Commons:Help desk/Archive/2011/10

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.


movie poster

i would like to upload a movie poster? is that ok?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dladystarr1006 (talk • contribs) 2011-09-29T02:25:45 (UTC)
Hi, no File:Takers movie poster.jpg wasn't okay. It is a Copyright violation. Please read Commons:Image_casebook#Internet_images, Commons:Fair use and the intro of COM:L. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
A small number of very early movie posters are OK, for example those from the US before 1923. - Jmabel ! talk 14:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure.. but .. emm.. that is a different kind of. ;-) Takers is from 2010. --Saibo (Δ) 17:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 17:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Upload Failed

Sehr geehrte Damen, sehr geehrte Herren!

Ich möchte die "Vorläufige Verfassung der Technischen Universität Clauhal vom 3.4.1968" hochladen. Diese Verfassung ist publiziert im Niedersächsischen Ministerialblatt 1968 S. 411, 420-427. Sie ist erlasseen vom "Niedersächsischen Landesministerium", das ist das Kabinett, die Landesregierung. Es handelt sich um eine historische Recchtsquelle,die heute nicht mehr in Kraft ist. Als Rechtsquelle und amtliches Erzeugnis einer deutschen Behörde ist sie gemeinfrei.

Das Programm signalisiert: Dateien dieser Art können nicht hochgeladen werden! Trifft das zu? Oder mache ich einen Fehler, wenn ja,welchen? Oder versteht das Programm die Sache nicht richtig ?

Beste Grüße mediopter

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediopter (talk • contribs) 15:44, 30. Sepember 2011 (UTC)
Deine Datei hat keine Dateiendung. Wenn Du Windows benutzt, Rechtsklick auf die Datei ->Eigenschaften. Dann siehst Du den Dateityp. Eine Liste der zugelassenen Dateiformate befindet sich unter Commons:Dateitypen. Wenn Deine Datei in einem unzulässigem Datenformat gespeichert ist, muss sie konvertiert werden. Wenn Du dabei Hilfe benötigst, bitte ich hier um eine Mitteilung. Hilfreich wäre dann das aktuelle Dateiformat zu bennen oder die Quelle aus der das Photo/ der Scan stammt. Danke. -- RE rillke questions? 09:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

How do I upload a revised file?

I have a correction made to a file that is already in the Commons. The upload seems stopped with the warning the file already exists. Next step?

You have a few options. Here are a couple of them:
  1. The lower portion of the original page has an option to "upload a new version of this file". Using that instead of "Upload file" will put the new version into the old namespace. In the information part of this version of upload, just mention that the new file has been "corrected" or something to that effect.
  2. If I remember correctly, you can opt to ignore the warning, which is not the best of the options, as the other version will still be here and it might not be obvious which version is the superior or why. -- Queeg (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Still no joy - It was moved to the Commons by bot from Wikipedia. It says it needs to be checked - I don't know how to pronounce it checked. My version is a spelling-correction.

The "bot move" is a template. It suggests that the invormation that was gleaned from the file page at the original upload wiki be reviewed.
File:Characteristics_of_Capability_Maturity_Model.svg the page which the image is displayed upon has "no original description" as a description, which is a fact of the image page more than a description of the image. The original upload log shows that there were 4 versions of this file and at least one of those was a spelling correction which was uploaded on 2011-05-04. The most recent of those four versions was moved here. The bot move template contains a link to the things which should be checked before removing that template. It also needs some categories, and there is another template on the image page for this problem. I think that you intended to ask a different question, however.
If your file contains a different spelling correction than the file which is already here, the upload link (from that image page) should be
-- Queeg (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the description, etc. but the image itself still contains a spelling error. "Quantitaviely" should be "Quantitatively". - Jmabel ! talk 00:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded "Characteristics of Capability Maturity Model new.svg - please rename to "Characteristics of Capability Maturity Model.svg" I listed the changes in the description. Jmabel, Thank you.

External links

I have been trying to create a template to ease nagigation across rooms of the Louvre. I'd like to add a link to the relevant room in the Louvre online database. When I access the relevant page through [1] I get something with a short description of the room plus a list of all objects. Yet when I access the page through a Wikilink to the same URL like this, I dont have the list of artworks, making it rather useless. From what I can understand this is has to do with "frames", but I know next to nothing about webpages. Is there any way I can get a link to the complete version ?--Zolo (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

got a strange message

Hi I was doing some research about Francisco Alvarez Cascos and I got a message saying I am "blocked" for making threats. I took a screen shot of it. I think it is strange because I have never used this site before.

You are not posting this from a registered account. The IP address you used to post the above comment may have been used by different persons over the years. That IP address was never blocked here on this website (Wikipedia Commons). It was blocked for one week back in 2006 on the English-language Wikipedia website (see log). That followed the threats perpetrated from this IP address, which you can see in the history of this IP, there and there. The discussion page on en.wikipedia, which I guess is the message you are talking about, and which dates from 2006, identifies the registered account who apparently used that IP at that time. Unless you are the same person, it does not have anything to do with you. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing this is on Wikipedia - the log shows your IP was blocked for a week 5 years ago, so it shouldn't be an issue. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


How do I contact the person who uploaded a picture of me? I had it removed, replaced with another and then someone put the original picture back up. I would also like to talk to someone about having this profile taken down of me - Dawn Dumont - permanently. i'm very frustrated by the fact that I have no control over this page. It is beginning to feel malicious.

Dawn Dumont

I assume you refer to en:Dawn Dumont and File:Playwright Dawn Dumont.jpg. The uploader of the file was Geo Swan, you can contact him via his talk page. I assume the attempt to take down the picture was this edit at Wikipedia. Wikipedia has certain policies regarding biographies of living persons, one of which is that we have to use "free use" images, that is ones that are released by the author and can be used for any purpose. If you are unhappy with the image, and wish to release an image of your own, we would be very happy to add it to our archive. However, we would need written permission that you are the copyright holder of the image and that you understand what releasing it under a free licence means. However, we would not be obligated to take down the image you are unhappy with, as it has been freely released, and from what I can see you are a public figure and this was taken at a public event.
Regarding the article itself, generally I think the answer is "no, we won't take it down". I'm sorry you feel that it is malicious, but I don't see anything there that is in any way bad, and all the information is well-sourced. If there are specific grievances, I suggest you take it to the article's talk page. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Dawn, Geo Swan here, the contributor who uploaded File:Playwright Dawn Dumont.jpg, and the individual who worked on :en:Dawn Dumont. Matt is correct, you can upload other images of yourself you like better than the existing ones. Even though I uploaded the two original ones I am not authorized to delete them. Matt is generally correct about the article about you on the English language wikipedia. You can see a couple of discussion about another article I started Jeffrey H. Norwitz. He asked for it to be deleted, just because he didn't want an article about him on the wikipedia. His was deleted, for a while, but after some discussion the administrator who deleted it came around and decided Norwitz was important enough that it didn't matter whether he wanted to be covered, he was important enough we should probably have an article about him anyway. Whether we should an article about him is currently being discussed.
I think, in your case, if there was a discussion as to whether you were important enough that we should have an article about you, at this point in your career your importance is on the cusp, and participants who knew you didn't want an article about you, that would sway the decision over to a delete.
Normally articles are similar to images. Normally I wouldn't get to delete an articles just because I started it. The exception to that general principle is that we get to place a db-author tag requesting deletion on articles we started -- provided no one else has really worked on them yet. A few other people edited the Dawn Dumont article, but since all their edits were of an administrative, or were copyediting, and I remained the sole contributor of intellectual content I could put the deletion tag on Dawn Dumont. Instead of doing that I "userified" it. It was moved from where we keep articles the whole world gets to see to user space, where we keep rough work, and I made sure search engines like google won't list the page in their results. Only the handful of people who read this discussion will know it can be found at.
I'll keep it there for six months. If during those six months you tell your agent, your friends, your fellow playwrights, your colleagues at the Edmonton Journal, that you had a wikipedia article, but asked to have it taken down, and they convince you that was a mistake, and you want it restored to article space, I'll be happy to do that. It look like Todd Babiak may be the only other person at the Edmonton Journal to have a wikipedia article.
For what it is worth we have a tool that tells us how many people look at an article. Your article got 182 page views in September, up from 95 in August. Your page seems to get about half as many unique page views as your former neighbour Connie Walker, and a third as many as your Edmonton Journal colleague Todd Babiak.
Whatever you decide you have my best wishes. Geo Swan (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Rename file


I uploaded the file File:Handgok för Fiskare.djvu. I would like it renamed to File:Handbok för Fiskare.djvu. "Handbok" means "handbook", whereas "Handgok" is as meaningless as "Handgook". V85 (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, see COM:RENAME for instructions. Ok. you found it. Just wait for a filemover. -- RE rillke questions? 09:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

How to add a link to a Wikimedia Commons image

I have just added an image (File:Nahal-Kziv-Montfort-9140.jpg) to one of my pages on my website. I copied and pasted the html code on the page to make sure I wouldn't have any problem with copyrights. Now if you click on the picture on my page it takes you to the Wikimedia Commons page. I don't mind this, but isn't there a way of adding a link to my page from the Wikimedia Commons page, too?

The URL for my page is:

Thanks, Sara

— Preceding comment added by IP (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

As a general rule, image pages only link to sources. A link to your website from a Commons page would be inappropriate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with Prosfilaes here: in fact, several of the licenses acceptable to Commons make it perfectly permissible even for you to require all re-users to link your site as part of attribution.
To link from your page from the Commons page, you can either have the URL appear explicitly, as you did right here, or you can link with a title like this: [ Name of your page]. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Either specify it as part of the attribution, or put it in other versions as "uploaded here" or something so that people don't see it and think copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Prosfilaes. It would be inappropriate on the image's main page. And I disagree with Jmabel and Mattbuck. Merely reproducing an image, without adding original content to it, confers no right to require an attribution and not even of being cited as source by the subsequent reusers. Only the author(s) can require attribution and linking. But something you might do, perhaps, is to use the "Published" template on the image's discussion page, to mention your use of the image. By the way, I understand that you use a link to Commons as a way of crediting the author and mentioning the license, and that sort of works, but technically it might be be better if you had a way of crediting the author and mentioning the license directly on your website, especially if the image is ever deleted from Commons (there is no particular reason to think that that would happen, but we never know). -- Asclepias (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Image move please.

