User talk:Eusebius/Archives/2009

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


Vote about my VIC image

ComputerHotline - Libellule (by) (7).jpg


You can re-evalute the image.--ComputerHotline (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. --Eusebius (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Screenshot

A correct source for File:Fdm.jpg would be Screenshot of en:Free Download Manager (Version xyz), i would appreciate a version number, so i asked the uploader on this. If he will not fix it i will fix it in a week or so, the file is on my personal log. --Martin H. (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I allready saw a description in Wikipedia, so i will fix it. --Martin H. (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


There is big difference between author unknown and "i don't know author". Also cause lacking source maybe somebody never had it in his hands and autor is written on the back side. Herr Kriss (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Arabic admin :)

Hi Eusebius

Sorry, but I was really busy the last few weeks. Yes, You are right, the image seems to be copyrighted. The best course of action, as I guess, was already taken. Sorry for the late answer. --Tarawneh (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No pb, thanks! --Eusebius (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. It seems he just needed another place for his copyvios after deleted the files. Lots of users do that when the files are deleted there. Thanks --Tarawneh (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help then! --Eusebius (talk) 08:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

File:C-Lok 2.jpg

Hi Eusebius, why do you think that this image is PD? There is no author, so no way to verify the PD claim. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

My (big) mistake. I think it can be {{Anonymous-EU}} (based on the declared publication date of ~1910), or at least {{PD-1923}}. What do you think? --Eusebius (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it could be either of those. The author/copyright holder of this ad is pretty obvious. And PD-1923 does not work, because it is a German poster. It was certainly created in Germany and is thus not free in the country of origin. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think PD-1923 is applicable, but it is not sufficient (valid only for the US, valid German license remaining to be determined). Author and copyright holder are really not obvious to me, but maybe you can propose a more adapted license (if a firm/organization published it around 1911 and had copyright on it at the time, I'm pretty sure it can be PD-old in some way, but I can't find a proper reference in the available PD tags, and I'm really not a specialist of German copyright laws). --Eusebius (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Copyright lasts for 70 years after death of the creator. As this poster is an advertisement for a company, we can assume that the company holds the copyright to it. Thus the only needed attribution is the company's name which is written on it in big letters. We would need to make inquiries at the company whether the copyright has expired or whether they agree to license it under a free license. Only the fact that it is from 1911 is not sufficient to make it PD-old. PD-old without any proof of death of the author can only be assumed for works which are very old, meaning early or mid 19th century. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Is the creator the company or the human? If it is the company, then your formulation about copyright duration cannot apply. If it is the human, then for the moment, creator is unknown... About the company, apparently the Maschinnenfabrik Esslingen was bought by Daimler AG. In any case, I'm not saying I'm right anyway, I don't know and I leave it to you (and when I'm wrong, I like to understand why). I'm a bit ill-at-ease with the copyright status of works published by organizations, not individuals (if you have links...). --Eusebius (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
A creator is always human (how can a company create something without a human being involved?). This creator has obviously been employed by the company (why would he make an ad for them otherwise?). Surely, as part of his contract, he transferred his copyright on the poster to the company. This means that the company holds the copyright to the ad, which will expire 70 years after the death of the creator. As we cannot be sure that the creator has died at least 70 years ago (1911 is not odl enough), we need to ask the company who created it. Just the fact that the author himself is unknown does not qualify for anonymous work, as we have a company with a pretty good copyright claim on this and I don't see a reason to doubt their claim. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, clear enough now. Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind if I put the marker template back in and linked to this discussion? Or do you want to delete it right away? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Please do what you think is best. Note that this talk page is archived (60 days). --Eusebius (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I restored the no permission template and left a comment pointing to our discussion here. Thanks so far and best regards -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Technical Answer

ComputerHotline - Coleoptere (by).jpg

Hi, why did you advise a slower exposure for this picture, in QI review? (sincere question, just curious about it) --Eusebius (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Eusebius, my comment was due to the effect the shutter speed had on the image's lighting. At 1/2000 f7.6 the camera will expose backgrounds well only in very bright (sun) light - all the non-flashed parts of the image are very dark emphasizing the flash. If he had kept the aperture and dropped the speed down to say 1/60 it may have brought detail into the background and allowed the camera to not operate the flash at full power, with a corresponding drop in the over-flashed look and resulting hard-edged shadows. I expect that at the 3pmish time of the shot, even indoors, they would have been enough light to get a better result for the background and shadows this way. - Peripitus (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. --Eusebius (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I'm sorry for the removal of your problem tags because I thought I've offered enough. It's clearly that most of potraits on the image are old Chinese paintings or photos of early 20th century, so I added Template:PD-old-70. As for the modern people, I added Template:cc-by-2.0, Template:PD-USGov-NASA these templates to notify their sources.--Symane (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your work and for taking the time to put the license tags. I'm afraid it's not enough though. Images on Commons must have a valid source, and for derivative works such as this one, every single image should have its own. (See File:Basque_people.png, File:Brasileiros.jpg or File:British Irish.png for good examples). I know it's not a funny job... A single line per image (with an URL and a word on the copyright status) should be enough. About the license tag: I think you shouldn't add them directly to your picture, your work may have its own license tags (the Flickr tag or the NASA tag, for instance, cannot apply to your collage). If I have time and if you want me to, I'll give you a hand (today or tomorrow, say). --Eusebius (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid File:Jiangxi_people.jpg may not reach the same level than images that you listed, because quite many old paintings haven't yet been uploeded on Wikicommons, and it's probably that those ancient persons even dont't have articles on English Wikipedia. This image has already cost me much time to create it, so I don't I have more energy to upload massive images at present.--Symane (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
You don't need to upload them, and the guys don't need to have an article on their own. But for an old painting, for instance, you can tell the painter (if known), the date, from which book (or other source) you fetched it and whether it is PD-art (for instance). No need to upload more stuff. --Eusebius (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your notice, it's OK right now? File:Jiangxi people.jpg#mentioned persons--Symane (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid not. It's very useful to have the names of the guys, but legally speaking, what we need is the source of the illustrations (it's OK for the ones with the URLs). We need the name of an artist, the date (even if approximative) and where you got the picture (ref of the book, for instance). --Eusebius (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid this picture is copyrighted and cannot be used here on Commons, where rules are more strict than on local Wikipedias. You should remove the picture from the collage, or replace it with some other. --Eusebius (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't own details of the images. But these old paintings can easily trace back to their creation date, they were surely painted in ancient times. So I dont't think it's worth to detail further.
Now that Wiki Commons doesn't share the same rules with Wikipedia, I may recreate a new image later. Thanks.--Symane (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm convinced the paintings are PD-old, but it is not enough for Commons, we need the precise stuff. I think you should upload the picture locally on the Wikipedia where you want to use it, if you can. Here it will be deleted. --Eusebius (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Art Model 2.gif

Is PD-old and from before 1907.haabet 15:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Would be PD-old without any doubt if we knew the date of death of the creator. Do you have his name, at least? Anyway, I restore the file and nominate it for a normal deletion, so that you can have your word since you contest deletion. --Eusebius (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and even if it is PD, we need a source for the file. --Eusebius (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
You can discuss file deletion here. --Eusebius (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission

Hello you are delited File:Lavrinenko.jpg. I told User talk:AVRS abaut deliting this images:

User AVRS it is inactive from 5 januar. Please delited this image. Thanks.--Jaro.p (talk) 09:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I will have a look at the picture. If legal info is missing, I will tag them and they will be deleted after 7 days, unless info is provided. --Eusebius (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
How about File:Stalin-Gorky-Voroshilov.1931.jpg ? I have provided some legal info, so we can cancel the deletion request ? --Kl833x9 (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I will not close the deletion request myself, I leave the decision to an admin with more experience with (Russian) copyright issues. Deletion requests remain open for seven day when the deletion is not obvious. --Eusebius (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Image upload enquiry

hi, I am a newbie for Wikipedia, I am trying to edit a page by replacing some new screenshots. But my image is kept deleted, as it is copyright violidated. I feel sorry about that. But I am not quite understand why there are some screenshot approved before but not mind. Please take a look at this. It is actually the old version of our software screenshot. Would you mind to share the method of how to upload this kind of screenshot?Sleeperboy (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your message (and thanks for caring about doing things the proper way). I'm afraid it is not possible tu upload a screenshot of your software, unless it has been released with a free license (like GPL). You can read details here (I should have provided the link in the deletion summaries). If you're responsible for the edition of this software, you may find a way though, for instance by declaring on your official website that you license all screenshots produced with your software under a free license. You can find a list of acceptable licenses here. Apart from the copyright issue, your screenshots might be flagged as "promotional material" and deleted even if they have a proper license. This may depend on whether your software passes the criteria for inclusion in a Wikipedia encyclopaedia, for instance. I hope this helps. Regards, Eusebius (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Post-scriptum about your link: I am totally unable to read Chinese, but you should know that copyrighted stuff sometimes can be uploaded on the local Wikipedias even though they cannot be hosted on Commons: the rules are more strict here on Commons and the policies depend on the local projects. --Eusebius (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Las Meninas Poster .jpg

Las Meninas Poster.jpg

Hello, I am a copyright owner of Las Meninas Poster .jpg --Ihorp (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you have to provide Commons with a proper authorization to disclose it under a free license, authorizing (among other things) modifications and commercial use. The procedures are described here. Also, please sign your messages (with four tildes)! Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
We have received an OTRS ticket about this image (Ticket:2009010910008449). Can you please advise what the quoted source was of this image? (I'm not a sysop here so I can't look.) Stifle (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Declared source: "Ihor Podolchak". File is the main poster of this movie. Should I restore File:Las Meninas Poster.jpg with {{OTRS pending}}? --Eusebius (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Please restore File:Las Meninas Poster .jpg with GFDL and {{permissionOTRS|ticket=}}. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
OK. Hope it's ok if I remove the space at the end of the name, though. --Eusebius (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done Restored as File:Las Meninas Poster.jpg with new version, GFDL tag and large version of the image. --Eusebius (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fierabrás, File:Rolandandferragut.jpg.


Eusebius, soy el Usuario:MambaVerde, autor del artículo Fierabrás, del que retiraste la imagen: File:Rolandandferragut.jpg. Esa imagen está sacada de la Wikipedia in English, quiero recuperarla para mi artículo, te pido por favor que me ayudes y hagas las gestiones necesarias para subirla a Commons en Español, pues yo no sé hacerlo, ya que soy nuevo en Wikipedia. Espero noticias. Hasta la vista.--MambaVerde (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hola. Gracias por tu mensaje, pude encontrar las informaciones necesarias en la Wikipedia en Inglés. La imagén esta disponible de nuevo y puedes utilizarla en tu articulo. --Eusebius (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/ADSL modem router internals labeled.jpg

ADSL modem router internals labeled.jpg

Scope change. Consider revoting please. Thank you.--Kozuch (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done --Eusebius (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

besion d'un francophone!!!

