User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 22

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Recently I found two screenshots of two copyrighted games on Commons. The first screenshot has a watermark on the bottom right and both the games are owned by Sony Interactive Entertainment. The screenshots can be found here and here. Can you delete these images? DBZFan30 (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@DBZFan30: thanks for the note. FYI, you can tag the page with {{copyvio|your reason here}}, or you can click the Nominate for deletion box on the left of your screen. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs)

User:Ricardo.pretto

Hi. As you were the only blocking Admin, I would like you to know that this user has continued uploading copyvios after you blocked for the same behavior.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: thanks for the note. You can also leave a notice at COM:ANU. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

File:The Doll (film).jpg

While checking on the files at WP I need to transfer here, I found this had been moved in January 2016. The artist died in 1946 and the poster was created in 1919. Will be glad to take care of the FUR issues if the file should really be here; doesn't it also need a PD-old-70 tag, since it's from Germany? Just in case I took a copy of the poster and pasted a FUR into my WP sandbox; it was licensed there as PD-1923 abroad. Thanks, We hope (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@We hope: A German film, a German poster, a German author: I say yes, definitely. I've added it. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!-I just need to fix the dead source link and all should be well! :) We hope (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

WP0 blocks

Please tag them as Category:Users suspected of abusing Wikipedia Zero so we can have something to point at as evidence of the scale of the problem. Thanks. - Reventtalk 02:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Revent: you may want to look through my block history. There are many hundreds. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I know... I marked some the other day. This is, tbh, rather insane. - Reventtalk 02:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Los Angeles/San Diego Chargers radio affiliate map

I just noticed the point map was missing the Mexicali radio affiliate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:San_Diego_Chargers_radio_affiliates.png Theknightswhosay (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Theknightswhosay: this appears to be from a typo on their website, which listed the call letters as XEHC instead of XEHG.[1]. Anyway it will presumably change soon; do you still want an update? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: I was only addressing the map, which does not show a dot in Mexicali, Mexico. The only dots in Mexico are Tijuana and Ensenada.Theknightswhosay (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@Theknightswhosay: I know. I was explaining why the map has the error. It inputted bad data because they provide bad data. Garbage in, garbage out. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@Theknightswhosay: ✓ Done Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your involvement in undeleting that file, and an older one :) XXN, 21:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Disco d'oro .jpg

Thanks a lot Magog the Ogre, I asked permission to publish this image at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Saying that the file I inherited from my father Roberto Michelucci, who had received it from the Philips record label, which now has not existed for many years, giving him the power to do what he wanted, including the publication in the image . Now I do not really know what kind of copyright I can put on, unfortunately I do not have the specific knowledge for this operation. A warm greeting, Stefantonio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefantonio (talk • contribs) 22:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The file in oggetto: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/c/c5/20170417101434%21Disco-d%27oro.jpg
It should be deleted because it does not have the dimensions I wanted, and now it's useless,
Dear Magog, I'm sorry to disturb you yet, but this operation is terribly complicated for me, can you do it for me?
Please do not get angry, I'm a helpless in these things ... Forgive me.
Stefantonio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefantonio (talk • contribs) 22:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Stefantonio: upon further inspection, if it is just a record scan, you can tag it with {{PD-text}}. You can just overwrite the existing scan, or create a new one. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"literally a 10 second search on Google Images"

Hi Magog, I've noticed your comment in here. Honestly, I'm not able to see the point. The image was transferred here without properly checking the source. It was tagged as "no source" as it didn't have a valid source. Fastily was warned for him to fix his flawed upload. In spite of that, you removed the notice (unproperly I should say) without providing a valid source. You eventually found the source and fixed the description. Fine. But I'd like to understand whether you think it's up to me and not to the uploader to fix his flawed uploads. I have literally hundred of careless uploads by FastilyClone to review and, honestly, it's not my responsibility to fix their mistakes. If you wish to do it, it's find, but please, use a wording that doesn't seem to put the blame on me and not on the uploader (the actual responsible of providing accurate source information for his updates). Best regards --Discasto talk 09:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Discasto: you're right on all points. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Pictures from Flickr that need to be confirmed

Hello, Magog. Recently I uploaded some photos from Flickr. But some of them haven't been confirmed by the bot by default. So I'd be good if you can check them:

My regards.--VictorPines (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@VictorPines: they are all confirmed already. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

OTRS email not processed, it seems

Hi! I'm just contacting you in your official capacity as a Random Commons Admin. Some permissions emails sent a month ago to OTRS don't seem to have been processed. There were two separate emails, and in one case I received a CC, so I'm certain that one was sent, and I have every confidence the other was as well. Is there some way to track this down? I'd rather not bother the senders again.

