User talk:Adrignola/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →


Category removed

Hi. Why did you remove the category Optics from the drawing Diffuse reflection.gif? Light scattering is a subcategory of Optics. --GianniG46 (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Light scattering is a subcategory of Optics. Files should be categorized in the most specific category that applies to them, not the most specific and every category above that. If we did that with all the files there'd be 100,000 in each of the top-level categories. Adrignola (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, thank you. Sorry for my inexperience--GianniG46 (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You're now a filemover

Hi Adrignola/Archive 1, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

  • Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one.
  • Please do not tag redirects as {{speedy}}. Other projects, like InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references.
  • For guideline when to rename a file, please see Commons:File renaming and Commons:File naming.

Geagea (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! – Adrignola talk 18:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Maytenus viscidfolia Talampaya.jpg

Sorry. I mean, thanks for renaming the image, but I can't explain why i put a "d" in the should-be title. Could you possible rename the file again, to Maytenus viscifolia Talampaya.jpg? Thank you so much and best regards, → «« Man77 »» [de]·[bar] 02:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Taken care of. Enjoy! – Adrignola talk 13:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

re-rename, please

Hello. Please re-rename this picture. File:Roman Catholic church, Bačko Novo Selo, Vojvodina, Serbia.jpg Original name was File:Bácsújlak Szent Anna templom5.jpg This picture was made by an old hungarian teacher, Czini Tibor. When i upload his picture to Commons, I promisded him that we will keep the Hungarian filename and description. --Beroesz (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I just want to note that it was originally User:123iti who requested the rename. I would like to rename the file back for you, but since the old location still exists, as a redirect, I am unable to move the file back over it. Please leave a note at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and an administrator will be able to delete the redirect page and move the file back. – Adrignola talk 21:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know him. This is a stupid situation, let mi make a small explanation... The renamed picture was made in a village in Serbia, wich has a Hungarian name too. Most of the huwiki authors want to see his/her own pictures in Hungarian on Commons. (This is a example, below You can read in Hungarian: "This picture was made for the HuWiki, Upload for commons only with this filename.") The serbian authors would like to see a filename with serbian names. The Commons will lose dozens of hungarian contributors and thousand of pictures, if we canot guarantee the hungarian filenames. The uploader is an old teacher, his only wish was the hungarian filename, and the CC-BY license. Sorry for disturbance, have a nice time! --Beroesz (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, there's a same issue for me too. Could you take a look at it? File:Novi Kneževac, Serbia, railway station.jpg VT (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Taken care of. Hindsight is 20/20, but experience is the best teacher. – Adrignola talk 00:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --VT (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Oops, there's an extra space left between the filename and extension. Could you remove it? File:Törökkanizsa állomás .jpg --VT (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I cannot, I'm afraid. The original file name cannot be overwritten, though it is only a redirect. I will try to have it deleted to move the file to that location. – Adrignola talk 19:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Taken care of, now. – Adrignola talk 01:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Files and ranks

Thank you for moving (i.e. in effect renaming) File.png and Rank.png. Hopefully this will help clear up the situation at Deletion requests/File:File.png. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk • contribs), 06:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC).

No problem. No sense in deleting a file just because of the name. – Adrignola talk 13:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for renaming my file File:Carved faces at the doorway of 211 West 21st Street.jpg‎. I don't know what the previous admin thought he was doing by substituting his own judgement for that of the uploader. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The name was quite lengthy. Sometimes people forget that you can search for a file and have it come up based on the description text, so there's no need for every single bit of content to be in the name. – Adrignola talk 04:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
That seems to have been the case here. In any case, thank you for putting it to rights. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

A file uploaded by you is under deletion request

A file (or files) you uploaded from the Remote Sensing Tutorial from NASA Goddard Space Center has been tagged for deletion since that tutorial acknowledges that not all of the used images are actually NASA. (See here the overview of the tutorial). The group deletion request is here. Comments would be welcomed.--Garrondo (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure (probably due to my English) to have understood your comment. Do you think that the files are truly in the PD? Do you have a source? Why do you speak of paranoia? Could you clarify your comment in the deletion request? Sorry if this bothers you, but the remote sensing tutorial says that not all its files were made by NASA or were public domain, and right now it seems that actually most of them were copyright infrigements. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot !

Many thanks for fulfilling my requests for renaming files File:Tanew Szumy 0133.jpg and File:Tanew Szumy 0068.jpg. I cordially greet and wish you every success.--robsuper (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Please explain this edit

Please explain the above edit. I have been the OTRS agent that has handled this ticket and, as you may see, the uploader (who seems to be the copyright holder) wants to be attributed by his name. I have no access to the permission that you have linked on the talk page. Is there anything wrong with it? I am looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks, odder (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. The ticket I was looking at complained that the file showed another username that included his real name and asked for it to be changed to the anonymous User:Jek77. But you are correct, the uploader has added his name back. I then ask myself, why the ticket submission? Maybe the uploader made a mistake submitting the ticket I looked at. We can probably call it good, though, since the uploader took action himself and I'll assume that's how he really wants it despite the ticket in the sister projects-commons queue. – Adrignola talk 13:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for such a prompt reply! I now believe that ticket in the sister project-commons queue may be omitted; I have been in touch with the uploader and he didn't oppose his name being visible at the image page. I will revert your edits back to the version with the name & remove the talk page template. Thanks for sharing that information with me. Regards, odder (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Giovani fasciste

[1] [2] [3] Una definizione errata è un errore: cosa c'entra il "consenso" ? [An incorrect definition is a mistake: what does the "consensus" ?] --Ligabo (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You would need to show that others are in agreement with this change. The requested name differs from the article title that the images are used on. Perhaps a discussion on the talk page of it:Giovane Fascista, where the images are used. – Adrignola talk 14:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Non è un "cambiamento", ma una "correzione". Puoi verificare che le ragazze non sono "Giovani Fasciste" ingrandendo la foto per leggere la scritta sulla bandiera. La correzione nella voce di non sono in grado di farle, ma puoi avvertirli tu. Ciao.
[It is not a "change" but a "correction". You can verify that the girls are not "Young Fascist" by enlarging the picture to read the writing on the flag. The correction in the voice of can not make them, but you can warn them. Hello.]
--Ligabo (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the flag. I agree to make the change. – Adrignola talk 14:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Grazie a te per la cortesia. Alla prossima. [Thank you for your kindness. Until next time.] --Ligabo (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


for quick removing --Siga (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Rename filename in Cyrillic

I do not understand your message, since a while ago I was specifically advised to never keep the Cyrillic name while importing files from the English wikipedia, and always assign a new name using the Latin alphabet. Something has changed since then? --- Darwin Ahoy! 18:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

