User talk:Didym/Archives/2015

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




There is absolutely no reason to remove the license, CC licenses are not revocable. --Didym (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

What are you doing and why are you targeting the name convention I use in my files. The camera is mine, and the files that you have decided to target were taken with it, and I own the right to use what ever name convention I want in them. Every file you tagged is mine. If I hand my camera to someone to take a picture of me/for me I still own the photo and do not require a release from that person for it to be used in commons. please stop--WPPilot (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC).

No, it does not matter who owns the camera, the copyright holder is the person who takes the photo, so you need a permission from this person to publish the file under a free license. I also doubt every picture was taken with your camera, as I noticed at least 5 different cameras were used to photograph your uploads, but that is another problem. --Didym (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This is bullshit, and your just making this up as you go, You have tagged photos I have owned for most of my life with reasons such as I am in the photo. In the court house photo I used a shutter release. You are engaged in a personal attack and have no reason to assert that I do not own my photos, your just being rude and disruptive.--WPPilot (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, you may be right with the court house photo, but you need to give evidence of a permission for the other photos where you are not the photographer. --Didym (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
How many camera do you think I have owned over the 30 years as a photographer? Have you ever used a remote trigger device? If I insert someone's name to remind me who I was with, when I took the pic, does that grant THEM the rights to the pic? NO. Your making this up as you go to be troublesome. I grew up at the Balboa Bay Club. The originals are in my drawer, and permission was granted once already. The shots of me, sailing were done with the remote trigger device, or with the camera set for TIME LAPSE. IN FACT EVERY TAG YOU APPLIED HAS NO FOUNDATION WHATSOEVER. --WPPilot (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The fact it may be possible you own those cameras was the only reason for me not nominating every single file uploaded by you for deletion. If you have a permission to publish the images under a free license, it should be no problem for you to shoe this to OTRS. --Didym (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

OMG your really out of line here. The cameras each have my name in the Ecif data, at least the most recent Nikons and the Leica I shoot with now. So this is a personal attack, is that correct, and your plan was to remove every photo I took based on what now. I need to get another admin involved, your out of line.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by WPPilot (talk • contribs)

File:Monssif Houaïssiss Photographe.png

Hi, please check this deletion again, the two delete "votes" apparently came from one user, both accounts are now blocked. I vaguely recall that not all related deletion requests were nonsense, so this might better stay deleted if you are sure about it. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Die gelöschte Datei besteht nur aus dem in der rechten unteren Ecke von File:Monssif Hands.jpg sichtbaren Logo und sollte damit recht eindeutig aus dem Projektrahmen fallen. --Didym (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks: –Be..anyone (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion Request

The project fully original study and it belongs to us.Our study is being analyzed by the referees of The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences® (OEIS®).The reference number is A253942. The study is as follows. We would like you to cancel the deletion of the project.

All edits since published version (omitting small deletions for readability): NAME allocated for Serhat Bulut a(n) = 3*binomial(n+1,5). DATA 3, 18, 63, 168, 378, 756, 1386, 2376, 3861, 6006, 9009, 13104, 18564, 25704, 34884, 46512, 61047, 79002, 100947, 127512, 159390, 197340, 242190, 294840, 356265, 427518, 509733, 604128, 712008, 834768, 973896, 1130976, 1307691, 1505826, 1727271, 1974024, 2248194 OFFSET 4,1 COMMENTS For a set of integers {1,2,...,n}, a(n) is the sum of the 2 smallest elements of each subset with 4 elements, which is 3*C(n+1,5) (for n>=4), hence a(n) = 3*C(n+1,5) = 3*A000389(n+1). LINKS Colin Barker, <a href="/A253942/b253942.txt">Table of n, a(n) for n = 4..1000</a> Serhat Bulut, Oktay Erkan Temizkan, <a href="">Subset Sum Problem</a> <a href="/index/Rec#order_06">Index to sequences with linear recurrences with constant coefficients</a>, signature (6,-15,20,-15,6,-1). FORMULA a(n) = 3*C(n+1, 5) = 3*A000389(n+1). a(n) = ((n-3)*(n-2)*(n-1)*n*(1+n))/40. - Colin Barker, Jan 20 2015 G.f.: 3*x^4 / (x-1)^6. - Colin Barker, Jan 20 2015 EXAMPLE For A={1,2,3,4}, the only subset with 4 elements is {1,2,3,4}; sum of 2 minimum elements of this subset: a(4) = 1+2 = 3 = 3*C(4+1,5). For A={1,2,3,4,5}, the subsets with 4 elements are {1,2,3,4}, {1,2,3,5}, {1,2,4,5}, {1,3,4,5}, {2,3,4,5}; sum of 2 smallest elements of each subset: a(5) = (1+2)+(1+2)+(1+2)+(1+3)+(2+3) = 18 = 3*C(5+1,5). MATHEMATICA a253942[n_] := Drop[Plus @@ Flatten[Part[#, 1 ;; 2] & /@ Subsets[Range@ #, {4}]] & /@ Range@ n, 3]; a253942[28] (* Michael De Vlieger, Jan 20 2015 *) PROG (PARI) a(n) = 3*binomial(n+1, 5); \\ Michel Marcus, Jan 20 2015 (PARI) Vec(3*x^4/(x-1)^6 + O(x^100)) \\ Colin Barker, Jan 20 2015 CROSSREFS Cf. A000389. KEYWORD allocated nonn,easy,changed AUTHOR Serhat Bulut, Jan 20 2015 STATUS approved proposed

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oktay Temizkan (talk • contribs) 11:23, 10 February 2015‎ (UTC)
The deletion was/is not about copyright, the file is just believed to fall out of our project scope. If you feel this is not correct, you can make a note on the deletion request page. --Didym (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Results of your random attack

Creating lemonade out of lemons... remember this: en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-02-25/Featured_content I went out and took this after you pissed me off: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Three Arch Bay and guess what, it features in this edition here: en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-02-25/Featured_content. Anyone can be a critic, but true talent is only given to a select few. - Have a wonderful day! --WPPilot (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I never criticized your ability to take photographs, just your understanding of copyright. (Which was the reason for the DRs, I saw one problematic image in your uploads and then started to look for more, a standard practice to find copyright violations.) And of course I appreciate your self-photographed uploads or files made by other persons where we have the permission for for a free license. --Didym (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of OluwaCurtis

I want a further explanation on why the photo was deleted. Thanks LASU Username (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The photo is not deleted yet, but it will be deleted in a week if you fail to explain on the nomination page why this is within our project scope --Didym (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Internet burp?

Hiya Didym: Perhaps there was an internet burp when you closed

as delete because the images are still with us! Face-wink.svg Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The files are actually deleted, but due to phabricator:T93009, they are still visible. I'm going to purge the pages now to solve this issue for at least these files. --Didym (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help on Phabricator. Wieralee (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi, regarding the two files you objected to: I have informed the author and assume that he will confirm the mentioned license shortly. --GunnarZarncke (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Es könnte sinnvoll sein, nach Absenden der Freigabemail die Dateibeschreibungsseiten mit {{subst:OP}} zu markieren, ansonsten könnte es sein, dass die Dateien vor Bearbeitung der Email gelöscht werden. --Didym (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi, I guess the main file Commons:Deletion requests/File:Norma AISI.pdf was supposed to be deleted, but it's still there. Pibwl (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, now I deleted the missing file. Thanks for the notification. --Didym (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Requesting Super Speedy Deletion

Hey could you get rid of File:All Caps Edit Summary.PNG for me as author request? It is causing more issues than I thought possible on, ad would be best if gone quick. Sorry to bother you, you were the first admin I saw in recent changes. Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. --Didym (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Martin Emond

