User talk:Cromium/Archive 7

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

More RevDels?

I notice you hid some revisions on P199‘s user and talk pages; you will probably want to to the same for Mitte27’s user page (both pages) because the same abusive rant was posted there as well.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC) P.S. I see you got the talk message now, but not the copy on the user page. 09:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Odysseus1479: ✓ Done Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License review question

Hi, thanks for closing my request. I've been looking through the category and sometimes I come across files like this, whereby the author is apparently the copyright owner but we've got no proof besides their own word. Do I accept such a file or do I tag it as "no permission"? Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, here, the source just says "CC-BY-SA" and no version. "Разрешено использование изображения на условиях лицензии CC-BY-SA" (translated to "Permission to use the image under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license" according to Google Translate). Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anarchyte: Hello. Good questions:
  • I would mark the first file as No-Permission simply because it appears to be an organisational logo, and as you said, we have no evidence the uploader is the copyright holder. Sometimes people will claim that they are the copyright holder because the username is the same as the copyright holder name. It might be true (and feel free to quote me), but would you believe me if I said I am The Green Giant of frozen and canned food fame, just because the username matches? (I only picked the name because I was young and foolish, and there was a can of peas in front of me!) On closer inspection, via Google search, I note that it appears to be a variant of the logo at not mention a couple of others, which muddies the situation and makes it even less likely it is Own Work by the uploader. It might arguably be {{PD-textlogo}} but I think it is above the threshold of originality.
  • The second one is also fairly straightforward for us. Without a version number, we cannot host it, nor can we assume which license it might be. I would nominate it for regular deletion because we can assume the copyright holder did mean to license it, so No-Permission and No-License are not appropriate. It is not often that Instagram yields CC-licensed images, so it would need a little more scrutiny.
I hope that helps, and feel free to pick what little brains I have left. Green Giant (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the insight! I've nominated the first under "no permission" and created a discussion for the second. I'll keep this in mind for the future. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Malasana yoga pose image

Can you give me a pointer as to where on the internet I may find an equivalent Malasana yoga pose image that would be acceptable to Wikipedia as I am not in a position to take such photos myself.--Penbat (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Die Illuminato


I own this book, I can post pictures if I want, If you want I can do a drawing of the book cover. Pigginator1 (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pigginator1: Hello. It’s not a question of whether you own a copy of the book. I have copies of LOTR, Hobbit and Silmarillion too. Owning a copy does not give you the right to do absolutely anything you want with it. You can sell your personal copy of the book but you cannot start printing off copies to sell unless you get a license from the publisher. Equally, Commons policies are that you can only upload files that you own the copyright to, with a license, or in the public domain. The issue is whether you own the copyright and in this instance the only way for the file to be restored is by either you identifying as the artist who drew that cover art, or by transfer of copyright through inheritance or by deed. The best way to prove this is to get in touch through OTRS or by asking Collins the publishers to post a note somewhere on one of their websites. I have to warn you that OTRS operates on a queue system and is heavily backlogged so it could be several months before your email is read. Green Giant (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We need freedom of information on the internet, that is what the net and web were made for, this is the Internet, you should be free to do what you want!

Please support freedom of Information

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigginator1 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I completely agree that there should be more freedom on the net but the Law is the Law and can only be changed by legislators. Green Giant (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) If everything posted to the Internet were ‘fair game’ to be exploited by others (more than it is already, through ad-tracking &c.), creators would be less likely to publish their work online, resulting in less information for everybody. The more this site respects authors’ rights and exercise due diligence in protecting them, the more that users of our content can be confident in the freedom of the material we host, with the result that it gets more widely disseminated. That’s the theory, anyway … a better direction for activism than trying to get Commons to change its mission might be persuading more content-creators to release their work under free licences.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artix Kreiger (talk • contribs) 00:17, 26 January 2018‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Artix Kreiger: Cheers. I will probably need it. Green Giant (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quick Question. Do you want rights on test2 wiki? Artix Kreiger (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Artix Kreiger: Thank you for asking but which rights? Green Giant (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

