User talk:Bryan/archive/2007/03

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

You deleted my picture. Shame, shame on you[edit]

I already thought it could be violating some copyright, but the picture was made in the street, it's not taken from any website nor anything. It was a poster in the underground of London. So it's just a picture of the environment. I mean, you can go for the street and take pictures of the things. If you take a picture of a Toyota car, no one will say it's copyrighted, instead the car itself IS copyrighted. So I think you are not right. But well, I'm not an expert. Anyway, in this case, I am still violating the copyright? It's a picture taken from the enviroment...

Onofre Bouvila 22:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying is senseless. So I can take a picture of a whole train station in London, where we can see like 10 or 12 advertisments at the left side of the image, but I can't take a picture of the advertisement itself? I think you're wrong.

What I cannot do is to copy the copyrighted stuff. But I am not copying that. I am taking a picture of the environment. The fact the copyrighted stuff was there is not my fault. If what you are saying was applied, we should remove this picture [1] and a thousand more pictures in the wikipedia. In this picture of Tokyo we can see LOTS of advertisments, but no one consider we are violating the copyright because the picture has been taken by a private person in the environemnt. So my case is the same; I was not using copyrighted stuff, just taking a picture of a PUBLIC PLACE, the underground.
I am a lawyer and I think I know what I am talking about; you can consult a laws book if you want.
Thanks.
Onofre Bouvila 22:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Christian engstrom original.jpg[edit]

If you read the text below the image, you can see that the copyright has been released by the pirate party of sweden. If you wish to verify the copyright status, I suggest you contact them instead of proposing the image for deletion on the cause of missing source Notwist 11:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Goof on vote[edit]

See line 99... looks like you put something in the wrong part of the template: [2]Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 03:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Flickr-Regexes[edit]

Just a friendly reminder :) BTW: Wouldn't it work to explode the Flickr-URL at "/" and check for numbers or do they use plain numbers for anything else than IDs? --Flominator 11:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

hello iam new here this is cool

POTY 2006 - Different criteria in the diff link definition[edit]

I'm having trouble with some users who do not accept my vote striking. The problem is this guide does not match the instructions given in the section "Who can vote" of the main page. In the instructions, there is an indication to refer to the local IP address in the diff link (which is correct IMO), in the guide, to the number of the picture. I think this should be fixed as soon as possible. Alvesgaspar 21:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Translation (?) update requested[edit]

On User:Bryan/Scripts/Poty anon.js, could you please update You are having less than 100 edits! to You have less than 100 edits! ? Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 18:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, its working. — xaosflux Talk 18:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

poty zip[edit]

Wow, looks incredible! Thanks for all your work on that.

This one doesn't show (I guess it might be a diacritics thing - best to double check all those ones). I would change 'Number of votes' to maybe 'POTY vote count' or something more clear, anyway.

Also, could you put a link Wikimedia Commons somewhere prominent, maybe top right hand corner, or above the top of the menu?

--pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, could we maybe put 'prev'/'next' links in the menu? That would be pretty awesome. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Try user:gmaxwell, else user:Duesentrieb (he can tell you who to bug, if he can't help), else bug brion and other random people in #wikimedia-tech . pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Fkraus[edit]

Your text:

Thank you for your contributions :) Funnily enough the images from Karl Kraus are only allowed since 1 January this year, so your timing is perfect. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

my answer: This was the intention for doing that. The poems (Ausgewählte Gedichte 2007-01-01T00:02:28) i. e. have been activated at German Wikisource at the very beginning of the year. :) --Fkraus 08:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Diffs in Picture of the Year contest[edit]

Hi Bryan,

bedankt for your hint. I added the new diff in the archive. Why don't you take Editcount with a specified projectname for legitimation? It would work also without opt-in (at least for accounts with the same name on different wikis). CU --Ulz cup of coffee? 09:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Flickr Reviewer[edit]