I want to replace with a version I updated (from the official metlink map - ), but can't replace files (my account is too new). Wiki commons instructed me to upload it to another files name, which I have - - and post to Help desk, which I'm doing now. If the image I uploaded could replace the file currently named Melbourne_trams_map.gif that would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advanced

Liamdavies (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Action prepared, the old file has been moved to File:Melbourne_trams_map old.gif, and the new file File:Melbourne_trams_map_new.gif has been tagged for renaming. I could not complete the renaming, as the system has been changed recently: I cannot empty the File:Melbourne_trams_map.gif and this file has to be deleted first before renaming. --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, will the info of previous versions still be available on the page (ie, will the original creator's version still be visible)? If not could the info of the original please be copied over (just in the interest of showing the history of Melbourne's trams, and so the original version I modified is still available)? Liamdavies (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

✓  Done I have copied the edit mode description of the old file to the new one. --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you moved File:Melbourne_trams_map old.gif back to File:Melbourne_trams_map.gif instead of moving File:Melbourne_trams_map_new.gif to File:Melbourne_trams_map.gif. Its now the same as it was before the move, I think something may have gone wrong, or gotten confused. Could you please try again?

Thank you again.

Liamdavies (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, seems I just need to clear the cache, as firefox wasn't loading the new version, but the old one (stored on my computer in the cache).

All good and thank you! (next time I should use ctrl+F5 before posting)

Liamdavies (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

View of Honolulu

Can anyone help with editing this images' descriptions into the artwork template format based on the info from the Library of Congress and also mentioning somehow they were made in 1853 and published in 1854. Thanks. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

how do you post a picture in nominations for best picture of the day

i am super confused? i cant post a picture - unsigned 2 OCT 2011

Have you read Commons:Picture of the day/Instructions? —Akrabbimtalk 20:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

CC0 or CC-BY?

Is this image on Flickr licensed under CC0 or CC-BY? 11:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Flickr user himself obviously didn't know it. -Túrelio (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
CC0. Flickr does not allow you to choose CC0 as a license, so people like me and this guy are forced to put it in the image description. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

getting right to the image


I'd like to contact somehow author of this picture to buy it. Can you please let me know how should I do it?

Best Regards Agamiksa (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What would you like to buy? You are actually allowed to do whatever you like with it, for free, under the conditions of the CC-BY-SA-2.0-DE license. —Akrabbimtalk 14:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Akrabbim: not exactly. Among other things, CC-BY-SA-2.0-DE does not allow you to reuse the image without credit, nor to make alterations that are not similarly licensed. People definitely sometimes have reasons to pay for an image that is also available under CC-BY-SA. - Jmabel ! talk 15:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Right, that's what I meant by "under the conditions of the CC-BY-SA-2.0-DE license", sorry if I was unclear. So it depends on how you would like to use it. Agamiksa, you have done the right thing by asking the author on his talk page. —Akrabbimtalk

Thumbnail error

The thumbnail for File:HHS Glasgow Sultan's guardship.jpg isn't displayed properly; it shows up as an old version of the file. I have seen this on three different computers, so I don't think it is a cache issue. —Akrabbimtalk 20:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It shows up as the black and white version for me. That seems to be the most recent version, have you tried a different browser (that hasn't viewed the picture)? Liamdavies (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Well if other people can see it fine, then I'm not going to worry about it. Apparently I wasn't rigorous enough in my choice of "three different computers". Thanks —Akrabbimtalk 14:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Old Picture

I would like to add a photo from 1885 that is on the following page.[2] The copyright will have expired due to the age but i am unsure how to upload it the source would be the following but i don't know what to do with the author field. Edinburgh Wanderer

I would put either 'Unknown' or 'Official Hearts photographer'. —Akrabbimtalk 19:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


I have recently uploaded 14 portraits to the commons to illustrate pages already in Wikipedia. The author also emailed the appropriate copyright form for each to A'trivial" problem ensued: the AUTHOR'S name became misspelled in every case, Larsen mispelled Larson. These are hardly equivalent. The emails and upload files show no such misspelling. If this misattribution is the result of a software process, Wikimedia has a serious 'trivial' a bug; if this is a data-entry process, you need to review it. Please convey this message to the appropriate technical entity.

I have used edit to correct these name misspellings which are not so trivial if viewed to fail to comply with the Attribution aspect of the commons standard. For what it's worth, this glitch has not happened with the several images that I donated to Wikipedia. UrbanIndianSF (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can link to at least one of the relevant pictures, it's a lot more likely someone can help sort out where along the way the error occurred. - Jmabel ! talk 01:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Question about CC BY-NC-SA licenses from Flickr.

Dear Wiki-copyright experts,

Why can't I upload pictures on Wikimedia Commons from Flickr that have a CC BY-NC-SA license? I understand it's about the NC. But Wikipedia is non-commercial, so what's the problem? When I click on the Flickr picture's CC BY-NC-SA-license it explains me that I'm free to copy, distribute and transmit the work under the conditions that I must attribute the work (which I'll do), that I won't use it commercially (to which I abide because Wikipedia is non-commercial) and that it must be shared-alike (a standard condition). So which Commons-rule is violated if I upload such a CC BY-NC-SA picture? Many thanks for explaining! Loranchet 5 Oct. 2011, 00.17 hrs.

Wikipedia is, indeed, non-commercial, and quite a few of the Wikipedias (including the English-language Wikipedia) allow some images that are licensed on this basis. (Others, including the German-language Wikipedia, do not.) However, it is generally Wikimedia Foundation's intent to foster and host content that can be freely reproduced, including commercial reproduction. The Commons, in particular, is intended specifically to host material where even commercial re-use should not be a problem, at least in terms of copyrights. (Trademarks, personality rights, and other non-copyright restrictions are a separate matter.) So the rule you'd be violating is that we don't host materials that are not licensed for commercial use. You wouldn't be violating a law, but you'd be violating a rule. Similarly, we wouldn't typically want 137 routine pictures of a non-notable person doing non-notable things. It's not that there is any legal problem hosting them: it's simply that they are out of scope.
I don't necessarily like it, but that's the mandate of the project. As an educational project, Wikipedia and the Commons could legally use almost any relevant image on a fair use basis, but the goal is not just to create content that we ourselves can use. - Jmabel ! talk 01:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
EN Wikipedia doesn't accept NC licensed images, except when they can be used under free use, unless they've changed recently.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Right, NC would be just like any other fair use. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that. - Jmabel ! talk 14:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Non-commercial restrictions carry a number of problems with them, not least of which is the very definition of what constitutes commercial use. Wikimedia frequently asks for donations and pays several of its employees, so there are people making money off the Wikimedia foundation's activities. Would that be considered commercial use? What about displaying revenue-generating banner ads on a mirror site? What about selling printed compilations of our content at production cost with zero profit? What would you be allowed to include in the production cost? If you contract it out to a third-party printing house, their wages and profit margin might be included in the production cost, but what if you are the one running the printing house? Are you allowed to pay your employees (including yourself)? See Commons:Licensing/Justifications for further considerations. LX (talk, contribs) 14:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
While revenue-generating banner ads might be deemed "commercial", the fact that Wikipedia has employees is irrelevant. The core activities of an educational non-profit don't become "commercial" just because the non-profit has employees. Even education at a private (or even for-profit) school is generally deemed non-commercial. Nearly all non-profits (and nearly all schools) have employees. Now, something like a municipally-owned railroad or electric company that happens to be run on a non-profit basis might be considered "commercial", but that has nothing to do with the case. If WMF were not concerned with re-use, we could certainly use NC licenses. This is a matter of our own rules, not of law. - Jmabel ! talk 15:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
My point was not really that I think Wikimedia's use would be considered commercial, but that once you start making small changes to the parameters, you can easily end up in clear-cut commercial use without crossing a clear line, so the gray areas are huge. It's also worth noting that it's very much possible to personally become filthy rich off a non-profit organization, so NC licenses are not even particularly effective at doing what they set out to do. I agree that not accepting NC content is a matter of our own rules rather than legal limitations, but I believe those rules were partly set because of the problems NC licenses would cause for our reusers in determining how it applies to them. Indeed, if we only worried about our own uses, we could also accept completely non-free Wikimedia-only permissions, which we don't, because that would go against our founding principles and mission statement. LX (talk, contribs) 15:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi LX and Jmabel, Many thanks for your explanations above. I must say I never realized that the large amount of pictures I uploaded (mostly own work) could be used commercially by others and that in fact ALL Commons files can be commercially used by anyone. So be it! Loranchet 6 Oct. 2011, 21.45 hrs.

Wrong picture

I have a picture on the wiki page for Shawn Foster that is not accurate. I tried a speedy deletion, and tried to add my own, but have a feeling I am only manipulating the original image. Please help!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahbeth040 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
If you want to replace an image by another image in a Wikipedia article, you must do it in the Wikipedia page, by replacing the title of the first file by the title of the second file. That said, the photo you have uploaded as your "own work" looks very much like this photo published on the Internet Movie database website and credited to Rainer Ziehm. Are you Rainer Ziehm or authorized by him? If yes, please send a confirmation via Commons:OTRS. If not, you cannot license Rainer Ziehm's rights. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
As Asclepias said, if you want to change a picture on a wiki page, you must edit that page, not the page for the picture. To do this replace the file name of the image to be replaced, with the file name of the picture you upload and want in its place. That said however, given that you uploaded the same picture twice, once as: Shawn Foster.jpg and once as: IMDB_PRIMARY.jpg I would say that you got the picture from IMDB, if you do not own the rights for this picture, you may not post it on commons. Can someone more skilled than I please nominate both pictures for deletion unless Sarahbeth040 can confirm that they own the rights to the pictures? I have also restored Shawn_M._Foster.jpg back to its original state. Liamdavies (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding a new undercategory?


i'm new at Wikimedia and want add a new Category to this site:

but i don't know how.

kind regards Thomas Drebert1968 (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Litterature ?

Hi, I would like to categorized the files I upload, but I don't understand nothing in the categories in Wikimedia Commons. Is there a category Litterature somewhere ? If not, it would be very useful, as I upload often files about Lord Byron. How can we create new categories ? Many thanks --Axagore (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Literature, but much more specifically (and we prefer the more specific category) Category:George Gordon Byron. - Jmabel ! talk 23:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Can't see ==Global usage== section of images

Topic's title says it all. Tell me if you know this problem's decision. Electroguv (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

COM:VP#Global usage -- RE rillke questions? 15:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Company logo deletion

By mistake and unexperience :o( I did upload the logos of my company in the commons. I would like to delete them: araymond.jpg and logo_ARaymondlife.jpg Could you please proceed? Thank you for your help! - unsigned

  • File:araymond.jpg has been deleted. File:logo_ARaymondlife.jpg looks to me like it may be too simple to be eligible for copyright; I leave it to someone else to work out what to do with that one. - Jmabel ! talk 15:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Agreed that it's too simple for copyright protection. Is it within our scope? Powers (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
      • If we have an article on the company, then it would be in scope. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's rather what I'm asking. English Wikipedia doesn't appear to, but I haven't checked others. Powers (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Rename needed?

