Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy.
Sorry not to've responded to your message more promptly. Unfortunately, I was unable to confirm whether or not the picture was for free use, but during my research found a similar version on a NASA webpage, http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mystique/history/1600.html. Would this qualify...? Thanks, David Kernow(talk) 12:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
PS Thanks for thinking to notify me on Wikipedia as well.
No problem. I am doubtful that the image on NASA's website is in the public domain. I have, however, sent an e-mail to marsoutreach AT jpl DOT nasa DOT gov. Also, I discovered that the telescope is held at the Museo della Scienza, Florence, Italy. I do not know the relevant copyright laws in Italy, but perhaps we could get an image from our friends at the Italian Wikipedia. --Iamunknown 01:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The tidy up (& spotting the junk!) cheers --Herbytalk thyme 10:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
btw - can you really qr-em a user page (not about "here" obviously) - if you give me a reason I'd be interested, regards --Herbytalk thyme 12:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Got to be honest I am staying away a bit BUT (<g>) not completely! AFAIK Az is doing their usual thing (I am in touch with them offline about mutually interesting vandals) and I wouldn't let anything nasty happen to Wikibooks I assure you. That said I appreciate any help with the general cleanup stuff so thanks --Herbytalk thyme 19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
btw going thro new pages on Books there is a fair bit to be looked at - feel free BUT bear in mind qr-em does not work properly at pres. They get the speedy cat but do not appear there! No idea why but the queried cat then needs a manual look over to see what is a week old - nudge me if you think anything is too old --Herbytalk thyme 19:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Iamunknown, this user has been requested several times to add the authorization he assures to have or the URL where the images were taken from, you can see it here and here. He never showed the permission or the origin of the uploaded images, therefore they were deleted and then he uploaded them to the Spanish Wikiquote, also without an origin. I have asked him to send this authorization to Wikimedia before unblocking him. Anna 00:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't notice that. --Iamunknown 02:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
== Photographs by John Mueller ==
Hey Zanimum, I noticed that you worked on some of the text related to Category:John Mueller. Some of the image indicate that the permission can be viewed at Category:John Mueller. I don't see anything. Am I overlooking something? --Iamunknown 05:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I've sent the message to permissions right now, to get the tag placed on. -- Zanimum 16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thanx for your help
Hi, in reply to you question here, there do seem to be two separate copyright concerns being raised. Mine is that the original photograph of the trophy that was uploaded to Flickr was a copyrighted promotional photo and that the Flickr user wrongly claims the right to waive that copyright. Coelacan makes very valid observations in support of this. Given that Flickr appears to have no mechanism for checking its uploaders' copyright claims and that Flickr users often upload copyright material and license it freely (usually posters of celebs etc.) I don't think its safe to AGF on the part of Flickr uploaders when there's evidence to the contrary.
A second problem is the copyright in derivative works, i.e. that the creator of the trophy continues to have copyright in all images of it and its replicas. That was not my basis for objecting to the image in question, though it is a valid point. My problem with using the derivative works logic is that it applies to most of the images at Trophy and it seems unfair to select only one of those. I would prefer all relevant images to be nominated and derivative copyright to be discussed for all of them rather than "pick on" just the one. As it is the process has unfortunately clearly upset User:Thugchildz.
Hope that answers your question. WjBscribe 14:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope that VP post I just made per your request clarifies things a bit. Is there a shortcut here for that page? Hmmm? The only 'Project' mentioned had nothing to do with the category system or navigation templates here. There is a couple of collaborative quasi-projects, like Maps and some others have done interwiki tagging where I did maybe 90%. There have been some nationistic indications that some have resentments on those (WikiPcat), but that's not a formal project.
