——————————————— Archive, September 2007 ———————————————
català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
This is an automated message from a bot. You recently uploaded Image:Wikipedia-logo-uz.png. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? If you believed you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. Thank you. HermesBot 13:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Simonizer 16:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Simonizer 16:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you endorse this closure? [1] This was closed totally improperly. If eithr you or Rama had taken the time to read the note left by the admin on the last closure 2 days ago or whatever it was, he/she INVITES me to renominate the image for deletion and states that the only reason they're closing the last one is because it was "tainted" by the bad faith of a voter. I protest the blind closure done without reading previous notes or any consideration for the actual image. Night Ranger 03:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, we could just renominate images we dislike repetitively until they get deleted... Such an invitation doesn't ask you to renominate the image the second it was closed. A geniuine copyright concern of this nature should be discussed with the people involved first. So far you have made the absolute minimum on this (an automated msg). You should at least attempt to discuss with the uploader (User:צ'כלברה) or original uploader (user:Alkivar). Since the actual creator does not wish to be identified that can be taken to OTRS. So please slow down and try talking to the people I mentioned. I see no urgent need for admin action. -- Cat ちぃ？ 09:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you please explain what this is about? —David Levy 13:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The image contains a license that isn't commercially free as well as GFDL. There is a license conflict which only the copyright holder (User:Erin Silversmith) can resolve. Nothing too serious. -- Cat ちぃ？ 14:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not only about Image:File deletion icon.svg, it concerns the many (100+) images that transclude {{Erin Silversmith Licence}}. I have posted Template talk:Erin Silversmith Licence#Commercial_Use and emailed the user requesting clarification. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove other peoples comments. People have been blocked in the past for doing so as it is considered disruptive. Thanks. -- Cat ちぃ？ 14:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry; I didn't realise that could be considered disruptive in this case. The charges against the user in question were so obviously false that I thought it would be best to save the user the bother of responding, but I'm sorry for violating policy in this regard. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 19:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is being "charged". I am not a judge or a prosecutor. The uploaded of the images has made a mistake. He either wants the images to be commercially free (GFDL), or wants them to be commercially unfree (cc-by-nc). It is a possibility that he doesn't understand GFDL's commercial usage compatibility. It is his intention that counts. I do not have the legal right to relicense someone else's work, which is why I am asking him.
- I technically have the authority (see: template:cc-by-nc) to speedy delete them all as they can be interpreted as commons incompatible (non-commercial clause). It is the recommended action if I follow the policy to the letter. I am following the policy to its spirit. However I am not even nominating them for deletion in the meanwhile because this feels like a simple mistake.
- -- Cat ちぃ？ 19:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, you don't have authority to speedy them: because they are *dual-licensed* (one under GFDL, the other under an optional NC license) they are redistributable under *either*. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 20:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really depends. If I were assuming bad faith I would have already deleted them... I am doing everything to keep the images. I do not quite understand your involvement with this issue. This is for the most part an issue I intend to resolve with the uploader whenever she shows up. Thanks. -- Cat ちぃ？ 21:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Dual-licensing isn't against Commons policy, and that's all there is to it. I'm done with this issue. :) Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 09:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed about edits like this. It is obviously wrong. Unfortunately your bot does more wrong edits than good edit, at least for the given job. But using AWB it is your own fault. Please have a look, if the media multilicenced, before you give it a wrong tag. If would be nice, if you undo edits. Thanks. --Revolus 11:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing wrong with it. Non-commercial licenses are unacceptable in commons. -- Cat ちぃ？ 12:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please lets talk in one place. I don't like cluttered talks. On topic: Didn't you know, that the dual licensed images a acceptable for commons/Wikimedia? There has to be at least one valid license. So publishing an image under cc-by-nd/nc _and_ GFDL is valid. --Revolus 22:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conflicting licenses are a problematic issue. Authors rights is the issue. If she never intended commercial use, that is a problem. -- Cat ちぃ？ 16:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Please put more pictures like [2]. There are more articles in this subject in Bg wiki. --Uroboros 19:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{Cfd}} has a redlink to Commons:Categories for Discussion policies. I wonder if that redlink might be replaced with the correct link? Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
|
_(2007-07-25).jpg)
_(2007-07-25).jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Necromouse.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:BG-Army-OF5.gif#filehistory){kind=link}