Why bother me with this many years afterwards ? Regarding the photos of the paintings at the walls of Malmö Opera, were these given to me (several, I don't know the number I uploaded, but there were other artists aswell, but only pieces owned by the opera, who kindly asked me, if I could wright about them. This was done by the art manager (a female, and I don't refer to the manager of plays, but of paintings and sculptures ). She asked me if I could wright something about the building and especially all art artifacts inside and outside the opera building. This was for use at Swedish Wikipedia, and a very long time ago. It's not a temporary exhibition, the Operahouse owns all it's paintings and sculptures. The other painting (hanging on a wall) is a Martin Emond painting bought by my mother's mother, and it was given to me already before my grand mother (mother's mother) passed away in 1996. It is a picture taken by me, with my camera, my memory card and is processed on my computer. It's an oil painting and is unique. What are You really leaning Yourself on in this case ? Since I no longer have anything to do with Swedish Wikipedia, I really don't care about what You intend to do with them. But they have been OK for many years - no one has questioned neither my own painting or those two from Malmö Opera (older name Malmö Stadsteater). When an artist sells his works, he also sells his copywright. To my knowledge did Martin Emond pass away in the mid 1960's , never aware of the word copyright. What has so suddenly caused this alarm ? If a copyright violence has been made, then the damage is already done. But I can assure You that isn't the case. WHO could possibly make complaints ? I ? For giving You my Martin Emod oil painting ? The opera, who mailed me the pictures. And it's all thousands of miles away from the United States anyways. I don't care what You do, but IF You erase them, You cause a tiny bit of harm to Swedish Wikipedia. Boeing720 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I found the images while cleaning up some old uncategorizes files. As you wrote, the painter died in the 1960's, so the paintings are still copyrighted for about 20 years and we need the permission from the painter (or his heirs, as he is dead). If we do not have this permission, we unfortunately have to delete the files until 2036, when they will be in the public domain. --Didym (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
First - I'm sorry for my tone in my reply. That was my actual reason to return to You, to appologize. Haveing said that, so are a payed painting on a wall subject of copyrights. And if I purchase an original oil painting from the artist, then the painting entirely belongs to me. It may be very different with posters and replicates of paintings. But when an artist is selling his original work, naturally the copyright belongs to me. Please give it a thought. We are talking of original paintings, which the artist has been payed for.
Please ask Your collegues. All the best, still Boeing720 (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I have digged a bit in Swedish laws. Just see here , which includes several paintings. For certain paintings there are something called "Följerätt" - if so (JA = YES, NEJ = NO) a small amount of the auction price goes to the artist (or relatives for up to 70 years). Though a maximum of 5%, less is not unusual. But this law relates from 1960. The Martin Emond paintings at Malmö Opera was made around the opening, (then as "Malmö Stadsteater") in 1944. My own Martin Emond painting is likewise older , according to my old mother, who rememers it since she was a kid. She is born in 1942. Further, as paintings in general has fallen in value, many painters sell their art including all new copyrights (otherwise does the painting loose value). I've spoken to both a lawyer and several auction houses. Boeing720 (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I am still not fully convinced, maybe it's the best if you convert the no permission tag to a normal deletion request where you can explain why it should not be deleted and the issue can be discussed. --Didym (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: DR

Thanks for notification. Maybe I'll try, if I find time to get through it, however I didn't think it was a big problem, since all files are listed in one entry on user's talk page, and if he reads it, he should know about the others... Regards. Pibwl (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, why did you block my account for 2 weeks?

Hello, This is Baike163, you just blocked my account, I wonder why. I have the copyright of all my uploaded pics. So I don't understand why can't I upload those pics. Thx. Wish you the best Baike 163

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baike163 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 3 April 2015‎ (UTC)
You were told multiple times not to upload files of which you do not own the copyright, or to show you actually are the copyright holder via OTRS. As you continued with uploading, we had to block your account. If you still continue with uploading such files, we have to block your account indefinitely. --Didym (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted my picture

Thanks for letting me know that my picture wasn't ready for the upload. Still I did not act in time and my image was deleted. I did edited in order to see if with the proper tags it would work. Seems to me like I don't understand the whole deletion logs or how to proceed in order to put my image back into the sandbox. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks!-- Luisq15 (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you can show a reason why the file is in the public domain or published under a free license, which would mean we can host it, otherwise there may be the option of uploading it locally to enwiki as fair use. --Didym (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Did the recent edit of the image give the correct reason for hosting? Or you can't edit deleted images?-- Luisq15 (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is no indication of a free license at the source of the image, which means it is impossible to keep the file. --Didym (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
So then how can I locally upload the image to enwiki?--Luisq15 (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
When it comes to fair use, I can't help much, but en:Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline may be helpful. You can upload the file via en:Special:Upload. --Didym (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jacob Barnett.jpg

Just curious about the licensing. This is an image from a TED talk video. The TEDx license is creative commons, I believe, but presumably the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs is not compatible with Wikimedia commons? Slawekb (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The NC-ND is not compatible with Commons, but I can't find evidence for any CC license for this file, just the standard Youtube license. --Didym (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Old DN pages

Greetings: I was wondering if you could take a look at [1] and see if any of the remaining DNs could be closed? The only ones from that date remaining are my nominations. Obviously, I cannot close them!! We are nearly a month backlogged on DN's and I'm working through the oldest ones in an effort to close them. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

After I closed a few, there are still 3 more complicated nominations left. --Didym (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Robert Sharples (classicist).png

You removed Robert Sharples (classicist).png. I had sent email as requested to on March 30, forwarding the emails I received from the images's owner giving explicit permission for use on Wikipedia/media, but received no reply. Is that email not read by anyone? Is there another place I can send the permission? DavidBrooks (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

At the moment, we have a backlog of about 60 days on the permission emails, so it may take a few weeks until your email is processed. If the permission is sufficient, the file will then be restored. --Didym (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


Hola, Didym. Quisiera saber el motivo del borrado de los archivos File:Reconstrucción en Atacama.jpg y File:Reconstrucción en Atacama.jpg. Ud. colocó «Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing». Sin embargo, no existe ninguna violación de derechos de autor, ya que ambos archivos los subí hace apenas unos instantes bajo la licencia correcta: CC-BY-NC. El lugar desde donde se obtuvieron ambas imágenes es un sito que publica sus imágenes bajo licencia CC-BY-NC: En consecuencia, ¿cuál es el motivo específico de la eliminación de las imágenes? (existe hasta una categoría para esta licencia: Category:CC-BY-NC-3.0). Saludos. Churrasco italiano (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC).

The source states "Contenidos bajo Creative Commons (CC-BY-NC) salvo donde indique lo contrario", which is not accepted on Commons because of the NC (no commercial use). Additionally, the image is marked with Pablo Vera | Agencia UNO, so the image is from an external source and the same image appears on various other sites without any indication of a free license, so we can safely assume it is not even available under the not accepted CC-BY-NC license. --Didym (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

photo annulée, article wikipedia

Bonjour à vous, Je viens de créer un article sur Roger Bertreux mais vous avez annulé la photo qui représente son sujet.

"Cette page a été supprimée. Le journal des suppressions et des déplacements est affiché ci-dessous pour référence.

   8 avril 2015 à 02:08 Didym (discussion | contributions) a supprimé la page File:Roger Bertreux.jpg (No license since 31 March 2015) (global usage; delinker log)"

Pouvez-vous m'aider à la restaurer ? En effet, je n'ai peut être pas bien rempli les informations lors de l'importation mais je suis sur qu'elle remplit toutes les conditions d'admissibilité, elle m'a été fournie par la veuve de cette personne qui avait payé un photographe pour la faire prendre (il y a environ 20 ans). La photo lui appartient bien et elle me l'a expressément fourni pour publication sur ce site, dans le cadre de ma démarche de création de cet article.

Je reste à votre dispsosition et je me permets d'insister sur le caractère urgent de celle -ci car mon article est actuellement en cours de vote communautaire pour son accessibilité.