Commons (in addition to Wikipedia) seems to be having difficulty generating thumbnails for File:Occupy Portland, We are the 99%.jpg. Is it possible that the "%" symbol is causing trouble? If so, can this file name be updated to "Occupy Portland, We are the 99 Percent"? --Another Believer (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the file, looking into the (bug) --Bencmq (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
They say it's a known bug, bugzilla:26233 --Bencmq (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance. --Another Believer (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

New file since... link

The link of 'new file since (time of page reload)' is now missing on Special:NewFiles, how to bring it back? It is very useful. Thanks. --Bencmq (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Just fulfill all my editprotected requests and you will see... -- RE rillke questions? 09:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Especially MediaWiki talk:Newimages-summary -- RE rillke questions? 10:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Uploading zero-project music

Can I upload zero-project music here? All of them are licensed under CC-BY-SA. 15:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The license is compatible with Commons' mission, but I question whether the files would be within our scope. What is the educational purpose they would serve? Powers (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Company logo?

Hiya, sorry to bother you I just wanted to ask what the deal is with uploading a company logo. I only want to upload it so I can enhance the company's own wikipedia page. I don't own the rights to the logo, but I think they're unaware that they even have a Wiki page. Can I upload it anyway? Saying I don't have the license?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghidorah221 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 8 October 2011‎ (UTC)
The deal is that Commons only accepts content that is in the public domain (because it is too simple to be protected by copyright, or because the copyright has expired, for example) or that the copyright holder has agreed to release under a free license. If that's not the case for this particular logo, you can't upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Some Wikipedia editions (like the English Wikipedia) allows non-free content to be uploaded locally under certain conditions. It would be easier to give you a specific answer if you told us what company and/or logo this is about and which Wikipedia project you intend to use it in. LX (talk, contribs) 18:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course! The company is the Olympic Broadcasting Services. The service responsible for filming and globally distributing the Olympic, Paralympic and Winter Olympics. It's a big company, but there's very little information online about them as they're relatively new. I'm working for them, but not (I fear) in a capacity to definitively say I can use the logo. What do you think? By the way, thank you for the help!
Oh sorry! I wanted to use the logo to put on their Wikipedia page. OBS
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghidorah221 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 8 October 2011‎ (UTC)
Either obtain permission to publish the file under a free copyright license (it will still be protected by trademark legislation) from a person with authority to give it (usually a director or officer of the company) using this template and send it in according to these instructions, or post it locally to the English Wikipedia under their non-free content criteria. LX (talk, contribs) 14:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thumbnail/EXIF issues with uploaded images

Hi all, I am experiencing strange issues with a few images I uploaded recently. In albums/categories like Category:Orăştie Ethnography Museum (uploaded with Commonist) or Category:Costesti Cetatuie Dacian Fortress (uploaded as part of Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 using the standard Upload Wizard, some images have white/missing thumbnails. If you click on the image (for example File:Costesti Cetatuie Dacian Fortress 2011 - Tower House Two.jpg) again no thumbnail, sometimes EXIF info and/or dimensions also missing. But if you click on the link on the image page (for example, the image is there! I suspect some issues on the MediaWiki server, at thumbnail generation time. Any thoughts? Anyone experiencing this? Note that I've been preparing the pictures with Picasa, which involved adding tags, captions, rotating them as needed. I also followed the FAQ advice to use {{Regenerate thumbnail}} and I get Error generating thumbnail. Error creating thumbnail: No path supplied in thumbnail object --Codrin.B (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Going to File:Costesti Cetatuie Dacian Fortress 2011 - Tower House Two.jpg then clicking on "Download" , all 75px | 100px | 120px | 240px | 500px | 640px | 800px | 1024px | links are linking to . Only the "full resolution" link seems to be functional. Teofilo (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Downloading the file, resize it and it can be correctly uploaded. Not sure if the file's corrupted (before or while uploading to server), or the server is having issues with thumbnail generation. I have encountered quite a number of same issues recently. All are jpeg files. --Bencmq (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Try this one Commons:Village_pump#Autorotation_using_EXIF_tag_with_MW_1.18 (related to the rotation issue in exif/mw1.18). It solved the problem for File:Costesti Cetatuie Dacian Fortress 2011 - Tower House Two.jpg. Giro720 (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Your file is ok, your exif information show that the file is rotated, (see exif data), so mediawiki rotates it. You can use Rotatebot to fix that now. Just look at the thumbnail (NOT the full size!) and set the template {{Rotate|90}} (for 90° clockwise) / {{Rotate|180}} or {{Rotate|270}}. Rotatebot correct the exif and/or rotates the image. --Luxo 20:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick help guys. Now if you look at another one (not the one over which people tried to upload cropped versions - were those rotated?), for example File:Costesti Cetatuie Dacian Fortress 2011 - Murus Dacicus-4.jpg, the "Orientation" field is set to "Normal" in the EXIF. How would I know is rotated and to which angle? Are you sure this is the issue? --Codrin.B (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
@Gyro720: I noticed you fixed a few of the images by rotating/re-uploading? For example, I see that you re-uploaded File:Costesti Cetatuie Dacian Fortress 2011 - Map.jpg after you rotated it upside down then applied {{180}} to rotate it back? But what did you do for File:Costesti Cetatuie Dacian Fortress 2011 - Tower House One Close Up-3.jpg. It looks like you only uploaded a modified version? I don't see any rotation bot or other changes. Thanks for the help and hope we can clarify this one. --Codrin.B (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the EXIF information for the failed files is incomplete (Caption, Keywords and other fields missing), by comparison with the successful ones. For example, compare File:Costesti_Cetatuie_Dacian_Fortress_2011_-_Tower_House_One_Close_Up-3.jpg (successful) with File:Costesti_Cetatuie_Dacian_Fortress_2011_-_Stairs_and_Drain.jpg. But this might be another bug altogether. I opened this bug entry, maybe someone can look at the logs for the errors during thumbnail generation/EXIF rendering. --Codrin.B (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually I just reseted the Orientation with exiftools. This solve the issue for "landscape" pictures but not for the "portraits" (so I tryed to set manually the orientation for that one, wich resulted in a flipped picture...) Giro720 (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting, thanks for lettings us know this detail. I wonder what was the orientation before the reset. I'll compare the two files.--Codrin.B (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Changing license from Free Art License To CC Attribution

I got confused with the Free Art License so I would like to change the license of the image i uploaded from FAL to CC Attribution. Is that possible? And how do i change it? Thanks.

FAL cannot be canceled or changed to antother license ("This license will remain in effect for as long as the copyright which is attached to the work."). You can realease your work on CC too; just add another license template. When you do so, people using your image can choose any of these licenses. A.J. (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
See: Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing A.J. (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
As a general rule of thumb, when a contributor uploads a file and makes a mistake in the upload, we don't try and hold them to it. It's not polite, and there's no legal strength to the concept that just because someone accidentally selected FAL in the upload, they are then bound to releasing the image under the FAL. I've going to change File:Ray Anthony Pepito Jonsson.jpg to be CC-BY, as per the request of User:Krrisc.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There is another issue with your upload: it's license has to be confirmed by OTRS team. See your talk page for details. A.J. (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Image License

Firstly, I am not sure if this is the correct place to ask for assistance! If not - please re-direct me. I uploaded eight images of regimental insignia. To speed up the upload process, I used the batch upload method and listed the license for each image as "own work." The upload went fine - I then went back and edited the page for each image and replaced the "own work" licence information with the correct Non-free media information and use rationale (its a lengthy bit of text and extremely difficult to do using the upload tool). The minute I saved the edit, the image was marked for speedy deletion! Can this be un-done? The "own work" licence option was chosen simply to speed up the process, but now it seems that this original licence data cannot ever be updated! Please assist... I don't want to have to re-do all of this! Respective images are:

  • 6 Squadron SAAF insignia.jpg;
  • 10 Squadron SAAF insignia.jpg;
  • 24 Squadron SAAF Insignia.gif;
  • 31 Squadron SAAF Insignia.gif;
  • 35 Squadron SAAF Insignia.gif;
  • 40 Squadron SAAF insignia.jpg
  • 109 Squadron SAAF insignia.jpg
  • 114 Squadron SAAF insignia.jpg

All are visible at "Category:Copyright violations" Any assistance would be appreciated before some bot comes and erases all! Farawayman (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not provide untrue information during upload just to get past the upload process. The reason it's extremely difficult to add a non-free media use rationale when uploading is that non-free content is not allowed on Commons. The files will be deleted by an admin. LX (talk, contribs) 16:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
That's not quite correct - if there is a reasonable rationale for the use of such files, they may be deemed permissible. Many such files legally exist on Commons - particularly in respect of coats of arms, insignia and heraldry. Also, if it were possible to add this rationale at the time of uploading via the batch load process, I most certainly would have done so - that's why I went back and dutifully edited each image to add the proper licence information and rational justifying their use. Farawayman (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
That's exactly correct; did you read the link he gave? All the fair use images are on Wikipedia, not Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, sincerest apologies! I did not know that there were policy differences (or interpretations) between Commons and Wikipedia! I concede that these files then be deleted and I will try to re-load them onto Wikipedia in due course. Farawayman (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ogg file not playing after editing

I just uploaded a new version of File:Tommy Wiseau.ogg, after noticing that the editor who recorded the original decided to sneak some funny quotes from Wiseau's legendary film ("Oh, hey Johnny, what's up?") here and there into what should have been a straight spoken version of the article. Although the audio file was fine when I exported it from Audacity, and the copy I have on my hard drive plays perfectly, for some reason it's not playing in the inline player. What am I missing? --McGeddon (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The version you uploaded plays fine in Opera 11.51 (logged in, Monobook skin) and Firefox 6.0.2 (not logged in and logged in with Vector and no gadgets). Do you have any gadgets set? Maybe there was a caching problem, or some server side issue at the time. I also uploaded your version here and that works too. -84user (talk) 10:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
No, no gadgets. And it seems fine for me now, I suppose it must just have been a cache problem. Thanks for the help. --McGeddon (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

unknown authors

I've uploaded some images, but i cannot know authors. What can I do? thanks --Cucuriello (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't give a context of what images, but typically if you don't know who authored the image, you are in no position to authorize others to use the image and shouldn't be uploading it to Commons. The only exception would be if the image is clearly in the public domain (e.g. very old (like more than 150 years), published in the US before 1923, too simple to be eligible for copyright, etc.). - Jmabel ! talk 23:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Looking quickly through what you've uploaded, some of these are fairly likely to be public domain - e.g. File:Alumni 1906.jpg - but others clearly are not - e.g. File:Bruno lecce.jpg. Even the ones that are OK won't be much use without meaningful descriptions and categories. Descriptions can be in Spanish if that is easier for you, or really pretty much any language, but they need to say enough to be clear: for example, between the description and the category there should be at least an indication of what country, year, and sport. Example of useless categories in what you uploaded: you put File:Alumni 1906.jpg in Category:Alumni, which just means "graduates of a school, college, or university" and is certainly not where anyone will look for an image of a football team.
Someone with a little time on their hands should go through Cucuriello's contributions and help work this out. - Jmabel ! talk 23:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Lunar eclipse?

