User talk:Denniss/Archive 8

Discussion page archive

• Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7

---

{{Stop}} on User:CommonsDelinker/commands

Hello, is there any reason why you stopped the bots?  Hazard-SJ  ✈  01:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Bot does not work since May 10th, with Stop we won't lose commands issued there. Nobody knows what happens with the commands removed by DelinkerHelper. --Denniss (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, how strange. I'm guessing if and when it's finally working, we'd need to re-add all of those requests to be re-processed? Is a replacement needed? If so I could try it out. Also, since my bot (and SieBot) operated from there, they would be affected(? at least mine takes {{Stop}} into account). I'm currently considering branching off to a new page for this task. What's your opinion?  Hazard-SJ  ✈  02:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Something at Toolserver broke and Delinker couldn't work without. I don't have any information what's going on there, I hope they get it working at Labs if the Toolserver can't be fixed. We currently have the Java-based Commons:GlobalReplace in Alpha-stage and a replacement script at User:Sreejithk2000/JustReplace.js to help with this stuff but we are always open for ideas. If multiple Bots are affected by this Stop the other option may be to block DelinkerHelper so it doesn't remove commands? If Delinker starts working again we'll see whether the issued commands were stored or lost. That would be a lot of work to restore the Commands from the page history. --Denniss (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to send Bryan an email about this to see if I can get an update on this. If I get no response soon, should a replacement be considered, or should we leave it to the scripts that you mentioned above? Also, I could change my bot to ignore {{Stop}} if necessary.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  02:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

see https://jira.toolserver.org/browse/COMMONSDELINKER-24--Steinsplitter (talk) 10:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't gotten any reply from Bryan so far, but it seems it's just an issue of having the incorrect password according to Krinkle. Also, I've just updated my bot to ignore {{Stop}}.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  22:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Schön wenn es so einfach wäre und doof das sowas einfaches nicht repariert werden kann. Die ganzen Fehlermeldungen in den Logs scheinen aber auf mehr zu schließen. Auf jeden Fall sollte der Bot aber mehr Maintainer mit Vollzugriff bekommen, kann ja nicht sein das gar nichts mehr geht wenn Bryan gerade nicht erreichbar ist. Das Gleich trifft auch auf den DRBot zu der momentan die monatlichen DR Unterseiten nur auf manuellen Auftrag des Maintainers (Bryan) erstellt da die Autofunktion spinnt/hängt. --Denniss (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Kannst du das bitte hier sagen? Das Bot ist noch auf den "instabilen" Toolserver, wenn niemand die Bugs kommentiert, dann wird das bot sicherlich nicht nach tools.wikimedia.org umgezogen oder verbessert (oder was auch immer). Danke.--Steinsplitter (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Der Umzug zu den Labs ist wohl geplant aber noch mit Schwierigkeiten verbunden. Das Bryan oft schwer zu erreichen ist und seine Bots oft keinen anderen Maintainer haben, sollte auch bekannt sein. Scheinbar kümmert es aber keinen. Wir haben ja momentan scheinbar nicht einmal mehr einen Bot für Wartungsaugaben wie doppelte redirects und anderen kram da unter Anderem der Schlurcherbot inaktiv ist. --Denniss (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Der Delinker streikt gerade mal wieder ... --Denniss (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Er sollte sich eigendlich von alleine neu starten. Aber ich sehe gerade beide prozesse sind da. Wie genau "streiken"?--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinker/commands, ich sehe. Ich schreibe Hoo_man eine Mail dass er ihn restarten soll.--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Danke, zumindestens der Helper geht wieder; beim Delinker ist's noch Zappenduster. Die Aufträge zum Ersatz von z.B. dem Bild tauchen zwar auf aber keine Edits vom Delinker hier. --Denniss (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Muß wohl 'ne Datenbank am Toolserver kaputt sein, Flickrreview macht auch gerade nix mehr. --Denniss (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

leider. Wenn die Botbetreiber ihr Bots nicht auf tools.wmflabs.org übertrage....--Steinsplitter (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Delinker

Hi, Kannst du bitte einen Blick auf die Dateiverschieber-Anträge werfen? Da sind einige Wappen umbenannt worden die teilweise über 500 Mal eingebunden sind. Leider verstehe ich kein Französisch um die verlinkte Diskussion zu verstehen. Danke und LG--Steinsplitter (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Ein paar konnten ersetzt werden, andere habe ich zurückverschoben und den Verschieber um einen Aufschub einer erneuten Verschiebung gebeten. So eine Schiebung ...... --Denniss (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker

Hello Dennis. Just what I want is that the right picture has the right name, in accordance with wiki:fr. I've used the move+replace tab as you say. I just would like to rename File:Blason_region_fr_Poitou-Charentes.svg to File:Poitou blason.svg, because Blason_region_fr_Poitou-Charentes.svg is in fact File:Poitou-Charentes blason.svg, to make it all clean. How can we do ? Jack ma (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Please wait for the devs to fix CommonsDelinker, then move it again or directly ask me or another admin for move. Moving flags and shields is always problematic because of template usage (templates may be locked from editing). --Denniss (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I didn't know about CommonsDelinker problem. Do you know since when it is down ? And roughly when it will be fixed ? Jack ma (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

May 10, no idea. --Denniss (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done I have renamed these files, because CommonsDelinker was repaired on July 12th. Jack ma (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

File:London-miniatura.JPG

I'm the author of the image. Thank you. --Erictorres-2002 (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo map socking

User:Lottary Wahen 2836971 per [1]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Babylon 2000 per [2] ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This user's uploads

This user's uploads have no known flickr source. The flickr source is stated to be 'unknown.' Perhaps you know how to file either a mass DR or an npd tag on them all. This could be a copyright violation but Commons cannot keep them here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for info, uploads nuked. --Denniss (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

protection

Please unprotect File:World homosexuality laws.svg. Three jurisdictions (such as California) need to be updated. Edit warriors can be addressed by blocking. Kwamikagami (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime I've uploaded a local copy at WP-en so we're not out of date. Kwamikagami (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Protection has been lifted. --Denniss (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Kwamikagami (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Danke

[3] Wie konnte das passieren? Viele Grüße, --BlackIceNRW (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Irgendein Problem in der Datenbank, das Bild war dort wohl noch an den alten Namen getackert. --Denniss (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Denniss

Ich kann nicht sehr gut Englisch (genau gesagt garnicht) und habe für zwei meiner Bilder einen Löschantrag gestellt. Das einzige was andere Leute dann übrig haben, ist in dieser Diskussion mir auf Englisch irgend einen unverständlichen kram zu schreiben. Ich möchte einfach das diese Bilder gelöscht werden, aus bestimmten Gründen. Genau das ist es, warum ich zukünftig keine Bilder mehr hier hochladen werde, die Bilder zu löschen, einfach so, ist ja scheinbar unmöglich. Vielleicht kannst du mir ja irgendwie helfen. --JohannesErwinEugen.R

Es tut mir Leid das du unzufrieden mit der Wikipedia bist. Die Bilder können aber nicht einfach so gelöscht werden da Du die unter einer freien Lizenz zur Verfügung gestellt hast und diese nicht einfach zurückgezogen werden kann. Du kannst ja auch nicht Deinem Nachbarn Dein altes Auto schenken und nach einem Monat zurückverlangen weil Du z.B. plötzlich im Streit mit dem Nachbarn bist oder Dir ein Bekannter ein lukratives Angebot für die alte Karre unterbreitet hat. --Denniss (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

hmm... klingt verständlich. Aber dennoch finde ich es etwas sonderbar, das man seine hochgeladenen Bilddateien nicht einfach löschen kann. Sollte man bei wikipedia vielleicht mal dran arbeiten. Naja, danke für die Antwort, auch wenn es nichts nützt. --JohannesErwinEugen.R

Reverse

In your closing statement of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Edward Snowden.jpg you believe it is a work by "Guardian/Reuters". Most of us agreed in the DR that was not a work by The Guardian and Reuters was never brought up. We did find versions marked by Praxis films and the VOA. Since we normally accept the methods VOA uses to license their works I see no reason why we shouldn't accept them as a rights holder. We don't know how Praxis and VOA are involved but we do know that VOA have marked it as their public domain work. Would you like to reverse your closure or should I make an undeletion request.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

For sure not a VOA work, imags of this series are in multiple use and almost everyone either attributes it to the guardian or one of the large press agencies like Reuters/AP but none to VOA. --Denniss (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

RafikiSykes

Hi Denniss. Take a look at W:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RafikiSykes. The 2 accounts here, Theveravee and Heronglen look like a match for RafikiSykes according to edits, Cat-a-lot use, etc. Let me know what you think. INeverCry 19:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Update I've blocked both accounts. After running CU, I don't see any reason to doubt the connection. INeverCry 19:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi INeverCry and Denniss, I remain concerned that this user is being driven off Commons without being given a clear explanation of the steps needed to become a productive contributor again. In February, after Denniss' block of the RafikiSykes account (which I had thought was intended to be the account this user was going to be limited to), I raised several questions for Denniss which have never been answered, see User_talk:RafikiSykes#Blocked. As for the accounts Theveravee and Heronglen, could you please explain what of those edits was problematic for Commons so that RafikiSykes has the opportunity to improve their behaviour here?