See here, for instance: Last October Dinamik got the filemover status in order to (mainly) move files from Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet. I believe there is a recommendation here not to use the Cyrillic Alphabet in filenames, as opposed to what you wrote in your summary.--- Darwin Ahoy! 18:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

People say this, and after all it is that. I can't even find the damn diff where some Admin told me to never use filenames in Cyrillic, but found a lot of discussions about the subject, where some say they do this and some say they do that. Anyway, I just wanted you to know that I didn't want to change it to my language, as I'm not even anglophone, I did it out of some Admin information (that I can't recall the name). I don't mind it being in Cyrillic, at all. Now I'll just have my tea and relax from the frustration of trying to find where is the guideline for those cases. Commons can be a bit irritating, sometimes.--- Darwin Ahoy! 19:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I had renamed a file from one language to another in my early days as a file mover and got a lot of flack for it from the people at the language wiki where it had been used as well as from the uploader himself. Commons:File renaming lists a case where a file should not be renamed just because it wasn't in English. Commons:Language policy makes the point that files can be in any language. While it's true that names in Cyrillic cannot be typed on a US/UK keyboard, copying and pasting works just fine. Until either one of the pages above makes an exception for Cyrillic, I will not risk bringing ire upon myself by complying with such rename requests. – Adrignola talk 23:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand, no problem, I'm not upset with you, I'm upset with the (now forgotten) Admin who gave me the wrong information. I actually can grasp a bit of Cyrillic, so there's no problem, really. :) --- Darwin Ahoy! 23:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


Hi Adrignola,
are you a OTRS volunteer? My question stems from this edit. If yes, it might be good to put a OTRS userbox on your userpage. --Túrelio (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have access to the sister projects queue, which includes Commons ( and However, I was not given access to, which is why I'm not in the OTRS usergroup here and haven't labelled myself as an agent. My listing can be found at OTRS/personnel. – Adrignola talk 20:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I don't know if there's a template or userbox for your "situation". I'm not on OTRS myself. --Túrelio (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Right name

Hi! Thanks for the link but the file marked "Right name" were in Polish. I'm Polish speaker and I can say that they had very not descriptive name, e.g. -> File:2 stycznia 2007 r. 026.jpg means in Polish ->"2 february of 2007, 026]]. Also this "Right name" is not my desription but the description written by the user that propose it to rename. Regards Electron Smiley kabelsalat.gif <Talk?> 13:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Quick moving

Waggons renaming

Thanks! --PetrS. (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Renaming request denied


I wasn't sure about my request so I posted a message here: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Policy about name of the author/website in picture names?. Cheers. Badzil (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a good question. I can't say I'm fond of images with "by ..." in them as there's an author field in the information template for a reason. Websites in the names are also replaced by the source field in the information template. Others have proposed random names to make Commons truly multilingual because of the description field in same said template. It's not addressed by the guidelines, so it will be good to see what feedback comes of your message. – Adrignola talk 20:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the detailed answer. Badzil (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A brief comment

An uploader on flickr can license his images here on whatever license he or she likes I long as it is he/she who is uploading the picture to Commons...and not a third party. User Rosemanios IS flickr user rosemania. You can check this or this to see who got the license changed. If not, these images would have been deleted. So, the flickr license should not matter as long as Commons user Rosemanios uploaded the image himself. But in this case it was Makthorpe--a third party--who uploaded them which was the problem on an unfree license. Luckily I contacted Rosemania and he had no problem licensing the images freely.

But of course, I understand why you wish to ask for flickr reviews on his freely licensed images to be safe but strictly speaking its not necessary provided he uploaded the photos himself on his own Common's account, I think. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Flickr is listed as the source and not the uploader on the files I looked at, so that makes them vulnerable if the Flickr user changes the license later. Otherwise reusers wouldn't have a guarantee that it was the copyright holder uploading. If they can be reviewed to verify the license at Flickr is a free one, that puts everyone's mind at ease. From my perspective anyone could register a username with the same name as a Flickr user and claim to be the copyright holder. Do we have definitive proof that the user here and the Flickr user are one and the same, say, through an OTRS ticket? – Adrignola talk 13:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Yes, I understand completely what you are saying. There have been many "impersonations by uploaders who copy a flickr author's name." But in rosemania's case, I contacted him directly on flickr and asked him if he would be willing to relicense his images here on Wikicommons which failed flickr review as "cc by 2.0" or "cc by sa 2.0"? He replied by asking me the implications of this license and I had to explain to him that it allows commercial use of these pictures. I said to him that if he was not a professional photographer, he should consider this option...but if not, I would understand and the images would be tagged for deletion. I think he really appreciated my lengthy explanation on the license because he relicensed the images I mentioned here which failed flickr review like this other one and next he even created an account for himself on Wikicommons and uploaded some pictures from his own flickr account. No one has questioned that they are his own flickr pictures but I understand your precautions. Also, no, none of his photos has an OTRS ticket. He just changes the flickr license. I have had other flickr images OTRS'ed by OTRS volunteers but none for him. And as usual, it was always a third party who uploaded an image with an unfree license. This was in the old days of 2005-2008 before OTRS permission became very strict.

As for me, I write on my Commons user page that my photos are licensed freely--so that there is no room for misunderstanding. Its not like I take hundreds of pictures anyway and fortunately Canada has full COM:FOP for most permanently situated public objects unlike even the United States....which does not allow modern sculptures or art works. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Evidence demands for User:Schoci

Hi, I see you've demanded evidence from User:Schoci that proves he has the right to license a number of images. Can I ask what is the basis of your doubt? The user has previously uploaded full sized images, un-edited from the camera, then after OTRS communication has had smaller versions over write those, then subsequently uploaded versions with a copyright watermark e.g. - there seems to be little doubt that User:Schoci is "Sascha Grabow" and "". Am I missing something? --Tony Wills (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Several of the images stated that the source of the images was and a permissions email sent to would help to guarantee that the images are legitimately made available on Commons. I was not familiar with any past history of the user, but the images I tagged listed an outside website as the source and were watermarked. They then appeared, on the surface, to be possibly downloaded from the website and uploaded here. It's just a concern that I'm sure some reusers would have, that they might have been uploaded by someone not authorized to license them. Many times people will upload files they found off the Internet somewhere and claim that they were their own work. – Adrignola talk 20:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Mountain Dew images deleted a bit too quick--thoughts?

Greetings, Adrignola. Thanks for your helpful info regarding the Mountain Dew product packaging images, which I now realize do not belong on Commons. Per your suggestion on the Mountain Dew article Talk page, I just began going through the images listed for deletion on my Commons User Talk page, with the intention of uploading them on Wikipedia one by one.