J'ai traduit {{FVBS Bilderkatalog}} en français, est-ce que tu pourrais corriger mon français terrible? ChrisDHDR 15:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. Il n'y avait pas grand-chose à modifier, ça relevait surtout du style. --Eusebius (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Re : licence

Bonjour. Je rédige actuellement l'article Wikipédia FR d'une société française, mais j'avoue avoir vraiment du mal au niveau des différentes licences proposées pour uploader un logo. Laquelle est la plus appropriée ? --Big kik (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour. Aucune n'est spécifiquement appropriée pour un logo, à moins que vous ayiez une autorisation OTRS du propriétaire des droits d'auteur sur le logo, spécifiant une ou plusieurs licences (ou que le logo soit vraiment très simple, voir {{PD-textlogo}}). La solution la plus simple consiste à le télécharger sur la Wikipédia française et pas sur Commons (qui n'accepte pas d'héberger les fichiers en fair use). D'autre part, pour votre article, faites attention aux critères d'admissibilité des sociétés. Et n'oubliez pas de signer vos messages ! Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Borgi catalogue

Brogi, Carlo (1850-1925) - n. 10209 - Napoli - Interno della Galleria Umberto I - Architetto Ernesto de Mauro.jpg
  • It refers obviously to his own catalogue, that I am reconstucting here. The catalogue number of the Brogi firm can be read in the caption beneath each image by the Brogi family, so it is easy to reconstruct it. I already mention its number in each image by the Brogis I am uploading, and I am listing catalogue numbers for all ancient pictures that I find, whenever it is marked. Best wishes. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    If I made a remark, it's because it was not obvious to me (especially the fact that Carlo Brogi's pictures are in Giacomo Brogi's catalogue, you have to know the subject quite well to infer that and I didn't know anything about it before you told me), so maybe I'm not the only one in that case and a few more words in the source field (a link to your catalogue page?) would actually be useful. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)



Hello, I forwarded the permission I got to the mail address you mentioned in my page, but still the picture is marked for deletion. What else should I do? טוקיוני (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You did it already: contact the admin who gave you the notice (the "no permission" tag has to be removed by an admin). Thank you, I take care of the rest. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Et pourtant, c'est une basilique !


Je vois que tu as supprimé Category:Église Saint-Nicolas (Nantes) dont j'ai transféré le contenu vers Category:Basilique Saint-Nicolas (Nantes). Je dois bien dire que je lui ignorais cette qualité jusqu'à ce matin, quand j'y suis entré, plus mu par l'intérêt de la connaissance que par une quelconque poussée mystique. Quelle ne fut pas ma surprise de voir l'appellation « Basilique Saint-Nicolas de Nantes » figurer sur les prospectus mis à disposition des visiteurs. Je te rassure, c'est la seule basilique de Nantes (et même de Loire-Atlantique) selon le site officiel.

Cordialement, Pymouss Tchatcher - 17:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

J'ai dû le savoir à une époque, ça devait traîner quelque part dans mon cerveau mal rangé ! Merci du nettoyage, --Eusebius (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


Eusebius: Small size and no EXIF, I doubt "own work". 21:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Eusebius! OK but how can I prove that that's my work? There are strange rules on Wiki (nothing personal!): one has to prove that he/she is "innocent". Is there somebody who asserts that the picture belongs to him/her? Of course not.

Sincerely, Barbara --Szary Wilk (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I suggest we discuss that on the deletion request page, since it is there that the "fate" of the picture will be decided. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, please sign your messages with "~~~~". --Eusebius (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


Renal corpuscle.svg

Thank you Eusebius :-) Albertus teolog (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Was not very difficult :-) --Eusebius (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Stjepan Filipović.JPG

Stjepan Filipović.JPG

What information is still missing? I added links to the authors user page and original image. Maduixa is the author of that image and the source is her camera. --BokicaK (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I knew this would be questionned :-) Actually, what bothers me is that I can't find a declaration of the user stating that he has taken the picture himself. If he had uploaded it himself on Commons and stated "own work", it would have been clearer. Here, I wonder whether we should ask him for an OTRS authorization. Could you please give me a translation of "Споменик Стеви Филиповићу у Ваљеву"? Maybe it can help. --Eusebius (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is conversation between Maduixa and Jovan, one of our admins:

“Can You give link to the page. I can't find where this image came from. - Jovan Vuković (r) 01:24, 30 June 2007. (CET)
How You can't find the image? And where are You looking for? This is MY image. I wrote it while I was uploading. Didn't I tell You that I have some pictures of Valjevo? Perhaps I didn't choose correct license, but it is GFDL, that is, free. I give it to the Wikipedia .-- Maduixa kaži 10:11, 30 June 2007. (CET)
Hm, I see that there is not written that it is my image. I do not know why it is, but I am sure that I wrote it ...-- Maduixa kaži 10:12, 30 June 2007. (CET)
Yes, it is non written, and if imae is yours, You should put ((GFDL-I)) 20p - Jovan Vuković (r) 15:44, 1 July 2007. (CET)
Well, well. Now I can fix it .-- Maduixa kaži 15:46, 1 July 2007. (CET)
Ah, You did it before me .:)-- Maduixa kaži 15:47, 1 July 2007. (CET)”

--BokicaK (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Споменик Стеви Филиповићу у Ваљеву = Monument to Stevo Filipović in Valjevo. --BokicaK (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the translations, problem tag removed. --Eusebius (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


Thanks :) Herr Kriss (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Eusebius (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Vote templates

Hi, could you please explain to me why your bot is subst'ing them? Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am merely complying with User:Mike.lifeguard's request. I am merely providing technical assistance. Please take your case to User:Mike.lifeguard. -- Cat ちぃ? 10:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I will, thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Renal corpuscle VI

Renal corpuscle.svg

Thank you from the message. You are more experienced at VI and I trust you. Now back my editing. I hope I did not bad. Lycaon asked for opinions. I greet you. Albertus teolog (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK... I don't think my greaaat experience in counting votes helps a lot here, though. I was merely thinking aloud... --Eusebius (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

French heraldic crowns

I am delighted. Congratulations. Albertus teolog (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Eusebius (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Eusebius about the File "Laocoonphoto.jpg"


The Photo has been released by Paul Barrow under the public Domain, and it has been properly source. Thank you for your interest in defending and advocating good-usage at/of commons. Please, do not hesitate if you need further clarification, although I am very busy in real-life, so I don't promise to answer you so promptly but eventually I will no doubt. Have a good day, and greetings. JohnManuel (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. I have no doubt about the public domain, but I cannot see any valid source. Do you know anything about the photographer, or about initial publication of the picture? Was it taken from a book or something like that? I'll also ask the original uploader on en:WP. Also, please refrain from removing problem tags. Tagged image actually get re-examined by an admin after 7 days (at least), and he'll remove it (then, or sooner) if the problem is solved. In the meantime, if you really disagree with the tag you can transform it into a deletion request, in order to ask for a wider debate about the picture. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Look at this point do what you think is right, Eusebius or whatever is your real name. You make me remember to one monk that have all the time under his hands and habits for dedicate himself to thing otherwise not important. Aren't you one? in any case, I would wait, and please just leave the "issue" at whatever you think is fine. I won't have time now or later to talk back to you. Please, enjoy your life. JohnManuel (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
My job as an admin is mainly to take care of these "not important" things, but I understand if you don't want to get involved. --Eusebius (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image

Albi cathedral - choir and choir screen.jpg

Merci pour les nominations/promotions --Pom² (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

De rien, les photos valaient le coup ! --Eusebius (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cropping Dijon_-_Palais_des_ducs_-_Minerve.jpg

Dijon - Palais des ducs - Minerve.jpg

I am not an expert on framing/cropping images, but I would have thought that in the case of your QI candidate File:Dijon_-_Palais_des_ducs_-_Minerve.jpg that it would be better not to show just the top of the lower windows and not to show the clock with its top cut off. In other words I would crop it somewhere above the lower windows and somewhere below the clock - just the middle strip. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I also thought it would be better to get rid of the clock, but I was afraid it would be too tight. I will give it a try, cutting also the sides. Thanks for your comment. --Eusebius (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't cut the sides, I'd cut it to a widescreen format, say 16:9 ratio, just below the clock (but keeping the figure supporting the clock), keeping the full width. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you think? Tried several crops, I think your suggestion (first one, 16/6) is the best. Last one is below 2Mpix. --Eusebius (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have posted my votes :-). Of course the best idea would be to re-take the shot and include all of the clock (careful not to over-expose) --Tony Wills (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your comments, I'll replace the QI nomination with the first crop. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)



Could you please undelete this file: [1] We just received an OTRS permission for it. --Zureks (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. As far as I can remember, I've deleted a larger version of this one. Is it covered by the same e-mail? --Eusebius (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't noticed

Thanks a lot, I hadn't noticed this vandalism and your revert by now... :-) Spiritia 22:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No pb, you're welcome! --Eusebius (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Catherine Griffin

Catherine Griffin 1890s.jpg

I added the source. Is it OK now? It's a family photo of my great-grandmother whih I scanned onto my computer.--Jeanne boleyn (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I see you've had some help from Turelio, so I will only make corrections on the image pages so that they look more ok. If you want me to have a more thorough look or if you have questions, just tell me. Allow me a few remarks:
  • Historical family pictures are often problematic: they're valuable, but their owners often don't have the legal info which is needed about them, and it is often felt as an attack when we ask for it. So, sorry about that!
  • As Turelio told you, "source" is where you got the photo from (family pic, scanned from a book, grabbed on a website, or you took the photo yourself). A few words is usually enough, but we need it (as well as the original author and the date of the original work, when possible).
  • The picture of Catherine Griffin, typically, poses no big problem, because it is very old and we can safely assume that the photographer has been dead for more than 70 years, so it is in the public domain now. In that case, you, as the owner, have no right to release it under a license like GFDL or Creative Commons, and do not need to: it is in the public domain, we can freely use it. The date of the photograph and the {{PD-old}} tag tell us so.
  • If the photograph is more recent, but it can be safely assumed that you have the rights (i.e. a friend took a photo of your grand-mother, the rights are considered to be transfered to your grand-mother and to her heirs), the picture is not public domain. If you're the only heir, you can decide to release it under the license of your choice. But attention, all heirs should agree on that...
Well, not easy, as I said. --Eusebius (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

I wish to thank you for your help in correcting the image pages and translating them into French. As to the list of photos you wish to delete, I have commented on my talk page why some should remain, as they are of value. As for the others, if you deem them unworthy of inclusion, I will not take offense. The ones I highlighted, please do reconsider them. Thank you again for your time, help and patience, Eusebius. BTW, the photos you took of various French landmarks are excellent. Cheers.--Jeanne boleyn (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. To make things clear I do not "wish to delete" images, I have questionned their inclusion in the scope of the Commons project. Probably some of them will be considered in scope and kept and some will be deleted. My aim is not to delete! About your comments, if they are about the request for deletion, they should stay on the deletion request page (and if possible, they should remain short and clear :-). This way, reviewers can easily take them into account in their evaluation of the request. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I have commented on the deletion request page.--Jeanne boleyn (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Chartres cathedral

Thanks. I would like you to take a picture of the three rose windows (west, south and north) from the inside, an overview of the cathedral, north facade, west facade, flying buttresses of the nave, flying butresses of the choir and apse, pictures of the interior - nave, choir, crossing and stained glass windows. And again, thank you very much! MathKnight 19:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded files

Franjo Mabić

I wrote down source of the files.
It's from my friend's book(on picture).
He is a minister in village "Izbično",and he has pictures from older Izbično ministers.
He gave me the pictures from his camera.

