User talk:Abzeronow

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Abzeronow!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Archive for 2018-1st half of 2019 at User:Abzeronow/Archive1 Archive for 2019 to 1st half of 2023 is at User:Abzeronow/Archive2 Archive for 2nd half of 2023 will be at User:Abzeronow/Archive3

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Hi, I award you the Public Domain Barnstar for your research on public domain works to be undeleted. I am going through your list. Happy New Year! Yann (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Teamwork Barnstar
Faced with the easy choice of deleting an image or working to correct an error, this user decided that the project could be improved. This generous and honorable action represents the essence of the project. If the project had more souls like Abzeronow's, the quality of the project would increase exponentially. Luizpuodzius (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Dear Administrator![edit]

čeština  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  English  español  فارسی  suomi  français  magyar  հայերեն  Bahasa Indonesia  italiano  日本語  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  português  português do Brasil  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  svenska  +/−

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Abzeronow, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons webchat on There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin webchat.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading. You can find the admin backlog overview at COM:AB.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

--Krd 16:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Well deserved Bedivere (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bedievere. Abzeronow (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
congrats.... "Let justice be done though the heavens fall". OMG!! is that a better call zaul referance?!! ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 21:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow, congratulations, I hope your addition to the team makes a difference. You are one of the very few "knowledgeable" people here. Heartily congratulations. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, although I think there are definitely more knowledgeable people than myself on Commons, and I try to keep learning from people here. I hope you'll be able to join the team soon, Aafi. Abzeronow (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
from me too :-) --Rosenzweig τ 05:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Danke. Abzeronow (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations!!! — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Red-tailed hawk. Abzeronow (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely as expected -- very few get 100% votes! You may find User:Jameslwoodward/Commons notes for administrators useful -- it overlaps the official page that Krd suggested above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, Jim. Definitely some useful information there. Abzeronow (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. I was wondering if you'd be willing to procedurally close Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2008 in Thailand so I can nominate the images for deletion in smaller batches per the discussion. Otherwise I guess it just be closed at some point in the future per the normal process, but @Cavarrone: seemed to be particularly triggered by the whole thing and I don't really want to hurt their clearly sensitive feelings by keeping it open after they made it clear they thought the whole thing was disruptive just because I didn't just do 50 separate, individual DRs. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Abzeronow (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble afoot[edit]

About Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nickelodeon Foot Logo (1984).svg... I think 1984 is just the date in which Nickelodeon started using the Balloon-font logo style - that is, this is a variant of the 1984 logo, which may have been created any number of years later. That said, I have no idea when this variant came into being. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 23:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it further. If I find it's after 1989, I'll delete it. Abzeronow (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Brainulator9: , it looks like this was circa 1992. The 1980s logos did not have a registered trademark mark on them from what I can see, and the logo is similar to a logo that dates from 1992. Deleted it as 1992 is post-1989. Abzeronow (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. May I see where you got this from, and what is the similar logo you're thinking of? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this page, there is a feet version that says used in Gymnast ID from 1992-1996. I'd have to look up where I found other logos like the 1989 anniversary logo. Abzeronow (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please educate me. Rather than my starting a DR. I'd like to learn why this file, with a photo of a prominent work which is copyright is not a copyvio, please. Once I know then I will be better able to see what is and is not a copyvio. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 20:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: , I guess I probably should have added a note that the file has VRT permission. A VRT member had a undeletion request for the file, saying the heir granted permission. Abzeronow (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes a lot of sense. Thank you. Let us assume VRT were not involved. In that instance would I be correct that this would be considered a copyvio? 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 20:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if this didn't have VRT permission, I'd have considered the photograph to be an own work, and I'd have filed a deletion request for the painting as the photo is a derivative work. Abzeronow (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. This makes a lot of sense. Every day is a school day. 👍 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 20:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it deleted??? There was 2 keep to 1 delete (the nominator) and the image was under a Template:PD-NWS license, where NOAA says all images not marked by a copyright symbol are public domain. I believe the deletion was a mistake, especially since there was a majority keep in the discussion. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with the nominator that the license is overly broad, and it was not proven that GettyImages and the photographer donated the photograph to the public domain. It was not made explicit that Getty Images did so, and so following COM:PCP, I deleted. Abzeronow (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note for the complete future, I strongly protest the deletion. You basically overruled a consensus from July 2023 with this deletion and you went against the copyright license which was provided, proving it was PD. WeatherWriter (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel my decision was erroneous, feel free to make a request at COM:UNDEL. Abzeronow (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think enforcing copyright about public architecture is applicable, and I would like to know what precedent you were talking about. Aurci (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:PM 037802 F Millau.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Millau Viaduct, France (39307678014).jpg, bridges are protected by copyright in France. Abzeronow (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see that bridges are protected by copyright in France? 18:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting Rosenzweig "The distinction between buildings (which are protected by copyright) and structures (which are not) is an American thing. Article L112-2 of the French IP code simply lists oeuvres [...] d'architecture (works of architecture) among the types of works which can be protected." Bridges are works of architecture. See also the discussion at's_talk_about_bridges_in_France and Yann saying "There is no difference, copyright wise, between different kinds of structures built by architects." Also Christian Ferrer said " I never saw an exemple of a French case law that allow us to think that bridges are not protected under Copright law" I'll also note that Structurae lists Placidi as a designer, and lists two others as architects on the bridge. Abzeronow (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:William Cheung 1990.jpg[edit]