Bien cordialement et dans l'attente de votre réponse. --Benoît MATET (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Pour restaurer la photo, il faut contacter l'OTRS avec une autorisation et une licence. --Didym (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Voilà, la personne disposant des droits (la veuve de M. Bertreux) a écrit un mail pour donner son accord total (avec un formulaire type). Pouvez-vous me préciser quelle est l'étape suivante, svp ?? Je vous en remercie grandement car il y a un peu urgence : en effet, c'est ce soir que se décide de l'admission définitive de cette biographie.

Bien cordialement.

Normalement, l'image sera restauré 2-3 semaines après envoyer le courriel. --Didym (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Ron Kofresí.jpg

I would have been glad if you had contacted me before deleting this file. The label photo is taken from a bottle of rum exhibited at the "Museum of the History of Rum" at the Serrallés Castle in Ponce, PR. It is listed as a pre-prohibition 1919 batch and the story behind the preservation of the content is that it never made the market due to said prohibition. I am pretty sure that the fact that it was an "early 1900s" product was mentioned before it was drive-by tagged (presumably by the same user that listed a collage made of pre-existing Commons' files for deletion). This particular art was dropped after that hiatus, but the brand did manage to revive in 1940, this time with a more modern and streamlined design (or so they said, I do not have an image of the new design).

Now, I'm not sure how much you know about the history of the prohibition, but it began in 1920. Curiously, the page that you linked when deleting the file states that "Works published before 1923 are in the public domain." That taken under consideration, would you kindly restore it? RamonfromPR (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please ask for undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests, it seems the file may be indeed in the public domain. --Didym (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I honestly did not expect you to reply this quickly and was about to post here requesting that the file was not restored under that name. I figured that stating the year in the name would prevent further misunderstandings and was more specific that "early 1900s". Anyways, Motopark also listed two of my other images for deletion and I was wondering if you could close this one as "delete". While I disagree with his method of tagging and moving on without contacting the uploader, both of these are related to work done in a Wikipedia page and the relevant research revealed that the year of the subject's actions was wrong, hence invalidating the use of that particular flag and making the file redundant. As noted in the other one, three of these images are already here and the last one is a blank square filled with color, so copyright is not really an issue there. RamonfromPR (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Restoring under another name is technically not possible, but if the file is restored, I (or any other admin or filemover) can move it to a name that contains the year. To the DRs: I commented on one and closed the other one. --Didym (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Ronn headshot.jpg

I have an absolute right to this picture. What is the issue? Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This was already answered on Commons:Undeletion requests. --Didym (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Almost certainly a copyright violation but I can't find the image on the Internet


Please look at this image: File:Shevchenko Milan 2004.JPG

I don't know what to do. That is almost certainly not own work but I can't find it on the Internet. The picture is too professional. Also, notice that it looks old, like from a magazine. For example, there's a stain near his head, which would not be there if this was "own work". Please, isn't there a page on Commons that says that pictures uploaded as own work are OK unless there are reasons to suspect a copyright violation? I think I did read that page but I can't find it now. I'm trying to find it because I could use it to justify nominating this picture for deletion. If you know which page I'm talking about, please give me the link. I really do not think this picture should be kept.

Thanks in advance for your help. Dontreader (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

COM:PRP? I deleted the image in question as I found it on [2]. --Didym (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not the Commons page I've been looking for, but even though I had read about the precautionary principle, it was a different page, so I kept the one you gave me on my user page (it also has great links to other topics, such as license laundering). Many thanks anyway (it's hard to know which Commons page it is because the part about exceptions for own work was just a small fraction of the content of the page).
That was an impressive discovery that you made! I spent a long time trying to find that image but I had to give up, which I hate to do. Awesome job! Thanks for your reply, keep up the great work, and have a nice day! Dontreader (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
If you use the GoogleImages gadget (as I did), it's easy to find such images. --Didym (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I use Google Images a lot to find pictures uploaded to Commons, but perhaps this time I simply missed it due to fatigue, or you used a different spelling form for the subject (I think he's Ukrainian), which would probably have shown some different pictures. Thanks again for your kind advice! Dontreader (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Spelling form? I did not search for any text, just the image. --Didym (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Very interesting. I always go to Google and type in key words for my image searches, and sometimes I use web (text) results when I can't find the image that way (for example, I will find the subject's Facebook page and search through the photos - same with Twitter sometimes). Could you please tell me how to search for images without text? Many thanks in advance for your time and patience. Dontreader (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. It's a gadget right above Tineye for searches on pages with new files. Thanks for the tip. That software is actually very impressive, I'm noticing, and it will save me lots of time in many cases. Thanks! Dontreader (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


Hello I was uploaded some photos in Persian Mastiff page and you dear friend, deleted them. i took those photos from dog owners and dog trainers who own those dogs. I know that people and they have no problem with using that photos for introduce this dogs, so i wish you can bring them back to Persian Mastiff page.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yboroon (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 April 2015‎ (UTC)
As these photos can be found on other internet sites, we have to verify the author has given permission to publish the files under a free license, using the process described on COM:OTRS. --Didym (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Should I believe this license information?

Hello Didym,

I found this image: File:10th we magazine awards 2014 ceremony stills 097e5c2.jpg. I looked at the source that was provided. Could you please tell me why I should believe that released that photograph "for any purpose"? That licensing information looks suspicious to me. Or am I assuming bad faith too much? Thanks in advance for your help. Dontreader (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

[3] does not even look like the site can release the photograph under a free license, let alone they try to do this. So the image should be at least tagged as missing permission, or even as copyright violation. --Didym (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
That was a smart thing to check. I have spent several minutes looking at pictures on that website, and perhaps the pictures with their logo are theirs, whereas the pictures without their logo are the ones used from other websites. I wonder if you agree with that assumption. If that is the case, then maybe this image that I brought to your attention does belong to that website, but I see no proof of release under a free license. I certainly agree that it should be tagged as missing permission. Another issue that I wanted to ask you about is that the file page says "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify these images, providing the site is attributed and a direct link running to the source on their site is provided." But then if it's used on the Wikipedia site, a Wikipedia article does not provide direct links to the source (only a description of pictures is given in Wikipedia articles). So I don't see how that license is compatible with Commons, even if the statement is true. Thanks. Dontreader (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I guess the link is not a problem, it's the same with all CC-BY or CC-BY-SA images, the author and the license have to be mentioned, but the Wikipedia article only has a link to the file page. --Didym (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. Thank you very much! Dontreader (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Hollywood steps out (18).png

Hello, I don't understand why you deleted this screenshot. It was taken from a public domain short, just like the others here, and it had the same license. What was wrong with it? --OswaldLR (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, it does not make sense to delete one file from that category, if the files are not in the public domain, we have to delete all of them. So I undeleted this file, as it seems it is probably no copyright violation. --Didym (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Aptech global logo.jpg

Hi, I am unable to comprehend why this image was deleted. Also in case it's a violation, please tell me how I can use it the right way, since it's available freely on the company's website. User:Maacroni (Talk)

Freely available does not mean available under a free license, the logo is copyrighted, which means it can not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. --Didym (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Photographie supprimée


Bonjour, vous avez supprimé une photographie qui m'appartient et dont je suis l'auteur. Je peux vous envoyer la photo originale comme preuve (IMG_4676.JPG, 6,20 Mo, 4416x3312 px). SALUTATIONS

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tardywik (talk • contribs) 18:19, 14 April 2015‎ (UTC)
Peux-tu contacter l'OTRS pour restaurer l'image? --Didym (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Bonjour, c'est fait. E-mail envoyé mardi 14 avril 2015 23:51, (autorisation de publication). SALUTATIONS


Why can't I upload the Polaroid? I did credit it to BMR. Please reply on Wikipedia. Thanks, Nahnah4 (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Crediting the copyright owner does not help anything if the file is not published under a free license. --Didym (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Revert the Kagera's image

Hello you! The guy who put a deletion tag on my Kagera's pics was so damn wrong.. I have explained myself to him, but he did not bother to reply my message and you came out God knows where and delete the images.. See what I have told him... Consider to revert the action please.. the guy is nut...--Muddyb (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

