User talk:Abigor/Archives/2010/May

File:Kimono-rukav.png

Thanks for reverting and protecting the watermarked images, but you seem to have reverted to the wrong version of File:Kimono-rukav.png. Could you please fix that? —Quibik (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is the watermarked version kept instead of the non-watermarked one?? --Eusebius (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted to the wrong version by accident, I fixed it now. Huib talk 15:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that was the core of the message. Sorry. (PS I'm not watching you!) --Eusebius (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

thnks?

Thanks for everything that you did on Commons and the support that you gave me! --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I think I am missing something, I am trying to return from a wikibreak could you update me about the situation? Huib talk 18:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's solely a thank you for your great work. For what's going on, see the village pump. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Spanking_on_Bondage_Furniture.png

Hi Abigor. Please undelete File:Spanking_on_Bondage_Furniture.png. It was used in three articles in en.wiki and undo the unlink actions. You're harming the project with this censorship actions. Thousands of hours are already wasted. Time for a fork, isn't it? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not doing any censorship, I am just handling deletion requests. Could you please file a undelete request, the link is in the header above, thank you. Huib talk 07:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You know that there was NO DR. You deleted with comment "per COM:SPEEDY Out of Scope". Just undelete it like you deleted it speedy and without discussion. --Saibo (Δ) 12:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There are more way's to tag something for deletion, this file was tagged for deletion like a lot of other files. The administrator that is handling the speedy cat takes the decission to delete speedy or make it go to a dr. So I did follow the policy... I really don't like your tone and I am NOT going to undelete without discussion, so you should go to the relevant pages. Huib talk 14:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with my tone? Was anything a personal attack against you? I've just listed facts. Don't take it personal please.

Could you please point me to the deletion discussion of this file? I cannot find it. Where was it "tagged for deletion like a lot of other files"? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It was tagged for speedy deletion so there is no discussion...

There is only a discussion if somebody makes a DR but Out of Scope is a valid speedy reason. Huib talk 15:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note User talk:Jimbo Wales and different discussions as Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Stan Spanker‎ or Commons:Village Pump#Slashdot: "Wales Supports Purging Porn From Wikipedia" or Commons:Village Pump#Selected statements from members of the Board of Trustees. Regards axp_de^Hello! 07:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

speedy delete

Hi fellow, you deleted File:Condolence Book in Wejherowo Town Hall after president's plane crash 2010 - 1.jpg after I had denied it two times. It's a crop version of File:Condolence Book in Wejherowo Town Hall after president's plane crash 2010 - 2.jpg, please have a look at User talk:Starscream#"badname". What was your reason to delete it, you didn't state that? Regards axp_de^Hello! 07:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I didn't know about that discussion so I deleted it on user request, because I didn't saw the harm in doing that. But on your request I undeleted the file and changed it in a deletion request. I hope you also think that that is a good way to see what the opinions are in this case.

Best regards,

Huib talk 08:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. As I told the uploader the reason he provided might be discussed before coming to a decision. Bye axp_de^Hello! 09:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you hinder?

Everything could be so beautiful. Really, I have a guilty conscience because of this photo. Crooped version almost no different. --Starscream (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

Could you please explain a bit more about what you mean, I really don't get the message.

Best regards,

Huib talk 13:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Finish DR closure?

File talk:N39705070 31852920 888.jpg -- DR bot marked it kept, contrary to your closure. ZooFari 00:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

thnks, I fixed it. Huib talk 09:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Going on record

You and I have been colleagues and have worked together collegially and congenially for some time now. But I want to go on record as being quite disappointed that you initiated this action against Tiptoety. Why exactly was it necessary to go straight to a removal request instead of talking the matter through first? We've seen this sort of thing before and it always maximizes drama. Are you SURE there was no possible solution involving just raising your concerns and talking about the matter? ++Lar: t/c 04:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar,

I'm sorry to hear that you are disappointed I really am but I don't think that mis-use or possible abuse of the OS tools should be discussed privately. If a administrator makes a mess every administrator can fix it, if a oversighter makes a mess only 3 other people are here to fix it.