Email #1 (April 5, 2017) came from grinnell@seas.harvard.edu :

Email #2 (April 4, 2017) came from harryroylewis@gmail.com :

Thanks! EEng (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @EEng: Those emails have been received and are in queue. Please understand that the current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is 53 days.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. EEng (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Um, I've just see the changes in OTRS status to the "Email #2" group of files and (I'm just going to say it) I'm pretty pissed off. This is the second time this month I've run into this "the message was not sufficient" nonsense. On their description pages the images are identified as being sourced from (in the first case) Harry R. Lewis' personal blog and (in the second case) a page which explicitly identifies the image as "Courtesy of Harry R. Lewis"; the release was sent to you from harryroylewic@gmail.com. Now, what more do you want? The instructions at Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS.3F say that if "I have received permission from the original author (not me) to upload the file to Commons", then I should...
Please forward us a permission statement to the address listed above. We require that owners make a clear statement that they release the image under a free license. To help prevent confusion or misunderstandings we prefer one of the email templates be used. Permission grants must specifically contain a free license grant and may not merely give permissions for Commons or Wikipedia. If you have already uploaded the image to Commons, follow the instructions on Template:OTRS pending.
That's exactly what I did. If more is needed, how in the world was I supposed to know that?
I've done dozens of these arrangements over the years -- asking someone to donate images, doing the uploads, and creating the release text for them to send in -- and until this month have never run into this problem. As it happens, Harry Lewis is my old advisor and (ahem) the former dean of Harvard College; he's very busy and was most gracious in cooperating with my request for images. He's the last person in the world I want to see annoyed, not to mention that you're making it look like I didn't know what I was doing in setting up the release. Now, is there some way to handle this without bothering him again? EEng (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@EEng: You've done nothing wrong, but I need him to clarify some thing before I can accept it. If you want to ask someone else to look at the ticket instead, by all means ask at COM:OTRS/N. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@EEng and Magog the Ogre: I've looked at the 2nd ticket, as well, and Magog is quite right. Obviously, as a subject of both photos, Mr. Lewis was not the photographer. How did he come to possess the copyrights? This may apply to the 1st ticket, as well. We are trying to protect the rights of the actual photographers and other content creators, I hope you understand that.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand that you're both doing your duty, but... well, let's review a few things.

  • Email #1: The sender affirms "that I represent The President and Fellows of Harvard College, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work" (signing herself "Assistant Director of Communications, Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences") so unless you're questioning that, there should be no issue here.
  • Email #2, "Halloween" photo: Contrary to what you guys are saying, Lewis does not appear in this photo, and he states at [2] (the source listed on the file description page) that "I snapped this picture, which will be 30 years old in a few weeks."
  • That leaves Email #2, "SHAPESHIFTER". The release text submitted recites that "I ... am the creator and/or sole owner". This explicitly contemplates the possibility that the person executing the release might be not the creator, but rather merely the owner, of the work being released e.g. the work was for hire or ownership was subsequently transferred. If you're not willing to accept such a statement on its face, then why is it in the text you guys supply at Commons:Email templates? It makes no sense.

    So please, either accept the release as submitted, or change the Commons:Email templates to tell us hapless editors what you actually want in such cases. I've wasted an amazing amount of time on this.

EEng (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: I've fixed the first Lewis photo. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Regarding the second, I will send out an email to the OTRS team asking for a brainstormed opinion, but in general when we see the subject claiming to own a copyright, it's a small red flag for us. While it is possible that the subject snapped the photo by other means, usually when we probe, we find that was not the case.
Regardless, I assure you this experience has proven to me the error of my ways and I will not handle any more OTRS tickets from here on out. Maybe you will volunteer to take my place and handle the long backlog, copyright legal delicacies, cultural delicacies, and hostile editors. Or maybe you can be part of the peanut gallery who sits and berates a group of unpaid volunteers, all while wondering why no one is willing to do the job anymore. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I can't find it now, but on one of my occasional visits to Commons over the years I gave an impassioned oration (or whatever an oration would be if it was in writing) expressing my appreciation for the important work, carried out in almost complete obscurity, by those who labor here. I certainly would be sorry to be the catalyst for your throwing in the towel.