Hi Abzeronow. Would you mind taking a look at File:William Cheung 1990.jpg? Can you tell whether it is a crop of File:Anthony Arnett and Eric Oram.jpg, which you deleted in August per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Australianblackbelt? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: it is indeed a crop of the deleted file. Abzeronow (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking. Is it OK to keep on Commons or should it be tagged/nominated for deletion? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should be marked for deletion. I could start a DR on it later today. Abzeronow (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've got the rights to post this but believe I just may not have coded the license right. Can you please help me understand how best to do so? Apologies, I've found some of the online guides a bit confusing... Matthewehoffman (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthewehoffman: As mentioned in, you need to have the photographer fill out the form at COM:VRT. There is no explicit mention of a free license for the photograph at the Internet Archive. Abzeronow (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate files[edit]

Hi! Can you merge these files, File:LocationVietnamBaRia-VungTau.png and File:Location of Ben Tre within Vietnam.png to their corresponding duplicates. Thanks! Đại Việt quốc (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Duplicates processed to redirect to the older files. Abzeronow (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Can you merge File:Plan de la ville de (...)Babonneau L btv1b550132625 1.jpg and File:Plan de la ville de Hanoï en 1885.jpg this time? Thanks! Đại Việt quốc (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Descriptions merged, as well as author information from the newer file added to the older file. Abzeronow (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though you might want to take a look at what I did with Category:Chester concession (for future reference). In particular, when a Commons category is linked from a Wikidata item it is generally a good idea to use {{Wikidata Infobox}} instead of just linking overtly back to the Wikidata item. Much more informative to end users. - Jmabel ! talk 06:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't know as much as I know now about categories when I made that in February. I suppose I could be more proactive about adding Wikidata infoboxes myself. Abzeronow (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

Thank you, colleague! Iktsokh (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues[edit]

Hello, Abzeronow. How is it going? Recently I uploaded some pics that I found on Flickr (all from this album). However, I got this: "failed cc-by-nc-2.0"; although, the autor, Alessandra Brenguer, uploaded those pics under the "CC BY-NC 2.0 DEED". What can I do? I'm not stealing those photos, haha.--Agent010 (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Agent010: , the issue is that we don't accept files with a noncommercial license. (COM:L has the details} so we cannot host those photographs here. Abzeronow (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the license says: "You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material". Like, I have no intention of make money from those pics, just use them to improve an article that I'm working on.--Agent010 (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the policy of Wikimedia Commons is to not accept any noncommercial restrictions. If you are just trying to use it for an English Wikipedia article, you can locally upload there under non-free use as long as it's within the guidelines there. Abzeronow (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I got it. Thanks.--Agent010 (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This keep...[edit]

Don't be surprised if we keep more files like this. There is whole category about this painting and I nominated for deletion one which I doubt will ever be used if an editor gets to know of the other versions.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for elevating my user rights. I hope that already allows me to upload newer versions of audio files in the future :) --Esperfulmo (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just checked your comment. It does. Thanks. --Esperfulmo (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abzeronow, after your "done", I tried to override the file twice, but to no avail. "Upload a new version of the file" isn't working. Greetings, Gerd.Seyffert (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it wouldn't work. I added the template correctly. Abzeronow (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another try, and the same upload warning. Quite annoying. I am the only one since 2013 to keep the map updated. When I will be blocked, there won't be updates any more. Gerd.Seyffert (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerd.Seyffert: I've granted you the autopatrol right so you shouldn't have any more issues. Abzeronow (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Abzeronow, for granting me the autopatrol right. But trying to upload a new version of the file, it still reads "Please modify the file description below and try again"... Gerd.Seyffert (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I got the map uploaded! Thank you very much for your help! Have a merry Christmas and good luck in 2024! Gerd.Seyffert (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chequea la imagen[edit]

Buenas, por favor chequea las imágenes si tienen licencia File:Potential role of chronic physical exercise on immune system modulation in vitiligo patients.jpg and File:Autocrine and paracrine effects of exercise-regulated human myokines.png AbchyZa22 (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done El primero tiene la licencia correspondiente CC-BY 4.0. El segundo dice "Copyright © 2017 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; todos los derechos reservados" bajo información de derechos de autor. (Utilicé el traductor de google) Abzeronow (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow:Buenas, por favor chequea la imagen
File:A synthesis of possible candidate mechanisms explaining how T cell regulation is augmented by physical activity.jpg AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Abzeronow (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow:Buenas, por favor chequea la imagen File:McDonnell Douglas MD-82 YV2927 nueva imagen.jpg
AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Abzeronow (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow:Hola, por favor chequea la imagen File:The Anti-atherogenic Role of Exercise Is Associated With the Attenuation of Bone Marrow-Derived Macrophage Activation and Migration in Hypercholesterolemic Mice.jpg AbchyZa22 (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Abzeronow (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow:Buenas y Feliz Año, por favor chequea la imagen
File:Macrophage polarization COVID-19 infection (Melatonin).jpg AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Un feliz año nuevo para ti también. ✓ Done Abzeronow (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow:Buenas, por favor chequea la imagen File:Modulation of immune cells during exercise and anti tumour.jpg AbchyZa22 (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buenas, esta foto debería ser removido (deleted) o quedarse (kept)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probablemente debería eliminarse porque se restauraron los derechos de autor de la fotografía en Estados Unidos. Además, necesitamos saber cuándo se publicó en Venezuela. (Google Translate) Abzeronow (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It looks like I missed a character at the end when requesting that file be renamed, it should be at File:Дореволюционный особняк в Екатеринодаре.webp. Since you renamed that file, could you please fix this? Thanks and sorry, Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they/ella/elle) 08:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Abzeronow (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buenas, esta foto debería ser removido (deleted) o quedarse (kept)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it will be deleted based on precedent. Abzeronow (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow:Buenas, ya te voy a decir por que, el escudo de Armas fue publicado en Venezuela en 2022 y según la legislación venezolana Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Venezuela "En general, 60 años después de la muerte del autor, con la excepción de las obras audiovisuales, difusión de obras y programas de ordenador, en cuyo caso la protección dura 60 años después de la publicación." (osea se creó 1963 o antes) por eso el Escudo no esta OK. AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File talk:KransbindarvägenRadhusTopDown.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file talk, 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.

