User talk:Patstuart/Archive 1

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


Welcome to the Commons, Patstuart/Archive 1!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−
Crystal Clear app korganizer.png First steps tutorial

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.

Icon apps query.svg Getting help

More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.

Transmission icon.png Goodies, tips and tricks
  • Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities.
  • All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery
  • Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~
  • Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!)
  • To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg
  • If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper
Nuvola filesystems trashcan full.png Made a mistake?
  • Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}}
  • For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Flickr images

Hi! Thank you for uploading images from Flickr. Please be sure that you either upload the original (the largest) version of the image, or that — in case you crop — you crop from the largest version available [1]. Also add the {{flickrreview}} tag to the image, so that it can be tagged for flickrreview. Thanks, -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Very impressive. Thank you for the largest image reminder; I'd forgotten I could do that. Anyway, I've been adding the category flickrreview, so I hope that would be good for now. Patstuart 14:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, please do not add the category manually, but insert it using the {{flickrreview}} tag. Thank you, -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wicca numbers by country.png

The version of this image which you uploaded says that there are more Wiccans in Canada and Australia than the U.S.?? AnonMoos 07:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The best reliable sources I saw listed the US figures around 50,000, but had no figures for Canada and Australia. Admittedly, this is a problem. Patstuart 17:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's one stating over 100,000 Wiccans in the U.S. in 2001: -- AnonMoos 21:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but at the moment, someone uploaded over mine, and used the extremely biased sources (threw out the sources from the AP, and used some quite unreliable sources, a lot of which were estimates done by practicing Wiccans themselves). Perhaps you too would like to change it over what I see to be POV pushing. Patstuart 21:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Your estimate of the number of Wiccans in the U.S. could be closer to the true number than User:Nyo's estimate of the number of Wiccans in the U.S., but the version of the map which you uploaded was still unusable (because internally contradictory). AnonMoos 22:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Filip Lolić is owner of that webpage and he gave me full permission to use pictures from it. I can't see how is that copyright violation? the preceding unsigned comment was added by Vedran V (talk • contribs)

Hi Vedran. Thanks for responding. I think we will need to have a copy of that email; you might like to send a copy of it to the Wikipedia office as well. As is, in any case, you will wish to change the license to {{GFDL}} or {{cc-by-2.0}}, or whatever, depending on what he allowed. It isn't really pd-self at the moment. Hope this clarifies things. Patstuart 03:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
We had discussion about that on our local astronomical forum.
Hereis link to it. Unfortunately, I never asked him about ::pictures using email.
I can ask Filip write email with permission.
Cheers Vedran V
I will also send email to Matija Pozojevic and Boris Stromar, they also gave me permission to use som of their photos.
Thank you. The online forum is probably enough, at least for Filip. Please do add all this information to the discussion page; thanks. Patstuart 04:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi, Please use {{vd}} to vote as "Symbol delete vote.svg Delete". thanks!--OsamaK 04:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. Thanks. Patstuart 16:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I hope so :)--OsamaK 18:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


then why the hell you say things like that to person who just uploaded photo from where it stand as free-license photo? calm down --Szczepan talk 19:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it was clearly a copyvio, as it's been marked no the page. People should not just blindly upload from another Wikipedia. Patstuart 19:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
then write to him what's wrong, not in idiotic way; next try of reverting it will cause blocking you --Szczepan talk 19:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm taking your behavior to the village pump. I am a long term user, and you are out of line. Patstuart 19:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry too --Szczepan talk 19:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Juaniallermann3 (talk · contribs)

Hi! Thanks for your help with this user. I blocked him for 2 hours only because I feel he's not a bad guy, just confused about Commons. I hope this will allow him to cool down a bit and read our messages. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I think he just got a bit steamed over having his images deleted. Patstuart 19:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


source:[2] the preceding unsigned comment was added by Boki13 (talk • contribs)

The problem is it appears professional, and you already gave a link to a different URL, and so one must wonder if that uploader really is the copyright holder. If you know an URL online, it might help if you could send an email to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org, so it can be verified by the office. Patstuart 19:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


This page has Attribution-ShareAlike in Detailid under the word avalik. By the way, I think it's Estonian — but I'm not sure. Thierry Caro 22:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. :)

About Antoni Laubitz-portrait by...

Hello, I've made mistake. Author of this portrait was JÓZEF MĘCINA KRZESZ. He died in 1934. You can visit and check it. I'm sorry. Thank for your intervention. WłosProsiOGłos. The preceding unsigned comment was added by WłosProsiOGłos (talk • contribs) at 20:27 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pai Nezinho.jpg

Olá Patstuart, essa imagem é igual a muitas outras que coloquei, são fotos velhas de autor desconhecido, é (pd-old) publicada no Brasil em 1930, o que mais devo dizer? Jurema Oliveira 02:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hola Jurema. Como tú ves, no hablo el portugués, pero puedo probar en español. El problema, ahora, es que la página no da la fuente de donde conseguiste la foto. Necitamos la fuente, para averiguar la licencia. Sin embargo, es bien posible que la foto no es contenido libre, aunque no sabemos el autor. Gracias por su tiempo. Patstuart 16:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hola Patstuart, entendo o espanhol perfeitamente, mas tenho um pouco de dificuldade em escrever, mas não tem problema, a página da foto é esta[3], é meu amigo e estou contando a história da família dele. Gracias Jurema Oliveira 06:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

You just spammed on my talk page that all my War Rock screenshots are violating copyright terms...

