User talk:Adrignola/Archive 3

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 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →


This Nomination

Dear Admin Adrignola,

I think its only fair to let you know about Hoangquan_hientrang's third application to be a LR in case you have a statement or vote to make. I also thought you may wish to just read my vote. I'm not taking sides...I just made a vote and explained some difficulties with FOP. I think I can trust him with marking flickr images and right now Commons is drowning with human review needed images. You can vote however you wish on this nomination, of course. As for OTRS, as I mentioned to you, its not really correct to delete an image which has OTRS permission if the flickr license still says 'ARR.' Flickr owners are very sensitive in changing the actual flickr license.

The key thing is this: 'Do you trust the uploader'? If I or Nehrams2020 uploaded an image with an OTRS permission would you accept the permission or not? I think you might but if its a new or unfamiliar uploader then you likely would not. I have uploaded several thousand images to Commons and only had 1 deleted (it was a derivative at a time when I was new here...and I asked Kanonkas to delete it myself) That way one can avoid cases like this disgrace . Four or Seven weeks later and this DR is still open because no one checked the OTRS message?? I can accept Hoangquan_hientrang's statement here sadly. Over to you on the LR request. BTW, I have never contact this person. I just mark his work. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about the human review backlog tomorrow. As for fake OTRS tags, the page's history will show a tag "OTRS permission added by non-OTRS member", so we must be sure to patrol the log of them. If you or anyone else uploaded an image with OTRS permission tags on it I'd definitely check it as only those with OTRS access should be tagging unless one of them gave you a generic tag for a site or a ticket number ahead of time. Trust, but verify. – Adrignola talk 03:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: It's good that you made a comment in the license review nomination. That way one doesn't just get one side of the conversation here. As for the reason why the flickr human review category is so backlogged, its all because of a Vietnamese user named Paris 16...who also knows about flickr licenses but somehow never ever uploads images from flickr with a {{flickrreview}}. I had to ask Admin MGA73 here to use his bot to review all this guy's images from January 2011 until now. (Paris 16 did the same in 2010 and and MGA73 had to order his mga73bot to tag Paris 16's images with flickrreviews then.) Sadly Paris 16 doesn't seem to understand English. So, MGA73 ran his bot again yesterday and came up with 137 unreviewed images for his image uploads in 2011....which accounts for the mess at human flickr review right now. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Bahrain Center for Human Rights pictures.

I have responded to the topic. please check it (Click here) Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will have to see what other people think. My goal here is to have others let me know if I have done things correctly. – Adrignola talk 19:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Summary states that some picture published in it are not it's own. For example this picture: File:Clashes with security forces after arrest of Alkhawaja and Mushaima on 2 February 2007.jpg is published on, but it says in the website that it was taken from AFP. Also File:Irish fact-finding delegation at Rajab's home.jpg orginally published on Facebook page for the president of the Bahrain Center (Nabeel Rajab) had a description which stated the copyright status for it.

What I'm trying to illustrate here is that those picture which made you suspicious were already tagged as not owned by Bahrain Centre for Human Rights or Nabeel Rajab and it was the employee mistake for not noticing that, not the website it self.

What I'm requesting is that you ask for the specific links in future, but keep in the accepted websites list. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like an acceptable solution to me. – Adrignola talk 12:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Great. I have provided the full links for many pictures already, can you care to check them out? thanks Mohamed CJ (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

one blender file has survived

this: File:GETextur.png (context Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blender.svg). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Nuked it. Thanks. – Adrignola talk 02:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

These 3 images & three different situations

  1. The above image is a derivative. I wonder how you would classify it.
  1. This is from the CIA web site. I saw it there. Its not unsourced.
  1. You ordered a flickrreview here but the uploader never did give a flickr source...though in the image discussion page an Anon Ip asks for a deletion. This image has been here for 4 years now. Its a good image but I am sure it is NOT a copyright violation. Why? Because on July 23, 2011, (the same day) the uploader--now on his own account says here that he wants 5 or 6 images deleted. IF he was not the uploader, how could he have access to this Commons account 3.5 years after the last activity in 2008? This tells me that the uploader did upload the image and that the Anon Ip is the Commons uploader...the same person who uploaded the image in 2007. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: The nominator seems to say that the images he nominates should be deleted since they are unused but who knows if they were used or not on wikipedia. That is not important. The question is whether they are useful. Most certainly are but I would tag this image with a speedy delete since its quite useless: File:Cruz del Tercer Milenio 022.jpg

No one knows why he changes his mind 3.5-4 full years after upload but the few images he uploaded here are of high resolution and useful to Commons, in my view. So, I don't understand your actions here with the nsd. The nominator never asked for it to be deleted and yet you asked for a flickrreview and then you tag it with a nsd without going to a formal DR. This isn't right...and you're shortcutting the process. Why? In this case, surely the nominator is the uploader with the evidence I give you? If you want a deletion still (even though the uploader did NOT ask for one), this image must go to a formal DR...not to a nsd and as I recall freely licensed images are usually not revocable. The uploader NEVER says he didn't take the pictures he's nominating for deletion; he says since they're not used they should be deleted from His own Common's account. So, he didn't post the picture here and yet he has direct access to this Common's account...that uploaded the very same pictures! Who do you believe: him or the Common's account evidence? All this is indirect admission to me that he is the photographer and he is Senor J. Rodinis as he says when he first uploaded the image. So, why the nsd tagging of his pictures? The images were freely uploaded and should be irrevocable...except for the one I mentioned which is out of Common's scope. Please think carefully here on your next actions. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The first was a duplicate and it has been redirected to the older one. The second one has been adjusted in line with your findings. The others are sourced to Flickr but have no valid links to Flickr files to show evidence of their licensing. They are watermarked to an individual and we do not have permission from them. So the issue is not the uploader nominating for deletion, but rather whether the license is valid and whether permission is received. – Adrignola talk 15:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I see what you mean. Several of the images with metadata have different camera models--Fuji, Canon, Blackberry. Even the Fuji taken pictures have different camera types. So, it looks like a copy vio but I can't be sure due to the passage of time. But the problem is the same: the uploader now claims that he doesn't want some of his images here. This could be an attempt by the nominator to delete his images after he changed his mind. (like Marku1988 tried here before he quit Commons) Look at Marku 1988, he lied to get those images deleted...and the Community discovered this. However, when the nominator Controls the Commons account, everything changes, Admin Adrignola...even when there is no given flickr source. That is my point. Normally, if it was a standard copyright violation the (surprised) author would say in an Anon Ip (since he doesn't know Commons procedures) that he didn't upload them here. So, maybe some useful images should go to a formal DR like Marku 1988 since the nominator could make a response and the community could decide. PS: I'll tag the image I mentioned above with a speedy delete for being out of scope and useless. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
    I don't have any objections to putting them all into a deletion nomination if that is what you feel is best. Indeed licenses are irrevocable and good pictures submitted by someone who later wants them deleted should not be deleted. But as I said I have some doubts that the uploader is the individual who took the pictures. But, that's something that would benefit from wider discussion in a deletion request, I'm sure. I haven't marked any others as lacking permission, in order to allow you to decide how to proceed. – Adrignola talk 22:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I just asked Admin MGA73 if he can please file a mass DR on all this uploader's images. I am not familiar with mass DR procedures sadly. This really needs a formal the nominator can give a better reason to delete them. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
    You may wish to check out Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request for future reference in case you come across anything else in the future. – Adrignola talk 02:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erikson Family Crest.png

Agreed, mea culpa. I just dealt with an issue on my talk page where I had to spend five minutes tracking down the link -- I certainly should know better. Thanks for reminding me.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The DR

Please feel free to make a comment or analysis here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Mayak Exhibition Photos

In case that Ecodefense again forgets to CC me, would you send me a message when they send the statement of permission from the other email address? I will then upload the photos and give you the links to the files so that you can OTRS-verify them.

