User talk:Fæ/2011

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.

File:Android_tablet_pc.jpg

Hi, Fæ, I got the image from flicker http://www.flickr.com/photos/virtual_village_us/5342187590/, i think the image is ok for any kind of use, is there anything i can do to get it back? Thanks --ForrestTsao

You can raise it at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests where it would be independently reviewed. Thanks, -- (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Huayang

I had originally provided the wrong Flickr info for File:Huayang_BHQ_6361B.jpg, but it's been corrected now. Thanks, Mr.choppers (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've re-tagged as verified. -- (talk) 09:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories

A user (SuperTank17) has changed all the categories of many Eastern European cars, and is working to cover all of them. Problems include incredibly narrow categories (Category:Fiat 126 elx Maluch Town Happy End (no. 0175) is my favorite), confusing overcategorization that often doubles back on itself. Other interesting things are titles such as this one: Category:Škoda 120 L (1987 - 1988)/120 LS (1986 - 1987)/120 GLS (1986 - 1987)/120 GL (1986 - 1988)/120 LX (1986 - 1987)/130 (1986 - 1988)/135 (1987 - 1988)/136 (1987 - 1988). Here is an example of what he did to Polski Fiat 125p, feel free to click through. Unfolded in its entirety, this category tree currently covers 294 lines (it used to work fine with fifteen):


There is an ongoing discussion here: Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/11/Category:Polski Fiat 125p MR'75/MR'76/MR'77/MR'78/MR'79/MR'80/MR'81/MR'82, please feel free to join in. Mr.choppers (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll hang back and see if someone can quote the relevant established consensus on granularity (I'm not sure it exists). -- (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Bedtime_reading.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Bedtime_reading.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

80.187.106.188 18:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you thought of logging in? -- (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Leave Gamal with your dad.png

Can you please review the image to confirm that its license is valid so I can use it. Thanks -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Kite festival in Santiago Sacatepequez.jpg

Sorry for entering the wrong source. This has now been corrected. Thanks. Arjuno3 (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

File:1977_Egyptian_Bread_Riots.png

Can you please explain to BomBom why the picture should not be deleted. I starting to get tired of having to defend almost every picture I upload. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Added my 2p worth. There seems to be a lot of literalism and lack of good faith about... stick with it. Cheers -- (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

File:T92 profile.gif

Can you explain? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the author is unknown and the date given is presumably the date the image was created rather than when the drawing was made. Consequently there is no evidence that the copyright holder of the work (probably the author) has given permission for a free release. If the drawing was created by you, then you could make that a clear declaration in the information box and it would then be obvious that the attribution for the CC-BY-SA license should be for yourself. -- (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:File Tagging File:Hussein_Chalayan_wallpaper.jpg

Hello, I'm a little confused. I uploaded this image from flickr and the source is already provided. Here you will see that it is under CC-BY. Turco85 (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes the photographer has released their photo copyright, however the photo is purely an image of the wallpaper for which he is not the copyright holder of the design and so cannot provide a free release of such a faithful reproduction (albeit a poor quality one). -- (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Oda Slobodskaya.jpg