I was able to get one of them done, which you can see here. However, the rest have since been deleted entirely from commons, so I am now unable to access their image description pages. Can you recommend how we can best approach this? Is it possible for you to make the Commons image description pages accessible for the next hour or two so that I can determine which photo goes where?

I'm open to any recommendation that you have. Kind regards, Jeff Bedford (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That sure was fast. I thought they'd stick around a bit longer. I'm not an admin myself, but EugeneZelenko should be able to retrieve those descriptions for you, as I see the deletions were performed by him. – Adrignola talk 17:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I thought so too. In fact it would be no problem for the images themselves to be removed; I just need access to the text descriptions for a brief bit of time. Would you mind asking Eugene to make the text descriptions available perhaps through the end of today? Many thanks, Jeff Bedford (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I have added a request for you. – Adrignola talk 17:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey Guys, what's wrong with my self-taken Picture? --TobiToaster (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
You can see a description of the issues at Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging. It's similar to the issues with art and freedom of panorama as it regards buildings/statues. Just because you can take a picture of something, that does not necessarily make you a copyright holder able to license the image. The content depicted may be under copyright (as is the case for the Mountain Dew packaging) and your picture then becomes a derivative work. – Adrignola talk 13:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


You listed this image as a copyright violation. What evidence do you have that this image isn't available under a Creative Commons License? The flickr page from which I downloaded it lists is as a CC image, and the flickr upload bot confirmed this. The image has a watermark from the flickr user. I don't see why this image isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Pburka (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It has a watermark from I can easily create a Flickr user, put another person's website in the profile, then download a whole bunch of images from that website, pretending to be them. Some people call that license laundering. If they were CC licensed on it wouldn't be a problem, but otherwise the chain of custody of the images can't be confirmed. If the Flickr user can send an email to confirming ownership of the account and the image, it would be good. The email from them would need to be from the domain. – Adrignola talk 00:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The blog links to the flickr account. They're clearly from the same person. See Pburka (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
That is a good find and alleviates my concern. I apologize for the inconvenience. – Adrignola talk 00:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Bay-of-Piran maritime-boundary-dispute.jpg‎

Wasn't trying to create conflicting licences -- just saying that I declared my additions to the GFDL image to be PD (as explained in the text). AnonMoos (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I will add an information template to it so that things can be clarified. – Adrignola talk 17:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This DR

You marked this image. Would you care to make a comment in the DR? Did you notice the flickr account only had 6 images? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I confirmed that it was available under the stated license at Flickr. That was the extent of the meaning behind my marking. I agree that the account is suspicious and that the deletion request was appropriate. – Adrignola talk 13:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Sorry. I did not mean my comments to be taken as an accusation at all. Its just that when I see 1960's, 1970's and early 1980's era pictures uploaded here for flickr review, I usually look at the flickr account's photostream just to make sure it was not a flickr wash. There is so much flickr washes licensed freely sadly that it can be hard to tell if the flickr account owner really took the photo. Its clear that this person is no 'Alan Light' who took thousands of photos of celebrities in the 1970s, 1980's and 1990's. At least in that case, everyone knows the photos are by him. And he usually asks for attribution...which is also another sign that they are his photos. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
    No offense taken. Some of those telltale signs can only be understood once a person has gained additional experience, as you yourself have. It's good of you to share tips with others, as that will helps us all improve our effectiveness. – Adrignola talk 22:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to help with this tip. Usually, I ask Admin MGA73 to deal with the really difficult cases as he has more experience than me. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Peter Skene Ogden State Park.jpg

Hi Adrignola, the File:Peter Skene Ogden State Park.jpg can be deleted, it was my mistake. Thank you! --TeleD (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. But the most I can do is mark it as a scaled-down duplicate, which I have. An administrator should be along at some point to take care of it. – Adrignola talk 21:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


Action required - accept and transclude if that is ok? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


I read your post to the Commons mailing list. Thank you for takong the initiative for POTY2010. Though I am too busy to be active in Commons this year, I can help organizing the galleries if you have not finished some categories of them yet. Cheers.--miya (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer. There are several categories I have not gotten to yet. At this time it includes constructions, objects, plants, and animals. – Adrignola talk 12:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
OK. I'll take care of constructions and objects.--miya (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Svenska | +/−

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

Adrignola, 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 Commons:Deletion requests), 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.

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

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading.

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

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


Dear Adrignola

Unfortunately, they have deleted my pictures. (herbicide) has created the images.

They were also marked!

They are therefore private.

This is how the employees little joy.

Nevertheless, with a friendly greeting herbicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbizid (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but I do not understand your meaning. Is this related to an action I have taken? It was User:ABF who deleted that particular image; I only was made an administrator yesterday. I can direct you to Commons:Undeletion requests if you wish to appeal the deletion of a particular image, though. – Adrignola talk 13:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


You are great, and your work on photo submissions is amazing; thanks for cleaning up the backlog! VasilievVV (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! I couldn't believe there were requests from November still in there. We mustn't miss out on the potential for valuable contributions to Commons. – Adrignola talk 17:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


Hello Adrignola! Can you help me! I have some problem with one named Denniss, he does not like my photos/pictures! Why? Iam a photogrpher and all the pictures uploaded on Commons and Wikipedia are mine. I have personally stand behind the camera, and why I load them up on Wiki is because some items doesnt have pictures and som pictures of players are real old. Can you help me from Denniss? Best regards Samlarkungen

Facebook: Samlarkungen

I have already left a note at User talk:Denniss for you. – Adrignola talk 17:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Coral Harbour street.jpg

Thanks for pointing that out. I corrected the source and the license as well. CambridgeBayWeather Talk 20:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. It's now approved. – Adrignola talk 20:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphan link

about this [4] don't you trust in this special function Special:WhatLinksHere/File:NOLALow9th7Feb06Royale.jpg? Regards--Pierpao.lo (listening) 06:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You should never request speedy deletion of a redirect if the file was not moved immediately after creation. Outside projects besides Wikimedia projects use Commons as an image repository, including one of mine, and those projects will not appear in "what links here" or be corrected by CommonsDelinker. Print media that provide a link to the source images or printed PediaPress books with links to the source media will also have their links broken if you delete those redirects. – Adrignola talk 12:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Fine thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 15:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Any chance you could visit the articles and projects where images are used before you decide to delete them? It's difficult to provide information for files once they've been deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, this would be very difficult to do in practice. Take a look at files likely to be deleted in Category:Media missing permission and Category:Media without a source—administrators are falling behind going through those, so I do not know that there'd be enough time to leave comments either. There used to be a bot that would notify of deletion requests; if it could be resurrected to also notify about other issues on the talk pages of articles, that would be excellent.
Thing is, I'd have to go through backlogs twice, placing notifications, then coming back later and doing deletions, all the while tracking what I've notified for and what I haven't. I know how you feel; I was often shocked at Wikibooks to see images deleted speedily or through a request and not known about it on the project. I can offer you this: I will temporarily restore for fair use transfer to your project on request without fuss. You only need to ask and I will gladly comply. – Adrignola talk 01:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


Dear Adrignola, _the_image_you_deleted_ was allowed to be published under cc-by-sa3.0 by mail to OTRS by its author, as of 2011-03-17. Please repair ASAP!