As you are not the author of the pictures, you have to prove the author releases them under a free license. In order to do this, the author can email OTRS or you can link a page where he confirms the license. --Didym (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Wiki Loves Earth upload de

hallo, du weißt das bestimmt: Ganz am Anfang der Seite stehen mehrere <div irgnendwas… Sachen. Die scheinen gar keine Funktion zu haben außer daß überm Inhalt noch etwas Platz ist. In der Vorschau siehts auch ohne gut aus. Kann man das vielleicht entfernen? Holger1959 (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Alles bis auf die erste Zeile scheint wirklich funktionslos zu sein, die erste Zeile könnte evtl. noch irgendwas ändern (den Unterschied sehe ich aber nicht). --Didym (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Danke, habs jetzt gekürzt [4], was immer da jetzt noch "versteckt überfließt" (overflow:hidden), egal.... Holger1959 (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Please check

Please check to be sure all images at [5] were closed deleted. I reviewed the page just now and half of them still show live links even after purging. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I intended to close only the first of the two DRs, but the script seems to have closed both of them. Now I also deleted the files from the second DR (+ 2 additional files). --Didym (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

about my deleted pictures

Hi Sir. you and another admin of commons, accepted my recent pictures from that published it's gallery under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0. But an admin, deleted some of these pictures without clear reason (you can check in my talk page). I need your help to recover these pictures. thank you.Moghime ARAK (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I think Túrelio already explained the situation quite good. --Didym (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. after 24 hours, Although Mr Túrelio contributes in commons, doesn't publish his decision! I did minor edits in his talk page, but he doesn't care my request! I guess he hesitates and doesn't want continue this discussion! So, I return back here and request you study my reasons to saving my recent uploads and do best. thank you.Moghime ARAK (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Xavier Fabre.jpg


you deleted the post I uploaded yesterday, "Xavier Fabre.jpg". I suppose you assumed there was a copyright violation, seeing that the photo is a professional one. However, I took the photo myself (I am the son of Xavier Fabre... and a photographer!).

Thus, I will upload the photo back, hoping you understand.

Thank you,

Adrien Fabre

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrien FABRE (talk • contribs) 15:58, 4 May 2015‎ (UTC)
I deleted the file because it is available on multiple sites, including [6] and [7]. In order to have it restored, you have to contact OTRS and give evidence of your authorship. --Didym (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


You deleted the image, Ports_O'_Call.jpg, which I was using in the Wikipedia article, Ports O' Call, stating that it is "Non-free license, or license disallowing commercial use and/or derivative works" when in fact, it is published in the creative commons on Flikr. Please elaborate where you got your information from since the image is listed on Flikr as being eligible for reuse and modification for non-commercial use. Wikipedia is non-commercial, is it not? Ormr2014 (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself is not commercial, but all files on Commons must allow commercial use. (see also COM:L) --Didym (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Ahhh I see. Then it's clearly my bad. Thanks Ormr2014 (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleted image re Ghouta chemical attacks

Thanks for deleting File:Ghouta chemical attack map.svg. There isn't anything on the page (besides the image missing) to show it has been deleted. Is there supposed to be something there? Thanks. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems we have some cache issues again, a purge helps in these cases. --Didym (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

en:Peter Hitchens

Please see en:Talk:Peter_Hitchens#Badly need help reinstating legitimate picture. This user, en:User:Clockback, says he is Peter Hitchens (confirmed by OTRS). and that he had cleared the photograph for use in Wikipedia. He has also been reported at en:WP:AN3 for edit warring at Peter Hitchens which is how I became aware. Who is the best person to advise him on what to do next? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

This is handled in ticket:2015060110008148, I guess the handling agent will be able to solve the problem. --Didym (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

My photo deletion

Can u explain in detail why was it deleted.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuv103m (talk • contribs) 05:26, 2 June 2015‎ (UTC)
The photos were obviously not your own work, but taken from the web, so they were copyright violations. --Didym (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

File import (en wikipedia to commons) transfer request


Are you around, I request your administrative support in transfering of en wikipedia file w:en:File:Qxz-ad178.gif to commons by File import. This file seems to have cc licencing available.

I want to use this file on mr-wikipedia at the earliest.

Thanks and Regards Mahitgar (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The file looks OK, you can transfer it yourself using the commonshelper. It's quite easy if you use the "Directly transfer file to Commons" option. --Didym (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

File:'The Poppet' - 1950s baby bath.jpg

Upon uploading a photo of an old baby bath (The Poppet) it got tagged with template 'No permission since', which says 'This media file is missing evidence of permission'.

I took the photo and am the copyright holder - I don't believe it is a derivative work as the subject of the photo, the baby bath, is exempted as a 'useful article - object with an intrinsic utilitarian function'.

I'm wondering if this happened because it is tagged with Xmp copyright info? Batternut (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

As the image also appears here, you should confirm your authorship using OTRS. --Didym (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. Thanks! Batternut (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

FPSRussia picture deletion

So I tried to upload the FPSRussia logo, to edit the FPSRussia Wikipedia page, but it seems that you already uploaded the logo, but it got deleted. Why was it deleted? Without that picture the FPSRussia page is doomed forever! (not really).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FPS James Bond 007 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 June 2015‎ (UTC)
I can't find the picture you are referring to, but as the logo is copyrighted, you need the permission from the author to upload it under a free license to Commons. --Didym (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Lita Cabellut photos


Some time ago I uploaded some pictures of Lita Cabellut for a Wikipedia page I created. They were deleted because of copyright issues, and therefore I contacted the author of the photos to ask for authorization to publish them. She kindly agreed and sent an emmail to the Wikimedia permissions email, but I haven't heard anything ever since and I can't reupload the photos. Could you please advice what do I need to do?


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercedesalmagro (talk • contribs) 09:28, 10 June 2015‎ (UTC)
The e-mail was recieved (you should be able to read it as you were Cc'ed), but we have a huge backlog on the permission e-mails (about 1000), so it may still take a few weeks until we can process it. If the permission is accepted, we will restore the images, you don't need to do anything. --Didym (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

New user upload limit

Hi, is the 4 day limit after which new users can upload pictures an old procedure or only for Wikipedia projects? We can still see it mentioned here: --Ravi (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about other projects, but if you compare the rights on enwiki with those of Commons, you will notice users without any special rights (users, at the bottom) have the right "upload" (which is needed to upload files) on Commons, whereas this is missing on enwiki. --Didym (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Urgent, dringend

Lieber Admin, offenbar gibt es da eine Reihe von Missverständnissen und Probleme bei den Gedenksteinen von Wien-Mariahilf, die offenbar alle gelöscht wurden, vgl. [8], obwohl ich ausdrücklich via OTRS und hier auch schon mehrfach meine Zustimmung zur Veröffentlichung gegeben habe. Ich bitte, meine Mitarbeiterin nicht zu demoralisieren und die Löschungen umgehend rückgängig zu machen. Herzlichen Dank --Christian Michelides (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Auf User talk:Gedenksteine beantwortet. --Didym (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Danke.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion movie posters by director Thomas Imbach

Dear Didym

You deleted several movie poster by director Thomas Imbach, which I uploaded including the following permission statement, which has been sent to me before by Wiki Commons User Stephen Philbrick (I had to sign it for the poster "Day Is Done" and it was fine, it has been approved, so I thought I can do the same for the other posters), here is the permission statement which I included in the upload of each of the posters (its the original, so its referring to the Day Is Done poster, but I changed it for every one of the posters I uploaded):


Could you tell me what else I can do to get the permission to upload the posters?

Thank you very much!