For the fact of this, we saw both images some on Flickr, some in the Google cache, all files where longer on Commons and files with the same girl are kept here on Commons. Other languages wiki's come and ask if we can give the files so they can upload them locally again and we find out there has been oversight.

In this case with 4 images where the Tiptoety has been involved in DR regarding the same girl and all have them have strong go to keep I find it very very abusive that he start oversighting, in his statement he even says he didn't check further on Commons or Flickr. Oversight is a tool that needs to be used with care, this is not done by Tiptoety.

Best regards,

Huib talk 09:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Itachi_sebas.jpg

Hi there. Thanxs for deleting the filetalk page. The user whated the image deleted as far as I understood. could you do that? thx. Amada44 (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Done - Huib talk 17:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm

Can you explain to me a bit better what I'm supposed to do about File:Asha_Haji_Elmi.JPG and File:Asha Haji Elmi 2.jpg? I have to email OTRS? Can't I just post something on the talk page of the article?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, as you are not the photographer, the preferred result is to have the photographer e-mail OTRS with the licensure. We almost always request that the copyright owner, if they are not the uploader, forward the permission directly to us. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Here on Commons we need to be very carefull with free licenses and permissions, because a free license cant be revoke and when it goes wrong it could cost Wikimedia lots of money for legal cases, and we could rather spend that money for better things like making sure the site stays up.

The best way to proceed is to email permission-en at' 'wikimedia dot org saying you have permission to use the file under a free license and the permission is given by ...

I know this sounds stupid and is a extra step but with verifying the permission as a ticket in our OTRS system we are sure that we always have the permission so we can find it when you should leave our projects or when there is a complaint or stuff like that.

After emailing OTRS you will get a email back with a ticketnumber, The OTRS agent will paste that number on the file page and everything will be okay. Please have some patience, in our OTRS system we work with volunteers, we don't have a lot of volunteers but we do have a lot of emails so it could take a while before you receive a answer.

When you need more help please ask me here, or email me private when needed. Huib talk 18:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Huib & Jimbo Wales: Both uploads predate our OTRS process. We do not require a permission for old uploads. I suggest to remove the tags. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I wonder about this process, though, it doesn't really make logical sense to me. A longterm contributor to the projects has to send an email to OTRS, instead of just editing on the wiki? How is that helpful? What am I misunderstanding?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's all about verifiability. Wikipedia has verifiability, and so do we. We want to be able to verify someone's claims that an upload, in particular an upload of an already published image, was OK. You're by no means being singled out; I did the same: when a Filipino sent me some images about Shrimp farming for publication, I uploaded them, stating where I got them from, and forwarded my e-mail exchange with him to OTRS. An example is File:Paddlewheel aerator.jpg, or any other of my uploads from October 8, 2007.

For previously published images, we require OTRS confirmation even for self-made works, and we encourage professional photographers to send in OTRS confirmations in any case. For a rationale, see Commons:Problematic sources#Professional photographers' images.

Now, you might say that this is an extreme show of distrust towards editors—why not just trust my statement that everything was OK? The answer is that we see all too often uploads that are clear copyright violations, but where the uploaders claim it was their own work, or that they had permission to upload the work. We cannot in general trust any odd newby's statements on such matters. We could maybe trust longstanding, known-to-be-good editors' statements. But will I still be considered a "longstanding, known-to-be-good" editor in 20 years, when (maybe) I'll have disappeared ten years earlier? I don't think so; people won't even remember me. With an OTRS confirmation, my uploads of others' works, or of previously published works, will be good even when I myself have long been forgotten. The upload and its licensing no longer hinges on the reputation of the editor Lupo, but only on the quality of the confirmation sent to OTRS.

