USSR stamps and I did not find another site for those 3. What do you want to do? I assume you are convinced that they are PD images even though the artist only died in 1989. Ww2censor (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's make an undelete request. Can you help me with that, please? As for the artist death date, if we accept this deletion reason, all post-1946 Soviet stamp images must be deleted by default as well as most of pre-1946 stamps as most of their designers died after 1946. So, because of free copyright license for all Soviet stamps, it does not matter whether an artist died, for example, in 1947 or in 1989. Thank you. Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure if one can file an undelete request for a group of files at once. --Michael Romanov (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I've asked the deleting admin to review their decision, as the initial suggestion in the undelete page. Only if they refuse does none start a formal request. But in that case we will need to dig out all such discussions to show the full picture. It at User talk:Jcb#Undelete request. Ww2censor (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I will keep an eye on it. Best, --Michael Romanov (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Talkback

Hello, Ww2censor. You have new messages at MDD1966's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MDD1966 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 April 2016‎

Talkback

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

no need to post here and on your talk page too — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy animator (talk • contribs) 21:36, 30 April 2016‎

Ivanka Trump

Hello, can you please move this image to a new filename for me? The upload bot says it has appropriate licensing, but I'd appreciate if you would please confirm that. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I chose a more appropriately descriptive name and hope you approve. BTW, the licence looks good. Ww2censor (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Soviet/Russian stamps

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

added by Alex Spade (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Hello Ww2censor. You have a new response to this request for deletion file Régis Lefort. May I have your answer please? Sincerely. GerardGiraud (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ww2censor. You have new messages at Godlak67's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Godlak67 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Adrian Boult.jpeg

File:Adrian Boult.jpeg 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!

Skivsamlare (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Post box on Woolton Road near Island Road, Garston.jpg

Hi, can I ask what you did here? My eyesight is no longer what it was and I can't really see a difference, but if I can fix images before I upload them, it would save people having to correct them. You can expect to see a lot more postboxes from me since I am currently on a "mission" to fill in gaps for all of Liverpool, including post offices and post boxes. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: I brightened the mid tones a bit because the box itself looked rather too dark. I could have done more but then some of the highlights might have been too blown out. Any photo manipulation application should be able to manually adjust the levels. For such adjustments do not use an "Auto Levels" option, which in this case actually made the box look even darker because it is decides based on the high white and black points. Hope that helps. Ww2censor (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: Hattusa images

Sorry for the inconvenience. I will be more careful henceforth. Thanks for the warning. Best regards! --Dorieo (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Ww2censor (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Gardineroseris planulata, Panamá.jpg

I think that particular one is fine for LR... some of the ones from that feed had 'Photo by Joe Pollock' as a Flickr tag, or in the EXIF, but that particular one just says the 'ID' was by him (which I assume means the species identification). I've looked up elsewhere that McMinds and Pollock were working together on NSF grants regarding coral, so while the Pollock photos are 'no permission' it's not just random images. Revent^talk 22:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Symphyllia sp, GBReef.jpg, OTOH, while it doesn't list Pollock in the EXIF (unlike the others) has "Photo by Joe Pollock" as a tag on Flickr, which is why I had it marked as 'no permission'. Revent^talk 22:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, so have rolled back the File:Symphyllia sp, GBReef.jpg good review. I tagged File:Gardineroseris planulata, Panamá.jpg based in the fact that there was a clear Flickr tag "ID by Joe Pollock" and I passed those that only had a tag "ID by Ryan McMinds" and did not have any Joe Pollock in the EXIF. I decided to leave a final review of the rest to others but if you think they are good please pass them. I did not investigate beyond Flickr. Thanks for the comments. Ww2censor (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the 'ID' tag is only intended to indicate who identified the species, and not be a photo credit... there were some with both a 'photo by' and an 'id by' tag. Revent^talk 23:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for that. It's not entirely clear. So maybe they are all ok to pass. Ww2censor (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ww2censor. You have new messages at De728631's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

7 October 2016

Category:Zero-project OGG songs

I tagged these files with {{LicenseReview}} after having tagged the files with appropriate license after my own review, and I have to disagree with your license review.

• File:Zero-project - 02 - Autumn prelude.ogg
• File:Zero-project - Dreaming of you.ogg
• File:Zero-project - 02 - Moon waltz.ogg
• File:Zero-project - Fairylate - 06 - The forgotten castle.ogg

These files are specifically CC BY 3.0, not a combination of 3.0 and 4.0. There are some single tracks like Ilotana that are CC BY 4.0 licensed. The tracks on Commons listed below clearly state the license to be CC BY 3.0 in the source.

