User talk:Lymantria/Archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Thanx

for helping to learn how to properly nominate something here and allowing me to "edit" on one of your butterflies. MoiraMoira (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bispo Dom António Barbosa Leão.jpg

António Barbosa Leão (see article in Wikipedia pt.). One version of this portrait can be seen in "monografia de paredes" de José do Barreiro. Porto, Tipografía Mendonça (a vapôr) de Laura Couto & Pinto, rua da Picaria, 30. (1922) ; e Papelaria e tipografia de Barros & Costa. 147, rua do Rosario, 151 (1924). p. 654. best regards User talk:Victorcouto

The problem is that we don't know who the photographer is and when he or she died. If published before 1923 in the USA that might help as well. But I'm afraid that is not the case. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the work is clearly anonymous, then {{Anonymous-EU}} applies. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK Thank you User talk:Victorcouto

File:Stade_de_France_2005.jpg

File:Stade_de_France_2005.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Grcampbell (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your assistance please

You recently deleted File talk:Aafia and Ahmed Siddiqui in custody in Ghazni Afghanistan, July 2008.jpg. I think these discussions show the deletion of File:Aafia and Ahmed Siddiqui in custody in Ghazni Afghanistan, July 2008.jpg was complicated -- [1], [2], [3]. If the deletion of file's talk pages is routine, then I think this talk page should be an exception. I continue to believe this file was in the public domain. If there is some reason the talk page can't remain in the "File talk" namespace I would appreciate it being restored under "User:Geo Swan". Can I ask you to do this for me? Geo Swan (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the talk page was very interesting, but I have restored it, so you can see for yourself. In fact it is hardly more than a link to the Village Pump discussion. Please let me know if you agree to clean this one up. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, this one was not worth preserving. Thanks for letting me check for myself. Geo Swan (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This DR

Can this Deletion Request be closed as keep or should the 1 week period pass first? I withdrew my nomination and will forward the uploader's E-mail to OTRS permission. Its entirely your call. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In such case you can indeed "speedy close" the DR yourself. I've done it for you now. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A note on 3 images

Thanks for your comments above. Next time. I'll just remove the DR notice from an image if I was the person who filed the DR. As for these 2 photos below, aren't they from US government web sites and not flickr?

Finally this last picture below is strange. The uploader uploaded 2 images in total and this may or may not be 'own work'. The thing is his first image is under DR for being unsuitable for children and I agree...but when I look at the camera type it is the same model as the one here:

I cannot say if it is truly the uploader's own work or if it is a copyvio. But the first image he uploaded may suggest it is perhaps own work. But with 2 uploads, it may be too little to trust this person. But what do you think? I see no copyvio notice on this uploader's talkpage. But this uploader is really strange. He's had this account since November 2008 and he only uploads images this month. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Leoboudv,
The first two images, indeed, are not at all related to flickr. Ik have removed the flickr-templates, and you may do so as well. I am a bit in strike on this issue - there is a bug in upload wizard, there is a patch to fix it, but it is still not up and running. I have removed quite a lot of the flickr tags, and now I have had enough of it for a moment.
The second question - indeed a bit strange. See also http://temoins.rtl.fr/fr/photos/culture/2010-10-20/1332/un-pont-medieval-en-aveyron.html. The uploader there seems to be the same person, though, and I do not really doubt own work. But we can't be sure without a OTRS-message. You might consider placing a "No permission" tag. I leave it to you to judge. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added source

Thanks for letting me know that I'd forgotten to add a source for File:Interior Abingdon Church White Marsh Gloucester County Virginia by Frances Benjamin Johnston.jpg. I've added a source from the LOC now. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. I removed the "no source" template. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted photograph

Hi, Yesterday I uploaded a photograph from flickr. The subject was Ignacio Diego, spanish politician. The photograph was hosted in an account Partido Popular de Cantabria. It seems that the licence CC doesn´t let me upload the photo to place it in wikipedia. The thing is that I am the administrator of that account on flickr, and I would like to use that photo on Ignacio Diego´s profile at the wikipedia. Since you are the administrator who deleted the photograph I ask you what can I do to put that photo back. Thanks Osanemeterio.

Hi, Indeed not all CC-license are suitable for use here. The image you uploaded had a CC-ND and is not allowed. See also Commons:Flickr files. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do I do?

I have recently uploaded an image which I thought was in public domain as a work of the federal government. I used a link to DVIDS instead of Flickr but I have found the same image on Flickr here. What should I do? --Blue387 (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the description at Flickr it is clear that this is still must be PD-USGov, although licensed NC at Flickr. That licensing does not put aside the fact that all published by federal officials, when on duty, is public domain (in the USA). Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I removed the "no permission" tag.

