User talk:Mattbuck/Archive4

Archives October 2007 - June 2008 June 2008 - August 2008 August 2008 - December 2008 December 2008 - April 2010 April 2010 - September 2010 September 2010 - May 2011 May 2011 - December 2011 January 2012 - March 2012 April 2012 - July 2012 August 2012 - October 2012 November 2012 - January 2013 February 2013 - April 2013 May 2013 - July 2013 August 2013 - October 2013 November 2013 - December 2013 January 2014 - February 2014 March 2014 - April 2014 May 2014 - July 2014 August 2014 - September 2014 October 2014 - November 2014 December 2014 - February 2015 March 2014 - September 2015 October 2015 - December 2017 Current

Video kept

Concerning your comment of 04:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC) one of the points you made is if there is no higher quality image available. Of the issues concerning the video from the point of view of strict biology, this video is a preverbial unicorn, so to speak, as being used on pages that describe "narwhales" or "horses". From either point of view it misses the functional, coital, argument, but it also presents itself as instruction, albeit poor and so even if one was to make the 'instruction' defense it would not be of threshold quality. I have been posting on wiki for several years and have 10,000s of edits, and I have posted my fair share of 'I wish I had better images', ergo I don't want to paint myself into a hypocritical corner. With the issue of articles constantly being altered for crypto-censorship and crypto-voyaristic reasons I think it warrants wikipedia to 'get it right' so to speak (not create more mythos than otherwise is needed). If the desire is to describe biological function then a much more naturally-objective media is warranted. If the desire however is to instruct or even describe objectively then illustrations might be better. There is a goal of wikipedia WP:COI in which people who are submitting material may be violating the interests of the encyclopedia for whatever self-interested reason, we don't always know what those are. So that a topic as inflammatory as these need to be objective and satisfy the topicality argument to their full extent in and above the issue "quality ranking" (its much easier for example to protect high quality pages from people who edit with a subvertive interest). This, of course, is not grounds for deleting the video, however I question the "Speedy keep" designation you placed on the video, should Wiki exert a stamp of approval on such things? The other issue is as I have been told the encyc should be written for 8th grade comprehension skill, that seems to imply that wiki is there for those of 8th grade education or higher, in the States we say this is about 13 to 14 years in age. Having psuedoeducational videos may result in the encyc being blocked by many sites that would otherwise be viewed by children of this age. If the encyclopedia is to be written as something 8th graders and up would benefit from, then I think the video probably is more suitable for adults (17+). Here is the point however, admins involved in "Media for deletion" discussions who keep materials can also make recommendations on how that media might be improved, particularly for the targeted pages that link to those videos. I for example have seen images that are many times larger than warranted for the web pages they are in and this often slows download times, other images that were made as *.jpg would appear much bettern as *.png. On keep/delete arguments of this type objectivity goes out the window, one cannot really expect pro/opponents to provide good editorial comments thats were good moderators come in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.214.66 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

OK, it might be helpful if you actually told me who you were. As for your wikipedia arguments, this is Commons, not wikipedia. We host free media which falls within scope, what age people should be to view it is irrelevant - we do not self censor (much like wikipedia). Also, it's over a month and a half since I did whatever you're talking about, so could you provide a link please? That's probably a good 1000 edits ago. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Add Sculptors name

Hello Mattbuck. I saw you blanked the Mutter Erde talk page. Please tell me what happened/will happen to the (by many users visited) ME TalkPage: Add sculptors name? Can that page reappear in any form? Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardus (talk • contribs) 09:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gerardus. People are free to visit the page, but it seems best to keep it clean so as not to make people think he is still an active member. The page is protected so only admins can edit it currently - since he's indefinitely blocked, there's not much point it being there for contacting him. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't mean visit his talk page. I'm talking about the special interest page (call it service page), created for people from many countries who are missing their images now. And that...has nothing to do with ME.--Gerardus (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed a few notices he wasn't going to respond to, I don't really know what you're talking about. -mattbuck (Talk)

Sorry, I mentioned the Talk page, but is was until Dec. 31 on the User page: User:Mutter Erde/Please add the sculptor's name. And you blanked the User page as well.--Gerardus (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC) I don't understand and I can't see what has been done and by whom. --Gerardus (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Mutter Erde/Please add the sculptor´s name - still exists. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that! Many other users too, I hope. But when you are used to find this page as part of User:ME how will people ever find it again. But that's not your problem I suppose? --Gerardus (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've moved it to User:Gerardus/Please add the sculptor´s name - what you want to do with it from there is up to you. I don't know enough about the area. But I might suggest that you set up some page Commons:Sculpures or something to do it. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, but I'm not amused. Without my wish and without my consent you just can't do that. Renaming is obviously your wish and I can approve of that, but giving it my name (Really a Mr. Nobody) doesnot solve the problem for other users to find the page. When asked I should propose to make the page a real Gallery or even better split into 25 separate galleries by country. For instance: Sculptures by unknown artists in (name of the country) and than link the whole lot to Category:Sculptures by country. Yes I know something about the area sculpture, but I have never handled galleries before. Greetings,--Gerardus (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine, Commons:Sculpture images without artist name - I can rename it again if you want. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Mitrohin for Zamiatin's Uezdnoe.jpg

Hi! This image from the book (see source - Дмитрий Митрохин. Л.: Аврора. 1977) - it is published first in Russian Empire in 1916 (see closely year of issuing on cover of this book) and multiply reissued (more than 100 times in many books as a case history both in Russia and in other countries between 1916 and 2009). Author Dmitry Mitrohin died in 1973. He does not have successors; his first wife - sculptor A. Bruscketty perished in Blockade of Leningrad in 1942, and Mitrohin's second wife, sculptor L. Chaga, perished in Amsterdam in 1995 Serge Lachinov (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have exchanged template on {{{PD-RusEmpire}}} Serge Lachinov (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Wikicommons sent me letter about this image, but I don't understand: what they want from me? They ask me write to you. One and half month ago I wrote you about my change in license, and removed deleting template. My best regards. --Serge Lachinov (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why someone wrote to you. As far as I'm concerned it's fine. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Serge Lachinov (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Abusive deletion request