Having said that, however, I can't understand why you perceive my post above as an attack rather than an opportunity to improve the processes here. You have described the decision procedure applied at OTRS as being something that logically conflicts with the instructions given to editors at Commons:Email templates for preparing releases, so that it's almost guaranteed that problems like this will arise. Either the procedures should be changed, or the email template should be changed, and in the meantime I need to understand what more is needed in order to settle the licensing of the "SHAPESHIFTER" image, or whether on reconsideration you'll accept the representation made in the release text already submitted. Why does that make me a bad guy? EEng (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: Re the first email and three files on Ticket:2017040510012966, I agree that we have sufficient permission, although I must remark that https://www.flickr.com/photos/grinnell/sets/72157650251161931/ is 404-compliant.
I am sorry about my assessment of File:HarryRLewis Harvard AppliedSciences11 TeachingFellows Halloween1982.jpg. The way we normally name files, the subject gets top billing, so I assumed that Professor Lewis was front and center in this portrait. This file might be better named "File:Teaching Fellows Impersonating Professor Harry R. Lewis at Halloween Party 1982 after Grading Papers of AS11 Course at Harvard, by Harry R. Lewis.jpg", and I could rename it as such if you wanted.
Re File:HarryRLewis Harvard demonstrating SHAPESHIFTER 1967or1968.jpg, even though Professor Lewis may have had possession of a copy of the photo, I don't believe he was the photographer, who has rights. Even if the identity of the photographer remains unknown, the earliest we could accept this photo as-is would be 2038 or 2039, especially considering that the website credit on http://catchthewave.seas.harvard.edu/ (© 2014 PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE) reads "COURTESY OF HARRY LEWIS". However, it could be uploaded to English Wikipedia for immediate fair use in an article about Professor Lewis or SHAPESHIFTER. On the other hand, if the rights to this photo were transferred to Harvard or Professor Lewis under an employment, work for hire, matriculation, or similar agreement, and we had an email from Harvard or Professor Lewis to that effect, I would find that acceptable.
Magog, if my actions had anything to do with your decision to stop processing OTRS tickets, I am truly sorry, that was not my intent. I was just trying to help.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Jeff G.. The statement you're looking for is in the release text already submitted: "I hereby affirm that I, Harry R. Lewis, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright" (bold added by me). That the image is tagged "COURTESY OF HARRY LEWIS" on the Catchthewave page is consistent with that statement. The © notice on that page is also consistent, the page being a derivative work as to any constituent works it incorporates, and in fact further reinforces the significance of "COURTESY OF HARRY LEWIS" tag, since the creator of the page went out of his way to call out the content donated by Lewis. EEng (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@EEng: how did Professor Lewis become "sole owner of the exclusive copyright"?   — Jeff G. ツ 08:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Jeff G., I don't know. Was I supposed to ask him that? I'm not trying to be difficult (and I realize neither of you is either) but I don't understand why we're engaging in this inquiry. Why does the Commons bureaucracy suggest text for content donors to use in making releases, then refuse to accept it? Is there some reason not to accept the statement on its face, especially since it's supported by the "COURTESY OF HARRY LEWIS" tag on the source page? EEng (talk) 09:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@EEng: After consulting with an OTRS Admin, I can offer you three choices: you ask him how; I ask him how; or we let nature take its course and the file gets deleted in about 59 days.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
If need be I'll ask him. But you'll forgive me being puzzled at the highhanded tone of this ultimatum.not to mention the subrosa way things seem to be done around here. Do you not have an answer to my question? Can this admin not speak for himself? EEng (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@EEng: Krd can certainly type independently, has not registered a gendered pronoun preference here, and is cordially invited to comment here.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm just trying to understand why this release can't be accepted on its face. EEng (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Persistent copyvio

Hi Magog! I noticed that even after you have deleted this file, it still persists on Commons somehow, and everybody using those Angolan Facebook pages can still download it. Can it me permanently deleted from here?-- Darwin Ahoy! 10:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@DarwIn: you'll have to take that up with the developers. If you believe it's serious enough, you can file a ticket at phabricator: Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Magog, thanks for your prompt reply. I was wondering if it was something that could be resolved easily, but seems to be more complicated, possibly a cache issue. I don't really know if it's "serious enough"... The Angolan Facebookers are still using that link to download the copyvio, but the file doesn't seem to be officially hosted in Commons anymore. Possibly not that serious, indeed. Cheers,-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@DarwIn: I've tried to reproduce this issue but I can't. I couldn't reproduce it when you linked it for me either. I think it may have been a one-off or an downstream (e.g., ISP) caching issue. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing question

Have found some pre-1923 film posters at en:WP with non-free licenses. This is one of them. By virtue of age they're PD-pre-1923 but the uploader either didn't provide a source link or it's dead. I've tried finding another copy on the internet through TinEye, etc., but no luck. I can change the licenses to PD-pre-1923 but without a linked source, would this be an issue for moving them here? Thanks-:-) We hope (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @We hope: In this case, the definitive source is Paramount Pictures, but you could ask the uploader for their source.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@We hope: I don't have a problem with this but someone else might as some point. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Moved them today-2 of them. Wouldn't even think of it if they weren't before 1923 but I linked them both to IMDB for dating purposes. It should be easy to see there's proof they date from that era and the movie companies always had their names displayed very prominently on their posters. :) Thanks again! ;) We hope (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

About a photo...

Can I upload this photo to Commons?--VictorPines (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@VictorPines: yes. Please make sure to mark the image with {{Flickrreview}} when you do. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Great, but I wonder if that logo on the glass panel won't strike the photo, right? --VictorPines (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@VictorPines: depending on where this photo was taken, the 2D lettering is probably {{PD-textlogo}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Help

Hi Magog, you know a way how can I find the videos and pirated music of Angola face, this is because there are too many images loaded taking turns and the angola face disappears FranciscoMG (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@FranciscoMG: you can review recent Wikimedia Zero uploads by watching these category: Category:Wikipedia Zero upload needing review. Once you find something which is file sharing, you can mark the page with {{Copyvio}}. It isn't right away but it helps. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Re:

Hi Magog. You must delete, because it has an author and it was my mistake to upload it : ( Manuchansu (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Manuchansu: ✓ Done Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

How to contest this?

