User talk:Fred J/Archive 3

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

< User talk:Fred J

(Redirected from User talk:Fred Chess/Archive 3)

Jump to navigation Jump to search

{{See a doctor}}

Like that?--Orgullomoore 16:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. Thanks. / Fred Chess 19:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Roaches

LOL. They get this warning message: MediaWiki:Filewasdeleted. You can reword it to make it a bit stronger if you like. But remember it won't always necessarily be the same person uploading the same file, who sees this message. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riksdagen

Slarre har märkt bilden Image:Lena Sommestad.jpg som okänd, du får väl kolla vad det är som är fel. Thuresson 10:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jag fick bilden härifrån [1] . Nu finns den inte där? / Fred Chess 09:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restored

Hello, I restored my edit [[2]] because I think several wkimedia users can be consern by this issue. Yug (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Yug#ATI_.2F_Village_Pump (apologize....) Yug (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto.jpg

Fred, this was an official portrait painted by Shugaku Homma in 1943, according to the US Navy site. As an official painting, it was commissioned by the Imperial government of Japan and so fell under the old copyright act. Article 6 states that such works created for the government are 30 years from the time of creation. So it became PD in 1973. This is stated on Template:Deletion_requests#Image:Admiral_Isoroku_Yamamoto.jpg. The yamamoto section said discussion was closed so I am sending this mail directly to you.

Please do not delete. -Mak 00:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! -Mak 22:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demis

Ah, perfa! // Habj 19:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm vandalising your talk page

...doesn't quite have the same impact, does it?

I laughed really hard when I saw this, Fred, nice work :D --pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it :-)

Fred Chess 18:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medical advice

Hoi,
You decided to delete a template that gave medical advise. The template was used with pictures of venereal deseases. The text was that when you recognise it, you should see a doctor. I do not understand why you think it appropriate, the reason for these pictures is indeed to have people go and see a doctor when they recognise it.. Apparantly you do not think it necessary when venereal deseases get treated asap. :( GerardM 07:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it was considered (in the deletion debate) that the template was not in line with Wikipedia policy. / Fred Chess 08:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of this project again ? GerardM 09:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify for you (since you don't understand) I was, in my act of deleting the template, following the debate on the deletion request-- although I incidentally agreed with it. / Fred Chess 11:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I understand fine.. this project is called Commons. I would not do a thing that I do not agree with. I leave stupid decisions to someone else. GerardM 05:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lilimar2.ogg

Hej. Är licensen för den filen korrekt? Sångerskan dog 1972, textförfattaren 1983 och melodikompositören 2002. Jag kan inte rutinerna här, så du får gärna hjälpa mig att anmäla filen på rätt ställe. /81.229.37.13 10:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hej!

Jag har listat bilden för radering på Commons:Deletion requests, med de argument du gav -- med undantaget att jag inte nämnde sångerskan då jag är osäker på om denne kan ha upphovsrätt på framförandet (enligt svensk lag har man t.ex. inte det, även om det finns ett liknande skydd för sådant, men detta går ut efter 50 år)

Fred Chess 10:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tack för hjälpen. /81.229.37.13 21:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Licensing questions

er.... well. I think Arnomane rather liked the old organisation. Also I don't understand why people can't use the Help desk? (Well we all like to look after our own hobby creations...) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they can use the Help desk. But it was in fact your suggestion to split off simple licensing questions into a separate page. And I don't care what Arnomane thinks, because it isn't he who answers the questions. / Fred Chess 10:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... true. That was before there was a help desk. I think there is enough traffic to support both. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lasse1974

User:Lasse1974 håller på att ta bort licensuppgifter på bilder som han har laddat upp. Jag vet inte vad det innebär. Tupsharru 19:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lite hjälp

User_talk:Grön#Misunderstanding, visst kan inte den bilden märkas som han har gjort? Men hur bör den märkas istället? /Grön 08:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, ska jag prova svara här?

Jo han kan släppa sin skapelse under vilken licens han vill (om man nu vill kalla ett rött tecken för skapelse....). Public domain är ju ingen licens egentligen.

Fred Chess 09:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Som upplärd på svenska Wikipedia så bevakar jag ju diskussionsidor överallt :). Det var just om ett rött tecken var en skapelse som jag undrade över också. Men om du säger så då får jag ju bara helt ödmjukt stiga åt sidan. /Grön 09:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About User:Gabri

This account user is a sockpuppet of User:Gabri-co, and he didn't want to give me any response about the warnings I've sent him. In fact, as you can see in his user talk page, after around a five months, he's continued to upload copyrighted works claiming fake ownership, as other admins such Anna or Sanbec warns him again. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 18:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallå

Har nominerat mig själv som sysop, bara så att du vet. Bra jobb du gör här annars, men jag är nog mer konservativ gällande "fair-use" för att vara ärlig :) Christer Johansson 19:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the paintings DR

Fred, copyright is not consensus. You know that as well as anyone... keeping images based on a lack of evidence that they're copyvios is an extremely bad precedent and is really unworkable. I know you're trying to close these stupid debates that hang around forever, but I really think it should be kept open. Maybe we should move it to a subpage and just have a one-line link on COM:DEL to the subpage, until it's resolved? pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why the bl*** hell didn't people, like you, present their arguments? I raised some serious question, waited a week or so, but only received reply from this one user. Apart from that, I can only remember one other person (you) who ever thought they needed to be deleted. I even asked on the mailing list, as you know. I do have to base the closings on how people present their arguments. / Fred Chess 13:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I'd prefer if the debate was conducted at Commons_talk:Licensing, instead of having some constantly open deletion request. / Fred Chess 13:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fred. Rather than hold the debate under the pending doom of a deletion request, it should be done in a less confrontational forum. Thanks Fred. --Evrik 15:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know any way to force people to comment on these stupid issues? Cause I sure as hell don't. Don't ask ME why people didn't comment. I spend half my time trying to harass people here (not you) into helping out, with little success.