File:Bonne_année_2009.jpg - I fail to see how such apparently self-made artwork is within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my english. I don't understand exactly what you mean. I use this picture (own work free of copyright) for example to whish new year to some WPcontributors for whom I have particular sympathy, or for animation of a portal. Is there any interdiction for that ?PRA (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No comment, Mattbruck ? I can also play like you with a lot of pictures in Commons. Example : "I fail to see how such picture [File:Bristol Balloon Fiesta 1.JPG] is within scope". Please cancel your abusive deletion request. Thank you.PRA (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't see your comment here. Fine, keep it. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

File: atlasagentes.jpg

Me gustaria saber como puedo decorar la pagina que he creado sin que alguien borre las imagenes que uso para ilustrar. Explicitamente avise que era 1) una imagen de marevel comics 2) indique quien era su autor - leonard kirk 3) indique que la estoy usando por que no tengo otra. QUE MAS PUEDO HACER?! incluso es la misma imagen que esta en la version en ingles. Saludos - franzbm

I wonder how can I decorate the page I've created without someone erase the images that I use to illustrate. Explicitly warn that it was 1) an image marevel comics 2) indicate who was the author - leonard kirk 3) indicate that I'm using that I have no other. WHAT MORE CAN I DO? even same is the image that is in the English version. Greetings - franzbm

Hi Franz. I understand that you want to use this image for some page on Wikipedia. However, Wikimedia Commons adheres to more stringent rules than Wikipedia - we only allow what is called "free" media - images that others are free to edit and use in any manner they wish. The image you uploaded you state is from Marvel Comics - that is not a free image. Depending on which Wikipedia your article is on, you may be allowed to upload it there with a fair use rationale, but it cannot be allowed on commons as it does not meet our most basic rules. For more information, I suggest you look here. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hola Franz. Entiendo que usted desea utilizar esta imagen para alguna página en Wikipedia. Sin embargo, Wikimedia Commons se adhiere a normas más estrictas de la Wikipedia - sólo se permiten lo que se denomina librelos medios de comunicación - las imágenes que otros tienen la libertad de editar y utilizar en cualquier forma que deseen. La imagen que has subido que es el estado de Marvel Comics - que es unnolibre imagen. Según la Wikipedia en la que se encuentra en su artículo, puede que se le permitió subir a ella con una justificación del uso leal, pero no se puede permitir en commons, ya que no cumple con nuestras normas más elementales. Para obtener más información, le sugiero que busque aquí. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thx for your reply. Entonces, como la version en ingles si puede usar la misma imagen?? es injusto - franzbm

Different projects have different rules. English wikipedia allows fair use, if spanish wikipedia doesn't, then possibly you should bring that up at the administrators' noticeboard or something. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Diferentes proyectos tienen diferentes reglas. Inglés Wikipedia permite el uso leal, si no Wikipedia español, entonces, posiblemente, usted debe traer en la que los administradores de tablón de anuncios o algo así. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Helmut Thoma

Hi Mattbuck,

this is Ulrich Thoma in Berlin, Germany, ulthoma.

I have created an article on my uncle, the painter Helmut Thoma.

Yesterday I added the pictures to the article.

I uploaded a foto, which he had taken in his studio in the 60th. I have the negatives here in my flat of this foto.

My uncle left all his artwork to the university of art in Berlin where he had been a professor for painting.

I made a homepage on the Helmut-Thoma-Stiftung.de. I have taken all the fotographs for this homepage and the rights for these fotos is mine.

The Stiftung has given me the rights at that time and is still giving me the rights for the use on the article in the wikipedia.

Why did you extinguish the pictures and delink the links in the article?

What can I or you do to relink the article and the pictures?

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Yours sincerely Ulrich Thoma--Ulthoma (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ulrich. I deleted the images as they claimed the website as the source, and nowhere on that website did I see any notice of copyright release. If you want to upload the images here to commons, first note that this is not Wikipedia, and we cannot accept any images whose use is restricted to wikipedia or WMF projects in general. If you wish to release these images under a free licence, then either contact OTRS, or put a notice on the website - something like "this image is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 licence" (change licence to suit). -mattbuck (Talk) 15:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, Mattbuck. I have contacted OTRS by mail and am waiting for an answer. Can I upload the images again now with the note - pending - or do I better wait? --Ulthoma (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, use {{OTRS-pending}} and all should be fine. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do that --Ulthoma (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mattbuck, I have finished to upload the 6 Pictures and have linked them again in my article successfully. Are you still in charge of my project. I will send a second e-mail tonight with the correct links to the files, so that they can be changed into the copyright file versions and the pending otrs will not stay there any longer. Thanks for your help -Ulrich in Berlin --Ulthoma (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an OTRS volunteer, so I can't actually deal with your ticket, but please feel free to come to me if you have any problems. I enjoy deleting stuff, but it's also nice for me to be helpful sometimes :p -mattbuck (Talk) 21:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mattbuck, thank you for this kind offer! I will ask you for help if I need it again.--Ulthoma (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Train / Railway stations

Responded on my page. Cheers Ingolfson (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, in addition, I suggest that you could place a hidden <!-- COMMENT --> in the "railway station" type subcats to prevent people like me from acidentially requesting it again. I suggest placing it hidden because it will be of no interest to 99.9% of all users - who aren't going to propose moves) yet would have stopped me from making the requests. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi Mattbuck/Archive4, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of 100 % support. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and I promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. Please do feel free to get in touch if you feel you can improve me in any way; I will be glad to listen to all comments. Again, thanks,Abigor talk 17:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Bigrocklogo.gif

Hey I saw a file I uploaded for a project was deleted. I assume there was a copyright built in? I have been given permission by Ski Maine Association to use this image for the Big Rock page on wikipedia. I noticed I wasn't given the option to send in written permission, is it because there is something I didn't know about the file? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblecuffer (talk • contribs) 02:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi. We cannot accept images which are Wikipedia-only permission on Wikimedia Commons - the images must be usable by anyone for any purpose - see COM:L for more details. You might be better off uploading it to Wikipedia with a fair use rationale. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, yeah, I see that now. Sorry about that, I seem to have misunderstood this at first, thank you for pointing me in the right direction.--Bubblecuffer (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, please feel free to leave me a message if you run into any difficulties. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Redland Green Park Bristol.jpg

