User talk:Cnyborg/2006-2

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

This is an archive; if you wish to contact me, leave a message at my talk page.

Image:Anders Fogh.jpg[edit]

Hi Cnyborg.

I am a bit surprised that you've tagged this image as not having any source. Both the photographer's name and the source page are both listed (see the first link indicated). As I understand the Danish text, the image is one of those that the Danish government has officially acquired all rights to. "Frit benyttes" can be understood both as "free of charge" and "for any purpose", but when I see this expression, my first interpretation is the latter: that it may be used without restriction. So for this reason, I presume this image has the same status as the ones from which we seem to consider PD (see Talk:Folketing) The mail from expressly states that their images may be used in publications and that the photographer has been "paid off" for this purpose. I read this the same way as Thue; as a blanket permission, since nothing else has been indicated. Since the same phrase is used by the Foreign Ministry, I presume the status is the same here. However, if you think this image has any problems, my first suggestion would be the following image [1] (from, but I'd like to hear your view on this issue.

Btw, I might be able to persuade one or two of my friends to check their pictures of the PM taken at party conferences. Perhaps one of them might be interested in releasing one of these. Cheers. Valentinian (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

At Talk:Folketing, which you've referred to, it's stated that "this only covers images from (, not images from the individual ministries.". You've listed a source for the image, but none to support the interpretation that it's free to be used and modified without any restriction. Looking at earlier attempts to get permission for modification, a blanket permission like that means simply that it's a press photo, with "no modification, no derivative works" implisite in the permission. The less strict interpretation might be right, but it needs to be confirmed, especially considering the statement at Talk:Folketing. Cnyborg 09:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that this page uses the nomenclature of the GFDL, when stating that this image "frit kan afbenyttes." If restrictions like nc and nd existed, they would be mentioned. --Pred 10:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
"Would be mentioned"? Are you serious? There is no need to mention such restriction, and most press photos are for free use but not modification. As of now, the only justification for using the images is Talk:Folketinget, which actually states that they can't be used without clarifying with the individual department. Cnyborg 10:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
May I suggest we keep this thread one place, rather than two? I was comparing this image to the images from since the Foreign Ministry and Folketinget's webmaster use the exact same phrase. Nothing more, nothing less. I have never claimed that also represents the Foreign Ministry. However, the Danish text is pretty clear: "Billederne må frit benyttes" = "no restrictions apply". This is how the average man on the street will read that phrase, so I presume that must mean that these images have been released to PD. Since the webmaster of used the same expression, am I to assume that you also question all images using this tag?
Since I have managed to catch a nasty case of the flu, I'm pretty sure I'll not be able to edit much the next days, let alone writing formal letters to a ministry. If you contact them, may I suggest that you simply ask them if this text means that these images are PD or if some other restrictions apply for their use? I am not very sure that the average member of the ministry's staff knows the formal differences between GFDL, CC or other types of licenses, so simply asking for PD will give a shorter response time. Valentinian (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
And btw, I have not looked into the formal procedures used by Commons for writing to institutions etc. I pretty much assumed that a mere e-mail was not enough. Valentinian (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to hear you're not feeling well. The simplest thing is probably to ask to use the licence they're marked with now; the only thing needed is confirmation that free use also includes free modification. I'll send an e-mail. The leap from "Billederne må frit benyttes" to "no restrictions apply" is not as straightforward as one might think; a lot of press photos have been deleted from Commons as this phrase is often meant as a non-derivative license. Cnyborg 16:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I am feeling better now, thanks (24 hours of sleep can do wonders). If the ministry's reply should necessitate the removal of this particular image, I would prefer if we could simply overwrite it with a different image using the same name. A lot of articles link to this image, and I would like to avoid going through all of them updating links. In this case, my first hunch would be to use the image from as a replacement ([2], bottom). I have also asked one of my friends to check his photos from the 2005 convention for potential replacements. He has promised to look into the matter but I don't know when he'll get through his archive (he takes quite a lot of photos). On the bright side; he is a Wikipedian himself, so he'll be able to upload any such images himself. Cheers. Valentinian (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, there is no rush to delete (or, they can be deleted to get rid of old revisions, and then the new image is immediately uploaded under the same name). If there is a problem, it's not about copyright per se, it's about our internal rules, so they're not copyvios in any case. I've sent an e-mail, but no reply so far; hopefully that's just because they need to consult someone. Cnyborg 22:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lewis Binford.jpg[edit]

Im wrong and you are right, I dont perceive the Non commecial Use, sorry for the work and the lost time: dont hesitate, delete it--Locutus Borg 16:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

PD: sorry for my english to

Thanks, I'll delete it. Your English is quite understandable, no problem there. Cnyborg 16:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


This image was copied of the Wikipedia of the site Yugioh in English e placed in the site in Portuguese of Wikipedia

thanks,Nathan Sodré Salvatierra 16:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


I've uploaded a photo enlargement in an attempt to make it available as a supplement. However, I was unable to link it properly, and couldn't find a proper tag for it either.

You've helped me once. Would you please do it again?