Now I cannot even find the damn debate. :/ Where has it been moved?

I presented my arguments. Evrik insisted we wait until he gets some reply which, surprise surprise, still has not materialised. I was waiting! That's what you do when someone asks you to wait. User:Jiang was the one who initiated the deletion request. If you're not sure, then you don't need to close it! You should base your closing on what you know is reasonable. If you think "the curator said it's OK" is PD-proof of anything then.... we're operating in different galaxies.

$#%#^#$@#@$#%^&*#$% I'm so damn sick of dealing with these stupid topics with zero guidance from the WMF lawyers. It's a ridiculous situation.

Evrik will this situation ever reach conclusion, or will you keep stringing it out until we forget about it? pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard back, but I understand that the WMF met with the LoC ... did anything come of that? --Evrik 01:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Första stegen

Hi Fred, I noticed that Commons:Första stegen is not up to date with the English version. Could you perhaps translate it? There are so many nice pictures of Swedish users uploaded to Commons, but sometimes they do not use template information or insert date of photo. Första stegen would be helpful. Greetings, Longbow4u 22:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've started now. I also modified the upload text.

But tomorrow, Friday, I will be going away for one week, and I am not sure if I will have internet access from there.

Fred Chess 23:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thank you. I think this is an important translation, but a week delay is not critical. I hope you go to holidays and that you enjoy the week :-) , greetings, Longbow4u 08:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sant

Jag "behöver" inte vara sysop, jag laddar hellre upp (och producerar) bilder :) Christer Johansson 17:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jag hoppas att du inte tog det personligt. Jag ansåg att du inte uppfyllde de krav man rimligen kan förvänta sig av en adminstratör på Commons, och att du för närvarande inte tillför något genom att vara administratör. Sen är det ditt jobb att övertyga mig att jag har fel. :-)

Fred Chess 15:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flag of Hong Kong SAR.png

This image was retrieved from an official government source. Please help convert it into .svg format before you add the tag again. The current .svg image contains inaccuracies. — Insta ntnood 10:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons-l subscription

Hello Fred chessplayer,

as per Commons talk:Administrators, I am asking all admins to subscribe to commons-l, a mailing list for Wikimedia Commons policy and project discussion. Since many admins are only on Commons infrequently, this is a good way to alert people about important happenings. The mailing list is nominally multilingual, but predominantly English.

If you are already subscribed to commons-l, I apologize for bothering you, and you are free to ignore this message. If you don't want to use your regular e-mail account, feel free to leave me a message, and I can send you a GMail invite. Traffic on the mailing list is relatively low, and we do not expect admins to read all messages to the list, but it would be nice if you could check on it at least every few weeks. Thanks for your time,--Eloquence 23:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motala longwave

Hi Fred! Not too sure if I have to use english, but I assume I do. Anyway - would you like to have a look at the gallery in "my" article Motala longwave and explain why I cannot see all pictures in the gallery? Something wrong with my settings? Riggwelter 21:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hej hej.

Det fungerar för mig.

Fungerar det fortfarande inte för dig? Vad är det som inte fungerar?

/ Fred Chess 09:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jag kollade på min jobbdator och där fungerar det - alltså att jag verkligen ser alla miniatyrbilderna (i gelleriet) på skärmen. På min laptop hemma ser jag bara bilden av mastsektionen - alla andra bilder är helt enkelt vita och icke klickbara. Jag har rotat med mina inställningar, men inget ändras. Underligt. Riggwelter 19:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Det kan bero på många saker, men jag tror inte det beror på Commons. Det kan kanske bero på antivirus-program, en gammal browser, cachen är full... svårt för mig att säga.

Vad använder du för browser? Fungerar alla andra sidor?

Fred Chess 12:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your category redirects question

Last February you asked on Category talk:Category redirects page: "Is there any bot on Wikimedia Commons that maintains the category redirects?"

What sort of maintenance task did you have in mind? -Mak 22:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just changing category from one to the other. But these days, Orgilobot takes care of it.

Fred Chess 12:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how good are you at chess

I usually lkay on pogo.com

Hjälp sökes angående upphovsrätt

Morjens, användare Wikipeder slog till med grova artilleriet på min diskussionsida och bestrider tydligen min tanke om att upphovsrätten skulle ha upphört för en hel del bilder jag scannat (och tänkt scanna) från Det stora världskriget vol. II (1915). Har dem i ett galleri. Vad tror du om detta? Jag bad honom/henne jämföra med mallen för PD-Ugglan. MVH Scoo 08:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hej.

Först vill jag förklara att PD-Ugglan är accetabel pga av encyklopedier är sammansatta av olika författare och man därför anser att de blir public domain efter 70 år.

När det gäller andra böcker, gäller dock den vanliga upphovsrätten som är 70 år efter att den siste av författarna dött. Man kan altså inte anta att en bild är public domain bara för att den är gammal. (Med vissa reservationer -- se t.ex. {{PD-Sweden}} som gäller för fotografier (inte konst) tagna och publicerade i Sverige. ). När det gäller fotografier är det ibland även relevant när fotografen dog även om bilden scannats in från en bok..

Fred Chess 16:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Låter en aning trist.. Bara att kasta ägg då när en EU-politiker är i faggorna antar jag.. Harmset att elda upp rasket då det finns bilder från andra världskriget (ex. [3] som har laddats upp [här] med motiveringen att mellanhanden är USA:s flottas hemsida och därmed PD.