BTW: "" seems to be the new official email address of Ecodefense (see [1]). I wrote my first email to "", but got a reply from the gmail address. --JanRieke (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Guess they need to update their site then. If they update their site then they won't have to re-send the email. I'll copy you on any response. – Adrignola talk 16:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, they did not forget to CC me, the message went to junk accidentally. I received another message from them, and unfortunately they are not able to use the old ( address for sending mails any more. However, they still can receive emails on that old address. Could we send a mail to the old address with some kind of random code, so they can send it back using the new (gmail) address? This would also verify that both addresses belong to them. (Of course, you should not include me as a recipient in that mail :) --JanRieke (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I've sent an email to the address that I would expect to be quoted back to me. I have not copied you on it in case you are surreptitiously operating the Gmail address :). – Adrignola talk 16:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Here are the uploaded photos for Ticket#2011072510005745:

--JanRieke (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. – Adrignola talk 02:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there something wrong with the last file, File:Ecodefense_Mayak_Exhibition_37_Techa_Warning_Sign.jpg? Because you used OTRS received there instead of PermissionOTRS, as on the other files. --JanRieke (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Not really. That's what happens when I tag just before bed. – Adrignola talk 12:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice. Thank you for your work! --JanRieke (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Strange undeletion (Perle)

You argue that I did not link to specific photos that Rama's drawings were based on. But the real problem is that Rama declines to provide the sources for his drawings. I will tag them {{no source}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

They were taken from a general experience of analysis of many photographs of the person and you apparently didn't read the comments discussing the difference between based on (inspired by) and directly dervived by. You add the tags and I will remove them. Do not circumvent the process. If you re-add them you will be blocked. – Adrignola talk 14:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:AFMURISON portrait 1.jpg

I have reopened this DR, which you closed as PD-old. I don't see any evidence to support that -- the painting appears to have been made sometime not too long before the subject's death in 1934. Regards,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. You point out a pertinent point that I overlooked. – Adrignola talk 14:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Turns out he's a serial offender -- Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads of User:Ajsinclair.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:International brigades hungary flag.svg

I'm not really involved in Commons, but I am unsure how one can be certain this image meets (under) the threshold of originality in its jurisdiction, when the jurisdiction itself is unknown. Could you clarify? Grandiose (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an image of script, text, and there's no country that would consider it to be copyrightable. – Adrignola talk 02:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

OTRS verification

Can you verify the permission for these files:

If these files aren't included on permission tickets, please nomination for deletion. Thank you--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

For Kate Winslet, the ticket covered any images in the "Celebrities" set on Flickr and for Miley Cyrus, the ticket covered any images in the "Oscars 2009" set on Flickr. So they seem to check out. Though I frankly very much desire the license to be changed at Flickr, else there's the risk that a Flickr mail was forged, and our current policies state that forwarded Flickr mails are not acceptable. – Adrignola talk 14:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Undelete the photo

Whatever opinion you have on the photo (which is wrong since he explicitly states "I own the photo"), you were out of process to delete it. It was not a speedy deletion candidate. This is an error on Commons so I am contacting you on your Commons talk page like a reasonable person to ask you to undo your error.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss the Commons issue on Commons. Don't lie to me in e-mails.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I made no error and the statements received from the person depicted are not sufficient. I am well within my bounds to delete the image since the OTRS information is sufficient and you refuse to provide it or contact the subject to have it provided. We need to know who the photographer is and how the copyright was transferred. He didn't take the photo himself so he didn't originally have the copyright. This requirement for an image's true origin has been the case since I joined OTRS: And this is what I stated to you in emails. – Adrignola talk 16:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
"He didn't take the photo himself" How in the world do you know that? He sent the photo to me and he is very explicit in that he owns it. I asked that someone else look at the very explicit permission and you decide to delete it rather than placing the appropriate tag.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I've written to the subject directly in seeking the information we require. – Adrignola talk 16:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Gemma Arterton image

Hi, Aaron! I was wondering why the permission for Gemma Arterton image was not confirmed. Can you tell me what went wrong? Thank you. Electroguv (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The email address the permission was sent from does not match the email shown in the Flickr user's profile. Either it's resent from the displayed email address, or the displayed email address is changed to match the email's origin. – Adrignola talk 03:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Was it sent from It is the address displayed in leejames1's user profile. Electroguv (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
No, it was a address. – Adrignola talk 13:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi again! There is another problem. The image was sold today, and current copyright owner restricts the use of the image at Wikipedia and another sites. Electroguv (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, then, I have removed the image. – Adrignola talk 14:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion request

According to the previous conversation with you, you said that the Miley Cyrus images are included in the ticket for Oscar 2009 set. So my deleted images are also from that set. At first, I nominated for deletion for lacking valid permission. So can you restore them. Thank you very much--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. – Adrignola talk 16:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Permission for File:Daphne Oseña-Paez .jpg and File:Urban Zone.jpg

Hi, I just saw the tag that the permissions for File:Daphne Oseña-Paez .jpg and File:Urban Zone.jpg have some sort of problem. A standard permission template was sent to OTRS by the owner of the images (who is also the subject of them), so can you enlighten me as to what the problem is, please? Thanks. Noraft (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Normally 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. "Urban Zone.jpg" looks like it should be copyrighted by a television station and "Daphne Oseña-Paez .jpg" is a professional photo. Can you please have the television station and photographer send in free license releases for these images, or have the subject clarify how the copyright was transferred to her for either or both? The station or photographer can use the form at Commons:Email templates. Without further details, we can't accept the assertion that this is the owner of the images. See Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission, statement number 1 on the page. I stated this in a response to the original contact and have not heard back. – Adrignola talk 13:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
TV stations do not own photos of the shows that appear on them (unless the shows are produced by that station, which is common with American stations PBS and HBO. Intellectual property appearing on TV is generally owned by the production company that produced the show. Both photos are owned by the subject because she owns the television production company that took the photos. Photos are not owned by the photographer when the photographer works for a TV or film production company, otherwise TV shows and movies would be owned by the cameramen and women who shoot them. Copyright was not transferred to her, as she is the original holder of the copyrights. I believe she explained this in her second email to OTRS, didn't she? This concern had been raised before and she addressed it then. Noraft (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I have only one email from her and this assertion needs to be made by the subject, not the uploader. – Adrignola talk 13:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I have communicated this to the subject and you should be hearing from her soon. Thanks! Noraft (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Broken mboxes on secure server