It's appreciated.!Richard_Tylman.jpg

I suggest that you go to the upload page, and upload the larger version with exactly the same name as the small one. It's better to just replace the smaller one, since it can easily be scaled on Wikimedia projects. If that's OK with you, I can do it for you if you're unsure about the procedure. Cnyborg 21:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, do help.

It would save us both time if you did it for me instead of me coming back to you with even more questions. I understand that the new picture would have to be scaled down for the article also. There must be a tag for it, but the only one I found is not helping at all, i.e.: Image:___.jpg|thumb|. The big picture remained big in the article when I did it.

Thanks in advance.

The thumb parameter doesn't work in the infobox at en:Richard Tylman, but the line below image name is image size. I added 120px there; you can adjust it if you want. Cnyborg 10:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think, we're half way through already. Thanks. I can see how this is going to work, however the larger image featured in Commons became highly pixelated for reasons that remain a mystery to me. I uploaded a new version again with exactly the same name to see if it would improve the quality, but the resolution of the new image remained extremely low. Is that a glitch or something? I wish I knew.

I'm not sure what's going on here. When clicking the link to the actucal image file (rather than the description page), I get a small version. Cnyborg 15:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, it worked fine now; I just hit reload to clear the cache, and the image is no longer low-res. Cnyborg 15:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What a relief! I just did what you did and refreshed my cache. The image looks fine now. I suppose that'll be it for now. Congratulations!


In so far as the Image:Marylinsimons.jpg is concerned, I already delivered additional information to Yours sincerely, We El 16:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please insert the ticket number on the page? And also correct the license tag; you've tagged it as your own work, but the need for a permission and the mention of "courtesy of" indicates that it's not your work. Cnyborg 16:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


Informacja o pliku Image:Idzi Radziszewski.jpg i innych[edit]

Hi, all the pictures that you wrote about are very old pictures. Thats also why I indicated that the authors died more than 70 years ago, which is certainly true. Thats why I can not specify who created the content, I can only specify the source (web site). Is it enough? Wujaszek 12:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The images are most likely OK, but there should be a proper source; the difficulty is that the websites don't specify anything. Two of the died in 1916 and 1922, and theoretically the photographer could have lived well into the 1940's or 1950's if he was young when they were taken. The one of Sebastian Petrycy should perhaps be tagged with {{PD-art}} instead; it looks like a b/w photo of an old painting. Cnyborg 15:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin news[edit]


If you consent for statistics to be published about your actions as an administrator, please sign here: Commons:Administrator permission for statistics. (I expect that most people will not have a problem with it unless you are especially concerned with privacy.)

Also, please be aware that we now have a Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Please put it on your watchlist, if you haven't already!

cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi, pictures Image:Idzi Radziszewski.jpg, Image:Sebastian Petrycy.gif, Image:Stefan Pawlicki.jpg are public domain according to polish law and this applies worldwide. I suppose I can delete the templates you've put? cheers Wujaszek 21:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Great! I'll have to remember that law. Cnyborg 22:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Anders Fogh[edit]

Thanks for your mail. I have replaced the image with the one from That image should be better. Cheers. Valentinian (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

NGC 1023[edit]

Permission has been granted by Odd Trondal by E-Mail:

yes you are welcome to use all my pictures on my web.
Yours Sincerely
Odd Trondal

----- Original Message ----- From: "Michał Winiarski" <m(dot)j(dot)winiarski(at-no-spam)gmail(dot)com>
To: <otrondal(at-no-spam)online(dot)no>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 10:54 AM
Subject: Question about photo of NGC 5879

> Can I use Your photo of NGC 5879 ( in Wikipedia article. It will be placed in under terms of GNU Free Documentation License.
> Michał Winiarski,
> Poland.

Winiar 19:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've copied it to Image talk:NGC1023.jpg. Cnyborg 19:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi Cnyborg, not sure if you used a template or what here, but as you can see the signature-bit didn't quite work... --pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, there was a missing /nowiki. Cnyborg 14:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Dennis-Kristensen FOA.jpg[edit]

Hej, Du skrev mig ang. upload af ovenstående billede. Jeg er ny her og har sikkert lavet en fejl

Du skriver at jeg skal skrive til FOA for at få det godkendt. Nu arbejder jeg i FOA og har ansvaret for billeder og rettigheder. Billedet kan frit benyttes. Hvilke justeringer skal jeg foretage før billedet bliver "lovligt" at bruge her? Mvh Petedane 11.10.2006 22:48

I så fall trenger du bare å skrive på billedsiden at du har ansvaret i FOA og dermed har rett til at frigi det. Cnyborg 23:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, hvor er det lige præcis jeg skal skrive det? Under punktet "Permission"? Petedane 11. septemeber 2006 07:19
Ja, det passer godt. Cnyborg 10:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Tak for hjælpen. Nu har jeg rettet det. Kan jeg få dig til at tjekke om alt er OK? Petedane 11. septemeber 2006 12:24
Nå ser det riktig bra ut, og jeg har fjernet kilde-taggen. Cnyborg 10:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Mange tak for hjælpen og din tålmodighed med en "nybegynder". Petedane 10:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Crcs radarer 48002a.gif[edit]

Hei Chris.