I made them... What did I do wrong? the preceding unsigned comment was added by Gawanti (talk • contribs)

The problem is that the game is copyrighted, and this is a screenshot of the game; even if you took it, the copyright belongs to the game's manufacturers. See COM:L#Screenshots. Patstuart 18:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so what tag do I need to give them? Gawanti 18:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, unfortunately, because it's a copyrighted screenshot, and Wikimedia does not accept copyrighted content, they will have to be deleted; no tag will do. Unless you yourself have actually created this game, or the game is released under a license like {{GPL}}. Patstuart 18:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of User talk:Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff

Hi! I don't quite agree with your recent blanking of User talk:Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff. Discussions are generally never deleted without archiving at Commons, and the discussion provides information to show why the user was blocked. Would you reconsider? LX (talk, contribs) 19:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to undo; on en, we pretty much always blank the talk and user pages of indef blocked users, for reasons mainly along the lines of en:WP:DFTT. You can undo this, absolutely, though maybe the userpage should stay blanked. Patstuart 19:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess my sentiments were shared by others, since it's already been done. I can see your point of view, although I think archival might be better than outright blanking in any case. I have no problem with the user page being blanked. LX (talk, contribs) 19:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello from Spain

I'm a wikipedist from wikimedia commons and you have ask me something about two of my photos, then I would like to understand which is the problem with this image but i just speak a little english, I'm spanish. Thes are family paintings, the father of my great grandfather and my great grandfather, and the painter is not very famous, in fact we just now his name (Pax). Could you explain me the problem and what can I do to make it correct. Thank you. --Carles garcia-roca 20:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hola Carles, gracias por su respuesta. Yo no sabía que esos cuadros están en su familia; si usted es propietario (e.g., se le otorgaron a su familia), probablemente puede ponerlos en el dominio público. Si este es el caso, por favor, responde en la página de discusión de borrado. Saludos. Patstuart 23:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanations. I understand that once clarified that the pictures are of my family I can remove the notice of erasing the photos. With regard to the photo of the litófono in fact I am the author because it is a question of a photo of another ancient photo of my grandfather, but not to complicate the things I can put pd-old. Your friend --Carles garcia-roca 10:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Imágenes subidas y aviso de bloqueo

Hola Patstuart. He recibido unos cuantos mensajes suyos en mi página de discusión, debido a unas fotos que subí. Simplemente me gustaría aclarar que las fotos que subí, eran sólo recortes de una que ya se encontraba en la Galería de Commons y con su correspondiente licencia en orden. Después de subir unas cuantas imágenes (repito, sólo recortes de otra ya subida y con licencia), me encuentro unos mensajes en los que me dice que esas imágenes no cumplen las normas de derechos de autor, ya que la licencia de la imagen original ha sido cambiada (hasta aquí normal..), y un aviso de bloqueo.

Sólo quiero pedirle que la próxima vez tenga algo más de paciencia antes de dar un aviso así, ya que justo al darme cuenta de que se había cambiado la licencia de la imagen fuente, y por lo tanto las otras ya no cumplían con los derechos de autor, dejé de subir más imágenes, por lo que el aviso de bloqueo me parece algo desmesurado. Un saludo. MontanNito 01:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

MontanNito, pienso que acaso usted tiene razón. No puse la mensaje de bloqueo en su página; usted necesitará hablar con Infogramation (o lo que sea su nombre) para saber de que imágen está hablando. El problema es que los imágenes que subió, aunque son de un fuente en commons, esa fuente tiene una licencia incorrecta. Yo probablemente no debía poner la plantilla que puse en su página ({{copyvio/es}}). Siento si he creado un problema, y muchas gracias por su participación. Patstuart 17:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the kind words Pat. I do what can on the CFB images; good action shots are hard, heck, even sideline pics of particular players/coaches can be tough. I also try, as you might have noticed, to get pics of odd things that are good for illustrating subjects but don't normally get photographed much. J. Glover 00:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello from Spain again

That way I understand that the topic remains tidy and I can remove the notice of erase the pictures. Thank you.--Carles garcia-roca 06:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Patstuart 16:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I don't have time to waste, all the pictures I uploaded today are pd-art, in all description is writted when they were painted (the latest one is 1560!) and i put the correct tag {{PD-Art}}, as i already did in hundreds of other images, so please remove the "untagged" tag you put, because they are all tagged correctlty. Thanks --Sailko 17:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sailko. In fact, I think this is a problem with the tag: I didn't mean that it wans't tagged at all, I just meant that we need the URL where you downloaded the file from, or the book from which you scanned it. Thanks! Patstuart 17:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Why? I was never asked before! For PD-Art it was never necessary. Bye. --Sailko 17:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It is simply a rule on commons. I understand your frustration; see the tag: The author and source of the file must be given, so that others can verify the copyright status. It should only take a few seconds for you to give the source where you found the images (I only tagged 5). Patstuart 17:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It is a rule since when? Today? Where is it written? Others can verify the pd-status just looking at the picture, it's obvious it is a work of art of centuries ago. --Sailko 17:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
English link, Italian link. Specifically, the following information should always be given on the description page, regardless if the license required this or not:... The Source of the material, preferably a web link or a citation. In fact, it's not obvious it was created centuries ago; I've seen material that looks that way, but in fact, has a recent author. Patstuart 17:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
another stupid waste of time. If I put a category of an author which is dead in XIII century, OF COURSE is a pd-art, but commoneers seems to get more stupid and stupid day by day. They can't read the title of an image, it is always necessary for someone to copy and paste it to the description, then you have to copy and past to the template, then you have to copy and paste to the the categories, then you lost thirty minutes for uploading an image which should take 30 seconds only. Sometimes admin on commons seem really blind, they put an "untagged" tag while in the same time they could put a valid licence template. It's not only frustrating, it is the victory of stupidity and pedants. Regards --Sailko 17:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, sometimes it is possible to establish the license of an image simply from its name and typing it into a search engine. But, honestly, that requires a lot of work, and that is the job of the uploader. I move on to other images. But, were I an admin, and were I to delete an image, I would probably do a search before I clicked the delete button. Nevertheless, it is your job to indicate where you got the image from; it's not at all hard to just copy and paste the URL into the description. Patstuart 17:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


The indication is in right down part of image. Look: [4] thanks. --Boggiewoogie 18:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Patstuart 18:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again

hablo español, pero prefiero practicar mi inglés.