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!

SolensHamn (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the mistake of the file talk page being nominated rather than the file. Abzeronow (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1960 relevance?[edit]

Hello! I don't man to just argue here, bit I am curious how you mean that "since this is a circa 1960 photograph" is relevant to not do a speedy? On something so obvous. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the photograph is 63 years old, there is a possibility of it becoming public domain sometime in the next forty years, and I'd like to be able to classify it for undeletion rather than it just being speedied and then promptly forgotten. Obviously being provided with a studio name and photographer would be very helpful as I could search for a death date so we'd know it's exact copyright status. Abzeronow (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ten marshals[edit]

Thanks for your decision re the Chinese marshals. Will all deletion requests at the separate images vanish automatically? -- Vysotsky (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to take care of that. I'll do later myself in 4-6 hours, it would only take about 10-15 minutes for me to do that. Abzeronow (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurar la imagen[edit]

Buenas, necesito que restaures la imagen (File:Tarjeta electoral Partido Regional Progresistas Merideños Independientes.jpg) porque según el artículo 325 de la Ley Orgánica del Trabajo, los Trabajadores y las Trabajadoras. Además del artículo 2 de la Ley sobre Derechos de Autor, que establece qué creaciones están sometidas a derechos de autor. Ese logo al igual que la Bandera y Escudo en Venezuela es una invención,los escudos, banderas y Logos son invenciones; solo se basan en la imaginación de las personas. (nota:En el artículo 325 dice:Invenciones, innovaciones y mejoras en el sector público

La producción intelectual generada bajo relación de trabajo en el sector público, o financiada a través de fondos públicos que origine derechos de propiedad intelectual, se considerará del dominio público, manteniéndose los derechos al reconocimiento público del autor o autora.) AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My previous RfA[edit]

Hi @Abzeronow, I pray you are doing well. I ran for adminship on Wikimedia Commons during February 2023 which closed as a fail. I enjoyed this as a success since it opened a vast understanding of my own mistakes that I had made in the past. Although my activities after the RfA increased and I participated in Undeletion requests and other admin-related areas however I personally see this as a margin since I wasn't able to keep a too-much-active pace due to my real-life activities. I have recently begun cleaning up unused and un-licensed files from ur-wiki as I got some time to be free from my academic loads. I was thinking to go for another RfA in a month or two, but I feel I should seek thoughts from others before I go ahead. I trust you as one of the friendly admins on this project, and would love to hear from you. Thanks and regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely could use more administrators, and we definitely could use an Urdu-speaking administrator. I believe that I would vote in support for your next RfA. Good luck with the second attempt. Abzeronow (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abzeronow, please undelete these photos. Indeed the stadium is not copyrightable by German standards and therefore in the public domain. Chianti even has posted a court decision by the OLG Karlsruhe which supports this argumentation. -- Chaddy (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnom: , @Krd: , @Rosenzweig: , @GPSLeo: , I'll defer to those who know more about German copyright law than me, but works of architecture are copyrightable in Germany to my knowledge and I don't see how this stadium falls below being able to be copyrighted. Abzeronow (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also one of the experts of German copyright law. Yes, works of architecture are copyrightable in Germany. But only when they are above the threshold of originality. I again refer to Chianti‘s comment in the discussion: [1]. -- Chaddy (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Opinions are obviously rather divided here. In that case I would have decided to delete per the precautionary principle. Abzeronow's decision was well within his discretion as an admin, and I don't see any reason to declare this decision to be wrong. --Rosenzweig τ 18:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can do this (precautionary principle) in really unclear cases. But this is a clear case. No one could proof that the design of this stadium stands out from the mass of everyday building work which would be needed for a copyright protection. It is a very simple and pure design that only follows the need of the buildings statics. That is simple handcraft and not a work of fine arts. -- Chaddy (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. COM:PRP doesn't say anything about "really unclear cases", it says that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted. There are several users here, in the deletion request discussion and at the parallel de.wp discussion which have expressed their doubts, which are significant enough in my opinion. --Rosenzweig τ 20:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also say that the building is below TOO. If we say this is above TOO we would have to delete nearly every interior photo of modern buildings in Germany. GPSLeo (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 New Years Message[edit]

Merci beaucoup, Tisourcier. Abzeronow (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete non-commercial copies of the following images[edit]