File:Lionel_Scheepmans.jpg

Lymantria,

Could you please tell me in wich time the file File:Lionel_Scheepmans.jpg will be deleted ? I would like leave an other picture of me but I need to use the same page name ... Can you help me to do it Lymantria ?

Thank you.

91.86.73.35 11:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you are logged on as the uploader, you may add {{Speedy|I, the uploader, request deletion of this unused file}}. Then it can be removed soon. Deletion requests normally take one week, but it may last longer (and I can't finish it as the one who started it). Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Lionel Scheepmans (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mass DR

Do you know how to file a mass DR? All this uploaders images are sourced from media/hockey web sites which are licensed as 'Copyright 2011' or 'ARR'? They are non-free fair use ice hockey trophy photos. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are clear copyvio's and should be tagged {{Copyvio}} for speedy deletion. ✓ Done I deleted them all. For mass DR's see Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Yes, I do know about the copyvio tag and I have used it often. I used it within the past 24 hours on another image too. I was thinking more along the lines of an official DR where a nominator could add in as many pictures as possible. But its not important. I usually do the tedious single DR of 1 picture at a time. By the way, I think you do a great job as an Admin...like Adrignola. Even when Adrignola and I had a disagreement on whether user Wikiwal was Dennis Wubs in this long discussion which luckily Jcb resolved, he was never rude and was always polite to me. It is true, I have saved many old images from deletion. Even these 2 where the flickr account owner gave the OTRS permission and even changed the actual license and so I asked for a new flickrreview as you can check. Today I just mark images but I wonder how many flickr images were freely licensed when they were first uploaded here and later deleted before flickrreview came into existence in mid-November 2006. It must be...a lot sadly.
  • File:Last lock on Rideau Canal w some ice.jpg
  • File:Roma-piazza della rotonda10.jpg

Why? People seem to change licenses on flickr all the time when they realise the worth of their images. This image below would be deleted if it had not been for Admin Para's important license change table which proved it was uploaded originally on a "cc by 2.0" generic license. Admin MGA73 first told me about Para's records here. What a shame only he kept records in late 2006 and early 2007. I have found that Para's records for license changes (on the image's talkpage) are quite correct. When I contact flickr owners about the license of flickr image X in 2005 or 2006, most never reply and only a few admit the pictures were licensed as Creative Commons at that time...but they won't license the image freely again today. Oh well! With Para's records, this is not a concern as they were run by a sensitive computer software which makes no mistakes.

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about Para's list! Nice. I have found an old license via the "Internet Archives Wayback Machine" once. Sometimes that site is helpful. You are doing a nice job as license reviewer as well! The last link I gave above is helpful to do mass DR requests: Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request. I use the checklist there as well. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Yes. The critical thing is that Para's program checked the actual Flickr license itself. So for that image above, it was "cc by 2.0" generic on 2006-10-16 but Para's prpgram then detects a change in the flickr tag by 2006-10-30 to "cc by nc 2.0." So between October 16 and October 30, 2006, the flickr account owner changed the license. But CC BY licensed images are non-revocable...and if were it not for Para's computer record list, this image would have to be deleted. It also explains why this image failed flickrreview in November 2006. Anyway, MGA73 has restored the free images on Para's list that weren't copy vios or don't have FOP issues. If it weren't for 1 person (Para), many legitimately uploaded quality images would be lost. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good achievement by Para! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Yes it's very nice to have these lists. Unfortunately they are very long and server and my machine take a long time to load these pages. I hope you don't mind my interference in your discussion. I wrote a script to simplify a mass-deletion request. It is still in beta-state but stable, so you can use it to speed-up this task. I'll add this a link to this script on the how-to-do a mass-DR in due time, but there are still some improvements I want to implement before publishing. To install this script, add importScript("User:Rillke/AjaxMassDelete.js"); to common.js or <skin.js>. I hope this helps to speed up you daily tasks. Sincerely -- RE rillke questions? 12:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have used the script for the first time. Very helpful indeed! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This DR

Do you have any views on this DR? If you can make a brief reply, I would appreciate it. Thank You. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, can you update the license for this image below? Its a heavily used image but I don't know which is the right license here:

Thank You in advance, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it into Category:PD files for review - I am a bit in a hurry and I don't know exactly which template to use now. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joplin tornado map (posted by US Army Corps of Engineers)

I saw you deleted the Joplin tornado map which was posted on the US Army Corps of Engineers (Kansas City) flickr account http://www.flickr.com/photos/55127822@N07/5887813113. Even though flickr says "All Rights Reserved" this is an official U.S. government post http://www.nwk.usace.army.mil/Flood/index.cfm Americasroof (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually was just coming here to say the same thing. I am very surprised, however, that they list all their photo streams as "All Rights Reserved", when, as a branch of the Federal Government, there are no rights to reserve, as their official works are automatically in the public domain. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this Lymantria. -Runningonbrains (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you both. Clearly PD, I have overlooked. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the quick turnaround. I will discuss the license with them.Americasroof (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Last of Old Westminster.jpg