— Preceding unsigned comment added by FirelleMcLaughlin (talk • contribs) 14:10, 25 June 2015‎ (UTC)
The permission statement only mentioned one file (that is not currently deleted). In order to restore the other files, you have to send another email granting permission for those files. --Didym (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Löschen fragwürdig


ich würde gern Einspruch gegen das Löschen der Datei TK_Splash.jpg einlegen. ich habe den Support von Riotgames gefragt und folgende Antwort erhalten:

Während wir keine Werberechte für unsere Inhalte anbieten, haben wir jedoch einen ausführliche Artikel auf unserer Homepage, der erklärt wie wir zu der Weiterverwendung unseres Intellektuellen Eigentums (IP) stehen :

Solange deine Vorhaben nicht dazu dient Geld einzunehmen, sind wir damit einverstanden, dass du League of Legends als Grundlage für dein Fanprojekt benutzt. Gehe jedoch sicher, dass du dir das Jibber Jabber gründlich durchliest, da es einige Ausnahmen zu dieser Regel gibt.

Bitte lasse es mich wissen, wenn du weitere Fragen haben solltest!

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Da ich das ganze einfach nur mache, um die Wikipediaseite aktueller zu halten, fände ich das Rückgängigmachen des Löschens gerechtfertigt (ebenso das wiedereinfügen der Datei in den Wikipediaartikel)

Vielen Dank.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurum192013 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 5 July 2015‎ (UTC)
Da eine kommerzielle Nutzung ausgeschlossen wird, kann die Datei weder auf Commons noch in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia hochgeladen werden. --Didym (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Wo ist es bitte kommerziell die Datei hier hochzuladen ??? Ich mache weder Geld damit, noch mache irgentwas gewerbliches mit dem Bild, es ist einfach nur wie der Riotmitarbeiter sagt ein "Fanprojekt", also ist da nichts kommerzielles dran und ich sehe keinen Grund warum es also nicht auf Wikipedia dürfte. --Aurum192013 (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Die Nutzung selbst ist nicht kommerziell, aber alle Dateien auf Commons müssen auch eine kommerzielle Weiternutzung erlauben (s. COM:L) --Didym (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


You seem to have forgotten to delete the talk page of File:Sally-Website-Photo.jpg. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks for the notification. --Didym (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


Why did you delete File Dr Velaga Vari Velugulu.jpg Cover . I am the copyright holder. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If you own the copyright, please follow the process mentioned at COM:OTRS. --Didym (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


Hey I noticed that you closed this request. Could you please also consider this similar request? Mhhossein (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Didym (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
You did it very fast. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Colleen Clinkenbeard.jpg

Hi. I'm a new license reviewer, and I just failed the license for this file. I was going to explain a bit further, but you deleted immediately. Which is, I guess, the right thing, but ... well, here is what I was going to write.

The "permission" link for the image, doesn't actually give permission for us to use this image. It does complain about the current Wikipedia image. But what we do need is the actual image release under a free license, a statement such as "I own the rights to this file and release it under".

See, there is a non-zero chance that the uploader could actually have gotten Clinkenbeard to release the image. So I was hoping we could give it a week or so to give him that chance, and only delete it if he doesn't. Is there a way that I should have reviewed the license that would allow us to do that? --GRuban (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

For keeping the files for another 7 days, there is {{Npd}}. The other way is to start a regular deletion request, which will also stay open for at least 7 days. --Didym (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Can we do that? If you undelete, I'll start a regular request, to give the user some time. --GRuban (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I undeleted the file and converted the copyvio-tag to a regular DR you can comment on now. --Didym (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! --GRuban (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Why the HELL did you delete a bunch of pictures taken with my cellphone??

Those pictures are used in wiki pages about San Francisco, moron! They are pegged as pictures created by me when I uploaded them.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Unc1elam (talk • contribs) 10:11, 2 August 2015‎ (UTC)
Just have a look at the new DR and comment on it. --Didym (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
What is a DR? How do I comment on it? Can Wiki makes this process more complicated and confusing? I think DR means Difference between Revision?? Whatever. I read through the entire page, the instruction explains nothing. I see no link/space/box for me to comment. How do you use this thing? And what comments are you looking for besides.... 'I took this picture with my cellphone??????'
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Unc1elam (talk • contribs) 09:42, 3 August 2015‎ (UTC)
DR means deletion request, specifically this one. You can comment on it by editing the page as any other wiki page. The main problems, besides small resolution, are some search results for the images and some Exif data suggesting you did not take these pictures. --Didym (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Pic for deletion

Hey, Could you please consider deleting this image,As what you did here. Mhhossein (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It's nominated. Mhhossein (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I will delete the file in 7 days, as the DR needs to be open for that period. --Didym (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverting the images?

Hello there Didym!

I was just wondering why you keep reverting back the code I placed on the photo I posted. It is okay to use I checked with the website, they said it's free to use as long as you give credit to the site. So can you explain to me why you are doing this? I'd appreciate it I am new to Wikipedia so if I did something wrong I am sorry. But I just don't know how to stop all of the photos I posted from being deleted, when the site I went on gave me permission to use them.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueFlame101 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 10 August 2015‎ (UTC)
I can't find any evidence of a free license at your source, which seems to be a copyright violation itself. --Didym (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
What does that mean? Also, can you please, please show me how to do this then because I do not want all of the pictures I posted to be deleted. :( I'd appreciate it. :)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueFlame101 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 10 August 2015‎ (UTC)
For those movie screenshots, we need a release under a free license from the copright owner through OTRS. --Didym (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
What does that mean?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueFlame101 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 10 August 2015‎ (UTC)
We only can keep the files if the copyright owner sends us (OTRS) an email granting permission to publish those files under a free license. --Didym (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sketch of Margaret Morris by John Duncan Fergusson.JPG

Hi Didym: Re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sketch of Margaret Morris by John Duncan Fergusson.JPG; the artist has not been dead for 70 years, his heirs still retain copyright. The image was uploaded with license "own work", which it obviously isn't, but the title shows that it was painted by Mr. Fergusson (9 March 1874 – 30 January 1961). Do you not find that a clear copyvio? Please let me know why you changed it from speedy? Thanks Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is, but I think this is not an urgent case, so we can wait the 7 days for the DR, as having a DR page which can be added to the "undelete in" categories simplifies the undeletion process later. --Didym (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I got scared there for a second when they started popping up one after another in notifications! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

San Rocco

I don't understand this revert. Have you an idea how many "San Rocco" you can find in all italian territory? Villages, churches, shrines, oratories, and naturally processions. San Rocco, only in Italian, is fundamentally related at Saint Roch, but in a English contest lose importance.--Threecharlie (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You are probably right, but you can't just tag a category with {{Bad name}}. This template requires a name of a replacement category. If there is no replacement category, you have to recategorize all the files and nominate the then empty category for speedy deletion. --Didym (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok sorry for misunderstanding. I think a correct name for this category and only find it I ask for a renaming. Thanks for your patience :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


Why? Uploader (Piotr Kononowicz) is not an author (Piotr Hlebowicz) and source is "a private archive"; therefore I requested a permission to establish whether the author knows and approves these files' upload to Commons per PD. I don't see why it's a case for a regular deletion request. Masur (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I probably just looked at the first and the last part of the names, that were matching. Anyway, the additional week should be no problem, and maybe we even can find a way to keep the files. --Didym (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Muzej Oluje

Ja sam autor slike, jednostavno sam slikavao u muzeju u kojem je dopušteno slikavati. --August Dominus (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Permission from the author of the original images is needed, or you need to prove the author died 70 years ago, which would make the work PD. --Didym (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I make photos of museum exponats, no original images. --August Dominus (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Those are or at least contain printed images you are not the author of. So your images are derivative works that need permission from the original author. --Didym (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Will the decrease in size and resolution help in this case? Many of these photos are already taken from the distance and that way the original pictures (and newspaper frontpages) are smaller. Kubura (talk) 04:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
No, the focus would still be on copyrighted material, which is unacceptable without explicit permission. --Didym (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Mike promo pic.jpg