my redirect post on com:VPP


I agree it could be very helpful for file movers. Would a change require an RFC? Artix Kreiger (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Artix Kreiger: Yes I think it would require an RFC. As for numbers I can't say exactly but it isn't a large number. I gave up deleting them a few months back but it just seems bizarre trusting someone with movefile but not bundling the suppressredirect with the group. I feel the same about non-admin OTRS volunteers who often have to request undeletion of a file linked to a ticket, and then wait for an admin to undelete it so they can look at it, but if we really trust them, why not let them use browsearchive? They wouldn't be able to restore the file but at least they could look at what was there and see if it matches whats in the email ticket. I genuinely believe we could make work easier to do if we gave up some of our ingrained practices. Green Giant (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
can you propose it? IDk how to phrase it. Artix Kreiger (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On second thought, it might be best to wait for a few more people to add their opinions at your VPP section. I can imagine there would be criticism for an RFC so soon after you started the section. I would suggest giving it till Sunday and if there are at least a couple more comments, I will then create the RFC. Green Giant (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Green Giant!

FYI: Please have a look at this Bodybuilder1991! And, yes, I wrote it! --Marshallsumter (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marshallsumter: Cheers for doing that. I was suspicious when that was their first edit but I was willing to consider that it might be a genuine request for help. You live and learn. Green Giant (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello Mr. Green Giant, I am writing to ask you if you could kindly see me these two files that I submit to you, it is two Italian photographs taken in the twenties of the twentieth century, in a period that precedes the Second World War, I see the license and the period I thought it was a PD-ITaly license, what do you think? would it be possible to restore them ???

-- 21:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello I honestly don’t know what to make of them. Certainly they are not simple 20-year photographs. The problem lies in working out if the photographer is genuinely unknown. In such a state gathering like these photos display, it’s more difficult to accept the idea of an anonymous photographer. I’m going to assume they were published soon after the event (although I can’t say for sure). If it’s an unknown photographer, I think they would be in the public domain in Italy by 1992 and 1995, missing the 1996 URAA cut off. If the author is identified then it will be 71 years after the author died. I tried reading the source pages but my knowledge of Italian is very small and I don’t like relying on Google Translate. Without more information I couldn’t justify restoring them but I think they should be ok on Wikipedia local uploads. Green Giant (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand a bit of his hesitancy, but I'm an Italian user for good luck, and I study the source very well, and on certain information I assure you that the author of the two photographs is unknown, and if by chance always for the same doubts you had the rights to restore b you could think of a temporary restoration, so the two files may be subject to changes that can update very well the relevant information, "the two deleted files, were part of two pages of Italian , that other Italian users have used ,,,, let's say in a nutshell that these photos were very useful, so if you do not feel so many sure ,,,, I would like to propose at least a temporary restoration if it is possible? ? :)-- 00:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Without more detailed information such as confirmation from a state body about the anonymous photographer, I don’t think I can justify permanent restoration. I have undeleted them temporarily so you can copy them and the infoboxes. Let me know when you are done. Green Giant (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi to all, sorry if I intrude in the discussion, but if you go to see the request to delete the file that has restored her, you will notice that there is no vote in favor and no vote against, so there was no reason to eliminate it, knowing also that the Daphne administrator who had eliminated him, was in turn a sock, so I think only in my humble opinion that it seems to me a wasted elimination ,,,--Kaisers1 (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kaisers1: Hello. Personally I don’t care who the files were uploaded by, or whether they are blocked, locked, banned, canned or tanned. I have a custom solution for such a scenario. No, what really matters is whether the evidence is provided to support the keeping of a file on Commons. I love old photos and would love to fill Commons with them. Hiwever, the Precautionary Principle means deletion can be done as a precaution in these kinds of situations. The IP (whether it was you or someone else) made a polite request for temporary undeletion, which I am happy to do, but I will delete the files again in a few days unless someone provides definite proof that the images are in the public domain in both Italy and the USA. Also, it might have been better to ping @Krd: so they can comment here rather than splitting the conversation. Green Giant (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

http:// 1b3VS7i

I was about to upload photos from here.

However, there is an url shortener above that links to ways to purchase the picture from the British Library. Is there a way to whitelist it from the blacklist? I will go after the uploads to covert it to the proper form. Just to be specific, on the flickr photos, they are public domain and I would be uploading them. However, in the description, The phrase "Order a higher quality version from here." links it to the This prevents me from uploading. Thus I am requesting it be an exemption to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist.