I agree that RafikiSykes would do better to stick to the one account, but in this instance we seem to be importing SPIs from en.wp, rather than making the determination for Commons accounts based on behaviour here on Commons. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Fæ, rest assured that I would have reported the sockpuppetry here after the case was closed on the English-language WP. Given the the issues with a few members of the admins corps here, I saw no point in starting the case here. RafikiSykes' latest sockpuppets have continued the same pattern of problematic actions that simply create work for other contributors. You and others tried to give them guidance in one at least of their earlier incarnations, so they should know what the problem is by now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that the porn cabal now runs CU as well? Sweet, we're more powerful than I realised! -mattbuck (Talk) 15:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that certain admins inevitably involve themselves in certain actions that I make here and attempt to short-circuit them. You are one of those admins, Mattbuck. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You're making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The proper action here on the part of RafikiSykes would be to use {{Unblock}} and address the concerns that led to the indef block, or, if the block itself is questioned, to challenge it. I don't see any reaction to the block from him on his talk. What are his views on the issue/s and the block, and what are his intentions going forward? Creating new sock accounts isn't the answer. I've posted on his talk as well. INeverCry 17:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

INeverCry, thanks for encouraging them to reply and use the unblock request process there. I suggest this is linked on the talk page of the recently blocked accounts. Note, the gender of RafikiSykes may not be male and they may not be an adult. --Fæ (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Equally, RafikiSykes may be a female and may be extremely aged. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I've left notes on both sock talkpages. It's concerning to see a scope warning on one and a bunch of DRs on the other. INeverCry 18:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

3O since I found you were unwilling to discuss things

I got a third opinion - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/05#Copyright_law_minutiae -which found my edits (which you reverted) to be reasonable. --Elvey (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You are interpreting things again, as long as there's no clear license statement there will be no change to the template. Feel free to contact NASA and ESA to get them change the license wording. --Denniss (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

QED. (Someone's misinterpreting things!)--Elvey (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

template:kirkeinfo

Hi, looks like a minor syntax error here, see talk page :) Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that so quickly. There seem, however, to be another problem, and I can't figure it out. There's a lot of images with this temaplate Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Kirkeinfo&limit=100, I can only see three images in category:Images by Kirkeinfo despite images like File:Ine Marie Eriksen.jpg showing under hiddencats that it is categorized there. Any idea what could be causing this? Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It needs a null-edit for every image to get that instantly fixed or wait for the background category update to fix that within some hours/days. --Denniss (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's wait then :) Thanks, Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

DRs on NBA photos

Hi Denniss,

You closed a few DRs recently, keeping some photos by Danny Bollinger (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Darius Johnson-Odom.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Darius Morris in 2012.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Darren Collison layup vs Kobe Bryant.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dahntay Jones dunk.jpg) Other DRs on similar photos were later deleted (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jannero Pargo in 2012.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rodrigue Beaubois layup over Kevin Seraphin.jpg). This apparent inconsistency has been discussed at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Inconsistent DR results?.

I'm guessing that the reason you closed your DRs as keep, while the later ones were closed as delete, is that nobody had realised the photos' copyright was held by NBAE (not the photographer) by the time you closed your ones. Would you please have a look at these again and tell me if there's something I'm overlooking?

Thanks, Avenue (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This DR

Do you see any red flags with this DR I filed? Its on a flickr image for a Joe Waguespack article on wikipedia. Only thing is that article on wiki was created by a banned sockpuppet and the flickr image (and another I linked to) seems to come from the same person. If so, then either 1. someone is 'promoting'/spamming J. Waguespack's article on wikipedia (probably Waguespack himself) or 2. the flickr images are copyright violations. It seems that life never gets boring on commons or wikipedia sadly. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Edward Snowden

Hi Denniss, the discussion solution was "delete" [4], but the image is still/again there: File:Edward Snowden mirror.jpg + File:Edward Snowden.jpg – the latter one has again been exchanged with another image [5] (different angle, different cropping). Has there been a new decision after the DR solution? --Trofobi (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

My userpage

Can you please undelete it so I can move the info elsewhere? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you please do this soon? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

link replace request ...

Howdy. The request that you initiated seems to have fallen through some cracks. I am not exactly sure of the evidence that you used for the request, so I am cautious about fixing the issue. Anyway, it would be great if you could look and resolve. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Please ask those actually moving the file and uploading a (different?) file under the old name. I just moved the replacement orders to CommonsDelinker. --Denniss (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I would hope that the move requests would have been checked, and then have the opportunity to reverse, which is presumably why admins retain that ability. Makes it a little more difficult now.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Bot

I've already programmed the bot. Permission to run? (Please reply on original page). --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Sorry, could you delete the three wrong ones? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently doing some checks and preparation work, not all images with the NARA template are uploaded by Us national archive bot and ma use a different naming sheme, also some may need name corrections. Where are the three wrong ones? --Denniss (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/YiFeiBot (except the last one). --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there a problem with single or dual " in these filenames? --Denniss (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I can handle the ". The thing is that the four ones are one image in four names. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleted the wrong ones. Could you please also change the variable TIFF = yes to no (or no value) so the .jpg is not categorized in the TIFF cat? A separate bot run could also be made for this cat to remove all wrongly categorized .jpg images. --Denniss (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Trying. But still made three wrong ones (File:"East side excavation area, showing the two conveyor feeder belts leading to cross-river conveyor, with main-line... - NARA - 293977.jpg, File:"East side excavation area showing the deep crevice on the left, east cofferdam on the right, conveyor to ridge... - NARA - 294264.jpg, and File:"East side excavation area in the foreground showing feeder belts to cross-river conveyor, cofferdam in distance." - NARA - 293963.jpg). --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Still four (File:"Emergency dike built on site of Pathfinder dike looking southeast towards barrow pits. Showing sand bags and riprap... - NARA - 294466.jpg, File:"East tower of suspension bridge for sand and gravel conveyor." - NARA - 294024.jpg, File:"East side excavation operations looking south into a deep rock crevice. The lowest dragline is located near the dam... - NARA - 294263.jpg, and File:"East side excavation area." - NARA - 294002.jpg). Wondering why. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Finally fixed it: hasattr(self,'_contents') Permission to run? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I would have no problem if you run your script instead of hazard-bot. Just keep the upload pace slow to spot possible errors. Either way I have to move a lot of files to get proper filenames for the images. --Denniss (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

 Running It's actually quite fast. And it'll be several hours until my next response. Tell petan (User:Petrb) or Coren on #wikimedia-labs if you seriously need to kill the process. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Just killed the script. Seems that we have too many unprepared files. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

??? --Denniss (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

For example, File:A 5-yard electric shovel loading 10-yard 'buggies' in the east excavation - NARA - 294088.jpg does not point to the JPEG file correctly. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I know, I had moved the tif file some days earlier so there's a name mismatch. Please continue uploading, I'll fix them later. --Denniss (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I catched up with fixing the duplicate tif/jpg versions with wrong links to each other, there are still about 50-100 tif without jpg left. I hope you upload them next week. Then it's time to ping Fae to cleanup all those images popping up in this cat. Thanks for your help. --Denniss (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for that: urllib2.HTTPError: HTTP Error 503: Service Unavailable. I'll start them right now. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Rerunning. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, job should be finished now. Is there an easy way to detect non.tif/.tiff images in this cat ? --Denniss (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll try tomorrow, probably with MIME. BTW, I still found some file uploaded by my bot which are latest revisions, and they're likely should be fixed. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

 Running... Will save the list to User:YiFeiBot/sandbox. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Running slowly now.

1. File:"Credit Commercial de France. Souscrivez Pour la Victoire et Pour le Triomphe de la Liberte. 4eme Emprunt de la Defense - NARA - 512456.jpg
2. File:"The Nonsense of It," a printed pamphlet arguing for woman suffrage.djvu
3. File:1789 Resolve of the Senate.djvu
4. File:A Resolution for the Relief (1814).djvu
5. File:Abraham Lincoln, President, U.S - NARA - 527823 - overlay.gif

--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done in User:YiFeiBot/sandbox --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed by bot,  regenerating --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

One found so far: File:Letter from George Underwood (1898).jpg --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

 Went through all, it is the only one found, and fixed manually. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• • • Thanks. --Denniss (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

      You're welcome.--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hallo, Magst du dem Bot autopatrol geben? Keiner seiner Edits sind patrollt? LG--Steinsplitter (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Der sollte in Kürze ein Bot-flag bekommen, ist das dann nicht redundant? --Denniss (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Wenn er den Botflag erhält sind alle neuen edits patrollt. Die alten bleiben unpatrollt. Autopatroll ist im Botflag inklusive.--Steinsplitter (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Question about restoration of deleted redirect

Hi Denniss. I saw that you restored File:Angelokastro view from tha battlements after user:INeverCry originally deleted it following my deletion request. Out of curiosity, what is the reason for its restoration? Thank you in advance. Dr.K. (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to delete redirects, especially if the image was present under this old name since 2011. We're not living in a Wiki-only world, several reusers may still link to the old filename. --Denniss (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Need temporary unprotection to upload replacement image

The NASA Insignia at File:NASA logo.svg has incorrect color values. I've prepared a replacement file, based on an official EPS source from NASA, but would need temporary unprotection to upload it. — Quicksilver^@ 19:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

See my new comment at File_talk:NASA_logo.svg and link to the new version of the NASA insignia. — Quicksilver^@ 23:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

File renaming

Please provide criteria from COM:FR when you renaming the file. File should not be renamed if it does not fall under that criterii.--Anatoliy (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP ABUSING RENAME RIGHTS!--Anatoliy (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There's no need to specify a rename reason for housekeeping moves (fixing double file extensions). --Denniss (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

What rule is it? COM:FR says 'Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better.'--Anatoliy (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Is that 'Correct obvious errors in file names'? Double extensions causes confusion. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Some stupid "anti-malware" e-Mail filters even scrap the attachment if they encounter double file extensions. -- Rillke^(q?) 14:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think these fall under current policy. Were I challenged on such a rename, I would use the 'more meaningful' rationale as double extensions are bound to be confusing to the reader/re-user. --Fæ (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Jyy889900

hi;

you seem to have taken it upon yourself to UNILATERALLY delete all the contributions of this user Jyy889900 WITHOUT DUE PROCCESS, DISCUSSION, OR PROPER NOTIFICATION.

this is completely inappropriate behavior for an experienced admin.

please do not undertake such actions EVER again.

Lx 121 (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No need for this bureaucracy stuff, lousy quality pics of this kind will be nuked without warning. And I'm not the only admin handling it this way. No problem to keep good quality images but not these "Here's my Dingdong" pics. --Denniss (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

so you admit that you are violating policy, you offer no apology for doing so, & state that you intent to continue doing so?

Lx 121 (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No violation of policy, just standard cleanup of BS uploads. --Denniss (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Denniss, are you sure you want to make a stand on this? If the community wishes administrators to delete recently uploaded files based solely on their personal and subjective evaluation of quality, then this would need a change in policy and an unambiguous definition of the boundaries of when this applies. I have no doubt that these images could be easily and fairly trivially deleted using current policy, so it seems odd that you would want to avoid complying with policy when there was no other apparent consideration that required a speedy deletion. --Fæ (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why anyone would like to make a stand on the opposite side. Does anyone seriously believe that fighting for low quality penis pictures makes them some kind of anti-censorship-activist? --Dschwen (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No, but I still want the T shirt. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

@Fae - don't we already have policy codified to support this, and if not, we should address that rather than playing to the peanut gallery. We don't need the bucketloads of knob pics.