F.Pavkovic January 27th 21:10

OK, I'll be able to fill the author and source fields properly now. Now we need a permission from him to publish his pictures under a license compatible with Commons guidelines (because he hasn't released them himself). If there is something you don't understand in the process (explained here), please feel free to ask me. For the author's permission, you have an example e-mail here. --Eusebius (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I think there are other pictures in Category:Izbično, uploaded by you, that come from that book. Could you confirm that and make me a list? Or is it all of them? They must be included in Franjo Mabić's authorization e-mail. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Still no sign of any kind of authorization, all deleted. --Eusebius (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Author unknown

Eusebius, I've a question for you. What happens if a photograph was taken by a complete stranger? For instance, I am often stopped in the summer by tourists and asked to take their picture. They never learn my name. So if they were to host the photo I took of them onto Commons, what name would they give for the author?--Jeanne boleyn (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case we can assume a transfer of rights from the photographer to the subject (I think this is explicit in the US and UK laws, for instance), just like if the photographer was hired to do the job. I guess something like "picture taken by a passing stranger" would probably be enough :-) --Eusebius (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Photographs of identifiable people again

I have made some changes to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people/Proposal in response to a variety of helpful suggestions that users have made on the talk page. You have already commented there; could I ask you to have a look again, and to consider whether you would like to express an opinion in the Poll towards the bottom of the page? Many thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was about to make new comments. --Eusebius (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Request to close

If you get in quickly, you may be able to achieve the honour of closing the very last deletion request left over from last June :) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean I'm not involved enough in DRs? I'll have a look at it. --Eusebius (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought that your French must be better than mine :) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, my French is ok, but I'm afraid this one is too complex for me. It is about what kind of law apply to the banknotes of a former French colony, that is, an entity that's not really a country and that doesn't really have a clear successor... I'll look at it again later. --Eusebius (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't able to do much. Some of the files (currency issued by the current Bank of Algeria) must apparently be deleted because of NC restriction over the works of the State (I'll update Commons:Currency with the info I have). Problematic ones are the banknotes issued under French rule: if we assume Algerian copyright law applies, copyright expires 50 years after the death of the creator (or last creator), but in most cases I couldn't identify him nor find out when he had died. If we consider it is an anonymous or pseudonymous publication, then it's publication + 50 years and they're would be all ok under {{PD-Algeria}}. --Eusebius (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Polish_crown_jewels_replica.jpg; Polish_regalia_replica_10212008.jpg

These pictures/images were originally uploaded on; the source comes from The author of these photos is Kazimierz Fałowski. All are welcome to use these pictures in various media, but it is necessary to cite the source (, and supply the author of the photographs. The owner of the pictures grants permission to use it under Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 3.0. For details, please go to— Preceding unsigned comment added by CongregationOfMarians (talk • contribs) 19:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information. Unfortunately, the images must remain deleted anyway, because non-commercial versions of Creative Commons license (like non-commercial versions of any license) are not allowed here on Commons. Works must be usable for all purpose, including commercial ones. However, if you know the copyright holder (which is often the photographer, but not always if he was hired) and can get an authorization from him that would be compatible with Commons licensing, please file it properly through the OTRS system and let me know about it. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


EXIF is information that the camera or scanner embeds into images that they make. It can be re-added to modified images, I called it a hack and abused this once (for an obviously collaged couple of images). is where the software my graphics app uses comes from. I don't know where other applications get theirs from. One of the reasons that I chose Linux over other options was that I didn't want to install redundancies. If Inkscape uses or maintains exif information (for example) it would also be using the same libraries that GIMP uses. At least, a few years back, Windows was not like this and each application that uses that technology would install their own version of software that would access it.</end of preaching>

I would rather volunteer to restore EXIF information for you than to tell you of how to accomplish the hack. It is kind of important that the information comes from the device that made it sometimes, perhaps. -- carol (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the info. Actually I was only willing to edit the image page, but I may actually find out how to modify the EXIF info of the picture... one day :-) I was not talking about a specific picture, it was more a general question. --Eusebius (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I have never used exiftool -- so here is the "hack" in spite of that big secret I seemed to need to keep. Open one of the original images in an app that maintains this information. Add the image which was modified by the other application as a layer. With GIMP, the canvas needs to be told to be the size of the new image. Flatten the image and save with the desired file name. I was able to accomplish this with only a small section of the original image last summer sometime here. Too simple for me to need to install and learn how to use new tools. -- carol (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks! I'll try to adapt the procedure to my evil, non-gimp software :-) --Eusebius (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Tools are not evil! Heh. Try playing the game Monopoly(TM) where every property is Windows(TM) and every little red thing you can buy is Windows(TM) and every little green thing you can buy is Windows(TM) and all of the pieces of the game are owned and defined by Windows(TM). I think that there is no reason to play this game. The winner is already defined and it is none of the players. So, for me, Linux was like a new piece that was introduced into this game. It cannot be "owned" so it just runs around, knowing that the game has already been won by the originators and hangs out getting to know the players. It makes a horrible game to be very much more worthwhile in a bigger picture that involves human beings. -- carol (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use

Hi, well, I don´t get what yo mean really. I can´t upload it because it Fair Use and I will publish in Swedish? What should I do then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanus (talk • contribs) 15:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Well, apparently, fair use isn't allowed on the Swedish Wikipedia either. So we have few alternatives:
  • The logo has already been published with a free license by its owner: show me the license and it should be ok.
  • You are a representative the organization holding the copyright of this logo: we should be able to host the picture, provided you send an authorization to OTRS. A standard e-mail can be found here.
  • You know the organization and can ask them for the authorization: if they send authorization (same way), we can host the image.
  • Otherwise, We cannot host the picture.
I hope I've answered your question. --Eusebius (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


Bloc Party Warfield 05.jpg

Hey, just asking why you uploaded a new version of this file. I cropped it deliberately to remove the black space, making the band members more prominent. Please consider undoing. Thanks, Garden. 12:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the crop, I thought you had uploaded a downsampled version of the Flickr image. I'll upload the original under a new name. --Eusebius (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks muchly, I'd never have thought of that... :P Garden. 16:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully...

The record shows you deleted File:Mangal at Garmsir bazaar.jpg and File:Girl at water tower.JPG. I looked at one of those images, shortly before you deleted it. I did not see a notice that it was missing information, or I would have helped the photographer complete its description.

The uploader took the photos himself. I remember the image I looked at had a valid looking {{PD}} lisense on it. Could you please restore the images, and explain what you thought was missing?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. They were both tagged as missing permission (as stated in the deletion summary), and had remained as such for more than three weeks without any correction from the uploader. The uploader declared himself, at upload time, that the author of the pictures was the "PRT press office", so we would need an authorization from them. I will undelete only if I have information that an authorization from this institution (I guess PRT it is a NATO Provincial Reconstruction Team) has been sent to OTRS. I think it is quite unlikely to happen, because the standard NATO terms of use are too restrictive for Commons. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I left the uploader an explanation of the deletion. Can I ask you to weigh in, and correct that explanation, if you think it is incorrect or incomplete? Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done. Added a word about OTRS and privacy. --Eusebius (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


Hello Eusebius, you changed the OTRS template from "OTRS pending" to "permission for this file has been sent". I asked the author and copyright holder to send us a release, but until now I didn't get any answer. Did he really send a release directly to OTRS and if yes, why isn't then the ticket in there instead of the new template? Greetings --Martina Nolte (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, I made this change only because the formerly used template was invalid for an image (didn't mean anything). I should probably have asked the uploader (I'm not an OTRS volunteer), but I was pretty lazy. I guess that if there is no ticket for it, we should simply remove the OTRS template (it's declared as "own work", no need for OTRS). I remove the template. --Eusebius (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, image page says both "own work" and "Manfred Henf, Mettmann". Apparently, some people on de: have already asked uploader if he was the same person, but couldn't find an answer to that. Maybe OTRS is needed after all. --Eusebius (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I am checking out his de-images as well. There are some more unclear cases. So, isn't tehre any template a step before "permission has been sent" like for example: "permission has been asked for"? Greets --Martina Nolte (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
No, this is the first step. This template is added when the uploader declares that an e-mail has been sent. If an image remains with this template for too long, admins can ask OTRS volunteers whether they have info about it. If not, image can be deleted. I've just seen that you, not the uploader, added the template, so it has basically no value if (as I understand it) you have no information about the uploader sending authorization. In this case, I remove it and flag the image as missing authorization. The file can be deleted in 7 days in the absence of further info. I'm sorry, I've been a bit sloppy on this case! --Eusebius (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah okay, I understand. We are checking out his image pool "from friends" on de-WP as well. --Martina Nolte (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Image Tagging File:Niechorze_-_mapa_01.JPG

Perhaps I should've taken a photo with a full view of the map; unfortunately currently the best I can do indeed is to credit it to Niechorze municipality (which presumably put it there).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Authorship info is really borderline on these two pics, I'm a bit ill-at-ease. Could you confirm they were taken in a public place? Are the pics really that valuable? Plus, again, please do not remove problem tags, unless you transform them into a deletion request in order to trigger a wider debate. --Eusebius (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the files has now been deleted by User:EugeneZelenko. Could you ask him to undelete it, per our consensus? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a consensus. Deletion could be questionned only if it is clear that the map was in a public place, and you didn't answer this question. Also, I tend to make a lot of mistakes these days so I suggest you file an undeletion request. --Eusebius (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Question on assumptions

When you get the chance, would you please take a look at these two images File:Frederick W. Hinitt 1866-Centre.jpg and File:Frederick W. Hinitt 1866-W&J.jpg. These are official college portraits from his tenure as college president for 2 colleges. The subject died in 1927, but had retired from academia by 1918, so I think it is safe to assume that both are pre-1923, and therefore qualify as PD-old/PD-Art. Care to check out these licenses to make sure they look OK?--PhiloMcGiffen (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, they're both PD-US, and not PD-Old: PD-old implies the author has been dead for more than 70 years, which is not the case here (or we don't know it). Since they were published in the US before 1923, theyre {{PD-US}}, which is sufficient here. PD-art is always based on another PD license (like PD-old or PD-old-100), but I don't think it applies here: we can consider that we're really talking about the photograph, and not a reproduction of the photograph. I'm ok with the assumptions about dates. --Eusebius (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again about copyright stuff. I have uploaded a few {{PD-US-no notice}} images (this is a good example: File:Boyd Crumrine Patterson 1902.jpg). Would you mind taking a look to make sure I have that correct?Thanks!--PhiloMcGiffen (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't hesitate to bother me, that's what admins are here for. I'll have a look at your uploads. --Eusebius (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The {{PD-US-no notice}} pictures look ok, but I'm worried about the following ones:
At least some of them are photographs of paintings (maybe some of them are just photographs, in this case it would be ok, but at this image size I cannot tell). Paintings themselves are PD-old, but the photographs cannot be PD-art, because the original is coloured and the photographs are BW. Since we don't know the date of the photographs, it is impossible to assign them a proper copyright status. What do you think? --Eusebius (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, even if they are B&W photos of color PD-old paintings, I don't think that would give rise to copyright protection in the photographs. Only "artistic expression" is copyrightable--and the only real difference between the B&W photo and the color painting is the color, which doesn't seems like "artistic expression." So, as long as the paintings are PD, these photos would also be PD. Sound right to you?--PhiloMcGiffen (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that they should be PD, but not PD-Art since it is not a "faithful" representation. So, PD-old for the 19th century ones, PD-1923 or PD-US-no-notice for the others, depending on the dates. OK? --Eusebius (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. So, I just made all those paintings above PD-old and took out the PD-art. As far as I can tell, they're good to go.--PhiloMcGiffen (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help! Out of curiosity, do you think any of the images here (Presidents of Washington & Jefferson College) would be good candidates for Quality/Valued/Features Image?--PhiloMcGiffen (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

At first sight, I'd say neither FP nor QI, because they're way too small. For VI, it is needed that the subject is notable enough. If one of them appears to have an article in a Wikipedia, for instance, why not (provided the six criteria are fulfilled). --Eusebius (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Template de nomination QI

Initial message: « Template de nomination QI », posted by Eusebius (d · c).