Artix Kreiger (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Artix Kreiger: ✓ Done Looks like a good collection. Have fun! Green Giant (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hate to bother you again, but on the page, i think it may need to be modified to bit\.ly/1b3VS7i. Thats based how the other urls are formatted. Thanks. Artix Kreiger (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Artix Kreiger: sorry I missed that. Try it now? Green Giant (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
one last question. the \ before the .ly please? Artix Kreiger (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Artix Kreiger: Now? Green Giant (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
works now. Artix Kreiger (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just found File:CIPAS_Logo.png which can prove that the copyright law exemption extends to photos as opposed to just plain texts.

Regards, --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 22:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@It's gonna be awesome: Well, yes that is a logo (a symbol) which fits into the third category on the {{PD-ROC-exempt}} template:
3. Slogans and common symbols, terms, formulas, numerical charts, forms, notebooks, or almanacs.
I don't see the connection between this and a photo. Please explain? Green Giant (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I find most of those originally attributed to {{PD-ROC-exempt}} now re-assigned to {{OGDL}}. Perhaps I had used not-so-exact license for my previous uploads? If so, would you kindly recover those deleted photos and help attach {{OGDL}} to them? Gratitude!--It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 22:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@It's gonna be awesome: You haven't actually proven anything. A logo is not a photograph. Even a photo of a logo would still be a logo. The files I deleted were photos of stadiums. I'm not going to restore them until you provide definite proof of a change of license. Green Giant (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, how about items in Category:PD-ROC-exempt? --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 22:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@It's gonna be awesome: What about them? Green Giant (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:PD-ROC-exempt#/media/File:2001-9-16_CWB_radar.gif was taken from a government institute and is filed under {{PD-ROC-exempt}} which can prove that pictures from governmental institutions are applied too. Also, I am looking for the definite proof to show you but since it takes time, I expect to show you in days to come. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 22:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, I find it! Much earlier than my previous expectation! --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 22:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@It's gonna be awesome: OK, thanks you for pointing out an anomaly, which is now nominated for deletion. I'm impressed that you have gone this far to prove the public domain status but more questions arise. The English part of the lciense says that it can be revoked in section 5, specifically: "It has been evaluated by the Data Providing Organization that continuously providing of a specific Open Data as not being met the requirement of public interest due to the change of circumstances unpredictable or for a legitimate cause." We cannot host works that might suddenly lose their license, leaving re-users with legal problems. Next, it refers to "data", which I accept can be interpreted differentlhy but I see no mention of photographs. Finally, assuming the license is valid (and I'm not saying it is or it isn't), can you provide web-pages that show those photos with this license nearby? The sources you provided were the actual image URL's, not the linked pages we need e.g. we need File:2001-9-16_CWB_radar.gif and not the image, which is very unhelpful when you are trying to work out the copyright status. Green Giant (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, thanks for reaching back, do you mean this Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:OGDL? --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 15:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additionally, the latest url I provided was found on the top of {{OGDL}} license which has been applied to a bunch of photos as you see here Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:OGDL. --15:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)--It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬

Wanted to let you know

The whitelist works and now, through, Artix Kreiger 2, I am uploading the British Library pics. Much thanks to you. Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


dear Green Giant, I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to show you some of the antecedent portraits, which had been erased in the past, and which were part of many wikipedian foreign voices, whose copyright accuracy would not seem to have anything to do with copyrgith, since they are paintings of which the artist or the author has died more than 200 years ago :) can you restore them please? :)

  •  Not done This image has a Getty watermark, for which I have neither the time nor the skills to remove. Green Giant (talk)
  •  Not done The source for this does not work and it appears to be a bad crop of a larger image. Green Giant (talk)
  •  Not done Bad crop with clear whitespace; maybe look for an alternative source. Green Giant (talk)
  • ✓ Done but changed artist name to match creator template. Green Giant (talk)