Hallo Bryan. Bedankt dat je me hebt toegevoegd aan de 'vertrouwde gebruikers' bij FlickrReviewer. Een vraagje: is het goed als ik ook foto's 'goedkeur' die ik zelf heb geupload? Ik zou me n.l. kunnen voorstellen dat dat wellicht enigszins de indruk wekt van belangenverstrengeling. Gr, Husky 20:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, bedankt voor het antwoord. Nog een ander vraagje: wat moet ik doen als een afbeelding een licentie heeft die niet hetzelfde is als de aangegeven licentie, maar die wel geldig is op Commons? B.v. een licentie van een oudere versie of eentje die eerst BY was en nu BY-SA? Husky 21:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hee Bryan, nog een vraagje of wellicht een verzoekje. Als ik nu foto's tegenkom die niet geldig zijn, maar niet omdat de licentie niet in orde is maar omdat ze onvindbaar zijn of omdat ze verwijderd zijn, kan ik dat alleen opgeven via de licentie-tag, dus dan krijg je een mededeling in de trant van:
(...) it was currently available on Flickr under the license No permission to view the photograph

Dat ziet er een beetje raar uit. Wellicht dat je net zo'n parameter toe kan voegen als 'changed='? Ik ben zelf niet zo'n held met geavanceerde templates, vandaar. Husky 22:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 3, Issue 7 12 February 2007 About the Signpost

Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war Peppers article stays deleted
Pro golfer sues over libelous statements Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk" News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : en:WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ral315 08:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

about Image Tagging Image:Kitebeach_at_cabarete_2.JPG[edit]

hi bryan, first tanks a lot for your work but look at the tags of my pictures. I'm the author (as AROOM) so we don't have any problem with the copyright. bye Aroom 12:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC) aroom

Flickr images needing human review[edit]

What should I do if the image in sourced to flick but the user claims he is the author e.g. Image:139724420 f655271645 o.jpg?--Vaya 11:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ок. I got it. And can the image from Flickr be licenced under two tags e.g. CC-BY-SA and GFDL, as on Flickr it is licenced only under one tag.--Vaya 11:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for the info:)--Vaya 11:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests protected?[edit]

You have protected Commons:Undeletion requests. Please explain how editors are now supposed to ask for undeletion? I can't find instruction on Commons:Undeletion requests about how to proceed now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I figured it out after looking at the talk page, but lead of Commons:Undeletion requests should note that the users who want to comment/file new requests should go to Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bryan[edit]

If I take an picture of advertisement and upload it with free license then is it likely to be deleted in future? Some tagger (who tagged image continuosly) says that those type of images pose copyright problem And other says it is okay to upload in en.wikipedia, not in commons. Are they right??? (Since I took that advertisement picture)--NAHID 15:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. By creating a picture of an advertisement you are creating a derivative work. This means that the picture is both copyrighted by you and the copyright holder of the advertisement. In order to publish the work under a free license, both you and the advertisement creator have to agree with this. In case your picture is a faithful 2D reproduction and does not show any 3D elements such as borders, in many countries including the USA and Germany, it is considered uncreative, and thus only copyrighted by the advertisement creator. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Self created image in common and another website[edit]

Is it okay to upload self-created image in wikimedia and At The Time in Another WEBSITE (Hi5, personal web blog etc..)? Is there any problem to have self created images in both other website and as well as in Wikimedia?--NAHID 15:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. There might be confusion whether you just ripped off the image from the weblog or not, this is easily solved by stating somewhere on the weblog that you are the same user as the user on Commons. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Permission from person, organization[edit]

Can I upload any image in common (under free license) after getting permission from person, organization etc. --NAHID 15:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but be aware that the image must be under a free license and that Wiki[m|p]edia permission only is not enough. Ideally, you use the template on Commons:Email templates, so that the person is fully aware of the implications of free licensing. If you get the permission, please forward it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org; there the OTRS will take care of it. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If you have more questions, feel free to ask. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

POTY archive[edit]

Dag Bryan. Kan je in je archief (heel mooi initiatief, trouwens), Alle wetenschappelijke namen van organismen cursief zetten? T.t.z. de Genera en de species. En nog een vraagje: wat betekent contributors helemaal onderaan? Bij één van mijn bijdragen zie ik daar een hele resem namen staan waar ik nog nooit van heb gehoord. Met vriendelijke groet. Lycaon 21:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Bedankt vvor de snelle respons. Nog een (kleine?) opmerking. De auteurs van de foto's worden waarschijnlijk ook automatisch geparsed. Image 236 (Hippo pod) geeft Fir0002 als auteur terwijl de oorpronkelijke foto gemaakt werd door ene Paul Maritz (Paulmaz)... Lycaon 21:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

H3fall2007.jpg archive[edit]

Bueno, que carajo te pasa? por que no podemos usar imagenes que si las usan en la wiki en ingles? solo ustedes tiene ese derecho? o que chucha te pasa?

