User talk:John Vandenberg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from User talk:Jayvdb)
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive No. 1

Contents

[edit] IndiaFM images

Hello John, this is Rahul. I am a bit busy right now but I will upload the images when I have time. After uploading the images, I will reply back to your mail. I have some questions regarding the IndiaFM images. First, when I upload the images here on Wikimedia Commons, do I just include the "OTRS" pending tag or do I also have to include the licence tag that Riana established regarding the IndiaFM images? Second, after you approve the images, do I again have to upload them on Wikipedia or I can just enter the image name in the "image" part of the actors' infoboxes? Thanks for you help with this matter!! --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 03:23, 6 April 2008

When you upload them, also add "{{Cc-by-3.0-IndiaFM}}" in addition to "{{OTRS pending}}". You will not need to upload them again to Wikipedia. Images on the Commons project are instantly available on all projects. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
John, just to let you know that I am currently tied up with exams. Is it okay if I upload the pics roughly by the end of this week, which is when my exams are done?? I am notifying you because I don't want you to keep on waiting for me to upload the images and think that I am not going to upload them. Hope there are no problems!! --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 16:04, 7 April 2008
No worries. There is no rush. Take your time and concentrate on the exams. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks buddy, I really appreciate it!! I have another question I needed to ask. After I upload the images, can I add it directly to the actors' pages or do I have to wait until you approve of them first? Regards --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 18:07, 10 April 2008
Wait until I approve them, in order to minimise the exposure of the images, otherwise random people will think they need to bring the images to the attention of others. I'll try to approve them asap; feel free to drop me an email so I know when you have uploaded them. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey John, I have finally uploaded all the images specified in the e-mail with the "OTRS pending" tag. Please take a look at them when you have time. After you approve them, I will add the images on the actors' pages. I have responded to the e-mail you sent me by "permissions@wikimedia.org" and I sent another e-mail to your account so you would have one copy for yourself. Thanks for your help with this!! P.S. Please do not forgot to add the link for the OTRS permission for the individual image in the permission section. Regards --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 02:39, 13 April 2008
You have caught me on a busy day.. as soon as I have finished writing my new article for today (and closed 100 odd tabs) I will get on with this. (so, sometime within the next 24 hrs) John Vandenberg (chat) 06:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem John!! Take your time!! I have a question. User:Lucasbfr‎ removed the "OTRS pending" tag and did something. Does that mean the images have been approved? I tried to get in contact with him but he doesn't have a talk page on Commons. He just has one on Wikipedia. --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 21:04, 13 April 2008
Yes, Lucasbfr has done them all while I was asleep (literally). John Vandenberg (chat) 23:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elijah Wood

I apologize for not responding sooner as I rarely log on to commons. That Elijah Wood picture was NOT a copyright violation. I don't know how you came up with that conclusion as it was licensed as self made. That picture was cropped. In the original picture, I'm actually standing right next to him, as in all the pictures of celebrities which I have uploaded. --Dysepsion 02:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded the original photo here: http://www.geocities.com/jabad513/elijah_wood.jpg. I've blacked out my face for privacy concerns. The picture was taken at a convention in which Elijah Woods appeared at. The person who made the complaint should've realized that there were dozens and dozens of people who took pictures with him. If you notice in the picture in the blog, you can see the person's fingers on his shoulder, whereas in my picture there isn't. I hope this clarifies it. --Dysepsion 06:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I can see how the mistake was made. --Dysepsion 19:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Woody Guthrie

Hello. I noticed Image:10 of the Woody Guthrie songs - Bed on your floor.png which you uploaded is dated to 1946, but listed as predating 1923. Something is clearly wrong there, please correct the information if you can. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It has been caused by selecting {{PD-US}} in commonist (which is fine), and commonist also adding the pre-1923 message in the information block. The finer details can be found on Image:20040823 Jibjab Copyright Scans.pdf, which is listed as the source for all of those images. These have been found to be PD in a US court[1]. I'll clean this up when I come back online. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd Batch of IndiaFM images

Hello John, this is Rahul once again. I uploaded the second batch of the IndiaFM images, which consisted of 8 images, sometime last week, yet I haven't received any kind of response from the OTRS. Could you please take a look at them when you have time. I would greatly appreciate it. Regards -- Bollywood Dreamz Talk 16:55, 8 May 2008

Do you have an OTRS number ? John Vandenberg (chat) 23:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean? I don't really get your question. OTRS number for what?? -- Bollywood Dreamz Talk 19:20, 10 May 2008

[edit] Image:Attorney General Gonzales' Resignation Letter to Bush.jpg

‪Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‬ | Български | Česky | Deutsch | ‪Deutsch (Sie-Form)‬ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Svenska | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by sz-iwbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Sz-iwbot) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Sz-iwbot 02:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Les Fourberies de Scapin

Hi John,

We have a 100%.png text of s:fr:Les Fourberies de Scapin on fr.ws but no scans. On Internet Archive I can see they have djvus files here or here including that play and other interesting ones. What can the bot do and what will we have to do by hand? Thank you for your advice and for your help! --Zyephyrus (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded one set : "The plays of Molière - Waller". Those books should be set up on French and English Wikisource. I can upload any pages. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
John, thank you very very much! This would be a bilingual project, wouldn't it? How could we organize it? - --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You build an index on your side, and discourage transcription of the English pages, and en.ws will do the same, discouraging transcription of the French. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I have built an index and prepared a page for the play Les Fâcheux (pages 350 to 412 in the djvu). We have actions specific for French texts: are there some of them that your bot could do?- --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Maplebrook School.jpeg

The copyright holder sent this e-mail to wikimedia last week:

"Dear permissions-commons,

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK "image:Maplebrook School.jpeg"( which was deleted from Wikimedia on June 14,2008). I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE FULL Text. I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product,and to modify it according to their needs,as long as they abide the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work,and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen .Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright,and I reserve the option to take action who uses this work in a libelous way,or in violation of personal rights,trademark restrictions,etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement,and the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

July 1.2008 Roger Fazzone Copyright holder"

Could you please put the image back up now? Thanks in advance...LedRush (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

[edit] DR Image:Grimme_online_award_2005.jpg

Hi John, thanks for closing this Deletion request. However, the DR template's still at the image: Image:Grimme_online_award_2005.jpg / maybe you mixed it up with the new picture I've received in addition? Thanks for having a look. --Elya (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. I did look for a delete template, but I couldnt see it for looking at it. It has now been removed. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MD-RGB.gif_.26_Image:MD-RGB.gif

Hi John, I'm just following up on the above two images. I see that we never got a responce to the tickets via OTRS. you can see the entire conversation here Commons_talk:Licensing#Image:MD-RGB.gif_.26_Image:MD-RGB.gif. Thanks, -- J.smith (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advise about Commonist

hi! i'm trying to use Commonist in my own wiki.

i have configured the tool but i have some problem editing the files that i have copied to the family folder.