Hi, Abzeronow, I realize that I've uploaded some non-commercial copies of flickr photos, please help me delete them. Thank you. 0x0a (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done File versions that you had uploaded are hidden. Abzeronow (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! 0x0a (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Abzeronow, I noticed a similar case. The file was uploaded after flickr user switched from cc-by-sa to cc-by-nc-sa license. That is, the copy on Commons is licensed under cc-by-nc-sa, not cc-by-sa. But in the DR, some users argued that the previous license is still valid for subsequent copies. May I ask which view is right? Thank you. 0x0a (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the view that the nominator was correct, but I'm not going to try to overturn a decision made by the community twice to keep it especially since my view may be contentious. Abzeronow (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, there is a considerable controversy over how to interpret the "irrevocable" of a CC license. A discussion may need to be initiated on the VPC.
I'm aslo inclined to agree with the nominator, but I need to collect some information to support this view. Anyway, thanks for your opinion. 0x0a (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow:Buenas, esta foto debería ser removido (deleted) o quedarse (kept)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd come down on delete per COM:PCP since it's not clear on how low the ToO is in Russia and part of that logo is stylized. Abzeronow (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logo Alcaldía de Lecheria[edit]

@Abzeronow:Buenas, una pregunta el Logo de la Alcaldía de Lecheria como lo indica esta foto ( esta en el Dominio Público ({{PD-textlogo}} porque representa una "geometric shape")?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks more complex than just a "geometric shape" to me. Is there guidance as far as ToO in Venezuela? Abzeronow (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AbzeronowEl ToO en Venezuela es complicado pero no dice nada sobre Logos con "geometric shapes" AbchyZa22 (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Azberonow. I want to overwritting File:Warner Bros. Television 2023 (Alt).svg with a smaller KB size of the file (come from than the original file upload by BiggieSMLZ. But sadly, the request is easily archived at Commons:Overwriting existing files/Requests/Archive 2 without any further consideration. Could you please grant me a request to do that? Thank you. Yayan550 (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that image you linked to. Abzeronow (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: Well, if you want to see the actual link the image comes from, here:, the WBTV 2023 logo kb size there is smaller (17 KB) than BiggieSMLZ's upload (476 KB). But, only Logopedia users can see that file, so i download that image. Yayan550 (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done @Yayan550: You can now overwrite the file. Abzeronow (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


@Abzeronow:Buenas, una pregunta el Logo de la Alcaldía de Valera creado en 2014 hasta el 2017 y el autor del logo ex alcalde de Valera falleció el 29 de diciembre de 2019 ( según el {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} son 60 años después de la publicación y en que año subirá el Logo a Wikimedia?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(google translate) En Wikimedia sería 2090 aunque probablemente 2075 se convierta en PD en Venezuela. Abzeronow (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Because you're a nice administrator :)

OttavianoUrsu (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you undelete file:Mycock5.jpg?[edit]

You allege that there is another file that uses it. Where is this other file? Dronebogus (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is one of the photographs used in File:Various size penises.jpg. There was an undeletion request for the file after a question appeared at the Help Desk. Abzeronow (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I find COM:SPLIT rather confusing for myself (perhaps because its suggestive of moving old revisions to a new title). Would you want to take a look at File:Photo portrait d'Andréa Furet.jpg: seems an interesting deal of learning for me. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done This is my first time doing a split. Abzeronow (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buenas, esta foto debería ser removido (deleted) o quedarse (keep)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Since I have an apparent conflict of interest with anything related to DCW, I thought seeking assistance from any admin should help. Could you please merge File:Wiki Loves Muslim Academia logo.svg and File:Wiki loves muslim academia copy.svg. The former should appear as the current version. The user who uploaded File:Wiki loves muslim academia copy.svg did it in a hurry despite me telling them do db-author it because it wasn't anyway approved to be used in any case for WLMA, a program by DCW, which I lead. TheAafi (DCW) (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAafi (DCW): The files are merged but I probably created an extra revision by accident since this was the first time I have merged a file. Abzeronow (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick help. Best of luck with future tries. TheAafi (DCW) (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to delete the redirect as it won't be anywhere used, and isn't even old enough. TheAafi (DCW) (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overwriting existing file[edit]

Hi @Abzeronow, thanks for your hard work. :) Did you perhaps miss the entry for File:Logo SG Dynamo Dresden neu.svg? Bildersindtoll (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

good catch[edit]

I dont think either are actually licensed for usage in commons, it is a regular mistake. I am reluctant to engage on the issue, as my Indonesian language usage is very very rusty. If I had either the time, or the energy, I think I could halve the amount of similar items on commons, simply by pointing out the lack of suitable licensing. Sorry, I am not very helpful. JarrahTree (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. I will nominate them for deletion. Abzeronow (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Giordano Bruno Lattuada.jpg[edit]

Deletion here was more the question of whether the photograph was "published prior to 1978", than when it was taken. Neither the uploader, the blog it was copied from nor the user who voted to keep it had anything to say about that. Belbury (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Per orphan works policy, we generally assume publication near creation unless there is evidence to the contrary. The photograph from the age of the sitter and the style of clothing appears to be from the 1950s. In order for it not be published before 1978, the unknown photographer would have had to have taken the photograph and then stuck it in a drawer for more than 20 years. Italian simple photographs are creation plus 20 years so the publication before 1978 is a consideration of URAA, and as stated, we don't have evidence that URAA applies here. Abzeronow (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I'd missed that there'd already been a fuller discussion of this at Commons:Undeletion_requests#File:Giordano_Bruno_Lattuada.jpg! Belbury (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'll link that to the DR (I would have done so when it was archived, but I'll do it now). Abzeronow (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Just comment one thing. User Tm is using the issue in the Noticeboard to blatantly forge and reopen old wikidata conflicts that were not directly related to this topic, and in which I have no responsibility. Apart from the fact that he is making false statements against me and against the other user (Lopezsuarez). I have told Tm privately, so that he has the decency to not manipulate my words and make this even worse. But it is really shameful that from the first moment he had a disruptive [and tolerated] attitude, and that on top of that I was the bad guy in your eyes (although you later corrected it).