Hallo! Dürfte ich die Hintergründe der Löschung des Fotos erfahren (finde keine Diskussion)? Ich glaube mich zu erinnern, dass es damals, als ich es eingebunden habe, lizenzrechtlich unproblematisch war (und ich weiß, dass Scott die Bereitstellung des Fotos selbst abgesegnet hat); welchen Formfehler habe ich übersehen? Gruß--XanonymusX (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Da die Datei offensichtlich nicht vom hochladenden Benutzer erstellt wurde, wäre eine OTRS-Freigabe notwendig. Daher wurde die Datei vor einer Woche mit dem "no permission"-Baustein markiert und der Hochlader benachrichtigt. Da bisher noch keine Freigabe eingegangen ist (bzw. zumindest nicht bearbeitet wurde) musste die Datei gelöscht werden. --Didym (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, danke für die Aufklärung. Schade, die Beanstandung hätte kurz nach dem Hochladen sicher geregelt werden können, inzwischen ist der Hauptverantwortliche User:Zephfya (sehe aber grade, dass er nicht der Hochlader war, oder?) leider nicht mehr aktiv. Es geschah auf jeden Fall im Wissen und mit dem Segen von Michael Scott (siehe auch Scotts Blogbeitrag zu WP), aber ich weiß natürlich, dass die Freigabe formell korrekt durchgeführt werden muss. Mal sehen, vielleicht erreiche ich da noch etwas. Gruß--XanonymusX (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove the files that I have up-loaded to Wiki Commons

There is no copyright infringement of any file that I have up-loaded to wiki. They are my work, I have used some of the files in books that I have published. When a book is published I own the copyright, therefore, it is with great pleasure that I give the use of the files to Wikipedia. Chaos4tu (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately there are multiple people on the Internet that like to upload images that they don't own, and only one real owner to each image. So when someone uploads photos that are clearly published in books, we ask them to write to COM:OTRS and prove that they are the book author, or publisher, or otherwise own the rights to the images. If you write to OTRS at that link, from an email that clearly comes from that author or publisher, and include a link to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Chaos4tu, they will be able to stamp the files as properly licensed. --GRuban (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Plz help

Most pics using in the article vi:Thu Phương were deleted because of copyright infringement, but they have been reuploaded. Please pay an attention to those pics. Thanks for your supporting.AlleinStein (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated all suspicious pictures for deletion. I'm not familiar with fair use policies on viwiki, but it seems there are also too much audio (and video) files used, you may want to check this. --Didym (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


Hallo! Didym. Emblem-fun.svg Thank you for the copyvio speedy deletion on files 1, 2. --Tokorokoko (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Didym (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion rationale

Please stop deleting flags on the sole grounds that they are fictional. This has been discussed several times, I would not like to have to raise it once again. Fry1989 eh? 01:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The files I deleted were completely unusable, just standard out of scope own works or copyright violations. I did not close any DRs where I thought the images are usable in any ways or even in use. --Didym (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Bhakti Ziek images

I've contacted her to get her permission for these images and she should be sending them in. Thanks for the note. 17:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Bilder von Andreas Strehler

Hallo Didym

Andreas Strehler hat seine Bilder per e-mail freigegeben. Wie kann ich machen, damit sie nicht gelöscht werden? DerUhrmacher (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Vorläufig können Dateien mit {{subst:OP}} gekennzeichnet werden, um eine Löschung zu verhindern, sofern die Freigabe bereits ans OTRS geschickt wurde. --Didym (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Closed deletion requests

I noticed you deleted and closed several "Deletion requests" that I submited, thank you. However, I guess I didn't make it clear the the very first images also needed to be deleted, i.e File:Documento Verduzco.png (deletion request) and File:Francisco Garrido Patrón.png (deletion request). Are you able and willing to delete these also, or should I open a new request?--ARTEST4ECHO talk 18:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

No idea how this happened, but it seems I forgot to delete those. Done now. --Didym (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem, I didn't make it very clear. From now on I will. Thank you.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 18:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
While I have no idea if it's appropriate of not, there is one other Deletion requests regarding this user, who has major issues with sockpuppetly at Commons:Deletion requests/File:José Eduardo Calzada Rovirosa.png. If you have already decided that his images should be deleted, that you may want to address that Deletion requests also. Just thought you should know.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 18:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Also deleted. --Didym (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry one last thing. It seems the same thing happened at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thom G Santos em Photo-Music-Art - 2012.jpg.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 18:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
One more file deleted. --Didym (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 18:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi! I see that you have deleted MapAsiaGeonamesallCountries.jpg as an alleged copyvio. Can you please clarify in which way a file that I have generated myself from scratch, based on data with a free license (CC-BY 3.0), violates copyright? Lsj (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The license is obviously only applicable to some of the contents of this site, so we have to assume it is a copyright violation unless you show the exact source with the license. --Didym (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
From the GeoNames "about"-page, right at the top: "The GeoNames geographical database is available for download free of charge under a creative commons attribution license." The image is created from data in that geographical database, specifically this file: (290 M). In the corresponding readme file in the same directory, the CC license is repeated: "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, see". Lsj (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
You may be right, but I am still not fully convinced. Could you formally request undeletion to let another admin decide? --Didym (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


why is the page with FAA data deleted? no copyright violation Cubgirl4444 (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Current Flitfires Sheet1.pdf? While copyright may be not an issue with this file, it was deleted for not falling within the project scope. --Didym (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing "Paul_Wood_photo,_Homs.jpg"

Hi, I'm new to this so may have erred in uploading the picture, but I can't see how - there's no issue with copyright...why was it removed? Do you need some more information? And could you give me some guidance on how to avoid this in future.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Journo875 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 23 August 2015‎ (UTC)
As this image is probably not your own work, but a non-free image by another person, we had to delete it per COM:PRP. If you own the copyright for the file, please contact OTRS in order to restore it. --Didym (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, couple of things...there's no metadata because it's a video grab, and in unusually high def as the video is shot on a Cannon 5D. There may be some similar images out there and shown on Google search, but I'd be surprised if the exact image is out there - and in any case they were all supplied from the same original source - me - and there's no copyright issue. I will fill out the OTRS ticket when I get round to it.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Journo875 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 25 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Bonjour Didym déblocage d'un compte

Bonjour Didym, Pouvez-vous débloquer mon compte YacineDZ ? parce que on m'a bloqué et ils ne veulent pas me répondre, et je ne peux même pas les contacter, et maintenant je suis au taxiphone pour pouvoir vous contacter, merci de me répondre -- 07:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Non, il faut contacter Yann (e-mail ou ici). --Didym (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Henri du couedic de kererant picture

This picture is extracted from family sources, he was my great grand father and this picture belongs to the family, i am the depositary of it

thank you for not deleting it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxlii (talk • contribs) 14:13, 25 August 2015‎ (UTC)
You should verify your ownership by contacting OTRS for the files that are not in the public domain due to age. Also, you can't use a license template claiming the author has died more than 70 years ago without providing the author's name. --Didym (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Musique sacree.jpg

You've delete this file claiming that it was being used under 'fair use'. It wasn't. It was Commons 2.0, transferred from a flikr account where the copyright holder (I presume) had released it free to share and distribute. Please justify your action more clearly.Klbrain (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Already answered here. --Didym (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi; you deleted File:David minnix.jpg as per consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/File:David minnix.jpg, but not File:Davidminnix2.jpg, which was also nominated. Would you be so kind as to delete the latter now? Rcsprinter123 (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Didym (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Please use noinclude with "undelete in" categories

Hi! Whenever adding a deletion request page into an "Undelete in <YEAR>" category, please put it inside the <noinclude></noinclude> tags to only categorize the DR page, not the whole DR archive category. For example:

<noinclude>[[Category:Undelete in 2082]]</noinclude>

Best regards, ––Apalsola tc 16:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, what a mess. Totally forgot about this. --Didym (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"The_Hollywood_Sci-Fi_Museum.jpg" & "Hall_Of_Cars.png"

Permission was granted from use on Wikipedia for those images... Please revert deletions. Check-Six (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Those files require permission via OTRS. --Didym (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of files File:TWWH-logo 2013.jpg and File:Logo-Regional-Tephritid-FruitFly-TEAM.png

Hello, Didym. I am an OTRS volunteer handling some overdue file permissions. I see that you were the admin who deleted the two files mentioned in my headline-- we now have an OTRS ticket for these items, ticket#2015063010025351, in which the copyright owner has released the copyrights under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License. Do you think you can undelete these for me? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Both undeleted, you can add the OTRS template. --Didym (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Logo De Boer Tenten


Ik heb inmiddels al een email verstuurd naar het bedrijf voor goedkeuring voor het gebruik van het logo op Wikipedia. Zodra ik response krijg stuur ik u dit door.