Or you could just delete them under URAA. Bulk speedies of in-use images all round, and no-one gives a damn. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Dschwen I did not mention penis pictures, anywhere. In fact as I am not an admin, I cannot even see what has been deleted. I would like administrators to expect to always follow the community agreed process and policies for deletion rather than appearing to making it up as they go along, after they get the deletion tools. The sides I see here are those that follow community agreed policy, and those mavericks that do not represent the community. If you disagree with the policies, then create an RFC and change them. If you want to discuss this case, I suggest you look at the evidence on AN/U and discuss it there. --Fæ (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me Fae, I have stated my opinion on AN/U and it was not me who took the discussion of the case to this page. It was not unreasonable to expect that you were informed about the content of the deleted pictures as it was mentioned on AN/U by several users. So no need to get snappy here. There is a long way from having an opinion on policies and "creating an RFC and changing them". Perhaps I'm a dreamer, but wouldn't it be nice if a community elected admin would have some trust by the community that elected him? --Dschwen (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, don't mean to come over as snappy. I agree, the community should have trust in the admin group, and they should be trusted to handle difficult problems which need some flexibility (as mentioned on AN/U). However in the 100 image deletions in the last month that I identified as out of process, most seems to not fall into this "difficult" area but could easily be handled using standard speedy deletions with the associated open notifications. It is this basic question of being seen to follow the norms and policies whenever reasonable, implementing our values of openness and transparency whenever possible, that needs to be responded to. --Fæ (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Denniss, what you do think of the points I raised at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#COM:PORN.2C_Commons:Deletion_policy.23Out_of_scope_and_COM:CSD? Cheers, russavia (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Uruk (und Category:Pergamonmuseum)

Hallo, entschuldige bitte mein schlechtes Deutsch und die mehrere Fehler, die ich hier wahrscheinlich schreiben werde, sehr lange nicht gesprochen bzw. geschrieben... I habe keine Ahnung ob du mir helfen kannst oder nicht: ich habe herausgefunden, daß in Berlin - in diesem Augenblick - eine Sonderausstellung über Uruk stattfindet, sie dauert nur bis 8. September !!!! (hier kannst du weiter darüber lesen: Uruk 5000 Jahre Megacity oder Uruk - 5000 Jahre Megacity im Pergamonmuseum oder Uruk 5000 Years of the Megacity). Es gibt nicht viele Bilder über Uruk und Mesopotamien in Commons, und wäre sehr toll wenn jemanden ein paar Bilder davon ausnehmen könnte, ich wohne aber in Barcelona und kann nicht nach Berlin fahren/fliegen. Ich habe nirgendwo gelesen, daß man die Ausstellung nicht photographieren darf. Es werden einige Objekte ausgestellt, die erst jetzt ausgestellt worden sind, Modelle der Stadt, usw. Diese ist eine einmalige Gelegenheit solche Bilder zu kriegen, weiß aber nicht wer die Uruk-Ausstellung besuchen und die Bilder aufnehmen könnte. Dankesehr! --Luna92 (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Ich habe bereits Hilfe von Didym. Danke. --Luna92 (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Two photos of Kosciuszko statue

Hi Denniss, You tagged two photos of Kosciuszko I uploaded yesterday for missing essential source information. I just supplied the url addresses of the photos along with he author/photographer, 'Ted Bobosh'. (His name and photo can be found below the photoa of the statues on the Flickr page.

Here are the addresses of the two photos in question:

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/frted/5115693974/lightbox/) -- File:Statue of Kosciuszko.jpg
  
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/frted/5115696524/ -- File:Statue of Kosciuszko detail.jpg
  

There is also a link to the copyright info below the photos on these pages:

• http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en
  

I am not very familiar with Flickr and any copyright policies involved, only that it was my understanding that it was okay to upload images found here. Please let me know if there are other things needed or any other way I can help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: I marked the 2 images since the lack of US Freedom of Panorama for modern sculptures does not affect them since the artist died in 1910--and they are not modern sculptures. So, in countries with no Freedom of Panorama for sculptures like most of the Soviet States (except Armenia), the USA, France, Italy and Belgium, there is no problem since the artist has been deceased for at least 70 years and images of their works are now copyright free. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

File duplicates

By the way, I saw your comment on Tech needs rfc about a duplicate file category. I just was wondering what your thoughts were on a special page like Special:MostLinked, but instead shows the files with the most duplicates (In some ways doing this would be easier than the tracking category). Secondly, I was recently playing with data about duplicated file, in case its of interest, the 51 files with the most duplicates (showing the name of the alphabetically first duplicate) is here. Bawolff (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the file listing. Maybe we could use a periodically refreshed database report like Commons:Database reports/Largely duplicative file names --Denniss (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you recheck Rufus the hawk photo?

Could you please recheck the rufus the hawk upload and possibly restore it? It looks like it passes to me so either you missed something or perhaps the photo owner changed the rights recently. The original flikr photo is at http://www.flickr.com/photos/cat_wright/7727914888 Thanks,

File:Rufus-hawk-wimbledon.jpg Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Frage

Hi Denniss, Warum stellst du Bilder wieder her und löscht sie dann wieder? Wie z.B. File:Jesus Pescadores.jpg? Lg --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ilmari Karonen/Queries/Zombie images --Denniss (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

oh, interessant. Danke. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Fairphone Prototype.jpg

Hallo Denniss, ich verstehe nicht ganz das Problem an der Sache. Könntest duu mir das kurz erläutern? Vielen Dank!--JoeJoeJoe93 (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Wo genau auf der Seite ist das Bild zu finden und wo steht dort was über das Nutzungsrecht unter cc-by-sa-2.0 Lizenz? --Denniss (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Könnte das hier stehen? --JoeJoeJoe93 (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Kommt noch was?--JoeJoeJoe93 (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of my uploads

Hello. You recently deleted two of my uploads: File:Chaplin Limelight promo image.jpg (and its cropped version, File:Chaplin Limelight promo crop.jpg), and File:William Powell portrait.jpg. As far as I can tell, this was done without any warning or proper deletion request. I wasn't given any chance to defend them. I am quite sure that with both of these images, I had provided links to the copyright renewal records which showed that these images never had their copyright renewed. May I ask why they were deleted? And please next time, give me warning - as you have done about the Dirk Bogarde image, which is a far more reasonable candidate for deletion; I can understand your concern there...with the other two images, I am 100% sure they're out of copyright. --Lobo512 (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think I did provide renewal records for the Powell image (I can't know for sure, because there's no way for me to look at the file, what with it being deleted so hastily...) but that's because I looked carefully at the scan (front and back) and all it said was something like "attribution would be appreciated". There was no clear copyright notice, which was required at the time of publication. --Lobo512 (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

So you deleted my uploads without any warning, and now you're ignoring me. Not impressed. In the absence of any comments about this, I have re-added the images, here, here, and here, although I'm annoyed I had to take the time to do this again. If you still believe there are problems, please file a proper deletion request this time. --Lobo512 (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You uploaded them claiming a legal exception in US law but you failed to provide any proof that these images fall under this exception. One image bears a clear copyright notice, the other image is marked as ARR at the source. Images without proof are to be handled as derivative work or copyright violation and will be deleted on sight. --Denniss (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you even read my summaries? For the Chaplin image I included a search of copyright renewal records, which show that no Limelight images had their copyright renewed. As for the Powell image, where exactly is the copyright notice? All it says is "Kindly credit" - that does NOT constitute copyright (which, again, I have made clear in the file description). And even if it was copyrighted, I'm am 100% sure that I can search the renewal records of the relevant year and it won't have been renewed (none of these images were, I've done searches for dozens of images and it just never happened.) --Lobo512 (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Well you've obviously conceded on this issue, but I guess you have too much pride to apologise. I'm very unimpressed with your conduct over this whole thing, especially for an admin. May I suggest that in the future you:

1. Give users a chance to defend their uploads before hastily deleting them
2. Not ignore people when they write on your talk page
3. Fully read the descriptions of uploads, especially when the user has gone to the effort of researching and quoting copyright law and copyright renewal records, before slapping "permission" tags on
4. Learn what constitutes pre-1978 copyright (cannot believe an admin didn't know this...)
5. Apologise when you make a mistake

Bye. --Lobo512 (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Railroad files

Hi, Dennis,

Was working on railroad files recently. There are two with wrong licenses as they're not US origin.

• File:TWE Bahnhof Gütersloh 1900 Fahrplan 1903.jpg
• File:Eröffnung Teutoburger Wald-Eisenbahn (TWE) in Iburg 18 Juli 1901.jpg

I think they are OK with one of the "old" EU licenses but am not sure which apply. The uploader has some others which have no source information. Have fixed everything I can, I think, but some of the photos look like they came from a eBay seller who has a lot of railroad photos, but no source information about them. Two look like they're repros. Should I put the rest up for DR? Thanks, We hope (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Fairphone Prototype.jpg; Zweiter Anlauf

Hallo Deniss, ich hatte dich ja bereits weiter oben angesprochen, da gab es aber leider keine Antwort (mehr). Nocheinmal: Das Bild wurde ja jetzt gelöscht. Wieso? Sämtliche Informationen findet man hier. JoeJoeJoe93 (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ist Dir die nichtkommerzielle Lizenzeinschränkung bei Flickr entgangen? Diese ist für Bilder auf Commons nicht erlaubt. Wenn Du eine andere offizielle Quelle kennst, die ohne die Einschränkung auskommt (und dies auch klar darstellt), können wir so ein Bild nutzen. --Denniss (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Könntest du mir das bitte noch einmal erklären? Habe dieses Nichtkommerzielle und Kommerzielle Nutzungsrecht noch nie verstanden. Dieses Bild steht unter einer Nichtkommerziellen Lizenz, oder nicht? So steht es zumindest unter dem Bild. --JoeJoeJoe93 (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sieh COM:L, für potentielle Nachnutzer muß eine kommerzielle Nutzung möglich sein. --Denniss (talk) 07:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Brussels

Why did you revert the File:Brussels 1837.jpeg from my version to the version as of previous? In the previous version the North is roughly to the right. But in my version the North was to the up and that is more right than in the previos variant. My version of map disposition is in more close resemblance to the reality. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Derivative licensing

Hi Denniss, you made me curious about your recent changes to a file of mine. I started a conversation about it and mentioned you here. Thanks. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 03:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Denniss, I would greatly appreciate it if you would revert the licensing changes you made to my derivative images discussed in the link above. Thanks. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 06:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

No, this is an invalid license change. Your minor modification did not generate new copyright. --Denniss (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently going through your uploads and see a bad pattern here for example with the Richard Goldsmith images. Not only did you not copy the proper attribution (in the license tag) from the original image you also made an invalid license change from a by to a by-sa license. Using the more restricted license version could be seen as copyright violation as only the copyright holder is permitted to do so. --Denniss (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for protection