Dont refer to OTRS tickets please, people cant read them. The photo is signed by the author, who is the author? --Martin H. (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought that the wording was clear though you are welcome to suggest an alternative, the OTRS ticket is to verify the correspondence relating to the sourcing of the image. Your assumption that the signature is that of the photographer is incorrect, it is her signature as one might find on any celebrity photo given out to fans (compare to other photos such as those on http://www.cantabile-subito.de/Sopranos/Slobodskaya__Oda/slobodskaya__oda.html). I have clarified that on the image page. Thanks -- (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Or it is a photo from the same studio and therefore has a similar writing on it. The signature is on the typical position of photographers signatures on such cards, I dont think it is a signature of the subject. --Martin H. (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Personally I tend to assume good faith whenever possible with declarations via OTRS. Your assumption that this is not her signature and then assuming that the identical signature on photographs taken more than 10 years apart must be an intrusive signature of the photographer seems a tenuous and unlikely reason to challenge a public domain photograph dating from before the 1930s. If you wish to continue this path of what I would consider to be bad faith, you are free to raise a request on the OTRS noticeboard for an independent OTRS agent to contact the photograph owner for a further clarification or to ask for opinions based on images of her signature easily found elsewhere on the internet (see, for example, this third image link), but I shall not be rushing to do this as I believe my correspondence was sufficient in this case. Thanks -- (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Bad faith? You not have any evidence and I not have any evidences too, but I disagree with the decleration that something is someones signature just because it is written on a photo of that person. Boris Becker did not sign this image, right? The signature on File:Oda Slobodskaya.jpg is placed where the photographers signature is usually placed, it is not readable, possibly it is a photorapher signature. Anyone who knows what signature this is will be able to identify it. Therefore, as long as not someone confirms what it is, the photograph is not anoynmous, the information what is written there is essential to determine the copyright status. You compare File:Oda Slobodskaya.jpg with http://www.rgrossmusicautograph.com/237-65.html - there is no similarity. Comparing File:Oda Slobodskaya.jpg with the third image in http://www.cantabile-subito.de/Sopranos/Slobodskaya__Oda/slobodskaya__oda.html brings also nothing new, the signature in the lower right of the third image there is most likely a photographer signature (unless Slobodskaya is written with 2x 'i'). You evidence that this is the persons signature is a guess, right? Old photographs are not covered by en:Wikipedia:Contact_us/Photo_submission, but obviously if such a work is submitted, all information must be assesed. What did the sender say about the signature, what examination was done? --Martin H. (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't really want to debate it, I can plainly see that the "Sl" form in the three photographs is caligraphically identical and consequently I believe you are arguing for the sake of it which I find disappointing considering your status on Commons. If you wish to pursue this point feel free to raise a request on the OTRS noticeboard or force the issue by creating a deletion request, though in my opinion such actions are unwarranted and set a poor precedent of nitpicking over out of copyright photos for tenuous reasons that go against the intention of the COM:PRP. -- (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I just wish that the procedure of en:Wikipedia:Contact_us/Photo_submission is exactly followed and not that photo submission is used as an pseudo-source for images of unclear origin and unclear copyright status. Since the OTRS email is not open to the public, to the regular reader this kind of upload disguise more source information than it gives and claims the OTRS being some kind of copyright instance. Obscured information is e.g. where it really comes from (publication?), what the writing means, if something is written on the backside. From a reusers perspective this upload contains no utilizable source information at all: It only says that it was sent by someone to some system in 2011 and that this system can confirm you that it has been sent from someone to the system in 2011. I seeked your help as an OTRS agent here and aks to fix this problem and how to get answers. --Martin H. (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, I am the OTRS volunteer that verified the user submission request, I challenged the two photographs submitted and ended up flatly rejecting one but then negotiating the other resulting in the release being public domain rather than a CC-BY-SA attribution to the photograph owner (not the copyright holder as it turned out). The history of negotiation and correspondence is not relevant to the image, only that such a correspondence exists and an OTRS volunteer has been reasonably convinced that there has been sufficient credibility to any statements received. I have not blindly taken the photograph without question and if you are unhappy that the situation is not clear enough because you do not trust OTRS volunteers to do the job correctly, then I have suggested you raise it for attention on the OTRS noticeboard or join OTRS and sort out problems for yourself. OTRS is not required to be an exact science and email correspondence is rarely a signed letter from the copyright holder with a supporting sworn affidavit that might then make the correspondence truly legally watertight. I consider this conversation going nowhere, if you still have a problem with my judgement in this case then take any of the 3 different paths I have suggested to escalate the issue for a second opinion. -- (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Lot of search done, all websites using images of here have one thing in common: They refer to the same book, ISBN 9780575026223. This book is available one time in german libraries. Regretably it is not open for interlibrary loan, but what a luck that I think i will visit the city where it is stored within the next months. I dont know if I will find it in the book. But If I find it I will replace that what I think is a pseudo-source with a real source= information such as scanned from ISBN 9780575026223. If I scan something from some piece of paper I have to provide source information from that piece of paper. The souce= information of such an upload (example) should provide information on where it has been scanned from, not that someone uploaded it (or sent it to OTRS and having someone else upload it, which is the same). Im looking forward to read this book and Im curious what I will find out. --Martin H. (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I was aware of the source (having created the Wikipedia article on behalf of the OTRS requester). I am visiting the British Library next week and have ordered up a copy to examine. Though it would be against the BL rules to make a decent copy of any photos (apart, possibly, for a bad photocopy) I can do a quick check to see if this photo is in the book and if there is any source explanation. Obviously if it is and you later upload an improved version in a few months then that will be to the general good. -- (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I have managed to order up a copy of Maurice Leonard's book which has a number of good quality black & white photos inserted after page 96. Most are dated before 1961 and should raise no copyright problem if scanned and loaded to Commons (there is no claim of copyright for any photographer). The book has information such as a complete commercial discography (about 15 items) which could usefully be added to the article. Interestingly none of the photos matches the one under discussion though two are signed by Slobodskaya in the same style. -- (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Great. You mean <1940, the book is from the U.K, not from the U.S., so published with or without notice does not matter for the book and for the photos they will become PD if published >70 years ago with no author disclosure. Regretably the finding does not help to replace the OTRS source (Sourcing...for the original photograph is provided by although it is not told to the public from what publication Fuller got the photo from), but so be it. *sigh* May the wrong impression that the photo magically appeared in the hands/collection of those person who ordered the photo submission survive the time. I hope that the photo submission is not used too often to provide photos that violate en:Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission point 1: you must explicitly state that you own the copyright on the photo and specify which scenario of copyright transfer applies. --Martin H. (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, 70 years. I had Crown Copyright in my head as I had previously been discussing scans of postage stamps. As for 'point 1' the photo falls under a 'work for hire' in the same paragraph. -- (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Key plan of Nestor's Palace