Jeg flyttet akkurat dette bildet over fra no.wikipedia. Er du enig i at det faller inn under åndsverklovens §9? Selv er jeg litt i tvil. Hilsen Kjetil 02:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Jeg mener det ikke kommer under §9, fordi det da må være noe som er publisert «under myndighetsutøvelse». Jeg ser på dette som informasjon, og ikke myndighetsutøvelse, og offentlig informasjon er ikke PD i Norge (til tross for at enkelte til stadighet påstår at vi kan kopiere fritt fra Stortingets sider og slikt). Cnyborg 10:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Greit, jeg sletter da dette kartet. --Kjetil_r 16:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the image of Jeong-Hyun Lim playing guitar on youtube.[edit]

Pardon me Cnyborg, but why did you remove the image I uploaded of Jeong-Hyun Lim (a.k.a funtwo) playing guitar on youtube? I can hardley belive that youtube holds the copyright of the screenshot I posted. The images and media on the otherhand may be a different story, but if you are this picky you need to remove more or less every screenshot on the wikimedia network since they all will proboblly contain what could be considered another partys intelectual property. In the Google article on wikipedia ( you see images containing the same sort of intelectual property.

Take care


I now know that I posted it udner the wrong lisence but unfortunaly I dont know how to post under the right lisence. The lisence the google

is posted under should be the correct one, but unfortunaly I dont know how to post under that lisence.

could you be a dove and help me with that?

Take care

Youtube does hold the rights to the image. If you look at the images description of the examples in the Google article, you'll find that they are licensed under the fair use rule, which is not accceptable on Commons since there is no content here (read more here). If you want to upload under the fair use license, you must do so at the English Wikipedia or on another Wikimedia project that accepts fair use (note that not all projects do). Cnyborg 23:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Heykal.jpg[edit]

I found the image on the english wikipedia. . Omar86 14:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply at User talk:Omar86#Image_Tagging_Image:Heykal.jpg. Cnyborg 17:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

revision deletiong[edit]

Could you delete [3]? It's the first version I uploaded of Image:Gbawa_sp.jpg, but I had to upload a new version because I realized that the original had the serial number on it. Thanks. Hbdragon88 01:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Cnyborg 09:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin news[edit]


If you consent for statistics to be published about your actions as an administrator, please sign here: Commons:Administrator permission for statistics. (I expect that most people will not have a problem with it unless you are especially concerned with privacy.)

Also, please be aware that we now have a Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Please put it on your watchlist, if you haven't already!

cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC) P.S.: Pardon if this is a repeat (bot debugging...)

Ansari image[edit]

Why are you doing that? What do you know about copyright? I answer you: nothing. Of course the image series has a credit, all photographs have, someone did that shots, right? The camera do not work by itself. But it doesn't have copyright, of course. Why? Did you read copyright in the credits? No.

Because Soyuz flights to ISS are a joint-venture among Russia and US. All press material belongs to both spacial agencies. And all press material by NASA is public domain. That photo(not the one you showed) was uploaded from Ansari's official biography at NASA site. That press kit and all in it belongs to NASA and is public domain, ok?

Don´t do that again, please.Machocarioca 18:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

Now that's a pleasant attitude. Cnyborg 23:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The tags have been reverted, I have reverted but he will revert again. Obviously Mr Machocarioca wants to work by his own rules. 05:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Cnyborg 09:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Elián photo, from Praxides[edit]

It looks to me that the copyright of this image belongs to the Cuban news agency Granma. If not, Granma wouldn't insert it in its site and wouldn't authorize its reproduction. If Granma broke somebody's copyrignt (it's possible, considering the nature of the Cuban regime), it's not my duty to procceed an investigation about it. The photo was taken at year 2000, time enough for the alleged copyright owner take any measure against Granma. But if Wikicommons doesn't understand this way, no problem for me if you erase the photo. Cheers --Praxides 14:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply at User talk:Praxides. Cnyborg 18:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Flickr and deletion[edit]

Hi, I saw you deleted the image File:Maradona-11751129 601941c599 o.jpg. Is there a new policy I missed? I understand that CC-tagged images from Flickr could be uploaded here. Did I get something wrong? I can't see the deleted version of the text, so I can't check the origin of the image to see if its copyright was changed; please, leave me a message about this, so I don't loose time uploading images that will be later deleted. Thanks, Mariano 07:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply at User talk:Marianocecowski. Cnyborg 10:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You learn something new every day! I still don't fully undestand why noncommercial images are not allowed, but what the hell. Thanks for taking the time to answer me. Good wiking, Mariano 12:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Anders Wilse[edit]

Hi again, did you look at the articles on Wilse in the Norwegian and English section of Wikipedia? Both use an image of Wilse - and both claim the copyright has expired. But you taught me it's not true? --Happolati 17:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't look at the Norwegian one, and just assumed that the English one was fair use. Thanks for letting me know; it's clear that he died too late for the images to be PD. Cnyborg 18:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)



why do you want to delete one of my pictures about Orsoy?