Look: this man upload another photo to him page in blogger. [5]. Can i upload this photo here, in commons? logically in other version, without the permission. --Boggiewoogie 18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC) thanks for your attention

It would be helpful if we could have the original page to which the page is listed, as often times people will create images and the like on blogger that aren't really their own. However, if it appears to you that it is likely that he took the photo and licensed it, then yes, that would be OK. Patstuart 19:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The History in Blogger says that the photos are of he. and i don't think that any persson add a liense to images thatre not of them. i think that is OK.--Boggiewoogie 19:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Cool then. However, if I could ask that on the pages, rather than directly linking to the image, if you could also link to the original page where you found it. It makes things much easier. Thanks :) Patstuart 19:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


With the change you made to Template:He, now Hebrew and Arabic don't align with each other, as on page Image:Syria-flag-changes.svg. The bug I reported a year ago on Template talk:He has now been "de-fixed"... AnonMoos 22:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Then the Arabic should be changed too. Because the Arabic and Hebrew aren't lining up with any of the other templates. Patstuart 22:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the Arabic one as well. Patstuart 22:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Everything's now consistent -- as long as Hebrew and Arabic speakers are happy with your changes (maybe you should have asked them about that first). AnonMoos 22:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I figure if it's a really big problem, they'll probably revert it anyway. However, I was ending up with tet like this:
עברית: היסטורית דגלי סוריה
Assyrian flag
That's ugly as nothing else; we should not have the text to the far right side on one, and the far left on another. Patstuart 22:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


By the way, someone has now changed Template:Ar back, so now on pages like Image:Syria-flag-changes.svg Hebrew and Arabic are divergent... AnonMoos 16:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sri Anandamoyi Ma.jpg

I have put the the required information in. Let me know if it needs any more clarity or further information. 11:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that was me. Sorry that I forgot to log in before doing this. Aditya Kabir 11:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hendrik Conscience.jpg

What is the problem with the description of Hendrik Conscience? It is an old painting in the Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten in Antwerpen. The description mentions the name of the painter, ànd the place where the painting currently is, so imho there is no problem. The same applies for Image:Cornelis Felix van Maanen.jpg, where the painter is unknown, but I mentioned the museum where the painting currently is. Image:Rotterdamse Schie 1611.jpg is a detail of a map made in 1611 van Floris Balthasarsz. van Berckenrode, which is also in the description tag. Hanhil 17:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If you could simply list where you got the painting; the URL, if online, or the book which you scanned it from. That's it, and you can erase the tag. Patstuart 17:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Files by Arthur Rackham

Image deletion warning Files by Arthur Rackham have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these images, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. If the files are up for deletion because they have been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the files may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new files.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Stamp uploads

You wrote : You have marked several stamp uploads as self-made, which appear to have artwork going back many centuries. This is clearly an incorrect license. Please mark the website from which you got these images and find a proper tag in Category:License tags. I took myself those pictures. They are pictures of philatelic matter of my personal collection. Could you help me ? I don't understand what I must do. PLease explain me clearly (I am french speaker) or modify yourself the text of the pictures. Thank you. Alcyon. the preceding unsigned comment was added by Alcyon (talk • contribs)

The issue here is whether stamps are in the public domain in the country which they represent. They are in some countries; in others, they're not. To be honest, I'm not exactly sure; perhaps you could leave a not at the village pump. I'm sorry to be too big of a trouble, and I hope we can sort this out. Patstuart 18:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


Ok, I'll take that advise for next time. Thanks, Ffahm 18:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Flickr images

Why? I personally contacted the author (who by the way is on every single photo I am uploading here) and all the images are tagged with CC-BY so there is no confusion there whatsoever. --Zureks 19:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's simply a policy we have on commons. It's vaguely outlined at Commons:Flickr images. It's not that we don't trust you (in fact, your uploads were correct in this instance), it's that sometimes people mistag images from flickr (happens with surprising frequency), or someone from flickr will change their license; we need verification that all is kosher. Patstuart 19:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. So do you want me to tag the rest of them (around 1300) or should I just keep this tag off? --Zureks 19:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Goodness, if you've uploaded all of those from flickr, I would say you should tag them, yes. You might ask for help at the village pump in having a bot do it though. Patstuart 19:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I will upload them manually, as I want to do categorise them as well, and not all need to be uploaded as some of them already are in commons. I used Commonist in the past, but I dont like the way it makes descriptions. --Zureks 19:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Fuente, para que quede claro que la foto la saque del sitio de Presidencia --Belb 15:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Queda claro. Por favor, pon ese enlace en la página. Patstuart 16:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Fuente, atributyendo la fuente

Ok Patstuart, pondré más cuidado en los próximos uploads, creo que me dejé llevar por el entusiasmo.--Claudio Elias 17:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Muchas gracias, entiendo el problema. :) Patstuart 18:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


Ante todo saludos y gracias por advertirme de mi falta. Te pido tu ayuda: la imágen que subí fue tomada de un viejo libro publicado en Argentina alrededor del año 1951 y por lo tanto no puedo relacionarlo con ningún sitio de la Web. ¿Cual es tu consejo para solucionar mi error?--Titán 19:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC) ¿Gracias! --Titán 22:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

¡De nada! Sugiero que pongas en la página exactamente lo que acabas de informarme: el nombre del libro, el año en que fue publicado (en esta vez, alrededor de 1951), la página (si es posible), y si tiene algo que decir sobre el autor, eso también. Patstuart 23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

El libro es Derrota Mundialde Salvador Borrego E. Tengo otra pregunta, conozco al autor de la imágen de Telegenio, como puedo especificarlo?, por cierto he añadido ya la fuente de las imágenes de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, te pido me informes si falta algún dato. Un saludo y de nuevo gracias--Titán 22:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi Pat,

I noticed a couple of times that when you answered questions to other users about why some info was necessary you replied, "It's just a rule Commons has". I just wanted to say that I don't think there are too many rules that Commons has just for the hell of it. AFAIK all our rules and requirements have some rationale behind them, and if they don't then frankly they should probably be gotten rid of.  :)

"It's just a rule" is a pretty frustrating bureaucratic response to receive, so I think taking the time to explain the rationale behind the rule might be more helpful in defusing a frustrated or annoyed user situation. For example, for PD-old/art items, the source (details of first publication) needs to be provided so that others can verify that enough time has in fact expired. For some stuff it is really "duh" but for other stuff, just because something is black and white or an illustration doesn't mean it wasn't published in the last 70 or so years.