Hi Fæ, I just came across File:Key plan of Nestor's Palace.jpg (linked to from your Selected Image box on your en:wp user page), and am confused about its licence and copyright status. It is tagged as your own work, but appears to be a photograph of a professionally created plan, presumably at Nestor's Palace, and would I assume be under the copyright of the draughtsman who created the plan. Could you please clarify the image's copyright status? BabelStone (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

My thinking was that just as we apply FOP principles to notices and descriptive posters that are on display with artefacts in museums, this shot is of the only notice for the Nestor's Palace site and therefore is the notice for this artefact. In Greece these posters appear to be paid for by the public purse and owned by the public body that puts them in place (Greek Archaeological Service) who do not make any claim of copyright on these notices (based on the sites I have visited). I also believe this poster is unpublished, i.e. it may well have been created by the site management team to inform the public but it is not an artwork used in any guides or books. There are a lot of ifs and buts here, if there was any concern then I would tend to move it over to a FUR on Wikipedia but I think this would probably be an over-interpretation of copyright and has the drawback of the plan then not being easily available to all language Wikipedias. -- (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, those are very iffy ifs and buts, and I very much doubt that they would stand up to a deletion debate. According to COM:FOP#Greece, Greece does not have FOP (the Greek government goes so far as to claim copyright on all photos of historical monuments and archaeological artefacts, but thankfully Commons does not accept that), and in any case 2D works such as plaques and notices permanently located in a public place are only covered by FOP in a few specific countries (and, incidentally, from what it says at COM:FOP#United Kingdom I do not think that FOP would apply to "notices and descriptive posters that are on display with artefacts in museums" in the UK if they were the main focus of the picture). I am not a deletionist, and try to take a liberal interpretation of copyright issues, but I really do find it difficult to accept that this image is not under copyright, and is acceptable for use on Commons. I think that sooner or later it will be proposed for deletion; but at the very least the licensing tag is inappropriate, and I think that if you want to keep the image here you should give the reasons why you think it is PD in the image metadata. BabelStone (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree it's iffy, I have no problem with it going to deletion discussion if you feel it would help clarify the status of the image and as I have a backup plan of going with a FUR on Wikipedia, it would not cause that much disruption there. Cheers -- (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Borrado de Prince_Royce.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Prince_Royce.jpg