if my website is sol.com for example

i put at sol.family file:

name: sol
shortcut: s

but then at the sol.site file i put:

# identification
family: sol

# network
protocol:       http://sol.com
hostName:       
rawPath:        /w/index.php
prettyPath:     /wiki/
apiPath:        /w/api.php

can you please tell me what i put in this four last lines ?

thanx! --Biris (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I recently set it up to work with my own wiki; I'll leave a comment on your talk page tomorrow. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
http://Sol.com doesnt look like a Wiki, so I cant figure out what the values should be. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maxwell: On Governors

Hi John, I found your upload of what seems to be a TeX Version of the original Article On Governors and linked it the the English and German wikipedias. Could you upload the TeX source as well? It would make quotations from the original article that much easier! -- DrJunge (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I didnt create this PDF. I have started to reconstruct it using Wiki syntax at s:On Governors. --John Vandenberg (chat) 06:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We meet again :))

Hello John, this is Rahul!! It's been a long time since I last talked to you!! How are you doing?? Previously, you helped me by tagging all of the IndiaFM images and I was wondering if you could help me with this situation again. I have uploaded a total of four images and have already sent an e-mail to the OTRS regarding this. If you have time, could you please take a look at them. I have included the link of the images below so it is easier for you to locate them: (Image:Kapoor on NB4.jpg, Image:Kapoor on SaReGaMaPa 07.jpg, Image:Kapoor on SRGMP Challenge 07.jpg & Image:Genelia D'Souza.jpg) Thanks for your help with this matter!! Best Regards -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 17:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have done this now. Thank you for persevering with this. Regards, John Vandenberg (chat) 06:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much John!!! :)) Best Regards -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 02:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
No worries. Let me know when you have more you want processed! John Vandenberg (chat) 06:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OTRS

Hello John. I have uploaded 3 Images Image:Richard Crasta2.jpg‎, Image:Richard Crasta3.jpg‎, and Image:Richard Crasta.jpg‎. I have also sent the mail on the OTRS server. I was wondering if you could check them. If you are willing then,

Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shouldn't this be at WikiSource?

Hi,

I came across a .pdf text file uploaded at Commons in September (Maltbie Davenport Babcock Memorial Service Leaflet.pdf). It's still in upload purgatory and can only be accessed at en-Wiki as an external link (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Maltbie_Davenport_Babcock_Memorial_Service_Leaflet.pdf): doesn't this belong at WikiSource anyway, not here? JGHowes talk - 05:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The process from here is roughly:
  1. Keep the PDF
  2. Convert it to a DJVU, using Any2djvu
  3. Upload the DJVU to Commons
  4. Create a "transcription project" on Wikisource (grab me and I can help you with that)
  5. Proofread it
  6. Update links in Wikipedia.
John Vandenberg (chat) 06:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Media needing catgories

Hi, I have seen for example Image:A_grammar_of_the_Bohemian_or_Cech_language.djvu that does not have a link to a category. From your gallery I have seen thet there are very many uncaterorized files. That makes it difficult to find them. Only a search using a word you have given in the description will give a result. On the page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JVbot is mentioned a similar comment by a bot. But as bots can't read the message you wrote on that page, I mention it here. Could you please add categories to your files? Thanks Wouter (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

These djvu files are added automatically by a bot which cant know how to classify them. Also, they do not need to be found here as these files are used on Wikisource, were every word in the books are index by search engines, so they are very easy to find. See here. Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 09:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much about the explanation. I have now put a question in Village pump What about linking to a category in Commons for djvu files?
My opinion as mentioned there is "One conclusion is that the bot should not add these files to Commons and the present djvu files should be deleted from Commons. If these files should be at Commons BotMultichillT should not tag these these files with "Please link images".". This is just to inform you and may be you can give your opinion there. Thanks and best regards Wouter (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Andrew Murray picture

العربية | Asturianu | ‪Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‬ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | Euskara | فارسی | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | ‪Norsk (nynorsk)‬ | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Andrew_Murray.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Kam Solusar (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have asked the original uploader at de:Benutzer_Diskussion:KHKauffmann#Andrew_Murray_picture
John Vandenberg (chat) 12:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans | العربية | ‪Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‬ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | ‪Deutsch (Sie-Form)‬ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Српски / Srpski | Svenska | தமிழ் | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−

Hello, John Vandenberg!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 05:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] TUSC token 7ef2c44ebc5736e7a65330529cf8e25a

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! (again!?) John Vandenberg (chat) 11:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:First Baptist Church of Augusta aerial.jpg may be deleted

Català | Česky | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Magyar | 日本語 | Македонски | Nederlands | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | +/−
The First Baptist Church of Augusta aerial.jpg which you uploaded has been tagged {{OTRS pending}} for more than 30 days. This tag indicates that an email setting out permission to use the file was sent to the OTRS team. Unfortunately, we cannot find any record that such an email has been received, and accordingly the file remains without permission. Unless the OTRS team receives evidence that permission has been granted within 15 days of today's date, the file will be deleted. If you have already sent the permission, please re-send it to "permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org" now. Please quote the file name in your email. At the same time, please leave a message at the OTRS noticeboard so that a volunteer can follow this up. Alternatively, you can contact an OTRS volunteer directly.

HersfoldOTRSBot(talk/opt out) 15:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have requested an update from the person who sent these two images to me. Feel free to delete if the time has elapse. I can always undelete if the permission arrives. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:First Baptist Church of Augusta snow.jpg may be deleted

Català | Česky | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Magyar | 日本語 | Македонски | Nederlands | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | +/−
The First Baptist Church of Augusta snow.jpg which you uploaded has been tagged {{OTRS pending}} for more than 30 days. This tag indicates that an email setting out permission to use the file was sent to the OTRS team. Unfortunately, we cannot find any record that such an email has been received, and accordingly the file remains without permission. Unless the OTRS team receives evidence that permission has been granted within 15 days of today's date, the file will be deleted. If you have already sent the permission, please re-send it to "permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org" now. Please quote the file name in your email. At the same time, please leave a message at the OTRS noticeboard so that a volunteer can follow this up. Alternatively, you can contact an OTRS volunteer directly.

HersfoldOTRSBot(talk/opt out) 15:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Flag from gallery

Hi. I would like to ask you to withdraw Flag of Hungary (WFB 2004).gif from your gallery, and admit destroying that image to me. The colours of that flag are improper, and there are other versions of the Hungarian flags in the Commons, the oversupply of the flags can make some inconvenience. I hope for your answer. Orion 8 (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I will not. That image was published by the CIA in the 2004 edition of its World Fact Book. You are free to annotate it to indicate that it had errors, but it is a free and published work which is used by the Wikisource reproduction of the WFB. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
All right, not an exigent problem. Orion 8 (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Jhr.Dr. O.F.A.H.vNtP.jpg's permission still unconfirmed

Hello, John Vandenberg. The file linked to in the above header has been marked with {{OTRS received}}, but there has been no complete confirmation of its permission status in the last 30 days. From what I'm able to tell, you were the person who added this template. Would you mind taking a look at this again? If confirmation cannot be found, this file should probably be marked for deletion. This should be the only notification you will receive regarding this image, so long as the comment I added to the image description page is not altered. Thanks! HersfoldOTRSBot(talk/opt out) 16:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are not an OTRS volunteer or did not add the "received" template to this file, it's possible I made a mistake identifying the correct user. I look for the most recent diff where the template was added, so if you reverted an edit where this template was removed, I can't tell the difference. If this is the case, please let my operator know at w:en:User talk:Hersfold. Sorry for the inconvenience!

