User talk:Hoary

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Hoary!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

File:Lastdaysofthearctic.jpeg[edit]

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Lastdaysofthearctic.jpeg|base=Image permission}} mabdul 16:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

When I uploaded the file, I stated as clearly (and moreover in as conventional a form as possible) that it was a derivative of a file already in Commons. I linked to that file. Here it is. It says: The permission for use of this work has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system. It is available as ticket #2010120110006807 for users with an OTRS account. So what more should I have done? -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. I don't know if you checked the history of the image. I removed immediately the permission tag after I recognized that it was only a derivate and that has an OTRS ticket. Sadly that I missed to remove the notice on that page. My fault. mabdul 14:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, thank you for coming back here and reassuring me that all's well after all. (Incidentally, I've "nowiki'd out" your first message above, so that it doesn't add anything to any category.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Rolls Royce Corniche.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Rolls Royce Corniche.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)‎ | +/−

Alexf (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Fosco Maraini & Famiglia.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Fosco Maraini & Famiglia.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)‎ | +/−

Túrelio (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Atlas.of.War.and.Tourism.jpeg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:File:Atlas.of.War.and.Tourism.jpeg 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)‎ | +/−

-- Ies (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

A note for anyone who comes along later and wonders: I was right all along. -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

That's me. I'm untrustworthy,[edit]

It's not that I or anyone else here doesn't trust you -- after all, one of our prime directives is to "assume good faith". It is that the license review process creates a legal record, admissible in court, that an independent third party (it's often a bot for Flickr images) has verified that the image was licensed in a particular way at a particular time. Since people running web sites and those posting to Flickr do change licenses from time to time it is essential that we be able to prove that the image had a particular license at a particular time. The uploader, who has a vested interest in keeping the image, cannot be as convincing a witness as a third party, so every upload from an a Web site with a free license, even uploads made by Admins, should be license reviewed by a third party. I don't do many uploads other than my own images (and those from the US Coast Guard), but all of those I have done have been reviewed by another Admin, just as yours will be. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. But the need for (or strong desirability of) this template should be pointed out (or should be pointed out more conspicuously) during the uploading process. (For that matter, its addition might as well be automated.) I don't much mind having a file I uploaded deleted, as I have a thick skin (thanks not least to years of editing Wikipedia) and am pretty sure I can get it resuscitated (thanks to ditto); but if I were new to this I think I'd be likely to become a lot less enthusiastic about uploading. -- Hoary (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You're also right, but please understand that in some respects Commons is hanging on by the skin of its teeth -- we get more than 10,000 new images every day. We delete more than 1,500, but only about 25 Admins actually do 90% of the work. There's often a month's backlog both in DRs here and at OTRS. There are many things that should be done here -- being friendlier to newbies is certainly a priority. I, and most of my colleagues, try to do that one-on-one when the case arises -- as here -- but fail generally. I wish the whole DR process were revamped, so that instead of seeing a "DELETION REQUEST", a newbie might see a "Request for Status Review" or something less threatening -- and so forth. BTW, I know you're a 50,000 edit Admin on WP:EN, but you're still pretty new here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)