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[reply]

Note: Archive for 2018-1st half of 2019 at User:Abzeronow/Archive1 Archive for 2019 to ? will be at User:Abzeronow/Archive2

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png 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[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png 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[reply]


Hi! Please use <noinclude></noinclude> tags when adding deletion request pages to categories to avoid the deletion request log pages to be categorised. See this edit for example. Best regards, ––Apalsola tc 16:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion Request[edit]

Hello! I suppose my photos don't have to be deleted. How could I give you proof that I am publishing it with the permission of the author? Here are my files: --Etmefree (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Etmefree: Have the artist contact COM:OTRS. Abzeronow (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FV Promotion[edit]

This file has been promoted to Featured media!

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


/FVCBot (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, The image description says "Designed by the engineer Axel Sveinsson (1896-1957)". May be not public domain yet. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I missed that. Thanks for the catch, Yann. Abzeronow (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patrick Henry (packet) draft[edit]

Thanks for noting that. Have you seen at Smithsonian with copyright data?

Thank you![edit]

Greetings! Recently I have uploaded batches of photos from the Arlington National Cemetery's Official Flickr account with the assumption that the FlickreviewR bot would automatically marked them as PD-compatible. However, it is now required a human reviewer to mark them as PD... Thank you for taking the time and effort to remove the deletion tag on those pictures. Cheers! Quenhitran (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. PDM can be a pain to sort through but thankfully I could batch task the Arlington National Cemetery photos for the most part since they had the same photographer from the U.S Army. Glad to be of help. Abzeronow (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, thanks for helping out with the license for the file Mietschulden! I really appreciate it. --JuliaVog (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restore Portrait of President U.S.A[edit]

hello administrator Abzeronow I am writing to ask you if you could please restore these five portraits of US presidents that have been deleted from me:

Tanks --Battrace (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm not an admin. Can you show me any evidence that these either had no copyright or they were done by a government employee as part of their official duties? If so, I could start an undeletion request. Abzeronow (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portrait President[edit]

thank you for the answer, however as regards the files I asked you about the president of the united states, they are portraits whose source I took directly from the site [[1]] where there is the artistic description of the portraits of the presidents of the united states and the license I put is the following: {PD-USGov-POTUS} --Battrace (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari poster.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!

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD-art Gent[edit]

Hi Abzeronow, thanks for you help with MSK Gent. Can you please use {{PD-art}} like this when you correct the license? I'll see if I can undelete some more of these files. Multichill (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I'll add that to files from MSK Gent that don't have a frame. Abzeronow (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, plenty of files in need of a category, see . Multichill (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll work on adding categories throughout this week for those MSK Gent files. Abzeronow (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations, dear license reviewer[edit]

If you use the helper gadget, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named license+ and license-.

Hi Abzeronow, thanks for your request for license reviewer status. The request has been closed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. You can now start reviewing files – please see Commons:License review and Commons:Flickr files if you haven't done so already. We also have a guide how to detect copyright violations. Potential backlogs include Flickr review and files from other sources. You can enable the LicenseReview gadget from Preferences.

Important: You should not review your own uploads, nor those of anyone closely related to you!

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons webchat on You can also add {{User license reviewer}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your contributions on Commons! User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 08:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

School of Athens and PD Art[edit]

I saw that you tagged File:Schoolofathens.jpg as a copyright violation, mentioning that "Photograph is presumably all rights reserved". Per COM:ART the photograph can have no independent copyright as it is simply a faithful reproduction of an old, public domain, two-dimensional work of art. Given that the painter died in 1520, the photo of the painting is in public domain. C messier (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There appeared to be some 3-D aspects in the photograph which is why I thought that PD-Art did not apply. Abzeronow (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]



I uploaded a photo to Wikipedia and was going to consult you about something. I found the photo online and contacted the owner. When I talked to him, he said that I could use the photo royalty-free and that would be fine, he even sent me the photo himself (it's in his instagram correspondence). However, he said he would be happy if I gave the name of the person who took the photo. And I wrote all these details in both the description and discussion part of the photo. I can even send you my correspondence with the person who took the photo. I ask you to approve the photo on the site.

I wish you a good day and good health.