--Kaisers1 (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haven't you notice that's a1cb3? --Vituzzu (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vituzzu: Yes, I realised it probably was A1CB3 when they started asking in the previous section on this page, but I have to balance that against the benefits to Commons of hosting PD images. I suspect they asked me because I restored several images a few weeks ago after a discussion at COM:UDR. I’ve already spoken to others about this and I believe there is a solution to the dilemma, which I will attempt to carry out in the next couple of days. Green Giant (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been trying for 3 years starting in 2013, at time he was ~11 and there's no way to get a sensible answer from him. He currently should be ~15 and still I cannot get more than a bunch of insults. I don't expect significant changes for the next 4 or 5 years then, so I'll go on locking and reverting on sight since I don't trust his editing, in any fashion, at all. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi green, can I ask you if you can continue to restore files? :)-- 17:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


-> File:Noru 2017-07-24 0342Z.jpg Yes please. --B dash (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@B dash: ✓ Done --Green Giant (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No objections to the block itself, but putting a wikitext like

|en=The purpose of…
We sincerely hope you will choose option number 1.}}

anywhere is meaningless.

You likely substed a template which may not be substed. Please, improve your grasp of MediaWiki – you are a sysop and one of informal leaders here. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Incnis Mrsi: Hi. The only leaders here are people like you and LX, with your excellent vigilance to guide sysops. Sometimes, a time-limited block might not work if all they do is wait for the block to expire and then continue as begore. So when I use indefinite blocks, I add User:Green Giant/Note to clarify the options available to them and to prod them into dialogue. The langswitch is there because they might not understand English but I’ve just not got round to adding other languages yet. Cheers for prodding me though. Green Giant (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shouldn’t be better to move the notice to the Template: space to prompt volunteers add translations? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Incnis Mrsi: Maybe not as a separate template. More than likely I will propose it to be added as an optional parameter in {{Copyviouploadindefblock}} but I want to be sure of the wording. Green Giant (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, do it, I’ll help – already worked with it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Moved to {{Copyviouploadindefblock/Test}} --Green Giant (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg for all the wonderful work you do. Artix Kreiger (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Two sugars please. Green Giant (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
also, kind of premature, but when you do, congrats on steward election. Artix Kreiger (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheers. I don’t want to jinx it because there are still two weeks to go. Green Giant (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the admin work

I can appreciate that admin work is generally very unrewarding, so… In the case of dealing with the unblock request at User talk:Andrewright I learn a lot from your goal-oriented, precise discussion. Thank you for your work. That is all. Ariadacapo (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ariadacapo: Thank you for the kind words. They are much appreciated. Equally I would say thank you for your contributions. The only reward I seek is for the normal wiki work to continue without disruption. My aim with blocked users is to try to persuade them to work within the limits set by the community (although often unsuccessfully). If anyone disagrees with those limits, the best thing to do is propose changes to the limits. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bollywood-Hungama moved

Hi Green Giant, didn't you notice that shortly before you protected {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}}, an (allegedly) totally new user moved it[1] to {{BollywoodHungama}}? Was this move agreed to? --Túrelio (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Túrelio: I protected it after I’d seen the move but I didn’t think it was worth arguing to change it back because the new name makes sense (unless there is another Bollywood Hungama license I’ve not seen). Of course it was suspicious that a "new user" would do such a move but I didn’t have anything else to go on, although they are a suspected sockpuppet on ENWP and have been blocked there a few days ago. If you think the template should go back to the old name, I won’t oppose it but the new name looks fine as well. Green Giant (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. No, I've no stakes in this template. However, the moving user is rather suspicious for his recent activities. --Túrelio (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t think there’s any doubt about this user being a sockpuppet, after seeing their edits on ENWP. Green Giant (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg The Global Barnstar
Congratulations on election! Artix Kreiger (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


RadiX 18:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is a request

Can I be the first to ask for your steward power to be used? here and here./ Artix Kreiger (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done @Artix Kreiger: Cheers, I just needed to read up on some of the documents first. I’m assuming it’s just one user and not two! Green Giant (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
by the way, since you are a steward, you can use the checkuser tool. From what I can tell, you can give your self the checkuser tool on the loginwiki. Then, you can use it to find the ip address, if you ever want it. Artix Kreiger (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