Is there a reason why this image file's PD license needs to be reviewed? I found it under this category. But the license is correct. (you can also check the flickrlink...to be sure). Either Pd-old or Pd-art would apply here as the artist died in 1903. Perhaps this image should be removed from this category. It is all very strange. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An easy one to review. Lymantria (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. As I said, it is very strange. The original peson who asked for a PD-review said he did this 'just to be on the safe side'...but this is excessively safe for this case. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr review bot failure with these images

Help! Can you flickr mark these images and consider uploading the original size image if the image warrants it?

The problem is the original size image either cannot be downloaded since its in png format. I marked several other images (maybe 7-8)...but since the flickr review bot has refused to mark these images for 4 straight days (uploaded June 27 or June 28), I'd prefer an Admin mark the rest...just to be safe. I tried to upload the original image in the last bottom image and got the same size image. The real original size image was also...in png format. I hope you can help. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Marked and uploaded in full resolution. I converted the images to .jpg by using the free program "IrfanView". Beautiful pictures of industrial monuments! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Thank you for your assistance. Its very serious when a person reviews images without a flickrreview but these 15-18 images just sat in the flickr review category....for days and I didn't understand the problem until now. So, I marked a few but I prefer if someone marks the rest for my protection....on the license. By the way, there are these 2 images below that might be worth it to upload the highest resolution image. Its your decision:
  • File:Tour de Wongiel Kopalnia Wieczorek ahorcado.jpg
  • File:Tour de Wongiel Ruiny Huty Uthemann ahorcado.jpg

Thank You for your kind help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done again. Images in highest available resolution are preferred. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This DR

Dear Admin Lymantria,

Could you please give a reply to this DR here on an image I uploaded? Its not a copyright problem--its a watermark problem. Please feel free to vote your mind--whether to keep or delete this image. Personally, I wish I could remove the watermark but my image software is old. I fear Ryulong might next file a DR on this picture: File:Thomas Gibson by Dan Huse (2010).jpg which is the only free picture of Thomas Gibson (Agent Hotchner in Criminal Minds) we have--also from the same flickr source...with a prominent watermark. If the watermarks can be removed, there would be no problem for either image. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Lymantria (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: A question: Do you have any image software to remove the watermarks in the 2 photos I referenced? The Gibson one seems easier to remove...if only one had the software. Any ideas? Just curious, Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have a clue on how to remove these. I'm sorry. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This User

Does this user's images all have to be deleted since he does not add a license? I check the metadata in some of his uploaded images...and it shows the same Canon camera when there is a metadata. The notice to him just says there may be a problem with the description or the license...and maybe he doesn't make the connection or doesn't know how to type in a license. If all his images (ncluding the deleted images) on his talkpage have the same camera metadata, it may well be 'own work'. All I'm saying is this user may not totally understand the notice and what the word license is. I know English well and I know licenses but he/she may not here. That's all. Many of his images have either been deleted or face deletion. I don't know if he is a serial copyright violator but on first impressions, he/she may not be. Maybe you can check the deleted images to be sure though. By the way, he seems to be a newbie here as his account was created in June only. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a personal note to his talk page. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Thank you. I thought a Romanian speaking user might need to communicate with this person but he must understand English from this picture He just does understand the importance of licenses. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo nominated for deletion

Hello, I see that you have nominated File:DanSoucek1.jpg for deletion. I understand the confusion and the fault is on my side. The file IS indeed safe.

This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 206.01 of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents." These do not include works first published by the United Nations or any of its specialized agencies, or by the Organization of American States. See Compendium II § 206.03 and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).

While trying to upload the photo I could not find 206.01 as an option and chose "Federal Government" since it was the closest thing. I have uploaded another photo under this same edict and it was successful. If you could just help me change the qualification of the photo then there should be no problem with having it in wikimedia. Thank you for your help. User:Dan Soucek Please note that I have not used my real name as my user name. It was the easiest one to use at the time of registration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Soucek (talk • contribs) 14:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't see how a headshot can be something like a "official legal document". I suggest you add this comment to the page discussing the Deletion Request, so we can broathen the discussion. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see you have done so. OK. Lymantria (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome back from your time off. I would like to ask you why the photo was deleted when I checked with the North Carolina General Assembly itself and asked the appropriate people what the copyright over the photo was and two seperate parties said that it was indeed, released to be used? Please tell me what steps need to be taken if my defense is not strong enough to prove it to you and/or any of the other editors. Thank you. User:Dan Soucek

If you have a permission mail, forward it to the OTRS, that should help. An undeletion request can be done here. Lymantria (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your insights. They are much appreciated. User:Dan Soucek

File:Rigler Community Garden (Portland, Oregon).jpg

Do you have any views about what to do with this image? It only uploads half the picture. The camera chip must be defective. I've given up on it. If you give up on it too, that's fine with me. Its frustrating. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. When watching it in full resolution it is okay. Probably a bug in the software turning this into a thumbnail. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is worthwile to post this problem to the village pump. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

?

