User talk:Amitie 10g/Archive/3

Insults in DRs

Dear Amitie 10g: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kde4-marble desktop globe.png "This is another case of Copyright Paranoia..." I feel you have overstepped the boundaries of AGF with that an other comments in DRs. If you are unable to limit yourself to the topic under discussion and continue to make personal remarks about the nominators, I will have no option other than to bring this behavior - and your removal of valid speedy, no source, and no license tags to the proper forum. Commons is a project on which we work together. Your attitude is unfortunate and most unnecessary. The process has been established and the rules clearly state to stick to discussing the issues and avoid personal attacks. This is my only caution to you on this topic before action. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Amitie 10g,

According to your userpage you believe in good faith an civility and here you promised that you will stay mellow. To my surprise I see you using ad hominem again instead instead of addressing the arguments provided. You also where rude at this DR for example. This kind of behaviour contradicts the promise you did during your LR application and it contradicts the statement at your userpage. In my opinion that is dishonest behaviour. This is also not the first time that you have been rude against Ellin. Obviously this behaviour cannot continue. Before I start comming up with all kind of solutions I would like to ask how believe the tide can be turned for the better. A change in behaviour is needed so, what do you suggest? Natuur12 (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, laterly I'm getting hard to stay mellow and I admit that I exceded my words in the DR. There is a broad concensus about the Free software screenshots, but regardless that, I've opened the thread at the Village Pump to get more concensus about the Own work on Free software screenshots, in order to avoid these kind of DRs, and consequently, my answers in these DRs.

I'll try to limit my words, but the administrators (as trusted users) should be more meticulous when opening DRs, specially when deal with Free software screenshots properly sourced and licensed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me do a proposal. I will be tracking your comments for the next month and if you managed to stay mellow we will have a short chat about it. If you fail to remain mellow aginast Ellin I am going to find aother solution. The first thing that comes in mind is a gentlemens agreement that you refrain from commenting in DR's created by Ellin and that you do not interact with her. But I will think about it in more detail later this month. Does that sound fair? Natuur12 (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds well. But I insist, be more careful when nominating, and specially deleting files. For this reason, again, I opened a thread in the Village Punp to get more concensus about screenshots. Then, I'll just fix the licensing of these files. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I found a couple of DR's like this. Could you please refrain from removing the speedy tags yourself but convert them to DR's if you disagree? Natuur12 (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I would get back to you after one month has passed. I wanted to reply yesterday but other matters required my attention. I took a look at some of your DR comments and while the obvious personal attacks are almost gone I can still notice that you use ad hominem like implying that people need to do their homework better while they are experienced users. Unless there is a pattern this can be quite insulting. The line between an ad hominem and fair criticism if often thin. I realise that, but sometimes it is better to address the copyright status of a specific file only instead of giving someone a lecture. Perhaps this comparison will help me to illustrate my point. I am Dutch and Dutch are quite direct in their communication and we complain a lot. While you won’t offend me with the comment I linked someone from a less direct culture can find such a comment insulting.

Another example is this DR. There was no need to use the phrase: “as you as an Administrator and OTRS member should know that”. This is merely an ad hominem and it is not helpful either. How would you feel if someone keeps telling you that you should have known that as a license reviewer while you created a bad DR in good faith? Can you see the difference between how you reacted in the DR about the USB-flashdrive and this DR for example? To the point, no ad hominem and you are trying to resolve the problem.

Btw, please keep in mind that this DR is from the same calibre as the DR’s Ellin Beltz regarding screenshots of software. Perhaps my tu quoque is a bit cheap but it will have to do for now.

This comment worries me much. Instead of addressing the criticism you start lecturing about some else her wrongdoings plus it contains ad hominem and is merely a tu quoque. Your tone is a bit arrogant as well. Yes, I am doing the exact same thing with this post but it is the context that matters. One of my early observations is that you are mostly using ad hominem against people who are admins but that is just a side note. My most important observation is that your relationship with Ellin Beltz is becoming really unhealthy. You are this close at crossing the border between tracking someone’s edits because you believe there is something wrong with them and harassment. It is probably for the best if you keep your distance. I know that it is not your attend to harass anyone of course and I am certainly not assuming bad faith but the combination of using ad hominem, cocky comments and tracking certain DR’s together with the comment you just made at her talk page is tricky. If you believe that there is a structural problem you could start a general topic and if you are correct others will support . This way it won’t look like some vendetta and if you are wrong people will also let you know. I am looking forward to your response. Natuur12 (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

file:KDE 4 (kwin-transparency).jpg

Could you blur the flower? My board tools consist of paint and paint.net only. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 08:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism is not appreciated?