Hi Matt,

Somehow the description etc got mangled when uploading. I think that it is ok now, if you care to take a look. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Should be fine. I've changed the category slightly and updated the geocoding - I've been trying to put all Bristol images in the correct ward category. I'm mostly done I think, but I got bored when I reached Temple Meads. I like trains, but there are hundreds of photos that need geocoding in there, and I'm too much of a perfectionist to just put them vaguely in temple meads somewhere. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Protect my penis

Ok, I guess this is stupid but I noticed you closed some deletion requests for penises. Well I understand that wikimedia/pedia can't be the repository for every exhibitionists wang but my image has been speedily deleted twice now without a reason given and with me believing it has an educational value, namely how the flaccid size of a penis in no way represents the erect size.

It's called Grower.jpg and may already be deleted by the time you see this, I don't mind if it is deleted too much but I'd at least like some reasoning behind it not just an instant deletion with a stock response, so since you sound like you're a defender of the penises I figured I'd ask for your support. Also the image is in use, currently only in the talk page at the wikipedia penis size article. Myone (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty, I don't care. I tend to just delete any cockshots I see in new files with the nopenis rationale. But if you reckon it could be used, ok, I'll ignore it next time I patrol new files. As for a defender of penises, I really would rather not have that on my wikigravestone. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The Cheat Report

Hi there! My name is Stefan Holler and I'm working for the production company which made this film. The right owners explicitly allow the usage of the image you deleted. So what are we supposed to do to get the article and the image online? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StefanHoller (talk • contribs) 23:27, 13 January 2009 UTC (UTC)

Hi. You would need to contact OTRS with an email confirming that you release the image under the relevant licence (please note this does not mean just wikipedia, images on Commons must be free for anyone to use for any purpose), or I suppose link to the cheat report website which should have some sort of copyright notice there. However, I'm not entirely sure if it would be within scope - does it have a realistic educational use? -mattbuck (Talk) 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cardamar Music front cover deletions

Dear Matt,

Yesterday I uploaded some covers from my label Cardamar Music. They were deleted and I got a message from you that I would be violating copyrights. As I do own Cardamar Music and the copyright of those pictures myself, this is definitely not a violation of rights.

Could you please put the pictures back online?

Thanks and take care,

Marco Sijbesma Cardamar Music

If I were to do that, we would need an OTRS email from an authorised company email address, stating that you agree with the terms of whatever licence you publish the images under (this means anyone can use them for any purpose, without telling you, without your consent, and without paying you), and that you are in fact the copyright holder. Perhaps you meant to upload them instead to Wikipedia under fair use rules? -mattbuck (Talk) 12:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That should do the trick then, but I can't seem to upload to Wikipedia as I'm not an uploader/administrator/etc.

I believe you need to be a user on Wikipedia for about a week before you can upload things - it's an anti-vandalism measure. Oh, and please remember to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ~~~~. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cough, cough!

I dealt with the "repeat" upload of the other one but surely this is not that interesting is it? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't look at me, I deleted the first one and hadn't even seen that one before you put it here. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Just wondered if you had an opinion is all! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleting "FACC Logo" of just changed version of that site

Hi Mattbuck,

could you give me a plausible reason why you deleted the Logo of "FACC"? I don't think this is a copyright violation - I'm working in that company and I may use the Logo without getting troubles anyway. However it is a free picture everybody can find and download on "Google pictures" search.

Could you please give me hints or comments why I may not use that picture? Thx and

Regards, elmar78

Hi Elmar. I'm afraid that our definition of "free" is not so intuitive. To you "free" may mean that it's available on google. To us it means that the copyright holder (the company) has released the rights of the image so that it can be used by anyone for any purpose without any sort of financial compensation or notification. The company might not be too pleased if someone used the logo in a piece saying the company is owned by nazis or something, but by uploading the image to commons, that use would be allowed. Possibly you meant to upload it to Wikipedia with a fair use rationale instead? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mattbuck -

thanks for your completions. However I still don't know what I have to do to complete the site with the Logo. Do I need an extra allowance from my company? Orally the board ment it's okay to use it.

How long does it last till the site will be actualized?

Regards, Elmar

To upload it to commons, we would need OTRS permission - an email from some relevant company spokesperson at a company email address would suffice for that, stating what licence they release the logo under, and that they understand that the licences we accept are non-revocable - once you give permission you can't ungive it. As I said though, it would be easier for all concerned if you just uploaded it to Wikipedia with a fair use rationale - that way it can be used on your company's page, but you're not giving up any rights. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hello Mattbuck, just for my information and if you have time to explain, I would like to understand why a file like File:Historial de Syd Barrett (20090112 1636).jpg is deletable derivative work. Don't wikipedia and commons share license?, and to accomplish with everything, a link to the page at the wiki. Thank you in advance, Gons (¿Digame?) 02:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC). PD: who bad i explain!! In few words, screenshots of other projects are admisible?

Hi. I deleted it as a derivative work of MS windows, as well as the wikipedia logo which (for god knows what reason) is unfree. Just crop it to just be the wiki history (no internet browser) and it'll be fine. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Klashorst? (again and again)

I have undeleted those that raise different issues, as you will see. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

delete own discussion page?