I have a talkback notification on my talk page but no indication which of all of these messages are for me.Geofferybard (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was meant to point to a reply I posted on June 6th. This one is already archived. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File talk:LTG (USA) Edward H. Brooks, final formal military portrait.jpg - Source and permission

Could you please add your thoughts? Thanks. -- RE rillke questions? 18:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Lymantria (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AjaxMassDelete - New Features

User manual, requests and known issues

First of all: I hope you could enjoy your holidays.

Thanks for trusting in my skills and me.

At this point I would recommend switching to the "load on demand"-feature of this script because it's quite a huge pile of code. This should improve performance and is not mandatory to retain its functionality: It's just a suggestion. This will prevent the interpretation of the whole script if a page loaded on commons. Instead, only if you click on the link, it will load the script.

What you've to do: In User:Lymantria/vector.js exchange 

importScript("User:Rillke/AjaxMassDelete.js");

with 

addPortletLink('p-tb', 'javascript:{importScript(\'User:Rillke/AjaxMassDelete.js\'); void(0);}', "Perform batch task", 't-AjaxQuickDeleteOnDemand', null);

That's all. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 20:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thnks. Lymantria (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copywrite violation

First, sorry about my poor english language... I write about several photos I uploaded. That photographs I took then from the Official Archive of Goverment of Gipuzkoa Province. In the web says that all photos are public. The link I put is a oficcial web.

Please, think about it. Thanks. Greetings Aloneibar >> --Aloneibar (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads of User:Ajsinclair

I have taken the liberty of restoring your deletion of File:JEANNIE DEANS hybrid rubiginosa.jpg. Mr. Sinclair is working fairly diligently, intelligently, and cooperatively to clean up the issues raised by the whole mass deletion. In particular, I believe him when he says he has been touch with the photographer of this image and that OTRS permission will come soon.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I hope issues are resolved. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you trash public domain files ?

Senator Markey's staff reports are public domain and important for disposition of nuclear energy policy. Do you understand US copyright law? Your action interferes with the public dialogue on nuclear energy safety and you are morally responsible for the damage done by your deletion, which could be considerable if English language public information is obstructed. It will be on your conscience, but then why would I think you care. But if you have a sense of moral obligation to the ideals of WMF, you will please restore those files which you deleted. Geofferybard (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not trash the files. First I did, because the file source wasn't given properly. Later I restored them, at your request. Another admin, Kamaraad Pjotr, deleted them later as "out of project scope". I already warned you that this might happen, as the files are text-files rather than images/pictures. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

hello mate!! Thanks.I've come across your message It would be really helpful to avoid mistakes.. Thank you..RohG ??· 10:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. By the human eye a mistake is easily made. By the way, when you do not use uploadbot, Flinfo is very helpful in retrieving information, and it warns for wrong licenses as well. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah! you're absolutely right.!! This will really help me in future. :)RohG ??· 12:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Picoides pubescens drumming Roberts Bird Sanctuary, Minnesota.ogg

The permission field gives the author's page, where he says his recordings are released under CC-BY-SA. Would you mind closing the DR? —innotata 19:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this has got to be obvious enough. I've closed the DR. If you really don't think the author's page isn't good evidence of permission, post on my talk page please. —innotata 19:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beti jai

The pictures you deleted were published under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 licence on flickr.com here. Why did you delete it ? Can you explain me how to do. (Sorry for my poor english) --Alasjourn (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because non-commercial licenses ("NC") are not allowed on commons. See for instance Commons:Flickr files. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, i'm sorry. --Alasjourn (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr upload bot

Thanks, Lymantria, for the tip. I did try it once before but could not get it to work properly. I'll try it again next time, and if I run into issues again, I'll ask for help. Thanks again (still learning, and I appreciate the advice and patience).