Thanks for your good work on Commons so far, & cheers --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pfc. Thanks for the message. I must say, I apologize if I've been terse with anyone. It was not my intention. I do remember saying this on occasion, but I believe that when I've said it, I've tried to accompany it with a proper explantion. I was able to find only one example above where I said it to a user who was having trouble understanding that we need to give a proper source to every file - I meant it in the context not "just because", but in the context that "we have this rule in the first place" - as should be evident by his subsequent response. Hope this explains. Cheers. Patstuart 22:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


Bonjour, Mais de quoi parles-tu? Les auteurs sont morts depuis plus de 70 ans! Les peintures sont donc dans le domaine public, où est le problème? En plus, ce n'est pas moi qui ai téléchargé ces images: Image:Fanny Cerrito.jpg , Image:Leighton-Alain Chartier-1903.jpg, Image:Inf. 06 Marie-Philippe Coupin de La Coupierie, Gli amori funesti di Francesca da Rimini, 1812c..jpg. --Guil2027 16:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Guil. Thanks for the response. First off, sorry if I contacted you about images not yours. Second, you are correct, they are public domain; however, please list the HTML page or book where you got them. Thanks. Patstuart 18:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I put source on pictures. Is it good now? Bye! --Guil2027 21:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Guil2027's uploads

Why are his uploads more conspicuously lacking sources than many thousands of similar scans of old paintings which are already on Wikimedia Commons? Also, since his main language seems to be French, it might be courteous to arrange to reply to him in the same language. AnonMoos 20:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is a problem. His uploads were conspicuous because I was on image patrol, and found they were all lacking a source. I don't know why you have an issue with me tagging these files. Second, I suppose you are correct; however, I do not speak any French, and I figured he can get it translated if he has to (after all, my user page clearly states I do not speak French). Patstuart 16:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I really don't see how coming down like a ton of bricks on a random hapless non-English-speaking user for a technicalistic "violation" which many many thousands of other images already on Wikimedia Commons are already technically "guilty" of does anything to substantially advance Commons project goals. It would theoretically be nice if all images had clearly-given sources, but the de facto customary practice here has been that if the (2-D) content of an image is clearly pre-20th century, and if there's nothing about the image which raises particular cause for suspicion, then the image will usually not be deleted if "PD-old" or "PD-Art" is claimed. Why should User:Guil2027's uploads be treated differently from what has been the general practice in the past? AnonMoos 21:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of this de-facto practice. In fact, I see whole swaths of users' images nominated at once when they fail to provide a source, and I see it often. I just stumbled upon User talk:ADGE, where this user had many such images mass nominated. This is because it is commons policy, as it states directly and in bold at COM:L. And for good reason; we need the source to be able to verify that images are correctly marked by users (I have seen images, that when sourced properly, in fact turned out to not be pd-old). And, I have not treated this user any different than someone else; when on image patrol, if I see someone has uploaded a badly licensed image, I go through his/her contributions (as is standard practice) in order to ascertain they are following procedure. Patstuart 21:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
That's nice. What slightest evidence do you have to raise suspicions that Image:Jean-Honoré Fragonard - La lettre d'amour.jpg is not a faithful reproduction of an 18th-century or 19th-century painting? And what meaningful difference is there between that image, and Image:A0000d70.jpg by the same artist (in fact, the very first image listed in Category:Jean-Honoré Fragonard), which has been on Commons for over six months, and also has no explicit source listed? If you know nothing about 18th-century or 19th-century paintings, and find yourself unable to usefully judge between suspicious and unsuspicious images, then maybe you should leave the task of ferreting out suspicious images in that particular area to those who do have such knowledge. AnonMoos 22:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Rudeness on your part

Since you didn't bother to condescend to reply to my last comments here, and still have not deigned to answer in any way my basic original continuing question of "What is the relevant difference between User:Guil2027's uploads and many many thousands of images already on Wikimedia Commons??" (but instead merely nominated Image:A0000d70.jpg for deletion with the apparent motive of personally spiting me), my opinion that I fail to see how your narrow technicalistic bureaucratic lawyering will serve the larger purposes of Wikimedia Commons in any way has remained unaltered. Furthermore, your threatening me with your admin status could also be seen as pretty rude. AnonMoos 15:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin. I have not threatened you at all; I have, however, asked the administrators at the noticeboard to have a word with you because you are violating policy. And like I have told you many times, this is in no way a technical bureaucratic way of seeing things, given that many many users enforce this policy on commons. If you would like to change policy so that supposedly obvious cases are not marked for deletion, please do so. But also, please read up on Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Country-specific_rules, which very clearly states that public domain art might actually not be in the public domain if the photographer has not released the license. Patstuart 15:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This whole conversation could have been prevented from taking any unpleasant turn if you had had the courtesy to actually answer the question which I originally asked, and have been continuing to ask... AnonMoos 16:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for not responding, however, I did not want to risk upping the approbium (sp). It did not seem worth it to me to have a conflict. Patstuart 16:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It also has to do with the integrity of the project. The point of this project is for us to be as open and transparent as possible; as such, we need to state how and where we got images, so that they can better be traced to the origin. This is why the policy page openly states that images must be sourced, even if the original source does not require it. Patstuart 16:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

1) It would have been found much less annoying if you had offered some kind of acknowledgement to my comment of "22:24, 5 November 2007" --instead of maintaining absolute silence while simultaneously tagging Image:A0000d70.jpg (apparently in order to personally snub me). AnonMoos 15:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I did nothing to spite you. Patstuart 19:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It sure looked like it when you refused to reply to (or even acknowledge in any way) my remarks of 22:24, 5 November 2007, but did especially go out of your way to nosource-tag an image which was not previously involved in this matter in any way, but which I happened to mention as a randomly-encountered example of many, many thousands of images which are already on Wikimedia Commons (and have been for a long time). Furthermore, your injunction might be considered ever-so-slightly hypocritical in light of the attitude which you seem to have adopted towards me. AnonMoos 23:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

2) The interpretation that in case of unknown source, the strictest possible rules from among the alternatives listed at Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Country-specific_rules must apply is the legally-impregnable fully-lawyerized armor-plated inch-thick-rubber-condom position. However, it is far from being the case that this has been consistently applied when deciding whether or not to delete claimed PD-art or PD-old images...