You can't do this:

It breaks loading of the CSS on the secure server. TheDJ (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It worked fine and the developers broke it. We had been and are using it at Wikibooks for a long time. It broke with MediaWiki 1.17, then they fixed it, now it's broken again. See bug 30294 and Wikibooks and b:MediaWiki:Common.css (those rules up top there were added by Darklama). – Adrignola talk 21:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Long Time ago (2 month) File:SST Dino 01.jpg

Hi Adrignola, sorry to bother you :-( ... you have deleted the file mentioned above with the comment (No OTRS permission received) ... I've received a copy of the permission mail to '' from the rights owner on 07.04.2011 (04/07/2011). I just uploaded another picture from the same person and I wonder what I (or she) did wrong the first time. Could you please give me a hint?Regards, --Doc Strangepork (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently an email was received in ticket 2011040710007685. There was seemingly some additional information requested by the individual handling it, regarding the author of the photo. Below is a small portion of the response with no sensitive information:

so ganz wird uns jetzt nicht klar, wer Urheber des Fotos ist und wer jetzt die Rechte daran hat:

  • Rainer Trümmel
  • Hannelore Trümmel
  • Dino Music
  • Esser & Strauss

und wer davon ist der Wikipedia-Benutzer "Doc Strangepork"?

könnten Sie uns da bitte noch einmal aufklären?!

No response was received to this query. I don't speak German myself, so it wasn't me that composed that response. – Adrignola talk 13:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think got it now. Thanks a lot for your help! --Doc Strangepork (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Canhusen Innenraum.jpg

Warum hast du File:Canhusen Innenraum.jpg gelöscht? Der Autor hat dem OTRS-Team per Mail eine Lizenz zugesandt [Ticket#2011061510013551]. Warum bezweifelst du diese Lizenz? Du hast mit dem Autoren Kontakt aufgenommen und es hat sich bestätigt, dass er der Autor ist. Wird das etwas bezweifelt? Dann solltest du das ganze OTRS-System bezweifeln. Und was geht es dich an, was der Autor auf Panoramio mit seinen Bildern macht? Wieso mischt du dich in Panoramio ein? Bist du auch Panoramio-Administrator? Das wäre mir neu. Wo kommen wir denn hin, wenn du dem Autoren vorschreibst, was er in Panoramio als Bildrecht zu schreiben hat? Das kann dir völlig egal sein. Fakt ist:

  1. Du hast eine OTRS-Bestätigung des Autoren bekommen.
  2. Du hast dich mit dem Autoren über die Bildrechte gemailt, sodass deutlich ist, es ist tatsächlich der Autor.

Es ist also alles ordnungsgemäß verlaufen. Aber dir reicht das offensichtlich noch nicht und verlangst, dass der Autor in Panoramio seine Bildrechte verändert. Steht es dem Autoren nicht frei, zu verfahren, wie er will? Was schnüffelst du in seinen Motiven herum? Ich erwarte endlich eine Freischaltung des Bildes. Dazu wurdest du gewählt. Walte endlich deines Amtes. --Wikiwal (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"What concerned the licinsie want I it on panoramio do not change because it then for harmed possible is the photographs without permission to be able to use. Therefore I give Wikipedia only for this permission." -- Dennis Wubs

– Adrignola talk 20:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

So what? Er hat dir doch die Lizenz Creative Commons 3.0 zugesandt. Wenn Dennis Wubs meint, dass auf Commons seine Bilder sicherer sind als auf Panoramio ist das seine Sache. Was geht dich seine Motivation an? Akzeptiere seine Lizenz! --Wikiwal (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ich danke dir herzlich für dein Einlenken! Ich denke nicht, dass Wubs seine Lizenz widerrufen wollte. Wenn du möchtest, kann er sie vielleicht nochmals schicken, falls du Sicherheit haben möchtest. Über das wiederhergestellte Bild freue ich mich. Thanx, --Wikiwal (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Same case File:Loga Friedenskirche 55209570.jpg? --Wikiwal (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Ich sehe gerade, dass die vorbereitete Mail für Wubs nicht in Ordnung war und ich zweimal "Canhusen", aber nicht "Loga" angegeben hatte. Sorry, das war mein Fehler. Ich habe Wubs gebeten, nochmals die Lizenz zu senden. Dann ist auch deutlich, dass er nach wie vor zu der Lizenz steht. --Wikiwal (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done. – Adrignola talk 15:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
That was fast! Thanx, --Wikiwal (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC) and Boris Frković


I have response from OTRS team. Could you please undelete the images that were from there??

Quahadi Añtó 15:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know which images you're talking about. Please contact the administrator who deleted them. – Adrignola talk 18:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Ali Esbati highres (8 of 12).jpg and File:Ali Esbati highres (10 of 12).jpg

Why did you remove the notice on my talk page but not the warning on the image page? I have mailed the required permissions. Notwist (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And an email was sent back to the emailer asking for additional information as it was not sufficient. – Adrignola talk 18:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
No there wasn't, because I haven't gotten anything. Notwist (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
It was sent to Ali Esbati. "All following text beneath this line has been recieved from Ali Esbati personally, and can be verified by mailing him". Sound familiar? It should. We are indeed verifying it and also finding out how copyright was transferred from Nikolaj Jonas Blegvad. – Adrignola talk 19:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
There's no need to put on an attitude. Don't say "an email was sent back to the emailer" when that's not the case. I was the emailer, not Ali Esbati. If you want to avoid misunderstandings, you should look over your own phrasing first. I'd appreciate a notice after you're done discussing the matter with Ali via e-mail. Notwist (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Eef Kamerbeek Atletiekcentrum.JPG

Dear Adrignola, Please look at my reaction on OTRS:Commons/Board. Kindest regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piet.Wijker (talk • contribs)

I only speak English and was simply letting uploaders know that files haven't been tagged as having permission confirmed, but I'll take a look. – Adrignola talk 19:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

AWB requests

Thanks for a quick response but you skipped my request dated 27th of June. Could you please fix it? :) Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I am very sorry if I am too importunate. Is it something wrong with my request? Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
    Nothing wrong. I just overlooked it when trying to do all of them at once. You've now been added to the list of approved users. – Adrignola talk 19:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Eva Green pic

Hi there again, Aaron! I have a question about the image I have uploaded recently. Why is OTRS permission does not confirmed? Thank you. Electroguv (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

See your talk page. No email address verification is possible. – Adrignola talk 13:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Caltagirone Chiasa Sanata Maria del Monte.jpg‎

Chiasa? What is this? Sanata? I don't know... Please read it:chiesa and it:Santo (female Santa) before remove template thinking was irrilevant.--Threecharlie (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