Kathleen5454 (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to ask for help, if necessary! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you too for your kind help with the Flickr upload procedure. I have one question: the bot doesn't work anymore and says: "The image page on Commons was never editted by the user who issued the upload." I don't understand that, I'm logged in. Is it possible that I upload too fast one pic after another?--Alice d25 (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what happened, but perhaps you were "suddenly" logged off. I saw among the incomplete uploads one of which the description page was created by an IP-user, so someone who wasn't logged in. Perhaps you. Just retry. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:StalinYChurchillEnYalta--EA 052860.jpg

On the contrary, the source of the picture is clearly indicated, see the picture's discussion page for further detail. Whether flickR finds things or not is quite irrelevant I am afraid. I may be eccentric but I trust the IWM more than whoeveer flickR may be.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification at the talk page. Indeed, the Flickr notification is irrelevant and due to an error in upload software. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carolyn Bennett at podium.jpg

Hi Lymantria, the deletion of File:Carolyn Bennett at podium.jpg may have been unnnecesary, as the original uploader (see his userpage User:Thivierr) is clearly identical to the Flickr user. I would therefore recommend a temporary restore, because as a consequence of the deletion now a crop of this image has also be requested for deletion. Regards. --Túrelio (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being alert. I have restored the file, left an additional message to the uploader and to the speedy-requested file. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Saibo

Just a notification: Voting was over. -- RE rillke questions? 14:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but the vote wasn't really needed either. Let's see it as a positive intent from my side. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:M12.gif

How it violates copyright.Please explain sir. Because it comes from National Museum, NewDelhi(India) which is a union government organization Template:Sridhar1000

Please, read Commons:Public domain#India and COM:DW - the object is 3 dimensional and may be in public domain, the photograph is a derivative work, and still is not in public domain. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:SDKMars.jpg does not have a source

Kindly check with the original uploader of the file in wikipedia. I merely transferred the file into Commons as it seemed to have a suitable license. I do not have any more information than the one present in the original wikipedia site for this picture. If that is not enough, the original uploader may be able to provide whatever may be missing at present.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the same problem is raised on en-wiki here. I'll await what happens there. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UploadWizard

Problems with UploadWizard? Cezarika1 (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you ask? Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because it works very slowly. Cezarika1 (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not really know of problems... Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
for making Category:Stepped gables a orderly place to be in. Vera (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments Belgium

Hey, thank you for participating in this contest. I saw you placed and uploaded your first image. I hope everything went well, and you plan to add some more :-)

If you have questions, feel free to ask them on the discussion page. You can follow us on Twitter, of on our website

MADe (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi MADe, I'm sorry, for the rest I will stick to the Netherlands or perhaps an old picture from France. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early US launch vehicles photos

Hi! Discussed photo represents start of classified military satellites. It could not be made by any other men than USAF or other military staff. Photos comes from hard-copies contributed by USAF (http://www.planet4589.org/space/book/lv/lvpics.html). Please reconsider your decision. NH2501 (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added your reaction to the "discussion". Another admin will decide later. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This DR

There has been some comments by the uploader in this DR you filed. I don't think he understands FOP. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments you gave. I think that is a clear explanation. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If its possible, please say something in the DR. The uploader is becoming agitated. Many people don't know about FOP. Since you are the nominator, perhaps you can give a few brief words here to YusuF. Nothing more. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly I'm afraid these two 2008 uploaded images can't be kept. I had to revert my panoramio passes after what Lupo said. I gave my reasons in the image talkpages--in the bottom paragraph. Will you consider deleting them because they actually were failed in 2010 once? Its my misunderstanding and now the copyright owner's permission statement has disappeared from the panoramio link for another image...but it was only for 'wikipedia' which is a restriction.

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YusuF might have a point here. If he can provide some evidence that the statue is government property (a "legal personality") then the statue is in PD and there is not problem with freedom of panorama.
I do not agree with your withdrawal of the panoramio passes. When I read "Oui tu peux utiliser les photos comme tu veux" that is clearly not restricted to Wikipedia. One could interpret it as "{{Copyrighted free use}}". I would start a DR instead of tagging it as speedy delete. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: It was based on Admin Lupo's comment for the type of permission for pre-2009 images. (It must be general) He said it musn't mention wikipedia only. Don't know if it means anything. As for YusuF, I'm tired of him sadly....but I did miss his point. If the statue is owned by the government, then the issue of the sculptor is irrelevant as you note. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I was aware of the fact that the release of rights should be general. IMHO "comme tu veux" (the way you want) clearly is general. The problem is that I don't see the statements the uploader to Panoramio made on the photograph page. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The permission was on the link when I had to type it out and translate the message. But now suddenly its gone. I don't know why this happened here...and so there is no proof. But in this DR the original permission has remained (by another copyright owner). I asked Lupo for his views but he chose not to respond I suppose because it also indirectly mentions wikipedia and his views are clear. Though MGA73 might say that the author did not mention a restriction. A pity--this is the only interior photo of this airport but such is life. Feel free to make a response if you want in the DR: its another 2008 uploaded image. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure

as to whats has happened, besides that your profile was involved. Care to shed any light on the situation? Aesco77 (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had by accident nominated your file as "speedy delete". It should have been a regular deletion request instead. My objection to your file is that it is solely a textfile, which is not inside the scope of this project. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guifinet hybrid supernode.png