Hello Mattbuck I want to ask you if it is allowed to delete your own discussion page in COMMONS, and if I found a user who made this action, how can I report it?.--Heraldicos (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It's not a good thing, but there's no rule against it. Do you mean delete delete, or just blank delete? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for answer me!, let me check. thank you.--Heraldicos (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Require attention for deletion

Hello Mattbuck, the image (File:Jacivelasquez.JPG) was taken in a private place and the uploader no provided any official consent, because "Jaci Velasquez" is a pop singer COM:PEOPLE, also the permission for use of this work hasn't been archived in Commons:OTRS.--Heraldicos (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to tell me every time you do something. Also, if something has a DR open (by you), you probably shouldn't tag it for speedydeletion as well. In this case, it seems to me that it is within scope (picture of a notable person, and it's used - if an image is used, it's automatically within scope), there's no evidence of copyright violation, and it does comply with COM:PEOPLE (god I wish people would read that page) because if she's giving an interview then there is no expectation of privacy, which makes it effectively a public space. I say keep. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

O.K, I'm sorry if I'm bothering you. Goodbye.--Heraldicos (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bristol MMB «45 Rivers Avon and Trym.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Looks OK to me. Lycaon 10:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin's notice board

Please see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#"Out of project scope" and how it's used. Cheers! ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 09:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Railways

Hello Mattbuck - I am sorry to bother you, but can I ask you your opinion on something before I go raring off and again butt heads with user User:ŠJů? Said user has just "Seecat"ed a number of categories like Category:Railways by country / Category:Railways and subcats like Category:Railways in Germany. He has effectively "sneaked in" an inofficial move of the contents of these cats to "railway lines"/"railway lines by country".

And that after he just recently fought pretty bitterly with me to keep pre-eminent such categories like "Heritage railways" when all I wanted to do was place a concept category above them! Inconsistent of him to now try to remove "railways" cats, but then I sometimes I do wonder whether he appreciates the distinctions between the terms fully. I have done my own mistakes, but at least mine were (mostly) with fully open-for-discussion move proposals and merge proposals rather than this way through the back door.

Now apart from the fact that I believe such changes should be discussed, I am also asking whether that is something that we should support at all. A "railway" could be either a company OR a railway line. A "railway line" is a much more specific thing. By moving all the companies categories into the subcategories, I think we are lumping things incorrectly.

Sorry if this constant wrangling is frustrating you as much as me. But I wasn't going to go off after ŠJů without sounding off others this time. Ingolfson (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'm happy to help. To me, as you say, a railway line is distinct from a railway - the former a specific stretch of track, the other more likely a company. I'd likely separate them, and only have them join under "rail transport in country x" or something. I'm not entirely sure what you want with heritage railways, they certainly should be in their own category, even if it does make for some items being in the parent cat to heritage, as well as heritage itself. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Heritage railways, I am not quite sure about your question? I'd like to keep Category:Heritage rail transport as a "concept" category, and the Category:Heritage railways for specific railways. Ingolfson (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is now at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Current_requests/2009/01/Category:Railways where I think, we should ensure that a category scheme is created for rail-related stuff so that the constant back-and-forth is resolved. Ingolfson (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pill MMB 09 Harbour.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

About "dubious" self-made images of Mexicumbia

Hi Mattbuck. Before of all, excuse me for my poor and not diplomatic english.

Is a great irresponsability mark as "delete request" diferent works of an user without fundaments, is a vanity, light and easy suposition of all my works, I am the creator of each image in my account, (except of the file Alma.jpg that was a screenshot of a bankrupted company). I have all the original materials of images and video (for the screenshots) for each image, and this is an injustice that you try to destroy all my effort to create visual content to my articles, the worst of the case is, that you mark al my works because "I simply don't believe that the user created all his images", come on men, that is an invalid reason, believe or believe it, is subjective, if you demonstrate that I am not the creator with probes (for example, link to a web page with this images created by other people etc.) I will quit this images, but unfortunately, you won't find this images in no one place of the web.

For this reasons, you can not put in "doubt" my works under a invalid supossition with the unique fundament "I simply don't believe that the user created all his images", then, because I am the owner of all images created by diferent ways and softwares (Photo takes, Videorecording, mixed images self-mades with own material under Gimp or Corel etc.) I will to proceed to revert your "Delete requests" of all my works without notify. Since now, I will watching to all trying for deleting my images, I hope that you understand my position about this. Greetings from Mexico.

P.D. In two images created by me from a screenshots of my videorecording in MiniDV tapes, it have a watermarks, including the watermarks are mine, I the owner, I prefer left the watermark in this case, is my decision, however, I left the right to redistribute an modify, indicated in the license section. --Mexicumbia (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you see, I see some images which I'm sure are copyvios, and that makes me question the rest of them. You are claiming a press release by a bankrupt company as own work - that's a copyvio. Just because you make the image that is uploaded does not necessarily mean you have the rights to distribute. If I made a drawing of Bugs Bunny, I couldn't release that because I don't own the rights to Bugs Bunny. From what I understand, you have recorded music videos onto tape, and then got screenshots from them. That's a copyright violation because you don't own the rights to the music video. You may "own" it as in you bought a copy of the single, which came with the video, but you did not buy the rights to the video. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

About of video recordings, I have the right about this, I was one of the organizers of this musical concert, ok?, you can't demonstrate that I'm not the owner of this right, about the alma.jpg, however, I can't quit the delete request because is the unique image that is not mine, was an screenshot of a web page, is the unique error of licence in my account, the remains, ALL, are mine.

--Mexicumbia (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Images and info updated of free versions of all images of Mexicumbia

Well, responding to the injust aseverations about the legacy of my images, I was proceed to update the information about sources and versions without watermarks, the reason of this controverse, I hope with this, quit the Delete Request soon. Greetings for all. --Mexicumbia (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Voice of america

{{PD-USGov-VOA}}

Note, that the VOA can Request whatever it likes but US Federal law is quite clear in this: Work by a Federal Government employee carried out in the course of his/her job is Public Domain. Please:

1) Restore the images immediately

2) be more careful in the future

Regards, T L Miles (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

untemplated question

Several years ago I had the luxury of knowing who "the audience" was when I was, eh, authoring things and putting them online for an audience. To the best of my knowledge, many of the people who were benefiting from (or perhaps who also was a little hurt and displaced) that creative endeavor of mine never asked me who I was writing for (the audience). Regardless of benefit/hurt or displacement or whatever, I think that the people who were in my life then and making decisions which affected me and others should have asked who I had at least thought was the audience for the stuff I was writing and putting online. For instance, it was not written for children even though it might have been enjoyed by young readers and was not offensive for them. I honestly think that anyone who does anything online has an idea in their minds eye of who is reading it or looking at it.