Lucius Malfoy

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Cnyborg 21:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about this topic:

Cnyborg setzt Lösch-Marker Disputed für Image:Luftbild_Nord.jpg: {{disputed}} (diff);

Ah, that one. I put the disputed tag on it because it's an old air photo. I see that you've also uploaded images dated 1945 and even a map from 1591 and tagged them as own work. That's obviously not true, unless you're more than 400 years old. Cnyborg 22:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
In de:Wiki I'm talking about this with Lucius since a whole month - he's also uploading pictures of currency and pictures of coats of arms claiming he would be the author. Or a picture published in 1980s by (still living historian) Dieter Kastner claiming he is the author and telling this should be tolerated as noone would mind and Kastner himself should even be happy that his work is good enough to illustrate some articles. Lucious permanently refuses to correct his licensing where possible and to delete those pictures where licensing is impossible - he says he hasn't the time to do so!
I would recommend deleting each and every single picture he has ever uploaded. Not a single picture has a sufficient licensing except three or four photos which could be made by himself, but could as well be copyvios, too. As he's behaving so stubborn with the other pictures I would expect those photos to be copyvios, too. If you'd agree I'll start requesting deletion. Xantener 17:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input on this; it's great to hear from someone with previous experience. I think it's fairly certain that these images are all copyvios; however at least the 1591 map is {{PD-old}}, and some others might be OK too. If you're willing to take care of deletion requests, I'd be very happy, and I'll go through them and give my support. Cnyborg 00:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I went through the images again and inserted some {{PD-old}}s and {{PD-Art}}s where I was sure they fit. Requested deletion for some others, like 1945's spire and the air photograph Lucius admitted that is was taken between 1955-65. It's a pity, but... Greetings, Xantener 18:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

why copviol?[edit]

Why? --Sailko 23:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Because Casorati died in 1963. His work is therefore protected until 2034. Your images are derivative works, which means that his rights still apply. Cnyborg 23:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I may understand.. but, please tell me, how about a category like Category:Fernando Botero, he's still alive, this means that i can upload sculptures but not paintings? Just to get a clear idea... --Sailko 23:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Can you please cancel also these 5 images so, please? Image:Emilio vedova, crocefissione (da tintoretto) 1942.JPG Image:Carlo levi, ritratto d'uomo 1938.JPG Image:Carlo Carrà, Veduta di Coreglia (1925).jpg Image:Carlo Carrà, Riviera, 1953.jpg Image:Aligi sassu.JPG

Thank you, cheers --Sailko 11:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take care of it later today; thanks for being so understanding. Cnyborg 14:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

==Image:Evgeniy Kissin.jpg==[edit]

I edit license information for this file. Could you check it and remove warning if it is possible?

This file is in the public domain, because "Triumph premium" is well known prize in ex-USSR region, photo of laureate is widely distributed in press. There are no limitations to distribution any materials from site

There should be either something on the website that tells us that it's PD, or a written statement from the owner. That it's widely used in the press does not mean that it's PD. Cnyborg 23:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Bjørn Kjos[edit]


Jeg lastet nylig opp et pressebilde av Bjørn Kjos. Dette gikk jeg ut fra at skulle være et bilde som kan legges ut på Wikipedia. Nå ser det derimot ut til at det ikke er slik, eller at jeg har markert det med feil type copyright.

Hva må jeg gjøre for at det bilde skal kunne ligge på Wikmedia Commons? Er det en spesiell type lisens som skal brukes for pressebilder?


Mvh Sebross

Du må sjekke med eieren av bildet om de i godtar fri bruk (også utenfor omtale av firmaet eller Kjos) og om de godtar modifikasjon av bildet. For å innhente tillatelsen bør du bruke teksten på Commons:E-postmaler. 20:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments in Lar's recent RfA![edit]

Dear Cynborg: I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RfA which passed 20 to 1. I really appreciate the trust you've placed in me. Please help me be a better admin by giving me feedback when you think I need it, and praise when you think I've earned it. You do great work here, especially in communicating with other users, and I greatly look forward to working with you. ++Lar: t/c 04:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I chose LEGO to illustrate my thank you messagess, because LEGO is a system that we build things with. Commons holds the building blocks that other wikis use to make great things. Without Commons images and media, other wikis would be much poorer. Let's help build the greatest freely available intellectual collection the world has ever known... together.

Image:Abbas I.gif[edit]

I took the image of Abbas I from that website : [[4]]. But I don't know how to conduct the right data.