¿!¿Cómo puedes afirmar que ésta imagen: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lunchboxstudios/4749787715/lightbox/ es una copia de ésta otra imagen: http://alante809.com/portal/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Prince-Royce.jpg ?!? ¿En que cabeza cabe eso? Cuando claramente se puede notar que la imagen de esa segunda página que usaste como «evidencia» para eliminar la imagen de subí, tiene menos calidad que la imagen de la segunda página.
•••• Inhakito (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The point was addressed in the deletion discussion. -- (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Please give images better names

Deutsch | English | español | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | മലയാളം | македонски | Nederlands | polski | português | русский | +/−


I noticed you've uploaded File:DSCF0181.jpg and I thought I should draw your attention to a common error.

Please give uploaded images meaningful names. Otherwise they are difficult to track and it is hard to tell what the image is about without actually looking at it. I suggest you rename your image with an intuitive name that describes the image itself. Thanks, and happy editing!

Ben.MQ (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Doing a mass upload and I'm afraid that image in particular is dreadful, I'll mark it for deletion as unusable when I tidy up the batch. Thanks -- (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

File renaming requests

Hello, I've noticed that you've put up a lot of file renaming requests lately, particularly about the ones of some church. While I have no problem handling reasonable file renaming requests, for the future, can you provide an explanation as to why you want the file to be moved? Also I want to suggest that it may be better if you rename your files accordingly to how you want them before uploading them onto Commons. Kind regards, —stay (sic)! 06:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

When the original name is DSC3456.jpg or similar, I believe that an explanation is superfluous. The alternative to mass uploading some of these sets (which are not from my Flickr stream so I cannot rename the originals) would be a process 3 or 4 times longer and as a consequence I would not bother to do it at all. I will say that the St Johns set was a mistake as if I had realized so many of the files were badly titled I would have not uploaded as fixing later problems when Commons is so poorly designed to deal with simple renaming is a waste of time. Cheers -- (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Well I thought it would be easier, or more convenient, for the filemovers or the administrators to understand why you've requested a file rename if you would give a brief explanation or a reason why. —stay (sic)! 07:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Common sense applies here, where a file is named something incomprehensible such as "DSC3456.jpg", there is no expectation for trivial rationales such as "The previous file name is non-informative" when the person with the heavy duty of file rename privileges need only open their eyes and read the file name to see this is obviously so. I could add such a pointless bit of default text to my renaming request script but it would be, pointless. -- (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Some users, like me, are a bit cautious when handling incompletely filed requests. But in case you believe that common sense trumps all file renaming guidelines, then you too can be bold, and nominate yourself for filemover rights at COM:RFR. Since you seem to be a regular contributor to Commons, why not also help rename files? Just a thought. —stay (sic)! 08:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Closed this out by getting filemover rights as suggested and using them in a common sense way in relation primarily to the batch uploads I'm involved with. -- (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Squirrel sketches via Flickr upload bot

Hi Fæ, I see that you're uploading a bunch of squirrels from the Boston Public Library's Flickr account. I think all these should be corrected in a way that the author is of course not BPL but they're unknown in this case. And obviously also {{PD-1923}} and {{PD-art}} applies so their own CC license at Flickr may be irrelevant. Just a thought though, keep up the good work. De728631 (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The author point has been raised elsewhere, unfortunately it's automated as a field by Flickr upload bot, but if my own bot account gets approved I may shift over to using Flickrripper so things will look a bit different (I could fiddle a script to change these to the Creator/Contributor catalogue entry, but as it's a transient thing I'm probably better off concentrating on the new bot). I'll stick with the assumption of preserving the Flickr license is the most conservative thing to do (along with not uploading files that BPL have marked as NC even though they are old enough to ignore it, I'd rather BPL made that change on Flickr by later negotiation). PS my recent uploads will all be part of Category:Chromolithographs at Boston Public Library, there's plenty of interesting material to categorize... -- (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Homer engravings