Hi Denniss, would you mind taking a look at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#File:Unasur_countries_color.svg.2C_File:Miembros_de_Mercosur.svg.2C_File:Unasur_other_members.svg.2C_File:Comunidad_andina.svg? It's been up there for a day and a half with no response. As per the discussion on en:Talk:Union_of_South_American_Nations#POV_maps_.26_participation_list, the changes that Sdonatti is attempting to make to this image are disputed, and the user has been blocked on en-wiki for edit warring over the issue. However, the user has continued edit warring to overwrite the image here on commons. Can you restore the 4 images to their consensus versions and fully protect the files to stop the edit warring? A block of Sdonatti may also be necessary. The variants should be uploaded under a separate file name. (I've requested that they be {{Split}}). Thanks! TDL (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this! TDL (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein image

Hi Denniss,

I would like to repost the profile photo of Jeffrey Epstein which you deleted. The photo is indeed the copyright ownership of the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation. However, the image may be used freely by the public with a creative common attribution: please see their website link that states this: http://www.jeffreyepstein.org/Contact.html

Could you remove the image from deletion or let me know the most effective way to do this? The file photo in question is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jeffrey_Epstein%2C_at_Harvard_University%2C_April_2012.jpg

Thank you for your assistance! Turvill (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, did not see your (misplaced) question. The permission is insufficient because no exact version is specified, could be everything from version 1.0 to 3.0 with or without noncommercial/nonderivative restrictions. Please contact them to specify something like cc-by-3.0 on their site or link to the CC license they intend to license the files under. --Denniss (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

File:254182 10150336780004989 646094988 9831137 8029420 n.jpg

Hi, das Foto habe ich im ZDF-Fernsehgarten selbst gemacht und deshalb in der Quelle auch "Own" angegeben. An dem Tag sind auch diese Fotos von mir entstanden "Judith Hildebrandt im Fernsehgarten.jpg" oder Judith Hildebrandt Auftritt Fernsehgarten.jpg Leider stand ich während ihres TV-Auftritts recht weit weg. --CHR!S (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Kannst Du bitte einen Link zur Facebook-Version hinzufügen und dort explizit die Lizenz bestätigen? Nicht das ich Dir was unterstellen will aber die Nutzung von Facebook-Dateinamen ist immer etwas seltsam (und aufgrund der Nutzungsbestimmungen von Facebook ohne Autorfreigabe ggf problematisch). WIr haben momentan viele solcher Bilder die einfach von Facebook "entliehen" und als eigene Arbeit hier hochgeladen wurden. --Denniss (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok ich hab nun einen Link zum Facebook-Foto eingefügt und das Foto auf Facebook öffentlich gemacht.In der Beschreibung hab ich Uploaded on Wikipedia. GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 zusätzlich eingefügt. Ich hoffe so ist alles nun in Ordnung.--CHR!S (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Josemariahernandezgarnica.jpg

Dear Admin Dennis,

Is this 1956 image free for Commons? The metadata just says "ARCHIVO HISTORICO DE LA PRELATURA"? This is just an inquiry. If its OK, then let it be. Nothing more. All I know is that the flickr account owner runs or is linked to a blog site. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd say tag it for no permission. --Denniss (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• OK. Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Check out Fortepan.hu

Denniss, You recently tagged some images I provided as not having a source. Clearly, you missed that I provided the source, so I pointed out the permission you overlooked and undid your edits. Wanted to thank you for your time, and to point out the website source, www.fortepan.hu. It is a collection of images taken by amateur photographers and donated for use by anyone. Given your interest in WW II, there may be some photographs in there worth taking a look.--KMJKWhite (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

These images do not only miss a primary source, their license has a noncommercial restriction which is not permitted here. Images will be deleted in some days unless there's more evidence about source and usable license. --Denniss (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do you need? Isn't "The photos published on Creative Commons - Attribution - Do not give it away! - Share Alike Fall below 2.5 Hungary license." (forgive poor translation) sufficient? Click on the link, it takes you to this page: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/deed.en On the page, it even says, "Pictures from the collection can be published without restrictions, for whatever purpose, on the condition that FORTEPAN is credited. For further information click Fortepan in the menu."

Nobody knows where the site got the images from, the noncommercial license is not permitted at Commons. It's really sad because we don't have similar images but we can't use them. --Denniss (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for restoring file

Can you please restore File:Matthew (IMO 7391214) in Boston. jpg? The Flickr upload must have failed, and I need the source reference in order to find it again. - 4ing (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! You can actually delete it again, as a space had slipped in in the file ending. The new name is File:Matthew (IMO 7391214) in Boston.jpg. - 4ing (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

User Nikswerdhond

Hi, I see that you was recently involved in editing of this map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Serbia_(municipalities).PNG

As I understand commons rules, in the case of a dispute, both editors involved in the dispute should upload their versions of a disputed file under different name. However, in the case of this file, user Nikswerdhond uploaded his version instead original version (uploaded by other user) and moved original file version to new place: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Serbia_municipalities_before_2008.PNG

I believe that Nikswerdhond should have upload his file version under new name (and not otherwise). In the way he done it, history of original file is not preserved and original file version now (misledingly) looks like the derivative version.

Second problem is the POV nature of title "before 2008". Status of Kosovo is a question of political dispute and, according to countries which have not recognized independence of Kosovo, this map of Serbia (with Kosovo) shows current situation and not one "before 2008". I think that file titles should be neutral and not a subjects of a POV disputes.

Anyway, I only want to tell you about problems related to behavior of User Nikswerdhond and files that he changed/(re-)uploaded. I am not going to involve myself into dispute about files which I did not made by myself, but behavior of this new user does not appear to be constructive. PANONIAN (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Or to be short: version of this map that shows Serbia with Kosovo is an original version of this file and version with no Kosovo is derivative version. What we currently have is an paradoxal situation where derivative version stands in place of original file while original file stands in place of new upload (with very POV title). Obviosly, the original file was clerly vandalized here and should be reverted to its original version, while file version made by User Nikswerdhond should be in place of new file which he uploaded. Shortly, two file versions should switch place. PANONIAN (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The map (and multiple other european maps) are to show the current status, the other map was copied for historical purposes (before/after) or for the nationalists which want to live in the past. --Denniss (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice work, Denniss. Thanks (you beat me to it).

PANONIAN: Maps should show current borders, unless they are clearly marked as historic maps. "Political dispute" does not mean we must pretend that Kosovo is a province of Serbia; that is absurd, and Commons should not present Belgrade's fantasies as though they were real. bobrayner (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Problem is that status of Kosovo is disputed and that both views about this are current. Commons should not endorse one or another view about status of Kosovo. In fact, by Commons policy, there should be multiple map versions which reflecting different views about this. However, my main point is that derivative file versions should be uploaded under new name and not original file version. This is Commons question only and have nothing to do with question which image will be used in which wikipedia. PANONIAN (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The status is disputed by a minority (+ their usual supporters), many/most european countries have confirmed the independence. --Denniss (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I would diasagree. Europe is not center of the World. China, India or Brazil are not recognizing independence of Kosovo and just judging by size of population of these countries, I would not be so sure that this is a "minority". Anyway, as administrator you should have more flexible approach to this problem, but it is your choice what you will support. PANONIAN (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

PANONIAN, is 23/28 (or 106/193) a majority or a minority? Personally, I think it's obvious; are you not so sure? bobrayner (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

And what is this? Political debate about status of Kosovo? As I know thats not our job here, and our job is to follow reality. And reality is that Kosovo today is disputed territory and it will stay on that level till they don't become a full EU member. I do't care what country recognized it and what ones don't do that. This is international and open project and it must respect a reality not follow political points of views of States or editors here. Good day to all --ΝικόλαςΜπ. (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

We agree that maps should reflect reality. Good. In reality, Serbia has no control over Kosovo. Kosovo is controlled by the government of Kosovo. Our maps should reflect that, yes? bobrayner (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that reality is that Serbia don't control Kosovan territory today. But Kosovan territory also is not fully controlled by Kosovan government (we all knows that northern part is under local Serbian control). And according to UN resolution 1244 Kosovo is protectorate under UNMIK. However, if is reality that Serbian don't control Kosovo, than the same reality is that Georgia don't control Abkhasian and South Ossetian teritory, Cyprus northern part of the island etc etc etc (there is a many examples). We must have identical approach for all cases --ΝικόλαςΜπ. (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

If you are confident that other maps are outdated, fix those maps rather than obstructing improvements to this map. Go ahead; if any maps of Georgia, Cyprus &c must be changed to reflect current reality, you (or Nikswerdhond or any other editor) have my blessing to fix them. bobrayner (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Municipalities of Serbia

I have not vandalized anything. The name of the file File:Map of Serbia (municipalities).PNG obviously states that the file should contain a map of municipalities of Serbia. I refer you to The Law of Territorial Organization of the Republic of Serbia, article 16, where you can see that the municipalities that are being removed from the map are, indeed, municipalities of Serbia. You may also refer to this map of Serbia from the United Nations Cartographic Section.

I request that you retract your statement about me vandalizing, on my talk page. Nikola (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That UN Cartographic Section map is dated 2007. Kosovo declared independence in 2008. If you need a historic map, use File:Map of Serbia municipalities before 2008.PNG. bobrayner (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo declaring independence has no bearing on the municipalities of Serbia, since Serbia did not recognize the independence of Kosovo. Nikola (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Änderungen Foto Tirpitz

Hallo Denniss,

warum machst du ständig meine Änderungen beim angeblichen Tirpitz foto rückgängig????