Neeroppie (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Armagetron Advanced grid background.png


Hello Didym and reading audience of the others,

From the deletion log (external shortener service link because of internal encoding issues of MediaWiki engine or just my disability) I can see that on 29 April 2015 Didym deleted Armagetron Advanced grid background.png from WikiMedia Commons noting copyright violation.... According to deletion policy of Wikimedia Commons: the speedy deletion tag {{Copyvio}} is for obvious copyright violations.. Let me explain why the deletion does not conform the copyright violation rule and briefly summarize this particular case, please.

Uploaded file is a very simple graphic presenting Armagetron Advanced grid - a solid surface that holds all the lightcycles runs during the game-play and also decorates the background of the game menu (see the game background and area). The image file is so coherent that one could say it cannot be copyrighted - the picture consists of twisted light-green square grid on a dark-green background. The image shape is a 36px wide square designated for adjacent arrangement. It is available on the Crazy-Tronners forums (original file and alternative version, Google has it cached too). It is used most extensively as a background for our server browser (see server browser on the bottom of Crazy-Tronners forums.)

I investigated the origins of this file recently and found that it was created by kyle inspired by the idea of free and open-source Armagetron Advanced grid image mentioned before.

It could be that the real reason of this deletion was my failure of comprehensive description according to the licensing guidelines during the initial upload of the media therefore please find below required info with the request to undelete the file.

License: public domain


Author: kyle

Description: Armagetron Advanced background

— Preceding unsigned comment added by P4z (talk • contribs) 10:37, 11 September 2015‎ (UTC)
I undeleted the file and converted the copyvio tag to a normal DR, please add a valid license and comment on the DR. --Didym (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Will comment there. I am sorry to forget the signature under the message. P4z (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

why did u delete Mr Saugat copy.jpg

state me the reason please...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyaagi Saugat (talk • contribs) 08:07, 27 September 2015‎ (UTC)
Just read the DR, which is also mentioned in the deletion log entry. --Didym (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


You said that I have been told many times not to upload work that was created by another person. If you are referring to the photographs that I took of Nancy Glenn-Nieto's artwork, I have attributed the artwork to her, but I took the photographs. They are mine I own the copyright to the photos. The photo that I took of Nancy Glenn-Nieto was my work, nobody but me touched that camera. Now as for the book covers, again, that is my own work. No one else but me created the book covers, & I wrote the books & I own the rights to those books & every single word I wrote in the books, & everything that is in the books is under my copyright. Please explain how do I prove to you that this is my own work? Chaos4tu (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not tag the image of Nancy Glenn-Nieto, as it may be your own work, but just the images made by her. The attribution does not change anything in copyright, as you are not Nancy Glenn-Nieto, she needs to contact OTRS. --Didym (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sent an email with 78 files attached

I sent the email as you requested. I also said that I own the copyrights because I write books, take photos, do my own graphic arts & so on & own the publishing house. I also said I give free license to Wikimedia for the freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it; the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it; the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression; the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works. Now, I understand that I still have some copyrights reserved even though I have given free licensing to Wikimedia. I attached all the files. I see in your message that you wrote the affected file was Gia Scala with Rock Hudson at universal studios. I own the copyright to that particular photo. It's in my book: Gia Scala: The First Gia. Why don't you get a copy of that book and read the copyright. Regards Chaos4tu (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

So let's wait for the outcome, at least I will not handle this ticket as I think I am already too involved in this case. --Didym (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


I have requested "Permissions" to delete ALL and EVERY image file that I have uploaded. "Cheers" Chaos4tu (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Suppression image de Noëlle BREHAM


Je ne comprends pas la suppression de la photo de Noëlle BREHAM qui mettait en valeur cette animatrice de l'émission "Silence ça pousse !". Je l'ai téléchargé d'un blog, voir ici : Aussi pouvez-vous m'expliquer votre décision !?

Cordialement. F CLIQUOT

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CLIQUOT (talk • contribs) 16:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Peux-tu contacter l'OTRS pour restaurer l'image? --Didym (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


Hallo Didym,
in der nächsten Zeit habe ich vor, mehrere Bilder hochzuladen, für die andere Personen ihre Zustimmung geben müssten. Es handelt sich um Fotos
1. von Personen oder Landschaften,
2. von Zeichnungen oder Gemälden,
3. von Reliefs,
4. von Skulpturen.
Ich weiß theoretisch wie es gehen sollte: ich muss einen ausgefühlten Standardformular an diese Personen per E-Mail senden und sie schicken ihn an die OTRS-Stelle zurück. Praktisch weiß ich aber nicht, wie ich damit anfangen soll. Was für eine Lizenz soll ich beim Hochladen angeben? Die endgültige? Wie soll es angegeben werden, dass die Erlaubnis im OTRS-verfahren durchgegebn wird? Woher soll ich den Standardformular nehmen? Und außerdem im Fall von Reliefs und Skulpturen bin ich mir nicht sicher, wer als Urheber gilt: der Autor oder der Fotograf? Könntest du mir hier helfen? --Mewa767 (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Beim Hochladen solltest du die gewünschte Lizenz gleich angeben, die Datei zusätzlich aber noch mit {{subst:OP}} markieren. Die Textvorlagen beifinden sich hier. Bei den Personen und Landschaften ist der Urheber ja eindeutig, in den anderen Fällen wird es etwas komplizierter. Bei den Zeichnungen und den Gemälden ist nur eine Freigabe des Autors notwendig, eine zusätzliche Freigabe des Fotografen schadet aber auch nicht. Da Reliefs und Skulpturen dreidimensionale Werke sind, ist eine Freigabe des Autors und des Fotografen nötig. (Natürlich immer vorausgesetzt, dass der Autor keine 70 (bzw. je nach Land evtl. abweichend) Jahre tot ist, womit das Werk gemeinfrei wäre und nur noch die Rechte des Fotografen zu beachten sind.) --Didym (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Begründung für Löschung?

Moin! Ich habe als Beobachter den Löschantrag für ein Bild, das ein denkmalgeschütztes Bauwerk in Hamburg zeigt(e), verfolgt. Ganz offensichtlich hat der Fotograf den Grund für den Löschantrag nicht verstanden. Mir ist der übrigens auch nicht ganz klar. Hätte man die Entscheidung nicht etwas ausführlicher begründen sollen? Gruß --Dirtsc (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Derartige Dateien werden oft per Schelllöschantrag mit noch weniger Information gelöscht. Ausserdem lässt sich eine ausführliche Begründung einfach per Google finden, für "gezeigtes Werk" passt gleich das erste Ergebnis. --Didym (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Also der erste Google-Treffer bei mir ist ein Hinweis auf de:Vorlage:Dateiüberprüfung, da finde ich dann hinter dem entsprechenden Parameter die Erläuterung "Wenn die Datei ein geschütztes Werk zeigt (z. B. eine moderne Statue) und für dieses nicht klar wird, dass entweder der Hochlader auch der Urheber des Werkes ist oder der Urheber der Lizenz zugestimmt hat." Was jetzt aber das "geschützte Werk" auf dem Bild gewesen sein soll, weiß ich deswegen immer noch nicht. Damit kann ich zur Zeit nur eine Entscheidung aufgrund eines Antrages erkennen, aber keine Begründung dafür. Es muss doch möglich sein, anständig klar zu machen, warum man das Bild löscht. Gruß --Dirtsc (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Genau das ist die Erklärung für die Löschung. Es sollte doch wohl klar sein, dass die Plakate auf der Litfaßsäule urheberrechtlich geschützt sind. --Didym (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Na ja, wäre das jedem klar, wäre das Bild ja gar nicht erst hochgeladen worden. Von daher wäre hier ein Satz mehr für den Fotografen hilfreich gewesen. Gruß --Dirtsc (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Dankeschön Dirtsc für Deine Unterstützung, tut mir leid, das ich aus Unwissenheit ein fehlendes Bild in der Denkmalliste ergänzen wollte. Hätte ich geahnt, das sich deshalb so viele Menschen mit dem Foto von mir befassen müssen, hätte ich es sicher gelassen. In den Denkmallisten finden sich noch mehr Litfaßsäulen, für das es noch kein Foto gibt, evt. könnte man dort eine entsprechende Notiz ablegen. Danke für die Aufklärung, beim nächsten mal weiß ich es jetzt. Viele liebe Grüsse –—Pauli-Pirat (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Notfalls könnte man natürlich versuchen, so was als Ersatz zu verwenden. --Didym (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Ob das Urheberrecht bei Plakaten im Sinne vom Urheber ist ? Plakate werden ja extra angefertigt, um öffentlich gezeigt zu werden z. B. an Litfaßsäulen, für mich ein Widerspruch in sich selbst, dankeschön und eine schöne Restwoche. –—Pauli-Pirat (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Orchid Album