I, BTW, was, up to now, convinced that it was COMMON's use to inform the uploader of a "questionnable_file" before deleting it.

As you unfortunately disallow wikimail, I'll send CC-similar to permissions, &BCC to author. Best, [w.] 16:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I wrote in the OTRS email to the person I'll assume may be you: As we are unable to verify the authenticity of flickrmails or to connect an email address to a flickr account, we cannot validate permissions for images from Flickr outside of this process. There is nothing questionable about the file as it is a derivative work of the images listed in its source, of which all are marked "all rights reserved" at . The Flickr user must place both images you used under a free license as we cannot confirm that an email sent in is that of the Flickr user. The OTRS system doesn't handle that; there is a review process here for that. – Adrignola talk 18:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
He (The Flickr user, a professional Viennese photographer, who is not identical with me, D.I.D_S.O, or, better: Tried to do so.
He possibly misnamed the address.
-- I forwarded his OK (CC) to OTRS, recently.
Are you aware how difficult it is to get ANY material from ANY PRO's?
-- Just go ahead in YOUR_KIND_OF "cleaning_up". This world will be grateful about -- or, maybe, not really. --[w.] 13:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


Dear Adrignola, I have been looking in for instance File:Raul Vaigla1 - Ultima Thule, 2006.jpg to review its license. Now the "Attribution-ShareAlike" link says, according to a computertranslation, something close to what is said in summaries of cc-by-sa licenses, but it is not actually linking to creative commons. Shouldn't there be made a template like {{Attribution}} for images licensed like this? Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There should, as it is not under the terms of the Creative Commons license. – Adrignola talk 14:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
How about {{Attribution Share Alike}}? I just created it. Lymantria (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Should be good in my mind. You can seek another opinion at Commons talk:Licensing if you wish. – Adrignola talk 16:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I left a message there. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Uli Metzner fürs Album.JPG

I don't understand why my foto has been deleted. There was a strange 'discussion' I have the impression no one had a look at IMSLP Petrucci-Projekt. Again and again: it is onlay a foto on a site which enables to get music free of charge. And the contrast to this anachronistic action is not to understand. I never had the idea to make money with this site. So what?

--Metzner (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You should not see it as a referendum on any of your activities elsewhere. If you examine our project scope, it details the point that photos of users that are unused do not serve to advance the educational mission of the Wikimedia Commons. It says nothing about other sites that you visit or you yourself. The discussion was regarding that photo and not you personally. If you choose, you can request undeletion and then make use of it at User:Metzner, but it cannot be unused as it is then out of scope for this particular website. – Adrignola talk 12:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
well - my point of view was: the foto is used in the IMSLP just as a foto of a member of this project.

So I call it used. Does the Petrucci project not count as a part of the wiki family ?? It seems as if the IMSLP doesnt count. I fear that no one has looked on different sides of IMSLP to get some information about those fotos. my point of view: does this foto any crime or harm? Is it in any case dangerous or has it a bad influence to the young people? Is it somehow typical capitalistic or too bad in his communist attitude? In german we would say: ... machs halblang, oder den ball flachhalten oder nicht übertreiben. oder 'weniger wäre mehr' oder 'mit Kanonen auf Spatzen schiessen' Best greetings

--Metzner (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that I am not familiar with those projects. It is true that when examining use of a photo external sites are not taken into account, as it is expected that they will then upload the file locally and provide the proper license information there. The file is definitely not harmful, just not within the scope of the files that Commons would ideally carry. If you feel otherwise, Commons:Undeletion requests provides a forum where you can seek opinions from others as well. – Adrignola talk 13:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

OTRS images

Thank you for processing these images. I have worked with this author for two years now and I used to forward her Flickr permissions to OTRS. When OTRS made the transition to having the license switched over, I began doing that with all of the authors I collaborate with. However, this author prefers to use this method, and as she provides a steady level of images that would otherwise be difficult to get elsewhere, I prefer to have us do a little more work instead of putting the burden on her. Like I said, I use the accepted practice of license changing for everyone else, and at most, this probably only happens maybe once a month for this particular author. I appreciate you taking the time to assist at OTRS, I processed tickets for a while but just wasn't cut out for it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 00:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. It's often a delicate balance between trying not to overburden contributors with onerous requirements and also covering ourselves when we say that permission has been confirmed. – Adrignola talk 01:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I know it's not the best, but I'd rather have us do a few extra steps then shift the burden to the author. It's only one of the dozens I work with, so it's not too overwhelming I hope. I would have processed the OTRS tickets myself, but that obviously would defeat the checks and balances in place. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to add the permissions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 03:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Your vote

Hello Adrignola!

Concerning my posting on the vandal noticeboard, I want to add some explanation. I simply forgot to check the user log of the uploader, not seeing that he was registered only some minutes before the copyvio upload. Additionally, the two mentions of the same filename here led me to the assumption that it was a revenant by the same person, and thus I filled the report, but without any punitive action in mind. On the German WP, there are often blocks for 6 to 24 hours to enforce the reading and understanding of policies, something similar was more my thinking as a conclusion for the report... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. That helps clarify the rationale for the posting. I've often heard that the German Wikipedia is run like a tight ship (I have noticed the heavy use of pending changes/flagged revisions). The use of blocks to enforce warnings at is interesting; it's certainly counter to the English-language wiki culture of not applying blocks until warnings have been given (unless potential for damage is severe). This situation, while pretty trivial I admit, would probably support those who wish to see you have some more time in the trenches so to speak. I find that hands-on experience is the best way to learn things in many aspects of life. Thus I remain confident a future referendum will be overwhelmingly in support. If you're looking to address some people's concerns about Commons namespace edits, you can also peruse Commons:Categories for discussion, which gets far less attention than Commons:Deletion requests and is another way to get to know Commons more intimately since it deals with the management of the nearly ten million files. – Adrignola talk 13:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Women with black hair