Lucify 13:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It all depends on whether this is a contemporary portrait, in which case it's Template:Td, or if it's a later illustration. You'll need to find out when it was made and preferably who made it. Cnyborg 16:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Image is PUBLIC - so why was it deleted.[edit]

I am querying your deletion of File:CaitlinMorrall.jpg as (Flickr - all rights reserved). If you bothered to read my licensing info you will see that under the photo it clearly states "PHOTO IS PUBLIC" [5]. I don't think you can get clearer than that. PageantUpdater 20:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"This photo is public" means it's for everyone to see, not for everyone to use. The use of the photo here on Commons was a clear copyright violation. --Kjetil_r 21:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I did ~bother to read not only your license information, but also the license information given at Flickr. If you look at the license information given (on the right-hand side, slightly below the image) it states "© All rights reserved". As Kjetil r says, a clear copyright violation. Cnyborg 23:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Non-commercial images[edit]


I dont know what image reffers your message «Please do not upload non-commercial and/or non-derivative images to Commons. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Cnyborg 00:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)»

If it reffers to the image Image:Rupestre san diego EEUU.jpg, is not me who was upload the image, I only was fomatted with stadards of Commons.

Or... It is another one image? What image?

And, please, sorry for my bad english--Locutus Borg 14:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. You are quite right, and I yet know that this image will be deleted. It is an ancient mistake, my mistake: wen I was newie and I not was well informed. I don't want to cause any troubles, and I dont want to cheat with the licenses, it is only that I dont kwew the details of the many variations of the Commons Licensing (even today). Sorry for the nuisance.--Locutus Borg 16:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
PD: The image Image:Rupestre san diego EEUU.jpg has a non commercial license to--Locutus Borg 16:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, mistakes happen to all of us. Cnyborg 18:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Information about one image that I upload[edit]

Hello again!

I upload this image La Dame de Saint-Sernin from french wikipedia (w:fr:Image:La Dame de Saint-Sernin.jpg) but the license is very ambiguous and I suspect that may be not valid.

I ask you, please, to report me if it is valid or not. Or if there are another license more suitable. If the permission is not valid, don't hesitate, delete the image, but if there are one way to save it, I beg you to try it.

Thanks--Locutus Borg 21:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my French isn't good enough to be sure. I suggest that you look at Commons:Administrators, find an administrator who speaks French (User:Anthere) might be a good choice]], and ask this question to that administrator. Sorry I can't help. Cnyborg 00:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, to User:Anthere--Locutus Borg 05:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Pictures for deletion[edit]

Why the hell you want to delete the pics I uploadedK? As I wrote in the file summary tye authoir gave me authorisation for using her pics in Wikipedia.

--Gruk 19:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Commons:Licensing. Images need to be uploaded under a free license, not just for Wikipedia. And do moderate your language a bit next time. Cnyborg 21:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Juiced lemon[edit]

Hi Cnyborg,

Regarding your comment on User talk:Juiced lemon, I strongly agree that Martorell should not block this user due to their prior conflict. However I think that just because we don't have a written-down 3RR, doesn't mean we should allow users to do whatever they want. Juiced lemon has been warned several times about reverting without discussion. I think edit warring never helps improve the project and should be stopped where it occurs. I'm not criticising you, I just wanted to make the point that just because there's no formal rule against something doesn't mean it must be OK! cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you point, and agree that revert wars should be stopped. My point about not having a 3RR rule is that in this case, the rule was used to justify blocking a user in a situation where the blocking administrator was just as much to blame. When Juiced lemon told me that he would accept any limitation I set, I concluded that under the circumstances unblocking the account and asking him not to revert during the intended block period would be as effective, with the added bonus of restoring some trust. Cnyborg 12:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I accept you've unblocked Juiced lemon if he doesn't continue reversions, as my unique reason is on this way. By the other hand, I know that rules on en:wp aren't universal, but it seemed a way to make understand Juiced lemon about the matter, as he always reverted contents on commons using as reason because of using the same the naming conventions on en:wp. It would give to understand JL that 3RR aren't applicable here as naming convention neiter isn't applicable here. In the future, if an editwar reversions is ongoing again, can I ask you about what to do with this user?. And, by latter, arbitration is stopped by now, but he started to break the truce on Catalonian realted topics with this edit, removing controversial topics. --Joanot Martorell 13:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that you inform another administrator as soon as possible if this happens again; contacting one that you see is online on his/her talk page or placing a message on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard are good ways to do this. If no one responds, of course you have to block, but as long as you're involved in a conflict with the user, I strongly urge that you immediately post a notice at the administrator's noticeboard so that someone can review the block. Ultimately, such blocks can lead to diminished trust in the administrators here. Cnyborg 15:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


I'm truly sorry,but I can't see where the problem is. I got the permission from to use all of their Pokemon pictures,and I placed Glalie under public domain. Can you please explain me more,I don't know where the problem is. I'm new at this,sorry.

Forgot to sign...Sorry --Treecko 09 19:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the permission you ask for is to use them in Wikipedia. There is no mention of placing them in the public domain, and a permission for use in Wikipedia does not give you the right to license under PD (which is a permission to use anywhere, modify etc.). You need to ask them to license the images under a free license, preferably by using the text found at Commons:Email templates. Cnyborg 21:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Updating an image[edit]

Hi Chris.