MfG YourAgony

Warum soll das Bismarck sein ? --Denniss (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Na als erstes jeder der Bismarck bzw. Tirpitz kennt, weiß das dieses Foto am 15.09.1940 entstanden ist, das ist der Tag an dem die Bismarck Hamburg zum erstenmal verlassen hat.

zum zweiten, nur auf der Bismarck war die Position der Bordkräne so gewählt das die Ausleger schräg nach oben am Gefechtsmast gelagert werden mussten. YourAgony (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Und warum wird das bei der Änderung nicht angegeben? Warum wird die Kategorie nicht korrigiert? --Denniss (talk)

Gute Frage - vielleicht könntest mir ja dabei helfen und mir ein paar hilfreiche tips geben wo was und wie hin muss.... bin noch ziemlich neu hier

also wo muss ich meine anmerkungen zur änderung einfügen? und wie ändere ich die kategorie? YourAgony (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalizing

What I was wandalising? --Јованвб (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "vandalism" is the best word, but those reverts on maps of Europe were not helpful. Would "inappropriate" be a better word? How about "wrong"? bobrayner (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Derivative of non-free work

Hi Denniss,

I saw that users on fr.wikipedia were surprised about the keep closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Georges Bataille par Thierry Ehrmann.jpg and it seemed to cause some confusion there. To one user who asked there, I tentatively answered that it is well established that derivatives of non-free works cannot be kept on Commons and perhaps the keep closure in this case might have been a simple mistake. But it is difficult to know what happened as you did not explain a rationale in the DR conclusion. The link to the original work that was provided on the file description page by the IP does show that the reproduction on the mural is obviously and directly derived from the specific photograph. And of course it is not de minimis. (That is probably the case also with other files from the same flickr account, as the works look like they are reproduced from photos that could be identified with a search.) Could you please reexamine this case? If you come to the conclusion that it must be kept, could you please explain the reasoning to keep this derivative of a non-free work? If you come to the conclusion that it must be deleted, could you please change the conclusion? Thank you in advance for your time in looking into this. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Serg Dorohoff

hello! the uploader is a professional photographer. and he is the author of the pictures. so there is no need to tag his pictures as 'missing permission' ;) --アンタナナ 00:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC) He published permission on his blog. I also can prove that files are his own and he himself uploaded them --Ilya (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Seem OK now. --Denniss (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Images with clear license

Hello, You have tagged for deletion 4 images I have uploaded and all of them have a really clear statement in the source. For instance:

File:Amets Arzallus, 2013ko txapelketa nagusian.jpg

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/www_ukberri_net/11390045235/

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Armeria-euscadienses-range-map-in-the-basque-country.jpg

• www.euskalnatura.net/biodibertsitatea/landareak/item/armeria-euscadiensis-2 (bottom right)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Txomin_Garmendia.jpg http://www.guregipuzkoa.net/photo/1027192 (Very clearly on the right of the image)

So, please, don't make me work on things that are crystal clear. -Theklan (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Where's the permission to use the license you used on the description page? Why have the Flickr images not been uploaded using the proper function in the Upload Wizard (places a flickrreview tag on them)? Please note you have to use the license version stated in the source, not any version you want. Some images seem to be of dubious/quationable source (website did not create the image, especially the last one you listed).--Denniss (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones.JPG

Hallo Denniss, du hast ein Bild aus einer Galerie entfernt, das anscheinend nicht mehr existiert: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rolling_Stones&curid=3601577&diff=111775084&oldid=101790074. Ich wüsste gerne, was mit dem Bild geschehen ist, ob es gelöscht wurde und wenn ja, weshalb. Ich glaube zu wissen, welches Bild es war, kann jedoch nichts dazu finden, wenn ich den Dateinamen suche. Wenn ich auf den Rotlink klicke, der mir nach der Suche angezeigt wird, wird kein Löschlogbuch angegeben, so als habe die Datei nie existiert. --Miss-Sophie (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Siehe Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Rolling Stones.JPG --Denniss (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Danke! Ich merke jetzt auch, dass ich mit File: vor dem Dateinamen suchen muss und dass mir dann beim Klicken auf den Rotlink sehrwohl angezeigt wird, dass die Datei gelöscht wurde. --Miss-Sophie (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "other_versions" entry

Hello Denniss, You reverted me on File:Grossmünster - Innenansicht - Polke-Fenster 2010-08-27 17-58-30 ShiftN.jpg recently. Will you please have a look at some previous discussions involving User:Jameslwoodward and also User:INeverCry atFile talk:'Schloss' in Uster, Ansicht von der Talackerstrasse 2012-11-14 13-28-32.JPG. In this new light, will you like to reconsider your edit? Cheers, Rahul Bott (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it's fine to use the other_version section for multiple images of an object even if they don't show the same stuff. All images seem to be related to this church. --Denniss (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Dan Jarvis MP / Lord Kakkar

Hi, I couldn't find a rationale for your deletion of two of my uploads, namely Danjarvis.jpg and Lordajaykakkar.jpg. The files were found here and here respectively. I was under the impression that both of these sources fell under the Open Government License. Perhaps you clarify for me what does and does not fall under this Licence. Thanks --Flaming Ferrari (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Wilczakrew

Hi, could you please delete all contributions of this user made on 14th January 2014? All photos uploaded photos of Chausie are from this website: http://www.chausie.pl/index.html (and other subpages of this website). Thanks Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Serbien Karten

the one map u linked, was a mistake, and im sorry for that one....fuer all die anderen habe ich das Recht sie zu 'reverten', den das hat der forgenger auch ohne disskusion gemacht mit einem einfachen politischen argument, und niemand hat darauf reagiert....schoene Gruesse...--Ivan VA (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Und wie ich gemerkt habe volziehst du hier auch deine eigene politische agenda und als guten rat sage ich dir damit aufzuhoeren, oder ich werde mich bei der community ueber dich beklagen....gruesse--Ivan VA (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The complaints against you were coordinated on sr.wikipedia. Schöne Grüße... bobrayner (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, as i see, u haven't considered necessary to take time to explain your actions people complain about on the village pump...here by i'm just informing you that after the discussion i will open a discussion on the admin board for a removal of your administrator status on this project, due to breaking commons rules, abuse of admin rights by pushing your political agenda, and not only that...im sure i won't lack of evidence...Herzliche Gruesse...--Ivan VA (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

May be we should ask other admins to block this user Denniss. He is implementing his fascist politics and his terror over common maps.--Тајга (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I will call somebody else to help. You just, please, be a little pacient, and please don't threaten me, I'm very afraid of such people, like you are, and also I'm very new here. Until now I was bussy, just uploading my photos here, but looking how continuously you are making problems, may be I sould spend my free time on some more useful things.--Тајга (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Millet and Rousseau.jpg

Sorry to disturb you. This image has been on Commons for about 2 days but no one has marked it. I don't know where it is sourced from....but it looks like the image was printed in a book. Perhaps you may know? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• File:Guerriero di Capestrano - Museo Archeologico Nazionale d'Abruzzo Villa Frigerj - Chieti - Italy - 6 Feb. 2013.jpg

As an aside, I don't know if the image of this reportedly old c.550-500 BC sculpture (I assume it is not a copy) can be moved to Commons as I see another image on Wikipedia with this note Perhaps it is a warning just to the photographer--and not to Commons. If not, the above image must be deleted. There are other google images of it but nothing on Commons that I know of. As for the source, the image was in February 2013 but uploaded in August 2013. But the flickr uploader/Elisa must have been just a bit busy since there is a category with her own images and they were all taken with a Nikon camera. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The first image was strange, it may have been based on the alleged source or not. The second seems fine, the warning you see ist just the standard "check before move to Commons" warning for PD-Italy license tags. --Denniss (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help on both images and clarifying the Italian image template note. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

VIRIN matching

Could you take a look at COM:VIRIN? I have added the best matches to existing templates against each service affiliation code. I am unsure if any are debatable. I will aim to programme in these matches for larger military uploads of mine. --Fæ (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates, I have incorporated these, which you should be able to see in my recent uploads. --Fæ (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Denniss (de-adminship)

Hallo!

Sofern es dir noch nicht gesagt wurde: Das hier wurde gegen dich eröffnet. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Desysoping request

I have requested removal of your admin rights. See Commons:Administrators/Requests/Denniss (de-adminship). --Alex‘s SeeSide 17:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I expect you're already aware, but this request has since been withdrawn by the nominator. Nick (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Before the Chinese New Year ... I hereby bestow upon thee, this bright star, to bring thee Peace and joy. Sincerely Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

deleted photo back ?

At 2. Aug. 2013, 21:08 was a photo with the title "Claudio Abbado 2008, Waldbühne Berlin" in de-article of "Claudio Abbado" deleted by "Dateientlinkerbot". Before you deleted it in Commons due to "Copyright violation". Now the article contains again a photo with a very similar tag. Is this photo maybe also protected? Ssdctm (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Danke fürs Aufräumen

Hallo Denniss, Du hast in den letzten Tagen einige meiner .jpg.JPG korrigiert. Dafür vielen Dank! Das passiert mir leider relativ häufig bei Datei-Umbenennungen im Windows-Explorer, wenn der bei Dateiumbennungen zur Unzeit alles bis auf die letzte Dateiendung markiert wird und diese beim Einfügen dann stehen bleibt. Sorry! Vielleicht sollte ich doch mal Filemover-Rechte beantragen, damit ich da selber aufräumen kann ;-) Was meinst Du dazu? Viele Grüße --Ajepbah (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

This DR

If you can, please feel free to state if this image can be kept without COM:OTRS permission. I have no clear views on it, just some doubts whether the flickr owner owns its copyright outright. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• As for this separate DR I was prepared to assume good faith until I read the uploader comments a bit closer. Now, I think that Commons cannot keep it since even the uploader doesn't know who took the original picture. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

109.104.31.34

I think the anon is probably the subject of the those photos. Even if the anon isn't the subject, he or she is still a new, inexperienced user who ought to be guided rather than blocked without warning or any meaningful interaction between you and the anon. I don't believe that blocking him or her without warning will leave a good impression. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Block of 109.104.31.34

Hi Denniss, in relation to your block of 109.104.31.34, I have unblocked them, as it could be that they are the subject of the photo -- the IP certainly is in Stockholm, Sweden, and given that the photos from Flickr have been removed by News Oresund would indicate further that this is the subject. Instead of blocking them, I have unblocked them so that they can communicate with us at available venues, and I have encouraged them to contact me via email so that they can provide some sort of reasoning for the request. If it is in fact the subject of the photo, I could be swayed to remove the photos, but will also encourage them to perhaps provide media of their unique business to us here on Commons. I hope you are cool with that. Cheers, russavia (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Denniss, just to let you know that I have heard from the IP and have deleted the images as a courtesy. If you would like to know more as to why, feel free to contact me privately. Also, I think we might be obtaining photographs relating to algae and algae cultivation for Commons, so this is definitely a good thing. Just thought you'd like to know :) russavia (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

User talk: I am agree with your last message

Hi Dennis thanks you for your message. This media File:Cross, Saint Locksbrook.jpg was deleted.This doesn't contain enough information, so was wrong, it was deleted thing that I want then I am agree with your last message.