I mitt fall då? Vore det möjligt att åkalla {{PD-BritishGov}} för en del av dem och {{Anonymous work}} för resten/några (med motiveringen att de är tryckta autotypier (rastertryck) i webbresolution och förmodade allmänna på sin tid). Lönar sig tydligen inte att vara exakt och medge att fotografen är okänd istället för att rätt och slätt ange litteratur/webbsida som källa ;) Scoo 06:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bilderna måste ju komma någonstans ifrån; det rör sig inte om bilder som hittats i en lådü t.ex.

Mitt förslag är att försöker ta reda på vem som fotograferat bilderna. Står verkligen ingen källa angiven? Bilderna trogligtvis ursprungligen köpts av författarna/förlaget, men frågan är varifrån. Det du kan och bör göra är att försöka ta reda på bildernas ursprung, genom att kontakta förlaget/författarens ättlingar, eller andra. Lagen säger att man ska göra sig rimliga ansträngningar.

{{PD-BritishGov}} och {{PD-USGov}} är tveksamt om de kan användas på bilder konfiskerade av allierade trupper efter kriget. Som du ser på commons:Deletion requests håller flera sådana bilder på att raderas.

Fred Chess 09:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Åhlen & Åkerlunds ingår numera i Bonniergruppen, ska försöka maila dem (tvivlar dock att de kan hjälpa). Har på jobbet Nordisk Familjebok tryckt 1924 där det finns en hel del bilder från första världskriget (på det hela taget mycket mer bilder än versionen som är scannad vid runeberg.org), antar att de bilderna likaså får upphovsrättshökarna på sig. Kan tänka mig vilken knepig licensmall som skulle behöva användas på exempelvis engelska wikipedia om inte bilderna får vara kvar här, något mellanting mellan PD och "fair use".

Om inte Bonniers kan hjälpa, tror du då att {{Anonymous work}} eller {{PD-because}} vore möjliga? (med utförlig förklaring för respektive bild) Scoo 11:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Nordisk Familjebok är en bra fråga. Även om materialet sannolikt är fritt från upphovsrätt i Sverige, är det inte nödvändigtvis det i resten av världen. Det är egentligen inget problem då de flesta fotografierna där fria från upphovsrätt i enlighet med {{PD-Sweden}}. Men naturligtvis är fotografier från första världskriget inte underställda PD-Sweden, såvida de inte urpsrungspublicerats i Sverige (jag är inte riktigt säker på om det räcker, men det bör åtminstone vara ett grundläggande kriterium.). Men NF har väl bildhänvisningar?

Vad gäller Det stora världskriget vol. II (1915)., anser jag att man ska leta reda på källan riktigt noggrannt. Det kan kräva mer en ett mejl. Bilderna är ju egentligen inte "anonyma", utan det är möjligt, kanske t.o.m. troligt, att de används på andra ställen i världen, och inte alls är fria från upphovsrätt.

Fred Chess 12:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Är nog rädd att hela rasket får raderas, skulle vara mycket svårt att spåra fotografen. Jag får väl ta och ladda upp dem lokalt på olika språkversioner med någon halvabsurd licensmall {{Old-unknown-possibly-copyrighted-fair-use-just-in-case}}... Tackar för hjälpen iallafall. Scoo 06:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tack för snabbt arbete

Tack att du reagerade så hastigt med raderingen av State Coat of Arms of the USSR (1958-1991 version).svg. --Hapo 12:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Det var iofs inte jag, utan User:Erin_Silversmith ("Erin") some raderade bilden, men det var kanske p.g.a. mina argument, så jag tar till mig lite ära ändå ;-)

Fred Chess 12:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat

Fred, unless you adamently protest, I will nominate you for Bureaucrat. I realize you are doing a lot now and I just am asking that you agree to just the bare minimum few other essential tasks that need to be done. No sweat if you resign it after the other bureaucrats return from their hiatus. What say you? -Mak 05:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please run! --EugeneZelenko 15:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,please! (Although traditionally bureaucrats self-nominate...) pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm joining to all above and I think we need your help not only in such situations like now. --Panther 06:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could run, I suppose.... / Fred Chess 11:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding tradition, I have nominated you. Thanks Fred. -Mak

Re: I will

I'm glad to hear it. More discussion can only be a good thing. I'm curious what prompted this comment, though. :)

I don't think Bureaucrat is a great deal more than Admin. It's pretty easy to judge when someone should or shouldn't be made an admin. But it is great to see that people expect higher standards of themselves and they live up to these standards too. cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morally somehow I think Bureaucrat is more responsible because people for some reason think that I, of all admins, am a suitable Bureaucrat (yes I know Mak asked you first).

As to what prompted my comment, I had to answer to your kind words above. At first I only wanted to snort "don't stay up until 4 AM" (if my calculations are correct) but I thought I should say something nice.

Anyhow, because the deletion request page recently has attracted some people who would like to write their own laws, I think it is important that we as admins back each other up, work towards the same goal, etc, etc... communication

Fred Chess 19:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it was 1pm in the afternoon here, be nice! :P Mak told me what he was doing but I wouldn't write something if I didn't mean it. And I agree that admins should generally support each other (but risk being accused of having a cabal :)) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing list posting

Please don't distort what you write on the mailing list. At least it shows you have understood hardly anything at all about the issue. Here's my reply to your mail:

> An ambitious user created template:trademarked (
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked
> ) that he then applied to some images he did not
> consider possible to copyright because of a "lack of
> creativity". The template was applied to, for example,
> the logotypes of Opel and Mazda.

That is entirely wrong.  This template was created for 
exactly what it says: That something which is displayed 
on the photo is trademarked and that potential users must 
be careful about that.  It claims neither that there is 
lacking creativity, nor anything about copyright.

> It was also suggested that the logotype of the
> Wikimedia foundation is not copyrightable because it
> does not containt sufficient creative authorship. 

... as a work of applied art.  Because mere design by 
itself is not copyrightable.