Does this file show a total lunar eclipse? Total Lunar Eclipse (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There was no Lunar eclipse in April 2011. If the photograph date is correct, then it was not a Lunar eclipse. Powers (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Threshold of originality


Can this image be made copyright-free under the threshold of originality? Badzil (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me to be right on the borderline. I wouldn't venture an opinion either way, but the precautionary principle would suggest that when in such doubt we shouldn't host it. - Jmabel ! talk 15:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. As the license attached to the file is obviously not right, I've requested its deletion. Badzil (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

- Hi - Is this compatible with wiki commons or is it too restrictive? This pic - appears on that location to be under that license but has been uploaded here under this license - Off2riorob (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Too restrictive. No NC or ND Creative Commons licenses are accepted here. - Jmabel ! talk 15:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks , I though I remembered such from a previous picture. Its here at commons - seemingly uploaded on an incorrect license - I will nominate it for deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


How much time and effort are we supposed to spend trying to be as complete as possible in adding categories to image pages (after having been criticized at first for not adding categories). Seems I've wasted a hah-uge amount of time, effort and research in categorizing hundreds of images, that is if something like this really is an over-categorization worth butchering. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried asking Pieter why he removed the cats? (Category:Business meetings was probably a little much, but the others were at least reasonable and should not have been removed without comment.) Powers (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
There's a brief discussion on the talk page. I'm not sure it's productive to ask these two to work together; I would have been much happier if Kuiper had just stayed the hell away from this image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your doubt as well as your wish and have reinstated the categories except "Business meetings". Thank you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Look at the file history. Several other editors have removed various categories from this greatly overcategorized image. Generally, Woodzing is spamming the category system. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Kuiper can never withstand the temptation to deliver personal attacks and grossly unfair and insulting accusations. With me, his main objective is always to try to get me in a position where he can do that. Unrelenting, never-ending. And I always choose not to be bullied into being silent or withdrawing from the project. This is about the 250th personal attack and grossly unfair and insulting accusation that only I have had from him since 2009, not to mention so many other users on a number of projects. But I have learned, once and for all and some time ago, that Wikimedia Commons has given him carte blanche with such behavior, because of his many "useful contributions". SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

move request

Hi - this picture is Peaches Geldof not pixie Geldof and so needs moving to a more correct title - Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If possible please use the rename template as described on COM:RENAME. If not, just ask again. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

U.S. government image help requested

I uploaded this file, which is a cropped version of this file. The original file is a work from the U.S. government, with specific instructions not to overlap the original file. Thus, I cropped it and uploaded it as a new file. Can someone look over the new file to see if I did everything correctly? Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Pictures for specific sections

I have pictures of two items found on wikipedia- how do I upload them into the page that they are found on?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ygavett (talk • contribs) 02:50, 14 October 2011‎ (UTC)
It would help if you would be clearer about what exactly you are trying to do. I'll make a guess that you are saying you have digital images, which you took, and you want to add them to Wikipedia articles.
Step one: use any of the several available means to upload the images to Commons; make sure you give clear descriptions and add categories.
Step two: add the images, probably "thumbed", to the Wikipedia articles just like any other images.
- Jmabel ! talk 15:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding category to 60 files

I uploaded 60 images, and have created a new category for them: 'Category:Ornament from Russian manuscripts'. Is there any way to add that category to all 60, other than adding that one at a time 60 times over? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Commons commander or VisualFileChange (click here and wait a bit) (documentation) using option custom replace, [[Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard]] with [[Category:Ornament from Russian manuscripts]]. Don't select regex-replace. -- RE rillke questions? 19:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... I could not figure out how to use Commons commander. VisualFileChange worked, but seems to have picked up only half the files. Also, 'Category:Ornament from Russian manuscripts' remains red, but perhaps that needs administrative review. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Redlink because you did not create the category. Follow the link, add a super-category and click save.
Concerning VisualFileChange, did you load all files you liked to tag before and selected them? Did you upload all of them with UploadWizard? -- RE rillke questions? 21:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I have the category blue now.
All the files were uploaded with the Upload Wizard. The files that were missed seem to be the ones I uploaded earlier, on Sept. 24, 25 and 27[3]. The ones that are now in 'Category:Ornament from Russian manuscripts' seem to be those I uploaded in Oct. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Script tags only those files, you see in the window. I am sorry I should have noted that. Therefore, you have had to scroll down in order to tag older ones. Next time I would suggest a regex-replace like /\{\{Uncategorized[^\n\}]+\}\}/ with [[Category:Your coosen cat]]. This will remove the uncategorized message as well.
If you were unsure about whether a change works as expected, just make a test edit with one file, you'd like to change with this script before.
Help for Commons commander is at Commons:Tools/cc. I was very busy and I am sorry for the mistakes which caused this inconvenience. -- RE rillke questions? 11:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
One more question: How do I add 'Category:Ornament from Russian manuscripts' as a subcategory in 'Category:Ornaments'?
Thank you for your help, which is much appreciated. I understand that my incompetence with getting these things to function on Commons does sometimes generate extra work for those who do understand. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Your willingness to learn is good and reasonable. We like and appreciate this! Look here, User Foroa added already super-categories. One of them is Category:Graphic ornaments. Therefore there is no need from my point of view to add Category:Ornaments, too. (avoid overcategorization) Adding a category as subcategory works in the manner that you add the super-categories to the subcategory. Or the parents to children if you prefer this wording. -- RE rillke questions? 12:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Questions on VisualFileChange.js

OK, my turn to ask for help. On page Help:VisualFileChange.js, I notice that the "How to Install" instructions make no reference to VisualFileChange.js and instead refer to User:Rillke/AjaxMassDelete.js. Is this really correct? If so, it is at best confusing. Further, it does indeed appear to be strictly mass deletion, not (for example) adding categories as discussed here.

Further, Help:VisualFileChange.js refers to a '"Perform batch task" toolbar-link'. I am unaware of anything we call a "toolbar". The link appears in what, at least on my skin, is called a "toolbox". Is this just a skin issue (in which case both names should be given) or an outright error (in which case it should be corrected). - Jmabel ! talk 00:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Rillke will be able to give a better answer (I think it is just not updated yet - the script was previously in Rillke's userspace). I installed like this, and have a link in "Werkzeuge" (toolbox), left side of screen. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The script was renamed: Formerly it was a mass-deletion-script, now it can do pretty more. Someone asked me to rename it so I did. But I won't change the name of the copy in my user-namespace because this would break a lot. And I prefer it if users use the latest copy of my script in order to prevent old bugreports - That's why "EasyInstall" installs the copy in user:Rillke/ of this script. The copy in MW-Namespace is necessary for users that would like to make a mass-deletion-request, ... without installing the script. I am still working on it. The version number 0 implies that it is still in beta-state. I hope these explanations were enough. I am going to correct the error. Of course the toolbar was meant. Thanks for noting this. -- RE rillke questions? 11:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm still confused. Should we be using 'MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js' like Saibo did, or User:Rillke/AjaxMassDelete.js? And, if it's the latter, the 'help' page should really be explicit about this name (which does not correspond to the name of the help page) being correct. - Jmabel ! talk 15:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think "official" help pages shouldn't advice to install a user script without mentioning that it is a user script (that is fooling the reader). We could list both versions. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
✓  Done -changed the link. while i would appreciate using the copy in user:rillke/. reasons are mentioned above. (old bugreports). -- RE rillke questions? 10:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Need several resolutions of the same image

I need several resolutions of the same image, so "Other resolutions: 111 x 222 pixel" will show on the bottom.

When I tried to upload a smaller version - it created it as a brand-new file. This is not what I need. I do not want to override Full resolution image. I just need a smaller resolution to be available along with Full Resolution.

Please help!


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Innab (talk • contribs) 2011-10-14T00:38:14‎ (UTC)
For what do you need it? In Wikipedia? Just see en:Wikipedia:Picture tutorial for help. You can specify how large your image should be displayed. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
No, I do not want to resize it using img tag, because it slow down the upload. I want to have a smaller file for wikipedia article, but big high-resolution in case if someone want to click on the file, and choose large resolution to view details. Like many other images have something like "Size of this preview: 800 × 443 pixels. Other resolutions: 320 × 177 pixels | 640 × 354 pixels | 1,024 × 567 pixels."
I also want my file to have these multiple resolutions to speed-up upload. But additionaly I want to have large file in case someone wants to see fine details by clicking on the image.Innab (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
76 MB big in original, 4,7 KB here
Wikipedia's resizing is done on server-side. The image is automatically downscaled. See here on the right side - did lost fast, didn't it? In original it is 76 MB big. There is really no need for several versions. Simply upload the biggest version you have. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
So why it did not create a smaller resolution for this file for example? All I need is a small thumb like 200px width. I am thinking about putting multiple thumbs like this on the page, but it loads very slow. 03:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
LIke you did here is correct. [[File:Prizvanievaryagov.jpg|thumb|200px|left|]] will give you 200px. It should load fast - only a 200px wide image is transferred to your computer. --Saibo (Δ) 23:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Trying to revert file, but old file doesn't show up on file page

Hi. I uploaded a new version of some files, and subsequently after discussion tried to revert them back to the previous version. However, on the file page, there is now a placeholder graphic instead of the reverted file. If I click on the file name underneath the placeholder, the correct reverted version appears. Is this a rendering problem? The files are File:Toll Texas 1.svg, File:Toll Texas 121.svg, File:Toll Texas 45.svg, File:Toll Texas 49.svg, and File:Toll Texas 130.svg. Thanks for your help. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems to happen since a few days with .svg files. See two other examples at Commons:Village pump#File:Cone-response.svg and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#File:Paralympic flag.svg. I haven't seen an explanation of why it happens or if ordinary users can do something about it. The first example is similar to your experience and is still not fixed. The second example was fixed individually. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Every know and then there are changes made to our SVG renderers. Sometimes they get more stricter. This could break some svgs. But here File:Toll Texas 1.svg something really strange happend. Apparently when the current svg version is blocked (whyever - maybe for security reasons) no thumbnails are produced - also, wrongly, for the archive versions. Whyever the first version works in the archive but not as current version.. My version works (but is no valid svg).
Generally, please Avoid_overwriting_existing_files - do not upload different signs over the old ones. Use new file names. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I notice that File:Toll Texas 1.svg is working now. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is. Although it behaved strange - do not have the time to do all. And: it is no valid svg. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Following your lead I reedited the other four in Inkscape and checked that they rendered OK and reuploaded them. Thanks. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice! If you edit in inkscape try not to save a file but save as and select the file type plain svg. Otherwise it will not work sometimes since inkscape uses a kind of own svg format by default. --Saibo (Δ) 02:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge needed.