Thank you. Oliver Castaño Mallorca  ^{talk to me}

Deleted file

Deniss

About the archive Palacio_Huarte-Azara_(Zaragoza).Patio_interior.jpg.jpeg". Borrado en Commons por Denniss. (Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work))

I'm sorry, I made a mistake but not a "Copyright violation". I'll amend it.

Yours sincerely.--Sarenaz (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

reverted edition

why you reverted this edition?.--Shadowxfox (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

File

Hi Deniss. Thanks for deleting File:Somaals.png. The uploader uploaded that same file twice already within the past 24 hours, as File:Somalisa.png and File:Somalip.png. I'll let you know if he/she tries anything similar again. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Revival

Dear Denniss, please revival this file. The author sent an email to OTRS. you can see that on here. Bet Regards Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk)‍ 11:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

PD-US-Patent template update links to references

Could you take a look at Template talk:PD-US-patent? I've provided updated links to the references. The current links are broken.--Nowa (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

delete User:Egardiner0

Hi, I want to go back and do this correctly, so could you tell me in what way this page was out of scope? Thanks in advance. egardiner0

File:Jim Mora.jpg

Denniss,

I noticed you deleted File:Jim Mora.jpg.

I'm a new admin, so I should know the processes, but I'm still learning some of them.

I am fielding an OTRS question about this image.

I would have thought that it would be standard to leave a message on the uploaders talk page, but I do not see one. Is my assumption incorrect?

I am planning to arrange for the uploader to supply a permission statement. Once I get it, I plan to restore the photo and add the permission tag.

The permission is likely to come from the UCLA athletics department. Do you have any reason to think that is not the copyright holder (as I didn't see what caused you to delete it)?--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Template {{NowSVG}}

Hallo Denniss, du hast soeben diese Variante abgeschossen, mit der Bemerkung sie würde nicht mehr benötigt. Ich habe es nicht geprüft, hast du alle parameterlosen Aufrufe ersetzt?
Ich würde sie gerne behalten; hast du spezielle Einwände dagegen? Gruss sarang♥사랑 10:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Justinetto

Why this user was blocked, I don't understand how do you know that it is a hacked account. Regards!!Ezarateesteban 13:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Denniss. This looks like a justified sock block to me. I've commented in detail at Ezerate's post about this at COM:AN/U here. INeverCry 04:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Coat of arms John Paul I

I only make a new lion of St Mark and change the tiara. Why do you reverted me? Which is your explanation? --Echando una mano (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Why did you change the elements? Are they based on official sources or just because you like this style more? --Denniss (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The original designs are old (2007) and with a lesser quality. I'm trying (based on official sources, of course) to make another designs with more quality, specially the lion of St Mark, that is why I don't undestand the cause of the reversions. --Echando una mano (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: Ref Description of the coat of arms of Pope John Paul I. --Echando una mano (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This user's Uploads

Dear Admin Dennis,

If you can read German, you can see that this user has just uploaded 4-6 Leo Prostler images. However, I am not certain that they are free images. They may be copyright violations. If they are, they may qualify for speedy deletions. One or two images have camera metadatas on them. Others have claims of permission but are of low resolution. Please feel free to decide the situation. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Formatting fix to Flickr blacklist

Hi Denniss,

could you take a look at User_talk:FlickreviewR/bad-authors#Slight_change_in_format? Due to code changes in UploadWizard, comment lines in the blacklist should now be prefixed with a #, otherwise they will be interpreted as usernames. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Re:Strainubot error

Hi Denniss. Why do you consider that change to be an error? As far as I can see, the robot has automatically - and correctly - added categories based on the templates from the page. I've used a pre-existing script from pywikibot (category.py), so any problems should be reported there too ASAP, as the script is used by many other users.--Strainu (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This script should have only changed the affected category, not adding the categories imposed by templates. That's a bug for sure. Did you use the most recent version of the script and which option(s) did you use? I reported this error to Siebrand some time ago and his SieBot was fixed so I assumed the source to be fixed as well. I have actually no idea where to report this as possible script error so please do this for me. --Denniss (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It was reported in December by another user: bugzilla:58084. I'll bump it up a little on the mailing list and hope it gets fixed soon. Thanks for noticing it.--Strainu (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

File redirect deletion request

It has no sense in keeping a redirect of a file. More than that, the name "Durustor" is wrong. The correct name of the county is "Durostor". In the past, I've made some renaming (to harmonize the files and the have the correct name) and delete request of the same type and there was no problem at all. And some of these requests were of files that were uploaded more than 5-6 years ago. The file Interbelic Durustor County CoA.png should be deleted.

There's no reason to delete image redirects + some re-users may link to the old name which would then be non-existant. Usually redirects are only deleted for recently uploaded images. --Denniss (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I still think that there is no use in keeping the old redirection page. Nothing links to the old page and noboby would create a link to that page. The argument that the file was uploaded in 2007 has no background and no real meaning. If someone uses the file, he will simply create a link to the existing page, with the right name of course. I'm sorry to say this, but my activity had positive views and I was helped by the others administrators, with one exception. After all, my intentions aren't bad.

I have already told you we are not living in a Wikipedia-only world and tools only check Wiki usage. We have a lot of re-users which may now haven broken links. It's a general policy not to delete redirects of old files as there's no need to delete them. --Denniss (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Valid licence?

How can this be a valid licence for an Austrian stamp. As far as I know the only organisation/person who can licence this image is the Austrian Post Office, or the maybe the designer if that applies. This is the same tag that User:Jacquesverlaeken removed previously as he did not think it belonged either. Did you refer to Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Austria? I'm pretty sure this licence is invalid. I'd like to hear your thoughts. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to ask at the OTRS noticeboard for a clarification, the removal of this license was clearly invalid. The Keep at you DR was somewhat short without further explanation. --Denniss (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

For the records: I do not want that Austria be confused with Germany, so I removed the German permission, hoping that license specialists would/may provide a valid license. I found this

This image is in the public domain according to Austrian copyright law because it is part of a law, ordinance or official decree issued by an Austrian federal or state authority, or because it is of predominantly official use. (§7 UrhG) To uploader: Please provide where the image was first published and who created it.

on other stamps, which I have added to this 150 years Austrian WIPA, before being aware of the Record track for full deletion. Stamps are issued for official use. Last point: the rules of OTRS are not known by me.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That appears to be par for the course with ChristianBier who has never explained any of his actions when I have questioned him. In fact some of his comments are dismissively rude so I try to avoid him as he just appear uncooperative and dogmatic in his actions. I have already asked at Commons talk:OTRS#Austrian stamp but no one seems to be taking it on. Maybe I need to ask someone directly but I thought you were also an OTRS team member. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually I just moved the OTRS request to COM:ON#Austrian stamp. Ww2censor (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Unprotect Template:PD-US-patent?

Could you unprotect Template:PD-US-patent? There are links and content that need to be updated and no admins have responded to requests.--Nowa (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to the request for edits. The issue remains, however, why is the page protected?--Nowa (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Because it's a license template. --Denniss (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sochi Olympic rings

I discussed this issue with Jcb and I decided that since you are a FOP expert, perhaps you know if this image we discussed is OK for Commons. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat borderline with FoP but one could consider this building as deminimis as the olympic rings are clearly the main objects. --Denniss (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your reply. I did not want to waste anyone's time here on this borderline case. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg

Hi Denniss, I ask to you since you are the first in this talk about edit war. I put references on the Vatican copyright and nobody added objections. What should we do now? Could we revert the file to the right revision? I would like you consider even my last doubt, should we delete the "fantasy" version from the history, since Vatican does not allow altered copies even after copyright expiration (I'm not sure, the "alterations" are so small). Thanks for your attention, -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 17:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I don't understand your reversion in File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg. I have changed the tiara (designed by me) to make the coat of arms similiar (but not identical) to the original (you can confirm it). The other elements are the same. Regards. --Echando una mano (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It is impossible that File:C o a Vatican City.svg has copyright, because it is an adaptation, with elements of File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg, with a different tiara, drawn for me (similar, but no equal to the original). I will wait for your answer. --Echando una mano (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: If File:C o a Vatican City.svg has copyright then File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg will have it too, because its elements. --Echando una mano (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your warning to User talk:Abbedabb about vandalism to File:Streisand Estate.jpg, much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This DR

If you have a lot of experience with this DR that was launched by me, please feel free to keep or delete it Admin Dennis. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ruttkay_Laura_portre_ff.jpg

Hi, could you point me to the discussion that led to this action of deleting the higher res version? Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Unknown source, invalid license as the CC FAQ update is not accepted at Commons as a retroactive license condition change. --Denniss (talk) 06:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

See further developments. Jee 06:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Except that CC indicates this condition has always existed and it not based on some retroactive license change. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

CC is not in a position to dictate which version a copyright holder licenses for free, hell even CC did not care about this and offers some own higher res files only with ND or NC. This is how we need to treat those images unless we get a proper advice from WMF legal. --Denniss (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

CC's FAQ only indicates uncertainty and possibilities. They do not categorically state both resolutions are the same copyright work. Therefore we can't assume that either. In this area of doubt, we must warn potential users of CC of the dangers they might open themselves to, but also not take advantage of any naivety wrt use of CC licence. Especially when such naivety has for long been encouraged by CC/WMF misleading brochures and web pages. -- Colin (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

And WMF legal are a waste of space. They will not offer advice. WMF themselves could choose to err on the side of safety and make policy. But they don't seem interested, based on what Jimbo said on his talk page. So the community should do their job for them. Again. -- Colin (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kirk_Berlin.jpg

Why have you deleted this image? Author has given permission to use and it has been published elsewhere on the internet.

There's nothing on this webpage indication a release under an free license. --Denniss (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This Category

Dear Admin Denniss,

I assume you can decide if all these images of sculptures are acceptable for Commons since they are in Latvia which has no FOP. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Permission to use photo of Jenny Holzer on ART/MEDIA page

Dear Denniss,

I have sought and received permission to use image from Jenny Holzer (the person pictured), and the videographers (Steina & Woody Vasulka). I am the owner of the image and the keeper of the archive.