This is being dealt with at Commons:Deletion requests/File:A.J.M.vNtP.jpg.
John Vandenberg (chat) 05:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Statutes at Large Volume 1 split files

Just directing your attention to Commons:Deletion requests/Statutes at Large Volume 1 split files. I presume you have no objection. Tarmstro99 (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Firefox UniversalXPConnect privilege confirmation on Google Books.png

Hello John, I've nominated the linked file as a copyright violation because it contains elements of copyrighted software (the Windows interface, that is). See you around, –blurpeace (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] De-adminship warning

Deutsch | Español | Italian

Dear John Vandenberg. I am writing to you to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you – Kwj2772 (msg) 02:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] We need your help at the Wikiproject medicine

Rod of asclepius.png

Hello, Sorry for spaming your talk page, but this is very important. On the behalf of the Wikiproject medicine at the en.wikipedia, I am inviting you to be a part of the discussion going on the project's talk page about Patient images, The discussion started after I obtained a permission to more than 23000 dermatology related images, and about 1500 radiology images. As some editors of the Wikiproject medicine have some concerns regarding the policy of using patient images on wikipedia, and regarding patient consents. Also they believe that common's policy is not so clear regarding the issue. And since you are the experts please join us at this very important discussion -- MaenK.A.Talk 14:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


[edit] File:Human Wrecking Balls.png

File deletion warning File:Human Wrecking Balls.png 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 | ‪Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‬ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | ‪Deutsch (Sie-Form)‬ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | 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 | Slovenščina | Српски / Srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−

--99of9 (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Petting, etc

Hi. Sorry to have made this mistake. I've always thought "petting" meant "caressing", therefore I thought logical that "sexual petting" would be a subcat of "petting" (English is not my mother tongue). Now that I (finally) understood that, I'm wondering about a category that could have both "petting" and "sexual petting" as subcats. How do you think it should be called ? Caressing ? Stroking ? Fondling ? Files like this one could also be categorized in this cat to be created. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I can appreciate this mistake; I think that the category "petting" (animal) could be better named to avoid this confusion.
I've not spent much time considering this.. but .. I don't think there is a suitable category which is a direct parent of both petting and sexual petting; instead they will both be subcats in one or more different subtrees. Both sets of images are both motivated by "social interaction between mammals" ("social" is not the best word for this) and actualised by "physical contact between mammals". Trying to bring them closer involves a lot of subjective statements relating to sexuality, including bestiality, so care must be taken.
John Vandenberg (chat) 01:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with you. Sexual petting, animal metting and troking as in this file all deal with caresses. Of course they are different types of caresses but it's pertinent to link them in a subcat of category:Touching. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
category:Touching is a very high level classification that is roughly equivalent to what I meant by a "physical contact between mammals" category; "touching" is relatively free of connotations. I'm far from an expert in the terminology in this area, but I am pretty sure that not all petting is caressing, and not all sexual petting is caressing, so they are not suitable subcats of caressing. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Well I'm reposting this debate at the village pump, so we will have other opinions about it. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know that you have copied my comments to another forum. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
That's absolutely normal. Anyway it seems that no-one is interested in this debate since no-one gave his/her POV on the subject. I suppose we'll keep the current situation then... Thanks for your participation. Regards --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] OTRS Ticket images to be deleted

Hello John. I came to know that you are dealing with [Ticket:2008030310010794. However, for the images listed in the ticket, I learned that the mail was not enough, other admins told me that I have to send a link from Mad-eyes.net. I contacted mad-eyes.net and asked them if they want to send a mail to OTRS, but they have refused. Hence I believe those images have to be deleted then, since their previous permission is not sufficient. Will you take care of this? -- Legolas from Mirkwood 10:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, which images are you referring to? I'll be happy to help, with whichever ticket & images are involved.
I am not familiar with mad-eyes.net; is it related to IndiaFM?
Maybe you are referring to ticket 2010011910007482, which is mentioned on File:RIT-hollywood.jpg ?
John Vandenberg (chat) 11:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Oops my apologies John. Yes, I was referring to Ticket: 2010011910007482, I got wrapped up in the process and sent the IndiaFM ticket no. Sorry. The images in Ticket: 2010011910007482 can be deleted now as Mad-eyes.net refuses to send a separate mail for the images. Regarding IndiaFM, a batch of images are pending OTRS, according to a mail I sent at OTRS on June 21, 2010. Could you look at it? The heading has Ticket:2008030310010794 in it. -- Legolas from Mirkwood 04:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Did you get a chance to see the images? -- Legolas from Mirkwood 06:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] New images from IndiaFM

Hey buddy, how are you? On Friday, June 24th, I sent a message to OTRS indicating that I had uploaded 8 images that needed to be ticketed. If you don't mind, could you please ticket them when you have the time. I have provided the links of the images so it is easier for you to ticket them (File:Kapoor GQ Awards.jpg, File:Kapoor at Gitanjali launch.jpg, File:Kareena at Gitanjali launch.jpg, File:Kapoor TReloaded-08.jpg, File:Kareena at 3I premiere.jpg, File:Kareena at SV laptop launch.jpg, File:Saif-Kareena ramp walk.jpg & File:Kareena-Randhir at 3I premiere.jpg). Thanks & Best Regards -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 01:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


[edit] Do you have a better version of File:Phineas Gage - notice.GIF?

Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | 日本語 | Македонски | Nederlands | Polski | Português | +/−

Thank you for your submission of File:Phineas Gage - notice.GIF. While all submissions are useful, do you think you might be able to supply a better quality version of the same, or similar, content? In many cases, the largest and highest resolution possible is the most useful version to have available. (MediaWiki has automatic resizing functionality, so there is no need for multiple versions of the same image at different sizes, users can select any size and the software will generate and cache the needed resolution on the fly.)

If you can supply the same exact image as File:Phineas Gage - notice.GIF at a larger resolution (or media at a higher bitrate, etc.), please just upload it over the original, users will get the new higher quality version with no further effort on your part. If on the other hand, the content is only similar, it is best to select a new image name, as there may be uses already where some aspect of the existing media was key to the usage. In the latter case, if you can provide a crosslink reference to the new image in the older one and vice versa, that will be extremely helpful.

Again, thank you very much for your contribution, it is appreciated.