In essence, I gave in to find a solution to the conflict. And he (Tm) reluctantly accepted your disposition, only to go to wikidata to extend the conflict. And for dessert, the user Tm poisoning the environment even more. But after all, I cannot understand why this user is tolerated with everything. CFA1877 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abzeronow, sorry to burst into your talkpage, i will not comment the accusations against me made by this users, but i am only going to tell you that i have made a conteur argument of the Noticeboard with links to to back up and as evidence of what i say related with this subject (and these user accusations). Sorry and regards. Tm (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. File:Bhadreshkumar Chetanbhai Patel.jpg appears to have been reuploaded. I tagged it as G4.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jeff. Deleted again. I'll raise the issue at COM:VPC because I hadn't heard of US ToO covering "booth pictures". Abzeronow (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayuda en UDR (Undeletion Request)[edit]

@Abzeronow:Buenas, por favor en el COM:UDEL (en la parte "File:Logo Alcaldía Municipio Blvno Angostura (2021-2025).jpg") esta foto debería ser restaurada (support) o no restaurar (oppose)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Abzeronow. Could you please make the File:Warner Bros. Games logo (Alt).svg overwrite for everyone? Because i want to replace the incorrect version of the logo with the correct version taken from WBD brand website. Further source come from Logopedia. ( Yayan550 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yayan550: ✓ Done Abzeronow (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna try to overwrite File:Nick Jr. logo 2023 (outline).svg to update it to the official version[edit]

Hello, Abzeronow. Could you update File:Nick Jr. logo 2023 (outline).svg to unlock overwriting for anyone? I wanna replace it to have the official version with the official blue color. The source came from Logopedia, and this is what I wanna update it to: RobloxMiner$$ (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RobloxMiner$$: I cannot see the svg in that link. Abzeronow (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: RobloxMiner$$ (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RobloxMiner$$: ✓ Done Abzeronow (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out not only is the blue in ‘Jr.’ the official blue, but this is actually the official version of the outlined logo. Didn’t see it until I noticed the difference between both versions of the outlined logo. RobloxMiner$$ (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update of map[edit]

You killed Lithuania and Croatia in map ! And Andorra is also missing. -- 00:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC) File:Same-sex marriage map Europe detailed.svg[reply]

I reverted to the last attempted version, which was not thumbnailing before. Hopefully this fixes the issue. Abzeronow (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using/ illustrations[edit]

Thank you! So much :)

can I thank you by offering something of my artwork?(Original numbered lunar print of your choice)

I notice that because of the deletion of my file: two pages no longer have the illustration so, can you notify them that they can use the image? their page reference is here 📌 File history Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.

Date/Time Thumbnail Dimensions User Comment current 01:06, 9 December 2019

1,193 × 757 (265 KB) VeronicaInDream(talk | contribs) User created page with UploadWizard You cannot overwrite this file. File usage on Commons There are no pages that use this file. 👇 📌 File usage on other wikis The following other wikis use this file: Usage on Уич хаус Usage on Витч-хаус

(I don't know how to notify them)by myself VeronicaInDream (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your gratitude is enough for me. I don't require anything beyond that, and not even the gratitude is required, but is appreciated. I will restore the usage of your file on Bulgarian and Russian Wikipedia shortly. Abzeronow (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried restoring on Bulgarian Wikipedia but was reverted. I don't speak Bulgarian so I can't really ask why they did so. Commons Delinker didn't have any listing for the Russian Wikipedia entry. Abzeronow (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 👋
you were really respectful! I thank you for checking all of this; ps: the Bulgarian version (short version) (Уич_хаус) only is up to date; the Russian version (long and more complete) has not yet been able to even restore the version including the illustration ->Витч-хаус MANY THANKS 🙏 (maybe you can you just notify them?) if you can’t restore .. a++ and, please let me know if I can do anything for help (I mean for help you in any ways for something now or later if you need something) bye! VeronicaInDream (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of the previous format[edit]

Hello again;

I have an email copy of the version including the (missing viewable) image and its description on the pages that uses it so I can send you the email because copying and pasting it here does not give you a correct overview (I have to on my smartphone because my computer is broken)

Thanks a lot VeronicaInDream (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


[2] If the drawing is made from a photograph, is it free? --Воскресенский Петр (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a drawing is a derivative work from a CC-BY-NC photograph, it is not free enough for Wikimedia Commons. Your drawing can be licensed as CC-BY-NC on a website that allows noncommercial-only works. Abzeronow (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danish sailors on warships and all kinds of other images released as public domain[edit]

Hi there @Abzeronow,

You're a very busy contributor here and I can see you need to make all kinds of decisions. Whereas as I am relatively new and, let's be candid, have made some mistakes. To help me learn can you take me through one of your calls.

It's about a shot of a sailor on a Danish warship, once published at wikmedia here and originally published here on the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service. You may know the site. Everything they publish is published as Public Domain. In the case of this sailor on a warship, it says that the image was provided to DVIDS courtesy of the Royal Danish Navy. As you can see it is published as being Public Domain, and there is no copyright restriction.