I don't know if you remember the problem with the old image of Anders Fogh Rasmussen where I replaced the old image with a different one using the same name. I've been trying to do the same with Image:Per Stig Møller.jpg since has replaced the old image with a better one (see the upload log). Unfortunately, it is not working properly and it looks to me like the cache needs to be cleared throughly of this image. Do you have any good idea? Regards. Valentinian (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the old version, and even deleted the whole file and re-uploaded it, but I still get the old one. Perhaps we just need to wait a little while; I'll ask someone who knows a bit more about how the cache works. Cnyborg 16:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
On CheckUsage I get the correct image, strange… Cnyborg 16:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Problemet er at bildet ligger cachet i webbrowseren deres. Hold shift og kikk pà reload. --Kjetil_r 17:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Har gjort det, opptil flere ganger, og til og med prøvd med en annen browser. Jeg har heller ikke vært inne på bildet før, i det minste ikke på så lang tid at cachen min skulle vært tømt forlengst, så det skal ikke ha ligget der. Cnyborg 17:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It looks like I'll have to upload it under a new name and list the old one for deletion. Thanks anyway. Valentinian (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


The image was from the site, but they have since updated the site and the image no longer there. What can I do to make sure this image is not deteled?--Tom Riddle 17:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to prove that it's correctly licensed. The site makes no mention of PD-US images; I suggest you send an e-mail to the webmaster. Cnyborg 18:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Scorbutic gums.jpg & Image:Scorbutic tongue.jpg[edit]

Both of these were taken from the CDC Public Health Image Library anetodetalk 03:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; the links work fine now that you've fixed them. Cnyborg 18:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sletta bilder[edit]

Takk for påminning. (Og hva jeg synes om denne delen av åndsverkloven skal jeg ikke si mye om. Men hvor mange skulpturer kan det være på en bro før den går fra "byggverk" til "åndsverk"?) mvh Ekko 15:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Skulpturer på byggverk er et problem; i forbindelse med Vigelandsparken og Nidarosdomen tolket jeg det dithen at så lenge byggverket er hovedmotiv er det greit å bruke bildene; oversiktsbilder som viser arkitekturen er frie, mens nærbilder av en eller noen få skulpturer gjør kunsten til hovedmotiv og er dermed ikke frie. Jeg sier det rett ut; jeg skulle ønske vi hadde skikkelig panoramafrihet for kunstverk som er permanent installert på et offentlig sted. Cnyborg 15:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[edit]

I uploaded this image with permission from the ceo of, why was it deleted?

How can I upload it without it being removed?

Add a permission to use it under a free license, by using the template on Commons:Email templates. We have to be certain that actually gives permission for anyone to use and modify their logo for any purpose. You also used the license tag {{GFDL}}, please use this only if you are actually the author of the logo and the website; making a screenshot does not make you the author. Cnyborg 20:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hrana Janto's pictures[edit]

  • I've contacted Hrana Janto and he has given the permission to publish his work under this license. He has also written an email to confirm the permission to Anyway the image I've uploaded is not marked with the copyright writings of the version that can be found on Hrana Janto's site: this is the proof I'm in contact with him and he has sent to me high-quality pictures. --Nyo 22:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Replied to identical message on Nyo's talk page. Cnyborg 23:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not able to find the permission on OTRS because I've not an account on it. Could I put on the image page the same link to the permission of Image:GoddessAmaterasu.PNG? The author is Hrana Janto also for this picture, and it've already been confirmed.
Having looked at the permission for GoddessAmaterasu.PNG, I searched on OTRS for another permission from the same address, but there was no other. I also searched Janto's name in message text, with no other hits. He might not have sent a separate permission. This could potentially cause problems; I'm not saying that I don't trust you, but in two or ten years from now someone could doubt the license, and theoretically you could have bought a high resolution print from him without the watermarked and then licensed it under Creative Commons without permission. While it's easy for me to trust you now, it might be harder at a later time if you're no longer active here then. The best thing to do would be to get a separate permission for it; otherwise, I suggest putting in a link to the OTRS-permission for GoddessAmaterasu.PNG, with an explanation. Doing this thoroughly now can prevent problems later. Cnyborg 00:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually I've put in this message:
OTRS Wikimedia

This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page.

Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers here.

If you have questions about the archived correspondence, please use the OTRS noticeboard. Ticket link:

Hrana Janto has allowed the upload of both the pictures (Image:GoddessAmaterasu.PNG and KemeticTrinity) with one only permission.