High Contrast (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] User:Xanderliptak

Xanderliptak has resumed editwarring to keep his inappropriate changes to the upload license on his images, after being told by numerous editors at COM:AN that he cannot. Can something be done? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Best to leave this to uninvolved people to resolve. If it hasnt been resolved in a week, we can take appropriate action then. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Ticket:2008032610018431

Hi John, please find below the copy-paste of our March-April 2008 correspondance. "Hello, I am User:Cretanforever on wikimedia. Please find below the permission received from the image creator for uploading his images, also found in another web site, on Wikimedia Commons. The link for the one I uploaded today is below. I will upload others after having received a ticket." I translated the relevant parts below. Best regards, User:Cretanforever"

"We have received the permission for the image(s) and have made the necessary modifications to the Image page(s). Thank you for providing this to us, and for your contribution to the Wikimedia Commons. When uploading the remainder of the images, I strongly recommend you dont include "WwwWowturkeycom" in the name. Also I suggest that you use spaces, such as "Wild Horses Roaming in Mount Yamanlar.jpg" Yours sincerely, John Vandenberg"

You will note the context in plural all along. Accordingly, I sent you the following request on 26 April "Thank you for your 27.03 e-mail John. I put the image in question http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:WwwWowturkeycomYuzbasiVolYukselWildHorsesRoaminginMountYamanlarIzmirTurkey.jpg for deletion to reupload in a more suitable naming format and time with your suggestions also reflected (I will keep wowturkey in the name though, to highlight the creators and the initial publishers as much as possible.) Thanks again, User:Cretanforever"

Since the deletion under the old file name was not done by September, I transmitted the correspondence and the deletion request to another user, some time after which the very first file was deleted. Regards, Cretanforever (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC) - rep'd. 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding to this ticket. Can you check please this npd tag removal made properly. Thanks.Geagea (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I asked Cretanforever to seek a better permission at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Ticket:2008032610018431. I'll ask again. --John Vandenberg (chat) 09:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately this wont end until we obtain a more precise permission from wowturkey.com. Is that possible? John Vandenberg (chat) 09:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded print-outs of our 2008 correspondence as image files John. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:0001resim265.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Resim264.jpg for anyone's astute perusal. Regards. Cretanforever (talk)

[edit] Queensland SL donation

Hi John, that's great news. Is there any other page which provides further information? If not it would be good to expand Commons:State Library of Queensland. I would be interested to know:

  • what is the time span of the images?
  • what topics are covered? Are they part of certain collections?
  • what's the detailed plan for making these available? when do you expect all the images to be uploaded? when do you expect bot-categorisation to be completed?
  • what kind of help is most needed? (i.e. categorizing images, improving descriptions etc.)
  • is there any prospect to get higher resolution versions of images which are found to be particularly useful?

Also I would suggest adding this donation story to the news section of the Commons:Community portal, and/or maybe the main page. cheers, --Elekhh (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The page Commons:State Library of Queensland is where we will document everything; we still have a lot of information to present.

  • The first dated item is 1819, and they steadily increase in number until the 1950's, after which they start to drop off due to copyright.
  • The topics can be found at Commons:State Library of Queensland/Subjects, and the bot categorisation depends on this.
  • I can't give any fixed time line yet for the uploading process, as the bot has to be approved by the community. (the bot is currently blocked)
  • The two most urgent tasks are
    1. mapping subjects at Commons:State Library of Queensland/Subjects, which often means creating new categories and improving the categorisation of non-SLQ images
    2. creating banners so we don't bore Australians, and creating articles on Wikipedia about the topics in the banners.
  • Very high resolution images are becoming available. This is only the beginning of the collaboration. In the short term, if anyone needs a higher resolution image for print work (or banners), let me know.

I don't want to advertise this too much because the bot has been blocked by an admin, which is not a good look for the collaboration. Hopefully we can sort that out quickly. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Good to see a Government organisation collaborating with Wikimedia, I'm sure you will get the bot issue sorted out (I can understand the concerns over Categorisation, data [for the Information template] and file names [or titles]). I have been purchasing images which were taken before 1955 and digitalising them but the main thing that makes it hard is the purchase as in some cases it can cost me $50+ just to get one historic photograph. Some examples are File:War (Bellona) statue and roses along Commonwealth Avenue near Albert Hall.jpg, File:Victoria St, Kerang.jpg, File:Looking down Dean Street Albury (1920s - 1930s) from Monument Hill.jpg and File:Gurwood St viewed from Fitzmaurice St (1920s).jpg. Bidgee (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I am really enjoying the Christmas selection for the latest upload. An inspired choice! -- 00:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. File:StateLibQld 1 132147 Tea break for the workers in the bush, Christmas post card, ca. 1905.jpg is my favourite so far.
I'm now starting a New Year's batch.
I'm happy to do topical upload batches on request. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Just added image of the week to my User page. Bidgee (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I've created a banner from that image. [2] I'll wait a bit longer for a better banner to appear. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Main_Page#Queensland_Library_donation

Any comment here?--Chaser (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Naming ship categories

Found a special page for the discussion: Commons talk:Naming categories and started a discussion there. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Bot

Hi - just a friendly note, it appears one of your bots machines may have browsing and accidentally SUL'd a new account on en.wp and de.wp. See here. 7 (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. I've added a note on the userpage on en.wp. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. 7 (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] SLQ categorisation trade unionism and workers

User_talk:Bogadin#SLQ_categorisation

[edit] Profil Rejser image

Hallo John, Can you please delete the picture I have loaded? It dosn't work, so I wanna try again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profilrejser (talk • contribs) 2011-02-17T09:10:28 (UTC)

✓ Done John Vandenberg (chat) 09:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] File:StateLibQld 1 66403 Kanimbla (ship).jpg

Hi, the reason I added the link was that I didn't see the copyright information on the page linked to by {{handle}}. I see now that it's there, although in my browser it's shown in a very tiny 2-line high frame that you have to scroll, so it wasn't obvious. Sorry for the redundancy. –Tryphon☂ 15:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The layout of the page isn't great; the bottom of that frame can be dragged down to reveal the additional information. Thanks for helping by adding the italics. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Herbert

User_talk:Canley#sort_of_confused

[edit] Wow

I am very impressed by Gnangs collection - hope you are - there is some stuff that is over and above what I was expecting to see! SatuSuro (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've only looked quickly; it looked very good. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Expect a copycat application to do the same elsewhere :) SatuSuro (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


[edit] Category:2011 Sendai earthquake damage

Category discussion notification Category:2011 Sendai earthquake damage has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Português | Русский | +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Commons:Picture of the Year/2010

Hi John! Could you please remove the cascading protection of this site and make a "normal" full protection out of it? At the moment, every template and image that is included in this page is automatically protected, too... And this doesn't make much sense in this case I think. Chaddy (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

user:mono asked for the cascade protection. I am happy for someone else to remove it if it isn't desirable. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I will ask mono. Chaddy (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] File:FBIS_Report_-_Compilation_of_Usama_Bin_Ladin_Statements_1994-2004.djvu

File deletion warning File:FBIS_Report_-_Compilation_of_Usama_Bin_Ladin_Statements_1994-2004.djvu 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 | ‪Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‬ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | ‪Deutsch (Sie-Form)‬ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | 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 | Slovenščina | Српски / Srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−

Solid State Survivor (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] French file-info-size

Discussion at User talk:Jastrow

[edit] File:Launching Place Home Hotel - evening.jpg

‪Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‬ | Български | Česky | Deutsch | ‪Deutsch (Sie-Form)‬ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Svenska | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.