How about you use {{rename}} if that's what you want. {{bad name}} is if you uploaded a new file as the uploader. Use the correct template. – Adrignola talk 22:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I have used bad because in italian is a sintax error, but if you want... the importance is the final result.--Threecharlie (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

File:1st Round - Cover photo.jpg

Please send a permission for [[:File:1st Round - Cover photo.jpg]] to OTRS


I hereby assert that I am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work [ File:1st Round - Cover photo.jpg. I agree to publish that work under the free license — I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. --Pino Presti (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This goes to, not me. And you'll need to prove you're the creator of the original image. It looks like you just ripped it off a website or screen captured a video. That doesn't make you the copyright holder. – Adrignola talk 03:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The Image is part of the original cover of Pino Presti's album "1st Round", recorded for Atlantic Records in 1976. I'm the creator and the owner of the exclusive copyright of the work.--Pino Presti (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well please include that with the above in the email. They want everything documented via email (see OTRS) and won't accept notes on my talk page. The backlog is not more than a couple days so you should have a response shortly. – Adrignola talk 12:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've received the confirmation email. Thank you --Pino Presti (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Mother Terese

Perhaps you added a comment for deletion of my picture of poster Mother Therese, I mean it is on a open space in my campus, at Macul Santiago, none statue, or device at open is suceptible of copyright, I think so.--Penarc (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Your infinite blocks

Looking at the block log, it seems that your default block is infinity. That is not in agreement with policy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I remember you voicing vehement objections against another admin over blocking talk page access by default, but I don't see the point of your objection here. I've used blocks of various periods at different times for different individuals and I don't see anything on that page that states how long I'm "supposed" to block for different offenses or even that infinite blocks are prohibited. In fact it says "Copyright violations. Repeated uploading of inappropriately licensed media is grounds for blocking an account". My blocks are indefinite, not infinite. If all a person has contributed is copyright violations and falsified information, a block until they are willing to come to understand the rules that Commons abides by is needed to prevent further damage. That's what blocks are for, preventing damage and disruption. – Adrignola talk 19:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Closing down the site permanently for everybody would prevent damage and disruption... Your block log shows systematically "an expiry time of infinite", but point 3 of the instructions for administrators clearly implies that initial blocks should expire. Uploading images to Commons is not easy, please allow people to learn. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
What would you find to be a suitable period of blockage for serial copyright violators? – Adrignola talk 19:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
It is plain wrong to give Glasbakje64 (talk · contribs) an initial block. He/she is an established user on nlwp, active since March 2009. The files uploaded to Commons are valuable. But you immediately gave an infinite block. Please unblock immediately. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Don "The Dragon" Wilson.jpg & File:STAR System color logo.png

Thanks so much for your comments. That helped. I'll follow the referenced instructions. I think Wikipedia and Wikimedia would benefit from simple "how-to" examples before the long presentations of legalese and other technical matters. Paul Maslak (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Copyright is tricky so we're always trying to do better in explaining it. Commons:Licensing is not very newbie-friendly. – Adrignola talk 20:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Re File:McConico2.jpg

Permission for copyrighting the image is being sent in by email from Mr. John Garrett, Publisher of Community Impact News who published the image. It may take several days for him to send the email (although I have given him the relevant procedure and email address) so I'd appreciate you giving us some leeway on the timing. Thanks. Austex (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I tweaked the tag to ensure you have a week at least to take care of that. – Adrignola talk 03:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

File:UNMC University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus Aerial Sky Enterance.png

Hi, here is the source for the picture file I uploaded, I hope it is acceptable for use. BTW, I have resized it and added some text to the image. Saruman776 (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure is. Thanks for fixing that. I have reviewed the license and marked the file as acceptable. – Adrignola talk 13:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Several files by User:Nayansatya

Hello Adrignola,

the files I refer to (those showing the painted religious figures) look like they were photographed from some book, especially File:VIRAJAA.jpg. Are you sure [2] is a valid permission for these images? Does it detail the way the files were procuced (photographing some book etc. or something else), and does it clarify if the uploader is really the painter of these images ? Sorry for asking in detail, but I must say I do have my doubts about these files. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 16:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't blame you for having doubts. The uploader said they were photographed in a temple in India. They are not the artist by their own words. COM:FOP#India seems to indicate that paintings permanently located in a public place are okay. Of course I can't tell the context beyond the crop. I can send another email if you have questions. Or if I've misinterpreted the freedom of panorama page, feel free to nominate for deletion as there doesn't seem to be any way for the person to contact the "poor artists who make such pictures and sell near temple areas to devotees". That statement may indicate they weren't permanently located. Not really liking the whole situation. In fact, I'm going to send another email to try to get more clarification. – Adrignola talk 17:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Especially File:VIRAJAA.jpg really doesn't look like a painting on a wall somewhere. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 17:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I can't read the OTRS, but if the files are derivative works of paintings not painted by the user or of non-PD-art works, then they are not in India's FOP's coverage. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mahasaraswati.jpg for more. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, that is what it seems to be. They weren't painted by the user and are recently made. And from the DR it seems I'm not fully understanding the legalese. It'll be disappointing to the user. – Adrignola talk 18:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
FYI, similar unblurred (but smaller resolution) versions are found on the net: [3]. The artists might have copied/printed the same, which may be a copyvio issue. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems FOP in India covers only statues and works of architecture, but not paintings, drawings, or photographs, per COM:FOP#India. --Rosenzweig τ 18:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

And we may have derivatives of derivatives if the artists were copying others' work. I should probably just delete them at this point per our precautions and given the above, unless you guys would like to take this to a deletion request. – Adrignola talk 18:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Given the knowledge we have I don't object to speedy deletions. --Rosenzweig τ 19:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Migrant Mother (LOC fsa.8b29516).jpg

This isn't a duplicate of the version you linked it to, this a separate (5-hour) digital restoration, as can be seen from the file history. If you think it is inferior to the one that's currently featured you should still nominate it for deletion for community input. Thanks. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Halle Berry image

Hi, Aaron! I've recently uploaded a new Halle Berry image and it needs confirming OTRS permission to use it under CC-BY-SA-3.0. The image's author have just sent permission message to OTRS and I was wondering if you could check it at once. Thanks, Electroguv (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Good job on blurring those offensive people. Now they can't offend anyone. – Adrignola talk 18:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


Was wondering if deletions are based on consensus or merely merit? I ask because we had to have a vote banning a pic on english wiki because it was not solved here. Referring to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nouvellefrance-V2.jpg.Moxy (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a vote and consensus would only come into play with regard to policy issues. All deletions must take policy into regard. Everyone can want to keep a file but if there's a copyright problem, it's gone. If a file's in use it's automatically in scope and will never be deleted, no matter how much you dislike the file. Don't bring your map disputes to Commons. We don't editorialize on other projects. If you want to decide to not use a file at, good for you. Others may (and do, in this case) use the file. We have a bad enough rep without pulling files out from under projects just because people "don't like them". – Adrignola talk 03:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
OK I get it, I think - Original research is not a concern on commons only copy right issues are. Just FYI its wide usage was added all over the wikis by one user. Thank you for your time.Moxy (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Kalli Purie.jpg‎

Do you know if this is covered by the File:AROON PURIE.jpg ticket that you verified? This one's also used elsewhere on the web. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The uploader is indeed a representative for India Today, but the ticket didn't mention that file. They should assert to us that they are the copyright holder for that image. – Adrignola talk 13:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


She likes to talk a lot. :-) Killiondude (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Indeed. We'll have to create "the good listener" barnstar for you. – Adrignola talk 16:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Your children will be next.jpg and File:Atheist Tombstone.jpg

Hi. I had posted a message at the village pump to ask why it wasn't uploaded correctly. Instead of deleting those files, don't you have any solution to upload them correctly ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Those pages didn't have files. A description page without a file is not a file. People already provided suggestions. – Adrignola talk 18:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah but at least we could have kept the description and categories and upload it again with the same name. That would have prevent me to do everything again manually ! Anyway... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A reply please

to my questions?