Topic: File:Guifinet hybrid supernode.png

Hi,

the link with the license (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) is here: Flickr

Sorry for any inconvenience caused, --Arpabone (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0 is not a valid license, see Commons:Flickr files. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:JuanFranciscoGatell.jpg

Remember this uploader? I think you tagged one of her images from flickr as npd. Anyway, she also uploaded a different image over the existing image here which was from flickr. If its her own image she should just create a new image file; if not this should be reverted as I don't know who created this new image. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: Please don't fail images because the Commons image has a higher resolution than the one on flickr. The important thing is whether it has camera metadata and if it really could have been taken by the flickr account owner--and is not a case of flickrwashing. Many people on flickr--like me--have just a basic account and we can only have a maximum resolution of 1024 X 768 pixels for our photos there unless we pay money every year for the Original size image...which I will not do. I don't take many pictures and Admin Captain Tucker also refuses to do the same--he told me so. Therefore, if I upload the same image that I placed on flickr to Commons, it will come out at the original maximum resolution size like this one from my flickr account--I also included a link to the Commons image: [4] Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Leoboudv, I have reverted the JuanFrasciscoGatell.jpg to its original photograph and left the uploader a note. Concerning images from Flickr, if the source is given as Flickr, then the resolution should match. Own work should be presented as own work. In this case there wasn't much metadata to be checked, the tiny bit of EXIF on Flickr didn't appear here and the given creation dates didn't match. Of course problems are solved when the lower resolution is uploaded. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem at all. As for the image you tagged by this uploader, there was no camera metadata. The uploader probably used a scanner. So, you had to tag it as npd. It was the right thing to do. As for my picture, I always upload it as 'own work' of course. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fitz and The Tantrums in Asheville 2010 (a).jpg

Beste Lymantria,

Ik heb vandaag File:Fitz and The Tantrums in Asheville 2010 (a).jpg geüpload. Het betreft een van Flickr gedownloade foto: dit is de bron. De originele versie had aan de rechterzijde een eendje als watermerk en dus heb ik het bestand met behulp van IrfanView bijgesneden, zodat dat eendje nu verdwenen is. Weet jij of het noodzakelijk dan wel aan te raden is om zo'n aanpassing te vermelden? Met vriendelijke groet, Mathonius (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Mathonius, Het is niet strikt noodzakelijk. Ik zet meestal wel achter de bron dat het een crop is, wel zo netjes naar mijn mening. Heb ik bij jouw upload ook gedaan. Groet, Lymantria (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, dat vind ik ook wel netjes. Bedankt voor je hulp! Mathonius (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Graag gedaan. Lymantria (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bogdan Lascar speaking at Armani Hotel, Burj Khalifa, Dubai, April 2011.png

Hi Lymantria, the Flickr user have changed the license to (CC-BY), would you mind restoring the file? Thank you! Laurakis (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Lymantria (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr license correction for File:IndianHockeyGameSnapshot.jpg

Thanks for pointing out that the Flickr license needed correction. Flickr user has corrected it. See:http://www.flickr.com/photos/rohitmarkande/5202868789/in/set-72157624977488573, license now is CC BY-SA 2.0. If it is ok, can you restore the file. Thanks, --Mitul0520 (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Lymantria (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks --Mitul0520 (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illustraties

Hoi Lymantria, kwam een goede bron met illustraties tegen. Wellicht ben je geïnteresseerd me te helpen ze uit de pdf's te knippen en te uploaden? Het zijn er namelijk nogal wat! Ik heb volumes 2 en 3 helemaal gedaan en ben bezig met 4. Als je wilt helpen, laat ff welke weten welke je dan doet. Als je geen tijd/zin hebt in een dergelijke klus, even goede vrienden natuurlijk. :) De boekwerken (The natural history of the Tineina) staan op [5]. Op de site [6] zijn de huidige (in de meeste gevallen dan) namen te vinden. Groet Ruigeroeland (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Ruigeroeland. Ziet er goed uit. Ben nu nog even met monumenten zoet, maar binnenkort kan ik zeker helpen. Groet, Lymantria (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong deletion