Salut, est-ce qu'il y a une raison précise pour laquelle tu as fait cette modif ? S'il n'y en a pas, je suggère qu'on la reverte, parce que les numéros de paramètres gênent QICbot (dans son implémentation actuelle) lorsqu'il génère d'autres templates (QICpromoted, notamment) avec un nombre de paramètres différents. Du coup, les nominateurs reçoivent des templates buggés sur leur page de discussion. --Eusebius (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Salut, j'ai remarqué (mais je n'ai pas de diff exact pour donner des exemples, mon nombre de contributions est un peu chargé pour faire une recherche) que les votants signant avec une signature contenant le symbole « = » faisaient planter le modèle et empêchaient les autres personnes à voter. Que préconiserais-tu ? On enlève cette modification, ou on contacte Dschwen (talk · contribs) ? Diti the penguin 18:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Bon bah puisque tu dupliques ici, je réponds ici. C'est bien ce que je craignais : il y avait bien une raison :-P Je ne sais pas ce qui est le mieux dans l'immédiat, je ne suis pas assez calé en templates pour ça. L'idéal ce serait que Dschwen rende QICbot plus robuste, mais il a l'air assez occupé IRL en ce moment. Mais bon, peut-être qu'il en a juste marre que je lui demande des trucs, ptet que si c'est toi il sera plus dispo ;-) J'aurais quand même tendance à dire qu'en attendant, il vaudrait mieux revenir aux paramètres non numérotés, en nettoyant COM:QIC au coup par coup en cas de problème, plutôt que d'exporter les erreurs dans les pages de discussions des photographes. --Eusebius (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


I can't understand what you want from me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matveysobolev (talk • contribs) 18:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi, this file is the cover of a quite recent book, and it is most likely protected by copyright. Unless you are the copyright holder of this illustration (or unless you can get an authorization from the copyright holder), we cannot host it on Commons. I hope I have answered your question, otherwise please be more precise. --Eusebius (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
This file - the cover of my CD. All rights to own the CD, and its design belongs to me. What I am wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matveysobolev (talk • contribs) 18:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
I'm not sure I fully understand you (you may want to deal with a russian-speaking admin), but:
  • If you're the designer of the cover, or if the designer has transfered copyright to you by contract, then you should send an authorization e-mail to the OTRS system, to ensure that we are aware of this fact and that your declaration is duly recorded. There is an example of such an e-mail here. It must precise which file you're talking about, and under which license you want it to be released. You should be aware that it means your work can be used freely by anybody. It includes the right to modify the work, or to use it for commercial purpose. As soon as you send the e-mail, tell me and I will restore the image with the proper info (no need to upload again).
  • If you only own a copy of the album, you don't own the right over it.
Also, please don't forget to sign your messages using ~~~~. Feel free to ask again if it is still not clear. --Eusebius (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I send e-mail to OTRS 29 January... but you're right, I will contact with russian-speaking admin. So it will be easier. Tnx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matveysobolev (talk • contribs) 19:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
If the e-mail is sent, I restore the picture. When you send an OTRS e-mail, you can add {{OTRS pending}} to the image file to let us know. Processing of an OTRS e-mail can take up to one month. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: File:Pullman_strike_guard_harpers.jpg

Pullman strike guard harpers.jpg

I'll try to find the website where I originally got the image. However, the image comes from Harper's Weekly and was published in 1894 in the Unites States. This is clearly in the public domain since it was published in a major publication before 1923.--Bkwillwm (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, don't bother, the status of the picture isn't questionned anymore. To me, the source info we have is now precise enough. --Eusebius (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Hopkins lax.jpg

Hopkins lax.jpg

I did some investigating on the user. He hasn't had any contributions since August 13, 2007 so I wouldn't count on hearing back from him. Also, when he first became a user in August 2006 he uploaded 12 pictures, all of the Hopkins campus (or lacrosse). Two have been deleted, however they were logos without fair use rationale. All his photos were released with PD-self and so we have no reason to believe he did not take this picture unless you can find it from some other source. --Yarnalgo (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can trust you on his uploads being consistent and believable. But still, this is a small picture, with EXIF data removed, from a guy apparently caring about his college's image, with no explicit authorship declaration from the uploader... --Eusebius (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes I agree, a different photo would be more appropriate for valued image. --Yarnalgo (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


Je suis assez nouveau sur Commons et tu sembles t'y connaitre, c'est pourquoi je m'adresse à toi. Tu as de plus de nombreuses décorations pour tes immages. Je me demandais quelle était la différence entre les Quality Image et les Valued Images ? Cordialement Ascaron (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Des "décorations" ? Je crois pas... ;-) Alors les images de qualité, ce sont des images qui sont reconnues comme étant d'une bonne qualité technique, au-dessus d'un certain standard (les critères de qualité pour les images). Les images de valeur sont des illustrations qui sont considérées comme les plus utiles (valuables) dans un contexte (scope) donné. Par exemple, la meilleure image disponible représentant la Tour Eiffel. Il y a six critères à remplir pour une images de valeur. Typiquement, une image de valeur n'est pas forcément d'une qualité technique irréprochable, mais ça doit tout de même être la plus intéressante disponible. Tu trouveras des infos utiles sur les pages de candidatures pour les images de qualité et les images de valeur. Je t'ai donné des liens vers les pages en anglais parce que je suis un peu flemmard et pressé, mais tu trouveras une traduction en français pour la plupart (les liens vers les traductions sont sous les titres des pages). Je suis désolé, je n'ai pas beaucoup de temps pour te répondre en détail aujourd'hui, mais n'hésite pas à me recontacter en cas de besoin/question. --Eusebius (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)



I don't understand, why do you mark as "no source". It is old black-white photographic film which I store in my home archive. You can even see moiré pattern on the left-center (effect of scanning deformed film on flat scanner) and scratches on negative (most noticeable in right top). It is properly descripted, tagged and licensed. As the heir of my father I am the owner of copyright for this picture, and I decided to give it as Public Domain. Julo (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I tagged it as "no source" because the authorship declaration is really not clear: who take the picture? Your father took it? (No need to give names) --Eusebius (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Author:HZ, Source: home archive, License:PD-heirs. It is 100% clear, nothing more needed.
For Wikimedia-Commons it is unimportant if it was grandfather, father, mother, brother or whoever. Just for your inquisitiveness: it was my father. Julo (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I must say that I had not seen the PD-heirs, but you will agree that "HZ" does not tell much. Plus, PD-user says that you're the author, I guess it should be removed. --Eusebius (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
It was rather impossible you had not seen the "PD-heirs", this tempate is there all the time and above "PD-user".
Another problem - it is very pity, but this "PD-user" template is not quite clever and it is not my fault. This template should mean, who is the owner of copyright; very often author=owner, but not in this case. If I delete "PD-user", next time another admin will ask me: "if you are not the author of this picture, send an acceptation from the heir of author via OTRS" and it would be rather not very wise. That is the reason I decided to use both templates: PD-heirs and PD-user.
But first of all: rather let us trust each other, don't suspect at every step. Before you put another warning somewhere, check uploader's contribution - here, on Commons, and on mother-Wikipedia.
I stop watching your discussion page, so don't answer to me here. EOT. Good night! Julo (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say the template was not there, I said I didn't see it. And I don't think we should look at legal info based on the uploaders' contributions: mistakes happen. --Eusebius (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


Paris, the Maison de Radio France and the Eiffel tower

By the way: you seem to be Frenchman. Would you be so kind and identify the location in Paris? --Julo (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't know Paris well enough. The only thing I can tell is that the big pointy thing is the Eiffel tower, and that the picture is probably a good candidate for {{FoP-France}}, because of the building on the left. --Eusebius (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
IDed and geotagged. --Eusebius (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


Bonjour, comme cette page est protégée, je fais appel à tes bons services. En effet, j'ai repéré un bout qui reste en anglais dans le texte et qu'il faudrait donc supprimer : "La position officielle de la Fondation Wikimedia est que is that « les représentations [...]". Merci de faire le nécessaire. Bien cordialement, Matth97 (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah oui pardon, au temps pour moi. Je règle ça. Merci ! --Eusebius (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup ! Matth97 (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop your bot please

Your bot is not flagged (yet). Multichill (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked until I get access to the machine to stop the software. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Eusebius (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind bots running without a flag, but this bot was going way to fast an triggering orange bars for a lot of users. Multichill (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
That's right, I shouldn't have modified user talk pages without a flag. --Eusebius (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for undeletion of Paul wiki.jpg

Hello Eusebius,

I request that you kindly undelete the following file: Paul_wiki.jpg because when I first posted the file I did not include the appropriate license. If you can help me undelete the deleted file or let me know how I can carry out this task, I will promptly add the appropriate license to the image. Thanks in advance for your help. --Schoolbusdriver85 (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Image restored, and tagged again with "no license". Please add it quickly! Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Image warnings

Hi, Eusebius. Notifying a bot of image sourcing problems isn't all that helpful. When you find a problem with a file uploaded by Magnus's bot, you should ideally contact either the original uploader on the source wiki, or minimally the person who activated the bot operation via CommonsHelper or Flickr2Commons. Thanks. =) Powers (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The bot is notified automatically by the script we use to tag the picture, and these notifications are ignored. About the "movers", I expect them to watch the images they have moved, but maybe it is unreasonable, depending on the mover's activity and the moving method. About the original uploaders, I'm simply not going to work cross-wiki for every single image I tag which was missing info at the original upload (and uploaders are not always coming from an english-speaking project). I do it in specific cases, namely when "own work" has been assumed on the source project but must be explicitly confirmed on Commons, or when the image is widely used, or has been given some award. Anyway, I've heard your remark, and even though I'm not going to fully comply with it, I'll take it into account. --Eusebius (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)



Hello Eusebius, I wondered the same about the Esnoga, so I had a look on wikipedia and it appears that its official name is "the Portuguese Synagogue" (dutch: Portugees-Israëlietische Synagoge), while it's Ladino name is "the Esnoga" or "the Amsterdam Esnoga". Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've read about the same thing. --Eusebius (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Cambronne - buste.jpg

Object of well told fiction

Interesting to see this image again now (after seeing it at QIC when it was there). The person who this statue is of had a whole episode of one of my favorite television programs devoted to him. From season three of Northern Exposure "The Body In Question". Every episode of this program especially from the first few seasons is at least good (or very good), in my opinion. Several episodes are considered by me to be extremely good to perfect. The episode about Pierre was one of the latter to me.