Does this answer your question? Lupo 20:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear AFBorchert,

You are incorrect there is a OTRS system since 2005 [1] one year before the files are uploaded. Huib talk 20:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Huib, COM:OTRS was set up on 11 September 2006. The question is when permissions were handled over OTRS, not the info queues. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I did my homework [2] before saying things about OTRS Huib talk 21:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

At that time we hadn't that process required for Commons. Or do you have any Commons-related OTRS ticket for the permission of an image at hand from 2006? Any historical revision of a Commons policy showing that this was required practice for uploaders in 2006? Requiring an OTRS process for images uploaded multiple years ago when everything conformed to policy and where AGF shouldn't be an issue does not seem to be justified to me. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter the time when OTRS was created. All Jimmy needs to do is dig for that old mail and forward it to OTRS. Then the page gets an OTRS number and all is fine. Platonides (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The photo was taken by a personal friend with whom I had a voice conversation about licensing and the approval was given in that way. Maggie is the wife of Trevor Nielsen who sits on the advisory board of the Wikimedia Foundation. There is no email to forward. I can email to bug her, but I think that's just bad form. You have a board member of the Foundation vouching for the word of the wife of an Advisory Board member. That strikes me as more than sufficient verifiability.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that if you send an email to OTRS where you state to take full legal responsibility for the accurateness of those license claims, that we are just fine, since this is a 2006 upload and you are plenty known. Not that I think that we should start making a regular thing of these exceptions. We have deleted plenty of pre 2006 material from English Wikipedia for missing OTRS statements. TheDJ (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to do that but let me ask one more question: why OTRS? It's nontransparent, can only be checked up on by a few people, whereas if I make an edit to the actual image page (which by the way, is already there since my upload was absolutely properly marked in the first place, but I can make it more emphatic) then we have the same exact legal situation, but something that anyone can see. Why is nontransparent better than transparent? I feel that policy may have gone a bit legalistic and off the rails here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The OTRS process serves to keep the identities and other credentials confidential. I see no reason for an OTRS ticket in this case. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As we apparently do not find a consensus here, I've raised the general question how we shall proceed with such old cases at COM:AN#OTRS permissions required for old cases?. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

New America Foundation Logo

Hi Abigor,

I work for the New America Foundation in their com department, and was just trying to load our logo to the page. I tried going to the special upload page for the english version of Wikipedia but it says I'm not authorized. Sorry for the dumb question, (I'm new to this) but do you have any thoughts on how I can get the logo to show up on New America Foundation

Thanks! Stoneface85

Hi,

Commons doesn't accept fair use material such as logo's or cd covers because we only host free material and a logo isn't free but copyrighted by the owner or company.

When your article is only on the English Wikipedia I would advice you to upload it there locally, this can be done by pressing this link and choose its a logo from the menu.

I hope this helped, please let me know if you need more help.

Huib talk 16:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Similar Concern - w/o protest

A similar situation as above....although the notice I received on 5/8 didn't provide a lot of time to react. [3]. The images were linked to several project pages and templates. I understand your reasoning - it is sound. No argument here; although I provided everything short of the SS # of the author. My question is: If I chose to bother the artist once again - can the file be restored. The only file with that resolution available was stored here. I dare not request her to email another. I'm certain, however, she would email a release for your records. If such a release is obtain - can you make them magically reappear? Also will the templates, project pages, and articles automatically restore or will it require editing. Please advise. --Random Replicator (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

There was a email conversation on the file page where it states that the files are fair use, so they should be uploaded locally on the English Wikipedia instead of here on Commons.

"Dear Jappalang,

Thank you so much for contacting me. No that is very much NOT what I have agreed to. The images may only be used inconjunction with that article on the Wikipedia site and no other rights are transferred. They are not public domain images and cannot be modified.

Thank you so much,

karen

At 05:02 PM 5/7/2010, you wrote:

Hi Karen,

A Wikimedia Commons user has uploaded two of your works - "Triceratops nest with eggs" (http://www.karencarr.com/tmpl1.php?CID=281) and "Audubon Insectarium Ancient Seas Mural" (http://www.karencarr.com/tmpl1.php?CID=100). The Wikimedia Commons links are below:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triceratops_and_nest.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Audubon_Insectarium_Ancient_Seas_Mural.jpg

He has placed your works under the GNU FDL and Creative Commons Share-Alike licenses.