On the good faith principle, I've assumed that as an image is published as Public Domain, and that it was provided to DVIDS knowing that everything they publish is published to the public domain, that we, in the wiki community, could proceed on that understanding.

(If we can only assume that American images, that's to say, images taken by US Military staff or government workers while doing their duties, are the ones that are "truly" public domain, then the result will be an absolute domination of images of the American military, from an American military point of view, which, personally, bothers me and could undermine our common mission of being encyclopaedic.)

I would like to continue finding valuable images that are public domain or creative commons, and using them to improve articles. Please let me know what principle I should be deploying.

Best regards,


MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewDalhousie: Yes, I am aware it was posted to DVIDS, but the copyright holder is the Royal Danish Navy, which doesn't automatically release their works to the public domain. Someone from the Danish military would have to write COM:VRT to say that they dedicate photographs they give to DVIDS to the public domain or even them saying that authorize a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license of the photograph would do. I cannot assume that this photograph is public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Abzeronow for looking at this question, really grateful.
Just wondering where you have found a document that states that the Royal Danish Navy holds a copyright on this image?
MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Courtesy Royal Danish Navy." Abzeronow (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you won't mind me saying, that the plain reading of "courtesy of Royal Danish Navy" would be "this image has been kindly provided to DVIDS by Royal Danish Navy."
And, of course, the Royal Danish Navy has provided that DVIDS where they publish everything to the public domain, and that image is clearly marked as such.
I don't believe a reasonable person could assume that "courtesy of" means "this image comes with a copyright."
That's not what "courtesy of" means.
I would like you to reconsider this matter please. Any person, acting in good faith, should able to look at that language, and that image clearly marked as being public domain, and use it as such.
Kind regards,
MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read that more as "this photograph was provided by the Royal Danish Navy, who have allowed usage on DVIDs and for the personal use of those downloading the photograph, but they retain the copyright." I'll ask my mentor @Jameslwoodward: since he's had more experience in these matters, and I know DVIDS hosting non-American military photographs and video has come up before. Abzeronow (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Abzeronow is right. If you go to the copyright statement for DVIDS, you will see that it explicitly states that images on the site that are provided by others may have a copyright. I see no reason to believe that this one is copyright free. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward I see that here DVIDS does not not waive any publicity or privacy rights of any individuals portrayed. Fair enough. That's about the right of the Colonel (or whomever) being photographed. That doesn't affect the fact that the image is Public Domain. True? MatthewDalhousie (talk) 11:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although we often take note of the personal rights of the people in images, that will not prevent it from being kept on Commons. However, again, as I said above, I see no reason why this image is PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you staying engaged on this topic @Jameslwoodward. The short answer to why intelligent people would view an image as PD is because it's been published as PD, having been given to a dedicated PD image hosting site.
I believe we can act with integrity and use those images as such.
I care about seeing more material on allied militaries, aside from the Americans. It would really improve a lot of articles.
Images such as the Danish sailor, have been provided to a PD images site, published as PD and can be used as such. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your repeating the same incorrect information does not make it correct. There is nothing here to indicate that the Danish Navy has authorized a free license of the image. Also, the copyright information for the site places restrictions on the commercial use of its images which are unenforceable for images made by US personnel, but certainly apply to foreign images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to keep this productive here @Jameslwoodward, and very keen to keep this peaceful and respectful. I have reviewed what I've written and in my saying that the image is on a page that states it is published as public domain is not incorrect. We can both check that. As to moving forward, I believe you would want some kind of a statement indicating that DVIDS has been given an authority by the photographer to publish as public domain. I am gathering that's what is needed. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've made contact with DVIDS and they have provided advice on this particular image, which may provide context for you @Jameslwoodward.
I have not asked for a decision to be reconsidered before, so could you tell me the right way to pass that information about copyright on to you - or any other decision-maker?
Best regards
MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no reason to believe that a "courtesy of" image comes without a copyright. You may either put forth the statement from DVIDS here or at Commons:Undeletion requests, but be aware that that will not be sufficient -- we will require a statement from the Danish Navy via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting "EightTNOs" image in different languages[edit]