A few days ago, you deleted two imatge uploaded by me. Before I did it, I searched for permission and saw that there was no problem to upload 2 images of Eugeissona trigris species. Now that I've seen that you've delete it, I've reviewed the owner's permission and I still think that I acted correctly. This images could be uploaded to commons because his owner, as you can see in License Section (see image 1 and image 2), grant us the permission to use it. If you follow the link, you'll see it that image is tagged as CC-BY-SA. So, I think that you should undelete both images. Images were Eugeissona tigris.jpg and Eugeissona trigris(branca).jpg. If you need further information, you can find me more often as ca:User:Sng. Thank you.--Sng (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In contrary to what you state, I see them licensed CC-BY-NC-SA - not a valid license on commons. See, Commons:Flickr files. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect license

Thank you for finding and pointing at the incorrect data of the images I uplouded ( File:Wriging Nib Gray Up.png and the others). It was a regrettable mistake on my part and I've changed the wrong license in order not to make any problems to WikimediaCommons. --Gabriel VanHelsing (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting as well. I think you'd better license the images with {{PD-ineligible}}, because what you're saying then is "there are no copyrights to be protected". And I think that is what you want to say. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice. Thank you once again. I'll use this template if necessary. --Gabriel VanHelsing (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 has finished

Logo Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 català | dansk | Deutsch | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | français | galego | magyar | Lëtzebuergesch | norsk bokmål | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | română | русский | svenska | +/−
Dear Lymantria,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments and sharing your pictures with the whole world. You are very welcome to keep uploading images, even though you can't win prizes any longer. To get started on editing relevant Wikipedia articles, click here for more information and help.
You can find all uploaded pictures in our central media collection Wikimedia Commons. Many photos are already used in Wikipedia. The contest was very successful with more than 165,000 images submitted throughout Europe. To make future contests even more successful, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in this survey.

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team
 Map of participating countries of Wiki Loves Monuments 2011
Message delivered by Lucia Bot in 23:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

El Soyuz VS01 debe ser lanzado el 20 de Octubre 2011. Llevará 2 satélites Galileo..jpg

I undestand that ESA's (European Space Agency) imagen released to the press are permited to be used at Wiki Commons, it is "educational" and "informational" at: http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmgdownload.pl?url=http://www.esa.int/images/VS01_Dec_SSTXT.jpg&tipo=Image 

you can find this statment:

Most images have been released publicly from ESA. You may use ESA images or videos for educational or informational purposes. The publicly released ESA images may be reproduced without fee, on the following conditions: 

•Credit ESA as the source of the images:
Examples: Photo: ESA; Photo: ESA/Cluster; Image: ESA/NASA - SOHO/LASCO
•ESA images may not be used to state or imply the endorsement by ESA or any ESA employee of a commercial product, process or service, or used in any other manner that might mislead.
•If an image includes an identifiable person, using that image for commercial purposes may infringe that person‘s right of privacy, and separate permission should be obtained from the individual.

As the credits are given we are respecting their conditions.
As I understand the statement, commercial reuse is not unrestrictedly allowed. That is, it is not free enough for use here at commons. Kind regars, Lymantria (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wizzes.jpg

There's something called consensus you know. Your closure does not reflect that. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a highly unlikely thing for me not to follow the two users that gave input, but to consider an image out of scope I thought it really had to be out of scope which this image isn't in my honest opinion. The type of mask wearing makes it (rather unusual), I think, inside scope. That's why I concluded differently here. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attend the award ceremony of the Dutch Wiki Loves Monuments 2011

Logo Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 English | Nederlands | +/−
Dear Lymantria,

We've already thanked you for your contribution to the Wiki Loves monuments photo contest. But with a contest, there are prizes to win!

The award ceremony will be held in Utrecht on Saturday the 5th of November, at the end of the Dutch Wikimedia Conference at Media Plaza, held the same day. Media Plaza is located next to the Central Station in Utrecht, in the middle of the shopping mall.
Admittance is free from 3pm onwards, just in time to catch the last few presentations at the WCN. Off course you can join us for the full day conference as well and enjoy a day full of information on wiki's and cultural heritage. After the ceremony, our location sponsor generously offers a free drink to everyone!

Remember: in order to make a chance to win, you need a confirmed e-mail address added to your Commons settings.