What are you talking about? You mean Commons:Deletion requests/DR Provincial flags? If you feel that the nomination have not properly been requested, then you can clarify about the request. If you oppose the request, then you can state your concern rith at:Commons:Deletion requests/2015/09/10. I can not understand why have you upscale to the last warning without using the whole scale. What have I done? Nothing but follow the instruction given at: Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request. Osplace (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Please...

...do not remove a speedy delete request for copyright violations because there's also a deletion request. They can both go on at the same time. I've reverted you changes, please don't revert again. Also, simply because there are soldiers in it does not make a photograph a US Army photo. The uploader never indicated that, so there's no reason to make assumptions on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hi, as an active colleague on upload projects, I thought I'd drop you a personal heads-up for my request for adminship, today being the last day for views. RFA's tend to only have a small proportion of the community taking part, so it can be difficult to judge if this is representative. --Fæ (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Please act professionally

Dear Amitie: Please act professionally here at Commons. The editors and admins here work together to fix things. There is no reason for you to be angry with others or to waste space in DNs on personal commentary or attacks. Perhaps you are misunderstanding the cooperative and collegial goals of the project; or perhaps you think you become bigger by sitting on top of someone else? Either way, please take a few minutes to realize that we are only parts of a system which will flow and work much better without interpersonal complaints and hassles. Yes, admins could very well "fix" all files for everyone. But that's not an effective management solution when we are outnumbered 5000 to 1. It is - as stated in COM:EVID up to the uploader to fill in the template. If they fail to do so, no source, no license, etc., then we can ask them to fix their issues. I am more than tired of you complaining about my nominations. How about you talk about the issues and stay out of constantly carping about personalities, your assumptions of good faith or lack thereof, and what you think other people should or should not do? We have more than enough to do around here without this hassle. Please stop. It doesn't make you look good and it damages the project as a whole. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked

You have been blocked from editing Commons for 3 days. The reason for the block is Sorry but calling bad nominations vandalism and accusing a user of vandalism instead of explaining to a user why his nominations are inappropriate is not acceptable. I tried to reason with you, you promised to be more civil and yet you continue to be uncivil. Even if we find certain nominations completely nonsense we can explain this to the nom in a civil way (block log). If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Natuur12 (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "About accusing users as vandalism, are you reffering to the latest editions of PhysalusAntiquorum? I considered these DRs as vandalism because most of them seems clearly disruptve (regardless if the user assumed good faith or not), specially this DR where the user nominated the file twice in less than one hour, ignoring the FunkMonk closing. Are these DRs not vandalism (or at least disruptive ones)? And yes, I ecceeded (again) with the message in his Talk page, but the user nominated too many files with no valid reasons, and then I consider them as vandalism. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)" Decline reason: "No reason given" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

You find those DR's disruptive but that is not a good reason to use terms like vandalism. That is a reason to explain the user why the DR's are dubious. And yes, I am referring to the latest contributions of PhysalusAntiquorum. I also left a note here about this block. You being rude is not an isolated incident and therefor I blocked you. You where rude once again. Natuur12 (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Amitie here, the drive-by DRs with no proper rationales are clearly disruptive, good-faith or not. FunkMonk (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

But is that an excuse to be uncivil? I think not, especially if someone has been warned a lot of times that his comments are uncivil. Natuur12 (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't encountered Amitie before, so cannot say anything about past behaviour, but I'd say it would be more productive to investigate the conduct of PhysalusAntiquorum. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Just see his latest editions and you will have an answer. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I am also looking into that one. Natuur12 (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I already see that, and I'm so sorry with my exceeded behaviour by calling vandalism. I considered to edit the message to a more appropiate one (but I'm blocked...), but I still consider these DRs as disruptive (or at least unfortunate). And as you noticed, the reason to speedy close these DRs and leaving that warning to the user is the several DRs that he opened, in special, the DR opened twice in less than one hour (as I mentioned above), and also, some editions with coarse language as I found, I guess.

...Anyway, I think that I need a break to calm and get rid the uncivility... but I can't support vandalism and disruptive DRs. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I would, indeed, suggest that you consider this is 'non-punitive enforced wikibreak', and use it as a chance to step back a bit. The block itself is rather close to being a 'cooldown block', but after looking around I can't say that it's not probably a good idea (and you seem to somewhat acknowledge this). I'd say 'Don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence', and suggest you try to be a bit more mellow. Revent (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, As I mentioned above, I need a little break and thinking better, then, I preffer to wait until the block expires. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "No reason given" Decline reason: "Procedurally closing this, as above, to remove it from the 'pending' category. Amitie has agreed that a short cooldown period is probably a good idea." Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3wl7zNEQdp6z9Vb

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Agar.io-clone screenshot.png

File:Agar.io-clone screenshot.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!