And, if you manage to see this episode and enjoy it; I recommend the book "Another Roadside Attraction" by Tom Robbins . Often too ponderous and self-absorbed (as was the era it was written in and about), I skipped most of the last third of this tome -- the Northern Exposure episode actually successfully encapsulated that section that had been so incredibly boring to read. -- carol (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the cultural notice! I didn't know about Northern Exposure, but only few American TV programs reach us. I'm not a big TV fan, but if I get the opportunity to see it (or maybe to get a copy of it with, say, an "alternative copyright status"), I'll give it a chance! About the book, well, you don't seem so much enthusiastic about it, so I'll stick to the classics for the moment :-) About the image, I promise I won't nominate it anymore anywhere! --Eusebius (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I am wondering how long it takes to be considered a classic. That author is a joy to read -- this his first novel and me skipping one third or more of it is the exception. He writes very much in american english and I heard a review once that praised him for his paragraphs. It was an excellent review that told me what was so good about what I had read. The television show aired in the early 1990s here, so it may not be available again via broadcast. Not very much of the United States television is worthy of international praise. There are a few works which make me morn what seems to be the death of good writing. Both that book and that television show make me feel that loss.
Don't make any silly promises. -- carol (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: File:Anaktuvuk-pass.jpg

I have replied to your post on your en.Wiki talk page :) - NeutralHomerTalk 06:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Seen, answered. --Eusebius (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

File:胡风 书籍批判.jpg

胡风 书籍批判.jpg

看了你的提醒,我发现我无法判断这个封面设计是否真的受到版权保护--shizhao (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks very interesting, but I don't understand anything :-) --Eusebius (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


Chateaulin 1.jpg

Merci beaucoup!. You have some lovely images of France and it made me feel quite guilty. I have a few from last year that I still have not uploaded - from Vercors & Auvergne. I must make the effort soon. Regards --Herby talk thyme 12:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comment and for your future uploads! You have yourself very nice pictures of places I know well, but which I have never visited with a camera... --Eusebius (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I like France a lot & will be there again this year so I hope there will be more photos soon. I enjoyed looking at yours - some places I knew & some were new to me. Regards --Herby talk thyme 17:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Memorial Filopappou.JPG

Memorial Filopappou.JPG

Hi fm Greece, Yes it's mine work and I have comfirm it. Thanks --Templar52 (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Eusebius (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Images télécharger par Turklegend

Ça ne fait pas longtemps que j'ai commencer a faire des traduction du Turc vers le français et vis versas. Concernant les photos que j'ai télécharger pouvez-vous svp effacé/élliminer toutes mes photos non conforme. Je ne téléchargerai plus que mes propres images. Mais est ce que vous pouvez me dire comment je pourrai prendre les images deja prévues sur les pages Turc, et comme les rediffuser sur les pages françaises

Merci d'avance, --Turklegend (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Si vous n'êtes pas sûr, vous pouvez me donner un lien vers les images et on en discute. Que voulez-vous faire exactement, maintenant ?
  • Vous voulez transférer sur Commons des images qui ont été téléchargées sur la Wikipédia turque ? Si oui donnez-moi les liens, je vérifie et je vous explique comment faire (toutes les images des Wikipedias ne peuvent pas être transférées sur Commons). Un mode d'emploi basique en anglais est disponible ici.
  • Vous voulez utiliser sur Wikipédia des illustrations disponibles autre part sur le net ? Dans la plupart des cas c'est interdit, sauf si l'illustration a été publiée sous une licence libre.
  • Vous voulez utiliser une illustration qui est complètement votre travail, pas de problème, vous avez le choix de la licence.
  • Vous voulez utiliser une oeuvre dérivée ? Attention, il faut que l'oeuvre originale soit publiée sous une licence libre, sinon vous ne pouvez pas ! C'est ce qui posait problème dans vos illustrations.
Expliquez-moi précisément ce que vous voulez faire, donnez-moi un exemple si vous voulez que je vous file un coup de main. Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hochgeladene Bilder von Bauer Karl

Hallo alle von dir angeführten hochgeladenen Bilder haben eine Zustimmung des Autors bzw. Inhabers. Dies wurde per e-Mail beim hochladen mitgesendet. Bitte dich um Kontrolle. --Bauer Karl (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't speak German. Can you speak English? If not, you may want to find a German-speaking administrator. Anyway, I think you may be interested in this page about authorizations. --Eusebius (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
no , I con ot speak English
Taken care of on his talkpage.--Túrelio (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. --Eusebius (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


Embouchure profil.jpg

Thanks for the trumpet embouchure in the Spaniosh wikipedia. I really appreciate it! Cheers, OboeCrack (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! --Eusebius (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Description fr

Salut! je trouve ça bien de faire des descriptions avec des liens, ça fait un moment que j'en fait mais c'est sympa quand on voit d'autres en faire! Merci. Otourly (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Bon ben ça fait plaisir de voir que des gens trouvent ça utile ! Merci ! --Eusebius (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
La légende est toujours utile car quand la photo intéresse la personne se pose des questions sur ce que c'est. Et comme on peut pas trop développer la description les liens sont efficaces. parfois je met également des liens vers le wiktionnaire (wikt:fr:) je pense que si je vois des actualités je mettrais aussi sur n:fr et cætera... Otourly (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Chant du monde, Claude Verlinde

This file was deleted by you. I am sure the source was OK. Just to have my mind in peace, could you please give me the URL of the source? I will be happy to see what I did wrong. -- 14:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC) --Joaquín Martínez Rosado (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It is not a source problem, it is a license problem. Claude Verlinde is still alive, and he his the copyright holder for his own works, which will be protected until 70 years after his death. Unless we have an explicit authorization from him to do so, we cannot host a representation of his work under a free license. --Eusebius (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your prompt reply. I remember that the source give permission to use the image. That is why I would like to have the URL in order to see my mistake. --Joaquín Martínez Rosado (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The source is just "Base de la galerie" (database of the gallery), with the gallery not specified (and no URL). Anyway, they would have no right to release a photograph under a free license without the permission of the painter. Only when the (two-dimensional) work is public domain can you grab a photo on the internet and tag it as {{PD-art}}. Otherwise, we need authorization from the copyright holders. --Eusebius (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand, thank you for your time.

About Maximilien Luce, he died in 1941; in 1991 (50 years later) his works enter in the public domain. The actual low in France says:

4 - La durée de protection

Selon l’article L.123-1 du CPI : « L’auteur jouit, sa vie durant, du droit exclusif d’exploiter son œuvre sous quelque forme que ce soit et d’en tirer un profit pécuniaire ». La protection persiste au profit de ses ayants droit pendant l’année civile en cours et les soixante-dix ans qui suivent la mort de l’auteur (Loi du 27 mars 1997). LA PROTECTION PAR LE DROIT D’AUTEUR

But the low can not be retroactive. --Joaquín Martínez Rosado (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to inform you that this law was partly retroactive (article 16-III of the law you reference). I didn't know about it (thank you for the info), but I've just checked, apparently it made a lot of noise in France in 1997... --Eusebius (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


... I believe your images are really fine :-) -- smial (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that then! --Eusebius (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So far :)

Maybe you could take a look at some images I've just uploaded when you have the time. My en descriptions may not be the best and categories might be improved too? They are File:Passerelle du L'Ebron.JPG, File:Gresse (Vercors) church.JPG, File:Gresse from the East.JPG, File:Vercors ridge.JPG & File:Moon from Lac De Monteynard- Avignonet.JPG. I hope you do not mind.

There may be some of the Puy de Sancy area later. Merci beaucoup --Herby talk thyme 13:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I will have a look (maybe not today), although I'm not very familiar with some of the places. --Eusebius (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem (& no rush at all). I thought as you had uploaded one or two in that area that you might know more than me! Regards --Herby talk thyme 15:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually I've been to this very lake once, but I didn't know the town in the Vercors. I'll add French descriptions and check categories, but it looks pretty ok. --Eusebius (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, did my best on these ones! --Eusebius (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Horns and flugelhorns

Bugel mondstuk.jpg

Haha, I didn't mean to do that. I must of got an edit-conflict and thought I just hit preview instead of save. I wasn't questioning your classification. I just put it under horns because the word ends in "horn". :) Rocket000(talk) 02:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. --Eusebius (talk) 05:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Suppression d'image

Analyse residus.png

Bonjour Eusebius

Je souhaite supprimer une image (création personnelle pour illustrer un article de statistique, créée hier et plus utilisée) : lien. Je suppose que je ne peux pas le faire pour des raisons de droits.

Sinon, petite question concernant les licences (que j'aurais du poser avant de mettre cette image sur commons) : ce type d'image est-il une création personnelle (une copie d'écran du tableur ?

Cordialement, Gbdivers (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour. Effectivement, seuls les administrateurs peuvent supprimer des fichiers. Je ne vais pas supprimer le tien, car il est encore utilisé dans l'article fr:Analyse de la variance (par contre, une description, sur la page du fichier, de ce qui est représenté dans le tableau, même courte, même en français, serait appréciable). Concernant ta question, j'imagine que les données représentées sont le fruit de ton travail, donc oui c'est une création personnelle. Par contre, tu ne peux la publier sous une licence libre (et donc la mettre sur Commons) que si tous les logiciels et éléments visibles dans l'image sont eux-mêmes libres de droits. Ici, est distribué sous la licence LGPL (qui est acceptée sur Commons), donc pas de problème (note la modification que j'ai faite au fichier pour préciser ceci). N'hésite pas à me recontacter si tu as des soucis/questions/doutes sur Commons. Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Décidément c'est pas mon jour... j'ai importer une image sans modifier le nom du fichier (lien que j'ai réimporté avec le nom correct lien). Il faudrait supprimer la première. Désolé du dérangement. Gbdivers (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Pas de problème. Dans ce cas-là, lorsque ce n'est pas urgent de supprimer, tu peux juste appliquer {{bad name|nom correct}} sur l'image à supprimer (après avoir téléchargé sous le nom correct). --Eusebius (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Et j'ai supprimer l'image du tableur de l'article français, donc il est possible de l'effacer maintenant. Merci beaucoup Gbdivers (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done --Eusebius (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup. Promis, je ne dérange plus (enfin, j'espère ;) ). Gbdivers (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Pas de problème, je suis là pour ça. --Eusebius (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Category talk:Saint John the Evangelist

Geez, you're right. Sorry for that deletion. odder 13:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, undone, no harm... --Eusebius (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


Hello Eusebius,
please send your real-name, your wikiname, your Freenode-nick (if you have one), your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to Zedler-admins.png. We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB. 23:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


Hallo Eusebius! Sorry that you had trouble with the picture but now i have a question: Our company has the appointment to make the wikipedia-entry for Ültje. Certainly they want to show their logo. Could you say me what i have to do now? I want to upload the image but under which terms of license must i upload the picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmatch (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi. If the company is ok with its logo being released under a free license (allowing for derivative works, modifications, commercial use and so on), then they should send an e-mail (model here) stating that to the OTRS system (procedure here). It's all explained in the links, tell me if something is still not clear. --Eusebius (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

next 3 images from Paris

After our discussion about PD-heirs/PD-user templates, I have arranged new template - {{PD-heirs-Julo}} - which solves a problem with pictures shot by my father years ago.
During my exploration of home archives I found next 3 images from Paris (ca. 1965). All three are on the same film, one after another, i.e. probably shot from the same place. Would you be so kind and ask somebody from Paris for help in identifying this point?...

Regards Julo (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope you haven't modified the templates because of me, it was clearly my mistake (and I'm not sure creating per-user license templates is a good solution, but well...). About the pics, these are views taken from the Arc de Triomphe de l'Étoile. I have pointed the three recent pictures we have that match best the point of view of your photographs. I don't have time right now to document and geotag the pictures, but I will actually do it some time. --Eusebius (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I made new template not because of you, but I just wanted to make my father's works licensed as precisely as possible.
Regarding Paris - thank you for this collation. Julo (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I have marked my pictures as {{location|48|52|25|N|2|17|42|E}}, i.e. southern corner of Arc de Triomphe. I believe it is right position. Julo (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ebron - Drac :)

Passerelle du Drac.JPG

Actually I'll re-upload it with that name. I had originally called it that but the geo coding map showed Drac as being the right hand inlet whereas this bridge is the one over the left hand inlet. Nice work on them all - many thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 08:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, don't hesitate to appeal to me. --Eusebius (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Eusebius, may I please ask for your help with French. In almost all sources the bridges are described as "Des passerelles himalayennes". Could you please tell me what does "himalayennes" means? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Simply means "from Himalaya". I think it's just a reference to the style/making of the footbridge. Many mountaineers in the region are very familiar with Himalaya and might have brought back the design of the bridge (I'm just guessing here). --Eusebius (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Eusebius. It is what I thought too. I wrote an article about the place and the bridge on English Wikipedia and nominated it for DYK. Now I realized that not only I know no French, but I either know nothing about design of the bridges.Oh well... :) --Mbz1 (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Scope format

Thanks. I still get confused with this after all this time ;-). Lycaon (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No pb. Now that there is a guideline for scope formatting, I'd like to build a system allowing the re-formatting of already promoted VIs. If you have an opinion about that... --Eusebius (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Scopecleaner 2.0