Sure. I have replied. I have a hard time tracking changes to that page. – Adrignola talk 17:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:J. Jayalalithaa.jpg

Hi, at File:J. Jayalalithaa.jpg the original uploader on removed the public domain notice and marked the image as a copyright violation. You reverted citing lack of evidence of copyright violation. I wondered, considering that Kumarrajendran himself added the note and has a history of copyright problems, why not believe him? He may know better now than in 2008 what constitutes copyvios, no? Thanks Hekerui (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

He can add {{copyvio|why it's a copyvio}} instead of {{speedy|copyright violation}}, specifying why it's a copyright violation instead of trying to end-run around the process by using a tag combination that pushes for the deletion of a file without any reasoning whatsoever. – Adrignola talk 23:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
I just like to say thanks for all the work you are doing here.
purposeful, helpful, fast
RE rillke questions? 19:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Woo hoo! I'm feeling the WikiLove. – Adrignola talk 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

File:JEANNIE DEANS hybrid rubiginosa.jpg --- Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads of User:Ajsinclair


I see at OTRS 2011081210005508 that you think that the license given there is false. I note that in the DR, A.J. Sinclair gave his e-mail address as and that the OTRS message is from a different anonymous e-mail provider, which raises my suspicions. On the other hand, Sinclair seems to be a pretty straight shooter -- while he's frustrated by our questions on so many of his images, he's worked cooperatively to clear them up.

Your thoughts?

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Taking a good look rather than tossing it based on the deletion request that was shown on the page at the time, before subsequent changes were made to the page, this may be legitimate, as the email matches that seen at But no license was specified so I have to follow up. – Adrignola talk 00:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Aha, I see. Finding petrovic's site is good work -- I never like OTRS messages from anonymous accounts, because you can't really tell who they're from -- so your find proves that the accounts at yahoo and gmail are valid. Thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

File deleted, no OTRS

Hi, You deleted File:Thom Posthuma 1939.jpeg with the remark 'no OTRS', but the OTRS email was sent on 8 July 2011 12:38:50 CEST with the title 'OTRS Pending:'. Please undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeshu (talk • contribs)

Can you please send it to us again? I am unable to find an email with that subject or relating to this file in our system. It's Don't forget the dash and it's wikimedia with an M, not a P. Thanks. – Adrignola talk 17:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I've uploaded the OTRS email again. Keeshu (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Also deleted with 'no OTRS' (but which was sent) were and I've re-uploaded the OTRS emails again. Please restore. Thanks. Keeshu (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

They'll be restored if an OTRS volunteer determines that the emails provide sufficient permission, verification, and licensing information. – Adrignola talk 17:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


Dear Adrignola, clear please the situation around the mentioned file. The author has sent a letter to from at 26 august, 10:53 pm GMT but nothing happened. What should I do? Best regards, Doctor Zevago (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

None of your files are cleared. The others are just marked as having an email received but it was not sufficient. The others because the subject is not the photographer and has not clarified how rights were transferred to him. Just because you're in a photo, that doesn't mean you get copyright on it. This file is not cleared because it's not clear that the person sending us the email is actually associated with the entity that owns the logo. The email should be sent from an address associated with Channel VOT. – Adrignola talk 00:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear Adrignola, the author has sent you a letter with a screenshot of the chennel's screen. I hope it clears all the images I've uploaded. Please also take into account that the source I mentioned is Lushnikov's own page at the Russian FB-clone called vkontakte. Best Regards, Doctor Zevago (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File:OTOSOTM p01.jpg

Dear Adrignola, Could you please have a look at File:OTOSOTM p01.jpg. It is tagged as OTRS-permission verified, but without a license. That seems weird and suspect to me. Thanks in advance. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It didn't apply to that one and was copied and pasted by the uploader. That's a no-no. However, I've applied a license tag that applies based on the content of the image and the Foundation's stance on faithful reproductions of 2D works in the form of scans. – Adrignola talk 17:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! I could have thought of the license myself... Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Restoring deleted files

Hello Adrignola, would it be possible for you to restore the images previously used in this article? I imagine that you correctly deleted them because they lacked proper sourcing and licensing. I have been contacted by the person that took these photos and uploaded them and would like to help them put the pictures back into the article by adding the missing licenses etcetera. Greetings from a German OTRS colleague and thank you in advance, --Gnom (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You should request the OTRS-member flag at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. I have restored the files seen in the contributions at Special:Contributions/Maddis.e. – Adrignola talk 12:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch! Will do. --Gnom (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, now I see that the pictures do have proper licences, but they still need a permission. Sorry this might sound blue-eyed, but could you clarify this to me? (I've seen similar issues before but this is the first time I'm first-hand involved.) The person that uploaded the pictures holds the exclusive rights needed to publish them on Commons. Now, as I understand it, he needs to give evidence that he has these rights. And he can do so by sending an e-mail stating, "Yes, I have the rights" (using a certain template text). Is that correct? If yes, then how does this simple e-mail help? Thanks again for your help, --Gnom (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The email (COM:ET) must come from an email address affiliated with the show that was photographed "Schattentheater", since all of the images are derivatives of their work. Anything less and they will be deleted again. The email template ensures there's an understanding of the terms but more important than the email contents is the email's origin. Way too often I see OTRS agents ignore the source of the email and fail to assess whether the person asserting copyright has any authority to do so in the first place. – Adrignola talk 13:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thank you! --Gnom (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Adrignola, thank you for your help with OTRS verification earlier today; much appreciated. Janggeom (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


(RE:Catalan was done) Hello. MediaWiki:AnonymousI18N.js still makes appear "Llengüa" in Catalan. The correct word is "Llengua", with "u" instead of "ü". References: DIEC, GREC, DCVB, etc. Thanks! -Aleator (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. – Adrignola talk 00:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mtstaffa (talk · contribs)

Hello, i saw you added a permission ticket to this user's uploads :