Hallo Adrignola, you have redired Category:Women with black hair. Where is the discussion for this decision? Why did you do it? There is nothing in the edit comment. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Women with black hair had a requested move since October 24 by Jacklee, see perm link stating "In line with the discussion at Category talk:Women with blond hair". Taking a look at the bottom of that page we see unanimous support for merging Category:Women with blond hair into Category:Female blond hair and by extension Category:Women with black hair into Category:Female black hair. – Adrignola talk 01:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello again Adrignola, thank you. Sorry, I missed to actually see on the old revs to see the link to the discussion page. I have put a comment in the history so others can understand your edit easier. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Rel3dpythag.gif

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Rel3dpythag.gif|base=Dw image source}}Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Had no idea this was a derivative of a file at Wikipedia when I moved it from Wikibooks in January 2010. I have no idea where the source file came from. – Adrignola talk 01:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Because the file was copied from Wikipedia to Wikibooks [5]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You've just broken 100 links on Wikipedia

Please see [6]. Exxolon (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I replied there. – Adrignola talk 18:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Socks across the wikispace

ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk · contribs) was recently blocked on wikipedia for a variety of reasons, but in a confirmed sockpuppet of a long-term POV pushing sockpuppeter. However, their commons account is still open and making edits. Is the sockblock on wikipedia applicable here, or can they continue to work unless it is raised somewhere in commons? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You can post information to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems‎. – Adrignola talk 12:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
If edits like this and this are not POV pushing, I am not certain what is. Chipmunk and other vandal are in this together because they agree on their own definition of boundaries. I had everything explained and sourced.
It is also notable that while Chipmunk has been eager to revert my edits after being banned, he ignored the fact that another sockpuppeteer en:user:Mov25 has been blocked for disruption - [7],[8],[9]. Giving a blind eye to the other sock proves that for Chipmunk maintaining articles according to his beliefs is more important than whatever moral or procedural justifications he has been trying to hide behind in my particular case. To celebrate my defeat, one of the socks even placed a gigantic Armenian flag on my page which, if not honest editors, would probably be there forever as Chipmunk reacts promptly only to edits that counter his views.--ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This situation looks remarkably similar to the two editors warring with each other on maps as described at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#File:Flag_map_of_Navarre.svg. Are you two combating each other here after the block at Wikipedia? Commons is a separate project and blocks at Wikipedia don't automatically result in blocks here. But if you're continuing disputes from there by upload/edit warring images that are included on articles where you were disputing before, blocks to prevent disruption could be needed until you can work together amicably. For now I'm enforcing a cool-down on the image that appears to be in dispute. You need to discuss things rationally and come to an agreement. I cannot rule on the issue because I am not familiar with the particulars. – Adrignola talk 03:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, myself and the other vandal indeed. As for the other sockpuppeteer, I have no idea what he's up to, and no idea if they're making edits here. I await the Comtesse's discussion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Please revert the change that you just made to the Europe location map. I gave my reasoning on the talk page and if you are a reasonable person, those three lines will refute the "argument" put forth by the opposing editor. As I explained on File talk:Blank map of Europe (polar stereographic projection) cropped.svg, his demands are unreasonable.--ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you guys have seen admins revert to pre-edit-war versions of articles at Wikipedia. This is the same thing. I will not get involved beyond that or decide who is "right" or "wrong". The goal here is for you guys to discuss it and come to an agreement so that when the protection expires a productive discussion has been held and a new version can be uploaded and the revert war can stop. Failing that you can upload to a new file name and have two independent representations coexisting. Commons has multiple images on topics so there's no need to consider one file the definitive version. – Adrignola talk 14:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This dispute will never be resolved until the aforementioned user eliminates ALL maps that do not suit him, did you even read my post on the map talk? He created a map of his own and started purging pages of the old one with edit summaries like "a better map". How can he demand that one map include multiple definitions when his own map is single-sided? I will go and make the same demands on his map and that is not how this dispute is going to be resolved.--ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
diffs diffs diffs? I haven't created any maps, the Comtesse is just edit warring against another user and then myself and a third user. Cometesse has continued this reverting on other maps, trying to "source" his version from the opinion of a greek geographer who lived in the 5th century BC, even though they has been told that they should not change preexisting maps, they continue to revert on some maps and then hypocritically cite the multiple copies guideline to others. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I was not saying you were creating any maps so relax. I was talking about Dbachmann and you can see that by just clicking his contributions button. I have wasted enough of my time countering his baseless arguments on Europe location map talk page. Not surprisingly, no one appears to care. But if Chipmunk or Dbachmann throw a sentence of discontentment here and there, all must put their lives on hold to see how the dispute ends. You are nothing but bullies hiding behind carefully chosen technicalities of wikipedia rules and I hope someday, in real life, you get a decent return on this "investment."--ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, he's following the guideline you refuse to I see. Glad to know your single post to the discussion was a huge waste of time. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that editors like ComtesseDeMingrelie get to do more than a couple of edits before ending up permabanned imho shows an administrative problem on commons. Perhaps commons admins are less used to disruptive behaviour than wikipedia ones, but I can tell you that a user who is so blatantly misbehaving would not have lasted for more than a couple of days. --Dbachmann (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


You deleted Pirate_Party_of_Canada_signet.svg because "Only noncommercial use permitted" - however it is a symbol for a noncommercial entity - it is a public political party in Canada and the image is in the open space because of the organisation's desination, at least in Canadian law. Let me know on my enwiki talk pls. Outback the koala (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Adrignola, I noticed something is wrong with the permission of our logo. Can you give me some details please? -- Thunderbike Customs Germany (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

A proper license needs to be sent in, as the logo is beyond the threshold of originality needed to qualify for copyright. It is not in the public domain because it is not simple geometric shapes or text. If you word your submission in English it will also be processed faster as well. – Adrignola talk 12:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, stars and circles are (from my point of view) simple geometric shapes. I posted our logo the same way other simple logos are shown on commons. Check for example. Let me know if you want to remove it. Regards -- Thunderbike Customs Germany (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, rather than the Commons admins debating whether it is public domain, you can instead email us at the previous address and declare that the image is public domain (preferably the Creative Commons Zero license). That will settle the issue. – Adrignola talk 13:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
If it is not public domain by itself, we will use the simple version of our logo. Regards -- Thunderbike Customs Germany (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

OTRS templates on

Hi, Adrignola

OTRS templates have been implemented on Maybe you would like to substitute the manual textbox on the chat page of Nýlistasafnið for an ConfirmationOTRS template. And, oh, almost forgot, let me know if any additional templates are needed on (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. – Adrignola talk 01:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Mapping data

In response to message on this OTRS ticket, I agree mere data is not copyrightable in general. However, maps like this are definitely covered by copyright, but it only consists of sets of data with some trivial formatting - the important element is the data not the formatting.