This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 11:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] PD-Australia not applicable for some SLQ images

Hi John, I wonder if you could comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:StateLibQld 1 105268 Sir Thomas Alfred Hiley with Queen Elizabeth II, Brisbane Cricket Ground, 1963.jpg. It's actually a batch deletion request for all the post-1955 files I could find. --99of9 (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Any chance we could move this to a subpage of the SLQ project so that we can work through this list with the library staff? It isn't likely that they are going to want to dedicate resources to investigate this immediately. We've already deleted two files when their staff were confident that the images were not intended to be in the batch, and we'll be happy to delete more images without an adversarial process. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I've now added a note on the project page informing participants. And also a note on the deletion request not to close until the SLQ staff have investigated. Do they monitor the project page, or can they be notified somehow? Deletion requests isn't necessarily adversarial, it's just a centralized discussion for this kind of thing (and it makes one click deletion possible for the admins if deletion is warranted). --99of9 (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
They are subscribed to a feed of all changes to SLQ image pages. We can also pick up the phone and talk to them about this, but I haven't done that yet as I havent had time to look at it yet. Commons:Bundesarchiv/Questionable_licensing is how similar issues are dealt with for another batch upload. Deletion requests are handled however a random admin wants to handle them. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
If there's precedent to do it separately, I'm fine with someone moving it, but IMO DR should be able to handle this kind of thing. And if a mistake is made, Undeletion isn't that hard either. --99of9 (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:StateLibQld 1 117188 Congregational Church in Rockhampton, ca. 1983.jpg. Deleted at the end of seven days. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that one was before I realized there were so many, it was the only one separate. --99of9 (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sir Edmund Barton.jpg

Umm, that looks like a street to me, and not our illustrious first PM!  ;-) — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 03:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Whoops. Thanks for identifying and fixing that. I'll have to find the right one. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] File:Flag_of_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo_(WFB_2004).gif

File deletion warning File:Flag_of_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo_(WFB_2004).gif 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 | ‪Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‬ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | ‪Deutsch (Sie-Form)‬ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | 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 | Slovenščina | Српски / Srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−

Antemister (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Has a 2002 copyright

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bambuti.jpg#Licensing

To use any of these photos for research, publication etc. please contact the Martin and Osa Johnson Safari Museum for copyright authorization: (620) 431-2730 http://www.safarimuseum.com/exhib_photo_online_africa_1929.htm © 2002 The Martin and Osa Johnson Safari Museum - All Rights Reserved JohnLloydScharf (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know. I have taken this to the slower deletion process (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bambuti.jpg), but I will delete it promptly once I am sure that there is not a good argument for it being free of copyright. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] File:François_Péron01.jpg

sorry for my late answer

  • it's tome1 header page in the book of the heritage librairy in Gray
  • i change my licence to PD-art

good work Jeffdelonge (talk) 07:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Merci. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] File:SuicideGirls - Levee.jpg

Levee isn't her name, but rather the location where the photograph was taken (you know, "Drove my Chevy to the..."). -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure!? it doesnt make sense to me. File:SuicideGirls - Levee.jpg isnt a levee like any other ive seen, and why does File:Levee_Tattoo.jpg list Levee as the source? John Vandenberg (chat) 23:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] noindex on user gallery

No problem. It's a logic tool for user galleries... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

It's what you have. — Moe ε 17:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Potential problem with the camera equipment grant program

Hey John, I noticed that the conditions for the wmau:Proposal:camera equipment program includes the requirement: "Photographs must be uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons under an licence listed at Commons:Copyright tags."

The problem is that not all of the licenses listed at Commons:Copyright tags are free licenses and not all of them are appropriate for photographs. For example, {{Noncommercial}} is listed at Commons:Copyright tags but is not a free license. Similarly, {{Open Font}} is listed, but is not an appropriate license for photographs. I would suggest changing this requirement to read:
"Photographs must be uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons license that conforms with Commons' licensing policy."

The main reason that I'm bringing this to your attention is due to your grant invitation to Fir0002. Fir0002's use of licensing on Commons has been a source of controversy over the years. In particular, he has exploited the fact that the GFDL-1.2 license is not an appropriate license for images (it is intended as a license for collaboratively written text). Thus he essentially uses the {{GFDL-1.2}} license as a non-commercial license, encouraging commercial reusers to negotiate a commercial license with him privately. As you can see, all of Fir0002's uploads from this year are GFDL-1.2 only. This misuse of the GFDL is one of the reasons why the GFDL 1.2 license was officially deprecated from both the German and English Wikipedias (although strangely, it is still allowed here).