I leave the link of the photo here as an attachment:

File:Arda Güler in Fenerbahçe jersey (2022).jpg Mintone97 (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos that were previously published online must have the photographer contact COM:VRT to confirm that they wish to license their photograph under a Commons compatible license. It also sounds like he was talking about your personal use of the photo. Abzeronow (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More photos of Sándor Bojár[edit]


Please take a look at this: Commons:Deletion requests/File:František Velecký.JPG. Thank you! Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I'll notify the uploaders of the additional files and add the DR to the files shortly. Abzeronow (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lotta Svärd badge[edit]

The file: Lotta Svärd badge.svg should be deleted: author of the logo died in 1958, undelete in 2029. 2001:999:504:141F:F88C:4591:8CB0:A204 17:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Filed a DR. Abzeronow (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flickr licence reviewing[edit]

Re File:Ce soir, -paris s'est mobilisée lors de -EarthHour en éteignant -LaTourEiffel -Cities4Climate (25913677225).jpg

Please note that Flickr users can change the licences they offer content under. If the material was available under a free licence at the time it was uploaded here, then it's still acceptable here. This is normally checked by Flickr reviewing soon after upload (why we need 'bots running quickly) and a review at that time is considered reliable afterwards. Flickr also offers a 'License History' link (small link low on the page) which can show this history (although it has some limitations).

In this case, the licence was originally a free licence, but was revoked on 28 April 2022. However CC licences are irrevocable. Although the material is no longer offered under that licence on Flickr, any previous downloads remain validly licensed. Thus this file should not be deleted.

Also please be careful with speedy deletions. These are only for use when the case for deletion is clear. "Speedy" deletion is misleading here: it's not about doing it more quickly from any sense of urgency, it's about being able to do so because the case is clear-cut (and thus there is little credible reason to question it). If the situation isn't clear-cut, and an apparent lack of licence for a file that has already been here two years unchallenged isn't clear-cut, then it should go through regular DR, not speedy.

Thanks, Andy Dingley (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andy Dingley: , Even though I've been on this site for almost five years, the meaning of speedy deleting as you just articulated hadn't clicked until you said it. I do try to be careful with that, only speedying obvious copyvios like very recent movie posters and screenshots from video games or TV programs and when a uploader clearly wants their own file deleted. I'll definitely be a lot more careful in how I handle future cases in which the Flickr license changes in between request for license review and when I do the review. Thanks for your message, I will take your words to heart. I will also try to increase the number of files I license review so that Flickr backlog gets further reduced. Abzeronow (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seed catalogs...[edit]

Thanks... I am going to take another look at these once I finish the current batch of Petscan items I am checking. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any chance you could check the licenses and for notices on the items in and and remove the post 1964 items that do have notices?

Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could probably check the first within a few days which I will start doing today. The latter is going to take some time (1 week or 2 weeks). @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Abzeronow (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Do you see a copyright symbol on the 1964 to 1977 issues. I have been looking at a few and don't see one, maybe I am missing it. If you find one, let me know which page they add it to, and I will look again at that specific page, for the issues where I do not see one. There is no renewal notices that I can find and I looked up to 1994, but sometimes they are under a parent company name. For issues up to 1989 you had 5 years to register. After 1989 all issues are automatically copyrighted. Should we make a list here of what companies we find no symbols and no renewals? Or do we mark them directly in the entry? --RAN (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's what I am checking.. and in respect of a few of them I HAd seen a notice of the form : Copyright Name 1929 , so I tagged all the post 1928 images for a specific firm, on a precautionary basis, until they can reviewed individually. I have no objections to fast tag removal if you can't actually find a notice, provided the licenses get updated accordingly and the files are moved to an appropriate year category.
    I am however finding/confirming considerably more files that have no notices than ones that are mislabeled however.
    As an aside - , give around 53,000 images, based on current evaluations, that means about 25,000 or so items needing to be checked. It is not possible for a single contributor to evaluate more than about 100 images on reasonable time scale.. This needs support from a large number of other editors, or an automated effort....
    ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

=No symbols or renewals[edit]

  • Henry G. Gilbert Nursery
  • Tingle Nursery

My request for adminship[edit]

Hello! I want to thank you for your participation and input in my recently failed request for adminship. I take every word everybody said in the most constructive way and it is my intention to not only do my best for Commons (as long as time and real life allows me to), but to continue learning and helping out whenever I can. I very much appreciate your support, even though it was pretty obvious my request would fail, but I understand those concerns and considerations and will take them at heart. I hope to see you again, collaborating around Commons. Have a good day. Bedivere (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hopefully your next request goes better. You'd make a good candidate with some more experience. Abzeronow (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unidentified people[edit]

Hi Abzeronow, maybe you can help identify the three gentlemen here or here? GeorgHHtalk   22:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I'm still working at it. I think the man at left is William Boyce Thompson. The man at right resembles Will H. Hays but I'm not certain. (EDIT: Man on right could be Hermann Hagedorn. The ears definitely match a photograph found with a Google search) @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): for a second opinion. Abzeronow (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, man at left is William Boyce Thompson and man at right is Hermann Hagedorn. (Uploaded as File:Roosevelt Memorial Committee, photo by International Film Service.jpg). I'll try to figure out who the man in middle is. @GeorgHH: Abzeronow (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]