Pathoschild is apparently anti-template and even nominated a workhorse like Template:Lts(EditDiscussionlinksPage history) for deletion on Wikisource. Bringing Template sharing project (which is a project) into that discussion was just a mean spirited and low trick. Like the templates I used were doing some harm on wikisource, he/she nominated a whole bunch and I wasn't too polite on how I handled it, as no one notified me there was any discussion till late in there vfd cycle, and I ended up pulling an all nighter to address the stupid issues. Trust me... I need all the beauty rest I can get at my age. (Well, even thirty years ago, since you're rude enough to think THAT and I agree! <g>)
In any event, breaking that discussion into topical sections was the best way to go, so I hope it suits you. TTFN // FrankB 04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I have undeleted this. I was the creator and I did not see any notice that someone wanted to speedy it, I'm not sure why you think it should have been... I think it is useful. If you disagree, let's do a regular deletion discussion. ++Lar: t/c 05:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
To be quite honest, I'm quite confused regarding its utility. Why is it useful to have an exact duplicate of Wikimedia logo mosaic? I'd love to hear your reasons. --Iamunknown 06:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This way when an admin is about to delete an image used in the mosaic, he sees that obnoxious message (since you see which galleries use an image) and replaces the image in the mosaic. Yonatantalk 06:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for voting in my RFA. I've been too busy at work do any Admin stuff yet, but will make a start soon. --MichaelMaggs 19:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
If you created this image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
I create this image, but the non-watermarked version was deleted from my computer. Alx 91
Iamunknown, many thanks for your suggestions about my uploadings in Wikimedia Commons. I shall do my best to ask for the admitted share licenses. Faithfully, --Grifomaniacs 22:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: speedy delete of flickreview failed
Per , see  where if it's not reviewed in two weeks of the upload date, then it can only be deleted if it is used. This image is used, so we can't speedy delete it. It's not even clear if we send through deletion request if it should be deleted. MECU≈talk 19:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
MECU, am I missing something? It looks to me like it was reviewed within an hour after being uploaded. Why is the image not eligible for speedy deletion? --Iamunknown 01:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
No, apparently I'm missing my brain. I must have thought that you reviewed it in April when it was uploaded in Jan. I've deleted the image. Sorry for my error. MECU≈talk 01:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Why do you want to delete this picture. The link given in the permission tag grants free access to this picture. Graouilly54 11:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
It provides "free access" to the picture, but free access is not the same as a free content. I could find no mention that the image is licensed for unrestricted commercial reuse and derivative works. Is it licensed, that is, explicitly written in text, as such? --Iamunknown 16:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no strict license, is only written that free access is granted. Hence, the university still owns the copyrights but provides free access to the picture. The picture can thus be used but no modification is allowed since it is not specified. Graouilly54 11:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately that is not true. You may wish to read Commons:Licensing which has a lot of information and is quite up-to-date and often-used. A particular statement under the section "Scope of Licensing" reads, "Note that the License for all aspects has to be determined and mentioned explicitly" which indicates that, though the University grants "free access", unless they explicitly disclaim all rights to the image or unless they explicitly grant the image under a free license, we cannot use it. I see no indication that they have done that. --Iamunknown 14:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: PhilLesh image
Hmm, you are most correct. I had not noticed the time frame (which is unusual as I usually check that first).. I will delete, yes. Thank you for pointing that out : ) -- Editor at Large • talk 00:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Iamunknown, thanks a lot for finding and fixing the image link  :-) --Überraschungsbilder 22:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome, Iamunknown 23:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You are of course completely correct, I just don't have the time to do it but (as you will have seen) part 2 will be around after I get back (unless someone gets to it before). I know our views differ on this one but other opinion are always of interest to me - cheers --Herbytalk thyme 07:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I didn't actually comment on the proposal (I think you might what that comment would be ;)), but when I saw that comment, I had to rebut it ... grr, I don't like the idea that administrators are a separate class of users. There is so much that can be done that people think only administrators can do that really everyone can do (minus, of course, blocking, protecting and deleting). --Iamunknown 20:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Copyright violation Bulgarian banknotes
Hi, I saw that you consider my uploading of images of Bulgarian banknotes as a copyright violation. However, I think what I did is within the permission given on the Bulgarian National Bank's website. I saved this page , (or, if you want, part of this page ) and then uploaded it without altering or distorting the material. I disagree with your interpretation that "without altering or distorting" means that creating a derivate work is not permitted, and that what I did is equivalent to creating a derivate work (i.e. an "original work of authorship"). Preslav 11:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that we, or anyone else, can't then make or alter the items at all. This would be the equivalent of a "no derivative works" on a Creative Commons license, for which we do not allow as it is not sufficiently free. MECU≈talk 12:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Preslav, I know that you neither altered nor distorted the images, but that is unfortunately not the reason that I nominated the images for speedy deletion. I nominated them for speedy deletion because, as a matter of copyright, everyone is forbidden from altering or distorting them and is forbidden from creating derivative works of them. For more information regarding what is acceptable to Wikimedia Commons, please see Commons:Licensing, in particular the section titled "acceptable licenses". --Iamunknown 00:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I've ordered the book any further information needed I will present to you. --ArmeniGen 00:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Good to see you and hope all is well? Maybe take a look here when you have time - cheers --Herbytalk thyme 07:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)