I asked him to send two separate permission, but probably he's busy in this period because he is very slow to answer my mails. I can send another email and ask him to send a second permission to confirm the agreement to upload the second picture (KemeticTrinity) too. --Nyo 09:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Image info problem, help please[edit]

Hi Cynborg! Just need a bit of help on a couple of items of mine. I note that some of the images I have uploaded do not appear to show whilst in gallery format, but do show as individually listed images, as per my gallery here:- User:Richard_Harvey/Photo_Gallery. Could you please see if I have done something wrong, or if there is a bug in the system. Secondly I have nominated a category, that I created in error, for deletion ie:- Category:Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, it is redundant as the category Category:Huddersfield should be used, as per wiki:en. I have ensured there are no entries in the category, the only ones that were I had placed there, so could you please check I have done things correctly. I sorted this really as a response to a rather confrontational and intimidatory message on my Talk page from a user who has the categories the wrong way around, so I wanted to sort it before he does things incorrectly. Thank you. Richard Harvey 09:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've placed Category:Huddersfield in Category:Towns and villages in West Yorkshire. Captain Scarlet is correct in that it should not be categorized under train stations; rather, the images of the train station should be placed individually in that category. The tone is quite confrontational, but I wouldn't worry about it. He's not an admin, so he can't block you, and the reference to 3RR is irrelevant. If the page is nominated for deletion, it'll just go through the process; as long as it's not categorized wrongly, things are fine. Cnyborg 14:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance on the categorisation! Though unfortunately Captain Scarlet has other ideas regarding Huddersfield. Would you be so kind as to take a look at my talk page. Richard Harvey 11:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


I don't think you should put on his talk page the image tagging template. This picture is a copyvio, and I deleted it. No mercy for such people ;) I gave him the last warning. Best regards, -- odder 15:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with the website, so for all I knew it could be his own project. Cnyborg 17:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Captain Scarlet[edit]

Hi! Unfortunately this user does seem to be intentionally causing me problems! Note his reply to your message on my talk page.

I uploaded this image on the 9 November 2006:- Image:Freedom Scroll DWR Huddersfield (RLH).JPG and placed a message on Category talk:Awards for advice on a suitable category to use. Huddersfield has just been created to cover the image. I intend to upload several images of a similar type, which will obviously need to be categorised. However Captain Scarlet has now removed the Category from the page stating (Category cleanup, rm non-exisitng category.) So how do I create a suitable category? Or is Captain Scarlet just playing at silly games? Richard Harvey 10:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I would just put the image in Category:Awards and leave it at that. It's a generel category, which is fine as long as there isn't already a more specific one. I'm not going to bother answering his reply to me, it's just impossible to take it seriously. Cnyborg 13:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Hello Cnyborg, why have you quickly deleted the picture (see Image_talk:Hansen_Klein_b.jpg) saying "Wikipedia only permissin"? I have explained the rights owner that a wikipedia publication includes the right to use it for other purposes. The first assumption should be that a publisher _can_ read. And why did you not list it on Commons:Deletion_requests? Please comment and restore the image. --Burn t 16:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The statement about permission read: «Thank you .. for the .. article on Al Hansen in .. wikipedia. .. Please feel free to use the attached photo.». If there was a permission for using the cc-sa-1.0 in there, you didn't include it. As it qualifies for speedy deletion, there was no need for a discussion. I'll restore it and tag it with missing source information; please send the full permission for the Creative Commons license as described on Commons:Email templates within a week, and everything will be fine. Cnyborg 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

re: reverted Image:Przychodnia przy ulicy J. Piłsudskiego.jpg - sorry, there was a misunderstanding on irc resulting in this revert. However, I have already identified this user on the Polish Wikipedia and will either make him add the missing info or delete the images myself. Thank you, tsca @ 01:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks for letting me know. I always try to follow up the images I tag. Cnyborg 19:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Langur Hanuman 3581.jpg[edit]

Hi you deleted the above image. It's used on wikinews. Wikinews has a more leniant policy towards images, and if it was deleted because of notification, Its could still be used as a local upload. Is it possible if you could temporarily undelete it so I can copy it over there? Thanks. Bawolff 04:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, please let me know when you'e copied it. Cnyborg 11:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Copied. Thank you. Bawolff 00:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


A 1943 painting isn't old enough to be considered public domain? There are a lot of painting images from the 40 at Commons with the PD-Art tag. For instance: Chen Chengpo 1941c.jpg, Chen Chengpo 1943 New House.jpg,Chen Chengpo 1947 Mt Yu.jpg. --Luferom 02:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The basic rule is 70 years after the year the author died. Since he painted a self-portrait in 1943, the earliest possible date when this enters the public domain is 1944 + 70 = 2014. This is clearly specified in the license tag. That others have made the same mistake doesn't make it right, it means those images have to be checked too. Cnyborg 12:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


I thought it was the same for wikis, I mean, the .JPG and .jpg, since i refreshed the cache and the image was still there. My mistake, thnks for correcting it. Cheers, Gizmo II 02:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)



I made the image further to a picture I had on which we could see it.

I put it on the source of the image, nevertheless, the warning ligns are still present, i hope you will clear it up.