Why the file H3fall2007.jpg was delete? Juan Carlos User:juanchoso2000

Hola, Commons es un depositario de medios libres ya no aceptamos uso ferio. El Wikipedia de Ingleis permita uso ferio pero cuando ustedes suba a Commons, ustedes solo suba medios libres tambien. Yonatanh 22:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Image 2006[edit]

Results for vérification. Alceste 00:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hoverflie and Blue Jay[edit]

Didn't the Hoverflie become fourth and the Blue Jay third? They both got 70 votes, but in the first round the Blue Jay got 31 votes, while the Hoverflie only got 25. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right!... I'll put it back the way it was - Alvesgaspar 19:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this is also my personal opinion, the bird is superb! - Alvesgaspar 19:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
What's the latest count? The figures in the proposed message on the project talk page are not the same as these. If there really is a draw for 3rd place we should award two equal third prizes. It's unfair to Fir002 to demote his picture to 4th simply because he got fewer votes in round 1. That was never a published rule and it's not right to introduce it now, after the event. --MichaelMaggs 20:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Image of famous food (But produced in local market)[edit]

Though local food considered as a product, but sometimes they aren't copyrighted, I think. For example, a famous sweetmeat of Bangladesh is Chamcham (confectionary). But it's produced in local market. No multinational / local organization holds its copyright. Is it okay to upload that image under free license (in wiki[me]pedia)? I'm thinking to write an article on it.--NAHID 21:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The food itself is not copyrighted. If you take an image of the food, it should be fine. Beware that some pictures of logos of food may be copyrighted.

Image:Venus de Milo edited.jpg[edit]

Can the uploader also release this image under public domain or public domain (100 years old)? --NAHID 22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)--NAHID 10:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the author's choice. Creating a picture of an 3D objects involves creativity, and is thus copyrightable by the person who took the picture. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Image from Another image[edit]

Bryan I found an old notable person's image hanging on the wall. He probably died 50 years ago. I want take an photo of him and upload it under PD old.--NAHID 10:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No idea, depends on who took the picture and when.

Own image of car and other products[edit]

Can I upload an image of CAR, DUMBELL, BARBELL TRADEMILL (all excercise instruments) under free license?? If not then which license? In wikipedia Image use police says Such images can include photographs which you yourself took (remember that rights to images generally lie with the photographer, not the subject). However, simply re-tracing a copyrighted image or diagram does not necessarily create a new copyright — copyright is generated only by instances of "creativity", and not by the amount of labor which went into the creation of the work. It means I can take any company products image and upload it in wiki[pe]media. Please explain --NAHID 10:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If you took the picture yourself, yes. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Written text on image[edit]

If my self-created image include written text (date placed at the bottom. middle or top of the image) than is that okay to upload?--NAHID 10:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what text and what the picture is about. Sorry for the short answers, but I really am short of time now. If you want more precise answers, please ask them on Commons:Help Desk -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Image from Another image[edit]

Bryan I found an old notable person's image hanging on the wall. He probably died 50 years ago. I want take an photo of him and upload it under PD old. will it be okay? If I upload it under free license, then also will it be okay?--NAHID 10:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the copyright would still lay by the person who first created the photograph. And it depends on whether he died 70 years ago or not. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
If the copyright holder died less than 50 or 40 years ago then what shoud be it's license? pLease explain it to me--NAHID 11:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Then the image is still copyrighted, and you are not allowed to upload the image here. Sorry,-- Bryan (talk to me) 11:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • How can I mention the source of PD OLD image (If I found that old notable person's image hanging on the wall).And how can I prove that it's copyright is expired? Is ti really necessary to mention rational?