I think this is the right place to ask if not could someone push me in the right direction. I uploaded this but the description uploaded here for some reason. Can anyone help? Thanks D4nnyw14 (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone?D4nnyw14 (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Moved information to File:Hollie-Jay Bowes.jpeg. --GeorgHHtalk   21:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)



Thanks for the helpD4nnyw14 (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Full Sky Observatory by Tom Ruen

I like this software. How do I download it? Total Lunar Eclipse (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Tom Ruen has been kind enough to leave an e-mail link. That would be the best way to get in touch, I think. --rimshottalk 21:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Locating photographs

How do I locate the photographs for example non-league footballers?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 02:56, 16 October 2011‎ (UTC)
You could use the search function, or browse the topic categories. For the specific example you give, have a look in Category:Non-professional association football. LX (talk, contribs) 14:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Uploading photographs

how i up load a photo to my gallary

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thadi (talk • contribs) 06:25, 16 October 2011‎ (UTC)
See Commons:First steps. If you have more specific questions after reading that, just ask here. LX (talk, contribs) 14:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

How to mark an image as a modification of a previous Commons image?

File:Apple in lightbox.png is a modification of the original image File:Apple in lightbox.jpg (It was changed to a png to give the background transparency and then it was cropped.) How do I indicate this connection on the images? Cloveapple (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Better now? ;-) Next time use derivativeFX to upload. Will nearly do everything for you. Who made the transparent background? You or Sigma? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll make a note of how to do it for next time. Sigma did all the changes including the transparent background and then the cropping. Cloveapple (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation code

Hello, i can't log in, because the confirmation code is expired. Please send me a new one. Thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 16:27, 16 October 2011‎ (UTC)
With no indication of who you are, no one is going to be able to help you with this this. - Jmabel ! talk 17:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't want to release my e-mail address, because this is a public site. I thougt someone has a common hint or an official wiki mail address, where I can ask.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 23:00, 16 October 2011‎ (UTC)

Moving a public domain photo from Wikipedia to Commons

I've tried (unsuccessfully) to move a public domain photo from Wikipedia to Commons ( since it was flagged for transfer by a bot. I tried signing up for a TUSC account using the Commons Helper pages and outside of giving me a bunch of numbers, it wouldn't get past the password stage and I'd get a failed to respond page (very confusing to say the least). Would someone in the know please transfer this photo for me, thus removing the bot? Thanks. Timemachine1968

I've uploaded the image here with the same name. For future reference: It's not really needed to use a TUSC account, if you download the image to your desktop, and then use Commonshelper, all the information will be captured and saved on Commons. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

File I uploaded probably a copyright violation

Back when I had less experience with copyright and licensing I uploaded a file to Commons that I now believe to be a copyright violation? Is there a procedure for me as the uploader to request deletion of that file and if so what do I have to do? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please go to the image description page and click the "Nominate for deletion" link on the left-hand sidebar. Powers (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories and language policy

Hello. I've been an editor for a while, primarily with images related to the Azores and Portugal, and I have come into a situation where a Portuguese-language editor (whom has a proficiency in Portuguese) has begun a process of renaming categories into Portuguese, rather then in the Commons-accepted English method. This process partially began after the WikiLoves Monuments campaign in Portugal, when many Portuguese-named titles began to appear. Further, I have come into disagreement with the same user in the past for insisting on the using Portuguese terms, instead of comparable English terms (such as "freguesia" when the "civil parish" was available). My suggestion to alter to a English-variant was denied by administrators, due to the supposed acceptance of the terminology in the English society, which I disagreed with, but decided not to prosecute. After renaming the images associated with the Azores, I began to notice that new Portuguese-named categories began to pop-into the listings. Generally, except in rare circumstances, my naming of categories has used an English-Portuguese hydrid, such as the following example: "Church of São João", as opposed to "Igreja de São João", since it maintains the Portuguese information, while still adhering to the English-naming rules. After having endeavoured to main that consistency, some new categories were added that were totally in Portuguese, which I tended to remedy, only to have the information completely reverted to the Portuguese naming schema. Apart from sending a message to this user (which I did) to voice my concerns, what should I also do? Although I followed the Commons:Language policy, I fear that reverting this will result in a continuous revert war (made difficult by his use of the Cat-a-Lot script). Any suggestions? Or am I in the wrong? Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

In general, I think you are right, but "freguesia" is probably OK (much as we use "comarca" in Spain). But, for example, there is no reason for "Igreja" rather than "Church". I'd suggest bringing the matter to Commons:Categories for discussion, and remember it's no crisis if it takes a few weeks to get consensus. - Jmabel ! talk 15:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate the response. But the problem here is that there is a systematic renaming of Wikimedia Commons categories in the Portugal name-spaces. Meaning, we have editors purposely creating categories in Portuguese and disallowing name changes to English. The use of freguesia was an issue I long-ago decided not to fight, because I realized the merits. The situation that has been developing now, has come from editors who are (probably) promoting a POV naming process that goes against the Language policy. Some categories within the Portuguese namespace can not be renamed to English without losing all sense, such as Category:Anta Grande de Zambujeira, but others, such as chapels, churches or forts can easily be renamed to English variants by just adjusting with "Church of...", "Fort of...", etc. Since the WikiLove Monuments campaign, these editors have added Portuguese names only. I don't see how bringing anyone to Categories for Discussion is going to resolve the systematic usurption of the Language policies. Although anyone of those categories could be deliberated in favour of the English name, the reality is that there are many examples now of Portuguese categorization, rather then the accepted English in the Language policies. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Bringing it to COM:CFD is probably the only way you will get a clear statement made on the matter. It sounds to me like you are correct, but one or two people weighing in on the Help Desk is not going to establish a clear consensus. - Jmabel ! talk 05:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Request rotation?

I just found the tool "request rotation" on one of my images, specifically File:Mount Vernon East-11,000 Volts.JPG. Exactly what would be the purpose of this? Because it sounds like something that should only be added to pics that are incorrectly tilted on their sides. ----DanTD (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a new gadget/tool which is displayed on all files. Read here: Help:RotateLink. Any more questions or suggestions to improve? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
It should only be used on images that are incorrectly tilted, but the tool is displayed on all files for the simple reason that the software can't determine with certainty what the proper orientation is. It takes a human being to do that. If the decision could be made automatically, there would be no need to click a link to get it done in the first place. LX (talk, contribs) 06:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

deletion disc closed - user forgot to delete

Hi - User:LtPowers closed this discussion but forgot to delete the picture - Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Matt - Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wappen_Heringsdorf permissions/licensing

A user User:Alma asked me to make an svg of Wappen heringsdorf.PNG. I did so but could not upload my vector version through deriviativeFX.

That tool protests that there is no licencing attributed to the png.

I do see a PD-Coa-Germany permissions template on the png page. Is that not sufficient? Please help me so I can upload my redrawing of the png as svg.

Gregors (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Contributors to Commons often consider that an svg redrawing has creative originality and thus generates a copyright for the redrawer. If you consider that your drawing has that level of creativity, you'd need to specify under what free license (or PD dedication) you offer your drawing. That might seem to be more necessary outside Germany, but even in Germany, the drawings covered by the template PD-Coa-Germany are the drawings that were published in an official journal in Germany. It is the publication of a particular drawing in the official journal that makes it PD under the meaning of PD-Coa-Germany. (You can see an example in this image.) That is why PD-Coa-Germany applies to the original drawing that was published in the official journal. But your particular svg redrawing was not published in a State official journal in Germany. I don't know if you could copyright the redrawing in Germany. Users familiar with German law could probably inform you about that. Specifying the copyright status of your drawing might be useful at least outside Germany. If you don't want to claim any copyright on it anyway, I suppose you could just mention it. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hm, there is another problem, I've also redrawn and uploaded this coa. -- πϵρήλιο 20:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps Gregors and you can talk and agree to keep one or the other, or just keep both? -- Asclepias (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Screenshot of Lotus Symphony under linux

Hi, I'm editing the lotus symphony article, and I want to upload a screenshot of this software running under debian, using the non-free rationale use, how can I do it? (I want to do the same thing like this (the Mac OSX screenshot) screenshot anther question, why this screenshot is under GPL? is the same as mac OSX (a screenshot) but this is under rationale use. HELP ME! --Suiseisekiryu (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Commons does not accept non-free content, so the answer to your first question is: you can't. IBM Lotus Symphony is non-free software, so the licensing on File:Lotus Symphony Document 3.0B2.png was incorrect. I've tagged it for deletion. It looks like the article you're editing is on the Spanish Wikipedia, which does not allow local uploads of non-free content either (unlike, for example, the English Wikipedia edition). LX (talk, contribs) 09:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, now I know =) --Suiseisekiryu (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Error in display of image

I transferred File:Peter_Coffin;_"Untitled_(Tree_Pants)"_at_The_Wanås_Foundation,_Skåne,_Sweden.jpg from en-wiki, but the page shows the picture 90deg rotated clockwise - clicking on the image (to show the full size) shows the picture correctly, clicking on "Other resolutions" shows it wrong. I've no idea how to fix it.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Just seen the answer a few messages above!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes your decision was the right one. It is displayed wrong due to incorrect Exif. COM:VP#Autorotation using EXIF tag with MW 1.18 -- RE rillke questions? 20:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

school logo deletion

my question regards a logo of my old school. based on the quick tips, there oughtn't be any problem as it is a creation(rendered) by me. I did get a deletion warning but the reason is vague. tell me where i went wrong. i am also having difficulty tracing the file and the justificatins for deletion for the reason the file has been deleted and links seem to have been lost. the file concerned is (was) SJCS2.png

I did try to address the warning but apparently I did not succeed. If I recall, there was about categorizing.

thank you in advance for your reply.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jztan007 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 18 October 2011‎ (UTC)
There is no problem about uploading to Commons a drawing by you of an existing logo, but only if the original logo of the school is out of copyright, or if it is under a free license, or if its copyright holder authorized you to use it in your freely-licensed drawing, or if you were actually yourself the original creator of the original logo (and if the logo is relevant for the project's scope). If you need to know more about the specifics of why it was deleted, the best thing to do is probably to contact the person who left you the message and deleted the file. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Warning lagged deletion

I recently spent hours creating an SVG image of an earlier GIF used on English Wikipedia. When I uploaded it I went through the automatic process. I thought that I have not done anything to eliminate the permissions selection (CC...). This evening I got a warning that it had been 7 days without a permission. The note said I had used a template instead. I don't know how I could possibly have done so unintentionally. When I went to fix the problem I discovered that my work had been deleted. I had to go back to my original SVG and try to upload it again. It was not acceptable since the file had already been deleted. Changing the name did not help, so I had to change the actual content of the SVG as well as the name.