Thx in advance

Paris75000 11:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You hadn't specified that you made it yourself, and you haven't said anything about where you found the picture you have. When you take care of that, you can also remove the no source tag. Cnyborg 14:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)



Then please add the proper copyright tag and the necessary source information. Cnyborg 17:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I'm a sysop on The user added a licensing tag on the Italian wikipedia for Image:Ud ts satellite.JPG. According to what he wrote, he took the images from some NASA program (i.e. PD I guess) and copy-pasted the two images to make one image. I guess technically this is a derivative of two PD images so GFDL-self makes sense? Is laying out images copyrightable? Otherwise the image should be tagged PD-NASA, I guess. Let me know if I'm completely wrong. Thanks. --Cruccone 19:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

GFDL-self might be OK, although strictly speaking I'm not sure if he has any rights to the image just by pasting them together. In any case, it must be specified that the images are PD-NASA (see Commons:Copyright tags for the correct tag), and a source should be given so that a third party can check it. Can you manage to tag the image based on this information? Cnyborg 20:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Geez, thanks for the help... One would think vandals would stop being that noisy here in Commons, but it seems they dont :P. Anyway, i've moved a comment that was made in top of your page to the bottom, it's the one above mine, and the title it's the user that made it. Thanks again. Cheers, Gizmo II 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup. There's less vandalism here that in many other projects; the biggest problem here is of course licensing which is more than enough to keep us occupied. Cnyborg 23:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

== Free license ==[edit]

Do you speak franch? It's abolutee free? Photos libres de droit means Photos without right. Can you restore my job? CaptainHaddock 21:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't just take the part of the license you like; it says "Photos libres de droit presse quotidienne et sites d'informations". Cnyborg 21:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


Will you stop tagging images. You're like a robot! I really apreciate the contributions you give to wikipedia and wikimedia, but com'on. The image had the author noted, and where I got it. It was uploaded from the Portuguese version of wikipedia, so if you want to go after someone, go after that person, I am just making it available to other language versions of wikipedia. So, thanks, but please keep the file and from me having to upload it again. If you want to get to the bottom of it, go to the pt version and delete that one, then I will take mine off.


Charlesblack 22:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC) [my wiki account]

I tagged the image because there is no link to a permission for publication under GFDL from the holder of copyright, which is necessary for the license to be valid. It's mentioned on the upload page: "If you're not the author: Permission of author (quote)- please also forward it to;". When you upload an image to Commons, it's your responsibility to ensure that the license is correct; when another user, in this case me, comes across an image with missing information it's our responsilility to try and rectify the problem. I'm not going to go after the uploader on ptwiki, because I'm not active on that project (and since I don't speak Portuguese I'm not going to get active there in the foreseeable future either); how they interpret the rules is their choice and responsibility. When I tag an image, it's not a personal thing, it's not something I do because I particularly enjoy it; I do it because we need to be able to prove that the license is correct. I see that you speak Portuguese; it would be a great help if you could ask the uploader on ptwiki about the permission. Cnyborg 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't see your message until after I had tracked down the copyright, but, um, thanks for the lesson on responsibility?......

No need for me to ask the guy, I tracked down a copyright that should work. There are a few different places online that show this image, and claim some sort of copyright or right reserved, and I don't know how many are legit, but a just about all of them allow the reproduction of images and text, so I chose a more moderate one that required a citation too. So, I'm took off your thing, is that OK?, because I would like to use the picture in my translation for an English version. All the copyright info online is in Portuguese, so if you need help drop me a note.

Charlesblack 02:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine to me; I know enough Latin, Italian and Spanish to be able to read some Portuguese, so I think I understood it, and anyway I trust your judgment on this. Cnyborg 13:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


I've replied you in my talk page. Best regards, Yuval Y § Chat § 08:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: Thomas deorfer[edit]

Fine by me, back in es: we treated the image vandals harshly, but i think here in commons we've to be more flexible about that. Could you please unban him? Im not very familiar with the whole process here in commons yet, but i promise i will learn to do it ;). Cheers, Gizmo II 06:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll lift the ban. I think the language situation here, and the fact that there are quite a lot of serious contributions from him, indicates that a shorter ban might do the trick. I will of course take responsibility by keeping an eye on him. Cnyborg 21:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Duplicated Images[edit]

Hi Chris! I've just noted these 3 images are the same, Image:Lion waiting in Nambia.jpg Image:Lion waiting in Nambia crop.jpg Image:Lion waiting in Nambia edit.jpg. The first has links to it, the second two do not and are only edits of the first. Is it necessary to keep all three? I think if that is so then a precedent is being set to have editors provide numerous copies of each image they upload! Richard Harvey 11:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to keep all of them. Exact duplicates or down-scaled versions can be tagged with {{duplicate}}, giving the name of the one to be kept as parameter. If they are not exact duplicates a deletion discussion is necessary. I've tagged Image:Lion waiting in Nambia crop.jpg so you can see how it works. Which image is to be kept should be based first of all on image quality (I tagged the inferior version; the file name says it's cropped, but it's actually just scaled down), and if they are equal on the file name (keeping the most descriptive name). When an admin deletes, he/she is responsible for changing all links and making sure that all information about the image is transferred to the one that is kept. Cnyborg 14:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Natalie Harris Hammond[edit]

The uploaded image of Natalie Harris Hammond forms part of George Grantham Bain Collection, Library of Congress. Here is a link verifying the information supplied: The online images available from the Prints and Photographs Collection are all public domain. --Ctatkinson 23:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)