P.S. Should I write, Own image of old piture who died 70 years ago and copyright holder also died 70 years ago--NAHID 12:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You as uploader have the responsibility to proof that the copyright holder is. Of course, this should be used with Common sense. For example a picture from 1800 is PD-Old anyway, whether you know who was the author or not, if you know for sure that it is really that old. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Shaheed minar Roehl.jpg and Image:Jatiyo Sangshad Bhaban (Roehl).jpg[edit]

And If I took above image then can I release it under free license like own image of car building?

For buildings depends on whether Commons:Freedom of Panorama applies in that country. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Coconut cream pie.jpg[edit]

This image was deleted from wikipedia because of copyright problem. But it's now on common. Was there really any copyright problem of this image. Or someone mistakenly deleted it. Please tell me.--NAHID 11:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with it. The user who uploaded it to Commons is the same user as that of the website that is linked to. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

2nd and 3rd places[edit]

Bryan, I'm just about to rush off now. Would you be able to add 2nd & 3rd place banners into the descriptions of the winning images? --MichaelMaggs 09:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Statue and sculpture[edit]

Can I upload scuplture and statue under free license (If I took the image)? Does it also depends on copyright? In Bangladesh there's no restriction to take those images.And If get the permission from copyright holder, then do I need to mention permission link. (That you mention above)--NAHID 13:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I found those type images under free license in wikipedia. Are they okay? Please explain me in simple way. I'll be happy for that--NAHID 13:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about that. Try asking at Commons talk:Licensing. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OTHER WEBLINK[edit]

Thank you Bryan.Regarding on section Self created image in common and another website, can I mention that weblinks image in wiki[me]pedia. (Image description page). Please answer me --NAHID 19:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand what you mean. Which weblink are you talking about? -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying about that weblink where I published my own photo ( That I also published in Wiki[me]pedia.) Is there any problem If mention that weblink in my own image description pase--NAHID 19:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It might cause some confusion, but it is not a problem. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

License[edit]

What does GFDL COPY LEFT mean. The term copyleft is quite confusing. --NAHID 19:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyleft is a term that is supposed to be opposite to copyright. It basically means that something is free to use, but that all derivative works of that image have to be free as well. For more information, see w:copyleft. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Scalpture and Building 2[edit]

According to Commons:Freedom of panorama, I've undestood that I can take Scalpture. But I've question about 2 dimentional image. Can I upload that one too? Is there any restriction? What are the requirements of uploading 2D images both wikimepedia? Can you pls clarify ?--NAHID 19:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Is there any article about the law of 3D and 2D image?

See {{PD-art}} and Commons:Derivative work -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ellora cave16 001.jpg[edit]

This image has uploaded by an User. But he also mention a websource. Is anything wrong? --NAHID 19:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the user's name and the webaddress, I would say that they are both the same. So no problem here. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It means I can publish my own work in wiki[me]pedia and the website the belongs to me, by mentioning weblink.Right--NAHID 19:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

{{PD-Art|GFDL}}[edit]

Does this license belongs to the creator--NAHID 19:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This license can be applied to artwork that has been originally licensed under the GFDL by the creator, and after that has been photographed, showing only 2D details. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

{{PD-USGov-CIA-WF}}[edit]

I'm trying to upload from cia factbook. But the problem is, in Upload section, licensing box isn't mentioning above license. How can I rectify this ? e.g. Image:Bg-map.png.

  • Also where can I found this type of licenses
You can find a full list of licenses on COM:CT. You can add a license that is not in the drop down box, by simply leaving the drop down box to None and manually add the tag to the image description. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Anna Wintour[edit]

Your bot misread the Flickr tagging for the original of this image here. The side tagging shows the licensing you described; however below the image creator added the updated license. I had some confusion about this when it was first uploaded, resulting in two deletions; the admin later found what I was talking about and let the picture stay. I do, as the page indicates, have an email from karinbar agreeing to change the licensing if you need to see it. Daniel Case 04:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Patenschaftsteller.jpg[edit]