Since that time which I had authored what I thought was one of the best things I had looked at online that year and since that time that no one asked me who was in my mind that it was written for, my minds eye fails to determine the audience and I tend to do things with only myself in mind now. What makes me laugh and "oh wow, am I bored with this stuff, lets mess it up some" or "that photographers ass has been so thoroughly kissed, he should not be nominating images like that" tend to guide me now. Or, an audience of one and I don't like this feeling or lack of idea I have. That is the question I have for you:

In your "minds eye" who is watching the Quality Images nomination and review images?

I really feel that back then, I should have been asked. Even respectfully asked. I ask this question of you now quite respectfully since this audience of one got a laugh back and appreciates it. Thanks. -- carol (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally a load of idiots who wouldn't know a good photo if it came up and rugby tackled them to the floor while a load of people stood around with big flashing arrows saying "that's a good photo that is". IMO QI should be about what is a good picture primarily, which it utterly fails at judging by the bs reasons given for opposing. Last week I had someone oppose because "it's a bit big" (MB-wise). -mattbuck (Talk) 14:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there

Just popping by to say

1. Nice pic
2. Long time no talk, been away for various reasons. Hope all is well
3. The letters on top of your talk page are not just on top of the page, but also on top of each other (at least in my browser).

Cheers, Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File:International_Year_of_Astronomy_2009.jpg

There is a "Urheber": Zusammenfassung von User:Jan Luca, alle verwendeten Bilder sind public domain Jan Luca (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

QI declines

Hi Matt, Regarding the declines I really do think that the images were underexposed. My two reasons are that the histogram of the image had very little in the righthand half (and almost nothing in the rightmost quarter) and that several objects in the image which were supposed to be white appeared dark grey/brown. Another problem, at least with the image File:Parson Street Station 10.jpg was that the white balance was off. I saw your brightened image, and something does look awkkward to me, it looks like you lost alot of contrast along with brightening the picture, which does, as you said, make it look worse. I don't know what software/how you brightened it, but I uploaded a new version of the image which I think addresses the problem. I used the original and set the track number sign on the right as a white reference point. This both brightens the image so that it looks properly exposed (whites are close to white, rather than being grey) and fixes the color balance issue (removes the orange cast of the original). I think this version indeed looks better than the original. Hope this helps. --PieCam (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

traffic cone image

I liked it a lot, but have yet to see it at full resolution.

http://carol.gimp.org/files/download-messages.png <--the browser message thingie says it is "done". I am wondering what it thinks it has completed. -- carol (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. I try my best to serve up strange and wonderful photos. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

For you to keep

Hi Mattbuck,
Here's your vote for File:No Israel.svg deletion request:

• ' Keep' - Frankly, what people use it for is utterly irrelevant. It's in scope, obviously because it's apparently used by people, and so could be used by others for educational purposes regarding the first lot. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)"
  

Here's your vote for undelition request for Fighting Israel for dummies

•  Oppose - user-created artwork is generally not within scope. I can't think of a single wikipage which could use this legitimately. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  --Mbz1 (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Mbz, don't try my patience by insinuating things. If you want to say something, come out and say it, don't just paste my own comments back at me as if it's a scrap book. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What you want me to say? That your votes are highly bias, that you are more than unfair? That you had no idea what you were talking about, when you said that osamak image "could be used by others for educational purposes"? That...No, I have nothing more to say, Mattbuck. You said it all yourself. Enjoy! Oh, and btw may I please ask you to stop threatening me? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not threatening you. I vote the way I think is right - I thought that a no israel sign had legitimate use, but that Fighting Israel for dummies or whatever it was had none, as well as being a clear knock-off of a popular series of books. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

In this case may I please ask you to educate yourself? In your oppose vote you said nothing about the image being "clear knock-off of a popular series of books". You are not just any user. You are an administrator. Other users will seek your advice and your help. You should grow up to this task. IMO you should be more than fair and more than honest to make a good administrator. I know it is not always easy, but you've chosen the job yourself. Good luck with this. BTW I corrected a mistake in your prior post, and I hope it was unintentional. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for correcting it. You want me to educate myself? I'm sorry if you don't like my opinions on whether certain images should be kept or not, but I stand by my previous comments on this matter. The crossed Israel flag is in scope - barely. The Killing Israelis for Dummies picture is not as it is so full of personal opinion that it can have no educational use. You say you want me to "grow up" to this task - I would hope this is some form of mistranslation, and would encourage you to accept that people will have views that differ from yours on controversial subjects. Badgering people who disagree with you and disrupting commons to make a point does nothing to endear you to people, it only makes your opinions less valuable in their eyes. -mattbuck (Talk) 04:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was disrupting commons, I was punished for doing this, and I admitted that the punishment was fair. Now what?
You know what is the difference between you and me? When I have an opinion, I could prove that I am right by using my knowledge. You cannot. Your opinions come from emotion and not from your knoledge of the history and real facts. That's why I cannot respect your opinions. That's why I said that you should grow up to the task of being administrator and try to educate yourself. Translation is correct.
At first I wanted to ask you to explain to me what IYO educational value of osamak image is? But then I decided I will not. Do I really want to get an explanation from a person, who second time in 10 minutes makes a mistake in the name of the discussed image (if you have a difficulties with reading or writing, you always could just copy and paste, you know)? Do I really want to get an explanation from a person, who never will admit that his opinion might have been wrong? Do I really want to get an explanation from a person, who does not know the difference between Judaism and Israel, yet believes that he is qualified to have an opinion on the issue? Do I really want to get an explanation from a person, who says:" "I do know the difference between judaism and israel, it's like the difference between stupidity and america". BTW about stupidity here's one of my favorite quotes: "There is no sin except stupidity.” Oscar Wilde.I am not interested in continuing this discussion.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bristol MMB «01 Bathurst Basin.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Promotion before local download is complete -- no noise in thumbnail, excellent composition, meets all QI requirements while also fullfilling the non-requirement of being interesting. -- carol 12:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Global deleted image review