I just figured out how to forward the permission email. Thank you - you can disregard my longer posting on your talk page. Best regards, Netherzone (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus pictures

Hey, my bad lol That's all I can really say for having you go through the trouble of reverting me. I'll look closer at tags next time. Thank you :) Lady Lotus (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:PD-2MASS

Hello Denniss, can you explain why you reverted my edits on the {{PD-2MASS}} template? I created the documentation and translation into Spanish. Now all the work is lost and can not translate the template to other languages. If you explain me what I did wrong, I can do it again. The templates must be available in other languages​​, not just English. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 19:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, three weeks ago I left this message, I would really like an answer. Regards, --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 10:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Michael J. Scofield

Hi Denniss. I noticed you had to do some reverting of this user's re-uploads. This is a sock of Chace Watson/MyCanon. If you see any other new/unfamiliar accounts focusing on celeb pics, let me know. INeverCry 21:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Preissteirgeurng 1970-1980.png

Dear Dennis, would you please delete this file, because it's wrongspelled? The withdrawal was only meant for the right-spelled variant.--Kopiersperre (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

File redirects are only deleted for recently uploaded files, not for those present since several years. --Denniss (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Stamps of Azerbaijan, 2007-814.jpg

Hi. Why? This is more true. Sincerely, --►Cekli829 22:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant, the file was under this old name since 2010 thus the redirect has to be kept, it will only be deleted for recently uploaded and moved files. --Denniss (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Please explain photo removal

Can you explain your removal of this file? you said "found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work". Can you please provide some links and explain your decision? Because, this seems legit to me as it is part of photo serie made at a visit in Phuket. See for example the same glass of juice on this full table, which is part of the whole photo album of 235 photos the photographer made on their trip in Phuket. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello? Why don't you respond? You also did not notify me on the removal. Please explain yourself. Timelezz (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Fotos subidas que te sugieren dudas

Hola Denniss: Las fotos están en Flicker pues su autor, Elentir, que tiene el Blog "Contando Estrelas" me confirmó por mail que había liberado no solamente este album sino otros álbumes más; en total unas 10.000 fotos. Aunque ocupe un poco te pongo los mails cruzados y las cuentas de Flicker de este amigo. Si empiezas a leer de abajo hacia arriba tendrás un detalle cronológico del tema. Por todo ello creo que la subida de imágenes se ha hecho de forma correcta. En caso contrario, por favor, dime donde está el fallo para poder corregirlo. Muchas gracias por tu labor. Saludos cordiales.Adolfobrigido (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please edit any image you uploaded from this source without proper source link, add a link to the image source page at Flickr, restore the blank {{Flickrreview}} template and remove a no source tag. A Bot should review these images some time later. --Denniss (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hola:No soy muy experto y no sé exactamente lo que me pides. En todo caso he puesto los "links" de las fotos en Flicker en las nº 74, 66, 65 y 63 como muestra de que están todas en Flicker. El autor las ha liberado bajo licencia CC-BY-SA. Por favor, te pediría que para saber lo que me indiques, lo hagas en mi página de discusión de Commons.Saludos.Adolfobrigido (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hola otra vez: He podido comprobar en la cuenta del autor de las fotos "Elentir", en su cuenta "Contando Estrelas", que pinchando en cada foto que tiene en Flicker dice que están con licencia CC-BY-SA.Saludos.Adolfobrigido (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment: All this uploader's images come from this specific source where they are licensed as cc by sa 2.0 generic. I found some of the images source like this or this and ordered a new review but I don't have enough time to find the specific link for all of them--as he uploaded far too many photos. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• I found about 15 image sources and ordered a new review but I have no more time and this uploader still has 30 images here If you can maybe you can find the source for some of them and order a new flickrreview. If not, please do what you think best. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ed Force One

Please re-open this - the COM:DM page is very clear when it says "Copyrighted work X is the central part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work useless." makes the image not DM. LGA _talk^edits 07:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No, speedy close is fine. Search for DRs regarding Pokemon Jets for more information (not a single delete of airplane images unless cropped to just the Pokemons). Central part of the image is always the aircraft, not the Pokemons or the tail art. --Denniss (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree, the reason for this image is the presence of the copyright artwork and logo and our own DM page spells out that that means a claim of DM fails. I therefore feel a speedy close is not appropriate, you can vote keep and then let the community decided. LGA _talk^edits 07:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No, the reason for this image is the presence of this aircraft. If you want just the artwork you photograph just the artwork (which is a derivative work then). You have a serious misunderstanding what's a central part of an image and what not. --Denniss (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)--Denniss (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

With the logo and artwork, both of which are copyright works and the presence of which was the reason for taking the photo. LGA _talk^edits 08:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Vatican City

Excuse me, but it is impossible that File:C o a Vatican City.svg has copyright, because it is an adaptation, with elements of File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg, with a different tiara, drawn for me (similar, but no equal to the original). If File:C o a Vatican City.svg has copyright then File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg will have it too, because its elements. Regards. --Echando una mano (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

How do I attribute this?

OK -- example.

I went to Flickr and found this file

http://www.flickr.com/photos/79899147@N00/7007251403/in/photolist-bFcZHn-38Rs1-goNMPY-arA1We-as6q7P-7Pvqq3-4VZqNw-goNy4R-7nCKpX-5FTzSL-7nGD9Y-bFcZPx-rhnhw-goNTG6-as6zKH-AcoMh-bsi6RJ-77SJEx-msKfG-4HWNan-4J22Au-4J22KE-4HWNep-4HWN6v-4J22BL-4J22Gb-4J22NG-fC8eo-6cTvkZ-4o3adR-fC8eq-fC8en-fC8er-fC8ep-fC8es-5ze1Gx-82XDbc-7tkW1b-65crTg-bFcXVe-7h1Xn9-7Pnxz9-67nw1Y-7PirYP-7tGfuW-7tCi7n-7tGfGU-7tGfAf-goNoVE-7smon-6o96ey

under a cc-by-sa-2.0 license.

I cropped a small section of this file. I took it to GIMP and scaled, rotated and applied a seamless filter to it. It is essentially totally changed from the original work.

I uploaded it as https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lava_seamless_texture.png as my own work.

Is that not right? How do I attribute it? I want to do the right thing but there are so many complications.

What if I then use that texture as a texture in Blender and take a screen shot?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dragon_028.jpg

Oh me oh my. Deeper and deeper.

MercedMike (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Image.jpg

Could you please downgrade the protection of this page to upload=admin, move=admin, edit=confirmed? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Fasching in Munich on Vikualienmarkt.JPG

Die Bildbeschreibung ist wohl beim Upload verlorengegangen, bitte hinzufügen. --Denniss (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2014 (UT

• Ich kann die Seite nicht bearbeiten. Der Bearbeitungsbutten fehlt einfach. Sonst würde ich die Beschreibung gern hinzufügen. --Usien Max (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

speedy

Hi Denniss, this was an intermediate move, because the first one was wrong. File:Bildstock laadorf.JPG -> File:Bildstock Laarfeld.jpg -> File:Bildstock Laafeld.jpg; I think the intermediate result could be deleted without the risk of dangling links. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

already deleted by somebody else. thanks --Herzi Pinki (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Hi Denniss, I uploaded these files. Most of them were made by my teacher. We've been in the expedition together. By this time he hasn't protested. And now he insists to delete all of them because of copyright violations. What's wrong? Best regards --Qypchak (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

File:C o a Vatican City.svg

Denniss, I followed with interest this deletion request. My idea, based on the little knowledge that I'm trying to improve everytime, about copyright, was summarized in "keep". Deletion request closed in that way. Now the file disappeared, I do not understand why, and this is in contrast with all that elements of the copyright rules mosaic I got up to here. Plese, help me to understand. -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 09:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

File:USAteamSochi2014.jpg

Hi Denniss,

You recently failed an image review for File:USAteamSochi2014.jpg. Fortunately I came across that image just yesterday and I can confirm it's in PD-USGov. (Source: http://www.defense.gov/photoessays/PhotoEssaySS.aspx?ID=4826 / http://www.defense.gov/dodcmsshare/photoessay/2014-02/hires_140207-A-xxxxH-012.jpg).

Hopes that helps. --CyberXRef^☎ 16:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Racing cars závodní auta.jpg

Hello, can you undelete this file? It should be this file there, i will upload it manually (maybe some error of bot?). --Palu (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea

Can you unblock page File:Limited recognition.png, Crimea declared independence 17. march so now is map outdated.--Dag13 (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

What are you doing, goat?

Why you remove Crimea with map of Russia? [6]--Никола Питерский (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

FOP in Russia for buildings

Dear Admin Denniss,

I think you know this but it appears that there will be FOP in Russia for buildings from October 2014 according to the comment above by Mr. Savin....which is better than no FOP. Here is wiki's article on the source web site: garant.ru Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

* Comment: I don't know if the coming change in the law may affect a few of the images in this DR where some of the images are of the Olympic performances and others are of the stadium/Olympic flame. I don't have the experience here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• That DR was resolved. I hope A. Savin's information is verified since any FOP laws which Russia introduces may have an impact on the other former USSR states. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Admin Zelenko confirms the information here too. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Good news. Now to get some other governments like France to give up their restrictive regulations and create something similar. --Denniss (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. That will be nice. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan.svg

Interfase leads edit war in [7] as in [8] last year. Could you protect this redirect? Malarz pl (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Flag of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic made by Mammad Amin Rasulzade

The original flag of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was with the crescent on the red field. See the flag made by the chairman of the National Council of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic Mammad Amin Rasulzade. The redirect should be to the picture where the crescent is on the red field. We couldn't provide readers with the false information. --Interfase (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Revert

Recently you have reverted 5 speedy delete request of mine. Eg: Batticaloa town. It is completely wrong name since a single clock tower cannot be entire town. Can you tell me why did you revert? --Anton^Talk 01:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't delete file redirects unless they were vewry recently uploaded. This may break attribution chains from external re-users. --Denniss (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Russian territory

File:Russian Federation (orthographic projection).svg

There are some Indian-held territories claimed by China and vice-versa, but these territories are dark green on Indian maps and vice-versa. Therefore on Russia maps Crimea should painted in dark green, while on Ukraine maps it should be painted in light green: Russia controls Crimea, Ukraine has no control over the Crimea. Сергей 287 (talk) 06:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are you back version of the Russian territory without the Crimea? Сергей 287 (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea does not belong to Russia - no support of invalid annexations. Please use File:Russian Federation 2014 (orthographic projection) with Crimea annexed.svg or File:Russian Federation (orthographic projection) - with Crimea disputed.png --Denniss (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Komandor porucznik Zbigniew Przybyszewski.jpg

Sorry - I can't writte the proper information about this file. I tried - but with no success... I am director of Muzeum of Coastal Defence in Hel, and I know, that this file is public domain. We have got it from Przybyszewski daughter with full right to publish it. Please help me with the file!!!!!