File:Heart of Broadway lobby card.jpg has a permission needed tag. Can't see why the pre-1978 no-notice tag is insufficient. Corrected the missing source & date, copied information on file and on admin talk page. He/she was active after I posted, but didn't reply. I didn't remove the tag and can't understand why this particular lobby card would need OTRS work when the pre-1978 no notice tag is correct. Uploader apparently loses the link at times-will have to keep an eye on that. Thanks for listening! We hope (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I thought about doing this but thought it might be considered I was overreacting or being too dramatic. :-) We hope (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@We hope: it depends on the mood of the deletion nominator, honestly. Probably no harm in asking unless it becomes a chronic issue. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
And I certainly hope it doesn't because I have many, many more posters and lobby cards archived I'm hoping to upload here. Have tucked away easily 100+ that I'm working on uploading now. We hope (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I was active with a few edits, but I had little time. I replied in the DR. Please be more patient next time. --Leyo 10:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Uploading Logo for Maharashtra Samruddhi Mahamarg

Hello,

I had uploaded the official project logo ( File:MSRDC Top Logo 0 0.png) for Maharashtra Samruddhi Mahamarg Wikipedia Page which was deleted as per your feedback that page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. We have the full rights to use this logo on Wikipedia and want to know how to get it approved from your end. We are confused on how to go about the license and copyright for this logo to get approved. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahasamruddhimahamarg (talk • contribs) 08:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mahasamruddhimahamarg: the full instructions are here: Commons:Email templates. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Image needed to be deleted

Hi, Magog. I'd like you to delete this file I uploaded recently. My regards.--VictorPines (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Brasão FOCCA.png

Dear user,

You have deleted a logo of an organisation which, from my point of view, was correctly tagged according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logos. In the case that I have missed a point, please let me know. Otherwise, I kindly ask you to return the image.

Other logos examples: - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Microsoft_logo_(2012).svg - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Google_2015_logo.svg - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_logo_black.svg

Julianoens (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Metropolitan-Vickers logo.jpg

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

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Tide23

FYI, I have also blocked User:Tide29. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Request not to delete (2)

why did you nominate my file to be deleted I'm the one who created this work it's mine

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad jr (talk • contribs) 13:48, May 30, 2017 (UTC)

@Vlad jr: Can you clarify how this can be used on a Wikimedia project for educational purposes? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Vlad jr (talk)It's a demonstration on what you can achieve using Blender
@Vlad jr: ok. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)? margin + love @

Re:File:Zamal nixon.png

Hello! I used to use that tool, CommonsHelper, but it didn't worked for a few weeks. Whenever I try to use it, this message appears: " Author Authentication not Ok " or something similar... :( --Pacoperez6 (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pacoperez6: clear your cookies, try again. It's buggy (sorry I don't control it). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

New request

In case you have missed it, I have made a new request here. Thanks! Jim Carter (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. A ping normally should be fine. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

TryCatch

Hi! You have imported {{TryCatch}} from enwiki. It was used in {{Oldffdfull-en}}, but I removed it while internationalizing it as {{#iferror:{{{1}}} | {{{2|}}} }} works the same (I suppose it used to require the third parameter previously, but now it can be used with only two parameters as well). If you agree, please delete it (if not, I will start a deletion discussion). --Tacsipacsi (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tacsipacsi: ✓ Done Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

.NET Framework 3.0 (PDF).pdf

Hi! I have Created a pdf book File:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NET_Framework_3.0_(PDF).pdf that has been requested for deletion, since there are some issues with copyright I think it should better to that file to be deleted Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medo161 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI

This category will appear here. Best regards Hystrix (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hystrix: what? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
It's been dealt with. Hystrix (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use image to be deleted

Hi, Magog. Please delete File:Col'Cacchio-logo.JPG. This is a fair use image which I uploaded before I understood that Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use content. Regards --Ossewa (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ossewa: it looks ok to me, because it is below the threshold of originality. From my understanding, the home country, Italy, requires more creativity than simple typefaces to be copyrighted. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Magog, thank you for the response. Only thing is the home country is South Africa, not Italy. This restaurant group was started in South Africa in 1992. I could not find much about threshold of originality for South Africa on Wikipedia, so I searched furhter, and all the sources that I can find states that the level of originality required for copyright protection in the South Africa is very low, similar to that of the United Kingdom, it stems from the English influence on our copyright law. See for example: Determining originality in creative literary works by Sunelle Geyer, submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR LEGUM at the University of Pretoria, 2006. Kindly reconsider this based on this information. Regards, Ossewa (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ossewa: oh right, my bad. I've nominated for deletion through the normal process. We should bring up your research at Commons talk:Threshold of originality so we can add a section on South Africa. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Formation signs - ineligible