Since you've deleted File:EightTNOs.png on the grounds of copyright violation and lack of attribution, I want to ask you if that means we would have to delete all other derivatives of this image. There's many different versions of this image as we can see in Category:Trans-Neptunian objects, and I don't see a reason why these versions should be kept but not the EightTNOs image. @Renerpho: pointed out in the discussion (the talk page of that file is deleted unfortunately) that the Haumea illustration is the main reason why the image got nominated for deletion in the first place, and most of these EightTNOs derivatives I mentioned earlier use this copyvio illustration of Haumea. Nrco0e (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in the deletion discussion, I did mention that I was going to draw a replacement for the EightTNOs image. I'm not finished with it yet, but I do have some progress. I don't think I am able to send it here, but if you're interested in seeing it, I can PM you through email. Nrco0e (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose @Renerpho and @Tomruen might be interested, so I'll ping them here. Nrco0e (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, and the PM. If replacing the image(s) in the various articles becomes easier if we wait for the replacement before deleting them then I suggest to do so. @Abzeronow: Can you access the deleted talk page? If so, retrieving the rationale for deleting it (which I unwisely pointed to in the deletion discussion, not realizing that it wouldn't be preserved) would be nice. Renerpho (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The derivatives affected by the unfree Haumea image are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; also 7 which is not in the category linked by Nrco0e (are there more?). There are numerous others that are derivatives of the EightTNOs image, but don't use the Haumea image. I'd have to read my own rationale again to remember if there was reason to delete those, too. Renerpho (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the Haumea image, the talk page said
"The Haumea image was published in 2011[3] with a Creative Commons 4.0 license. One condition of that license is attribution (credit: SINC/José Antonio Peñas), which is not done in the Wikimedia image. Renerpho (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nrco0e: In any other case I would have simply nominated the image for deletion, because its license is wrong (3.0 vs. 4.0, no attribution, and this is not "own work"), but considering how much this file is used, maybe it can be rectified without the trouble? Unfortunately I am not sure what to do, because so many users have contributed to this. Renerpho (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Haumea image was removed once before (as a non-free image) in 2016, but was added back a few days later without explanation. Renerpho (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The SINC image was licensed CC BY 3.0 at the source at the time of upload to Commons. The source licence was later changed to version 4.0. Indeed, the file versions that include the SINC image cannot be kept in this file which is multi-licensed with version 1.0 etc. The file history could be split to make two separate files. The credit could be added in a separate file that would be licensed with version 4.0 only. However, the SINC license page has a strange restrictive clause that might contradict the CC license, so it's not clear if this image is really free. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)" Abzeronow (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for retrieving the talk page section, Abzeronow. I think the part of the license that Asclepias was referring to is this: El uso de los contenidos bajo la licencia Creative Commons BY 4.0, no permite, en ningún caso, la explotación, sea o no con fines comerciales, de los contenidos de SINC para la creación de publicaciones, en cualquier soporte, cuando estén integradas mayoritariamente por contenidos de la[4] That's a strange restriction indeed, and I don't think it is compatible at all with CC-BY, making that license null and void... Maybe that's of relevance for the decision whether to delete/keep the derivatives linked above. In any case, the EightTNOs image was deleted based on the SINC Haumea image, so I believe that all derivatives that use it have to go, too. Renerpho (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll start adding a temporary and hidden category to the files derived from Eight TNOs, and I'll do a mass DR (or a few of them) to deal with the other files. Abzeronow (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've created it now Category:Haumea SINC files. Feel free to add files that have the SINC image of Haumea in them to this category. Abzeronow (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your closing comments, you noted that this file "would be better off as an upload to Wikisource". However, Wikisource does not generally accept unpublished manuscripts by contributors, such as this one. Would you mind updating that bit? Omphalographer (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I edited that part out. Abzeronow (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About the deletion request[edit]

I apologize for my insistence on inviting you into the discussion. I have noticed changes in the facade of the building, which will probably prove critical. I would like, if you are able and willing, to take a position, at least for the last time, in the discussion. IM-yb (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. I'll leave a response later today. Abzeronow (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 61[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024

  • Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
  • 1Lib1Ref results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted and keep images at random. I feel discriminated. --Bahnmoeller (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may feel random to you but I was making judgement calls as far as de minimis in some of the photographs rather than just deleting everything because of the lack of FOP in the Vatican. I can assure you that I was not taking who took the photographs into consideration when I was deleting. Abzeronow (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Message from IP user[edit]

Oui je suis complètement d'accord pour la suppression de la couverture " les lettres infernales de ratel sigma. 2001:861:3B81:E290:CCE8:2D02:FD84:6F1A 03:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Overwrite File - 1st Oscars[edit]

On the Commons:Overwriting existing files/Requests page, I requested to change an image of File:1stOscars 1929.jpg to a higher res one. Would you be able to let me upload that new version? Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoshiman6464: I have approved your request at OWR. Abzeronow (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me?[edit]

I've recently made a file of the Cuban Coat of Arms with the flag stripes in their original blue scale, to make the former coat. When uploading it to Commons, it loaded wrong, and accidentally I finished to upload it. Well, I investigated how to delete it, but only an administrator can do that. So I'm asking you to do that. You will find easy to find it by typing in the search bar "Former Coat of Arms of Cuba". It's the black-coloured option. Thank you so much. Have a nice day. SunMoonAndLight (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marked it for speedy deletion (qualifies under G7 since you uploaded it less than seven days ago.) Abzeronow (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. SunMoonAndLight (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pan American Airways[edit]

Hello again, following our exchange about Fokker F.VII/3m, I now discover that there's a problem with the Pan American Airways category here. The category contains the Wikidata item Q7129586 in an infobox that instead belongs to Pan American Airways (1996–1998) as per Wikipedia article, but no such category at Commons. I'm tempted to just amend the Wikidata item and remove the Commons infobox, but unsure how it might co-exist with the current infobox on the Wikipedia 1996–1998 page. Perhaps as a Commons admin, you might action or advise accordingly. MTIA, PeterWD (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More thoughts - perhaps we should rename our categories here as Pan American Airways (1927–1950) and Pan American Airways (1950–1991), to reflect aircraft types and liveries, although not necessarily reflecting legal company names ? PeterWD (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amending the Wikdata item and removing the infobox seems to be the simplest solution. As far as the other thing, I could start a CfD to ask about the best way of reorganizing the aircraft subcategories since as the U.S. public domain expands, we probably will be getting more photographs about Pan Am's early years. I could also ask about the main categories and what others think might be the best way to organize it so things can be easily found. I could definitely create Fokker and Fairchild categories for Pan Am if they are not already existent. Abzeronow (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could I please have your opinion? I've uploaded this image today, and now it's protected. I'd replace current version (3648 × 2232px but with cropped bottom) by this one: [5] (2560 × 1707). Which one would be better? Thanks, Quick1984 (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just upload the uncropped photograph as a different file? (assuming that is also from the same Russian website as the currently auto-protected file.) I could see potential use for either. Abzeronow (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow:Buenas, esta foto debería ser removido (deleted) o quedarse (kept), una opinión?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete since Lebanon's ToO is unknown. (Apologies for the late reply, was not near a computer until now) Abzeronow (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow:Gracias por responder, pero ese Logo que contiene era solamente texto con "CV" pegadas (osea pasaría como "simple"). AbchyZa22 (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author's request to delete[edit]