It should be quite the same situation, as with file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stanislaw_mieszkowski.jpg

Vallenty (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

flickr blacklist

Weißt du noch den Grund für diesen diff? Mein Bot hat mich darauf hingewiesen und ich konnte kein offensichtliches flickwashing erkennen. --McZusatz (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Klar sind zirka die Hälfte der Dateien ohnehin com:DW, aber es gibt auch nützliche darunter. Ich habe mir mal erlaubt den Edit vorlaeufing rueckgaengig zu machen. --McZusatz (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hätt ich nicht gemacht. Siehe COM:QFI für den Eintrag. Am Anfang sind die Bilder alle von Facebook kopiert, die meißten sind umbenannt aber bei einigen ist der Facebook-Dateiname noch erhalten. [http://www.flickr.com/photos/karinasaskia/6642604557/ [9]. Betrifft in meiner Anzeige (445 Bilder, 5 Seiten) die Seiten 4 und 5. --Martin H. (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, danke für die Antwort! Den Eintrag habe ich wieder auf die Liste aufgenommen. --McZusatz (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Stimmzettel Münchner Stadtratswahl

Bitte vielmals um Entschuldigung, weiß zwar immer noch nicht, was ich da angestellt habe, wollte lediglich unter den verschiedenen angebotenen Vergrößerungen eine (für mich) lesbare auswählen, was mir leider nicht gelungen ist. Vandalismus hatte ich absolut nicht beabsichtigt. Gruß Lampart (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Ergänzung: insbesondere kann ich mich nicht erinnern, dass ich da zu irgendeinem Zeitpunkt auf "speichern" geklickt hätte, für mich ist das völlig rätselhaft. Lampart (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Nimm Stellung

Nimm bitte hierzu Stellung. Dass es sich um Paderborn handelt, zeigt ein Vergleich z.B. mit Google Earth. Dass es sich um eine Fotomontage handelt, zeigen Unterschiede um Schattenwurf, ein unmöglicher Blickwinkel, unmögliche Schärfentiefe und ein paar andere kleine Details, siehe w:de:Wikipedia:Auskunft#Ja wo fliegt er denn, ja wo fliegt er denn da hin?. --Rôtkæppchen68 00:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Dennis, why do you revert this edit? RegardsEzarateesteban 19:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-at

Hallo Denniss, du hast die Vorlage geschützt, kannst du bei dieser Vorlage noch vor dem Wort lizenziert die Abkürzung der Lizenz mit CC BY-SA 3.0/at einsetzen, denn dann ist es für die Benutzer klarer verständlich. Danke --K@rl (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Oder wenigstens wieder freigeben. --danke K@rl (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Zum einen müsste das auf translatewiki erfolgen und zum Anderen wäre das nicht dem üblichen Standard entsprechend. --Denniss (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Das soll zur Erklärung für die Leute sein, denn die erklären dir auf Anfrage - den langen Satz bringe ich gar nicht unter - aber danke. --gruß K@rl (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Russian bridges

Dear Admin Denniss,

I hope these modern bridges in Russia are OK for Commons. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

With the recent law change they should be OK although the new law is not yet effective (October 2014). I wouldn't delete them for now as one would have to restore them anyway. in October. --Denniss (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment: Thank you Admin Denniss. When I hear the word architecture, I think of buildings but I suppose a bridge would also be architecture too. Thanks for reminding me here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Pecs - Hungary - EU.JPG

Thank you very much, but the file had previously the self GDFL license information. But if you are satisfied, now it has twice. All of the images are my photos, there are absolutely no copyright issues at all. Please look the licence chapter next time before doing such a hard action. Danke. Vampeare (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Cathédrale St-François-de-Sales.JPG

Hi Denniss,

About this upload of the previous picture (2005), I haven't seen your motivation to this. Anyway, I personnaly think this is not a good thing because :

1. To keep a picture of the cathedral in 2005 (before its restoration) I uploaded File:Cathédrale St-François-de-Sales (2005).JPG ;
2. This picture is used on many wiki projects, and I don't find it great to keep the old facade on all these pages ;
3. Moreover, in case we should upload another picture some years later, I uploaded File:Cathédrale Saint-François de Sales de Chambéry (2013).JPG to keep an image of the cathedral today.

Have you noticed all these files ? In any way, if you disagree with me, we should at least change this link on all pages using it (I still don't see the reason to show the 2005 cathedral on so many pages..)

Truly, --Floflo (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Please upload different images of the same object under a new name, editors in other Wikis may not be amused if their picture was changed for no apparent reason. The upload was reverted because it was a duplicate of another image (the 2013 version). --Denniss (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

So, you think that editors on other Wikis want to show the cathedral as it could be seen in 2005 ? And that they will be very angry if a more recent one is uploaded ? I may misunderstand you, but if not, I do not agree.

In any way, even if you're right and I decide to change all the links to this image on all these wikis, they will be angry as well if they really want to keep the 2005 one.

But thanks for your answer all the same... --Floflo (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said, do not force other Wikis to use the image you feel is better/more recent, let them choose on their own. --Denniss (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Everyone does that. Usually, no one asks on the talk page of an article before changing a picture (articles belong to no one). Besides, if this image is so used, the reason is that many years ago, there was no other one.

But right, I do not insist, even if I still find it curious. --Floflo (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Not curious, general policy, see Commons:Overwriting existing files. --Denniss (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I ignored this page. Thank you, and so please accept my apologies. Greetings, --Floflo (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Ok, I admitted I had not respected the page Commons:Overwriting existing files. But this concerns only Commons and I'm still free, as a contributor, to choose the more recent and quality image to illustrate articles on the Wiki projects, where no rule compulse to show any object in focus. I'm sorry. --Floflo (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S : Moreover, the focus is not that much a problem on the 2013 one, because on the new image can be seen the bell tower and the cloister door on the left, also part of the cathedral. --Floflo (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I advised you not to push images in other Wikis, especially if the images does not really have the cathedral in focus (too many trees in front so you can't see the complete fassade). --Denniss (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

True, but on the other hand, I find it better to show the whole cathedral with tower and cloister. But Commons is not the best place to have a debate about this, contributors on Wiki projects should choose. On my home wiki, Fr, I chose to show the whole cathedral, and I won't change my mind before many active contributors on fr.wp tells me I'm wrong, not only you. On other wikis, I'll so let them choose. See you, --Floflo (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: File:Russian Federation (orthographic projection) - Crimea disputed.svg

There is a problem with Kosovo being shown as it's own country on File:Russian Federation (orthographic projection) - Crimea disputed.svg. Please see w:Talk:Russia#Request_for_Comment for discussion. Without the map being fixed, it cannot be added to w:Russia. I had opened a request on the Graphics Lab, but with the image locked, they cannot fix it themselves, nor can its creator User:FutureTrillionaire. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reopened my Graphics Lab request here: w:Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Change_border_on_Kosovo. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Denniss: Please reply. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, please reply. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I have unprotected the file a couple of days ago. Please take note of what I stated when I unprotected. That goes to all editors. russavia (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Russavia: Thank you. I will start a discussion on the image's talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Your assistance please

You deleted Category:Curtis M. Scaparrotti and Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/03/Category:Curtis M. Scaparrotti.

Administrators still delete categories, simply because they are empty, even though lots of contributors who think an existing category is improperly named (1) create their new replacement category; (2) move all the elements of the old category to the new category. This leaves the old category empty.

IMO this phenomenon is a strong argument that categories are an inadequate feature for organizing content, as there is no convenient way to determine that an empty category recently had all its elements removed.

IMO this phenomenon is a strong argument that administrators should be more careful about deleting every single empty category.

In this particular instance User:Gbawden did initiate Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/03/Category:Curtis M. Scaparrotti. But, IMO, it was a mistake to move the elements from the existing category to the new category, before a consensus had been reached at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/03/Category:Curtis M. Scaparrotti.

A few years ago I encountered an instance of contributors removing the elements of an existing category, leading to that category being deleted, where the only justification for creating the new, parallel category was that it used the same transliteration for the Afghan River as the en.wikipedia article. It was a terrible reason. (There is no standard way to transliterate Afghan names.)

In my opinion, the administrator who took action here should have left one of the names as a redirection to the other. Is there a reason you didn't do so in this particular case?

Is there a reason why you would delete the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/03/Category:Curtis M. Scaparrotti?

Should I assume the reason you didn't let the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/03/Category:Curtis M. Scaparrotti run to completion is that you encountered Category:Curtis M. Scaparrotti first, made the decision to delete it, simply because it was empty, and only became aware of the deletion discussion afterwards?

Would you consider restoring Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/03/Category:Curtis M. Scaparrotti and Category:Curtis M. Scaparrotti, and letting the discussion run to conclusion? Geo Swan (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• I made by request again at COM:REFUND. Geo Swan (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I own the image you (or someone) deleted

Dear Denniss, I own the image that was deleted. It is my property, and I own the rights. Please restore it. Or tell me how I can re-upload it again. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello Netherzone. Owning a physical copy of an image does not automatically transfer the copyright to you. Photographs and other artwork can pnly be licenced by their creators. So in case of a photo we need explicit permission from the photographer. De728631 (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Special:Diff/120338779

Why do you review files with an ongoing DR?    FDMS  4    20:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

DR is irrelevant for license review --Denniss (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

COM:LR says If the image is of a sculpture or a building, do check also that there are no freedom of panorama issues., and the DR tag was about disputed FOP ...    FDMS  4    20:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is irrelevant for the license review as the license is valid (for the photograph, may not be valid for the depicted object). --Denniss (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand your explanation and in a way I agree with you, but still only reviewing the photograph's copyright is against the rules, isn't it … ?    FDMS  4    15:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

These images

Dear Denniss,

Do you know what to do with these unfree images? The uploader tried to get permission for the images use on Wikipedia but the license is not free enough and I am not on panoramio. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Either tag them for speedy deletion or for delayed speedy deletion (AKA no permission). --Denniss (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply. I tagged one of the images here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Flick

Bonjour, et MERCI pour les informations je ne savais pas.

Encore merci pour votre aide

Bonne journée cordialement--Dunkerqueenflandre (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Flickr - Bernard Fellay

Bonjour,

J'ai compris la suppression des photos de Marcel Lefebvre, mais la photo de Bernard Fellay, après vérification, a sa place sur commons... Je ne sais donc pas pourquoi vous l'avez supprimée... Cordialement, Vanoot59 (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not upload any image from this flickr account, this account has lots of copyvio images (from Reuters news agency and others) under fake free license. --Denniss (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Je m'en suis, en effet, aperçu pour les photos de Marcel Lefebvre mais la photo de Bernard Fellay n'était pas issue du même compte, Vanoot59 (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)