Bitte ordne das Bild doch einer Kategorie zu, statt es zu löschen. Ich bin "englisch" nicht ganz so fit, um den Kat-Baum zu durchforsten. Danke. --Mef.ellingen 09:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin help needed[edit]

Thank you for your previous guidance on licensing requirements. I would be most grateful if you would kindly confirm appropriate licensing on the following images:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Flickr_Obama_Austin_01.jpg cc-by-2.0 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Flickr_Obama_Springfield_01.jpg cc-by-sa-2.0 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Barackobamasig.jpg public domain (image is from U.S. Senate web site)

Many thanks! --HailFire 15:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Senior Airman Joshua Strang[edit]

Hallo bryan, ik heb vernomen dat je een e-mail hebt gezonden naar de US Airforce t.a.v. de fotograaf van de winnaar van de afbeelding van het jaar. Kan je me zeggen of je enige reactie hebt ontvangen? (voor wikizine) Groet, --Walter 19:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Away[edit]

I will not be online much next two weeks. If it's urgent, try finding some other administrator. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Make that three weeks, and additionally I am rewriting my bot framework, so the bots might not be running regulary. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

2 Questions[edit]

1. User:BrockF5 pretends to be trusted [3]--Vaya 23:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Is this ok [4]?--Vaya 23:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Flickr reviewers[edit]

Hey, I have been monitoring the page but haven't actively participated over there currently, mainly because of other activities I'm up to; both on here and RL. It seems to be working as I envisaged though - good job!--Nilfanion 12:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

More answers[edit]

I appreciate the thought you've put in my RfA. I anwered your question. --Evrik 16:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hi, thanks for reviewing the snooker images which I had listed at AN. While unreviewed it was always one of those "hope they haven't changed their licences" situations - at least now the images are more secure. Thanks, SFC9394 00:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

JPEG diagram[edit]

Thanks a lot for fixing it!--Konstable 00:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hoi Bryan[edit]

hoi, het schijnt dat jij ook admin bent hier, als je ooit informatie nodig hebt wb nl.afbeeldingen, laat het me weten hier of op nl:, ik ben zowel hier als daar admin, dus kan het een of ander uitzoeken. Groet, NielsF talk/overleg/discussion/discussione 05:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Stadtgebiet_der_Stadt_Spremberg.png[edit]

Danke für den Hinweis. Habe mal auf der Diskussionsseite des Bildes meine Gründe notiert SPBer 09:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Bryan, habe mich fälschlicherweise bei meiner Begründung auf ein anderes von mir hochgeladenes Bild (Image: Spremberg_Innenstadt_19.Jahrhundert.jpg) bezogen. Dies wurde aber gar nicht "bemängelt" Entschuldige die Verwirrung. SPBer 17:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Escudo Tungurahua.jpg[edit]

Bueno, esto si que es el colmo. Este es el escudo de mi ciudad, por que carajo lo pones para borrado?

Whats the problem with this file? Ths is the icon of my city. Was made 100 years ago and is used in all the country. This file do not have copyright. Cant we use images in our wiki? if you think some file has a problem, ask first. Maybe your are young and dont have experince. ask first, then take actions. juanchoso2000


Product image[edit]

I noticed some product image (like cocacola, cigarette packet and other products). Will it be okay to upload them under free license?

Commons Picture of the Year 2006[edit]

Thank you very much for running this competition this is very positive for the global evolution around the wiki projects. I'm so proud and happy for this little success, thanks to you and everyone who participated. The comments are trully moving ... When I so this poor guy, it was a sunday early morning rue royale in Paris, I knew I had to shot this heartbreaking human being, it was strong, I knew it like an intuition ! I love the wiki philosophy and it's general developments, I will try to upload more photographs in the future ... Best regards from Paris, ERic Pouhier

Bundesadler[edit]

You missed these:

They are placed inside a building, not "an öffentlichen Plätzen", as would be required for panorama freedom --Rtc 07:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, deleted them both. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Erro[edit]

Achpo que cometeu um erro. Eu achei essa imagem no Gogle Imagens. E não houve cophrighty algum. . . Se fui eu que cometi o erro então , me desculpe. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pedro00 (talk • contribs) at 20:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Commons[edit]