I have been very cautious on this issue, possibly too much so, but that is because I know that Ordnance Survey protects its data; I've had similar data requests to other organisations turned down because of OS restrictions.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate you providing your perspective on things. One always discovers new intricacies in the world of copyright and this helps to further my comprehension of it. – Adrignola talk 02:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

File:HommageClaudeBLevenson .jpg


Just read the ticket : the permission is still insufficient. There is no proof that the sender of the email is really the author of the picture. We need to confirm a such link for each ticket.--Bapti 20:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I am then deleting the image as far too much time has elapsed to continue waiting for a response. – Adrignola talk 20:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Got an email and forwarded it in. If you believe it should be kept, these are the delinks. – Adrignola talk 13:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


Can you explain to me why this image was deleted? -> File:Salomons-kapel1.jpg

I never received a warning that it would be deleted or that it was missing appropriate licenses.

I still have the email stating that the owner has released the image under the correct license CC-BY-SA-2.5-DK.

Kind regards --Rodejong (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

We never received an email back from Morten Svenningsen regarding the license for the photographs. We cannot, unfortunately, take your word for the copyright holder's desired license. We have to hear it from them. The OTRS agent copied you on the email, dated October 23, 2010 with ticket number 2010101310000473 in the subject line. If Morten Svenningsen can reply to that with an explicit statement of the terms and conditions (license) under which we can use the files File:Salomons-kapel-dør.jpg and File:Salomons-kapel1.jpg, then they can be restored. – Adrignola talk 01:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I have access to the email logs. You stated that they are under that, but the Morten did not. He wrote "I hereby release the two attached pictures from Salomons Kapel under following license: _. (__) AND (__)_ " ... He never filled in the form to let us know. If you can get in contact with him and have him clarify that, the issue will be resolved. – Adrignola talk 01:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ralph Wallace Burton photo

Hi Adrignola,

I see you removed my Ralph Wallace Burton photo due to lack of permissions. I was waiting on the formal permission from his relatives in writing and should have it shortly (they had already given me informal permission, so I was just waiting for them to give it to me in writing so I could provide this to Wikipedia -- I should have this shortly). What's the best way to do this. Is there a form I should use? I've uploaded many images, but they've always been Creative Commons (and thus, easy to do) vs. specific permission to Wikipedia to use an image. Please adivse if you can help.

Thanks in advance --Kathleen5454 (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I would highly recommend the form seen at Commons:Email templates. If every email sent in to the OTRS system followed this basic format, there would be less hassle having to send back requests for more specific permission. So if you have copyright holders use that form, they won't have to be bothered multiple times as clarification is sought. That form covers the license, the item in question, and also makes several important points aware to the copyright holder all at the same time. – Adrignola talk 03:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

New Admin Help

Is this useful?. I ask because it took me a couple of weeks to learn about the first and I just learned about the second today.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that all the information on that page is useful. The DelReqHandler and Quick Delete tools really speed things up and make administration far less menial, allowing you to focus on the subject matter at hand. The section "Examining a Deleted File without Undeleting It" is a good one to point out, as I've seen admins restore a file to look at it, when they don't have to. I knew about that only because of experience as an admin at Wikibooks. There are quite a few useful gadgets available, including for admins, so pointing them out to new administrators is a good thing. – Adrignola talk 14:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Kelsey_Griffin.jpg removed

I see that Kelsey_Griffin.jpg has been removed diff because of an OTRS problem. Can you tell me what the problem is so I can rectify it?--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

An email was received from the uploader providing image names and license names and an email was sent to the photographer Danny Karwoski at the address provided by the uploader to confirm that both were correct. This was on September 5, 2010. No response was received to confirm that the photographer agreed to the terms and conditions. – Adrignola talk 14:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Danny sent the permission to me. I forwarded it on. Is that not sufficient? Should I send it again? Or do you need something direct from Danny?--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Checking my email history, it looks like I sent the wording to Danny for him to use, and send to you, but he simply sent it to me. My guess is that this is the problem. I can try again, but can you confirm that if he sends the following email to it will be sufficient?
If he sends that to, it will be sufficient. – Adrignola talk 20:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I've received it and the photos have been restored. – Adrignola talk 00:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

File:DC3 Logo.jpg

This logo was contributed by Dan Catullo head of DC 3 whom also sent a letter allowing its use on Wikipedia. Do you have a reason for removing the logo?? [Letter of release for DC 3 logo] sent: [Ticket#2011020310009756] To: Subject: FW: wiki File:DC3_Logo.jpg authorization letter Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 06:55:02 -0800

WPPilot--WPPilot (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Permission to use on Wikipedia" is not adequate enough. Dan Catullo did not provide a statement that the logo would be released under a license acceptable at Commons (such as certain Creative Commons licenses or the GFDL), which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, including commercial usage and derivative works (subject to applicable laws). No timely response was received to the OTRS team member's request for this. You have the option to upload under fair use terms at Wikipedia here. – Adrignola talk 03:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

OTRS has received permission for the file File:DC3 Logo.jpg from DC3 Global, LLC. The OTRS ticket # is 2011020310009756 . Can you please undelete this file? --Sreejith K (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Restored. – Adrignola talk 12:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


Hey, sorry! I have question!

If i edit not my work and send this work to the commons , it's not may work?

Beacuse if it not my work, then someone must delete this :(:

sorry :( --Muffi (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying that you simply edited someone else's photographs and thought that made them your own work? – Adrignola talk 23:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes!, so am i a new author of this works, or not ? :(
Sorry, that means you are not. The author would be the photographer and permission would need to have been obtained to use the photographs. I appreciate your honesty, however. – Adrignola talk 23:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh! :(, so can you fixed this, in this case, delete??, because if it does not give me a permission, someone can be mad at me :( --Muffi (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I have deleted them. See if you can get photographers to submit permission for images that you find in the future using the form at Commons:Email templates. – Adrignola talk 23:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay!, thanks, i'm sorry :'( --Muffi (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Ewa Ostrowska.jpg ‎

You deleted File:Ewa Ostrowska.jpg ‎. Why? There was OTRS permission! --WTM2 (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Not true at all. You uploaded it on December 9 with {{OTRS pending}} and nothing was received and no OTRS team members marked it as having correspondence related to it having been received, much less permission confirmed. I searched for the file name in our system and did not find it either. If you wish to actually send in an email or have the copyright holder send in an email for it, it can be restored. – Adrignola talk 12:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Fortunately we've received an OTRS permission for the file but it hasn't been added by the OTRS agent to the file description page. I have now restored the file and added the ticket number -- see #2010120910019235 for details. odder (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