Somehow this whole process seems both officious and capricious. Just thought I would let whoever wrangles the bots or whatever did this to me know about the problems. Patrick Edwin Moran (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem was that the license was included as {[self|cc-by-sa-3.0]} instead of {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}. There also was no reference to the original GIF. What is its name, who is the author? You could have asked for undeletion at COM:UNDEL. I agree that you should have gotten a message about the undeletion page, though. The newly uploaded File:Chinese Music Gamut & Scales.svg does not have the first problem. It still doesn't state that it is derived from a GIF. If you made the GIF yourself, that is OK, otherwise, you must credit the original author.
By the way, the SVG file still has an embedded raster image: the second "Calculate from".
Hope this helps, --rimshottalk 06:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Disputed image description

Is there a template for noting that the accuracy of an image description has been disputed? A user on English Wikipedia believes that File:Henry Wellcome photo by G C Beresford.jpg actually depicts Henry Head, not Wellcome [4]. January (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Fact disputed}} LX (talk, contribs) 06:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Reloading deleted photo


I'm having some trouble trying to add a photo. A couple of weeks ago I uploaded a photo, but was then asked to have the photographer email a permission form. ( I asked the photographer to do that, but by the time they got around to it (they were fine with the terms, just slow completing the form) the photo had been deleted.

I've tried uploading the same photo (now that the photographer is ready to sign and send the permission form), but I'm not allowed to because the original photo was deleted and (I guess?) I'm not allowed to reload a deleted photo?

Is there any way that I can use the photo I want to now that I have the permission from the photographer?

Sorry for the confusion...I'm sure I will do this properly the next time!

Thanks for your help, Hillary Samson

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AcrosstheWater (talk • contribs) 07:58, 19 October 2011‎ (UTC)
Please forward the permission to the mail given in the warning notice on your talk page. If the permissiion is sufficient, an OTRS agent will undelete this image. --Denniss (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Where do I send permissions emails?

I can never find the address… Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC) The instructions can be found at Commons:OTRS, and the wording to use is at Commons:Email templates. LX (talk, contribs) 12:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Creating a new image category

I want to create a new category for some images I want to upload in Wikimedia Commons and I also want to categorize some images which are already uploaded by me. How can I do all this ? Please help. Thanks in advance for any help on this matter. --Abhikdhar2009 (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

To create a new category, go to Category:<name here> and create the page. You can then add [[Category:<name here>]] to the files that you've uploaded by editing the page and adding that code to the bottom, replacing <name here> with your desired name of course. Regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ajraddatz. But the problem is I am uploading the images through image upload wizard in commons and the category space provided by the wizard is scattering the images into different sections and not including them in the category I am giving.If it's not to much of an asking,can you please give me a demo on how should I do it.I have more than 50 images for uploading in commons and I want them all in a single a category. All of these images are taken by me. Please help me.--Abhikdhar2009 (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You might need to use Special:Upload instead of the uploadwizard. I just tried uploading a file with the wizard and it didn't let me add categories. Special:Upload will allow you to add categories, and will be a bit faster if you have that many images to upload. Ajraddatz (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ajraddatz. Hats off to your sense of dedication and responsibility towards your job. I will be trying special upload next time for uploading images.If I face any problems, I am going to ask it right here. Thank you again. --Abhikdhar2009 (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, and feel free to come back here with any additional questions :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted, me?

Um, I appear to be on some kind of blacklist, or so I'm told when I try to upload to WikiCommons. I can't see that I've committed any infractions. Any idea how to get off this blacklist? Waygugin (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume the file-title is blacklisted. Rename the file before uploading. -- RE rillke questions? 08:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

mass deletion

This mass deletion request is closed, but I'd like to nominate other files uploaded by the same user. How should I proceed? chanchicto 18:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You can add another request onto that page, by adding an identical header under the archived discussion and then following the steps listed here. Depending on why the images should be deleted you could also nominate them individually for speedy deletion. Instructions for that can be found here. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Changing categories and filenames

How do I get to do this?

Please let me know. I use art files all the time and find files and categories that are either wrongly or stupidly labelled every single time I use Commons. Today it is a catgory referring to a sculpture by Donatello which has been carelessle categorised as "Prophet without a bear" when it should be "Beardless prophet". Whatismore, the mention of "beard" is only relevant at all if the viewer is looking at a "bearded prophet" at the same time.

I've been around on Wiki for years. I am an art historian. I'm getting sick of having to request that files have their names changed, instead of just doing it.

Amandajm (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You do not mention a specific file, so I will take the File:Prophet Donatello OPA Florence.jpg for an example. The category was added by a contributor whose native language is Italian, as we can see by looking at his userpage : it:Utente:Sailko. I guess he tried to translate what may be the usual description of this sculpture in Italian. Unfortunately, our requirement that categories here must be in English sometimes complicates matters for our international contributors who are not native speakers of English. Although he did not know the standard translation in English and his effort may superficially look "careless" to some, the effort of adding a thematically valid category is not unwelcome. It can be fixed easily and put in the correct form by other users, like you. Actually, it was fixed by another user by this modification today, probably in reaction to your message. To modify a category yourself, just edit the category name in the description page of the file, like it was done in that example. If the category does not already exist, you can create the category page. For more information on categories, please see the help page Commons:Categories. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Will someone please fix this

The file name is wrong. I have fixed the description. Don't know how to fix the file name. File:SFEC BritMus Roman 008.JPG Amandajm (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

For information about how to request the renaming of a file, please see Template:Rename. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Renaming or Redirecting an article

I would like to rename or redirect an article but I am not very good at it. I need help. I seem to be going round in circles. Please help me. Thanks. Steveojavano (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific about your request? What would you like to rename? If you are trying to rename an image you can request it by using the {{rename}} tag and giving an appropriate reason. Warfieldian (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
If you want to rename a gallery (article), there is a move function accessible by clicking the little arrow beside the star at the top right of a page, and then selecting "move". To redirect one title to another, replace the content of a page with #REDIRECT [[pagename]], or create a page with that on it. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Licensing of photographs of coins

If I license a photograph of a coin as public domain, do I need to add a statement that the design of the coin itself is in the public domain ? Is there a template which does this ? Thanks.--Simone 12:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes you have to. On Commons:Currency, you can find the necessary information. A lot of work, I know. -- RE rillke questions? 12:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

I found a site a while back ago, but it's a dead link now. I try using the wayback machine, but it only got me the text. Is there any site or tool that can restored the images on a dead link? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Wayback machine sometimes has the images - try another snapshot and be sure that you have JavaScript enabled in your browser (it is needed by Waybackmachine for images). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
It's enabled I think. Can you check for this link on your computer? It should be the last image of Ninito Sumner.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
images, no images. For your website I cannot find a snapshot with images. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Griffith Rutherford signature

Thinking of uploading this image to the commons for my Wikipedia article of Griffith Rutherford. Unsure of the copyright; it comes from flickr, but its technically not the user's work as it was "designed" by Griffith Rutherford himself. Any suggestions? Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC))

Signatures are considered Public Domain in the United States; use {{PD-signature}}. Powers (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Uploading modified(for offline browsing) wikipedia pages

My question is quite simple. Can i upload a file (.rar or .zip archive) of multiple, linked Wiki pages, modified for offline browsing (changed page structure) to Wikimedia Commons? The file is to be put on a Wiki page, for downloading and viewing pages linked to the page offline.

Page which i am going to download: and the ones linked to it, describing scripting commands...