Posso carregar uma imagem que está no Commons in English ? Pedro00 21:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Welcomecreation[edit]

Hi Bryan, do you know the link for the user page, as well? --Flominator 10:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Flickr images/reviewers[edit]

Suggestion:

Mail[edit]

Nothing vital but i sent you mail yesterday? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - given the rant on the talk page and my block there I am just a little concerned about the unused account I guess - just need to keep eyes open! Regards --Herby talk thyme 10:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

license information.[edit]

(marking image as missing essential license information. If this is not fixed this image might be deleted after 7 days.) http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Warner_Bros._Coraline_Corsets

what license have images from this booklet?--haabet 20:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 3, Issue 12 20 March 2007 About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream" News and notes: Bad sin, milestones
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : en:WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ral315 07:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Import from Flickr[edit]

Bonjour ! Merci pour tes conseils d'il y a 2 jours concernant l'import de photos depuis Flickr ! C'est vrai que ce n'est pas simple ... je m'y perds dans toutes ces "licences" et droits divers ! D'autant que, premièrement, les modules Wikimedia Commons et Flickr sont un peu "différents", et que, deuxièmement, mon niveau d'anglais est aussi faible que le charabia technique est parfois mal expliqué ! J'ai commencé à corriger quelques-uns de mes récents imports. Je pense prendre du temps pour corriger le reste dans les jours qui viennent. J'en profite pour laisser pour chaque image importée un p'tit message sur Flickr en commentaire, conformément au modèle indiqué dans le module {{Flickreview}}. Là encore, cela prend du temps qu'on ne consacre pas à autre chose ! Bon week-end ! - Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - Markus3 10:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sock blocks[edit]

Mind me asking if they are confirmed? Not got anything in the log - the IP I blocked I think is onvolved (again from log) but I would prefer confirmation. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree tho I am maybe a little more cautious than you! The one I mentioned who had the file deleted yesterday - because the file was deleted I could not be sure it was actually the same file (if it had been fine I guess) & mail! Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW I think Tintazul has pulled there request looking at the bottom, kinda "closed"? --Herby talk thyme 11:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

deletion request[edit]

It was here: Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded/2006/11/19. Hard to find I know, but I do not know whether it is worth to make also archive pages for superseded pages because they are more "low level" deletion requests. --14:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Haabet's coraline corset stuff[edit]

I'm not sure what's the point of singling out that one particular image of Haabet's, when the same considerations apply to dozens of Haabet's images -- and in any case it's rather obvious that the source is corporate promotional material published before 1923 in the United States of America (see Image:29th Century Models01.jpg etc.). Haabet has very limited facility in any language other than Danish (and was kicked off Danish Wikipedia!), and so rarely writes good full image descriptions. However, though there have been problems with other of Haabet's images in the past, there does not appear to be a signifcant problem with that one particular image now. Churchh 21:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It was published in the U.S. because Warner Bros. Corset Co. was a U.S. company (as you can see documented at Image:29th Century Models01.jpg). It was published in the late 19th century (and quite certainly before 1923!), because the details of the women's clothing styles (not to mention general decorative aesthetic) belong rather strongly to the Victorian period. If you know very little about how to date women's clothing styles by period, or how the Victorian aesthetic differed from that of the 1920's, then it would only seem reasonable for you to defer to those who have knowledge in such areas. Furthermore, Haabet displays a number of idiosyncracies with respect to the conventions of Wikimedia/Wikipedia (God knows that's the case!), but "taking things from the web" is not one of them -- Haabet seems to devote a lot of effort to aquiring original copies of 19th-century and early 20th-century printed documents, and scanning them at high resolutions. But not all such ephemera happens to have a year printed on it. Churchh 22:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank Churchh, I am to busy to write in english. But look at the Warner Bros. catalogue, from before 1901 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/20th_century_Models [Ebay Item 190078778655]--haabet 10:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nuvola multimedia.png[edit]

Thx for your message in my user talk in id. I've corrected the lisence for Image:Nuvola multimedia.png. -- IvanLanin 14:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)