I do not know why we upload these images with a CC license when they are clearly in the PD (author is over 100 years dead)? --ALE! ¿…? 06:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

OTRS

Why? An OTRS permission was received after all. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just re-setting the clock while I look at it and the statement "the message was not sufficient" appears factually incorrect. -- (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Al Thoura.jpg and Thoura.svg

Hi there. Sorry to bother you but I have a little problem and I thought you could help me. Both images have been nominated for deletion because "seems to be private artwork, widespread use of such an emblem by the arab protesters is not confirmed" so can you please explain to Antemister that it not a good reason to delete an image, thanks in advance -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The images would be in-scope if they can be claimed to have possible educational value. If they use icons of interest elsewhere, such as examples of the fist in protest symbols, then they are definitely in scope. I suggest you formally release the copyright using OTRS (write to permissions(at)wikimedia.org per en:WP:CONSENT) as often having a ticket puts people off a deletion argument. I'll think about it and may add to the discussion a bit later. -- (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Commons-emblem-issue.svg 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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Lilyu (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:The National Archives (United Kingdom)

I created that category to match the commonscat link that was already existing in the main article en:The National Archives (United Kingdom). I am happy to defer to how you think this should be structured. Let me know if you want me to update my templates. - PKM (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry for the confusion; I did assume that the commonscat link (to an empty category, at the time) was TNA's preferred choice. I'm happy to undo my changes if needed. Just let me know. It's small enough now that reversing things by hand wouldn't take long. - PKM (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

File:SavondeMarseille.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:SavondeMarseille.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

(talk) 20:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

How could you used a speedy delete about a simple picture of soap ? for your information, « Savon de Marseille » is not a company name, just generalist product name as whisky from scotland. So, i'm not agreed whith you decision, and ask you to do youn best to do it back. In fact, before to deleted it, you may first discuse about a eventualy delation. Véronique PAGNIER (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I raised it for speedy as it was a copyright violation according to an email received by OTRS. If you now claim to be a copyright holder, please email your evidence into OTRS. Thanks -- (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
This is not what she asked nor implied. Véronique thought the deletion was about the picture being a derivative work of copyrighted material, the soap itself − such a claim would indeed be dubious − not about the picture itself being a copyvio (which is the case). Jean-Fred (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh I see. Véronique, with a photo of soap, there would be no problem with someone taking an amateur photo and releasing it on Commons. The only problem here was that there was no release of copyright from the photographer. You should note that manufactured product photos also need to avoid including copyrighted designs which may be on the packaging and sometimes where copyright designs are on the product and not incidental to the photograph. For example a photograph of someone using a Dyson hoover would be no problem, but a close-up of the Dyson hoover logo may be treated as a copyright problem (see Category:Dyson for real examples). -- (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

trebuchet to some, catapult to others

I call this a catapult and this one is for you to use....

I appreciate that you have looked over my deletion requests -- this fact might not show in the replies so I am here to explain this with less bounded loquaciousness.

I would find the "look over" to be even more helpful if you could recommend a category. It is not a good reason to delete, perhaps, but it is a good enough reason in many respects -- when I cannot determine a category which is not a "just dump it here" category. That my reasons for nomination are not made brief in an informative enough or reason enough is probably going to be often an easy fact for anyone wishing to make an issue of it to do so is one thing. But to make an issue of the words that are used for the nomination without suggesting a good category is kind of a waste of both of our time, which is my opinion, of course, but if you are honestly of use here or at wikimedia, it very well might be an opinion that you have or should consider having.

Then and again, I get a little bored with and disgusted with myself and completely understand that this happens to others. There are plenty of more images of catapults if you need more and today a video of one was uploaded.

Putting images into categories was what the task was that caused the deletion requests. I get a little rude with my thinking, maybe, but even a metal group can have fans that do the very few things that it takes to put images of the objects of their fandom safely here and the information that is needed is or should be good for all, fans, musicians and others who have yet to hear what is so good about them, etc. Sometimes, for right or for wrong, I think that requesting that the musician images in particular be deleted is as much about the dignity of the band members and their support people.