These licenses permit anyone to use those two works of yours for any purpose, even commercial, and let them create any sort of derivatives, as long as they clearly attribute you as the author of the original work.

Is that what you have agreed to?

Sincerely,

Jappalang on Wikimedia

Karen Carr

Karen Carr Studio, Inc.

When you upload them on the English Wikipedia using the fair use terms it should be fine. Huib talk 16:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Interjecting here, I nominated the two files as copyvios because Karen Carr replied to me that she had not consented for her works to be placed under GFDL or CC that allows commercial and derivative purposes (per above). She consented to use of her works only in certain articles on Wikipedia; nonetheless, as a heads-up, I need to point out that for such fair use purposes, the use of a copyrighted work in each article has to comply with all ten of Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. Jappalang (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearly I'm in above my pay-grade and certainly it was not my intent to create problems. Unfortunately, the images had multiple links which were impacted by the delete; including the artist page. Maybe she will realize the benefits of such an opportunity and someone with legal knowledge will make the effort. Sorry for the inconvenience. Random Replicator

Well said.

I appreciate your comments in your withdrawal of the request for removal, very well said. Keegan (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you,

I think I learned something by doing what I did Huib talk 20:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

File:ABDSM Spreadeagle on Bed.png

Please undelete this file. It isthe subject of this deletion debate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Huib talk 20:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Andre Lambert Footjob.jpg

File:Andre Lambert Footjob.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--Simonxag (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Category undeletion

Hi Abigor,

Thanks for the various protected edits you did the other day. They had been open for so long .. BTW I added a correction to one of them.

I noticed you also closed Undeletion requests#Category:Vals. Why wasn't that undeleted? It appeared that it was deleted under a mistaken assumption about how HotCat works. -- User:Docu at 16:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Docu,

I will try to clean out that category every few days, its not a good thing when its full because adjustments that make Commons better should be done ASAP.

I rejected the undeletion request because I understood from the discussion that the category is unneeded, but I will undelete it now for you, I'm not sure how it works so I'm not going to discuss it ;-)

Best regards,

Huib talk 07:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion was correct. No need to recreate it under false pretext. Now, disambig cats become much harder to maintain. --Foroa (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Foroa, I think you should open a new debate and not wheel-war. -- User:Docu at 07:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

undeletion request for image you deleted

Can you please drop by ? Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Dutch_1_gulden_front.JPG

•  Done - Huib talk 16:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

So

Kinda mini OverSight? :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

OverSight for dummies :-D Huib talk 15:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please be civil

I'm not fully aware of the context so would accept that someone might have frustrated you, but comments like these aren't really helpful. I hope you'll consider your comments more carefully in future. Adambro (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to be civel to people that can bring up the patience to wait and see how my edits work out. Huib talk 20:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up history

I had problems choosing the right colors for File:Civil_Ensign_of_Morocco.svg, File:Naval_Ensign_of_Morocco.svg in TFT-LCD. The file history shall be cleaned. --Flad (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Thanks for revoking rollback from Diego Grez, here thou have example of its harmful consequences:

1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greek_alphabet&action=historysubmit&diff=39677357&oldid=39395098
2. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AGreek_letters&action=historysubmit&diff=39677436&oldid=39395699

He destroyed reference of spelling used on both pages. 83.10.103.143 19:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, That's not rollback. And Huib, I left you messages on my talk page. Cheers. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 23:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

PD review

Hi!

I write to you because you are listed here Commons:PD_files/reviewers#List_of_PD_reviewers.

The Category:PD files for review was flooded some time ago and perhaps therefore PD review seems to have stopped. After some discussion on Commons_talk:PD_files#Has_review_stopped? the category has been cleaned up.

Perhaps you would like to come back and take a look at some of the remaining files?

Thank you!

--MGA73 (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)