Lawyer's interpretation or not, people have been sued over this stuff. Like I said earlier, if you nominate the policy page for deletion, please do so. Otherwise, the pd-art page is policy, like it or not. Patstuart 19:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
However, there's rather little likelihood of Commons being imminently sued over pre-20th-century 2D-images, and your particular individual brand of copyright paranoia based on your personal interpretation of selectively-chosen passages from selectively-chosen guidelines has not been the commonly-applied practice in the past when deciding whether or not to delete pre-20th-century 2D-images here -- so from that point of view, you're the one who's trying to change policy. AnonMoos 23:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

3) If there is no outside intervention in a day or two, then I will be removing the nosource templates again -- not in order to get into an edit war (which was never actually my intention), but so that you can formally nominate these images for deletion (a single mass-nomination would be fine), and the matter can actually be discussed and considered (instead of the images simply being deleted on criteria which are quite different from those which have often been applied in the past). Some of my arguments in the deletion discussion will be similar to those now seen at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard‎. 15:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And you will be violating rules, and I will seek an administrator to block you. Patstuart 19:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Further threats of intimidation -- it's interesting how you seem to find threats to be more congenial than discussion, and how you seem to be somewhat desperate to avoid any kind of general discussion of the deletion of these images (which has been all I ever asked for). If you nominate yourself for Commons Admin status, I will certainly be a vocal opponent -- not just because of the rudeness and threats displayed by you in this matter, but even more because I don't want Commons to be ruled over by a narrow rigid petty-bureacratic spirit of technicalistic lawyering which will not result in any substantive improvement of Commons that I can see, and which is not even applied with respect to real consensus policies, but rather with respect to personal individual "interpretations" of policies. 23:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
AnonMoos, you can't blame Pat for applying a Commons policy and not knowing contradictory past practice. On the other hand, I agree with you that, concerning obvious PD-Art and PD-Old content, rigidity is not the appropriate behaviour. I'm too ennoyed to see some talk pages lengthening with no-source warnings (no necessarily from Pat) about PD-Art content, and I'm now pretty worried to see links becoming red.
The solution is certainly in between both your approachs. For example, I don't mind seeing those pictures tagged with {{nsd}} as long as we give them more time than usual before deletion. There are two separate threads on that subject on COM:VP and COM:AN. Don't you want to cease fire and come to a consensus there with a gentleman's attitude? That would be great. Regards. — Xavier, 23:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I've added comments at Commons:Village_pump#Source_Information, but it's difficult to have a "truce" when the images are imminently threatened with deletion at any moment if the nosource tags were to be re-added (which unfortunately seems to be the case). AnonMoos 14:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


I have no problem with you nominating the images for deletion -- I've said several times that I would greatly prefer a formal deletion nomination (where their fate could be properly discussed) over getting them deleted without discussion (which would be the result of nosource-tagging). However, for all but one of the images, the link on the image description page for deletion discussion points to a location where that particular image is not mentioned or discussed, so that these deletion nominations are currently technically defective. AnonMoos 20:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Permissions on Image:Delta_Goodrem_in_Concert_Cropped.jpg

I am actually a bit pissed off because I have sent three emails (the first at least 2 weeks ago) to OTRS with the permissions message for the parent imageand have not recieved a reply or confirmation. I also contacted several users, none of whom seem to have confirmed the image. Anyway, you can look at the confirmation here as a screenshot. For clarification, the "Please excuse me... clarification" text was from the email I sent him. He just filled in his name and date on the bottom.

TheKillerAngel 03:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the problem, but I do not have OTRS permissiosn. You might like to talk to User:Siebrand, who does. It looks pretty kosher to me, though. I have reset the no permissions tag, so the file won't immediately be deleted. Patstuart 16:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


I have contacted several Polish Commons sysops before running my bot and all have said that my bot must not have bot flag if I upload any files. --Derbeth talk 19:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the idea is that you are not to be running a bot with thousands of images being uploaded. The policy states this directly, so I'm sorry if you were misinformed. Please contact Herby, the one who blocked it. Patstuart 19:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

De-admin policy

I'm concerned that you have put something into a policy (approved by a community vote) without the community actually sanctioning it. I see what you are doing & agree in large parts but I don't think that section should be in for now - no real vote has been taken on it? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for responding. I looked at the discussion, and it was clear there was absolute consensus on the issue, so I figured that the being BOLD part of Wiki[mp]edia was more important than anything else. I would be willing to bet that most policies around were formed in a similar way, without the official "voting" - it's how we've done it on other projects in obvious instances. It seems pretty unnecessary to go through the vote at the moment, and in fact it could hinder the current discussion on Joymaster to have to wait for a policy that we already all agree on. That's my opinion, and you're free to disagree or bring it up elsewhere if you think we should wait for an official vote. Patstuart 19:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Film trailer images