= Eusebius? --Slaunger (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

 :-)). Lycaon (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's Eusebius when he should be sleeping instead. --Eusebius (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

VI galleries

Just GREAT to see you bringing them alive! Continue your nice work! --Slaunger (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's nice to see it (almost) working. I'll start a discussion about my feedback (we need to talk again about some of the galleries, I'm afraid). For the moment, given the number of pictures in Commons:Valued images/Recently promoted, it would be suicidal to work in parallel on it. --Eusebius (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Did not even know we eventually got a VI categorization tool! You want me to help with the categorization or would we be conflicting? Although we tried as hard as possible to do our homework concerning the VI topics I am not surprised if we need subsequent adjustments.
Helping wouldn't help, I'm a bit afraid of edits conflicts for the moment. Well, I've adapted QIhelper.hs to VIhelper.js a while ago (and I definitely hate JS), but the python scripts are brand new (it would have helped to see QICbot's and VICbot's code, but well, my students told me I should be able to code by myself now). --Eusebius (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll just get back to working on my own Python code meanwhile... --Slaunger (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Rafale de suppression d'images

Bonjour Eusebius. Je découvre avec stuppeur que toutes les photos que j'ai déposées en COMMONS, certaines depuis longtemps déjà, sont promises à destruction ! Quelle est la cause ?--Cordialement, Kasos_France, (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour. Les causes sont multiples, elles dépendent des photos et sont spécifiées dans le résumé de suppression.
  • Les photos issues de y sont mentionnées comme "tous droits réservés", ce qui interdit de les importer ici avec une licence libre (à moins que nous puissions disposer d'une autorisation écrite de la fondation). D'une manière générale, comme il vous l'avait déjà été mentionné en juillet 2007, il n'est pas possible de simplement prendre des photos sur le net et de les importer ici.
  • Les photos de l'ESA seront probablement supprimées à cause de la formulation de leur license, trop restrictive pour être acceptée sur Commons.
  • La photo de la croix et les photos des fresques de l'Aérospatiale sont des travaux dérivés basés sur des oeuvres d'art protégées. Malheureusement, en France, le fait que ces oeuvres soient situées dans un lieu public ne relâche pas les contraintes liées au droit d'auteur.
J'espère que ça répond à vos interrogations... --Eusebius (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Pour les photos de Sophia Antipolis, j'avais déjà eu une autorisation, déposée en 2008 sur la page Category talk:Sophia Antipolis. Ne serait-elle pas valable ?

Pour les photos de l'ESA, je vais voir avec eux.

Pour mes photos personnelles :

  • pour celle de la fresque, je vais essayer d'avoir l'autorisation de l'auteur.
  • pour celle de la croix des gardes, celle-ci est photographiée de loin, à plus d'un km. On y voit pas des détails de l'oeuvre. Puis-je la baptiser : colline de la croix-des-gardes, qui est le terme officiel cannois ?

Il y a quand même de nombreuses photos de lieux avec des monuments historiques dessus sans qu'il y ait autorisation et mention de l'architecte ? --Cordialement, Kasos_France, (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Pour les autorisations, ce serait mieux de suivre la procédure indiquée ici. Si c'est un mail que vous avez, il vous suffira de le forwarder à l'adresse indiquée. Mais la permission telle qu'actuellement formulée pourra paraître insuffisamment claire au spécialiste qui traitera le mail : en général on demande de préciser explicitement que les travaux dérivés et les utilisations commerciales sont OK.
Pour la fresque, j'ai peur que ce soit avec l'Aérospatiale qu'il faille voir, et pas avec l'auteur, qui a sans doute transféré ses droits par le biais de son contrat (à vérifier).
Pour la photo de la croix, c'est une subtilité "à la con" du droit français (dans d'autres pays il n'y aurait pas de problème). Il ne faut pas que la croix soit le sujet principal de la photo. C'est ok si vous faites une photo générale de la colline ou de la montagne, et que vous ne pouvez pas éviter que la croix soit dessus. Mais ici si je me souviens bien, on ne voit qu'elle. Ce n'est pas une histoire de monument historique en fait, la question est juste de savoir si les droits d'auteur courent toujours ou pas (70 après la mort du créateur). --Eusebius (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

J'en reviens aux images ESA. Je viens d'ajouter sur la page Catégorie ESAles informations de copyright de l'Agence et le lien vers leur galerie multimedia.

Leur définition de copyright doit bien être proche de celle de la NASA ? Avec un maximum de photos libres et quelques unes soumises à droit commercial complémentaire. Est-ce que vous (administrateurs) pouvez définir une licence convenant à une utilisation maximale d'images européennes alors que la NASA américaine en diffuse des centaines ?

J'ai des relations à l'Agence, mais j'ai peur qu'une discussion avec eux dure un "certain" temps ! --Cordialement, Kasos_France, (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Seule l'ESA a autorité pour définir la licence des images dont ils ont la propriété ! Malheureusement, en France, ce n'est pas comme aux US, les travaux émanant d'agences d'état ne sont pas automatiquement libres de droit. C'est malheureux mais c'est comme ça : on peut utiliser les photos officielles de la Maison Blanche, mais pas celle de l'Elysée, par exemple. Et Commons a déjà défini sa politique concernant ce qui est libre ou pas, ça ne peut pas être modifié, c'est une donnée fondamentale commune aux projets de la fondation Wikimedia. Concernant la licence que vous avez citée, je n'ai pas les compétences légales pour être définitif mais je pense qu'elle n'est pas acceptable sur Commons. La demande de suppression sera examinée par des administrateurs davantages spécialistes avant d'être cloturée. --Eusebius (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Merci pour ces infos. Je fais tout mon possible pour agrémenter WP de photos sympathiques, mais ce n'est pas simple ! Est-ce que vous avez (ou tu as) vocation à être parrain ? Car tu me sembles bien comprendre COMMONS et, si tu acceptes de me parrainer, je te soumettrai toutes photos avant publication pour éviter toutes suppressions "dégradantes". --Cordialement, Kasos_France, (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Le tutoiement est mon comportement par défaut sur le net, je n'utilise le vouvoiement spontanément que par précaution, lorsque j'entre en contact avec les personnes dont j'ai supprimé les photos, ou à qui j'ai quelque chose à reprocher... Donc "tu", c'est bien :-) Oui, je serais ravi de te "parrainer" officieusement (je crois qu'il n'y a pas de réel projet de parrainage sur Commons). N'hésite pas à me poser des questions où à montrer ce que tu souhaites importer (ou que tu viens d'importer). --Eusebius (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Merci, parrain. Quand je souhaite simplement importer une photo, où la mets-je ?--Cordialement, Kasos_France, (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Heuuu... Comment ça ? Je ne comprends pas très bien la question (je commence bien, tiens, comme parrain). Une fois qu'elle est importée tu veux dire, si tu n'en as pas d'usage particulier ? Si c'est ça il n'y a rien à faire, on la laisse tranquillement dans sa ou ses catégories. --Eusebius (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
NON : je sais importer une photo, lui donner une catégorie. Mais à partir de là, elle est visible par tous et risque déjà des attaques. Est-ce qui tu as une espèce de "bac à sable" où je peux la mettre pour que tu l'examines tout seul ?--Cordialement, Kasos_France, (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Non, si tu l'importes sur Commons elle sera visible par tout le monde. Mais si tu préfères m'en parler avant, tu peux éventuellement m'envoyer des fichiers (pas trop gros, des miniatures) par mail avant avec les infos qui vont bien (envoie-moi un message via le lien "envoyer un message à cet utilisateur" qui est à gauche et je t'envoie mon adresse). --Eusebius (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
BON je vais utiliser la méthode standard : chargement dans une catégorie. Et si j'ai un doute je t'alerte rapidement et tu me donnes ton sentiment. Merci--Cordialement, Kasos_France, (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Pas de problème. --Eusebius (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Je voudrais revenir sur ton commentaire concernant la suppression de la photo de la croix. Par curiosité, j'ai été voir ce qu'il en est du viaduc de Millau. Il y a une très grande discussion pour la suppression des photos : Elle a débuté en septembre 2008, ne semble pas close puisque les photos sont toujours en ligne. Je ne vois pas ton nom dans le débat. Qu'en penses-tu ?--Cordialement, Kasos_France, (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Honnêtement, j'en pense surtout que j'évite de me fourrer dans ce genre de discussions... Mais si tu veux mon opinion, le viaduc est protégé "activement" comme une oeuvre d'art (avec une société chargée de protéger les droits) et il serait vraiment dangereux de garder sur Commons une photo dont il serait le sujet principal (la fondation se rétracterait à la moindre demande des ayants-droits, elle ne serait pas en mesure d'argumenter sur le caractère "libre" des photos). Pour faire un parallèle avec la croix, dans le cas de la croix on ne peut pas invoquer l'argument comme quoi c'est un design "utilitaire" puisque c'est fondamentalement une oeuvre fonctionnellement inutile (ça sert juste à faire joli, pas comme un pont qui sert à la circulation). Et si tu veux le fond de ma pensée (t'as pas demandé, mais au cas où), j'aimerais vraiment qu'on puisse avoir un droit de panorama en France, parce que c'est ridicule. --Eusebius (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Du coup, je viens de charger une nouvelle photo où on voit la Croix. Qu'en penses-tu ? Que penses-tu de la licence choisie ?
--Cordialement, Kasos_France, (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Bah en tout cas je t'embêterai pas avec, la croix est suffisamment "accessoire" dans la photo (même si le point de vue sur la colline n'est pas forcément le meilleur qui soit, mais c'est un autre problème. Pour la licence : en tant que photographe tu peux choisir celle que tu veux parmi les licences acceptables, tu peux même en mettre plusieurs (ça laisse le choix aux réutilisateurs de la photo). La licence {{FAL}} est ok. À noter : tu as le choix uniquement parce que le sujet de ta photographie est libre de droit (à la différence des photos de la fresque, pour lesquelles l'artiste a un droit d'auteur sur tes photos). Sinon, petite leçon du parrain, pour faire un lien vers une image tu peux faire comme ça (lien interne : [[:File:Cannes croix-des-gardes2.jpg|comme ça]]) plutôt que de recopier toute l'URL et d'en faire un lien externe. Les deux points au début empêchent que la photo elle-même soit incluse dans la conversation. --Eusebius (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Est-ce que ton bot pourrait m'aider à catégoriser mes photos ?

Bonjour, je suis nouvelle sur commons. J'ai chargé entre hier et aujourd'hui une bonne centaine de photos. On m'a fortement conseillé de créer la Category:Images by Harmonia Amanda pour ne pas me perdre. Mais j'avoue être un peu démotivée à l'idée d'ajouter ça manuellement à toutes mes photos déjà importées, même si je le ferai désormais pour les nouvelles. On m'a alors conseillé de faire appel à un bot. Comme je ne parle pas anglais et que j'ai vu que tu avais un bot et que tu parlais français, j'ai pensé te demander. Est-ce que c'est du domaine du possible ? merci d'avance --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour, tout d'abord merci pour ces imports de photos ! N'hésite pas à recommencer ;-) Par contre n'oublie pas de remplir le champ "date" lors de l'import. En ce qui concerne la catégorie, je vais voir ce que je peux faire. Ca ne fait pas très longtemps que j'ai mon bot, il faut que je trouve les bonnes commandes pour faire ça, mais ça ne devrait pas poser de problème. En attendant, tu as aussi ta galerie (il y a un lien au-dessus de ta page perso, normalement), dans laquelle tu peux retrouver tous les fichiers que tu as importés. --Eusebius (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done Ca devrait être bon ! --Eusebius (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Merci infiniment ! --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Co-maintaining QIC- and VICbot

Hey Eusebius, I saw that you wrote your own bot to clean up the mess my bot makes :-)

Hey, that's not what I said!