> This is all based on some persistant users alleged
> comprehension of German jurisdiction where (according
> to the users) "sweat of the brow" is required to
> render something copyrightable.

It is exactly the opposite!  "sweat of the brow" is 
neither required nor sufficient in Germany, instead, 
design patents apply as a lex specialis for works of 
applied art.  The German jurisdiction is clearly 
explained in Template:Logo-Germany. Why didn't you 
mention this template?  Further, I added some section
about the problem at 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#German_Urheberrecht

If you understand German, I recommend

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he

Many people will claim that it's different in 
the US.  Ask yourself: Where are the won lawsuits? Please 
examine your position critically.  To date, nobody came
up with one court ruling that held a Logo in the US
to be copyrightable. You should compare the situation to
other, more debated cases of works of applied art, namely
typefaces. Jurisdiction has been as stringent as in Germany
about them!  (And the claims you hear abour typefaces
being copyrightable in Germany are false: They are 
protectable by an extension to design patents, just as for 
logos...)  Only one example was given in the UK
(http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2003/2914.html),
and I agree that even simple logos are protected there, 
they however have the sweat of the brow doctrine.

Then you see the arguments of Tim 'avatar' Bartel, pointing 
at the GIGA logo suggesting "Do you really mean that THIS 
should not be copyrighted?" It's pure emotion, without 
explaining the legal background.  Of course it's not 
copyrighted in Germany. His suggestion is to simply accept
any FUD.  But with such arguments, you can as well argue
against photographic reproductions of paintings.

Also please take a look at the existing discussion that has 
been made before you trust your common sense (good as it
may be) that "I just can't believe they are not copyrighted) 
and "but trademark law is not free":

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#Category:Logos
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#.7B.7BLogo-Germany.7D.7D
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives12#Image:Wikimedia.png_and_others
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives12#Image:Farben_logo.jpg

Also consider "WMF legal dep. (Villy) has argued for the use 
of non-copyrighted logos. de has a reasonable policy and lives 
good with it" at the first of the three, which, while I cannot
verify this claim, I think should at least be taken not to 
reject anything outright you hear about logos and listen
to the arguments.

Finally let me point to the biggest thinking mistake you 
can make: To confuse trademark and copyright.  These
are two entirely separate and independent laws. 
'Fair use' for example applies only to copyright,
not to trademark law. 

rtc

I ask you kindly to post my reply to the mailing list so there is no incorrect representation of the matters. --Rtc 08:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a correction regarding the flagrant "sweat of the brow" mistake. The other parts are your opinions, and not something I want to argue for.

Fred Chess 12:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should not argue for my position, but merely mention my counterstatement on the mailing list. It is my right, since you misrepresented my position. BTW, it's not very fair to discuss the issue on a mailing list, neither mentioning existing discussion here, nor any of the logo proponents being on that mailing list. The outcome is clear if you do not mention my counterstatement. You can clearly mark it as my opinion which you do not agree with. --Rtc 12:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to represent your opinions in addition to my own; I'm sure you realize how schizofrenic it would become. You are in your right to register to the mailinglist and post to it yourself.

Fred Chess 12:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to go through the hassles and am not interested in joining another mailing list. You're playing a very unfair move by rejecting to post my counterstatement or at least a link to it. I guess you knew that since nobody of the logo proponents is on the mailing list, you have an easy game there. It is not schizofrenic to mention a counterstatement with arguments against the own position or to correct oneself (especially about the Trademarked-Template). --Rtc 13:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not waste my time responding to this nonsense. / Fred Chess 13:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, please explain me what your intention is to escalate matters to the mailing list with a very misleading posting, just when people start to accept the arguments and you are in danger to loose the discussion. No people who are any more special than the people discussing here have replied on the mailing list. Is it [[4]] what you want? Don't you consider that a little bit unfair? I am assuming good faith, but your reaction to my request was not very kind. --Rtc 13:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rtc, if you want to say something on the mailing list, you should do so. Expecting other people to do so for you is rather unusual. If you are motivated enough to write this reply I guess you can be motivated enough to subscribe, even if you subscribe as web-only/digest.

The mailing list is intended to be used as a central discussion place for admins, among other things. It's entirely appropriate to discuss such a matter there. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vigeland images

Thanks for the note - most weren't used in en:, and the used ones weren't essential (prereq to fairu use), so not much point to re-uploading there. Stan Shebs 23:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Admin noticeboard?

Indeed there is not one. Commons has probably matured enough to use one, I think. Although I wonder if they don't just attract more trouble than they're worth. Some people prefer to use the mailing list. Or get attention of admins who speak a specific license. -- speak a specific license? :) If you mean language, try the Village pump in the language of your choice, or else Commons:list of administrators by language. If you mean admins who know about a particular license, I would say check the edit history of that template.

cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bureaucrat

You're a bureaucrat now. Congratulations. - Andre Engels 18:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THX!!!!!!!!!!!!! I feel much more important already. / Fred Chess 22:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! (Don't forget Commons:Changing username) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed 3 of them yesterday, so you could try new power on other 3 requests :-) --EugeneZelenko 14:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I first thought pfctdayelise wanted me to change my own username. I thought about changing it to Fred Chess actually, like it is on English Wikipedia. Anyways, I renamed the three users. / Fred Chess 17:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright

I had pasted Image:Uttam from english wikipedia, but only after that I realized that it was a {{film-screenshot}}</mowiki>.. Please decide what should be done with the image. However I would like to know if images from english wikipedia with a <nowiki>{{Promotional}}tag can be used here?--Dr.saptarshi 00:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism intervention requested

Could you please block User:Polcinger, who keeps recreating an attack page? And, of course, delete the page and watch a little that it doesn't reappear? The subject herself seems to have gone sleeping and thus can't deal with this childish nonsense herself. Thanks, Lupo 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, User:Paddy did it now. Lupo 13:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really think we need an admins' noticeboard. / Fred Chess 17:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COM:ADMIN

Hello Fred. Could you please look at COM:ADMIN and grant Cnyborg and me a sysop status ? Thanks in advance, odder 10:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see user:EugeneZelenko just did it. / Fred Chess 14:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Rename

Hey, Fred. See you're here. See Commons:Changing_username#From_User:Angelix_to_User:Emmanuel_Chanel. She's kind of impatient for it :) Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 21:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed.... Eugene usually does these things before I have a chance to blink... but I did it now.