I recently uploaded a number of 'simple shape' formation signs, Australian, Canadian and British, which were tagged as ineligible. Can you tell me why, and is there a solution to this? The 'Insignia' tag perhaps? There does not seem to be an equivalent 'PD-UKGov' for Australia and Canada (or I haven't found them).Usedtoknowthat (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I wasn't looking hard enough. 'PD-Australia', 'PD-Canada' and 'PD-South Africa' would seem to cover these signs (government author (military) 50 years since published). If not please tell me.Usedtoknowthat (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
@Usedtoknowthat: I'm not sure which files you're referring to. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Apologies again, '3rd SA div.svg', '6th Canadian Division (CAPF).svg', '9th aus inf div (2).svg' (the last as an example of the 10 Australian signs).Usedtoknowthat (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Usedtoknowthat: while the threshold of originality is extremely low in Australia and South Africa, this probably can't be copyrighted there. It's the simplest of shapes, and I presume you drew them. I would apply the tag {{PD-simple}} to these. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Cheers, (more editing though, I got ahead of myself and applied the national PDs).Usedtoknowthat (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

About an image I created long time ago...

Hi, Magog. Once time I created a Konami Arcade championship 2012 logo in .svg. months later, it was deleted because supposely that it was a logo with too much details. I'm not sure about that, so I decided to ask you. The picture looked like this (Please ignore the back ground, because a just made the logo without the white border). Can I upload that again? I still have the file in my desktop, and I want to know if it really infringes copyright and how can modify it. My regards.--VictorPines (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@VictorPines: I'm not sure what is background and what is, but even the simpler interpretation says "probably not." Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Owner doubt

I'm having trouble believing that both of the files contributed by MCollins1955 are that users own work. I don't know how to work the "AfD" system here at Commons.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Gaarmyve: There is a link in the toolbox titled "Nominate for Deletion." The interface is intuitive, so you should have no problems. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Image needed to be deleted (2)

Hi, Magog. I'd like you to delete this file I uploaded wrong image. This image is under fairuse licence. My regards.--JJGimnazija (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

What's in a name? :)

I was trying to upload a lobby card for the 1927 film Hard Boiled Haggerty. I ended up with this title File:1927 lobby card.jpg because the blacklist doesn't like "Hard Boiled" or "Haggerty"' Could you please move the file to "File:Hard Boiled Haggerty lobby card.jpg"? This was my first choice when the blacklist said no. ;) Thanks, We hope (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done I'm no Magog, but I was around... Daphne Lantier 22:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

How do you create Senate Election Maps?

Hi! How do you create Senate Election Maps? I want to know because I need maps for let's say something of a alternative history of U.S. Politics. Do you use specific tool for creating them? Or you just color up the counties by yourself? If by yourself you have some sort of tutorial? I hope I'm not asking too much. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.28.252.206 (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a custom-written PHP script, which I built from the bottom up, including even much of the map. I scrape the data from publicly available sources. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Magog, and thank you for your response, but is there a way to create a map like that with different PHP script or it's only your version of the script works that way? I'm assuming all I can do is to color them myself. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A01:110F:C61:EC00:E1:58C1:7A34:573C (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
You could edit this map by hand: File:USA location map - counties.svg. It is basically the map I use to create my maps. Is that what you're looking for? I'm sorry but it feels like we're talking past each other. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for your response and to politely say, no it's not what I was looking for I meant as in those senate maps right? It's about those colors filled in counties, these blue and red shades, how do you do it? Can I somehow do it for example this with one: File:Kentucky_Senate_Election_Results_by_County,_2014.svg And to answer the confusion you might feel after reading my another question is that I'm from Poland so you know different time zone and etc. and my English is not the most perfect one, but I hope you will understand me? Anyways, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A01:110F:C61:EC00:3809:D43:FB30:B5C4 (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I wrote a custom program which I have not shared with anyone else. So either you would have to figure out a way to do it on your own, or, depending on what you're asking, I might consider doing it for you. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, then nevermind because I would need a lot of these maps. But thank you very much P.S I'm was the anonymous person before. But I another question, do you is there any PHP script that similar to yours but broadly accessible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Go6thGA (talk • contribs) 06:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
But I another question, do you is there any PHP script that similar to yours but broadly accessible? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2a01:110f:c61:ec00:24a4:fc01:fa04:d854 (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Not that I know of. The open-source technology is slowly improving; there was absolutely nothing when I first created it, and unfortunately, I suck at creating tools which are useful for lots of purposes instead of just one. User:Mr. Matté might be able to help with that. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Go6thGA: For the county ones like MtO makes, I just copy the map and manually shade in the colors in Inkscape based on a quick calculation. For the more complex ones I create (which are pretty much the NJ municipal graduated maps), I download a shapefile of municipalities from the US Census's TIGER data, use QGIS to create the shading based on the winner's percentage, and then export to .svg and clean it up in Inkscape. —Mr. Matté - En. 'pedia talk 16:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey it's my last and ultimate question, can I upload images of those senate races but shaded differently? do I need a permit to do so? and can I upload those kind of images? So called alternative history. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.28.252.206 (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Just make sure you follow the licensing terms for any derivative images you upload. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey Magog, I want to know if I can "update" those maps from the 1990's and 80's by adding your shaded like maps and of course reading election data from State's Secretary of State and checking out how counties voted back then. I don't know if I can so I'll just wait. I hope you won't feel offended, I just want to help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Go6thGA (talk • contribs) 13:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
@Go6thGA: Yes. It's part of the open and free nature of Wikipedia that you are legally allowed to make a duplicate of almost any image on Commons, even for commercial purposes. In this case, if you read the licensing terms of File:USA location map - counties.svg, you'll see it's cc-by-sa-3.0. This means you'll need to credit the original map creators (NordNordWest, Alexrk2, Eric Gaba (Sting - fr:Sting)), and that the image you create must also have a free license (I recommend {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} again). You do not have to mention me as an author of File:USA location map - counties.svg or any other map I created, since I piggybacked upon their work, and they deserve the credit. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