Afterwards i would compress the page structure to a .zip file, upload it to Wikimedia Commons and edit the scripting command page - put a link to the archive there.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiivais (talk • contribs) 18:49, 23 October 2011‎ (UTC)
.rar and .zip are not supported extension types, making this idea impossible, sorry. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Type of crane

Yes check.svg Resolved
Alaskan Way Demolition Oct 2011- 01.jpg

Does anyone know a more precise term (and, ideally, a category) for the types of demolition equipment depicted in File:Alaskan Way Demolition Oct 2011- 01.jpg? I think both would be considered some sort of crane; the one at left is a reasonably straightforward mobile crane, but the articulated one at right almost certainly has a more precise name, and should have a more precise category. - Jmabel ! talk 20:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The one on the left looks like a cherry picker, and the one on the right looks like a long reach excavator fitted with a hydraulic breaker. LX (talk, contribs) 19:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The latter two terms are not ones I knew. - Jmabel ! talk 01:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hi, I have a question about copyright: the Missouri State Archives have uploaded quite a few images identified as Public Domain onto their Flickr account; the thing is, the images are "All Rights Reserved" despite being described as PD in the description. Here's an example. Can I upload these images to Commons anyway, perhaps with the {PD-author} tag, but not using the "Upload Work From Flickr" option? The account has disabled downloading the photos, but believe I've figured out a way to get the full resolution anyway. Thanks. Delaywaves talk 23:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I certainly would not hesitate to do so (citing the page in question as the source). - Jmabel ! talk 01:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Permssion to upload on someone else's behalf

Assume a person, maybe older, but at least inexperienced with computers, want to publish some of his/her photos for public availibility, maybe to improve the knowledge on their home area or older lifestyles.     Can some other person upload such photos, given permission by the photo owner to use their account and password on Commons ?     I know there is a system to approve emails, but there are problems, that they have to follow an exact format, and to be in English. There was a discussion on Swedish WP on the problem to get older Swedish people to write an English-language permission conforming to the legal principles of Creative commons. --BIL (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sharing accounts or passwords is explicitly grounds for blocking on the English Wikipedia, and I'd say the same thing applies on all Wikimedia projects, regardless of whether it's documented or not. It's also inappropriate from a copyright perspective, since only the copyright holder can approve a license, so it's not something that can be handed over to someone else. I can have a go at translating Commons:Email templates to Swedish when I can find the time, since that seems to be what's really needed. Do you have a link to the discussion on the Swedish Wikipedia? LX (talk, contribs) 13:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
It was on sv:Wikipedia:Bildfrågor headline "Skänkta" bilder". Note that no one there suggests sharing account and password. I just got the idea and wanted to ask the question. They suggest an approved Swedish language text, that a non-computer user can sign. Someone has printed the English license text and made the old person sign it (who can't read it), and photographed the paper and mailed to the OTRS system. --BIL (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
By the way, the format isn't that exact; we just need clarity of intent (including that they understand what third parties may do with the image), and provide an example of what would be perfect. - Jmabel ! talk 15:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like the matter is pretty much settled in this instance, but now there's a Swedish version of Commons:Email templates (Commons:E-postmallar), which should hopefully be of some use in similar cases. LX (talk, contribs) 20:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

how add another kind of information to a few images

How do I add information, just once, to several Wikimedia images so that other editors can edit the information later in one place? If that's not an option, so that I should add separately to each image, what's the standard way to add information that stretches somewhat beyond Description?

In Wikipedia Talk, an image was objected to because off-Wikipedia use was too rare to justify use in Wikipedia. That debate is over but the question could arise again. I've just found significant off-Wikipedia usage, and I'd like to add that information to a handful of similar Wikimedia images. Later, other editors might like to update what's known about the images.

The main audience is other editors. I don't care if non-editors see the information. If the information is useful for a Wikipedia article, of course it may be copied. This is not for engaging in Wikipedia article-specific talk at the Commons image page; that talk still should be at the article talk page.

For a single image file, is Description acceptable for this?

For many images to get one text, I assume designing a template would be more efficient. But that wouldn't be so for just a few images. Perhaps we should link to a page for an additional description?

How to add? Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could be more specific rather than speaking in generalities. To which images, precisely, would you like to add this text, and what text would you like to add? Powers (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Images are Commons' Feminism_symbol.svg, Commons' Woman-power_emblem.svg, and English Wikipedia's Womanpower_logo.svg and, possibly, a few others. These share a fist within a women's symbol.
What I'd like to state centrally is that there are examples of use of this or similar images in off-Wikipedia sources, such as the cover of Sisterhood Is Powerful, by Robin Morgan. Other editors knowing of other usages might like to add their information. This is to address concerns of some editors in the past that the essence of the image was hardly used in the outside world.
Adding the information to one image means it's less likely to be seen by editors considering other like images. Adding separately to each image page means that subsequent edits to one image page are less likely to be copied to other image pages. Thus, having a single page to which all similar image pages can link might be one solution.
You asked for specifics of imagery and text. Would this problem have different solutions for other kinds of images or other kinds of texts beyond what the Description field normally covers?
Nick Levinson (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
How about linking directly to the relevant discussion? Something like : "A discussion about the relevance of this image for inclusion in Wikipedia (en) can be found at [[:en:WikipediaPage#Section]]." Perhaps preferably on the file's discussion page. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. Commentary like that probably belongs on the talk page of the image rather than its main page.
  2. You can create a template and use it on the relevant talk pages.
  3. The template could also suggest that further discussion of the broad issue take place in one place: the template's talk page.
- Jmabel ! talk 15:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The nature of the information you wanted to add affects where it is best placed, and I couldn't tell from your initial message what sort of information you wanted to convey. That's all. Powers (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Templating sounds good.
The other solution just mentioned, linking to a Wikipedia discussion, is too problematic: The discussion usually freezes after archiving and before then it's formatted to keep each editor's contributions separate. Better that editors be able to update the information directly, not by adding posts underneath others. Also, in either case, that method discourages translation into other languages and the method would, I think, require adapting image page standards to allow that kind of a link anyway.
I like the idea of creating a template, if I can figure out how they're created and do it. Then I could add the template to any image pages I think could have information in common. The template as displayed on an image page would have two things: identification of an image's feature (using a feature= parameter) and a link to a template talk subpage focused on that one feature. A template talk subpage would have a layout akin to that of an article, so other editors could edit a single text, rather than a layout akin to that of a talk page, where each editor's contributions are kept separate.
Somehow, adding this template to an image page would have to cause creation of a template talk subpage, probably named identically with the feature, requiring that the feature value have the same naming rules as apply to the subpage name; however, if the subpage already exists, no new one would be created (overwriting the old one would be bad). The policies and guidelines that apply to articles would apply to these subpages except that notability would be waived; and the subpages would be searchable within Wikimedia but not within Google, Bing, et al., just as most old article revisions are not searchable within Google et al. A hidden or visible category of feature parameter values could be automatically populated by adding the template to an image page, providing a kind of index to how the template is used; perhaps the category could also display the number of image pages that have any single feature parameter value, and perhaps it could even offer a way to let editors visit those image pages that share that value (easier than going to the subpage and showing and then clicking What Links Here in the left navigation bar). One risk: the template as added to two image pages for different reasons could accidentally have the same feature parameter value although unrelated, and some way of preventing or fixing that automatically would be needed.
In this case, I could add the template to one image page and enter the feature parameter value as "fist within women's symbol". This would cause a template talk subpage to be created, called "/fist within women's symbol" (assuming an apostrophe is allowed in subpage names). Then, I'd add the information to the subpage and other editors could edit the information, in the same way that articles are edited. Having added the template with that particular feature parameter value to one image page, I could add it to two more image pages (or twenty thousand four hundred ninety-nine more image pages if I find the time), all with the same parameter value, and all would automatically link to the same template talk subpage.
Is this doable? Should this be redesigned?
Nick Levinson (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Logging In To Commons

I was going to upload a photo to an article and was logged in to Wikipedia. When I went into the "Upload file" function I got a screen saying that I was not logged in. I thought, "I am logged in! What's up with that?" So I typed my username and password into the appropriate boxes again, but even though it was the correct name, it was rejected! My understanding of the messages I got was basically that I need to upload the image to the Commons before I can add it to a Wikipedia article. It has been quite a while since I've uploaded any images here, so maybe the process has changed, because the last time I did this I just had to click on the "Upload" button and didn't have to go into the Commons first. Am I to understand that to upload to the Commons I need a separate login name and password from those I use to edit Wikipedia articles?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 2011-10-24T23:01:26‎ (UTC)
There are two types of accounts. One is universal across Wikimedia projects, the other is not. Most people now have the former, but it sounds like you still have the latter.
Can someone help this person out in terms of getting his/her account to be usable across WMF projects?
Failing that, you can always just create a Commons account. - Jmabel ! talk 01:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure, would like to help. But: Dear, what is your user name on your "home wiki"? Tell us, then we can give you specific advice. Without the need for you to fully read and understand help pages like en:WP:SUL. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Uploading a new version of a file

I created a file "Schumann Sy1 Incipit.gif". Since it was created, it has attracted a number of adverse comments and so I have produced a revised file. I tried uploading the new file using the upload page, but instead got a new file "Schumann SY1 Incipit.gif" (now an upper case SY1 rather than lower case). So, I have found the hyperlink on the original file marked "Upload a new version of this file" however, when I click on this, I get an upload warning that it is a duplicate of the upper case file. I have tried clicking on "submit modified file description" and "Ignore warning and save file anyway". Neither seems to upload the new version. Ideally, the file in "Schumann SY1 Incipit.gif" would be transfered to "Schumann Sy1 Incipit.gif" (along with SY2, SY3 and SY4). How do I do that or if that is not possible, how do I upload the new version of "Schumann Sy1 Incipit.gif"?

Op47 (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Request deletion on the uppercase one, then once that's done you should be able to upload. - Jmabel ! talk 01:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Image is portrait vice landscape

Royal Military College of Canada's Currie Hall.jpg

I just used the upload file application to upload an image of Currie Hall into wikipedia commons. The image didn't register an error but it appears to be at an angle (portrait vice landscape). Can someone rotate the image to the correct angle or advise me how to do so? I could reload the image, except the image looks fine on my pc. File:Royal Military College of Canada's Currie Hall.jpg Victoriaedwards (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2011‎ (UTC)

Looks like MediaWiki still has issues with orientation form EXIF. ✓  Done . You could use request rotation link on image page for this purpose. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The image had a wrong orientation specified in its EXIF tag (probably due to rotation by a tool which doesn't understand EXIF). As MediaWiki now respects EXIF-specified orientation in photos the photo was the wrong side up. Anyway: the request rotation link allows easy and lossless fixing. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Obvious source info

The image File:Noaaship.jpg was tagged as having no source information on both regular Wikipedia and the commons. Judging by the license, it's quite clear that the source is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. ----DanTD (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Where? That's not really a source; we're looking for a URL, or a bibliographic reference.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Can this image be moved to Commons?

I found w:zh-yue:File:Lift(word).JPG on Cantonese Wikipedia. The article on Cantonese on Swedish Wikipedia mentions the character as an example of a Chinese character used in Cantonese but not in Mandarin. The problem is that the character doesn't appear in the Basic Multilingual Plane of Unicode, so many people lack fonts for the character. For that reason, the Cantonese Wikipedia article on "lift" uses the image in the Wikipedia people so that Cantonese-speaking people are able to view the character. The problem is that not only Cantonese-speaking people themselves, but also Swedish-speaking people, generally lack a font with this character, so it would be practical to use the image on Swedish Wikipedia too, as part of the Cantonese example. The problem is that the image is stored locally on Cantonese Wikipedia instead of Commons, so this isn't currently possible.