This link explains it better than I could possibly, but basically the individual frames of a film trailer were released without a copyright notice and the fact that the same frames appear in a later copyrighted work, does not mean that the copyright is extended to them. Where possible (and in this case) I keep the text on the frame so as to clearly distinguish that it is from the trailer. Thirdship 03:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I explained it here, but the argument was not provided from you. Film trailer is different from screenshot. Because other users uploaded film trailer shots, I imitated it. It is personal attacks to add tags of only my image. Thirdship 20:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack; all your uploads had this same problem: they did not have any source proving that the copyright was not renewed. I cannot find the files you speak of, so I cannot tag them (though, if you point them out to me, I will). The problem is in reading the URL you gave me: it states that the copyright goes out, but only if the makers did not renew the copyright. We don't have evidence that the film makers did not do so in these cases (you might want to ask at COM:VP for help on establishing this, as I don't know how myself). Patstuart 20:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded it just a little. Say the same thing to not only me but also other users. (User:Rossrs and User:PhantomS etc.) They uploaded too many film trailer screenshots. Thirdship 20:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct; many of these users' images are not marked correctly either. I have marked about 14 by PhantomS that did not give such proof, though he has uploaded hundreds of images, and I can't go through them all. However, a good deal of his images were marked properly. For example, Image:YehudiMenuhinStageDoorCanteen.jpg states directly that the photo is in the public domain, and gives the sources. Image:Snow white 1937 trailer screenshot (6).jpg does as well. I would suggest you do the same with your files. Patstuart 21:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Pat, As Thirdship has very generously dragged me into his argument, I'll go back over the images I've uploaded as time permits. I don't know how active Phantom is at the moment, so I'll also have a look at his uploads and update the pages that need updating. I don't think I'll have much time for at least a few days, but I will get to it within a few days. Could you please clarify what you find unsatisfactory in the link given - my take, and that which has also been discussed elsewhere here is that because the trailers were released without copyright notice there was actually no copyright to renew. This is the major difference between images from films, and images from film trailers. Images from the films themselves, of course must show something to state copyright was not renewed such as in the Yehudi Menuhin image you note above, and I have noted this on any film image I've uploaded, though not on film trailer images, unless I've missed some in error. Rossrs 21:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, the images don't have any link showing that the trailer wasn't copyrighted, or that (if it was) it was not renewed. Image:Darryl F. Zanuck in Grapes of Wrath trailer.jpg, for example, has no such message. Patstuart 22:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The link given above as an example says that film trailers were not copyrighted seperately before a certain date, so would linking that page to the individual image pages be enough. It would be good to get this sorted out, and I'm happy to do whatever I can to help. Rossrs 22:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I am reading the link, and I certainly don't read it to say that. What I read it to say about pre-1976 trailers is the following:
  • The true issue is whether it contained a copyright notice when it was distributed to the public. (emphasis not mine)
  • Most [not all] of the trailers prior to 1976 were created as new works (emphasis mine)
  • Courts generally tend to back the copyright holder, since the Constitution has granted copyright holders rights to their works in order that they may prosper. (concerning when the copyright was renewed)
  • Concerning material published without a copyright: This is currently being adjudicated in another court of law which may rule in the opposite direction.
  • Finally: In any event, industry custom and practice has been to use trailers prior to 1972 based on the above information. Most stock footage houses, which sell this material, can give you this same explanation.
This last provision is the only one that looks promising; however, it seems clear that someone can renew the copyright on a film. Somehow, we need to prove the film copyright was not renewed. The page does not directly say that all material from pre-1972 is automatically in the public domain. Patstuart 22:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
(disclaimer: I'm not familiar with those US copyright laws) Since the trailer seems to be considered as a separate work, the copyright renewal of the movie would not affect the trailer, especially if it was published without copyright notice.
Pat, when you have a good grasp of copyright status of pre-1964/72/76 trailers, it would be a good idea to drop a note on Template talk:PD-US-no notice. Hopefuly, that would keep this template from being used unwisely. — Xavier, 23:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Pat, I'm glad you raised this, and I think the image pages definitely should be updated to provide clearer information, but I think you are I are reading this page differently. The most important section, in my view, is this :
You note that *Most [not all] of the trailers prior to 1976 were created as new works . The "most" word does not apply to the copyright aspect. The preceding sentence says that "The trailer issue falls into the first way" (ie 1 "either through not placing a copyright notice on it in the first place") and is followed by " The trailers did not contain copyright notices nor were they registered in the Copyright Office or the Library of Congress." Personally I think that last sentence is the decider because it is saying that trailers were not copyrighted, the "most" applies only to the aspect of new material, which would also be in the public domain if released without a copyright notice. Also, watching these old trailers - and I've watched hundreds from start to finish - there is no copyright notice on them. The film on the other hand, certainly shows a copyright notice. My interpretation also is that any trailers released prior to 1976 without a copyright notice would be public domain as they are not protected by the 1976 Copyright Act which automatically confers copyright on the creator, and therefore all post-1976 trailer are copyrighted regardless of what copyright information is printed on them. Also in regards to your last point, a copyright can be renewed but a copyright can't be bestowed upon something that has already been released without copyright information, so yes, it's possible to renew a copyright, but I don't understand how it applies to this discussion.
Also the sentence "The true issue is whether it contained a copyright notice when it was distributed to the public" is within a section discussing the general application of copyright rather than specific discussion of film trailer copyright. The specific points are those I've copied above, and the author states that the trailers were released without copyright notice, which once again, I think is the main point.
You say you accept Image:Snow white 1937 trailer screenshot (6).jpg as containing a source that specifically states it is in the public domain ( I'll make a start at updating pages images that are also covered by the same reference, and if I also link to the page we've been discussing, and which several other editors have referred to to support use of film trailer images such as these, would that work? Rossrs 08:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I just went to update the Snow White image and noticed it was incorrect. It had a "not renewed" tag, with a licence that linked to say that it had never been copyrighted, so it was contradictory, but it is the latter that is true according to the link. I've updated it and hope that it is now an example of how the image description page could be set out. I've also updated Image:Darryl F. Zanuck in Grapes of Wrath trailer.jpg with the same licencing information as the Snow White image and with the additional link. If you think this is OK, I'll do the same with the rest of the images that fall into the same situation as time permits. Actually the wording for the link from the Snow White image is the kind of crisp, clear language that I wish the other one was written in. Rossrs 09:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

re. RfA

Just so that you know, I would absolutely love to support you, but commons has a rule that a user must have at least 250 edits. You might light to withdraw your nomination and try again in a few days. Patstuart 05:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

250 edits? I can't say I've heard of this rule. The 200 edit standard I mentioned in my nom was based on EVula's comments, but I'm not really sure if there is an arbitrary standard. I personally wouldn't consider it wise to have one, but I might be slightly biased there :) Giggy\Talk 09:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
From COM:A are a Commons contributor with 200 edits (uploads or texts) minimum - Giggy has less than 50 uploads but over 200 edits. ~ Riana 09:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Well there you go - I have over 200 edits, so I've met that rule :) Giggy\Talk 09:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Aw heck, that's Spanish Wikipedia, where 250 edits is the magic number. Oh well. Patstuart 22:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Thanks for the support :) Giggy\Talk 02:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Re. Licencia

Te respondo a la pregunta que haces en ca:Viquipèdia:Plantejament de preguntes. Las imágenes con la plantilla ca:Template:Arròs Caldós estan marcadas como no libres ya que se trata de una vieja autorización no confirmada por OTRS. La autorización la obtuvo ca:User:Makinal hace tres años, pero ahora se encuentra inactivo. La única referencia que tenemos es una respuesta que dice "si se cita con un enlace no tengo ningún problema". Este tipo de autorizaciones eran aceptadas años atrás, pero hoy no. Habria que confirmarla via OTRS y, mientras, no creo que sea aceptable en commons. --Vriullop 18:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Gracias por la respuesta. Eso es lo que pensaba, pero no estaba nada seguro; parecía que tal vez había otra parte de la correspondencia de que ustedes supieran. Patstuart 19:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Flickr reviewing