And thanks for your brilliant answers to my questions. I am happy you were elected. Request anything from me tonight. 😂 Wikicology (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wikicology: Thank you. Much obliged and happy to answer questions. I'll take you up on your offer with a trivial question. Google Translate gives my user name as "omiran alawọ ewe" in Yoruba (yes, sometimes I follow strange paths), and then it translates it back to English as "another green". So my request is, can you tell me the correct translation in Yoruba and does it have any good or bad meaning in Yoruba culture (as far as you are aware)? 😁 Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Won't you be surprise if I say "omiran alawọ ewe" does not make any sense in Yoruba? Lolz...OK. Let me break it down; "Òmìrán" means "Giant" in Yoruba and "Òmíràn" means "Another". "Aláwọ̀ ewé" means "Green". So, "Òmìrán aláwọ̀ ewé" means "Green giant" and "Òmíràn aláwọ̀ ewé" means "Another green colour". Note the diacritical marks. Any word written in Yoruba without the diacritical marks is almost certainly not going to make sense with exception of some words like "Igba" which means 200. The funniest thing is that not all native speakers of Yoruba language understand how to write in Yoruba correctly. This is one of the reasons it's difficult to get editors who can contribute, except we do serious outreach works to language departments in institutions like universities, college of education etc we may not get the best of of most languages Wikipedia unlike the English Wikipedia which almost 95% of its speakers can write. I must say that your username is good in Yoruba. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wikicology: , that is a huge difference. Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very huge difference. Wikicology (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A gigantic difference, even.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Green Giant, I wanted to say, don't burn yourself out in the first year. m:User:Matanya/stewstats is something I found. It apparently is a list of activity of stewards. Basically, if you do 1,000 to 1,500 edits a year, you'll be fine. :) Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Artix Kreiger: Cheers, I’ll try to avoid burnout. I’ve got to balance it against Commons and Wikiversity actions (although there’s far less pressure with the latter), and my own target of getting at least one FA/GA on ENWP this year. Green Giant (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear @Green Giant: , 3 weeks ago the artists of Art & Language sent an authorization to wikimedia for the use of this file, I think the deletion came before the registration of the authorization. Is it possible to check or to revert the deletion? Best, Philippe49730--Philippe49730 (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Philippe49730: Hello. I have searched for "Art & Language", "Philippe Méaille" and "Château de Montsoreau-Musée". The only email is ticket:2018013110008971 which is a license declaration from someone who signed as "Art & Language". I’m guessing that's the one you are referring to? I have restored the file temporarily with the ticket, but I cannot guarantee it will not be deleted after thirty days. Unfortunately this email is insufficient because what we need is a verifiable license from each artist individually. Can you tell me the names of the artists, so I can search for them? Does the group have an official website? Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Green Giant: , thank you very much for your answer. The name Art & Language remains in Michael Baldwin and Mel Ramsden's hands. This movement or collaboration between artists goal, when creating Art & Language in the 60s, was to escape the heroic figure of the artist, and they signed collectively under the name Art & Language. I would be very happy to help to solve this problem and make the introduction between you both. Do not hesitate to send a private message. Best, Philippe49730--Philippe49730 (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Philippe49730: You don’t have to use the {{Re}} template to alert me here because I receive automatic notices that someone has changed my talkpage! I’ve replied to the email, requesting more details. Thank you for the offer of introduction but I think it is sufficient to keep this through OTRS and/or on-wiki. If you are able to access the email address, please note the questions are aimed at answering potential future scenarios, so the more detail the better. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Green Giant, The person who added the image above is asking if he can access the image that was deleted because hw got the permission of the family to add it to Wikipedia. I do not know if this is allowed but you could send the image to him or me. He wrote here ([2] ... not in the correct place}. Thanks DARIO SEVERI (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ringer and DARIO SEVERI: I’m happy to undelete it temporarily so it can be copied. However, permission from the family has to go through OTRS. Permission for Wikipedia use is insufficient permission. It has to be either licensed for reuse by anyone for any purpose or put into the public domain. Alternatively, you might be able to upload it locally to a Wikipedia under non-free content criteria, for which permission from the family is unnecessary. Ringer, please read the notice on a closed deletion request before adding anything to it. The appropriate places to make such a request are either the talkpage of the closing admin or the undeletion request page. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Green Giant, please could you undelete temporarily the image so we can add the license to be used locally, I think it's the best alternative. I do not understand much of the licenses that are used, can you provide me with a link to a license valid only for that project?
Can I add it and sign or should it be only the editor who created it? If no license is added in a week I will ask you to delete it again. Thanks DARIO SEVERI (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DARIO SEVERI: I’ve restored the file temporarily. I would recommend reading all the non-free criteria I linked to above, before you upload it locally. If it is for ENWP, I would suggest using Template:Non-free use rationale and Template:Non-free with permission on the file page (but leave out the image has rationale=yes because that has to be done by someone else). If you need a hand, drop me a note here or there. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Green Giant, we copied the image to our computer, Ringer will contact someone to be able to add the license later. Thank you for your help. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ DoneGreen Giant (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pending global blocks