Diego Grez ^{return fire} 00:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Captura de pantalla de Wine Internet Explorer.png

File:Captura de pantalla de Wine Internet Explorer.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Diego Grez ^{return fire} 23:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Captura de pantalla de Wine Internet Explorer.png

File:Captura de pantalla de Wine Internet Explorer.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!

Natuur12 (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Microsoft Edge.png

File:Microsoft Edge.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!

Diego Grez ^{return fire} 15:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Prohibición de interacción con Diego Grez-Cañete por 3 meses

Hola

Tras los sucesos acaecidos los últimos días, procedo a informarte que Diego ha sido bloqueado durante 3 días esperando que recapacite en su actitud.

Adicionalmente te informo que tanto tú, como Diego Grez-Cañete, tenéis prohibido cualquier tipo de interacción entre ambos durante los próximos 3 meses.

Esperando que todo vuelva a su cauce, te envío un saludo. Alan ^(talk) 01:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Willem van de Poll

hello Amitie 10g,

Regarding to your question her. The license in the same page means that the Nationaal Archief owns the rights and they release them. that's why license review is needed. -- Geagea (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Renaming

• Do you think this is harmonization (see)? --sasha (krassotkin) 07:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• And here (and analogues) see #2. --sasha (krassotkin) 07:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

File:1919 Daimler Light Thirty Phaeton (20972705472).jpg

Thank you Amitie for sorting out the licence on this file though I have to admit I do not understand all the ramifications. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

File:GNS3 logo.png

I noticed you recently uploaded this file. I went to check the GitHub page it came from, but could see no evidence of it having the license you claim it does. Can you clarify this for me? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Google Chrome screenshots

You removed my copyright vio tags for screenshots of Google Chrome that were incorrectly licenced under free licences. Chrome is under the Google Terms of Service and is proprietary. Chromium is under the BSD and other free licenses, but Chrome is not. These screenshots need cleaning up as their licencing is incorrect and they are not eligible to be here on Commons. Please do not remove the tags, but allow an admin to assess these. - Ahunt (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Revert other people's speedy delete

I saw that you reverted my request to have this file deleted. Shouldn't an admin be the one who decides if a file should or should not be deleted? Are you an admin? - Takeaway (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker

I answered your Question about blocking CommonsDelinker on my user talk page in Sater Frisian Wikipedia. I would call that a strong reason.--Heinz (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Removing speedy notices

Dear Amitie 10g,

I wanted to give you some time to respond to the questions at your talk page regarding your removal of speedy deletion taggs. I have two requests, could you just convert them to DR's in the future and can you stop using rollback to revert speedy deletion nominations? Those are clear cases of abuse and if this continues I will revoke the rollback flag. Natuur12 (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Same goed for this. The no source tagg was clearly wrong but please don't use rollback to remove them. Natuur12 (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Since I noticed another ,isuse of rollback I revoked your flag. Rollback should not be used for reverting good faith edits. Natuur12 (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Source for File-Awmapworld.PNG -

Hello User-Amitie_10g Regarding source for [1] -your edit for map Aw zone, the map does not list the source for the data, like a book or other publication, which the map maker used to find out which areas belong to that particular climate zone.The link listed in source is to the home page of English Wikipedia. For comparison this Koppen climate Aw zone map lists its source.Thanks, User 2know4power (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC).

Flickr, CC-0, and license review

The {{CC-0}} is a particular, explicit 'license'. It is not the same as a work being in the public domain, and does not place a work in the public domain. It is a specific 'waiver' by the author of their rights in a work, and a promise to not attempt to enforce them. You cannot claim that an author applied a CC-0 license to a work when they did not actually do so. You have been claiming, when reviewing Flickr uploads, that authors have been placing works under the CC-0 license when they have instead chosen the Public Domain Mark 1.0. Stop. You can ask the author to change to a CC-0 license, but you cannot just pretend they actually chose it. Revent (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi,
I’ve saw your messages on the deltions request of the photos of Pascal Riteau. I’ve forgot to "open" them with this account. Lev. Anthony is my principal account, i use the accound of "Le Transbordeur" only to upload the photos on Wikimedia Commons. If you click on my user age of Le Transbordeur, you will saw it is a redirection to my user page "Lev. Anthony". I’m not an OTRS member, but i’ve asked to the photograph to reuse his photos. He have accepted in a first time (when i’ve upload these files) but have changed of advice and have not send the permission to the OTRS.
Good evening. --Le Transbordeur (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't noticied that. Please clarify that these nominations are for your own uploads, and will be deleted as a courtesy deletion. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi
No problem, it’s my fault, i’ve forgot to switch account before to start the deletion request. I’ve precised on them that the two accounts are the same ("Lev. Anthony a.k.a. Le Transbordeur").
Good evening --Lev. Anthony (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Hyena 2.jpg

File:Hyena 2.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!