OTRS communication around File:OsramSevenScreens.tif

Hi, you deleted the file because the OTRS archived permission was insufficient. Can you send me a copy of that permission including the mail-address of the sender, because I'd like to try to get a better permission by them. Otherwise I will move the file to deWP, because it is covered by our FOP. TIA --h-stt !? 13:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Technically no communications were received in to the OTRS system at all. The uploader claimed an email was sent in since the initial upload but one was never received. The source was listed as Osram Seven Screens if you'd like to get in contact with them. – Adrignola talk 13:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Thx, I'll try to get permission, but this sounds not too promising. And it looks like while the screens are permanent, the actual images, films and active content they show is temporary, so not covered by German FOP. Too bad. Anyway, thanks for the reply and the info. --h-stt !? 08:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

my photos

I have just sent an authorization for (forgot to do it previously). This was my mistake. Quahadi Añtó 15:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I ,however, have sent permission for the {{Dijana.gugic-Picasa}} and {{BorisFrkovic_Picasa}} for which I had no answer from you OTRS crew.Quahadi Añtó 15:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

So, in the mean time I'd ask you not delete them with such speed.Quahadi Añtó 09:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Jan Faukner

Please undo deleting files from Jan Faukner; I have send to wikipedia commons OTRS mail with cc-by-sa 3.0 licence via admin Podzemnik. Everything was fine and correct!!! All files´s author is:Jan Faukner and source: Jan Faukner. Thank you very much, --Svajcr (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No permission confirmation was placed on the files since January by any trusted members of our team. No notice that any emails were even received was indicated. Before deleting, I did a search for "Jan Faukner", "Jan_Faukner", "Faukner Jan", and "Faukner_Jan" and got no results. Please resend. Additionally, the files listed no source, author, or description, which are essential information for the files. – Adrignola talk 14:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Idon´t understand it. I have sended a lot of files, a lot of photos of czech photographers - and there were no problems... Some little mistake from our admins... Today I have uploaded these files again, i have send OTRS mail from autor Jan Faukner again to the czech adress for OTRS; again, again again... Sorry. You are too quick, speedy for me:-). Please, next time, send me a message before deleting (my files), ask me, what is is the problem - where and with ... Thank you very much, and sorry for my english, --Svajcr (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I uploaded all files again. I have a good licence from author. Please, do not delete the pictures. Thank You very much, --Svajcr (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


Can you advice me what now? Regarding ticket No. 2011042310006155 regarding 4 images, one of which is File:Zočište Monastery.jpg? I am in contact with photographer, he took those images for his blog. --WhiteWriter speaks 18:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a page at which confirms the email address we received permission from as belonging to the owner of that blog? Otherwise we can not be sure that they are the same person that uploaded those images to the blog. (That'd let anyone send in statements that they give permission for some images they found on ___ website online if we didn't seek to verify authenticity of claims). Optionally, the owner could post the license for the images below them in a comment or note their email address, even temporarily, in the blog. But we need some way to know. – Adrignola talk 20:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
But, my friend, i found his e-mail on the blog! His homepage on Blogger have e-mail option, and there you can see it! :) --WhiteWriter speaks 21:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out. I have marked the images as having permission confirmed. One had the uploader request its deletion, so that is the only exception. – Adrignola talk 22:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Ооо, i just requested move! Wrong title... :) It's here! File:Sv Jovan, Velika Hoča.jpg. Please, just fix tag for this one also. Thanks for your cooperation. --WhiteWriter speaks 18:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Liste over radiodirektører i NRK

Bildet tatt av Morten Krogvold er fjernet. Jeg har en scannet tillatelse der han gir tillatelse til at bildet kan brukes under GNU Free Documentation Licence. Har ikke den kommet fram, eller er ikke det nok? Mvh Arnfinn Christensen

Vennligst epost til – Adrignola talk 22:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

deleted photos

Some photos were deleted by a bot an couple of days ago, from Steamtown, USA. I have the permission of the owner, an online acquaintance, to use the photos. If I uploaded them incorrectly, I would have liked to have had a chance to fix the problem before they were deleted, but it was sudden and without warning. Your username was attached to the action, so that is why I am writing to you. This is a GA article that was on DYK, and I hope to some day have it FA, so this matters to me. --Ishtar456 (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

and I have no idea why that link and my username are showing up red. Had a hard time posting this.--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The photos were uploaded in July without permission from anyone at the aforementioned website where they were taken from. In September you marked the files as having an email sent in to OTRS. Due to backlogs (which have been eliminated at this point), the email was not processed until October. However, that email did not contain a release under a license (permission for use is not enough) and beyond that it was not from John Simakauskas' email listed as the contact for, Instead it was from an ISP email address from someone else (maybe you?). "OTRS received" is not a confirmation of permission and so I was obliged to take them down after six months with no confirmation following the last communication and nine months after initial upload. (Both of those time periods are far beyond the norm, but only occurred due to backlogs clearing out unresolved OTRS received media; that is also being remedied for outstanding "OTRS pending" media). User:HersfoldOTRSBot should be made operational again for the convenience of uploaders, but the onus is on the uploader to clear up an image's status, as OTRS pending/received is not a carte blanche for images that would otherwise be clear copyright violations (due to already being published online). – Adrignola talk 18:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
John Simakauskas needs to specify the files and the license by filling in the form at Commons:Email templates and sending it to from – Adrignola talk 22:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear friend! I'm a spanish professor (my User is: Jesromtel) and I see you have delated a fotography that I up to the entry "Manuel Cabada Castro". Manuel Cabada himself sent me that potography, but I don´t know what I must to write for Wikipedia know I have permission for using that photography... If I tell you the e-mail of Manuel Cabada could you ask him about that photo?? Please, it's important for spanish philosophers that the entry about Manuel cabada Castro have the last format with that picture... Regards! Jesús

You can email me directly when logged in by clicking "e-mail this user" at the left in the toolbox or you can send relevant information to – Adrignola talk 21:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Pirate Party of Canada signet.svg

Hi! The file you deleted was nominated for undeletion: COM:UDEL#File:Pirate Party of Canada signet.svg, and your input in that discussion will be very helpful. Trycatch (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I provided a nice long explanation. I hope it is helpful. – Adrignola talk 23:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Trycatch (talk) 08:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Photo of Charlene Wittstock