Do you know where we are with this? I have lost touch. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It passed, and iirc is awaiting implementation. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bristol MMB «27 Canons Marsh.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Parson Street Station 9.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Under expossed image --PieCam 13:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)  Support Good enough for me (could be sharper though). --Eusebius 13:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Firefox-Logo-Orginal.png

I think you misread the pages quoted about the trademark. All those "don't"s were guidelines for use of the logo on mozilla firefox projects etc "Be sure to follow these basic rules to make sure your projects look their best and that the logo is always presented in the best possible light.", no where was it asserted these were copyright restrictions, or restrictions at all (just guidelines!). All the legal stuff was pretty standard trademark use stuff, which is not actually relevant. But your point that without a specific copyright release, that it is the copyright of its author is of course quite valid. But I would like to know if it was released as part of the package, and what its legal copyright status really is (we shouldn't be bullied even by the good guys ;-) . Oh well, I don't really care :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, certainly in the past we have always taken the Firefox logo to be copyrighted, and in fact removed it from images where possible. From what I understand, such open-source products often have copyright protection on their logos - it would be sensible, if only to stop competitors using it in adverts against them. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved deletion request

As proposed 3 days ago, the deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:AN Liana K 1.jpg has been merged into Commons:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan, wich is a mass deletion request of images under the same terms (costumed people being or not copyright violations). If you haven't done so, you should state your opinions there Belgrano (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Dali image

You might like to comment here, as you previously commented on this issue. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Parson Street Station 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good composition with train, platforms, stairs to street level and two unidentifiable users; resolution and clarity meet criteria; exposure and lighting are good with no distracting shadows. --Wsiegmund 01:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Signs citing Wikipedia

Hi Mattbuck,
you've removed the cat:Wikipedia from File:Erika-Mann-Bogen.jpg that I had put on it because the depicted street sign in Hamburg cites and mentions Wikipedia as source. Therefore, the image is used on en:Project:Wikipedia as a source. Do we have a better cat for this kind of images? --Túrelio (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, oops, didn't notice that. I've re-added it, though I think there should probably be a subcat for things citing wikipedia. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

there should probably be ... - didn't find any, as of yet. Anyway, so far this image seems the only one of that kind.--Túrelio (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

FR Letter Service

As for the FR Letter Service - your comment "To me it seems that if the FRLS operates on the WHR as well as the FR, then it should also be in the WHR category." indicates you are not aware of the actual situation.

Neither the FRLS, nor the FR itself, operates a Postal service, per se, on either railway. It, FRLS, is a volunteer marketing operation that over the last 40 years, has occasionally designed stamps and covers for the production of souvenir FDC's and special occasion letters in relation to the Festiniog Company operations. These are then sold in the company shops, or through the FRS support organisation.

A similar piece of categorisation stupidity would be to categorise Boston Lodge as part of the Welsh Highland, as any heavy engineering it requires, is carried there. That is the point I was making. --Keith (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

New Logo Rede Record

Hello, Mattbuck. I saw its message in my page of quarrel, but I do not say English (I say Portuguese) and therefore I am using a translator on-line to write this message (the translation can leave a little bad). How I make to send the license? Lucas081094 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Eu também estou usando um tradutor, por isso o meu perdão Português. Você precisa de permissão enviar por e-mail para OTRS. Esteja ciente de que ao conceder tal permissão, você permite que este logotipo para ser usado por qualquer pessoa para qualquer finalidade. Talvez em vez você deve enviá-lo para wikipedia com um "uso justo" lógica? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Vlc-0.9.4-big buck bunny.png

This image is a screenshot of free software, but running in Windows Vista, so contain parts of Windows Vista theme, Window, menu, scroll, that is non free completly Shooke ^{(Talk me in spanish, english or italian)} 23:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bedminster railway station MB9.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Looks good, --Dschwen 18:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Pubs or Public Houses

I do not understand what you mean by changing random images, and there is no rule of thumb as to category’s being named ‘Pubs’ rather than ‘Public House’ , the latter being the correct title anyway. A pub is an abbreviation as I am sure you are fully aware. Stavros1 (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's an abbreviation, but it seems to be the standard. As for moving random images, you moved 2 from "pubs in bristol" to "public houses in bristol", leaving some 20 others, and omitting to add the correct categories. If you want to move them, use commonsdelinker which will move the whole cat. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken there, I had uploaded the image of the Black boy’s public house from www.geograph and created the Bristol category in error, not realising that there had already been a Pubs in Bristol category already created. I have not randomly moved any images. I have not moved any images from one Bristol Category to another, Please get your facts right.Stavros1 (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You're very right, I appear to have the wrong person. I am very sorry for the accusation. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

bristol category

Sorry, thanks for the heads up. I didn't see the pictures when just putting Bristol into the search facility. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Category branch for images taken from roads

Hi, I have hit a contribution to a COM:VP discussion by you. You inquired whether an image taken from the A4 not showing the A4 itself should be added to the A4 category. I had a similar case – the consensus was to add a "View from ..." category, see here (link valid for seven days until the section will be archived). I have inserted an appropriate branch into the category tree. Maybe you want to add your relevant pictures, too (add category "Views from A4", add category "Views from roads in Great Britain" with category "Views from roads"). Cheers! --Iotatau (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Note

Thanks for telling me the situation. As an aside, I forgot to check the image history of the File to confirm that it did pass flickr review. So, it looks like Honorable likely vandalised it. This is my mistake and I freely admit it. I will check the image history to be sure...so that there will not be a next time. (and I will not nominate an image for deletion which has already passed flickr review) I was just surprised because I saw 3 naked images of women in the 'image not found category.'

• PS: It looks like The Honorable is renominating an image which passed flickr review here It looks like he doesn't understand the rules..or that he doesn't care. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Tryphon has closed that second DR on my request. Thanks --Leoboudv (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Teh_goodness.jpg

I apologize for the confusion with File:Teh_goodness.jpg; I misunderstood whether or not CC licenses were revokable. Sorry about any inconvenience. The Honorable (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michele Merkin 1 ad.jpg

Hello!