Why can't they have some patience? We're not obliged to change peoples usernames -- they should think before they register.

Fred Chess 21:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know how many edits she had? 6 (six). They should just register a new username, IMO / Fred Chess 21:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Fred Chess. Very, very much. (Well, I'm a man.) You got irritated? Sorry. Sometimes, I'm link Mr. Monk... --Emmanuel Chanel 22:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, nothing personal :-)

Fred Chess 22:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Albert Einstein.jpg

Fred, I think you should really delete this image. Look at the mess people have caused by uploading some other image over it! (I'd leave the talk page, though.) Lupo 08:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now protected the page from uploads. Perhaps we should upload a different Albert Einstein image ontop of this one so people don't have to change it. The problem is then that the image captions might be wrong on those Wikipedias it is being used. / Fred Chess 09:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Red X" - deletions were proposed by some Wikimedia project because of the problems they had with finding what happened with sudden red link images. Deleting the image would make it difficult for them to find the talk page. / Fred Chess 09:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request to hold off on Vigeland Sculpture Park image deletions

I am in the process of moving these to the correct wikis.

I'd like access to those which have been deleted so that they may be properly transfered.

I am investigating a more proper tag than Fair Use, as for this class of image degradation of the image is not necessary since use in cases such as Wikipedias is fully permitted, but due to Commons rules is not permitted (As I understand the debate- restrictions on commercial use in this case).

Thanks, -Mak 19:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC) (ammended note- Niels knew nothing about this.)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-NASA

The first warning about the Hubble Space Telescope might need a small rewording. If only STScI is credited then images are usable with this template. As soon as other (non-NASA) individuals are involved these images require permission from them. Suggestion for rewording: unless fully credited to the STScI. What do you think? --Denniss 22:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a minor fix to it, but maybe not in the way you had wanted... I think you mean that modified images aren't public domain. But this is a possible problem with all public domain images, no?

Fred Chess 22:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. That's similar to what I thought (STScL = OK; STScL + other non-NASA people/organisations like ESA = not OK). --Denniss 23:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danish coats of arms

Sorry to trouble you Fred, but I need a piece of advice.

Around 6 weeks ago, I posted three images of Danish coats of arms on IFD. These versions are not new creations (like e.g. the vector-images.com images) but the real thing. Now I can see that these requests have been dumped in an archive, without any comments but the images have not been deleted. To me it seems like I have to relist them again (and wait a few months more). Is this really necessary? Please advice.

The images in question are listed here Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2006/07 under July 11 (Image:COA Danish Royal Family Official.png, Image:Coa royal denmark.png, Image:Denmark coa official.png). It is the same with Image:Denmark coa third version.png (from the same contributor) and this time, I've listed it simply as a copyvio.

I have few problems with images inspired by the originals but these images are all the real thing. Can I do anything else? Please advice. Valentinian ^(talk) 11:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valentinian. No trouble at all.

I think that the pages were archived awaiting a decision from an admin.

IMO, the deletion request has of lately become somewhat anarchistic. I already warned about this several months ago, when multiple new admins were appointed, who not always had the same view of the practices on Commons. So I can't tell how it works.

Anyways, I deleted them now.

Fred Chess 11:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Speaking of Scandinavian heraldy, I don't know if you remember the old coat of arms of Blekinge I once uploaded? (en:Image:Blekinge_historical_seal.png) It was drawn by Anders Thiset (d. 1917), and I have scanned copies of his material covering both Skåneland and Denmark (alas Schleswig is missing). This material contains an (almost complete?) collection of the arms of both the Danish hundreds and the chartered towns. I am thinking about cutting out the images and uploading them to Commons, the only thing holding me back is that it is a pretty big job and I'll have to learn to improve such images. I was thinking they might be useful on the articles about the Scanian hundreds, since I presume the Swedish administation would probably have reused many of the same images following 1658, and at first glance, I think many of the old Danish hundreds remained unchanged. Do you think this might be an idea? Valentinian ^(talk) 12:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it isn't useful for English Wikipedia, because I doubt there isn't enough interest -- both in regards to readers and writers. But Swedish Wikipedia will certainly find them useful, and probably Danish Wikipedia too.

I was mostly thinking in terms of the Scandinavian Wikipedias as well. I don't know if I'll have the time to do this, but I'll keep it in mind. Cheers. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ei Fred Chess

I don't understand you. What are you saying whit my photos No copyright? My photos haven't got copyright--Beethoven 19:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Fred

I'm Lido Pacciardi, curator and manager of Anchise Picchi's operas. Anchise is my uncle and is a famous Italian Tuscan painter, 96 years old, still working...

I'm asking you to know if is it possible to upload in Wikimedia Commons other images of some operas of Anchise, and how many... I would to create a Wikipedia new voice too, for Anchise Picchi, in English Wikipedia, as well as already done in Italian Wikipedia, in the sub section "Pittori del '900".

Is it possible? As you can see my English isn't too good, so...could you help me in translation? Thanks and excuse me for my long message.

Lido Pacciardi - 11:17 - 1,September,2006 (UTC)

Re: Thought you'd be interested

Um, WHY? What are you suggesting or asking me to do? How am I supposed to feel about this (unsigned) comment pointing me to a user who uploads images of a woman masturbating?