Hallo Didym, Du nimmst Veränderungen bei den Bildern dieses hervorragenden Werkes vor. Kannst Du bitte die ausgetauschten Bilder wieder in der entsprechenden Species-Kategorie "xxx - - botanical illustrations" einfügen. Dank und Gruß. Orchi (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sollten da noch mehr Duplikate zu löschen sein, werde ich das natürlich beachten. Für die schon gelöschten Dateien geht es wahrscheinlich wesentlich schneller, wenn du die Kategorien selbst hinzufügst, du kennst dich in den entsprechenden Kategorien besser aus. --Didym (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
...danke, wenn Du diese Arbeit übernimmst, ich habe schon sehr viel Zeit dafür investiert. Orchi (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

About being patroller

Hello, just to clarify, my prior uploads were not copyright violations, I had the consent of my colleages, but sources didn't declare license and otrs process is slow, I've fixed them by uploading them again, declaring proper licenses at sources. and about few edits I made, I've recently started chasing copyright violations from trwiki to commons, hope to do more in time. HakanIST (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

FSU Images

Hi I have noticed that there is a bot deleting many of the images you posted on Wikipedia. I don't know if you noticed but many of them are invaluable and I hate to see them deleted like that. Can you please put the permissions this bot is asking for? Thank you for the good work on those pictures--SeminoleNation (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


Dear Didym. Could you please modify the named template so that it visible from the template page which kind of files are affected? The template is used at File:Flüchtlinge in Braunau am Inn 01.JPG and it appears to me that this is invalid. Possibly more files are affected, and the related users should be advised accordingly. Can you take care of this? Thank you! --Krd 11:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

So wie ich ticket:2015051110021786 verstehe, sind auch solche Dateien mit abgedeckt. Sollten wir da nochmal nachfragen? --Didym (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Es sollte schon aus dem Template klar hervor, welche Art Bilder genau erfasst sind, ansonsten könnte ja jeder das Template für alles mögliche verwenden, ohne dass uns das auffällt. --Krd 07:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Ganesh Ayyar Image

Hi Didym,

This is with regards to the Image deletion on en:Ganesh Ayyar

01:36, 27 August 2015‎ CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,346 bytes) (-22)‎ . . (Removing "Ganesh_Ayyar.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Didym because: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - Using VisualFileChange..) (undo)

Image Source is

Can you please help putting it back up as it comes under the Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0).

Thank you!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhiraj1984 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I have undeleted the file, but please don't upload files without giving a proper source. --Didym (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion of File:MacroSeaG27BerlinGobalInstituteInterior.jpg

We now have an OTRS permission statement from the author of this image as well as File:MacroSeaG27BerlinGlobalInstituteExterior.jpg (OTRS ticket 2015102110023228). Could you undelete? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Didym (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


Sorry for this edit, it is the first time I see this weird word. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi Didym. I'm just curious why you removed the {{Copyvio}} template that Ellin Beltz added to File:MacroSeaG27BerlinGobalInstituteInterior.jpg. It does look as if the image comes from and there is no indication that image has been released under a "Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported". Shouldn't there at least be an OTRS ticket verifying the image has been freely licensed if this is not a copyvio like was done for File:MacroSeaG27BerlinGobalInstituteInterior.jpg, File:MacroSeaDumpsterPools2009.JPG, File:MacroSeaG27BerlinGlobalInstituteExterior.jpg and File:NewLabBrooklynNavyYardRendering.jpg? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems KDS4444 forgot to add the OTRS template. --Didym (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Didym Would it be possible then to add the OTRS template instead of just tossing the image back to have the same problem again? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course I could add the OTRS template, but when I am asked by an OTRS agent to restore a file, I expect that agent to add the template after undeletion. --Didym (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Asking for permission on images I'd already gotten permission for?

Hi -- got a message from you in August that two of my images needed permission. Both of them had already gone through the permission approval process and I have a ticket number [Ticket#2015081810000101] and email that confirms. Not sure what to do at this point? The images in question are

and we emailed with Stephen Philbrick. Let me know if you need anything else for this. Thank you. Jessamyn (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As that message was sent before the ticket was created, everything that needs to be done is already done. --Didym (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Reminder: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 31 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

Wikimedia Foundation logo - vertical (2012-2016).svg

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information, and specifically to the OTRS system.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information by way of the OTRS system and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015, you will lose your OTRS access.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me ( Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

If you wish to stop receiving these notices, you may remove yourself from this list. Please note that doing so will not prevent you from losing OTRS rights and access after the 31 December 2015 deadline.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 06:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageHelp center

Copa Libertadores

Dear Didym:

Why you deleted the file File:Libertadores_cup.png?

The image on which I based is in the public domain: 200px

The image I uploaded it's a cropped, and I put the relevant appropriations.

Regards. --WIKI-WOLVERINE (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The image is based on a copyright violation (labeled as public domain), so it is also a copyright violation. --Didym (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

URGENT: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 31 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

Wikimedia Foundation logo - vertical (2012-2016).svg

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information, and specifically to the OTRS system.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information by way of the OTRS system and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015, you will lose your OTRS access.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me ( Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

If you wish to stop receiving these notices, you may remove yourself from this list. Please note that doing so will not prevent you from losing OTRS rights and access after the 31 December 2015 deadline.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 20:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageHelp center

URGENT: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 31 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

Wikimedia Foundation logo - vertical (2012-2016).svg

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information, and specifically to the OTRS system.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information by way of the OTRS system and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015, you will lose your OTRS access.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

Even if you have signed the confidentiality agreement for functionaries (general agreement), you must also sign the OTRS agreement to retain your OTRS access.

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me ( Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

If you wish to stop receiving these notices, you may remove yourself from this list. Please note that doing so will not prevent you from losing OTRS rights and access after the 31 December 2015 deadline.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 21:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageHelp center


I think this was mistakenly deleted



— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seestucksite (talk • contribs) 14:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Resolved on COM:UD. --Didym (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Please advise me on how to have the image you deleted restored

Dear Didym I see that you deleted the photo of my father that I posted on his page (Wallace A. Ross). What can I do to have this photo restored to his page? He has been dead for over 40 years, that photo is my property, and I have the permission to post it. How can I establish this fact? Please advise me. Thank you, Valerie Ross Valerie Ross (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Owning a photo is not sufficient to relicense it, you have to own the copyright also. Please see COM:OTRS. --Didym (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Didym,

The VLCC logo belongs to me. Any reason why you removed it?


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandv1979 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Please read COM:L and COM:OTRS for further information. --Didym (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)