We have to talk about your closing of this deletion debate. I do not have the impression that you have dealt enough with why these two image might not be within the scope. Just because they are used does not mean that they meet the requirements of Commons' scope. Hope to hear from you. --High Contrast (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes it does mean they are within commons scope. Commons has a remit to provide material that is realistically useful in an educational setting, and/or used on a wikimedia project. These are in use, therefore they are within the scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You have mentioned the correct keywords: Commons has to provide material that is realistically useful in an educational setting. These images are definately not. They are fun-edits containing a non-sense text that has nothing to do with the person that is shown on the image. Especially this non-sense text (in German) makes this certain image out of scope on Commons - not on the German wikipedia, where this image is used in a discussion. --High Contrast (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We provide support for all wikimedia projects, regardless of language. And yes, realistically useful, or used on another project. It's in use, end of story. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Any image that is used on any wikipedia project is within the scope? That's definately wrong. You still did not understand the problem of both image and you you are not able to state a valid assertion for your closing of the DR! --High Contrast (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't understand it. I quote from COM:SCOPE#File_in_use_in_another_Wikimedia_project: A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose. It's in use, therefore in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Very primitive, but true. --High Contrast (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Image deletion

Im fine with the removal of the tag. My main concern was the usage of the photo in a talk page. The poster had a history of vandalising and i think that was the reason for it being posted. Thanks for looking in that it had a previous deletion tag 65.94.242.184 18:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Logos deletion requests

Hi,

Thanks for raising the problem of all those logos. On the topic I check daily, Videogame-related media, there has been a trend for a few months of logo-uploading. I was also concerned, and asked for some advice on the Help Desk, but we did not really find any solution.

You may want to have a look to Category:Video game logos and the two sub-categories Category:Video game company logos and Category:Video game console logos. Some of them have been deleted, and restored later.

Also : if logos were to be deleted, could you please make a list and notify me beforehand, so we can transfer them on fr.wikipedia (where there is a copyright exception for logos) ? Except if it is possible for sysops to do so even after deletion, I do not know.

Thanks again. I will follow this debate closely and with interest. Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jean-Frédéric.

Admins can see images that have been deleted, with a few exceptions. If stuff gets deleted, I'll try to remember to make a list. I can tell you what I deleted today if you want. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter Allen Album cover deleted

Why was the Peter Allen album cover "Taught By Experts" removed? The reason stated is copyright violation, yet I see hundreds of album covers not approved by the artists on Wikipedia every day. I see a double standard. There is no valid reason that the Peter Allen album cover should not be allowed on Wikipedia; the cover could not be printed out and sold because it is at a low-resolution. The small picture does not interefere in any way with the copyright holder's right to sell the product. Wikipedia doesn't sell a product; it works as a source of information, and it qualifies as fair use under the US title code. Peter Allen has been dead since 1992 and I think it's a shame that none of his album covers are included on wikipedia— he was a great musician. Looks like better-known artists get the preferred membership on Wikipedia.

I should also note that the picture is not for Wikimedia Commons alone; it pairs to an article I wrote for the album "Taught By Experts" on wikipedia. The page on wikipedia now does not function correctly because the photo was deleted. 01:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It was deleted because this is Commons, not Wikipedia. Commons's purpose is to provide a repository of free media, Wikipedia's is to create an encyclopaedia. As such, Wikipedia, or the english version at any rate, has a more liberal policy - they allow non-free media (such as album covers) under a fair use rationale. You are free to upload any album cover you like to en.wikipedia, and use it in articles. But here at commons, it is a copyright violation. For more information of what Commons is about, see COM:SCOPE, COM:L, COM:WELCOME and especially COM:FAIRUSE. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Matt. Wikipedia directed me over here, so I've been running in circles. I wish someone could've told me when I first posted it (you're not the only one that's deleted it). Thanks for the help. Dan 07:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Give me a shout if there's anything I can do to help. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

I'm here to apologize for my behavior. I was very harsh accusing of harassment and stalking. I'm sorry for that. Regards. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

Can you please have a look here. --High Contrast (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

 Delete - sure, but don't see why you want me to. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The file that is in question is in use in a discussion on de.wiki. Because it is in use, isn't it automatically within the scope? --High Contrast (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, generally yes, though article use is more important. For me the main issue is that its use is apparently at an end, and it's a screenshot from what i assume is not free software. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I knew what I was doing

There was no real loss in down scalling that image it wasn't that sharp at 100% before hand and If you can't see what was corrected I suggest an optician. Ajuk (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Haggerston railway station

Hi! I see you as an administrator so I have a query. I tried to upload a picture of the upcoming London Overground station at Haggerston, but it appears that the string "Hagg" is on the blacklist, and I got a Permissions Error. The title I chose was "Haggerston station eastern entrance under construction Aug 2009.JPG". How can one go about uploading pictures of this station? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. This is probably due to prolific Wikipedia vandal HAGGER. I suggest you just shorten it to HAG or something, or ask on COM:AN for the blacklist entry to be removed. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give the latter a try! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Happy Dutch beauty.jpg

Used here in case you wonder. Multichill (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...

for helping me copy the purslane images. This so-called "weed" turns out to be a truly amazing dietary supplement (see Wikipedia article), well worth telling people about - especially as it's free! Cheers! {pun intended:)} Shir-El too (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Just in case...

Hi Mattbuck! Just in case you did not notice: Per suggestion the debate has been moved to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Discussion_of_deletion_denied. --MGA73 (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

BSicon coherence

Hey there! About this, you wrote:

any change needs to be discussed

What I'm proposing for renaming are not changes in the naming convention, just trivial corrections. If you have issues with any particular renaming, pls discuss it in the discussion page of the file in question. I might have made some mistakes, or I may will!

If you have an idea for coherence (especially where light and heavy rail meet), please share it

Those are tricky, even following the conventions is hard. I made no attempt to correct those, only trivial ones, as said.

stuff can be fixed with Chrisbot on en.wp and elsewhere.

Chrisbot made a mess with  (CONTl) and  (CONTr) (as opposed to, say,  (uCONTl) and  (uCONTr)) last August; we're still waiting he fixes it for all wikipedias, not only wp:en. Just saying.