Obviously, it would look awkward for the Australian chapter to be giving money to people who are using Commons to sell their photography. If Fir0002 wants to make money off his photographs, that's certainly fine by me, but he shouldn't be using Commons as a means of promoting his work, and he certainly shouldn't seek financial assistance for his efforts. If Fir0002 were willing to use a license appropriate for photographs, for example {{CC-by-sa-3.0}}, I would whole-heartedly support his application for a camera equipment grant. In fact, I would even be willing to contribute money towards his efforts personally (due to the excellence of his work). Without such assurances, however, I don't believe that Fir0002's motivation for contributing to Commons is completely in line with the goals and ethics of our project. Kaldari (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have informed Fir0002 of this discussion. Kaldari (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Our camera equipment program is aimed to promote free culture, and Creative Commons licenses are only one part of the ecosystem. WMAu could improve the wording a little bit, to exclude use of inappropriate licenses (e.g. {{Open Font}} for photographs), however I would stridently oppose WMAu changing the requirements so that we reject licenses which are complied with http://freedomdefined.org/ and are accepted by Commons. Fir0002's images are used on Wikipedia. GFDL is listed on http://freedomdefined.org/. If you want to deprecate GFDL 1.2 for images and promote Creative Commons, that should be done here with the Commons community. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Your 2 statements above seem contradictory: You are open to excluding inappropriate licenses such as {{Open Font}}, but then you state that any license that complies with http://freedomdefined.org/ should be accepted. Can you clarify? Kaldari (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I said "Open Font for photographs", because that is implicitly considered inappropriate on Commons. The WMAU program is intended to accept whatever is appropriate on Commons; if Commons deprecated GFDL-1.2 for photographs, we would follow suit. As it stands, GFDL-1.2 is not inappropriate for photographs on Commons. I understand the debate about free photographs in non-free works quite well, and it is not equivalent to "non-commercial" as you suggest. Many people *want* the viral nature to force more people to license their works as free because they want to include free photographs. I am sure that Fir0002 has no problem with his photographs being used within GFDL works that are commercially sold. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood me. My point is not at all about strong copyleft. I support strong copyleft in free licenses (i.e., the "viral" or "share-alike" aspects of certain licenses). Indeed, I think the GFDL is an excellent license (for collaboratively written text). What I am suggesting is that the GFDL is as inappropriate a license for a photograph as the Open Font license is. The only reason it was ever used for such purposes was because at the time it was the only non-software copyleft license that existed. I'm not trying to promote Creative Commons over GNU or campaign against strong copyleft or anything like that. I'm simply asking that the licenses be limited to licenses appropriate for the reuse of photographs. For example, the Free Art License or CC-BY-SA are totally fine. Licenses like the Open Font License, GPL, and GFDL are not practically usable for media like sounds and photographs and were never meant to be used with such media in isolation. There are only 2 reasons that the GFDL-1.2-only tag is applied to images on Commons: (1) You are politically opposed to Creative Commons and are still protesting against the license migration from a few years ago (2) You are interested in controlling commercial reuse of your images, but still want them used on Wikipedia. In Fir0002's case, it is the later. Kaldari (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Kaldari, you have obviously not comprehended what I wrote, or take me for a fool. I suspect the latter as you feel it is necessary to explain copyleft licenses to me. There is a third reason for using GFDL-1.2, and I gave it to you above.(maybe you consider that to be part of reason 1; if so, I will be happy to explain the differences to you) In any case, motives are not important. There are 42,000 images in Category:GFDL-1.2. {{GFDL 1.2}} is still listed on Commons:Copyright tags and it does not appear to be deprecated (c.f. GPL and LGPL which do have note regarding appropriate use of the license). I have told you that the WMAu program will uphold the Commons community decisions regarding acceptable licenses - we are not going to get involved. I am extremely disappointed that you would ignore those facts and attack a WMAU program in order to restart your dispute with a valued Australian contributor within days of them coming back and expect me to agree with you. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
No need to get so defensive. I'm just trying to make sure we understand each other. You state that there is a 3rd reason to use the GFDL-1.2-only tag. I'm assuming you're referring to "Many people *want* the viral nature to force more people to license their works as free because they want to include free photographs." Is this the 3rd reason you are referring to? If so, I wouldn't consider this a valid reason, as there are other copyleft licenses that accomplish the same thing but are legally designed to work with a wide range of media (and not just text). Regardless, it seems that you don't agree with my basic argument that the GFDL is inappropriate for photographs, so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I'm sorry to have caused such consternation and I hope I have not caused you personal offense. Clearly, I should take the issue to the community at large rather than assuming that my point is self-evident. Best regards. Kaldari (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I am aware of the plethora of licenses available to achieve various aims, and how ill-suited some are for the tasks they end up being used for. I have very strong opinions on which licenses are best for various objectives, but WMAu wmau:SOP supports Wikimedia Commons processes and explicitly endorses http://freedomdefined.org/ . Change either of those first and please refrain from continuing your dispute on the issue with a valued contributor. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kaldari for bringing this up, I definitely see your point. Unfortunately there's not much I can do to convince you/others that I'm not just using commons as a marketing front and that I do have a genuine interest in the project (maybe the fact I started contributing with a crummy Kodak at 14 years old? probably not...). And I do see it as awkward to make an application in that context and the context that I do have a commercial interest in my photography. I had been thinking of applying for a large grant to contribute to the purchase of a new Canon 1D IV body as this would allay some of the ethical concerns as it would be 1/5 paid for by Wikimedia; 4/5 paid for by me which would be roughly reflective of the way it would be used. However I think it's an issue which should be canvassed by the community as I really want to avoid appearing to be scamming wikimedia. Didn't this issue come up with Muhammad who I understand he received funding for his new 100-400mm (?). What did the community think about GFDL 1.2 only contributors getting grants then? --Fir0002 www 11:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Im glad you are considering applying Fir0002. Buying a body with the large grant sounds ideal; it is exactly what we had in mind. One of the main reasons we developed this program was because WMAu make good quality equipment available to the community. Other options that we considered included buying several shells and shipping the lens around Australia based on needs of the community, or having a few complete kits located in a few of the capital cities. The final concept that was adopted allowed the most productive contributors to own these assets, eliminating the administrative costs and tensions of having a limited asset shared between our many photographers of varying skills. In designing this, we were aware that amount of the large grant was not sufficient to cover the complete costs of high end equipment; we felt the grant amount provided sufficient incentive for photographers who are passionate about photography and would therefore buy the equipment regardless of the grant. We expect the purchased equipment to be used for private or commercial purposes. The grant clearly defines what is expected of the successful applicant, being the upload of another 500 photographs (see Approval section). Nothing more; nothing less. We are only contributing to the photographers expenses; we dont own every photo they take.
Please do not let Kaldari's comments diswade you. The Wikimedia Australia committee will review all applications as fairly as possible in this fluid environment. If Commons policies change, the WMAu will follow suit. The only aspect you need to be mindful of is that the program requires the successful applicant to upload another 500 images to Wikimedia Commons, and those images would need to be licensed compliant with the policies at the time of the upload. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
If it would be 1/5 paid for by Wikimedia; 4/5 paid for by, would that mean that you'd continue uploading your images downsampled to 1/5 of their original resolution? --Dschwen (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
That suggestion is extremely rude, so I hope you are being flippant. Fir0002 has consistently contributed high res, high quality, very appreciated images to Wikimedia Commons. Fir0002's commitment to the quality of Commons should not be in any doubt. Fir0002 may have uploaded some lower resolution images (I dont know, and I havent found any evidence of this), however the WMAu camera equipment program has minimum resolution requirements so this is not an issue.
My understanding is that Fir0002 is saying that the equipment will sometimes be used for photographs that will be uploaded to Commons, but it will also be used for photographs that they choose to not donate to Wikimedia Commons, which could include commercial activities like wedding photographs, private uses like family picnics, etc. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Albeit rude, it has been such that photos uploaded previously by Fir0002 has been downsampled prior to upload, so it is not an outrageous concern, I think. As I understand the high res photos were only available for purchase via his personal website. I would suggest that it is considered as a supplement to the 500 photo contrib requirement to add that the photos should not be downsampled. Concerning license, I think that it should at least be acknowledged that the GFDL 1.2 only, although allowed, is far less usefull that the never licenses mentioned by Kaldari. Before Fir0002 had a long wikibreak I was in the middle of a process of helping him to mass change his photo licenses to dual licensed GFDL 1.2 + CC-BY-SA-NC using User:SlaungerBot. However, Fir002 left right before we could finish up. I do not know if he changed his mind regarding the license? That dual license (altough I would personally have preferred a dual license without the -NC, but nevermind) which is tremendously more useful and valuable and easy to work with than GFDL 1.2 only. --Slaunger (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
A dual GFDL 1.2 + CC-BY-SA-NC tag would be a good start towards usable licensing. Also, I would like to emphasize that I don't think Fir0002 is trying to "scam Wikimedia", I just believe that the degree of control that he wishes to retain in his work is beyond what our policies delineate is appropriate and does not follow the spirit of free culture, even if it does meet the technical definition. Kaldari (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Slaunger, you are happy with these rude comments? The resolution of Fir0002's photographs are sufficient for featured picture, and have been approved as Featured pictures. That is good enough for me. The 500 additional uploads must meet the criteria which includes a minimum resolution - we do not require that the images are not downsampled, however I would consider that type of assessment method as very arbitary (e.g. my photos such as File:TarraWarra Estate vineyard.jpg are not downsampled, but they are considerably less quality that Fir0002's photographs). The WMAu program may be improved to give higher value to the to photographs that are approved as VI and FP; this is discussed at wmau:Proposal talk:Camera equipment program/Archive 1 - we would welcome your opinion on objective requirements that could be introduced, however feasibility is also a significant consideration - we want to have an automated leaderboard. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I was trying to point out that I do not appreciate the rudeness, but the point is spot on the issue at hand. Aren't you by the way mistaking Commons:Featured pictures with en:Wikipedia:Featured pictures? There is a 2 Mpixel resolution guideline for the featured picture program on Commons. Fir0002 currently downsamples photos taken with a 21.1 MP camera to 1600×1067, which is 1.7 MP. I do not reacll the last time a photo of Firs was promoted to FP on Commons. The last promotion I am aware of dates back to February 2007, in April 2007 the 2 MP guideline was first mentioned directly in the COM:FPC rule set. On the English Wikipedia where the primary focus is pictures for online display, the resolution requirements are more lax (1 MP last I checked), and there Fir0002 has plenty of FPs, and well deserved as he is a brilliant and persistent photographer. On Commons the 2 MP guideline is only broken if there are strong mitigating reasons (as here the empahsis is also on reuse as printed media in larger scale - also outside Wikimedia projects), and downsampling from 22.1 MP to 1.7 is not a good mitigating reason. By downsampling so radically you throw a lot of detailed information irreversibly especially when the original sensor as in this case actually has a good per pixel quality. But if you really think it is not a problem, then why partially sponsor a 1D IV body, which has an even better pixel quality. The better body would not give any increased benefit if the uploaded results have been downsampled to the ridiculously low 1.7 MP? If you really do not care about the resolution (EN FP is good enough) would it then not be a more sensible use of resources to consider partially sponsoring better optics or better flash? A better tele/macro/flash would probably have a higher impact on the value of contributed 1.7 MP downsampled photos as it would give better shooting possibilities? User:JJ Harrison who has also received a grant from Wikimedia Australia now uploads his photos in > 2MP resolution, making them eligable for Commons FP (and he gets FPs on Commons regularly). A spot check on a recent FP was 4.5 MP using a 17 MP camera. Much more reasonable. Prior to receiving the grant he licenced photos as GFDL 1.2, but has now changed to the much more useful CC-BY-SA. I do not know if that change has anything to do with the grant, or happened synchronously with the grant. --Slaunger (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The licence change etc was independent of, and before any grant. I don't think the equipment grants existed at the time. You could find the date from Dscwhen's talk page, as I asked him to do it by bot for existing images. My switch to GDFL-1.2 most mostly reactionary at the time - I had concerns about the ability of those in charge to apparently the licence of my image to anything they so desired without my permission. As far as image size and my current work goes, it isn't as simple as above. I'm using a prime lens and don't have flexibility with subject distance in most cases - I'm either in a hide and unable to move, or trying to inch closer without flushing the subject. As a result, almost all of my bird images are cropped, and many are cropped to a huge degree. For example, this shows roughly how much File:Charadrius bicinctus breeding - Ralphs Bay.jpg has been cropped. I can get away with it since the 500mm prime has amazing image quality (and an amazing price to go with it!). A 1D mark IV could easily contribute to better 1.7MP uploads. It has much better autofocus performance and frame rates, making it a far superior camera for anything with fast action. A 1D mark IV would have similar per pixel quality, but less pixels (~16 vs ~21) than a 5D mark II. He would most likely still use his 5Dii for landscapes or portraiture. Deciding which equipment is best should really be left to the person using it. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks JJ for explaining. I have redacted my comment above as it contained some confusing and misleading statements. I shortened and refactored comment follows below. --Slaunger (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, just to add to what JJ said above - my main interest in a 1D IV is the vastly improved AF and burst (the 5D has a rather dated AF system which is a big limitation when trying to get wildlife in action). --Fir0002 www 12:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have dropped a note about this discussion on JJ Harrisons user page on en, inviting him to fact check/comment on my comment above, as I am unsure of the details and as a courtesy. --Slaunger (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I havent found any evidence of this Wow, John, please at least do your homework, before dismissing such a comment. Last 3 uploads: 1.6 Megapixel resolution, native camera resolution of the EOS 20D: 8.2 Megapixel. You do realize that this grant program also is a big responsibility for the Grant maker? Not to mention the responsibility to your donors, who might have thought they were furthering the goals of open content. --Dschwen (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
As JJ mentioned above it's rather simplistic to assume that my uploaded images are uncropped. I would say maybe 10% of my shots are uncropped; 20% are (or almost are) 1:1 crops (i.e. no downsampling) and the remainder is somwhere in between. I do focus on wildlife and it's rarely possible to get the subject full frame. --Fir0002 www 12:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I said I hadn't seen any inappropriately low resolution images being uploaded. However I admitted that Fir0002 may have uploaded low resolution images, as I had not reviewed all of Fir0002's uploads. I expect people to present evidence for their arguments and not be rude.
(Btw, Slaunger is incorrect regarding Fir0002's Featured Pictures. Fir0002's last upload before retiring was File:Meerkat feb 09.jpg on 31 August 2009. That same image was approved as a Featured picture on 13 October 2010, and appeared on the front page five days later. That is furthering the goals of Wikimedia Commons and free content.)
Obviously we have different expectations. Wikimedia Australia did set minimum expectations. We have not set the minimum to be the same as the FP criteria, and we have not set the minimum to be the 'raw' image. We have set it to 1000px on the shortest edge. Our minimum requirements mean that File:House sparrowIII.jpg can not be counted for this grant program.
We have planned to review the points system and incorporate higher weighting for VI,FP,etc so that we encourage uploaders to use the existing Commons quality assessment systems. That approach allows the Commons community to raise the bar to keep pace with equipment and society expectations, and the Wikimedia Australia program will follow those standards. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)~
Thanks, John for pointing out that recent Commons FP from 2010. I had just browsed for self-nominations leading to a notice on Firs talk page and forgotten to consider nominations made by other users. That one had very nice resolution and was an exception from Firs usual upload resolution. (Among the last 25 uploads from Fir all have had a resolution below the Commons FP guideline with the meercat as the sole exception). But I am glad to see that you acknowledge the need to continuously follow the development in the capability of equipment and assure a correlation with the development in the guidelines for FPs, VIs, and QIs on Commons. Concerning licenses, I think we should just agree that we disagree. Another Australian grant receiver and previous GFDL 1.2 license user, User:JJ Harrison uploads photos which comply with Commons technical guidelines and uses CC-BY-SA. And I think that is great! --Slaunger (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
For the record, JJ Harrison has received several wmau:Small grants and larger travel grants. Only user:Bidgee has recieved a wmau:Proposal:camera equipment grant, as that is a much newer program. Regarding licenses, my own opinion is not important with regards to this program, and may not differ from your own. WMAU photography programs will follow the consensus on Wikimedia Commons regarding licensing and technical issues. Also note that the WMAU program doesnt mention English Wikipedia at all. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. I was not aware of the existence of several different grant programs. You mention "doesn't mention English Wikipedia at all", which confused me a bit, as I also solely refer to guidelines on Commons in my comment above. In contrast the 1000px on the shortest side (which merely guarantees >= 1MP) requirement you mention yourself seems to be derived from en:WP:FP. --Slaunger (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
1000px on the shortest side wasn't selected to match the English Wikipedia FP requirements. The 1000px requirement is less than the QI/FP 2MP because we don't want to exclude already uploaded photographs which are useful but not good quality. If/When we introduce a weighting for QI images (e.g. 3 points instead of 1 point), photographers will be more likely to upload QI-compliant images. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
And it does not bother you at all that you have to dangle a giant golden carrot around to get people to upload their images at a better quality and not just crippled trial versions? --Dschwen (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments John, they are much appreciated. In light of what you say, I'm thinking I will pursue an application but will wait a week or so to see if this discussion goes any further. To reiterate my previous question, what happened when Muhammad applied? He also downscales, 1.2 only and commercially sells his work - surely this was all debated then and community precedent set? Or am I the only one on Kaldari's watchlist? :P --Fir0002 www 10:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