The following proxies—used by “our” well-known troll—are not globally blocked for 26 hours. I suspect it is because I vocally questioned competence of the steward Masti (over an unrelated case), but you will perhaps see another reason for stewards to be painfully slow. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My FIle is deleted

Welcome here. The file I uploaded was deleted because there is the same file with slightly different. It was an important first but not used file. This file is still important because it likes. Also from boot screen. If the file is deleted, then the important thing to be lost because there is the same file with different images such as logos and boot screen. Answer here what my files are deleted by you and what to know which file is the same. Hope this is answered. EverythingEpan User (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EverythingEpan User: You’re files were duplicates or scaled down versions of existing files. Green Giant (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EverythingEpan User: Uploading too many copyrighted files means you are going to get blocked because you uploading too much copyrighted violations. You need to only upload free licensed images. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:4CD:129C:14CC:B0AF 15:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Green Giant. Can you clarify whether the logo you deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vodafone Greece logo2017.png is the same one being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vodafone 2017.svg? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


hi Green Giant, I am writing to ask you if you could restore these portraits of an unknown artist, the last time you did, you took the responsibility of reloading the following restored files, I would ask you if this time (if could, of course) you could just restore them on User's user: Глинистый сланец, since some recent files have been restored to the same page as the user blocked:

if it is possible to restore them to the user who created them, if you feel it, if not, you will recharge them, but I tell you so because it saves time too, and is limited to a look at the license, and the source included in the file restore :) --Mandres12 (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will look at them and restore those that need it but not to the blocked user. You need to stop creating new accounts every week. Green Giant (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


hi Green Giant, I am writing to ask you if you could restore these portraits of an unknown artist, the last time you did, you took the responsibility of reloading the following restored files, I would ask you if this time (if could, of course) you could just restore them on User's user: Глинистый сланец, since some recent files have been restored to the same page as the user blocked:

if it is possible to restore them to the user who created them, if you feel it, if not, you will recharge them, but I tell you so because it saves time too, and is limited to a look at the license, and the source included in the file restore :)-- 00:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi Green Giant, I am writing to ask you if you could restore these portraits of an unknown artist, the last time you did, you took the responsibility of reloading the following restored files, I would ask you if this time (if could, of course) you could just restore them on User's user: Глинистый сланец, since some recent files have been restored to the same page as the user blocked:

-- 17:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Вікі любить Землю триває до 31 травня!

WLE Austria Logo (no text).svg


31 травня завершиться шостий конкурс «Вікі любить Землю» (Wiki Loves Earth), метою якого є фотографування пам'яток природи. Зі списками пам'яток природи України можна ознайомитися тут. Приєднуйтеся!

Цього року є трохи змін у правилах. Більше інформації про конкурс читайте тут. – Оргкомітет «Вікі любить Землю» (in english). 22:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A (good) beer for you!

Export hell seidel steiner.png Just wanted to share a beer without any specific reason. Thanks for all your contributions. Cheers! Meisam (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Meisam: Thank you. Much obliged. Green Giant (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Réactivation photo File:Wizyta w Watykanie (40747742770).jpg

Bonjour Green Giant, Merci de réactiver la photo File:Wizyta w Watykanie (40747742770).jpg. Je n'avais pas été notifié du problème de licence, et je pensais toutes les avoir corrigées comme le montre cette catégorie: Category:Mateusz Morawiecki's trip in the Vatican city in 2018. La licence valide pour cette image est {{Cc-zero}}. Olivier LPB (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Olivier LPB: J'ai restaurer le fichier. Veuillez modifier en conséquence. Green Giant (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merci beaucoup, je viens de modifier :-). Olivier LPB (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos deleted