The permission notice in the FAQ sure is generic for both kinds of works, but really the source page specifies the exact license. Thus, I suggest to revert the license tag back to {{cc-by-3.0|zero-project}}. 80.221.159.67 19:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

That seems quite confusing to have a licence statement link on each page that clearly states everything is licensed both cc 3.0 & 4.0 and a different 3.0 license on the individual pages, except the one you mentioned. The licence page should not make matters confusing. BTW, if you are reviewing media, why are you not logged in when posting? Ww2censor (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Bangladesh garment factory photo

Hi, you removed my photo I uploaded about a week and a half ago. I'm trying to understand why because the creative commons license says that it is able to be redistributed for noncommercial purposes with proper attribution (https://www.flickr.com/photos/asiandevelopmentbank/8426555396 and click "Some rights reserved"). Please let me know what I need to do to get the photo back online. Trs6 (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

First, I did not remove your photo, I just pointed out it had an incompatible license. That image has a non-commercial restriction and we don't accept that license nor ones with non-derivative either. Unless you can get the copyright holder to agree to licence the image freely there is nothing you can do. On occasions I have asked Flickr users to change their licence but it has taken up to a year to get a response, so don't hold your breath. There are a few freely licensed Bangladeshi garment images in this Flickr search you might be able to use instead but there are already several Bangladeshi garment images on the commons. This search shows some and here is a nice image and here is another one. Search around and you may find we already have a good image for you to use. Ww2censor (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Response

Hello, Ww2censor. You have new messages at F123's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by F123 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

File tagging File:The Strokes by Roger Woolman.jpg

Did you look on the page where I wrote the license tag is? --GRuban (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that. I have moved your permission statement into the permission field of the {{Information}} template where it is noticeable by editors and have now given it a good review. Ww2censor (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! You're not the only one to miss the hidden license link on various sites, I'm afraid - I thought putting an informational sentence next to the {{LicenseReview}} tag would be best, but if you think inside the information template is even better would start doing that. I might even make an informational page: "Commons:Where can the license information be found on various sites?", since it does vary between Flickr, YouTube, Vimeo, the Library of Congress, and now 500px. What do you think would be a good COM:TLDR abbreviation? --GRuban (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the Upload Wizard doesn't seem to let me put additional text in that template, only at the bottom where I wrote it. Meanwhile, I've started Commons:Where is the license on various sites? abbreviated as COM:WHERE_LICENSE - if you can improve on that, please do! --GRuban (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Well you can always just edit the image after upload and either move it, as I did, or enter the information in the permission field. I seldom use the upload wizard so can't comment on that possibility. I wonder if you should discuss that "Where is the license on various sites?" page first on the Commons:Village pump/Copyright‎ page first for input and suggestions as to where and how to link it so people will find it. Otherwise it will just lie there and be unused which is obviously not the intention. Ww2censor (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

A good idea, thank you, will! --GRuban (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Keele University Coat of Arms.jpg

Hi, I am planning to delete this within a few hours if nobody else already does in the meantime. Jcb (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. This one File:Keele shield3.png is also most likely copyright. Ww2censor (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Ref Adam_Curry_2016.jpg

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

Lantrix //Talk//Contrib// 19:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The Eagle's Eye (newspaper)

Hello. You deleted a recent upload of mine, File:The Eagle's Eye (newspaper).jpg. I see it was marked for copyright violation, which makes sense, but I'm actually involved in that newspaper, so I would appreciate it if I didn't have a "copyright violation" marked against me, seeing as I am part of the staff and have rights to its content as well. Is there anyway to undo this deletion? Indy beetle (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Indy beetle: for asking but actually, no I did not delete your image, I just nominated it for deletion because it was a newspaper front cover with lots of images. As such various copyrights are at play (the publisher, authors and photographers, who may all own copyright to different parts, unless as staff they are contracted to surrender their copyrights) and there was no evidence provided that showed the copyright holder/s had released it under a free licence. As you are on the newspaper staff you need to determine who exactly owns the different copyrights and they must verify their permission by following the procedure found at COM:OTRS, then it will be restored, so please make sure to give the exact image name. If a newspaper is notable enough to have its own article, at least on the enwiki, it might be uploaded under their strict non-free content policy to identify the publication in the infobox. Unfortunately this is not the only image you uploaded that has copyright problems, so please be sure you verify the images are freely licenced before uploading as getting your uploads deleted can be frustrating and time wasting for you and for us volunteer reviewers. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Victoria Crowned Pigeon bird.jpg

File:Victoria Crowned Pigeon bird.jpg is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: This file is a duplicate of the following files: File:Victoria Crowned-pigeon (Goura victoria) (7936981852).jpg. If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted). All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log. If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Revent^talk 22:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

File:ARW airborne ops 1.jpg

File:ARW airborne ops 1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Melbguy05 (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Currency