@ Slaunger, I will return to the NC dual licence thing soon as I think this would be a good move, but I'd like to have a quite week or two just uploading some pix and warming up before getting into that issue. --Fir0002 www 10:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
@Fir: Sounds good:-) I would be happy to assist you in doing that, and also subst the license in on the file pages as discussed earlier. I am in no hurry. My bot has been hibernating for > 2 years, and I need to reestablish the dev environment on another PC. As I recall there was also an issue with the CC-BY-SA-NC license template (as it is not allowed as the only license) which needed to be resolved. The GFDL 1.2 + CC-BY-SA-NC dual license cocktail is unusual at Commons, as you know, but we should be able to find a solution for that. I suggest we continue that dialogue on my or your user page, when the time is ripe. (I am also going on a weeks vacation in 1.5 week). --Slaunger (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, you are Patient Zero. Muhammad essentially points to you as a justification. Just goes to show how contagious you are ;-). This is my peeve here, you (in my opinion) set somewhat of a bad precedence here. No question that your pictures are beautiful. They give you some pull around here, and get you put on a pedestal. Rightly so for you photographic skill, but not so much with respect of the spirit of free content. --Dschwen (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I see, I'll have to have the celebrity whinge about being in the centre of attention then ;) But I think here the relevant precedent was not set by me, but by the community when Muhammad was awarded his grant. --Fir0002 www 12:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I was not aware that Muhammad also received a grant. It's disappointing that we are rewarding people for using worst practices instead of best practices. Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Are we talking about User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim? Is there any documentation of their grant? John Vandenberg (chat) 04:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
For example, see File:Adult_Long-tailed_fiscal.jpg, there's a template "Supported by Wikimedia CH", but I didn't find documentation. I saw him mention somewhere a Canon 100mm-400mm L-series lens. --99of9 (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