I was told by other OTRS members that the permission specify filenames that dont exist on commons. Mtstaffa also uploaded new images, and i was hoping the permission could also apply to them, but it seems it doesn't. The OTRS members also said that not specifying the license version is a problem. Could you please investigate the case and check with the uplaoder ? --Lilyu (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to harp on here, but as an OTRS member I don't see anyway that OTRS:2011083010006143 supplements that photo, and I don't find any other ticket that does. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
It's ticket 2011083110004732. I copied and pasted the wrong number. – Adrignola talk 23:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If it apply also to Screenshot (June 2011).png, please restore ?
Also, could you please give me some informations on the range of files this permission applies to, because the user might probably upload more images related to Category:Gala incorporated --Lilyu (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It does not. Another ticket, ticket 2011083110004796, applies to Screenshot.png. No permission received for that one you linked to because it's no longer the latest version of the website and they likely do not desire to have it restored. – Adrignola talk 00:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleted files

Hi, you deleted two of my photos: and - why? Ugryz (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

These violated the copyright of Andrzej Nowak at Studio4. Permission should be sent in to the OTRS team from – Adrignola talk 16:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


Can you insert this line inside Template:WikiAfrica/Artgate just after the starting div tag? (to add the project logo like here)


— Preceding unsigned comment added by M.casanova (talk • contribs)

✓ Done. Looks nice. – Adrignola talk 14:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:MannySaenz.JPG

Hi! Coul you take at look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:MannySaenz.JPG, please? The deletion request was closed but nothing was done =P. Giro720 (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The same for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bachpan.jpg. Thanks. Giro720 (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Must have had a brain fart that day. Closed the requests as deleted, but forgot to delete. D'oh! – Adrignola talk 19:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

OTRS and Drumzo

Hi Adrignola, is there any OTRS "path" to record a Flickr username / Commons username identification? The uploader of this image File:Burning amy vehicle.png, which is NC/ND on Flickr, seems to be identical to the Flickr user, per a statement here. As this concerns more than 1 upload to Commons and as there is a theoretical risk that this comment is removed at any time, can we "record" it, except per screenshot, of course? --Túrelio (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This is certainly one way we could try to verify a Flickr user who tries to send in a statement of permission. Sometimes they have their email displayed in their Flickr profile, so when they email in we can see a match. Here I see that he replied in the affirmative when a link to the Wikimedia account was asked about. I have taken a screenshot, under my Flickr login and emailed it to permissions-commons. It is archived and available for consultation and reference under ticket 2011091010000167. – Adrignola talk 00:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Should I put this ticket into all of his uploads with discrepant (Flickr vs. Commons) licensing? --Túrelio (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
You could if any are called into question, but to save time and hopefully have the same effect, I've created the user's user page for them where none existed before, with a notification of the link to the Flickr user and a link to the evidence in the OTRS system: User:Drumzo. – Adrignola talk 13:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. --Túrelio (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Fondazione Cariplo images

Hi. Fondazione Cariplo owns all the works and the images. --M.casanova (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Owning a physical piece of artwork doesn't give you the copyright on it. That still rests with the artist unless transferred through a contract. – Adrignola talk 16:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

3rd party

Thanks for your input at Village Pump. In the meantime I had tried to deal with the issue on the ones I had uploaded (I don't know whether I missed the attribution or it was added later). Please take a look at File:Planes at Chena Hot Springs.jpg - I treated it as a permission issue, but I do not have a good way to contact the photographer.Dankarl (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Jim Chapman may be related to Carl Chapman and have authorization as a family member to upload the images. – Adrignola talk 21:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
My guess is brothers. A couple of the pictures have reference to an "Alaska Website" which lists or is linked to both. But I still do not have real contact information. I would not be surprised to find that one or the other did some of the commons bot uploads. I hate to take these down, they are both very good photographers. The ones I uploaded were mostly "Economy of Alaska" but there are also some great animal shots. Dankarl (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Windex.png is probably a copyvio.

Hi Adrignola.

I've been searching for this picture (File:Windex.png) and found lots of the same picture around the web. You have verified the permission of this picture via OTRS so I wanted to let you know that I put a copyvio message on the page. Badzil (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I also put a disputed message on File:Multilario.png because I have problems understanding how the user can possibly be the copyright holder of this work. Badzil (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
And on File:Design of New Club House Circolo Vela Bellano.jpg. Badzil (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. There was a large backlog of tickets because I took the weekend off and nobody else apparently decided to do any tickets. In my rush I did not notice the yachting logo and images didn't relate to Vintage Yachting Games Organization (saw yachting and thought no further at the time). The account User:VYGOcommons at least is operated from them and the emails did at least come from them. – Adrignola talk 13:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
No problem. If you have time now maybe you could look about a couple more issues I reported on Martin H.'s talk page. I would especially like you to comment on the deletion request for the file: File:DragonClassLogo.png. Badzil (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of username

I can still see the contents, so I appreciate your efforts but for me it is really not necessary. When joining webchat, my IP is visible to everyone so it's not a big deal for me. The next point is that I have a lot of locations from where I "dial-in" and the IPs are always dynamic. Thanks anyway! -- RE rillke questions? 14:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Bad faith?

I am going to ask you straight out. Do you have a problem with myself? And if so, would you kindly say it straight out. It does appear you have a major bug up your butt, going by your last comments to me on the OTRS noticeboard. What exactly is the problem? russavia (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll quote Kaldari from en:Template_talk:GFDL-1.2-en#Deprecating_this_template_for_future_use as it regards to GFDL-1.2 in particular, which is not allowed to be uploaded to en.wikipedia for many reasons, with one being

"In practice this template is often used as a 'back-door' non-commercial license. Due to the extreme impracticality of reusing GFDL-1.2 media in a 100% legally compliant manner, many contributors who don't want their images reused commercially choose to use the GFDL-1.2-only templates. When those images are then reused by commercial websites, the photographers contact the sites, inform them of the onerous terms of the GFDL and then offer the sites commercial licenses for a fee. Thus they basically use Wikipedia as a commercial marketing tool for their photographs. This type of behavior goes against the mission and ideals of the project and creates a double standard for content re-use."


"As has been discussed elsewhere (for the past several years), the GFDL was never meant for images and is especially ill-suited for them as a free license (particularly the issues of full license reproduction and disclaimers). And "articles that include images licensed under these templates will not be eligible for re-use under a CC license, even though all the rest of the content will be."

And Kaldari

"would contend that GFDL (in the case of images specifically) is not a free license according to our definition: 'having no significant legal restriction relative to people's freedom to use, redistribute, and produce modified versions of and works derived from the content.' GFDL was never meant to be applied to images and is, in practice, unworkable as an image license unless you ignore half the license requirements (which is what we've always done). You may ask then, why isn't the WMF working with the FSF to fix the license. That was actually the original plan. If you look at the draft version of the GFDL 1.3 that came out a couple years ago, you'll see that many of the most problematic aspects of the GFDL (for Wikipedia) were fixed in that version. However, all of these changes were removed in the final version of the GFDL 1.3, with the idea that Wikipedia would simply migrate all of their content to Creative Commons. The people who are insisting on using GFDL 1.2-only are thus defeating the whole purpose of the license upgrade and nullifying years of negotiation between the WMF and the FSF."