Can we leave the leave the rename request for en.wp so as to avoid multiple discussions about it?

The proper place to discuss Commons files is in the Commons talk page for each file. The wp:en talk pages for Commons files are very strictly reserved for nominations and stuff.

and not speaking German doesn't help

Could be worse — like not being a English native speaking and having to strain to get what’s being discussed all the time. ;-)

Tuvalkin (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not averse to renaming if I screwed it up, just worried that things may end up getting fubared because of it. Luckily if they're ones I made, they're in use on very few diagrams. If you give me a list of what renames you want done, I'll go upload new versions, you change the uses over to the new names (as you say, avoiding Chrisbot), and then I'll delete the old ones. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete here ?

Hi!

You closed this DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Birthday facial.png as delete but you did not tell why. Please always give a reason when you delete.

The reason I ask is that we have a permission in OTRS from the girl in the photo where she tells she is 19 and she is happy that the uploader liked her pictures. That should cover most of the arguments given in the DR. --MGA73 (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There was no OTRS at time of deletion, and I didn't see how it could be used in an educational manner. However, if you say it's fine, then I shall undelete. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

To avoid future issues like this from arising (since I was the one who submitted the DR), let me see if I understand the process correctly. I open photoshop and create a completely fake version of a sexual act that has been composited together from multiple sources. Then I upload it to Flickr. Then I send an email saying "Hey that's me and I'm totally cool with." Is that about it?--Seedfeeder (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. If it was deleted because the person in the image did not give permission then a permission is indeed relevant. If it was deleted as out of scope then the question of permission or not is not relevant. That is why I find the deletion reason interessting. There is no point in starting a (long?) debate with the Flickr user about source, age, persons or whatever if image is out of scope and will be deleted anyway. --MGA73 (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thought I would touch base with you

I hadn't heard from you in a while. First, I replaced my old blog with a new website with FAQs, forums, images online (not SVG though :P ), and more. The URL there is wlps-ge-stuff.ucoz.com. I am open to giving you your own forums, FAQs, a blog, and more. (At least if that doesn't simply duplicate what you have. :D ) Accounts are free. If you give me a link, I can give you one back.

Next, I started an IRC channel for automotive-racing, ##automotive-racing at freenode. Note the double #. It won't work with just one. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, haven't used IRC for a while. I'm fairly busy in rl atm, so not been doing much. That and my pc, then camera, then monitor broke... 2010 isn't going so well. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion permission for my files

Hey, mattbuck... Here's Rafael, a Wikimedia Common's user who wants to delete his files... My main reason is that I was despised for the many people of that town to which I contributed and currently it'd be depreciating for me to have my name related to that town and to that people as well, as I am no more part of that all, therefore I understand as reasonable a permission to delete all files comprising the town which I have uploaded here... Cheers... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafael Alberto Borges (talk • contribs)

Hi Rafael, I'm sorry you feel that way. However, I'm not going to just delete the images - you did release them to the public domain, and they are in use. I'm afraid you gave up your rights when you uploaded them. However, the Commons community is not unsympathetic to such requests - I suggest you file a single mass DR for your images and let the community decide. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Trains of X by class

I'm wondering about perhaps removing "Trains of X by class", for example Category:Trains of TransPennine Express by class, for now and moving the "British Rail Class YYYs of X" up to the "Trains of X" category. I've already got rid of a few "British Rail Class 170s by operator" style cats that I created. I think I might have gone a little overboard with the categories. Obviously the idea in creating these cats was to accommodate further categories in future but I think might be a bit excessive, for now at least, and it wouldn't be too difficult to recreate the cats as appropriate. I'm just a little concerned that these categories might make navigation more tedious whilst not really being particularly useful. I'd be interested as to what you think about this. Adambro (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I figured there may be someone intrepid enough to do trains of operator by route, but I do agree that at present it does add a rather unnecessary level of complication. I'd be quite happy to get rid of it. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we want the sorttext for the "class x of y" cat "trains of y" to be "x" or "class x"? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Grindleford station.jpg

Regarding your comment at User talk:Captain Scarlet, if I recall correctly there was an issue on Wikipedia which upset Captain Scarlet and he replaced a large number of his images with this as a sort of protest. Those uploads were reverted and he was invited to open a deletion request if he wanted his images deleted, see Commons:Deletion requests/Images by Captain Scarlet. This was rejected as it seemed to be an attempt to revoke the free licences due to his annoyance with what was happening on Wikipedia at the time rather than any genuine copyright concerns. I therefore don't believe there is a problem with this image that we need to be concerned about. Adambro (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Festiniog Railway

Matt,

Long time no speak. Manstaruk (FR wiki minder). Need a discussion about using your pics on official FR related material - pls contact offlist at manstaruk@aol.com. You may be pleasantly pleased.!

Keith --92.4.34.178 22:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - didnt realise not logged in -- see entry 42 above for credentials on this. Keith --Keith (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Deviation (in two senses)

Plase check File:Tanygrisiau 76.jpg and add proper source, author and licence info. This image is patently not from Geonum 302693 as you claimed. In fact, it does not seem to be on Geograph at all. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It is on geograph, and I've now fixed the licence. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have searched further - it was in a diagonally adjacent grid square. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

We need your help at the Wikiproject medicine

Hello, Sorry for spaming your talk page, but this is very important. On the behalf of the Wikiproject medicine at the en.wikipedia, I am inviting you to be a part of the discussion going on the project's talk page about Patient images, The discussion started after I obtained a permission to more than 23000 dermatology related images, and about 1500 radiology images. As some editors of the Wikiproject medicine have some concerns regarding the policy of using patient images on wikipedia, and regarding patient consents. Also they believe that common's policy is not so clear regarding the issue. And since you are the experts please join us at this very important discussion -- MaenK.A._Talk 14:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm an expert? The world really has gone to shit... -mattbuck (Talk) 14:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 Itawamba County School District Prom controversy

On en.wiki you should nominate this article for DYK. Hekerui (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

So noted and nommed. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)