User talk:Sven Manguard

Babel user information
en This user is a native English speaker. PH-2 This user is able to take good quality photographs. BG-1 This user is able to contribute at a basic level to bitmap graphics. AF-1 This user is able to contribute with a basic level to audio files. This user is an administrator on Wikimedia Commons. (verify) This user is a member of the Wikimedia OTRS team. (verify)
Users by language

Looking for something that was here? Check the archives: 2012
Fast navigation: English Wikipedia

My POTY votes

• File:MAP Expo Empereur Ojin Poupée 03 01 2012.jpg
• File:Glühlampe explodiert.jpg
• File:The Mummy 1932 film poster.jpg
• File:Rho Ophiuchi.jpg
• File:Bara Imambara Lucknow.jpg
• File:Tomb of Humayun, Delhi.jpg
• File:Monasterio de Santa Cruz, Coímbra, Portugal, 2012-05-10, DD 09 organ edit.jpg
• File:Torre Agbar - Barcelona, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg
• File:Frankfurter Altstadt mit Skyline 2012-04.jpg
• File:La Défense de nuit, Paris, France 2.jpg
• File:Octopus vulgaris Merculiano.jpg
• File:Octopus macropus Merculiano.jpg
• File:John F Kennedy Official Portrait.jpg
• File:Nepali woman, Ghyaru (crop).jpg
• File:Роза Лыгденова.JPG
• File:Стрельба из лука.jpg
• File:Chicoreus aculeatus 01.JPG
• File:Clanculus ormophorus 01.JPG
• File:Vexillum ornatum 01.JPG
• File:Solenostemon scutellarioides, Jardín Botánico, Múnich, Alemania 2012-04-21, DD 02.JPG
• File:Clearfin lionfish (Pterois radiata).JPG
• File:Ara ararauna Luc Viatour.jpg

Good luck to all the candidates. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

---

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 10:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

Obvious Copyright

Sven, I do not really know the protocol on Commons so much, but I do attempt to work in the image space on WP where I obviously attempt to follow in footsteps of yourself, Fastily, Stefan, etc... Early today I stumbled upon an obvious copyright on Commons (see: Commons:Deletion requests/File:2013 Uribana prison riot.jpg) where another editor claimed that the uploader had previously uploaded copyvios. I wanted to AGF, but generally editors don't make outrageous claims, so I check over the uploader's other files (see: upload history) and every one is from another place on the internet. I opened up deletion discussions for each one individually with links to where the image originated. At first, while still trying to AGF, I thought the editor must not understand copyright, or how it works to upload images. Then I saw the users en.wikipedia talk page (see talk page) where most, if not all had been originally uploaded to en.wikipedia and then later deleted. Obviously the uploader realizes that these are copy vios, but has added that he is the author because he has cropped them (side note, none are cropped). What really took the cake for me was one image that came from Flickr (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:2012 Romanian protests.jpg) where the uploader added the flickerreview bot tag themselves (see diff of addition. That is an obvious admission of guilt in my book. I believe the images all need to be deleted, (probably speedy) and I assume they will be in good time. I am coming to you because I believe there may need to be some administrator action taken against the offender. I honestly do not know where to start here. I sort of could figure it out on en.wikipedia, but I dont know what I need to do to get this all noticed. If you could point me in the right direction I would greatly appreciate it. (If you want to see all of the deletion logs, the best place would be to look at my contributions for today (27 January 2013).

Thanks for your time as I know you are extremely busy on the various projects and in real life. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Denniss has extremely graciously and quickly handled the situation (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kr1st1deejay97). For future reference though, is there a better way to handle this than the way that I did? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to ask about assistance with problematic users, you might find COM:AN, COM:AN/U or COM:AN/B useful. If you want to nominate lots of files for deletion at the same time, consider installing Help:VisualFileChange.js by adding a line to Special:MyPage/common.js. This adds a "perform batch task" link in the toolbox at Special:ListFiles/SomeUser and category pages which allows you to easily nominate files by a user or files in a category for deletion at the same time. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Antena3D.png

Hi!

I send a file to speedy deletion, File:Antena3D.png, and you didn't consider it as elibible for copyright. It's clear that threshold of originality is subjetive and we have diferent points of view but that's not my point.