Hi, I think you are long enough at Commons to know that we have regular DR for this. Jcb (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jcb: Most are recent uploads, less then 7 days, so, as I understand it being clear copyvios they do not need DRs, that if for older uploads or non-clear copyvios. Am I incorrect? Considering the few other older uploads it hardly seems necessary to divide them up into DRs and speedies. Do you want me change them? Ww2censor (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that there are many different rules for currency. Only files that can be deleted without have to read copyright regulations first should be in the copyvio cat. I have declined the speedy requests. If they are from one uploader, the best thing to do is probably creating a mass DR. Jcb (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course those two problems you mentioned do not arise as they are all from the same uploader and from the same country with the identical copyright issue, so declining the speedy seems unnecessary. I am sure no editor here, admin or otherwise, knows all the copyright law offhand but I am well aware of India's 60 year copyright term. So I'll just repeat the exercise and do a DR but imho Johan this is really just more work for both of us. Ww2censor (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if you are aware: deleting all those files from the copyvio category is way more time consuming than deleting them from a mass DR. And apart from copyright duration, many countries have separate rules for money. 16:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the functionality of a mass DR 'v' mass copyvio deletion for an admin, but as I stated above the copyright duration did not enter into this because all the images I nominated are from the same country. I've made a mass DR, so I hope you are now content, though I feel part of your edit summary "Not a copyright violation" was disingenuous when that is quite clearly not the case. Perhaps you could have phrased it better. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I admit that summary was not optimal. Please be aware that this is an automated summary and declining all those speedy nominations is time consuming enough even without having to change the summary manually for each file. Jcb (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I get it and know that admin job is not an easy one but again as I stated they were all from the same country so you edit summary would have been the same for them all. Let's not waste any more time on this as there are other more important things to do for both of us. Enjoy the Gouda or maybe Maasdammer is your preference! Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File deletion

Hello, when I uploaded this file to the commons the source was "Almrsal" and I didn't know about the Corbis or Getty images, the source data has been changed by the user who did watermark removal in the Photography workshop. Now what is the correct license should I put to avoid the deletion. Thanks.--MrJoker07 (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@MrJoker07: As I state in the deletion notice the original source (that you also link to above) had copied the image from Corbis, as their watermark was on the image, and is still there at the image source. You may not have noticed the slight watermark in the left top corner but, being suspicious of the image, I investigated it extensively and my reasoning is all there on the deletion page. Any comments you have to support it being a Saudi image, which is the copyright tag you added but is clearly wrong should go there. Additionally you should provide evidence the image is freely licenced, not just a source, but, unfortunately I doubt you can do either. If it is a copyright image which I think it is, I'm sorry to tell you, there is no correct licence you can add and the image will be deleted. Anything you have to say should be posted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:King Faisal with Saud Alfaisal 1947.jpg because the closing admin will not bother looking at my talk page. Ww2censor (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

But your investigation hasn't proved that it is not a Saudi Governmental Organization, even in the US. The license would be according to Saudi policy not the American!--MrJoker07 (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Please stop posting here; the closing admin will most likely never see your comments. If you read the deletion nomination page and the links provided, you will find out that the Bettmann archive comprises accumulations of many defunct press archives, so it would be virtually impossible for him to have obtained Saudi government archive images for his archive, besides which, most importantly, the fact that the image was taken in the US means that US copyright law applies, not Saudi law. If under Saudi law it needs to be freely licenced in both jurisdictions, not just Saudi Arabia. I don't want to seem mean but as I stated, please make any points you have at the deletion page, not here, I won't respond here again, so please don't waste your time posting here. Ww2censor (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Fromager des Hautes-Alpes.jpg

Hi,

Thanks for your indication, error repaired. --Varaine (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Debby Ryan 2016.jpg

File:Debby Ryan 2016.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Elisfkc (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Ellen Spiro image

Hello, I uploaded the Ellen Spiro image to WikiCommons, taken by Jessica Jin. Please don't delete it. If I can get you OTRS permission from Jessica Jin herself, I will do that as soon as possible. I'm following protocol as best I can to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. I am willing to do whatever I need to correct this. Please don't delete the image! Thank you. AJ Alderman — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJ Alderman (talk • contribs) 20:11, 06 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an admin so do not delete anything but I'm watching the deletion nomination page. If the copyright holder has sent her permission, you should add the template {{OTRS pending}} to the image page so any closing admin knows permission should be coming because the OTRS system is rather backlogged, so it may not be dealt with quickly. Ww2censor (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I see that you are not an admin, but can you advise me how to add the tag to the image file page? Do I write subst:OP or OTRS pending and would it be under summary, licensing or file history? If not, I can reach out to the OTRS volunteer community for help. Thank you again. AJ Alderman (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC) (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)}}

Between Elisfkc myself and the deletion nomination page you have been provided with all the details you need. YOU cannot decide what tag to add to the image, all you can do is add the {{OTRS pending}} (as posted here including the curly brackets or click on the link for more details) template to the image if you know the copyright holder is providing the OTRS Team with their verification of the license which only they can decide and you have already stated on the deletion page that has been done. There is no point in posting anything else here as the deleting admin will probably not be seeing this discussion, so only post there. BTW, the talkback template {{Talkback}} is meant to alert an editor you have posted a message elsewhere, such as YOUR talk page, NOT on the page where you are posting the message. Ww2censor (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Reminder

Just a reminder, when you find an image in Category:Unsourced Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR that isn't on Flickr, you are supposed to replace the Flickrreview template with {{subst:fns}}. I've done it a few times for you in the past couple weeks, when you've already included {{subst:nsd}}, but I'd just like to remind you of it. Elisfkc (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)