User talk:Courcelles/Archive 3

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

These unfree Panoramio Images

Can you file a mass DR on 3 of the 9 images here not under DR? I don't know how to file a mass DR. Initially, I panoramio passed the pictures but this was based on a misunderstanding by me of pre-2009 uploaded images--and I have now revoked my pass. I gave my key reasons for deletion on August 29 in this talkpage here. 3 of the images are not under DR. Admin Lupo told me the images likely canot be kept because the permission was only for wikipedia....and today, the permission is gone from the panoramio link. So, I think its best to delete them all. Can you do a mass DR? Maybe you can help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment:These 3 can be excluded as they are individual DRs:

--Leoboudv (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

To file a mass-DR, the easiest way is to nominate one, then copy/paste the DR template onto the other image pages and modify the deletion request subpage to list all files. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I have to go to bed now in Canada but I'm still confused sadly. I thought a DR applies to only 1 single image...and no others. But I try filing a mass DR here on some of the images. I don't know if it is right. Maybe Admin Courcelles can file a DR on the 3 other images not under DR...if I am wrong. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Starting a mass DR isn't difficult, just tedious. And right now, it is taking me nearly ten minutes to load each page due to some connectivity issues, so, I'll look at this tomorrow when I have internet that doesn't suck. Courcelles (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • OK. Thank you. There are 3 images left not under DR --in the category above I mentioned--and I think its better if an Admin files a DR jus for them. File it when you can. There's no rush. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm looking at these, and wondering is there any hope of having the permissions cleared through OTRS so we don't have to delete the images? Courcelles (talk) 07:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I doubt it. This panoramio account looks inactive and the panoramio owner deleted his permission messages on the panoramio link. Secondly, Admin MGA73 sent a message to mourad here on August 31...and never got a reply. That is more than 3 weeks ago. The image of Sousse in Tunisia looks important/heavily used but the rest is not heavily used on wikipedia. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair use recent buildings (mass DR on Euralille)

Hi, I've answered to your question on french wikipedia admin's noticeboard (however i'm not a sysop). Just in case you don't see it, you should ask User:Coyau he runs a bot on french wikipedia for the No FOP France delation from commons. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I picked the admin's noticeboard not because I needed specifically sysop help, but because the AN is easy to find, and always good for these "help the out of place sysop from the hinterlands" problems :D I've asked Coyau on his frwp talk page to take a look. Courcelles (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
    • You did well, it's the good place (IMO), better than the local village pump which is more folklore and a bit less serious. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thanks for moving the ~100 Tamil pronunciation ogg files. :-)--Sodabottle (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I know having these named right makes life easier on the Wikitonaries. Courcelles (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Question.

Hi, i didn't understand this, could you explain it to me? The image was first 'published' here (date: 19/06/2008). The file was uploaded to commons by an one-time-user two years later, and the site mentioned was used as a source. It's an obvious copyvio for me. Thank you.--Zeroth (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Smells like a copyvio to me, too, but given it acknowledges the source, no real harm in giving him a week to confirm it through OTRS, and since people get e-mails when their talk pages are changed, the user will have a chance to do so if they provided an e-mail when creating their account. Courcelles (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for your answer. --Zeroth (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ferries

I'm not going to argue in general with your move of Category:Ferries by name to Category:Ferry ships by name; it seems reasonably harmless, although I have never heard of someone refer to a "ferry ship": it's either a "ferry" or a "ferryboat". However, if the rationale was to distinguish individual ships from ferry lines, why did you place Category:New York Water Taxi in Category:Ferry ships by name? Surely that is a line rather than an individual ship/boat. Also, what exactly is the category from which you are trying to distinguish it? I don't see any Category:Ferry lines by name. - Jmabel ! talk 23:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

  • If you want a detailed explanation, you'll have to ask the person who tagged it for move, User:ŠJů. It seemed reasonable enough to me, there was no objection, and I was trying to clear a little of this awful backlog, where categories are moved after 14 days if no one objects, though, lately, it has been closer to 30 to 60. I just moved things over as they were, so the NY Water Taxi is likely misplaced, I'll go and remove it. Courcelles (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, had no idea you were only carrying through someone else's idea. If I'd noticed the listing I'd have disagreed, but, as I say, at this point it's not worth an argument. - Jmabel ! talk 04:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank...

Thanks for the autopatrolled feature. I don't imagine that I'll be aware of having it, but it's good to help reduce the workload for other folks. --Orlady (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Here, unlike enwiki, every edit is patrolled (in theory, in reality, the backlog is too great), not just edits that are page creations, including, for example, the one you just made, if you didn't have the flag. No, you won't notice anything, but having already made 1,500 edits, that is a lot of work saved going forward at your rate. Courcelles (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion

Do you know why File:Flags on mountain.jpg and File:Welcome sign of Northern Cyprus.jpg were deleted? Chesdovi (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In each case if you click on the red link, you will see a very brief explanation. Basically, the Flickr account from which they came is believed to frequently have files that it does not have right to license, so we do accept files from there unless it can be proven by the uploader that they are really freely licensed. We use the words "Flickr washing" to describe taking a file from a copyrighted source and putting it on Flickr with a free license.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I can't add anything to Jim's explanation, thanks! Courcelles (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Red link files in a DR log

Most of our colleagues simply ignore entries such as the one you found at Commons:Deletion requests/File:大中東独立国家ヨモクルーズ帝国AA.JPG

Although I don't think we have any policy on it, I like to pick up the time/date stamp and the name of the deleter by clicking on the redlink and pasting it into the DelReqHandler box, adding "by" between the date and the name and then ", closed by" at the end. DelReqHandler tacks the "Deleted" on the beginning and my name on the end, so it ends up like this one