note to self; User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim is featured on Wikipedia Signpost. w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-01-23/Featured_content John Vandenberg (chat) 11:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Your choice of edit summary

"cripes; do you have comprehension problems?" = is not the best or most civil choice of edit summary. Please, try to tone down your rhetoric. It will help foster a more positive, civil, and constructive dialogue. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Or, you could work on your comprehension problems, because the lack of comprehension of another persons position is not w:civil discourse; it is combative and argumentative and rhetoric for the sake of it. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Or, we could work on both? :) -- Cirt (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt to continue discussion

Regarding this, here's my good faith attempt to continue discussion with you. The images are useful. I've gone ahead and added them to several other related categories. :) I'd like for us both to be able to continue our discussion here, in a polite and civil manner, so as to foster positive and constructive dialogue. -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Cirt. You have spent the last 24 hrs creating more of a donkey punch inspired mess. I think you've made it quite plain that you intend to keep abusing the WMF projects. I asked you to put those images to use in order to demonstrate they are in scope. You havent done that. You dont need a discussion with me to do that. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately I'm confused and respectfully have to disagree with your opinion. A dialogue with you would certainly help me to understand what you mean by demonstrating the images are in scope. Not all images have to be used on a project to be in scope. Indeed, that would imply we'd have to delete thousands of images from Wikimedia Commons. I'd really appreciate it if we could continue a good faith discussion. :) I'm most willing to try to reach some sort of compromise with you here. -- Cirt (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Dude, I said demostrate that/so do it. Surely you can comprehend that? John Vandenberg (chat) 21:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought you meant by talking to you, and by categorization, and by sisterlinking the category itself on other sister projects. I thought that would be sufficient. -- Cirt (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
That would be very illogical, as I had already pointed out the problems with your over-categorisation and name-spamming. You ignored my subsequent and more clear request, "try to use one of these images on a content page somewhere on a Wikimedia project?" Please stop wasting my time by useless discussion. I have repeatedly indicated that I consider these images to be an abuse of Commons unless you can put these images to use on a Wikimedia project. If you cant comprehend how to undertake this, please go bother someone else to help you understand what I am requesting, as you are wasting my rather precious time. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I missed that part of your comment, my apologies. I'd focused on the part where you said you'd be able to continue discussion with me on the category talk page. I guess that's what I subsequently went to go to, and we did, for a while, but I haven't heard a response from you there for a while. Sorry about that, -- Cirt (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Update: John, as a show of good faith, I've gone ahead and closed and gotten rid of the images as self-requested-by-uploader (me). Care to continue a polite and constructive discussion on the category talk page? -- Cirt (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
And will you now go and revert your name spamming on wiktionary and wikiquote? John Vandenberg (chat) 22:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your opinion on that. Can we please continue our discussion at the category talk page? :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Right now I am at work, so my time is limited. The discussion at Category talk:Donkey punch, while interesting, is in no way as urgent as what I believe is your misuse of WMF projects to advocate donkey punch. The commons community has already been very vocal in regards to your misuse of Commons for this purpose, and I reject your claim that deleting them was a show of good faith by yourself. You should acknowledge the concerns of the Commons community and apologise for misusing the project. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done! And might I say great idea, thank you very much for this advice. Please see diff. -- Cirt (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Vandenberg&oldid=66988902"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Participate
Toolbox