Hello, I am new to wikipedia and the photos I uploaded to the Robert Sward page have been deleted. I am Robert Sward and I own these photos. What can I do to get them undeleted? I can't seem to get an answer. Thank you! RobertSward (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RobertSward: OK, let's keep it simple.
Owning a photo does not automatically grant copyright. Normally copyright is held by the person(s) who made or designed the photo/artwork/building etc.
Being in a photo doesn’t make you the copyright holder either. It does give other rights but let’s not go into them right now.
We can only accept those photos for which the photographer has issued a license allowing anyone to reuse those photos for any purpose whatsoever (within legal limits obviously). We can resolve the issues by answering the following questions:
  • How did you get hold of these photos?
    • Did you take the photos or did someone else?
  • If it was you, how did you take the photos where you are clearly at some distance from the camera?
  • If it was someone else, who was it?
    • Was it a member of your immediate family e.g. son/daughter/sister/brother?
    • If so, then we are not going to mess about with confirmation from them but would you mind sending an email detailing who it was and how they are related to you?
    • If it was someone else, can they be contacted by email?
    • If so, please ask them to read our documentation at COM:OTRS and send us a license by email following the instructions at COM:ET. Ask them to include a list of links to the photos they took, so the person who replies can locate them. That list is:
With the final file (File:MonoBlogAlz website.png), the logo appears to be from, which is your blog, an i right? Could you email us from that website?
When you have sent these emails and got confirmation from others that emails have been sent, let me know here and I will handle the next stage. It might be necessary to ask some more questions but please do bear with us, because we are all just volunteers here. I hope that clarifies things. Green Giant (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undeletion Request

Hi Green Giant, I'm writing to ask you if you could restore these two photographs of the twenties of the twentieth century, the license of the file is PD-Italy, and the year goes back before the second world war, but I do not know if it was also PD -70?--[ —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added them to my To-Do List. I assume you are User:A1bc2. If so, please stay away from wikis for at least a year (absolutely no new accounts or editing through IP's) and then ask the community if you can come back and just do straightforward editing. Sounds tough? It is very do-able, because I have seen a few people achieve it. I’m only saying this because I don’t particularly like this "cloak-and-dagger" approach. Green Giant (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ho paura che questa questione finisca nel dimenticatoio se aspetto un ' anno, non ci sono garanzie —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) GG is a highly trusted user, whose word that note has been taken should suffice. You have no right to expect more: indeed, block-evasion is usually dealt with by a revert-and-ignore strategy, so GG is doing you a favour merely by responding. (More or less as other highly experienced or trusted users have written on User talk:A3cb1#Path to unblocking.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lets talk about that Cicada picture - I OWN IT

proof I own it and have permission from Jim DeWitt

My google drive (noticed the dates) -

Please fix this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roland311 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC) Roland311 (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Roland311: Forst of all, please calm down and don't share your Google drive or your ID online like this. Secondly, your files are all easily recoverable. Thirdly, we operate on the basis that every file is copyright protected unless demonstrated otherwise. Now let’s consider your uploads:
  • File:Roy-moore-holding-gun.jpg - you uploaded it with a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license but did not provide evidence that CBS had licensed that photo - this is known as copyright violation and Wikimedia Commons does not accept such files; in case it isn’t clear, you broke the law by uploading it and Commons would have been breaking the law by keeping it in public view with a false license.