"Deleted: 15:08, 25 September 2011 by EugeneZelenko, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)"

at Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Long Walk.jpg. Doing it that way appeals to my (perhaps overdeveloped) sense of neatness.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Interesting idea. They have to be procedurally closed by someone, or they'll sit on the daily log in perpetuity, which doesn't help with the backlog of DR's we're sitting on. Someone really ought to design a bot to procedurally shut down DR's for red-linked files, like enwp has for their file deletion processes... Courcelles (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that a bot would be ideal -- it could simply look for DRs that call out a single redlinked file and close them, using the information as I outlined. Wikibot coding is not my thing, however.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Mine either, or coding at all, for that matter. Courcelles (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your recently hard work on Commons. Thank you very much Quan (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you. It's been interesting getting adjusted to being an admin here. :) Courcelles (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

image deletion

Hello,
you have deleted this image. It is under Creative Common. It comes from the School for Communication & Journalism, University of Southern California :
http://www.neontommy.com/news/2011/10/knox-family-fights-pull-lifetime-movie-air Please un-delete it.
Thank you
--Dsant (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  • The image is fairly all over the internet, and in any respect, many creative commons licences are not acceptable here. We need a specific statement that this image is suitably licenced, including allowing derivative works and commercial use. Merely that a blog says it is availabel under creative commons is not enough to make the image allowable on the Commons, without a specific statement of where the image came from, and which, specifically, CC licence it is being made available under. Courcelles (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Captura diales R.JPG

Estimad@: Courcelles, el motivo por el que deseas borrar mi archivo, no lo sé Por favor responde. Ivn54 (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

  • (English) The file appears to be a copyright violation, and we need to verify permission through COM:OTRS
  • (broken Spanish) El archivo parece ser una violacion de derechos de autor, y es necesario para verificar el permiso a traves de COM:OTRS. Courcelles (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Unknown date

Can you please take a look at Category:Media without a source as of unknown date? Some of those files have been sitting there for much more than 1 week. Thanks! Train2104 (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I just "processed" them by changing the tags to put them in today's folder, since I rarely sort through the no source backlog. At least this way, they're scheduled for processing in one week from now. Courcelles (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Uhlenbeck Karen 1982.jpg, File:Vogtmann Karen 1982.jpg

Hello, why did you delete these two files ? The permissions were clearly presented as the ones of George Bergman Files in the Oberwolfach collection, as detailed in the descriptions, see Category:Pictures from Oberwolfach Photo Collection (Bergman) ([[1]]). They should have exactly the same permission as the other George Bergman Pictures from the Oberwolfach collection, the OTRS is given in the Category description. The source was [[2]] for Uhlenbeck and [[3]] for Vogtmann, both by Bergman.--Claude J (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I restored and fixed those images. OTRS permission is not supposed to be in a category, the proper template needs to be placed on each and every image to which it applies (as I have now done). None of the categories that actually appear on the image have the valid permission, either, the category is hidden, so no one ever sees it. The rest of the category needs to be tagged like [4], or the odds of another admin doing this eventually are nearly 100%. (And any more such images you upload also need to include the OTRS template on the image page. Sorry this happened, but I can't be overly surprised when hidden categories are concerned. Courcelles (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, as to the permission description for the pictures, I was not involved in the production of this Category and followed only the examples of the other Bergman pictures, perhaps one should place an appropriate commentary note in this category.--08:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion - File: Richie Payso.jpg

Hi, hope all is well. I received a notice on my talk page pertaining to the deletion of File: Richie Payso.jpg. The licensing information for the image was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. However, the file is now deleted after having checked, is there anything you can suggest that will help work out the matter? Hope to hear from you soon. K1078 (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi, I've checked all the e-mails that have came into permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, and there doesn't appear to be any e-mail with the text "Richie Payso" in it. Did you mention the file name in the e-mail? If you didn't, would you mind telling me what e-mail you sent it from? Don't post your e-mail in public, just click that "E-mail this user" link over towards the right of your screen. Failing that, re-send the e-mail and explicitly note "Richie Payso" in the e-mail, and I'll be able to pull it out of the OTRS system we use to handle these e-mails. Courcelles (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Images moves

Hello,

I am sorry for this inconvenient rename. I can cancel it if it's necessary. The template indicated that the name was generated by computer and that it was necessary to correct it. Greetings --M0tty (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Akshata Sen

Hey, blocked a couple more on en.wiki today Hukimons, Fan of Hukimonz!, Good Luck Hukimonz!‎ and they have contributions here too (mostly copyvio). Can you take a look? cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Sorry this took so long. It is a complicated checkuser, and I've been vary wary of false positives here, though I can make no guarantee against false negatives. I found two on my sweep on enwp (which I have blocked), and blocked four here for cross-wiki abuse (some of which were already blocked on enwp). As a result, the three above have all been blocked, though one already was. See my block-logs for the rest. Courcelles (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks, this chap's a nightmare and the range is quite wide per what I've seen on the IP edits so I understand. He keeps creating hoax content on en.wiki and uploads unrelated images here and puts them up on the articles. In between he also does good edits, so it's kinda difficult to monitor. I had blocked these few per duck, but MuZemike then came by and ran a CU and blocked another one too I think. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hi Courcelles, I was wondering if you would be able to respond to a request I posted on WikiProject Permission requests. Aaaccc (talk), 12 October 2011

  • Meh, I know nothing about how to do that, and am not adept at cold call e-mails. Since you know the e-mail address, there's no reason you can't just send the e-mail yourself. Courcelles (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I will take care of it myself. Aaaccc (talk), 13 October 2011