Would you be interested in co-maintaining QIC- and VICbot instead? We could apply for a project account on the stable server and could both work on the code. It would be the safer long-term solution to have two people working on the code. And you could modify VIC-bot to your liking.

If you're not too afraid of my terrible programming, it would be a nice solution, yes. I have very little experience in team programming, but I can use SVN if it is SVN-based. Thank you for this proposal! --Eusebius (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Filed a request [2], we can work out the fineprint later :-). --Dschwen (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I copied the code into the qicvic account. It is not set-up to run, but you can start familiarizing yourself with it. We should meet in IRC sometime after this weekend. --Dschwen (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
OK thanks, but please leave me a few days... I must send my thesis to my jury before wednesday, so I don't have much time to look at the code right now. You get the idea, I'm sure! --Eusebius (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure, good luck with that. What field are you in, what kind of thesis is it? --Dschwen (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
PhD in computer science (distributed AI and privacy). No, it doesn't help for python bots ;-) --Eusebius (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Replag graphs -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

When are species subscopes warranted?

Hi Eusebius,

Do you have an opinion about this? (Or should I ask: Still the same opinion?) --Slaunger (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I was quietly waiting for the consensus to emerge, but ok, I'll have a word! --Eusebius (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I think we needed your word to feel we were converging;-D --Slaunger (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Really don't think my opinion is absolutely needed. At quarter to midnight local time, I hardly manage to converge with myself. --Eusebius (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

about a seal of school

To administrator:
This image is a seal of a Taiwanese university too. You should check its permission. Why don't you delete it?
--~User:OnionBulb (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can't be aware of any single picture on the project, but thanks for the link, I'll have a look. I'll nominate it for deletion, so that it becomes clear to us what is the status of such images. --Eusebius (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pulogo.gif let's see. --Eusebius (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

To administrator:
This image (see below) is Yale School of Engineering and Applied Science Coat of Arms. Could You please check its permission and author? Do you want to delete it?
--~User:OnionBulb (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed impossible to check that this file was once released by Yale under the GFDL. However, being a plain coat of arms, it might be possible to replace it by a properly licensed representation, made by Commoners (because CoA definitions are usually PD). If you think an image has a doubtful copyright status, please feel free to nominate it for deletion. If you think the logo you've uploaded yourself should be kept on Commons, please transform my problem tag into a deletion request (thus triggering a wider debate involving other admins), but I strongly recommend that you do not hold me responsible for your own actions. It is your right to question my evaluation of this picture, but through the normal way (which is the deletion/undeletion request). --Eusebius (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

To administrator:
This image (see below) is a seal of Harvard University. Could You please check its Permission, Author, Source, Date and Description? Do you want to delete it?
Blason Harvard.svg
--~User:OnionBulb (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This one is the work of a Commoner. The definition of the crest itself (the blazon) is PD, and the user has released his own interpretation of it under a free license. Here, there is no problem. --Eusebius (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Book cover

Bon jour. I couldn't find out what copyright-law says about book covers. Obvioulsy they are art-desigend, on the other hand, its definetly not the cover, which is sold, but the book. What about the thousands of book covers in Amazon and Co ? They need a permission to be published ? My case; book published in 1953, scanned by me in 2009. Best --Wistula (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, thank you for your concern. It is not really specific to book covers. The fact is the illustration on a book cover is a "work of art" (sometimes in a quite broad sense) and is thus protected by copyright. If your book was published in 1953, I must assume (in the absence of any other information) that the illustration is from about that date, and thus that its copyright hasn't expired yet. So technically, yes, it is still protected and cannot be hosted on Commons with a free license. So, what about Amazon? Their use of the images is considered fair use, which is a kind of exception to copyright in the USA (here it usually covers logos, movie posters, album or book covers...). Some Wikipedias (like the English one) accept images tagged as fair use. It is not the case on Commons, and I'm afraid it is not the case on the German WP either. I hope my explanation helped. Otherwise, feel free to ask again. --Eusebius (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Clear, pity and thanks for that, --Wistula (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Aberystwyth castle edit1.jpg

Aberystwyth castle edit1.jpg

Hi Eusebius, I asked you this question on the image nomination page, but maybe you have not seen it. May I please ask you, if you see all the problems Hans is talking about, because I do not honestly. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I may be able to spot obvious flaws, but not subtle ones, I'm not a very good photographer or photography reviewer. This picture is currently in a state where I can neither oppose nor support: not obviously flawed for me, but not obviously perfect either, and I'm ill-at-ease with the halo around the tower, generated by the postprocessing.
Additionally, I think you should avoid asking users individually to review a nomination or vote for it. Thorough reviewing takes time and users shouldn't feel obliged to do so. On the WMF projects we are all volunteers and we should feel free to contribute when/where/how we feel suitable. Of course, things can be different when you become a recognized expert/reference in the community (like when one asks MichaelMaggs for copyright advice) but I'm an expert in absolutely nothing relevant to Commons. Plus, when you ask for a review, easily influenced people like me could feel artificially inclined to support. I really think we should rely on "community activity" (spontaneous or encouraged) even though it sometimes doesn't come when we need it. I hope I have clearly expressed my views, but I seriously doubt it :) --Eusebius (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
You did. Thank you. Sorry I asked you personally to review the image. I did only because you were the one, who reviewed it in the first place. It will not happen again. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't apologize, I don't think it is "wrong", I just share my opinion on the subject with you! --Eusebius (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
No, you are absolutely right. As I said one thing that promted me to do it was that you reviewed the image before. The second thing was that it was not about my own image, but I guess I'm looking for something to justify my request that cannot be justified. Well I am still learning :) Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleting a file

Bonjour Eusebius! S'il vous plaît supprimer ce fichier: File:Petkovic Dusan.jpg! 19:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Je vais regarder de près. --Eusebius (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Suppression d'images de logos dans les boites utilisateur

Bonjour parrain, Je suis victime d'une suppression de l'image d'un logo d'une association, dont je suis membre, que j'ai utilisé pour agrémenter une box utilisateur. Va voir la discussion, et dis-moi si tout cela est normal ? Car je croyais les boites utilisateurs "hors" encyclopédie. --Cordialement, Kasos_France, (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Il n'y a rien à redire, la Wikipédia française (comme Commons) interdit les documents en fair use (qui n'existe d'ailleurs pas en droit français). Si l'image n'est pas libre de droits, même si elle n'est pas destinée à un article encyclopédique, elle ne peut pas être hébergée et proposée avec une licence libre. Ici c'est une personne morale qui est la propriétaire des droits, il faudrait donc, pour que l'image soit acceptée, qu'une personne habilitée à représenter l'asso (typiquement son président, parfois d'autres membres du bureau, ça dépend des statuts) envoie un mail de ce type. --Eusebius (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

suppression d'images

Salut Eusebius, merci de tes recommandations. Elles sont très techniques.

Mes réponses n'apportent pas beaucoup plus , mais les voici :

  • Pour File:Gestion multimodale déplacements - Grenoble.jpeg , j'ai téléphoné et envoyé un mail au cabinet d'architecte Grenoblois pour leur demander l'autorisation d'afficher la maquette du futur bâtiment GMCD sur l'encyclopédie WIKIPEDIA via Commons. Ils ont été d'accord de suite mais m'ont simplement demandé de faire figurer le nom du photographe et leur cabinet, ce que j'ai fait, peut être pas dans la bonne case car je vois que j'ai mis travail personnel. J'ai rectifié. Et quand j'ai vu qu'ils m'avaient envoyé le fichier original du futur bâtiment, je n'ai pas osé leur renvoyé un mail leur demandant de m'écrire le fameux texte m'autorisant à publier librement.......
Et pourtant on en a besoin ! Il faudrait qu'ils envoie ce type d'e-mail à, sans quoi on ne pourra pas considérer que la publication est possible. --Eusebius (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pour les photos d'immeubles la loi française est implacable, mais alors il faut avertir les utilisateurs de commons avec un message qui tienne tout l'écran et non pas un texte perdu parmi trois mille. Cela éviterait du temps perdu pour tous , utilisateurs comme administrateurs. Ce serait plus cohérent comme démarche.
Ouais, mais ce qu'il y a c'est que normalement on évite aussi d'être un peu trop agressif là-dessus, parce qu'à ce niveau-là on est un peu un pays d'attardés et que c'est extrêmement frustrant. Pour la petite histoire avant de devenir admin j'ai commencé par faire supprimer mes propres photos... La règle est surtout appliquée pour les bâtiments vraiment récents ou célèbres et pour lesquels il y a vraiment quelque chose d'artistique (et surtout les bâtiments commandités par les collectivités locales ou l'état) parce que ce sont ceux pour lesquels on a le plus de chance d'avoir des problèmes. --Eusebius (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pour les cartes postales, je n'ai pas d'autres informations car je les ai scanné sur un livre de C. Muller et il n'y avait pas d'autre info que la description de la photo. Quelques unes comportent une description imprimée sur la photo même. A titre info, elles datent toutes de 1925 ! Par contre j'ai beaucoup d'anciennes cartes postales de Grenoble et quand je regarde au verso, il y a les mentions de sociètés qui n'existent plus depuis longtemps comme LA CIGOGNE 1 rue Palanka Grenoble ou bien REAL PHOTO C.A.P. Paris.
C'est embêtant. Pour celles dont tu as (eu) accès au verso, tu peux spécifier "published anonymously" dans le champ auteur (et précise-le dans les demandes de suppression), ça permet d'utiliser une autre licence ({{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}) et de les conserver (éventuellement). Les vieux documents qui sont "presque" dans le domaien public et dont on n'a pas toutes les infos, c'est toujours un problème. Dans tous les cas, précise toutes les infos que tu as dans la page de l'image. Notamment, lorsqu'il y a le nom d'une société, c'est généralement elle qui détient les droits. --Eusebius (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
C'est visiblement une reproduction d'un portrait gravé. Si on ne sait pas d'où ça vient on ne pourra pas le garder. --Eusebius (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Je comprend bien ta position d'administrateur, je ne t'en veux pas, mais du fonds de mon cachot je crie Vive le droit au panorama. --Milky (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ouais ben moi aussi... :-\ T'auras mon vote quand je serai député ! --Eusebius (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Mariage hindou

Indian wedding.jpg


J'ai changé le sujet. Voir Commons:Valued image candidates/Indian wedding.jpg. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

J'ai vu, merci ! --Eusebius (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Au fait j'ai fait une modif du scope sur ce candidat, mais c'est juste une suggestion de formatage. --Eusebius (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Image du jour de WP


Si la DR que je viens de faire sur la seule image du jour de WP te gène, fais-la sauter. C'est toujours plus pratique de n'avoir qu'une page de vote. Cordialement, Coyau (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ou pas. --Coyau (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
J'ai pas très bien compris ce que tu voulais dire, mais j'ai vu la DR avant ton message... --Eusebius (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Pas grave. Dans l'idée, ça voulait dire fais comme tu veux et ne t'embarrasse pas avec ma DR pour ton attaque au bulldozer. --Coyau (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Bah apparemment l'usage veut qu'on passe par des DR de toute manière pour les no-FOP. Merci en tout cas. --Eusebius (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Vietnamese speaker

Bàn thờ thờ Huỳnh Phú Sổ.jpg

Je lui ai laisse un message. Elle a telecharge une nouvelle photo prise de loin. Nguyễn Thanh Quang (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Merci, mais ça reste une oeuvre dérivée pour moi, la photographie ne peut pas être considérée de minimis à mon avis, puisque c'est toujours le sujet principal de l'image. --Eusebius (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Droit de l'architecture