Since the cicada image has Jim’s name on it, he will need to read our documentation at COM:OTRS and COM:ET, and then send a license statement to When it is confirmed by an OTRS volunteer, the file can be restored. Green Giant (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jim DeWitt (as credited on the bottom right of the picture) took the pictures. He took the pictures, and with my permission, I created the collage of the insect coming out of the skin. What will it take to prove this to you? I have it saved, and it will be uploaded. What is this, the wikipedia police? Ridiculous. Maybe go and hunt down the guy on pinterest who still has it, and ruin his day too. So, what will it take for me to prove this to you..whomever you are. You have far too much free time. Roland311 (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Until today, I did not notice the text on Commons was under a dual licence. That is a horrible thing. Do you know the reason behind the dual licence? And for reuse, is one supposed to follow the terms of both the licences or satisfying one is sufficient?
acagastya 18:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) I don't know the reason for it, but the dual license means that re-users can choose to comply with either license (or both, if they want). There's more detail in the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. clpo13(talk) 18:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is not what I had asked. (I assume) Green Giant knows what I had asked, especially after dealing with couple of photo essays. (Oh, by the way, looks like pidgin had issues last night; was it disturbed connection? You can toggle on a setting to keep you in the chat even if you close the window. 22:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Acagastya: The dual license is used because originally all Wikimedia wikis were under GFDL 1.1 (I think). It was very unsuitable for images and other media, so a vote was held about changing the license. The Creative Commons licenses were not fully adopted until 2009 - see Licensing update and m:Licensing update for the reasoning. The idea behind dual licensing is to afford maximum freedom for reuse. You are not obliged to adhere to GFDL as long as you adhere to the CC license. I’m not sure what happened with Pidgin but I’ll try to be online for Saturday. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should be free at your time, on Saturday. My exam would be over by 12:30 PM your time. But re licence -- you might have seen how the articles provide an explicit link for the licence. Should I mention both? FWIW, I think "The idea behind dual licensing is to afford maximum freedom for reuse" is a blatant lie. CC BY-SA is very restrictive. If what you said was true, why not CC BY or Public Domain dedication?
acagastya 23:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well don’t forget to have a rest after the exam. As for why not CC-BY, why not indeed? It is something I supported but the -SA support was stronger. If I recall correctly I supported dropping the GFDL altogether along with inadequate licenses like GPL. It is one of the things that comes to mind whenever I think "what would I do differently if I could restart Wikimedia from scratch", along with a whole bunch of other things I disagree with. As for what to do with the photo essay images, one license is more than sufficient. Green Giant (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Green Giant. You deleted a file with the same name uploaded by the same person on June 21, 2018 for lacking permission, so I'm wondering if you can tell whether this is the same file as that. It still seems to need permission and was uploaded a few days after you deleted the other file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marchjuly: Yes it was the same image, perhaps smaller than before. I’ve deleted it and will ask the uploader to ask the copyright holder to contact OTRS. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank for checking. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of File:Xiaomi logo.jpg very wrong

Hello, for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Xiaomi logo.jpg, I just want to let you know that this deletion is clearly very wrong. I'm not asking for undeletion though. File:Xiaomi logo.jpg was a raster image of an early version of Xiaomi's logo (you can still find the same version in File:Xiaomi logo.svg's file history, it is the earliest version). The reasons of that deletion request are:

  • "Wrong colours and sizes": There are tons of old versions or modified versions of a logo that exist on Wikimedia Commons
  • "Not used": How can "not being used in Wikipedia" be a good reason to delete images on Commons? Images don't have to be used in Wikipedia to exist on Commons.
  • "replaced by File:Xiaomi logo.svg": So what are {{Vector version available}} and Category:Vector version available for? Should we delete all images in that category?

Clearly, the nominator's reasons don't meet any Commons:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion and are all bad reasons, and such images clearly could exist, and do exist, on Commons. Next time, please consider reading Commons:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion before nominating an image for deletion or performing a deletion. Thank you. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tomchen1989: Thank you for the message. It is the wrong colour, if you look at the history of the SVG file, specifically the version by @Kashmiri: . The deletion request doesn’t mention Wikipedia - it was not being used anywhere at all. It was replaced in use by the SVG, which is our preferred format. Please note that the point of a DR is to give an opportunity to discuss the file. Unfortunately, despite being open for several weeks, no additional comments were received beyond the nominators comment. Although DR's can be kept open indefinitely, at some point a decision has to be made. Eight weeks without comment is a good indicator that it is unlikely to generate more discussion. Admins have the discretion to close such DR's anytime after seven days as long as there has been no further discussion i.e. it would not be acceptable to close a DR with active discussion. However, I personally follow the principle that objections should be allowed even after DR's closed, as you’ve done above. I’m not convinced on the specific objections but I have restored the file because you’ve highlighted it and it does not really hurt Commons to have it i.e. there are no reasons to speedily delete it. Green Giant (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]