So I am quite annoyed with the pushing of GFDL-1.2 given all of the above when suggesting licenses to copyright holders, especially if GFDL-1.2 may be disallowed because it is so onerous. You've stated in forwarded emails that you chose the GFDL-1.2 precisely because it is so restrictive. – Adrignola talk 19:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Adrian, regardless of how restrictive the licence is, it is still a valid licence for our purposes. It is up to reusers to ensure that they are able to comply with the licence before they use materials. At the end of the day, it is still a free licence, and if offering it to people makes them more inclined to release their materials for our purposes, then I will continue to offer it. At least I am honest and upfront about it with them. All told, it is being able to offer that licence which has given us the opportunity to utilise under a free licence almost 50-60,000 photos -- this is 50-60,000 photos that we would not have the ability to use otherwise. So please, whilst you are entitled to your opinion on such things, don't denigrate 1) the effort that I have, and am putting in, to get these materials released and 2) the photographers who have kindly released their materials under what, at the end of the day, is a free licence. 50-60,000 photos, damn, this is more photos that some of the co-operation projects have released -- and every day for the foreseeable future, I will be getting access to more "collections", but instead of getting just a little bit of gratitude, I am getting attitude instead, and it really doesn't make one feel all that good about putting in a voluntary effort for the good of all of us. russavia (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Russavia sends some Baci Adrignola's way.
  • Take, for example, the photos found at -- I just got permission to use them -- all 8,202 photos. EIGHT FRICKING THOUSAND photos from a single photographer. And it was being able to offer them the GFDL 1.2 licence that clinched their permission. They all ask about the "commercial usage" bit, and I explain it to them honestly and straight up...and they agree. EIGHT THOUSAND photos! Please, do show me others who are donating under a free licence this many photos for reuse within the terms of a free licence. I will expect you to handle the ticket for this one personally, and I would like to see what you say to such people who are in essence donating their hard work and money to us. Think about it that way, will you? russavia (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


"Administrators already have access and therefore do not need to be added to this list." ;-) Killiondude (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I don't have a good excuse. – Adrignola talk 13:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:FAL or cc-by-nc-nd

What's the problem with this template and why did you remove it from all images using it? It's a perfectly valid template, for commercial use or for derivative works you have to use FAL, for all other uses you'd take the nc-nd cc license. As the template specifies the licenses with an either or clause, no restrictions of the CC license are overridden. By removing the CC licenses from the images you generated a licensing problem for those actually using them with the specified CC license. Please rollback these image changes. --Denniss (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You can see at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:FAL_or_cc-by-nc-nd to see that I did not remove it from all images using it. If you examine my edits you will see I've replaced with {{FAL}}. I won't have a misleading template placed on images that already have CC-BY-SA, GFDL, LGPL, and GPL by MBisanz implying that the other licenses on the page don't permit commercial use and that FAL is the only option for commercial use. There's no licensing problem because 1) the change is in the page history and 2) any modifications were to images with the exact same versions of the CC license, only permitting commercial use. You should especially examine Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Mishneh_Torah_by_Matthew_Bisanz.JPG for what is actually going on. – Adrignola talk 13:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :-)

Adrignola, thank you for The Civility Barnstar. It was kind of you, and very much appreciated. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


Hallo Adrignola, did you intend to close Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Fabian_Photo_in_White_Bikini.png (you removed the deletion template at the file page)? :) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's preferred to close and then mess with the tag. I was composing a detailed closing statement for your reading pleasure. – Adrignola talk 03:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Oops, sorry - I really appreciate DR closures which cite a reason. Good work!
I did overlook that you removed the tag just minutes ago (maybe confused by the UTC+2 time difference). Please excuse the interruption. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 05:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hatfield College Chapel.jpg

Hi! You have commented in this DR, citing the links from the OTRS to the "copyvio" source on Panoramio, but apparently photos on Panoramio do not match to the deleted pics. OTRS-volunteer pushing for deletion of these photos claims that the photographs were lifted from "a professional photographer's website", but it is obvious nonsense, because the deleted pictures were taken using Kodak EasyShare C613, a very cheap point&shoot camera. Could you please shed some more light on this very puzzling case? See User talk:Zolo#Deletion debates. Trycatch (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll try, if I don't get lost in confusion myself. – Adrignola talk 20:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Trycatch (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Contacting photographers

Hi, as you are contacting the photographers for whom i am uploading materials from, would you mind doing the OTRS for this one Template:MikeFreer asap, as he is going into for major surgery on Wednesday and will be out of action for some time. Thanks russavia (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. I'd probably have ended up doing it anyway the way things are going lately. – Adrignola talk 14:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. What you mean you are the only one doing any OTRS work? lol russavia (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Request for File:Ralston Rocket.jpg.

Hi, I thought I had located the copyright holder for File:TV Radio Life.jpg but there is none to be had and the original production company has long since closed its doors. I removed the image from the article Space Patrol (1950 TV series) last evening and replaced it with a smaller lower res copy under fair use (I'm reasonably sure it qualifies).

Would you please "speedily delete" the original file for me or is there something else that I need to do.

Sorry for the aggravation but I do appreciate your help.

Best regards, Robert (sinclairindex)

✓ Done. – Adrignola talk 20:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks!!!!!
Robert (sinclairindex)


Hello! Could you please unblock this user? I have asked for block on noticeboard but later I have reverted my edition. It looks like too late. It turned out to be a misunderstanding, which has resulted from the problems with global account, as explained here. At least please unblock IP address, because I have got information from the user, that he cannot use his regular account. ---- Jakubhal 19:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. The autoblock was removed as well. – Adrignola talk 19:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Transferring talks From Dennis to You


I sent the email giving permission to use all images that I uploaded. Can you please explaim why you still need permission?

Luizpuodzius (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Received an email in 2011091710003821, but it's from a Yahoo address, so I can't really say it's definitive since it's a free email provider. That makes it not much better than the original uploader's assertion. So we're in something of a quagmire here. – Adrignola talk 15:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Well....Since my email, a Yahoo address, can't really say it's definitive my OWN WORK, can you please point out an article/tool/help instruction to help this amateur user how can I definitively show to you that work that a created is realy mine?

Would a link to "", or other web base picture storage place could help us?

Would it not be a good idea if Wikimedia had a "Upload media for dummies" article, so retards like this user that address you, could learn how to avoid quagmires e/or Catch-22s caused by inexperience or lack of cognitive power?
I have some articles in Wikipedia, Adrignola, that are linked to the pictures that are disappearing.