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team and the Dutch Wikimedia Conference team
 WCN 2011
Sent by Lucia Bottalk in 23:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have other obligations for that day. Too bad. Lymantria (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image source notices (TgrBot)

Hi Lymantria,

I apologise for not reacting sooner to the messages you left me. I haven't been to Commons for a while; I thought I had email notifications on, but apparently not (fixed now). The two images have apparently been deleted by their owners from indafoto.hu (the site we used as the primary upload point for WLM Hungary). At the time of the upload, the bot did check that the images exist and have a free license, so technically we have the right to keep them, but I suppose it's more courteous to delete them. --Tgr (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But then I ask me why the bot asks for additional license-review and doesn't this itself. Furthermore this website is in hu only and google translator refuses to translate it. This was quite annoying... Regards -- RE rillke questions? 20:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It would be a good thing if the bot would review. Now the stack for images to review is huge, thanks to the loads of uploads through this site. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked around on IRC and was told this is how it should be done, that the bot should just put up a needs-review template, and a trusted Commons user would do the actual review. (The bot check regexes on the indafoto.hu page to find out the license; I suppose it could go wrong but it is unlikely.) There are no more images to upload, but if there are unreviewed ones still, I can have the bot remove the review templates from them, if you think that's better. --Tgr (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, let's review them. But it will take some time :). Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jcb

Dear Lymantria,

I won't delve too much into wiki politics. I haven't voted in the de-admin action initiated against Jcb. But JcB's edit dated October 29 here against Hoangquan/Bluemarble's RfA application is just unacceptable. As Hoangquan/Bluemarble said on October 30 in his final statement in his RfA, since he cannot please many people with his actions, he might as well withdraw. Because of Jcb, Hoangquan--a promising Vietnamese reviewer who could have been an Admin has--quit the Commons project now. Commons needed people like him from Indo-China and now he's gone forever. This is 'office politics' at its worst. Hoangquan/Blue Marble was a good reviewer of flickr images. Now, there is one less person to mark flickr images which need human review...and this situation hurts everyone. I'm afraid there are two sides to Jcb. I just never saw the other side until now.

  •  Comment: I saw Hoangquan/Blue Marble's two votes in Jcb's de-adminship here and he first says to keep Jcb's adminship rights and upon reflection he later apologetically changes his mind and says to deAdmin Jcb. At least that shows some class. Jcb reacts by voting against Blue Marble in the latter's own RfA and cites this vote? And this is acceptable? Frankly I'm very disappointed in Jcb. I personally thought that Hoangquan/Blue Marble's RfA application was a bit too early since he got his review rights only a few months ago. That was why I didn't support it. But Jcb makes matters worse by opposing Blue Marble without giving a solid reason other than citing that de-Admin vote against him. All this does is make a bunch of Commons users angry at him (ie. Jcb) Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That may be and I certainly oppose to revenge votes. But I see the amount and the general quality of what Jcb does as an admin, and that makes me think he should stay. Supporting his adminship doesn't mean I support all of his acts (I even added that I don't to my vote). Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mattbuck said in Blue Marble's RfA: "One can change ones opinion when evidence is presented - that's the sign of a good admin." Sadly, after seing GeoSwan--whom I respect--strongly criticise Jcb's decisions in the de-Admin case on numerous points, I'm starting to see Mattbuck's point. I'm just telling you this because I thought you didn't know all the problems that some users seem to have with him. Of course, I know that you don't endorse what Jcb does with your vote. I thought I should let you know how Commons can lose good people over just one angry Admin. And Hoangquan/Bluemarble's abrupt departure has upset me greatly and saddened Rillke as it was this user who nominated Rillke for his current Adminship application. He doesn't know what exactly happened. Only you do. Rillke asked me on his talkpage if there was anything that could be done to save the situation and I said it was too late....his friend and nominator Blue Marble was permanently gone. Its a disaster now sadly, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dear Leoboudv, I strongly respect your opinion, and I am aware that all of quarrelling results in loosing people. On the other hand now we are upsetting Jcb and it seems like a part of the community likes to bash on him now. I don't. It makes me feel uneasy when I see voters with votes without comment being asked to explain their votes. As if there is only one side to a story. It may be easier for me than for others to understand Jcb as he is a fellow countryman of mine. I do understand he has defects, though. More people have and it is not necessary to alwasy play hard. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I guess its better to let the Jcb de-adminship process to continue on its own. I'm glad I didn't participate in it. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LR unnecessary?

Hallo Lymantria, why

do you think license review is not necessary there? The image is from an external source and should be reviewed. In fact I was at this source just for another case - it seems to be a bit wrong. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 05:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I had discussions about these with some other user I don't remember. All images on the site (with a few clear exceptions) were covered by the statement you can find on top of the category. If all images of a certain site are free, License review is unnecessary, we concluded then. That is why. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well - but this knowledge should be documented then. Maybe in a custom license template for this page. However, LR would confirm that the image was available on the page mentioned as source. Without LR this information is not provable in the future when the page is offline. That is a reason for LR, isn't it? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for commenting in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Roshni Chopra.jpg! --Saibo (Δ) 14:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A custom license template would be fine. As for the LR - when there is not much backlog it may be done. I don't think it is really necessary and certainly it is not urgent. But I don't oppose to it. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lymantria/Archive_2&oldid=761608985"