Hello! I've passed your request for permission to review flickr images. Be sure to read all relevant instructions on Commons:Licensing, Commons:Flickr images and {{flickrreview}}. Also, please add {{User trusted}} to your userpage. Feel free to ask any questions :-) Happy reviewing! --Boricuæddie 03:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Great work with the script!! --Boricuæddie 21:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way to make it just add the template (instead of replacing {{flickrreview}} with {{flickrreview|etc}})? --Boricuæddie 16:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering

Would you like to be an admin here? You seem to have a good grasp of policy and I'd gladly nominate you if you're feeling shy. ;) ~ Riana 12:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ay, I applied about a week and a half ago, and had to withdraw because it was too early. Might want to wait just a little bit before I try. Thanks! Patstuart 01:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Really? Apologies, I must follow RFA more closely here :) Perhaps a month or so more should do the trick. :) ~ Riana 01:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up

T'was a simple copy-paste error. Ta muchly for the heads-up :) GeeJo (t)(c) • 01:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

See Image talk:Young Street Richmond Hill radail railway.gif

In case the subject doesn't work, Image talk:Young Street Richmond Hill radail railway.gif Note: I do not visit the commons frequently, please indicate posts on my wiki page. Maury Markowitz 23:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The answer provided on the talk page by another user is exactly correct. Patstuart 18:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


It's not a copyvio. The owner of the image gave me the permission. I even have the correspondence. Give it a little bit while I contact them again. Evrik 18:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I find your attitude to be off-putting. You marked it as cc-by-2.5 with a flickr review. If you have permission, it needs to go through OTRS. Patstuart 18:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I find your attitude unfriendly. I didn't mark it as cc-by-2.5, I marked it as (cc-by-sa-2.0). I can file it with the OTRS if I need to, but tagging the image as a speedy delete won't let me do that will it? I expect that the permission will be changed on flickr any minute, at that point the issue will be moot, won't it? Evrik 18:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Now that you've tagged it that way, at least I have more time than a speedy delete ... thanks I guess... Evrik 18:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
When the permission is changed on flickr, then feel free to remove the npd and readd the flickrreview template. Until then, you have 7 days to file the permission with OTRS. I'm not trying to be abrasive. In the meantime, you might want to take a look at this. I recognize a bit too much of myself in you.Patstuart 18:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pat, I appreciate the reference to Colossians 3:8. I also appreciate the fact that you went back and retagged the image to give the image a chance to get worked out. It's a great example of Matthew 7:12. Thanks again. Evrik 19:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


Quisiera saber como es que pongo el tipo de licencia que tiene la imágen, ya que no soy muy diestro en los códigos de wiki. Un saludo y muchas gracias por informarme del asunto de las imágenes.--Titán 19:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

De nada. El problema es que usted está marcando los imágenes que sube como si usted los creó, aunque claramente no lo hizo. Primero, necesitamos la fuente de los imágenes para averiguar la licencia: el libro de donde lo escaneaste, o la dirección de la red de donde viene. Segundo, necesitamos una licencia correcta (e.g., {{pd-old}}, si pertenece). Sin embargo, hay muchos imágenes que no son libres, y por eso no existe una licencia correcta, y no lo puede subir. Patstuart 23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tengo otra pregunta, conozco al autor de la imágen de Telegenio, como puedo especificarlo?, por cierto he añadido ya la fuente de las imágenes de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, te pido me informes si falta algún dato. Un saludo y de nuevo gracias--Titán 22:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

One Armed Man are not a thief

I've not scan no pictures of the "infamous" list you did. All this pictures are free-available in many website. I really don't understand WHY wikipedia should be so lack of freedom as internet, usually, are. Maybe the kind of "licence" I used are not appropriate, but, ok, let's correct it and go on!
We're not a Jail, we're Wikipedia! --One Armed Man 22:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please read up on COM:L if you're having trouble understanding licenses. Yes, the license was wrong, and no, it is not freely available. Even if you can download it off the internet, it is absolutely not open for free use and distrubtion. Please understand that I am not trying to hound you, but that claiming that an image you did not take is your own is a criminal offense - in fact, Wikipedia users have been sued before over such issues. The problem here is that there is no free license for these images, because they were shot and copyrighted by another person for commercial purposes (companies often zealously guard their copyrights). If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the village pump. Thanks for your response, and please understand that there is a way of contributing free images to Wikimedia, and don't become too disgruntled. Patstuart 23:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Abdul Tevfuq.jpg

I moved this image from incubator:Image:Abdul Tevfuq.jpg to here, the description page said:

Teyfuq Abdul{{PD-old}}

So this image's copyright expired. --MF-Warburg(de) 15:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, however, we need the original source from which the image came (see COM:L). You may wish to contact the uploader at incubator; I was unable to find him/her on commons. Patstuart (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your tireless and incredible work here at the Commons, including creating the Flickrreview script and tagging many, many images that lack sources or categories, I award you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Keep up the good work! --Boricuæddie 00:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest you place that script somewhere in userspace, just so it can be found after those pages are archived? Giggy\Talk 21:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You could just make a subpage (e.g., Commons:Flickr images/reviewers/script) and then link to it from the Commons:Flickr images/reviewers page. Patstuart (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I was consulted to talk about this. I am pretty certain the image in question is PD of course I don't have legal basis for this right away. This is a government photo. This was intended as an FYI. Are there any other similar images you tagged? -- Cat ちぃ? 10:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, sorry about rocking the boat there. Yeah, it looks like a governmental photo. The problem is we don't have a PD-Turkey template. Maybe you want to ask on the Turkish noticeboard or village pump if anyone has more info on this. Then we can appropriately tag. Patstuart (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Uncategorized images

Hi. Please don't remove an {{uncat}} tag from an image that is neither categorized nor in a gallery. Thanks. Patstuart (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I already made an appeal/explanation at a talk to me even though I left the culture here page somewhere else. I did not remove an uncat template from an image, I undid changes that were made today and explained it both in funny anger and also with an honest appeal to any human being who might be putting a nine character template on images today. -- carol 02:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I don't often visit my en page. However, please do not remove uncat tags from images. This is a problem, because commons licensing requires all images to be categorized or listed on a gallery. I'm not quite sure why you've removed these tags, but it requires more effort then you might think. Please do not keep removing them. Patstuart (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I think that I have a little understanding of how much effort it takes to find those images. I tend to find them and then catalog them which, if you spend perhaps a couple of days thinking about this -- you might realize that, by definition, it takes just a little more effort to do this.
All I request is that you consider this for a couple of days and then by all means, start to paste uncat templates on as many images as you can find. 'Tis a valuable service.... -- carol 02:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me guess, you are using a Mac, aren't you?

something smells familiar and it is not just me.