Luizpuodzius (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If the image was not already uploaded to Photobucket, uploading it now to a hosting service would only have people saying you took the photo you tried to upload here and uploaded it there. Transferring the issue to me won't really solve the problem. I only handle emails providing permission when they are requested. Denniss is the one who stated that they lacked permission. If he has nothing to back up his claim that the image lacks permission, he should restore it himself and you should request that he do so or at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests if you do not get a response. – Adrignola talk 16:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for responding my inquire. I am very sorry that I had to bring this conversation to your discussion page, instead of waiting for - only God knows when - Denniss' reply in his page.
I have done it due to the fact that when you said that "I" can't really say it's definitive..., I've - erroneously - believed that you were the one that had the power to make jugment/verification of ownership of images.
I apologize for my conclusion; and I will go back to Denniss' discussion and place a link to "photobucket" wich holds lots of artwork there (SEE

[4] since Member since 06/01/2006. The images that the ownership have been questioned were uploaded there years ago, for this reason, nobody can argue that the ...image was not already uploaded to Photobucket,...

Further support for my claim of ownership of the images can be found by visiting this site:!/photo/2036495:Photo:1470701?context=user

But....., it is to be talked to Denniss, not here.
Maybe one day, he will decide that this user, me, has the right of an answer.

Thank for landing me your ears.--Luizpuodzius (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

DELETE This conversation if you wish. Thanks! Luizpuodzius (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous e-mail's on OTRS

I just wanted to say that I appreciate your firm line on not accepting permissions from g-mail and other anonymous accounts.It seems obvious to me (and you, I guess) that such a permission proves nothing, but I know that some of our OTRS colleagues do not agree.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel like OTRS has a reputation to uphold, in that images stamped with its approval should have actually gone through some additional verification. We already have pseudonymous uploaders asserting licensing, so if an image is tagged as lacking permission, a pseudonymous or anonymous emailer will be no better. While OTRS members are supposedly trusted, if the tags themselves lose that trust, then the whole system breaks down. – Adrignola talk 00:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

regarding File:Grafiti Sn Fco Mostazal 19 8 2011 036.jpg‎

Hello, I know the image casebook has a section regarding graffiti; But I think above graffiti might be copyrightable, as it's not clearly an illegal graffiti due to it's origin in a skateboard park. AzaToth 15:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The email was from the uploader. It's unlikely that the original artist can be contacted. If you believe it is not illegal graffiti, then a deletion request will be what is needed. – Adrignola talk 15:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, done. thanks. AzaToth 15:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


Hi Adrignola, I was looking at your category tracker page and spotted an error. I mixed up the tabs of sandbox and your page in my browser while seeing what's wrong, so I edited your page and only realised it after clicking save. But since it is a minor fix I did not revert it. Hope that's not too rude. Sorry :P --Ben.MQ (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. To be honest I'm not sure what the |R is doing (recursive count?), but I don't quite see why it's complaining about a comma where I don't see one… Eh, it works. Frankly the more disturbing part of the situation is that you've brought it to my attention that there are 1,400 files for license review. – Adrignola talk 15:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh well... the magic words returns result in the format like 1,000 which is not a number. |R set the output to plain number without commas. Same for other magic words. (Either |R or :R)--Ben.MQ (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Gallery linkfix mistake Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh? This is obviously a double listing, isn't it? <a href="/wiki/Special:ListFiles/$1" title="Special:ListFiles/$1">Hochgeladene Dateien</a> <b>·</b></span> <span style="white-space: nowrap;"><a href="/wiki/Special:ListFiles/$1" title="Special:ListFiles/$1">Gallery</a> Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose so. You said that the gallery link was wrong but it looks like I fixed the wrong tag. – Adrignola talk 04:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah - therefore. clarified - I mean the tab which is titled "Gallery". Also note which URL I have cited. --Saibo (Δ) 04:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Try clearing your cache and seeing if things work better now. – Adrignola talk 04:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thanks! Didn't need to purge. --Saibo (Δ)04:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Gallery tab: WikiSense vs Special:ListFiles

Hello Adrignola,

I'm curious on why you changed the gallery tab to use Special:ListFiles instead of WikiSense [5]. You mention working gallery link but the old link isn't wrong. Was there some toolserver problem at that point? WikisEnse gallery is more complete, and preferable IMHO in a number of cases. I added a second tab for the toolserver based, but doesn't seem right to have two tabs for it.

Platonides (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This was called for on the village pump (2nd) and administrators' noticeboard. The toolserver was not working and it's unacceptable to rely on outside websites for operations at Commons. The Toolserver is not run by the Wikimedia Foundation is is often slow as molasses. It is a poor excuse of a setup for the WMF to not be operating it. It is not dependable and I don't condone its use as part of the interface given all the complaints linked here even if it is "working" again. – Adrignola talk 15:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
And Special:MyUploads also has a link to a more fully-featured gallery that has been developed by Rillke. – Adrignola talk 15:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The two tabs are not nice - especially since they are separated (two other tabs between both). Using numbers to differentiate is also not good - but what else? "Gallery T" and "Gallery C"? Hmm - no.
I do not see a "link to a more fully-featured gallery". Where is it? I know this: JSONListUploads.js - but this isn't linked at Special:MyUploads. --Saibo (Δ) 04:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you could provide a German translation of MediaWiki:Listfiles-summary? – Adrignola talk 04:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - that page name is enough. :) Will do later.
We should really give our galleries names. ;) Gallery 1 - 3 will lead to confusion when some newbie asks about a "gallery". Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Modification made. Both links are now next to each other, one now titled "Uploads" and one "Gallery". – Adrignola talk 04:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Adrignola, thanks, that is a good idea! Regarding MediaWiki:Listfiles-summary: Of course I could and will translate the en text with the JS links. But what about all the many other languages? The Link should be in the default translation. Do you have an idea? And if we include the link in the translation directly we should templateify the Tool's URL. Otherwise we have to change masses of translations if the link changes in the future.
Another option would be: Inject (directly below the headline) a link via JavaScript if the page's "wgCanonicalSpecialPageName" = "Listfiles". Users without JS are no worse off since they cannot use the RillkeGallery anyway. What do you think? Should I move the discussion to MediaWiki talk:Listfiles-summary? Better, hm? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Adding a link with JavaScript and deleting the interface message would be the best option, since the script is only available at Commons and adding it to the translations at TranslateWiki wouldn't work since the default translation is used by many different wikis. – Adrignola talk 19:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Now here: Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#JSONListUploads.js_Discussion Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

my apologies

I think I did something that confused you, and this is why you removed this PD tag.

I did take this picture. The park where I took this, and a lot of other pictures is about 800 metres from my apartment building. You can see a lot of images I took of lake freighters, including the Algontario, from the roof of my building.

I uploaded it to panoramia first, because panoramia will compute the latitude and longitude for me. The cameras that include a GPS and embed the latitude and longitude in the image are way out of my price range.

So I am going to put the PD back in the image.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The TV show Covert Affairs is set in Washington DC, but it is filmed in Toronto. A lot of it is filmed in my neighbourhood. An episode that was recently broadcast up here was largly set in Argentina. I recognized that the final scene set in Argentina, which was set on a dockside -- was actually filmed on the dockside in this image, well around the corner really, where the Canadian Ranger was moored. Geo Swan (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
So you are OldYorkGuy? Maybe you should indicate that in the author field or the Panoramio profile. I don't think I would have known otherwise (and it's possible others might want more definitive proof). – Adrignola talk 13:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and booledozer on Geo Swan (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)