User:OgreBot

User:Frze/Category:Dresden uploads >> 175x175px, please add showfilename. THX --Frze > talk 04:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Frze: ✓ Done Please add future requests on the talk page. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
THX --Frze > talk 02:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Pablomilano47

Hi Magog. INeverCry has told me I should report this person's socks to you. Daphne Lantier 19:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Lol. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Another new one: Milanopablo47. Daphne Lantier 00:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed no sleepers found. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

What does "DR notices" mean?

This bot keeps posting the title "User has DR notices" what does that mean, "distribution rights notices"? Does that indicate a copyright violation? --58.187.168.206 07:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It means someone, at some point, opened a deletion request on this user's file. This could be for copyright or other reasons; it doesn't necessarily mean the user was guilty of anything wrong, but there is a correlation. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

New Caledonia merged flags

IMHO you are a bit overeager Mr Magog. Best regards, Mboro (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mboro: Commons policy is that every file must be tagged with a license. If you fail to do this, I or someone else will eventually tag the image. That is your problem, not mine. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Did you notice that {{insignia}} was already there? Mboro (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@Mboro: That is a non-copyright template, since it can be used for many purposes. From Template:Insignia: This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

To remove the file

Please remove the version 14-07-2017 at 16:54 of the File:Réponse de Dominique Delouche du 14-07-2017 sur L'Homme de Désir.pdf. There is personal information. --V2016 (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@V2016: Do you realize you removed your personal information, but kept the sender's information intact? I wonder if the sender would be OK having that published. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I do realize and I will try to explain for you.
My article
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Éric_Laborey
is dedicated to the memory of the actor who committed suicide at age 31. I`ve gathered the material, which is not anywhere else.
File:Extrait d'acte de naissance d`Éric Laborey.jpg - this is an extract from the birth certificate which is issued in France to any person who made the request. It's not a secret information.
File:Le message de Jonathan Kerr le 07 février 2017 - this is the memories of his colleague.
File:Re de Dominique Delouche du 13-07-2017 Éric Laborey - this is the interview of the Director, Dominique Delouche, of his debut film. His email is on his website:
http://dominique.delouche.pagesperso-orange.fr/longs.htm
These people gave interviews in writing so that it could be inserted into the article.
File:Re de Dominique Delouche du 13-07-2017 has 3 attached photos, and the Directed in this letter gives his permission to use them in the article. He writes: "Je joins à ce texte les photos du film que j'ai conservées. Vous pouvez les utiliser."
File:Réponse de Dominique Delouche du 14-07-2017 sur L'Homme de Désir - here the Director talks about his film.
This information is used in the articles with the knowledge of its authors and with their good intentions and is approved by the administration of the French Wikipedia. So be kind enough to undo the deletion of the files.--V2016 (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@V2016: would you please just answer my question about exposing their personal information? I don't care about why you wrote it. I do care about you exposing people's address, phone number, and email to the public. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