?????????????

Some context, please. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: this woman is quite similar to me, so you can understand why I am freaked.

Also if you are asking my advice, I think you are far too liberal. "IF she comes here, we can MAYBE trace you down." These are not small matters like an incidental picture in the park. If not deleted, they should be cropped to remove identifying information (ie, faces). If they are to demonstrate female masturbation, I don't think anything above the torso is that relevant. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say lots and lots of things. I say lots of things about privacy and uncertain copyright status too. It's hard for me to know which of the many things I say you are immediately referring to, if you don't make it clear. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Ti mi

I noted that you remarked on this person's page. Another user pointed out to me that the woman's image seems to be a hospital gown and a padded piece of furniture. These images appear exploitative to me, and should probably be deleted. I don't want to be the one to do it, however (I don't hate women, honest!). Sigh. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 17:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No source tag

Hi, noticed that you removed the tag for the Anders Fogh image. Just to explain the tag. The reason I used it was that {{Disputed}}, which used to be the right tag for this, suggests either nsd or a deletion request. A deletion request would have been premature, since this can be checked on Monday when people are back at work at the ministry; so the alternative was nsd. I'm not putting it back; this can wait until the weekend is over. Cnyborg 11:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still use {{Disputed}} (don't tell anyone) :-P

Seriously, I think {{Disputed}} still serves a purpose, just for such cases that you describe where {{Nsd}} is not applicable and {{Delete}} is prematurely. But it should be made clear in the template that it is an unofficial template that does not necessarily result in anything.

Fred Chess 11:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't tell. I miss a template like that, and I might actually use it myself to avoid this problem; it does categorise the images for easy follow-up. Cnyborg 12:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios by User:Hux

I am pretty sure that the user is not the author of any of the pictures he uploaded, contrary to what he claimed in the licencing information. There's several reasons for me believing so: 1) Image:Kamidana1.PNG, Image:Kamidana5.PNG, Image:Kamidana2.PNG, Image:Kamidana3.PNG, Image:Kamidana4.PNG, Image:Kamidana6.PNG, Image:Kamidana8.PNG and Image:Kamidana7.PNG are just some of the copyvios I found, 2) the images have no metadata, 3) the pictures vary greatly in quality, 4) most of the pictures are of very low resolution. All of these facts point to him having collected the images simply from all over the web and then falsely claimed to havimg them taken himself. I think this leads to the best solution being simply deleting all of the files he uploaded. Those who maybe aren't copyvios (those weird doodlings) are completely useless, as they are of no encylopedic value and refer to nothing found in actual shinto mythology. --Melanom 23:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help, the user is still uploading masses of images that are clearly copyvios! --Melanom 11:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked him for 72 hours. / Fred Chess 11:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that should get some time to sort out the most obvious copyvios. But may I ask: How is the policy on Commons against pictures by serial copyright violators where copyright violations cannot be proven 100% although the vast majority of the user have been copyvios? Do we still keep them regardless or delete them preemptively? --Melanom 12:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends a lot on the case. If a user clearly only uploads thumbs of celebrities, then they can all be deleted, because the user has no interest in complying.

In this case, Hux appears to have acted in good faith, as he explained on the Deletion Request page template:deletion requests#Image:UnknownLittleShintoistTemple.PNG. His flickr images are probably not copyright violations.

Fred Chess 13:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well... I don't believe that user has any idea of nor respect for copyrights. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:UnknownLittleShintoistTemple.PNG (at the bottom) for the obvious copyvios I have found so far. His stories are pretty unbelievable as well (claiming on some of the pictures I subst:nsd'ed that he got the "permission" from the websites he now is indicating to have gotten the pictures from - if he has the permission, then where is the OTRS ticket from the webmasters of those websites?). I wouldn't take the risk, if it was me. --Melanom 13:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe I overreacted. We shall see. But one question: Do the people at permission@wikimedia.org actually go to the pages of the files and write down the OTRS number of the ticket there? Because I see files like Image:540756.jpg where no such information is available and still permission@wikimedia.org is used for the free licence claim. --Melanom 08:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some annoying prank

hello there Fred Chess,

I think I need your help. Some annoying prank keeps on giving himself as a "bot" and posts messages on user talk pages about how pornographic images are being uploaded, even though it's not true. You can take a look here [5], as well as the User talk:Bravada amongst others. Now I blocked the one "bot" User:Holnash for 24 hours, now it's some bot called User:Vaucjel. I feel like blocking it as well, however I think this is going to be a bit of a longterm issue. Do you have any ideas what should be done, maybe check on a variety of I.P. addresses, ban user for ever, etc.? thank you Gryffindor 16:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just took a look at List of blocked IP addresses and usernames. What is going on here, some user who keeps disguising himself as a bot? Gryffindor 16:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, we block all such sock-puppets for vandalism, indefinitely. Put {{Sockpuppet}} on their user page. / Fred Chess 17:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ptato

Hello, can you have a look to User:Ptato (Contributions) please? He has newly uploaded the same images that you deleted two days ago. See also Template:Deletion_requests#all_files_by_User:Ptato. Thank you. --GeorgHH 20:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I deleted all the images again, and then blocked him for one week. / Fred Chess 20:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrats

Ha ha! Found out that it's not such a big deal, now that you are one :). I think it would be a good idea as well, actually. We're so hard to find sometimes. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 13:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALE made some comment on the talk page of the Deletion Request about how "some admins and even some b'crats forget to close deletions", and yes, I generally don't close items I speedy delete. But what this has to do with me being a b'crat I don't understand. / Fred Chess 15:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by User:Chan Kok Hooi

Sorry to trouble you, but would you mind taking a look at the list of images uploaded by User:Chan Kok Hooi. All his uploads from 5 August lack sources. If I were a gambler, I would put my money on saying that all of these images are copyrighted. I know it looks somewhat idiotic but I have posted 9 "No source" messages to his talk page. I didn't have any better ideas. Valentinian ^(talk) 13:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valentinian.

