User talk:Sven Manguard
|Babel user information|
|Users by language|
You are probably not aware but photos from Acrofan are uploadd with permission. The owner even put the Commons logo on his website (!). An explanation is at kowiki, there is a category: Category:Images from acrofan.com and there is an OTRS ticket from the owner (the photographer) of Acrofan, who agreed to release all photos on his website under cc-by-sa-3.0. So I don't really understand why you deleted File:MBLAQ from acrofan.jpg. Teemeah (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I misread the completion status of the ticket (i.e. the process was botched on our end and I initially thought that it wasn't a complete ticket). Looking over it again, I guess it's fine, so I've undeleted the image. You will still need to provide a source for the image though, as the given source isn't accurate. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Speedy Deletions converted to normal
I notice you converted some of my speedy nominations to standard ones. I'm not offended by this, but I labelled them as such because the reason for deletion was a relatively straightforward and unambiguous one.
In this case, these were images that were either out of scope or personal ones. Obviously, personal images are permitted for limited use on Wikimedia user pages *if they are being used*, but these ones were over six months old and had never been used. Many of them were by users who had uploaded only those images then never come back, but I notified them anyway.
The reasoning would (or should) be double-checked by any admin who knew what they were doing before actually deleting the image, so there was an obvious check in place.
If there had been any significant ambiguity in whether the image should have been deleted, I would have used a normal nomination (which is actually slightly less work for me, since it's all automated). The reason I used speedy was that I didn't think it necessary to clutter up the nominations page with "personal fluff" cases that were quite clear-cut with respect to policy- as I said, the admin would provide the necessary double-check safeguard.
- Ubcule - I am of the opinion that when there isn't a compelling reason to bypass the normal process, you should use the normal process. It leaves a much better record, allows the action to be contested (even if that is, as in this case, exceedingly unlikely to happen), and is general good practice. I don't see waiting an extra seven days to get rid of such files as being a burden. It's not that I disagreed with them being deleted - if I did I would have commented - rather it's that I disagreed with going out of process for those images. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- While I would appreciate the offer, I would probably decline the nomination. I haven't been active on this project in any of the areas that bureaucrats work in (RfA, renaming requests, bot requests), and while I would have no problem working in the first two areas, I don't consider myself qualified to play any significant role in the third. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Spirit of Metal
Adding a license by email?
Hey there. Hoping you might be able to answer a question for me: I know there's a way you can add a license for an image by sending an email including the relevant permissions by the author to some central place. How exactly do I do this? Thanks... Girona7 (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)