Question: Would it be possible to move w:zh-yue:File:Lift(word).JPG to Wikimedia Commons? Cantonese Wikipedia has no licence information for the image, but it says that the image was produced by the one who uploaded it, so maybe this means that it is automatically placed under some default Creative Commons or GNU licence? Alternatively, maybe it's {{PD-ineligible}}? (Stefan4 (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC))

Textual information, including East Asian graphemes, are ineligible for copyright in the United States. We normally can tag them with {{PD-ineligible}}. Powers (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Image copied to commons. Should I also do something to remove the image from Cantonese Wikipedia? --Stefan4 (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
There should be a way to mark the image as being copied to Commons and thus eligible for deletion, but those procedures are specific to each Wiki. Powers (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I found a template that I flagged the image with. I hope I did it properly. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks correct. They will find it one day. ;) --Saibo (Δ) 23:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Nude men

There are many images in this category that have been uploaded from Flickr. Some are protected from public view on Flickr such as File:Strap-on pegging.jpg and File:WNBR Toronto 2011 2.jpg. I think you would need to be very sure that the individuals featured know their images are up on the Commons or up on Flickr, for that matter. Is there a policy on highly compromising or explicit image permissions / downloaded from elsewhere? Thanks Span (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Possibly related, there have been some very odd removals from that category recently by User:ClemRutter and possibly others. For example consider this. It's hard to imagine someone more clearly nude, or nude in a more public situation. And, on the same photos, he has been leaving Category:Nude women alone. I left a note on his user talk page, so an explanation my be forthcoming. - Jmabel ! talk 00:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • (linked the filename in your post) Span, probably you can just not see the image to to censorship by flickr in your country (this happens for me frequently). If the photo was published by the depicted person herself on flickr, well, apparently this is her wish to be public. Btw: The file you linked to was never existent at Commons. Policies: COM:L, COM:PEOPLE. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Saibo, you did the links wrong in Span's post. The files exist. - Jmabel ! talk 15:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Ouch - thanks, Jmabel. See, Span, next time do the links yourself please. ;) --Saibo (Δ) 20:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
        • I didn't know you could link here without the image appearing. Sorry about that. Thanks Spanglej (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


Fotografia?.pdf An unknown error occurred.

What can I do?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Penny1986 (talk • contribs) 2011-10-28T13:52:59 (UTC)
Hi Penny, could you please explain this a bit more? Did you try to upload this file? (it isn't here already). Give it a better name. And if possible use jpg (in highest quality setting) for photos. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
It looks like Penny's uploading .pdf books, but I don't see a Fotografia here. Perhaps just try uploading it again? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I try to uploading it again but at the and of the passage appears an unknow error occurred, so I don't know why...I have just uploading 3 contributions .pdf book, whit no problem. Help me.... I try to change the name

Thank you so much it's just for he title.... but why???? so now is "cosa può dire oggi la fotografia?"

Grazie :)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Penny1986 (talk • contribs) 2011-10-28T15:23:36‎ (UTC)
It probably was too simple. We have often people uploading fotos with such names. This name wouldn't be useful - the name should be descriptive. In your case you could also have added the author's name to the file name. But it is okay now. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File renaming

I have tagged two images 1, 2 for renaming 3 days ago, due to incorrect taxon ID. Why aren't they renamed? Did I miss something? Thanks. Gidip (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

They are renamed now. Maybe it was a bit unclear why you are thinking it is the wrong taxon or if the rename request is correct. Maybe there were just many files in Category:Media_requiring_renaming waiting to be renamed. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Gidip (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Video error

The video File:The Rime Of The Ancient Mariner.ogg supposedly features the text from the poem The Rime of the Ancient Mariner. It was linked to two Wikipedia articles as such. The video does not show the text, however, only a duff paraphrasing by a student with terrible English, it would seem. I'm not sure under what heading I would ask to have it deleted. Thanks Spanglej (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged it for deletion because, in addition to the problems you mention, it's a copyright violation. Despite the uploader's claims that it was entirely their own work (meaning that they supposedly wrote and performed all the music and created all the photos), it included this non-free photo. LX (talk, contribs) 17:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Spanglej (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Jewelry license

If a piece of jewelry is made in America in 1900, is a photo of it PD-1923? Or does it depend on when and where the photo was made? PumpkinSky talk 23:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Depends on when and where the photo was made. A photo of a three-dimensional object is always a copyrightable work in its own right. - Jmabel ! talk 00:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


日本語ですみません。Category:Mizuno Toshikataを作成したのですが、サブカテゴリに同じ Category:Mizuno Toshikata が表示され、それをクリックすると同カテゴリが無限に表示されてしまいます。編集画面では、そのカテゴリは書かれておりません。なぜ、こんなことが起こるのでしょうか。修復できる方がいらっしゃいましたら、お願いできればと思います。よろしくお願いします。--立花左近 (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

原因不明ですが、直りました。--立花左近 (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't speak Japanese. Sometimes you need to purge the page (// name&action=purge) or wait for the database to catch up. Whatever the cause of your problem was, I'm glad it's resolved! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Philosopher. But, it's resolved naturally. Again, thank you very much.--立花左近 (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

link to upload new version of image is missing

My email address has been confirmed, but I still don't have a link allowing me to upload a new version of an image. Is there something I need to do in order to get that to appear? LisaLiel (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Autoconfirmed users. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
You just need to wait until after 18:00:03 if that is no problem for you. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! LisaLiel (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Flickr image

Can someone help me upload an image from I know there is a process and I was wondering if someone could do that for this picture and this picture [5] which I really need for three articles of people that have no existing photographs, one of which I'm proposing for DYK. Really urgent!--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It can't be done. Those photos are not under a free license. They are under a nc-nd license. -- Asclepias (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
This really sucks! Not direct at you though. Is there anyway to contact the person and asking him to release the copyright or anything. I tried sending him an email but it isn't going through, and I tried commenting but that's not going through either. Much help appreciated, please and thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
If you are sure that the flickr account is the photographer best is to send him a flickr mail and ask him to change the license See also Commons:Flickr_files/Appeal_for_license_change. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I've tried emaling him and even tried leaving a commenting but the flickr site won't let me. The blue and pink balls just keep spinning and spinning. Can someone send him an email or comment on the page for me maybe it's just my computer that is the problem?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


Can someone block this guy? H has been vandalizing my pages and he is bound to go after others. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I just ran across this after making a request at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems (I have your user page on my watchlist). In the future, that's where to take this sort of thing. - Jmabel ! talk 17:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Now blocked for an indefinite (e.g. perpetual) period of time. - Jmabel ! talk 21:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


I'm unsure whether I'm allowed to upload the logo of the italian tim cup, because it has been uploaded in the english wikipedia (here), but it is a logo indeed. What is correct? --BayernMuenchen (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be uploaded to enwp (or whatever wikipedia you want to use it on) as it is a non-free image. Commons is only for images that are not copyrighted, or that are otherwise allowed to be used in the public domain. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Book cover?

Is it allowed to upload a book cover? I would like to upload Kurt Lüthi as the lemma Kurt Lüthi doesn't have a portait on it and I couldn't find one in WP Commons. Regards--McWien (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that it's a book cover. What does matter is that it's a non-free book cover, and non-free book covers are not allowed. See Commons:Licensing. LX (talk, contribs) 16:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Version einer Kategorie wird nicht aktualisiert dargestellt

Wenn ich nicht bei wiki angemeldet bin und keine Cookies seitens wiki im Browser gespeichert sind, dann wird bei folgendem Link nicht/nie die aktuelle Version dargestellt:

Der geladene Text/Version ist alt und es werden auch nicht alle Bilder aufgelistet.

Bei wird mir hingegen die aktuelle Version angezeigt, sowie auch mit:

Warum also nicht bei:

Das Problem tritt sowohl mit dem IE, als auch mit dem FF auf. --Comanderkeen (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Für unangemeldete Benutzer ist das serverseitige Caching oft viel zu stark - zu alte Versionen werden ausgeliefert. Dagegen machen kann man und du im Moment nichts. Das Problem ist bekannt, soweit ich weiß. Wieso es nur in der einen Sprachversion so ist - Zufall nehme ich an. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 06:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

need help on uploading

Hi I have been trying to upload a new version of a file I previously loaded. I do get it uploaded, but it seems the old version 'over takes'

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwlehman (talk • contribs) 19:54, 30 October 2011‎ (UTC)
Most likely just a caching problem, which will sort itself out with time. It would help if you would indicate a specific file. - Jmabel ! talk 21:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A photo disappeared from my gallery

Hello, one of my photos (File:Sikh pilgrim at the Golden Temple (Harmandir Sahib) in Amritsar, India.jpg) has disappeared from the personal gallery in commons (the page). Does anyone know why that happened? Thanks --Paulrudd (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly the same thing as in Special:ListFiles/Paulrudd, which says "When filtered by user, only files where that user uploaded the most recent version of the file are shown." Someone uploaded a newer version. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Probably, yes - File:Sikh pilgrim at the Golden Temple (Harmandir Sahib) in Amritsar, India.jpg was overwritten with a slightly improved version. You can, instead, look in your upload log or in your JSONListUploads. The log will always work - no magic involved. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 06:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Just revert it and it will reappear. Featured pictures shouldn't be overwritten. --  Docu  at 06:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, just needed to know. Thanks for the help --Paulrudd (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright : images of modern art

I own some modern Tanzanian (and European) art. Pictures of some of these works would be interesting for Commons. It is my feeling that when I buy a work of art, I would not only own the physical work but also rights to the use of images of those objects; at least some rights. But I'm not really sure. What do European and Tanzanian copyright law say about this? And what is Wikimedia Commons' position? Loranchet (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)]

Purchasing a physical copy of a work (even the original copy) has no impact on immaterial rights such as copyright, meaning the artist retains the copyright unless otherwise specified in a contract. See Commons:Image casebook#Art (copies of). LX (talk, contribs) 11:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Flickr upload mistake

Moved to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Flickr upload mistake, because only an admin can fix this. - Jmabel ! talk 18:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Images owned by other countries' Governments - free use or not? (Urgently wanted pic!)

I really, really need this one!

No way can I get another picture of it. Owned by Cape Archives Repository ( ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like that image would be public domain - a copy of a letter written in 1765 or 1766, right? --Kramer Associates (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

3 Bilder

Habe soeben gelernt, dass drei meiner gespendeten Bilder Urheberrechtsverletzungen darstellen können. File:G.RichierTauromachie53.jpg; File:A.GiacomettiFemme32.jpg; File:CalderThreeColoredDog73.jpg Diese möchte ich daher besser von den Commons-seiten löschen. Wie geht das ? Oder kann das jemand von Wikipedia oder Commons für mich erledigen ? VG --JanManu (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that you nominate for deletion just the same way as if someone else had uploaded the images. - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rd232 (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)