It is only for the best, that you note copyright violations. I think it is correct to add no source templates for every image, yes.

The "copyright free use" template in conjuction with no source whatsoever has become a standard practice of copyright violators.

I have a lot less time from now on, so I suggest that you from now on report all similar inquieries at the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard.

Fred Chess 16:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I'll do that. Valentinian ^(talk) 19:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Ther are other images to be deleted, can you speedly delete them? Thanks, I've written all in my discussion page.--Hux 14:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts. I have deleted them. / Fred Chess 18:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin news

Hello,

If you consent for statistics to be published about your actions as an administrator, please sign here: Commons:Administrator permission for statistics. (I expect that most people will not have a problem with it unless you are especially concerned with privacy.)

Also, please be aware that we now have a Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Please put it on your watchlist, if you haven't already!

cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You made it

into the de:WikiNewspaper Kurier -- 195.93.60.135 21:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sehr clever, dass ich jetzt eine Oberhexe bin. Ich müsste wohl das "Rogue Admin" Bild auf meine Seite setzen. / Fred Chess 21:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allerdings, vielen Dank für den Hinweis. / Fred Chess 21:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bitte, es ist nur fair dir das zu sagen -- 172.174.229.245 09:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 september news (images)

You can delete the following images: Image:KamidanaB.PNG, Image:KamidanaC.PNG, Image:KamidanaD.PNG, Image:KamidanaE.PNG, Image:KamidanaF.PNG, Image:KamidanaG.PNG, Image:ShintoSalt.PNG, Image:ShintoRiceWine.PNG, Image:ShintoSakaki.PNG, Image:ShintoLantern.PNG, Image:ShintoWater.PNG, Image:ShintoMirror.PNG, Image:ShintoAmulet.PNG, Image:ShintoAmulet2.PNG, Image:MorningSunrise.PNG. The author hasn't answered yet, and the photos are not commercial.

For this Image:KamidanaA.PNG I've obtained the permission (the author is different).

Ok, the 'images theme' is finally closed. Now I've a question. If you're a bureaucrat, colul you change my nickname? The reason is that I've recently discovered thet on the English Wikipedia there is a user with the same name. --Hux 12:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thank you / translations of message templates

You're welcome :)

Best regards from France,

-- AlNo (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Image:Waha JPG00q.jpg

I don't know if you noticed this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJean-Pol_GRANDMONT&diff=2957893&oldid=2348221 -Samulili 22:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pyramides âges France 2005.gif

Hy, Fred, I've uploaded a new self-made version, but it isn't visible for me. Probably database delays. Anyway, I think you can remove the deletion warning now. Micheletb 06:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

Ok, thanks. I want to be renamed Nyo --Hux 14:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Willa Ford02.jpg

Why not just delete obvious copyvios?... saves extra time and effort. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DEAR BRIANNE. I WANT TO NOTIFY UPLOADER. I ALSO WANT YOU TO WORK MORE.

Fred Chess 16:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously -- The {{Copyvionote}} says " Image:XX.jph has been marked as a copyright violation. [..] The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image talk page." . This isn't possible, if the file is already deleted.

Fred Chess 21:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously -- just because a template exists doesn't mean you have to use it. Copyvios like this are so obvious that IMO we are doing ourselves no favours by rigidly following guidelines that are not always appropriate. Naked Playboy model...how about "don't upload copyright material" warning + delete? The existence of templates seems to paralyse users. They're supposed to HELP. If they don't help, do what you did before: wrote a sentence or two of prose. Perhaps I should change the template to say "explain why on the talk page OR contact the administrator who deleted the file". PS: My name is Brianna. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will remember your name is Brianna.

Ok, I will speedy delete all obvious copyvios from now on.

Fred Chess 06:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Homersimpsondoll.jpg

hello. a picture of a doll is not a copyright violation - the picture itself is the art form (and it was under CC-2.0) please undelete it. --צ'כלברה 21:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps of Sweden

Hello!

I notice the city-location maps of Sweden you've uploaded in Category:Maps of Sweden have Vänern and Vättern shown on them. Could you also create and upload a version of the generic map of Sweden (i.e., one which isn't specifically showing the location of a city) which includes these lakes? I tried creating one from your Uppsala map, but the resolution was not very good on my version - since you have the original file, I thought you might manage to do it better. Thanks! -- Arvind 18:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I am glad you like my work. My maps have obvious flaws, but I had to create them for there was a need for it.

The original file I used was Image:Sweden from cia.png. The resolution is not as great as you would wish.

However, I recommend against using image:Uppsala in Sweden.png, because I've made several changes to the latest version of Image:Sweden from cia.png.

Fred Chess 20:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is exactly what I was looking for. It's a big improvement on the original in the CIA World Factbook! -- Arvind 23:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Elonka Dunin 2006.jpg

Hi Elonka. Nice photo. Please be aware, that by granting the GFDL license, you make it available not only for Wikipedia, but for anyone, to use for any purpose, under certain restrictions such as attribution and preserving the license tag intact.