Mostly, thanks and thanks for in the future suggesting the categories somewhere in the middle of pointing out the lameness of the requests.

And "cat"-apult. Get it? I don't want to make the mistake that what I am saying is obvious once again with you.... -- Queeg (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, raising images for deletion because they have yet to be nicely categorized is not a reason for deletion, ever. The images you have nominated often appear to have other problems such as being unused personal images with no apparent educational value or images that we can have some evidence of being under a non-free copyright, deletion nominations that take into account clear policy issues would be entirely reasonable for discussion. Thanks -- (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Lincoln"

Re: File:Abraham Lincoln aged 27.jpg (and the accompanying negative) -- I guess you uploaded these from an OTRS submission? What was the submitter's reason for thinking this had something to do with Lincoln? Wondering, Infrogmation (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Covered on the talk page. The submitter claims this was the opinion of a number of experts (named on OTRS, including someone from the New Jersey State Division International

Association for Identification; though as independent sources were not given I have not copied these on the image itself), even then we have only accepted the image as "thought to be". Due to its age the photograph has educational value in its own right, and potentially increases in educational value if this is a deliberately misleading identification. -- (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

BM category move

OK, Best regards --JMCC1 (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Help needed - resolving Flickrreview issues

User:FlickreviewR/Images never editted by their reviewer lists about 60 or so Flickr images reviewed by you as not reviewed by the claimed reviewer. The problem is because you used {{flickrreview|F&aelig;|2011-03-07}} instead of {{flickrreview|Fæ|2011-03-07}}. If you have some spare time please go through the list and fix the username in the review tag, then leave me a notice and I'll remove them from the list. I'm currently resolving issues from the top of the list, the main goal is an attempt to restore proper Flickrreview functionality (it had even issues maintaining this list as it kept adding the same image over and over, I assume a buffer overflow due to the oversize (600 KiB+) list). If you have no spare time, leave me a notice and I review them again (if possible). --Denniss (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I could cobble a script to tweak this but the reason for using &aelig; was because of problems with scripts handling æ in the standard Commons textbox. Considering the report correctly identifies my account as both the reviewer and the claimed reviewer, perhaps this problem around characters is suitable for a bot tweak? -- (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I worked through all of the images and replaced them with my review tag (if possible, two or three had the license changed). If you want to keep your review tag feel free to restore your tag but place your username without special characters. From my observation the Flickrreview bots does not like any edit to the review tag other than by the original reviewer (many reports from Slobot changing the date format), review tags not matching the reviewer's name count as invalid as well (your situation, renamed users). Do you know anyone capbable and willing to review/repair Flickrreview and asociated bots? It definitely has issues (does not check the bad authors list is the most apparent) and the creator/maintainer Bryan is inactive. --Denniss (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I know we are short on interested script writers. I have sorting out a python installation on my todo list and may come back to this when WM-UK is in a quieter period. Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg -- (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Predynastic human mummy

Hi Fæ. See Category:Predynastic human mummy, EA 32751. Best regards, --JMCC1 (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunate meaning of user name in Danish

Hi Fæ,

Normally, if I would write this greeting to a Dane, he would probably be insulted as the most common meaning of "fæ" in Danish is "fool". I just wanted to bring this unfortuante meaning to your attention in case you did not know. Personally, I am perfectly fine with the user name. As a Dane I am just tremendously happy it isn't my user name Smile. An older and less common meaning of the word fæ in Danish is something like "livestock", most well known in Danish nowadays as part of the Danish title "Folk og fæ" (people and livestock) for the BBC series "All Creatures Great and Small" with the vets. Cheers from Denmark --Slaunger (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I actually link to the definition on my Wikipedia profile. I have been called a lot worse. Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg Thanks -- (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, you knew already. At least glad to see on wiktionary that my own understanding of the word matches pretty well what is written there. If you ever need to start on a new user name, I have noticed that User:Fjols is vacant. Fjols has more or less equivalent meaning, but is much more common in everyday use in DenmarkSmile. And after that there is User:Dumrian - also vacant, I wonder why? --Slaunger (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)