My point is that the file was uploaded by the user Donperfectodewiki (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user. As you could see at his talk page, he has uploaded a lot of copyrighted files and he is still doing it whenever he wants.

That logo was first uploaded to File:Logo-Antena-3.png. After a discussion at Spanish Wikipedia about the use of copyrighted images comming from Commons, a deletion resquet was opened in Commons. The file was deleted due to that deletion resquet.

Just after the file was deleted, the user re-uploaded a version of it to File:Antena-3.svg. And when it was deleted again, he re-uploaded it to File:Antena3D.png. He didn't reply at the deletion resquet, he didn't reply at the talk pages, even he didn't use the PD-shape template. He just re-uploaded, and reuploaded, and reuploaded it... and every time he added it to dozen of articles at es.wiki.

So the lesson that we are giving to a user who has the hobby of uploading commercial logos is that he only have to reupload, reupload, and reupload it until he finds someone that feels that the file should keep at Commons.

I think that's not a good lesson at all, apart of if the imagen is original or not.

Regards, --HrAd (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Questions about renaming image files that show people

Thanks for your advice on my correcting of file names. I had a question about another thing that I was hoping you could answer. If I come across a photo of a singer or some other person and the filename of the photo either does not have the person's name or it just has their first name with no last name, or just their last name and no first name, should we rename the picture so that it includes both their first and last name? (This would help people figure out who exactly the photo is of without having to click the image and read the file description). Or, would that be considered as another one of those minor changes you had recommended that I avoid making? (Also, I am not talking about people who are known by their first name such as Madonna, Cher, or Rihanna). Thank you for your help.
Examples are: File:200d.jpg - which is of Michelle Shaprow; File:Greta44.jpg - which is of Greta Salpeter; File:Gordonphoto.jpg - which is of Mikalah Gordon.

--Dobie80 (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

For some reason I don't have the orange banner showing a new change to this page, so while I've been on Commons in the past two days, I didn't see that you'd made an edit here. File:200d.jpg is an utterly useless name, feel free to change it. The other two are passable. I'd say if you want to change those, go ahead. Those names aren't good enough that a change would be 'minor' but not bad enough that a change would be 'needed'. I personally wouldn't take the time to move them, but if you like moving files, those are decent candidates, and no one would bat an eye if you made those changes. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd say such changes were needed: "Greta44" is a nearly-meaningless name, as is "Gordonphoto" - there are so many people who have, or who have had the names Greta and Gordon that no-one would know what the files were of. Of course, my file names tend to be around a dozen words, so... Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, guys. Dobie80 (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Zombie drawing.jpg

Hello, quick question about this deletion: it was a a file found on the web with CC license. I don't understand why it's not acceptable...? Thank you for your answer. Triton (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. So the license it was under is the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic license. Commons does not allow any of the licenses that have the NonCommercial restriction, because we view it as too restrictive. Take a look at the blue box at the top of this page for more details. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I wasn't aware of this restriction Triton (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. Both we, and Creative Commons, need to do a better job of teaching that there's a huge variation within CC licenses. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

To be sure I understood correctly: are this one and this one acceptable? And I can edit them before upload also? Triton (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Both images are licensed under the Attribution 2.0 (CC BY 2.0) license, which is acceptable. That being said, it appears highly unlikely that the uploader of the second image is its rightful owner, as the person has several images that are clearly copyrighted by other parties that he is licensing under CC BY 2.0. Therefore I would still not upload the second one. The first one is perfectly fine though. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Wikidata edit interface glitch on IE7.png

File:Wikidata edit interface glitch on IE7.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!

Ricordisamoa 23:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

<rolls eyes>Sigh</rolls eyes>. I've fixed the incredibly minor issue you brought up and simply closed out the deletion nomination. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Shanghai University title.png

File:Shanghai University title.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the file's talk page.

 

Wylve (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

sockpuppet of User:MarkMysoe

User:MarkMysoe is socking and evading block under username EnzoRivos. He uploaded on commons the same files with exactly the same description like he uploaded on English wikipedia before he got blocked also there, for example: [1] and [2]. Also if you look at the type of uploaded images (Ghanian people, Ghanian logos or AC Milan footballers) and exatly the same style of writing descriptions: MarkMysoe uploads[3][4] EnzoRivos[5], you will be sure that it's he.--Oleola (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)