Hop on Bananas (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Sad tab of death.JPG

File:Sad tab of death.JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove

Please do not remove the tags relating to nominated files from this page until the file has been handled. It makes for more useless clicking around than is otherwise necessary. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Bataclan

You reverted the edit on File:20151114-bataclan-paris-98 (22393906013).jpg The author of this image has released the picture under PD, so I changed that to the more specific PD-author. Was that not correct to do? Which PD do you propose? --Hannolans (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Licencia en la imagen de Macri.

Buen dia Amitie, queria comentarte que la imagen que vos revisaste (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Presidente_Macri_en_el_Sillon_de_Rivadavia_%28cropped%29.jpg) no posee la licencia correcta. El 10 de diciembre de 2015 la pagina de Presidencia de la Nacion Argentina paso de tener licencia Creative Commons Genérica de Atribución/Compartir-Igual 2.0 a Creative Commons Reconocimiento 2.5 Argentina License, como podes ver en la imagen original (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Presidente_Macri_en_el_Sill%C3%B3n_de_Rivadavia.jpg). Queria que estes al tanto, soy un simple usuario de Wikipedia/Wikimedia no se si tengo el poder de cambiar asi nomas la licencia,por eso prefiero que lo haga un administrador. Un wikiabrazo- Juandedeboca (talk) 13:54 , 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi there. I added a speedy delete to a photo, and you removed it here with the edit summary "not a copyright violation. If you disagree, nominate for deletion." Why isn't it a copyright violation? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Amitie 10g, You have been previously warned by Natuur12 and myself not to removed copyright violation tags on files like this one. It is not a good thing to ignore warnings by administrators and bureaucrats like this. There is no reason to waste other users time by reverting their work for no reason. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Amitie, even if you are right, it is better to create a deletion request rather than to remove the warning. You can then express you opinion in the DR. You can also ask the user (in a friendly way ;o) ). Regards, Yann (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Greetings!

Let me show you something so you will see my point. Uploader uploaded the file named wrongly. I corrected it. He requested it to be named wrongly again. Boom. He won. But the fact is that there is no "logo" of the National Police of Ukraine. There is the emblem and the cap badge metallic type A. But no "logo". Another example: this people are authors of this symbolic (and many more). But the uploader of this file claiming that he is the author, when in fact all he did was saving the .gif file as .png. He also removed all the valuable information about the symbols in terms of the official Government decisions about them and the links to such information. Is it all right? Can he do it? Am I doing something wrong trying to explain it to people? Correct me if I'm wrong. I am just trying to understand the rules and to play by them. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

P. S. Andriy Greczylo, head of the Ukrainian Heraldic Society just replayed to me about the issues I am discussing here. The general understanding is that "the .svg file will have an author of the vectorized images of the Ukrainian symbols mentioned as the author of the particular .svg file, but it still will be nice to mention the authors of the particular symbol itself as the authors of the particular symbol. In regards to the .png, .gif and .jpg files, uploaders who are claiming their authorship of them (except the cases where the .png, .gif or .jpg files are derivatives from the .svg file) are becoming the impostors. An author of the original symbolic need to be mentioned as the author, not the uploader." End of the message. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Set of 5 Joe Camel Promotional Cigarette Lighters, Camel Lights Cigarettes (14816055091).jpg

File:Set of 5 Joe Camel Promotional Cigarette Lighters, Camel Lights Cigarettes (14816055091).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!

Rodrigolopes (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Partial Flickr uploads

Hi Davod. I noticed you're helping fix these F2C partials. I've had to do this with some of my own transfers. I've found that once you've re-uploaded the full original, you can replace the failed review tag with {{Flickrreview}}, and the bot will go back over it and pass it. INeverCry 21:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:CC-AR-Presidency/layout

I've unprotected it for now. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Fireworks from the Philippines to celebrate 2016
	Happy New Year Amitie 10g! I hope you still do your great work in 2016! ★ Poké95 05:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)