But I have answered your question about exposing their personal information! The only thing you need to do is to visit the website of the Director Dominique Delouche
http://dominique.delouche.pagesperso-orange.fr/longs.htm
and look down at the bottom of the page: there you will see his address, phone and email!--V2016 (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's fine then. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This user was indefed at en:WP today for persistent copyvios. There's also an account here at Commons. A lot of the uploads seem to have unknown sources and from what I've seen, many have no proof they're in the PD. This is one I'm sure is not File:LIFE 11 Feb 1952.jpg; it's here with a CC 1.0 license. File:Aleister Crowley birthplace.jpg This one is taken from one of the editor's self published books and it has a CC 4.0 license. It seems to me that there's quite a bit in these uploads that shouldn't be here because of copyright problems. We hope (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@We hope: please take issues like this to COM:ANU. I just tagged a lot of files as missing a license, but it's better to deal with it as a community. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Will do-sorry! :) We hope (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, We hope and Magog - I was really nervous about there being a lot of iffy images out there. I found this when I saw that some of her files were being tagged.CaroleHenson (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
We hope, CaroleHenson, Magog the Ogre:
I released my own picture with the right licence
Photos/Paintings of authors deceased for more than 70 years are in Public Domain (you may prefer to use a different template but the Public Domain does not change)
Photo published in the UK before 1944 --> (UK artistic work, of which the author is unknown and cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry, is in the public domain because it is one of the following: A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1944; or A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1944; or An artistic work other than a photograph (e.g. a painting), which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1944.)
Phot published in the USA before 1923 --> (This work is in the public domain. This applies to [Works Registered or First Published in the U.S.] Date of Publication [Before 1923] Conditions [None] Copyright Term [None. In the public domain due to copyright expiration]. This applies also to [Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad])
The Arnold Genthe Archive at the Library of Congress --> (Arnold Genthe Collection at the Library of Congress. The photographs Arnold Genthe made for his own use are considered to be in the public domain. Other photographs, however, may have been produced as "work for hire" and copyright may be held by the original client. Privacy and publicity rights may also apply. Access: Permitted; subject to P&P policy on serving originals. Reproduction (photocopying, hand-held camera copying, photoduplication and other forms of copying allowed by "fair use"): Permitted; subject to P&P policy on copying. Publication and other forms of distribution: May be restricted. To assist researchers, the Prints & Photographs Division made every effort to include in the catalog record client/sitter names that could be deciphered from the photographer's sleeves and logbook. If such names are not included in the catalog records, there is no further information. Privacy and publicity rights may also apply. Credit Line: Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, Arnold Genthe Collection: Negatives and Transparencies, [reproduction number, e.g., LC-G786-3452])
The Carl Van Vechten Archive at the Library of Congress --> (Carl Van Vechten Collection at Library of Congress. Donor restrictions expired in 1986 (see below for amplification). However, privacy and publicity rights may apply. Access: Permitted; subject to P&P policy on serving originals. Reproduction (photocopying, hand-held camera copying, photoduplication and other forms of copying allowed by "fair use"): Permitted; subject to P&P policy on copying. This policy prohibits photocopying of the original photographs in this collection. Publication and other forms of distribution: Per the instrument of gift, "for a period of 20 years from the date of this Instrument [1966], none of the photographs contained in said collection may be sold, reproduced, published or given away in any form whatsoever except with my [Saul Mauriber, Photographic Executor for Van Vechten] express permission in writing." This restriction expired in 1986. In 1998 the Library’s Publishing Office was contacted by Bruce Kellner, who disputes Mr. Mauriber’s authority in executing the Instrument of Gift. Upon review of the relevant materials, the Library continues to believe that the photographs are in the public domain. However, patrons are advised that Mr. Kellner has expressed his concern that use of Van Vechten’s photographs "preserve the integrity" of his work, i.e, that photographs not be colorized or cropped, and that proper credit is given to the photographer. Privacy and publicity rights may apply. Credit Line: Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, Carl Van Vechten Collection, [reproduction number, e.g., LC-USZ62-54231])
The Frances Benjamin Johnston Archive at the Library of Congress --> (There are no known restrictions on the photographs taken by Frances Benjamin Johnston. Access: Permitted; subject to P&P policy on serving originals. Reproduction (photocopying, hand-held camera copying, photoduplication and other forms of copying allowed by "fair use"): Permitted; subject to P&P policy on copying. Publication and other forms of distribution: No known restrictions. Credit Line: Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, [reproduction number, e.g., LC-J7-1234]
Historical Building Survey --> (Material in these collections is generally considered to be in the public domain. Access: Permitted, subject to P&P's policy on serving originals. This policy requires that copies of the drawings are served in lieu of the full-size originals. Field records are served by appointment only. Reproduction (photocopying, hand-held camera copying, photoduplication and other forms of copying allowed by "fair use"): Permitted. Publication and other forms of distribution: The original measured drawings and most of the photographs and data pages in HABS/HAER/HALS were created for the U.S. Government and are considered to be in the public domain. However, occasionally material from a historical society or other source is included in the photographs or data pages. These materials are noted by the presence of a line crediting the original source, and it may be necessary to receive permission from the owner of such material before it can be published. In all cases the courtesy of an acknowledgment is requested if material is used in a publication. Privacy and publicity rights may also apply. Credit Line: Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, HABS [or HAER or HALS], Reproduction number [e.g., "HABS ILL, 16-CHIG, 33-2 "]
I spent all the morning to put the right info under the licence, and We Hope, reverted all of them. Mabalu tried to help but I do not think they should cover this task. You can delete the images, you will loose all the job I did uploading the images and using them in the right place in Wikipedia. At this point it's your choice. Like I stated in Wikipedia, I do not intend to edit Wikipedia anymore, for coherence you should delete also all my photos, if there is a way for me to revert the authorization I gave, please let me know, I would prefer to proceed in that way to. If not, I do not like to leave behind my works but I will do it.--Elisa Rolle 10:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC) 11:14, July 20, 2017‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisa.rolle (talk • contribs)
@Elisa.rolle: it is fine as long as they have the right license. Template:Cc-zero is not correct in circumstances in which the authorship has expired; for these, another template like {{PD-UK-unknown}} or {{PD-1923}} would be better. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Magog the Ogre, but I spent half a day on thursday morning trying to work one by one the files, and We Hope reverted all the work I did. Some users helped, and I too changed some licences, but I do not have the time to work all of them before the date when they will be deleted. Therefore sorry, but what I'm not able to work (and please remember that many files I had worked and what I did was revered) it will be deleted.--Elisa Rolle 16:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@Elisa.rolle: that is certainly your choice. I know it can be frustrating. But I see he only did that only on a few dozen files like this one, on which you left the incorrect cc-zero tag intact, but didn't add the correct license. Others of us went and cleaned up that particular file.[3] You can do the same with your others and that will be no problem. If you need help doing this in batch, you can use VisualFileChange; I will be glad to assist with that. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Also ping User:Mabalu to answer the question here, to keep the discussion in one place. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
As long as the subject is brought up again, many of the licenses are still not correct and there's a lack of sources to help determine whether the given license is correct or not:

Sorry, but I will not further assist in re-licensing these files. The editor is all too willing to assume bad faith and that someone wants them deleted. She doesn't recognize that many of the files she uploaded have no linked or named sources, which means anyone trying to assist has to start searching and hoping to find matches. Deletion review is the Commons process by which we try to determine the status of files there are questions about. This way there need be no more bad faith. We hope (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@We hope, Elisa.rolle: everyone please timeout. Please everyone assume good faith and assume the assumption of good faith.
From Elisa's POV: As far as I can tell, she has uploaded all of these files in good faith, and Commons is probably willing to keep almost all of them. Elisa is understandably a bit frustrated because she doesn't understand how to work with the templates, whereas We hope and I do. We're certainly not making it easy on her by tagging several hundred images, and when she starts to fix them, we revert her chnages. Do I understand this properly?
From We hope's POV: Elisa has been too lax with her use of licenses, sources, and threshold for assumption of public domain. Do I understand this properly?
The solution to this is workable as long as we don't throw our hands in the air and give up. We may need to instruct Elisa on proper use of templates and sourcing going forward. We can then all go through her older images and tag them appropriately.
As for the files that We hope mentioned above: it is my opinion (and my opinion only) that you are asking for too high of a standard of proof for public domain status.
  • Images from before 1880 are almost certainly {{PD-US-unpublished}} or {{PD-1923}}, and a many of our uploads from that era work under this assumption. So in my opinion these are fine.
  • If I'm not mistaken, yearbooks almost never followed copyright formalities at all. It is incredibly unlikely that they registered their work and then renewed it, since they had no financial or moral incentive to do so. So I think these are fine too unless you can find otherwise (search catalog).
  • The EXIF copyright notices aren't reliable at all in my experience, since companies often just apply them on anything they scan. Instead we should validate the image on its merits.
  • Some of the others are potentially problematic like images coming from a collection.
My recommendation is that We hope mark each image he thinks is problematic for a deletion request. You can group extremely similar ones together (e.g., all images in a collection). Then the community can discuss the merits for the request.
And my recommendation for Elisa is not to take it personally if he marks your images for deletion, but to defend each file. That's how things work on Commons. I've had my files marked for deletion too.
My two cents. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Magog the Ogre, We Hope
I mean no disrespect toward you and I hope you realize that. But I think it would make everyone's life here a lot simpler if I had nothing further to do with any of this user's uploads. I've just been asked to lend an en:WP friend a hand with some images for a possible FA and helping him may take a good deal of my time. We hope (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Magog the Ogre, I have completed all the files other than:
Https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LIFE 11 Feb 1952.jpg --> I'm pretty sure this was not renewed like many of the LIFE issue, but I cannot find the specific page on the copyright website so is fine to delete
Https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michael Lambart, 12th Earl of the County of Cavan.jpg --> I'm pretty sure this is before 1977, but I cannot find a sure source, so is fine to delete
Https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:David Cholmondeley, 7th Marquess of Cholmondeley.jpg --> already deleted, but this was a Allan Warren photo released by the author in Public Domain by his own choice.
and just to be clear, the first two warning on Wikipedia for copyvio was cause I "copied" myslef, and a) I did not know I could not use my own website, b) the first two warning were issued one after the other giving me no time to understand what was happening. The third warning, and the reason why they blocked me, was cause I did not paraphrased enough a source I used with proper references. I have never ever infringed a copyright in bad faith or copied something without credits. And the previous warning here on Wikimedia, if I remember well, were since I uploaded my own photos taken in places where there is not liberty of images (like Morocco and Russia) or since I took some images from Flickr.com with a Creative Commons Fair Use Non Commercial licence, and I did not know that Wikimedia did not accepted the Non Commercial tag. As soon as I was warned in both cases, I learned the lesson and did better. Regards, --Elisa Rolle 00:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre/Archive_22&oldid=358741877"