Here are some links to make life easier for you:

  1. hello, are you a bot
  2. can you contol the ibot?

Also, I am a big fan of your help desk work. -- carol 02:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not a bot. I am, however, using a script that I put a good deal of time into: User:Patstuart/Extrascripts.js. You can even copy it if you'd like, though you should avoid the flickrreview section if you're unauthorized, and only tag images properly. To be honest, I don't appreciate your attitude. If you have a problem with me, I suggest you take this to the administrator's noticeboard, where I'm sure the administrator's will be opine on whether it's appropriate to ask me not to apply an {{uncat}} tag to images. In fact, please do so; I would love to hear their opinion on the matter. As a side note, please keep conversations intact, and if you paste on my talk page, only do so with the whole conversation intact. Thanks. Patstuart (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is interesting at least. I thought that I was leaving a message on your talk page. I am not fond of my attitude right now either, it is difficult to control it when I am being interrupted. I think that I found a solution for all of us though.
Thanks for not being a bot. Somehow, use of javascript some how confirms things.
Here is something that should be unrelated but was fun to read: there are five parts to that (you have to push the little next button to read the next one). I found it to be interesting in that I went to school with this woman only her name was just a little different. We used to go to bars together and she would tell the boys that her father worked for the CIA and was taken away by a helicopter one day. Rumor has it that she also got kicked out of the school musical the next year (she was a year younger than me and I was not there any longer) for smoking in the costume room. The high school actually had a designated smoking area for the attendees way back then.
Once again, and honestly -- thanks for not being a bot. -- carol 03:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC) pasted by -- carol 03:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
My computer is better than my camera
I achieved my little goal sooner than I thought and I need to thank you for your assistance to get that little section to pose for a few seconds for the screen grab.
I chose the I's because they were more difficult (because there were so many that also needed to be renamed). I often lose races though (I don't have a good attitude for them), especially to well written scripts. -- carol 11:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocking your account...

Awww. Totally understand what you mean about spending too much time on the project, though, I got myself de-adminned on en for the very same reason :) I'll (not gladly) do it, if you like, autoblock disabled and all that to prevent collateral - how long do you want it for? ~ Riana 04:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Riana. Could I ask you do it for 2 months. At worst, I can just come back. Thanks. And like I said, if you could deal with questions in my tlak page, I'd be grateful. Patstuart (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, blocked for 2 months :/ If you want to come back earlier please e-mail me or request unblock :) I'll keep an eye on your talk. Enjoy your break :) ~ Riana 01:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


Dear Mr Patstuart,

First of all, thank you for the great interest you took in consulting my sites. The seals and drawings you're mentioning are mine. I did draw them myself. I must also emphasize the fact that the photos were taken by me just as well.

I remain at your disposal for any further information you may desire.

El domingo 18 de Noviembre he cambiado muchas cosas para informar Wikepedia sobre el origen de mis imagenes.

With best regards,

Furmeyer 08:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Furmeyer. At the moment, I'm not contributing, really: you might ask for someone at Commons:Bistro to close the discussion. They all appear to be good, with the exception of Image:Roy christian.JPG (did you really snap this photograph? It looks professional). Thanks. Patstuart (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi, Patstuart. The permission text in the information box says in Russian that the Deputy Director of the company from whose website the image was taken licenses its use. It claims that a copy of the permission letter was sent to . However, I don't know whether this is sufficient since: first, it doesn't appear there's any mention of a response from the permissions address; second, the right to use the image may be limited to educational purposes ("В просветительских целях"), whereas Wikimedia images must also be licensed for commercial use; and finally, it doesn't appear the uploader is the creator of the image (I may be wrong about that), so I don't see on what basis he can license it GFDL -- {{Copyrighted free use}} maybe? --Dutch Uncle(talk)/(On English Wikipedia) 18:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rrburke. I think you will see it was not me that added the no permissions tag. I suggest nominating it for deletion. See COM:DELETE. :) Patstuart (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A bug

Hi. Just to let you know that I have left a note here regarding a probable bug on your Flickrreivew script. Apparently it doesn't seem to recognise the ampersand in image titles. -- RedCoat 13:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to fix it anonymously (I'm blocked by my own choice at the moment). No promises, as I can't actually test it, but I have done some tests on my machine, and I think I've fixed the problem. Feel free to get back to me or revert the page if it doesn't work anymore. Patstuart (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. I am don't understand why you want to delet Image:Rumata Circo Ruso Logo 1.jpg? I scan these logo from my credential, I vectorised it with Illustrator, I save it as image and I post it here. What is wrong with this procedure? Please explain to me what I'm doing wrong, so I will not make the same mistake in the future.--Rumata 22:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you own the copyright of the underlying image? See Commons:Derivative works.
¿Tienes los derechos del imagen subyacente? Vete Commons:Trabajos derivados. Patstuart (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


Image deletion warning Image:Abortion-pre1973.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 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!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− 08:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


Pat, every time I use the script, it puts your username in as the reviewer instead of mine. Just a heads-up. Videmus Omnia 01:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a newer (better) version here: Commons_talk:Flickr_images/reviewers#Script. I looked at your monobook; looks like you fixed it up anyway. Patstuart (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Heinz Guedrian

Por que razón se ha borrado la imágen de Heinz Guderian que subí a commons, siendo que coloque las fuentes de donde lo obtuve?. Un saludo muy cordial.--Titán 01:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Según los registros, era una violación de los derechos de autor. No puedo ver el imagen original; necesitarás contactar con User:ChristianBier. Patstuart (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


You can just delete the easy buttons. They're just not useful. Thanks. Jonjonbt96 01:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

New York politicians

You might want to weigh in at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/01/New York politicians; two very similar categories probably need merging, but which way? -- Jmabel | talk 01:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

image: Davinio 90.JPG

I am Leonardo Sergun, I uploaded on wikimedia commos the image Image:Davinio 90.JPG Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported licence is specified in the upload, where is the problem?? could ypou please resolve the problem???? Leonardo Sergun--Leonardo Sergun 20:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)