Good afternoon. I am the original uploader of File:Raisa Vasilyeva postage stamp.jpg. It is now nominated for deletion, and I, the original uploader (from my previous account), was blocked for evading the earlier block. I am not going to make any further contributions, but I only ask you to remove this file because it doesn't look like the original postage stamp, I found it in an unreliable 4chan-type website and I don't want to insult dignity of the woman depicted or anyone else by having mock stamp published in Wikimedia. I wanted to be productive in Wikimedia, but unfortunately someone recalled my badwill contributions five years ago and blocked me. I apologize for evading block and I will not make any further contributions. Thanks. Пётр Серков-Новый (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cast a vote, but is it possible that you delete it immediately under G7 (Author or uploader requested deletion of recently created, unused content (G7))? Пётр Серков-Новый (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the best - Chuck Talk 21:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UDR Mazzoni[edit]

Hi Abzeronow, sorry to bother you, I just realized that in the UDR I forgot about File:Ufficio poste Sabaudia.jpg. It's in the exact same situation as all the other photos. Friniate (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao, it's not an issue. Buonasera ✓ Done Abzeronow (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grazie mille! :-) Friniate (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check image[edit]

@Abzeronow:Buenas, por favor chequea la imagen File:Bandera Municipio Urdaneta Estado Bolivariano de Miranda (2023).jpg AbchyZa22 (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hey sorry to bother you, but I think you overlooked me on Commons:Requests for rights. Thanks. Hilbeck (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your request. I'll wait to see if anyone else acts on it. I'll make a decision on it if no one else acts on it in a week from now. Abzeronow (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 62[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024

  • IEEE and Haaretz now available
  • Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
  • Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Stadio Franchi[edit]

Hi Abzeronow, thank you very much for having undeleted the images deleted in this DR. Checking the images I'm not completely sure if File:ArtemioFranchiwiki2.jpg and File:ArtemioFranchiwiki3.jpg are ok though... If the building itself is in PD, can the same be said for the graphic version that can be downloaded by the 3D gallery of Sketchup program 7? Friniate (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the uploader drew the image themselves in the program, I think it would be fine. Abzeronow (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not completely sure about that, since in the description he wrote that he used the 3D Gallery Warehouse. Searching in the website of 3D Warehouse I found this model of the Stadium. It's different from the photos, true, but maybe it was changed since 2010...--Friniate (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM promotion[edit]

This file has been promoted to Featured media!

The file File:His Girl Friday.webm, which you nominated at Commons:Featured media candidates/File:His Girl Friday.webm, has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another file, please do so.

Cart (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrol rights[edit]

Hey, so it's been 3 months since the trial period began and it's about to end like tomorrow, as far as I know, there's been no significant issues, so Id like to know if this role could be made permanent? NorthTension (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthTension: ✓ Done Abzeronow (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much NorthTension (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about deletion[edit]

Hallo, I would like to ask you the reason for the deletion of File:Movie project poster brazil (1985) by nedz d1di9fb.jpg. I am very confused as to which exact licenses are not permitted. Is it possible that you sum it up for me using their names? Thank you and have a great day. Michail Angelos Georgoulas (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't accept noncommercial restrictions (NC) or restrictions on derivative works (ND). Abzeronow (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Admin's Barnstar
For your work in clearing year-long backlog on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/Category moves! 廣九直通車 (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MP3 uploads[edit]

Hello. As you can know from Commons:Requests_for_rights/Denied/Autopatrolled/2024#RuzDD, I really want to upload MP3's and I really have good reasons for that but I can't do that as I'm not autopatrolled. As you know, non-autopatrolled users can request overwriting at Commons:Overwriting_existing_files/Requests, is the equivalent of this for MP3 uploading exists? If not, can this be created? I promise I will not upload any copyvio, thank you! RuzDD (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit count is a little better now than it was three months ago so I can see progress as far as that right goes. As mentioned to you previously at the help desk, you can upload in other audio formats without needing the right for it. I can consider temporarily granting you the right so you could upload whichever MP3 files you feel the project needs (provided they are freely licensed or public domain as being pre-1924). Abzeronow (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not urgent but I think (also for other newcomers) it'll be very good if a specific MP3 uploading allowing system can be implemented. I really love MP3: It can store mono and stereo sounds in one stream, disrupting it does not prevent it from playing (you can open a MP3 file with notepad and edit it and it should still play), and you can combine two MP3's with just notepad, and MP3 is very compatible, and it supports 8kbps (Vorbis does not). Also, I really like MP3's sound color if it's encoded with a good encoder. Thank you. RuzDD (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]