Hi! I've noticed that a photograph I found on Flickr was deleted due to copyright violations. Apparently, the user who uploaded it on Flickr lied about the licence. File:Charlene Wittstock.jpg should be deleted as well, since it's a crop of the original photograph I made. Thanks, Surtsicna 08:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the honesty! – Adrignola talk 12:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Flickr Otrs

What happen here. Could you explain more. Regards!! Ezarateesteban 16:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The license at Flickr prohibits commercial use and derivatives. I cannot associate an email address with a Flickr account. It is easy as pie to register a free email address with the name shown on the Flickr account and try to pass one's self off as the Flickr user. The only way these will be verified is if the Flickr user changes the license on Flickr to cc-by or cc-by-sa. I tried to contact the Flickr user for clarification but did not get any response. – Adrignola talk 16:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair use upload bot uploads to Wikibooks

Hi Adrignola, just letting you know the bot has just uploaded the files you marked at wikibooks:Category:Fair use candidates from Commons. Please help ensure that these are processed in a timely manner and deleted if necessary. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


As you appear to be involved with planning, this is a notification that I have removed the click tracking that was added to a "find out how to vote" link at This is a massive breach of faith with our users, in my opinion. I have also had the db searched for other active, live, links and found none. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting that. I was not actively watching that page to see the change. I can assure you that it won't happen again. – Adrignola talk 03:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the diligence. I know another user found a second one prior to the db search and reverted it as well. <sigh> 36 hours of tracking data. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Voters

While the section breaks may help avoid a few edit conflicts, it makes it more difficult to put the names in alphabetical order using a spreadsheet. Tonight, there has only been one maybe two people approving names at a time. The section breaks make life harder tbh. cheers --Guerillero 03:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are you using a spreadsheet? If the names are placed in alphabetical ordering from the start then no difficulty in life need be encountered. – Adrignola talk 04:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
We were putting the names at the end of the list to order later. Remember there were about 25 names to be approved and a person was adding their name every 2 minutes or so. It made for a busy night. Now things have slowed down I guess it will not be needed anymore --Guerillero 04:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


Hola, las imágenes que has marcado, corresponden a textos hechos con fuentes libres, no son logos originales. ¿que puedo hacer?. Pierrot de Lioncourt カバー!!!カバー!!! 14:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Adrignola. You have new messages at Dferg's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Dferg (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

File:C60 Buckyball croped.gif

please also restore this croped version of File:C60 Buckyball.gif --Akkakk (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. I had to make the license more restrictive to not infringe on the author's (through email) licensing of the original. – Adrignola talk 15:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

OTRS ticket

Please confirm the permission for my images. This author at first had put his images in cc-by but he revoked it later. I had to asked him and he gave me the permission in this method --Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This has to be sent in to A copied and pasted statement on the image's page will not be verifiable or acceptable. Thanks. – Adrignola talk 12:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
But I sent it to That is forwarded mail--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I did a search for both and Anneliese and Dimitry Loiseau and could not find any emails in our system to verify this. If you still have the original, could you forward it again? Otherwise I don't know that I can be of any help here. – Adrignola talk 14:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, what are you talking about. I want you to confirm the permission for File:Dylan Sprouse 2010.jpg, File:Dylan Sprouse 2010 2.jpg and File:Cole Sprouse 2010.jpg. You hold the ticket for them, rights--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking you were discussing the image you were discussing on Magog the Ogre's talk page. I'll state what I stated to the submitter of the ticket:
As explained at Commons:Flickr files, images from Flickr can be used on Wikimedia Commons without the need for email verification of permission.
Please ask the Flickr user to place his/her image under one of the two licenses that Wikimedia Commons accepts, that is to say Creative Commons Attribution and Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike.
To edit a license, the owner of the image should sign in and go to the image in question, then under Additional Information, the first line will read "All rights reserved" or "some rights reserved". The owner will see a link (edit) next to this, and should click the link and choose the "Attribution Creative Commons" or "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons" option, then click Save.
Then add the tag {{Flickrreview}} to the image description page which will add it to the review queue.
We are unable to verify the authenticity of Flickrmails or to connect an email address to a Flickr account, and so we cannot validate permissions for images from Flickr outside of this process. – Adrignola talk 12:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
But the author only sent me the email and he didn't do anything else. I tried to contact with him again but no reply now--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Potentially he will respond to comments left on the Flickr site itself, either in a message sent to him directly or left underneath the photos. We have to take precautions and ensure that the Flickr user is the one releasing the images. – Adrignola talk 13:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

But some users post images to commons by this way and their images are accepted--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
So my images can be accepted?--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I will send a message to the Flickr user for confirmation of the licensing for those images. – Adrignola talk 12:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you should confirm the images soon because the article dylan and cole sprouse is lack of images about them--Hoangquan hientrang 06:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
At first the user said they could be used, but when I asked for explicit agreement to the CC-BY-SA license shown here, I did not get a response. I cannot yet confirm them. – Adrignola talk 12:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Please inform what have I do to make the image [Nastya_Zyurkalova.jpg] fully legal? [User:i_rodionov] 21:23, 03 May 2011 (UTC)
The permission seems to be from a person depicted in the photograph, but the copyright holder of a photograph is the person who took the photograph, rather than a person who appears in it, unless the copyright is transferred by operation of law or contract. Can you please have the photographer send in a free license release for this image, or clarify how the copyright was transferred? Documentation should be via email, referencing ticket 2011050310011345. – Adrignola talk 21:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The photographer is unknown and all the materials concerning the picture including the real paper image before digitizing is in hold of Anastasiya Zurkalova who prooved her right for the picrure and may be a subject to send a permission for publication. I personally is just a proxy herein, but if you want any other proof for the right of Anastasiya for the picture please state it. ;i_rodionov talk 23:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I need permission from the photographer or an indication that copyrights have been transferred as a work of hire or through a contract. The original email did not clarify this. If you cannot contact the photographer or furnish this proof then I'm afraid we cannot use the image. Images have to be clearly free for us to use them. – Adrignola talk 13:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


Regarding my OTRS cases, I need feedback.Quahadi Añtó 16:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Are there particular files that are OTRS pending or not yet confirmed? I looked through many of your uploads and don't see that OTRS is handling them since they're your own work. – Adrignola talk 16:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
As you can see on my profile: there are five (5) pending cases . Quahadi Añtó 07:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I did a search for them and did not get any results. However, I also am not able to view the OTRS tickets that correspond to the ones that you had approved listed above that. Whatever queue they got moved to or whatever email address you sent to I do not have access to. I can access emails sent to as long as they are not moved. If they are in another language other than English they may have been moved to a queue for a specific language that I have no access to. Are the permissions provided by the copyright holders in English? If not, then that would explain the delay and my inability to see them. – Adrignola talk 12:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)