Understood, and yes, that's fine for others to use it as well, as long as they attribute it properly. My only confusion about GFDL (perhaps you can clarify this for me), is as to its exclusivity. For example, if another publisher asks me for a hi-res version of the image to use in a magazine, am I allowed to give/sell them a copy of the same image? Or does the GFDL license now supersede all other uses, such that anyone I give the image to now has to include the GFDL license? --Elonka 19:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New to Commons

Hello Fred. I'm Dfrg.msc an I am new to Commons, but I hope to contribute much of my work from Wikipedia. I've read the Welcome amd other Documents consering image upload ect. But no further than that. I've uploaded two images, and they are in my gallery, and I am unsure of what to do with them. Anything else would be appreciated. Thanks for your time, Dfrg.msc 23:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: assistance

Fred, I'm not sure what you mean by "Is it possible that the contracted owners of an image release it to the public domain?" Do you mean the following scenario: an author of a work signs away all his economic rights he gets under copyright on this work to someone else (may also be a company), and that someone else then releases the work into the public domain? Frankly said, I don't know. I guess the third party could place the image under a free license, but it would become PD only when the copyright expired. I think, it also depends a lot on the contract. Could the third party still place the work under a free license if the contract was only for a fixed term? Or if the contract was non-exlusive? I have no idea. However, I don't quite see what that has to do with that Reichstag image... Lupo 17:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imagenes

Sobre las imagenes subidas al articulo Star Ocean Till the end of time, hasta donde yo se, si que son de uso libre... Por lo que no veo el problema al usarlas. Es posible que lo sean, pero repito yo creo que si.

(JinhAlvein 15:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Image:Lionel Messi, argentine football player.jpg

You may take another look at the deletion discussion. It would be a miracle IMHO if that is not a copy vio. I wonder how long you let pics like that in the commons when the uploader isn't able to give some serious sources. Just think of the french version of wikiquote to see where copyvios can lead to.--NSX-Racer 01:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, as long as an image gets deleted, it's OK.

With that said, this file could well have deleted last week, by anyone. But the re-arrangement of the deletion request has led to a larger backlog, because all older requests are lumped in the massive Commons:Deletion requests/Older Discussions.

Fred Chess 07:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi

Hi,

I think it is quite clearly written that the author is unknown. Both these images are in the public domain in the country of origin (India), therefore I will remove your tags. I think it is quite obvious, so I would appreciate if you do not tag these images for deletion. Thanks, Yann 20:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong. See for example Image:Gandhi dandi.jpg: I mentioned Scan by Yann from a picture given by Gujarat Vidyapith, Ahmedabad. I took great care to date each picture, to be sure that there are more than 60 years old, so all these pictures are in the public domain, in India, and in most countries, by the rule of "most favourable rule apply". So where is your problem? Some of these pictures come from various web sites, but if the picture is in the public domain, what does it matter where it comes from? Yann 21:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You added back your template but you didn't answer me. If the picture is in the public domain, what does it matter where it comes from? Yann 18:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added unsourced tag to Image:Gandhi costume.jpg. You claim the photographer is unknown. How can you know? / Fred Chess 18:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QI

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Linderöds kyrka.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Södra Åsum Old Church.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Thank you for reviewing them.

As a matter of fact, of all images I have taken, those might be the only ones that could even be called half-decent, and I don't plan to take more photos for a while to come. But I'll keep my eyes open, in case I see some quality image that would fit this promotion.

Fred Chess 05:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale in {{PD-Ugglan}}?

Hello Fred Chess, I see you participated in setting up {{PD-Ugglan}}: I'm trying to find out the rationale why exactly Commons regards the images from this book as being in the public domain. Can you help me out there? Thanks, Wikipeder 08:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, the deletion logo says that you have deleted the image . Contrary to what your edit summary says, this image was NOT unfree, it was an artistic photograph of an element of the car's front fascia. This image is used in a very important template in the English Wikipedia, which the deletion has basically ruined. I therefore request that you bring the image back - in case it is not possible to simply revert the delete, I guess you need to dig out the author and kindly ask him or her to reupload it.

Please be careful with your next deletions.

Regards, Bravada 16:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved by me uploading it to English Wikipedia. / Fred Chess 09:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for resolving that so quickly! Excuse me for being so harsh on that, but, as you can see in the deletion requests archive, I have responded directly to your comment on deleting purported "logos" to make editors of articles using them aware beforehand of any such actions, so I was really surprised and upset to see it done without any notice.

That said, could you try to dig out the corresponding photo for Autobianchi? Therights to the Autobianchi brand are now owned by the Registro Autobianchi, and editors apparently affiliated with the Registro have been active in the articles using the photograph, expressing no concerns about that. In fact, the use of this image in Wikipedia could actually fall under fair use was it a copyrighted image, so I guess it was pretty safe on any trademark/copyright issues. Could you restore the image in a similar way? Bravada 19:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was kind of hoping that someone who is an administrator here and active on English Wikipedia, working with car-related articles, would move the images they wanted kept. The image of Autobianchi , Image:Logoautobianchi.gif, is actually just a photo of the car logo taken from straight forward angle. Perhaps it could be replaced by a normal 2D-logo? I don't want to be involved in reviewing images -- I deleted around 50 car logo images -- it is better than someone who is working with car-articles does it. At least, please ask around if someone else is interested. They have to be an admin on Commons. Check Commons:List of administrators by language if you recognize someone.

Fred Chess 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bureaucratship

Thank you for supporting my bureaucratship and promotion.--Jusjih 03:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser

Hi Fred Chess,

Per the CheckUser Policy, I have been granted the checkuser permission. Thankyou for supporting this request. Requests for checkuser can be made at the Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks, Alphax (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Stafford

Sorry for the trouble. I think we have a free sourced image now. William Avery 20:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Image:Award1.JPG

I see you deleted the smaller image instead of the large one. I really would have appreciated a note that you're going to delete it so I can get a word in to save it. I created the smaller image because I couldn't scale it down with the frame function, see

[[Image:Award1.JPG|frame|150px]]

It works with the thumbnail function though

[[Image:Award1.JPG|thumb|150px]]

Do you know how to scale it down for frame? --Inahet 17:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_J/Archive_3&oldid=128287569"