Je pensais avoir endormi tout le monde à l'exception d'Heurtelions ^^ Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Non non... Quand c'est lui qui parle je ne lis pas toujours tout par contre ! --Eusebius (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Rio de Janeiro - Pão de Açucar - Cablecar.jpg

Rio de Janeiro - Pão de Açucar - Cablecar.jpg

Hi, I know that you work a lot on Valued Image candidates, so I'm sure you know the policies much better than I do in this area. This image has been promoted on 2009-03-05, and one day later, someone uploaded a cropped version over it and credited himself for the modifications. Now I'm tempted to revert, because I find it kind of rude (why not uploading under a different filename) and because the VI promotion was not based on this version, but I don't know if there is an actual policy about it. What do you think? –Tryphon 13:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, there is no definite policy about that related to the VI project. I guess this crop does not change much for VI, but if you think the image is too much different, you should upload it under a new name, credit the source, the editor who made the crop, fill the "other versions" fields in both images, leave a note to the editor, and revert to the promoted version. --Eusebius (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Good piece of advice, thanks, I did as you said. The retouched version is now at File:Rio de Janeiro - Pão de Açucar - Cablecar (resampled and denoised).jpg. –Tryphon 18:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)



Dans Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#File:Superphénix.jpg, Fingalo a voté Oppose mentionnant que la photo n'est pas droite, puis Support après que je l'ai corrigée. Je pense donc qu'il a décidé de changer son vote, mais qu'il a oublié de barrer son ancien vote. Yann (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

OK je vais regarder (si c'est une erreur tu peux aussi la corriger je me vexerai pas...) N'empêche que les deux murs de gauche et de droite sont pas parallèles, je sais pas si c'est dû au bâtiment ou pas. --Eusebius (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Vu que j’ai proposé cette image, je ne voulais pas moi-même enlever un vote Oppose. Yann (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Meenakshi Amman Temple

Temple de Mînâkshî01.jpg

Salut, Madurai est la ville où se trouve le temple. Le nom officiel du temple est Meenakshi Amman Temple. --Bgag (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

OK merci ! --Eusebius (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)



Hi, this image is used on fr wikipedia in this template. Can you restore it ? Thanks Leag (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour, la discussion a lieu ici. Je ne clorai pas la requête de désuppression moi-même car c'est moi qui l'ai initiée, mais je vais pinger un autre admin. --Eusebius (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know who you pinged, but I restored it already; I hope it's okay. There seemed to be a pretty clear consensus on COM:UNDEL, and the out of scope argument was clearly wrong. –Tryphon 11:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I was clever enough to ping a non-admin, so thank you for that :-) --Eusebius (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah! I always thought this kind of things only happened to me... –Tryphon 13:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

MVR question


Je ne suis pas sûr de comprendre quand une procédure MVR soit être ouverte. Elle ne l’a pas été pour Commons:Valued image candidates/Superphénix.jpg bien que plusieurs images aient été proposées. Je suis aussi surpris que la procédure n’est pas abouti à un choix vu qu’il y avait plusieurs candidats. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ca aurait pu déboucher sur un MVR, il suffit que quelqu'un décide de nominer une ou plusieurs autres photos. Il y a un MVR dès lors qu'il y a plusieurs candidats nominés pour le même scope. Comme la candidature s'est ici terminée en "undecided", tu peux la reproposer à tout moment (voir ici). Ca peut être l'occasion de le faire sous la forme d'un MVR, en nominant une ou plusieurs autres photos. Une petite remarque toutefois : il est assez fréquent que les MVR se terminent sans aucun candidat promu. --Eusebius (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

mes autorisations

bonjour, j'ai toutes les autorisations, pour mes docs. A la fois du conseil general des pyrenees orientales, du groupe Phoenix et de son label "loyauté, de la compagnie Outalot aux USA. que dois je faire en plus ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaviateur (talk • contribs) 15:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Parfait alors ! Il ne vous reste plus qu'à suivre la procédure expliquée ici et à forwarder toutes ces permissions à (précisez bien dans votre mail le nom des photos qui ont été supprimées, ça facilite les choses). Et s'il s'avère que le Conseil Général a effectivement donné l'autorisation d'utilisation de son logo officiel à des fins commerciales et pour des travaux dérivés, je vous paye un café ;-) --Eusebius (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


Joe Strummer performing at St Ann's Warehouse, Brooklyn - NYC Apr 5 2002.jpg

Yes. It clearly says on my user page that I shoot video for punkcast. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info. --Eusebius (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


Hi. pl:Angie, if is notable, is a singer or something like that. So, this photo looks like promotional material, not an amateur shot :) I don't think that Angie or the professional photographer is the uploader. I think that the article on and this photo, if not a blatant copyvio, is out of project scope (we don't like promotional scope ;)--Trixt (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I agree on the "more than probable copyvio" thing of course, but I'd rather rely on the "no source" tag plus 7 days. About the promotional character, I think the picture is not promotional in itself, any decent picture of a notable person would look a bit promotional... I guess it will be eventually deleted on the ground of copyvio/nsd. --Eusebius (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"Cleaning up" images


If you'd like to clean up pages of images I upload, of course you are more than welcome to. I won't be. In my opinion, the results CommonsHelper comes with are good enough.--Rockfang (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I know what the output of CommonsHelper looks like, but there's actually a lot of not-so-useful information in it, and sometimes vital information is missing. That's why each moved image should be checked by a human user. It's a pretty tedious task and we don't blame movers when it's not done or not fully done. Just please don't undo the work unless a significant info is lost :-) Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Cool beans. Thanks for the link in the edit summary you provided.--Rockfang (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Samata pictures

Hi there

To confirm I own the image Nolcha - not sure how to send this message to you

Regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fashionenterprise (talk • contribs) 19:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi, please send a permission e-mail, based on this template, to You will be asked to show that you actually are the copyright holder. This can be done for instance by disclosing your real life identity in the e-mail (it will be kept absolutely private) or by providing (still in the e-mail, still private) the original pictures, full size, with original EXIF data. Please provide (in the same e-mail if possible) information about all the images deemed dubious or problematic. Please include the exact filenames of the images as registered on Commons, so that they can be found easily. Also, when you have sent the e-mail, add {{OTRS pending}} to every image not deleted already and impacted by your permission e-mail. This will ensure they are not deleted until the end of the verification procedure.
Thank you for your contribution and understanding. If something is still not clear, don't hesitate to contact me again. --Eusebius (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Elin Sigvardsson

Elin Sigvardsson.jpg

Hi Eusebius!

Could you ask the author for permission, so we could use this pics on swedish and english Wikipedia? sorry for my bad english. Thanks in advance --Sweday (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll ask the author. I'll tell you about here answer here. --Eusebius (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Okey, thanks! --Sweday (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

She's apparently ok. I'm sorting out the details with her. --Eusebius (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

that's great, can u please upload the photo when the details is okey?--Sweday (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I will, but things are not sorted out yet. --Eusebius (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done --Eusebius (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thank you very much--Sweday (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Image come from

The image comes from Benis blog... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megami no Hikari (talk • contribs) 15:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

I'm not sure what picture you're talking about. Anyway, unless you hold copyright on it, you cannot upload it on Commons and release it under a free license. If it is not obvious that you are the photographer (for instance, if it's been published somewhere else already, please send an authorization e-mail through the OTRS procedure. --Eusebius (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

BBC Box article now imageless

HI. Regarding these three deletions:

  • [3] (ticket 2008112110020831)
  • [4] (ticket 2008112410021558)
  • [5] (ticket 2008112410021558)

you stated "unconclusive OTRS ticket". Can you please clarify. As far as I know, user Sladen is the person who filed the tickets and I think he said that he had asked for and got permission for their use (I've informed him of this post on I'd like to be sure of whats happened here, as these were the only images of the BBC Box that I'm aware of, and the article now looks rather crap. Ultra7 (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry now that I didn't put the ticket number in the deletion summary, I'm forced to search again... What I've done and said means that the customers (copyright holders) have never provided enough information for us to accept the release of the pictures with a compatible license. Actually the picture should have been deleted much sooner. I'm sorry for the trouble caused. --Eusebius (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
So the permission emails in question (which were also pasted into the body the metadata page) have been located/matched up, or haven't been matched up? —Sladen (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
These permissions were properly received in OTRS, but they were not clear enough and have not been clarified by their authors. I'm sorry but I cannot be more precise. --Eusebius (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
So this needs going back to Freightliner and the individual in Glasgow and getting the boilerplate out of them? Is that what "unconclusive" [sic] means on this occasion? In which case, please could you retrieve the headers of OTRS/pasted emails and I shall attempt contact the original photographers again; IIRC, both parties were fairly responsive when I contacted them... However, alot of the OTRS email replies that I've seen are blunt to the point of rudeness, and confusing enough that the OTRS email request winds up getting ignored (never mind the embarrassment for the person originally working on negotiating the release).
I haven't managed to understand what the "I'm sorry but I cannot be more precise" part refers to, is this something vague, akin to "...for security reasons"; is there a missing sentence/words? Could you try rewording that last part so that I can try to better understand what it's referring to? —Sladen (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Since you're involved in both tickets, I send you some info through OTRS, so that you can sort this out. --Eusebius (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


Flag of Kenya (shield).svg

Hi, i reading in Commons:Coat of Arms, and in this:

"So, CoA found on Commons may be (1) reproductions of PD-old artworks, (2) recent artwork with a clear "free" licence, (3) self-made reproductions"

I have a question, this coat is not deleted for point (3): File:Arms of Botswana.svg (is a reproduction made for a user Sodacan). ?

Because if is affirmative, the svg for coats may state in commons?. I not sure about this.

Thanks Shooke Flag of Argentina.svg Flag of Italy.svg(Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 17:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure I understand you well. This picture is ok, because it is a work by user:Sodacan, not because it is SVG. Could you be more precise in your question? --Eusebius (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The image File:Arms of Botswana.svg is SVG version of File:Coat of arms of Botswana.png, deleted por Maxim.

The text "(3) self-made reproduction" in Commons:Coat of Arms validate to File:Arms of Botswana.svg remain in commons or should be deleted equal to PNG version? Shooke Flag of Argentina.svg Flag of Italy.svg(Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 19:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it can stay (although this could be subject to debate in a deletion request), because the SVG and the PNG are two (different) interpretations of the same abstract blazon. The author of the SVG, in the absence of a written description (or because it's easier), took inspiration in the PNG to represent the coat of arms, but no part of it is directly copied in the SVG, I don't think it can be considered a derivative work. It's a bit like rephrasing the informations from a book in order to make a Wikipedia article. I think the case is borderline, though. --Eusebius (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, same i think. Hey, Many Thanks for File:Flag of Kenya (shield).svg!!!! Become to kenya case, if you look the history of File:Kenya coat of arms.jpg, the original image from was updated by Pascal.Tesson. You may look that the image would be like Botswana SVG case, but in this case was passed to JPG. Shooke Flag of Argentina.svg Flag of Italy.svg(Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 23:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Telecom Web Services image

Hi, I saw that you deleted the Telecom Web Services.jpg image because of copyright violations. I'm the author of the picture and working for the company Ericsson. How do we add our pictures to Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkap (talk • contribs) 08:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi. Currently the copyright notice on this picture is: "Copyright notice: © Copyright 1994-2009 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. All rights reserved." The terms of use are not compatible with Commons Licensing. Therefore, we need an authorization from Ericsson regarding this image, sent by somebody having authority to speak on behalf of Ericsson as a copyright holder. The authorization e-mail (example here) should be sent to The procedure is detailed here. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I see. Ericsson is a pretty large company. But do I as author of the picture have the authority to speak on behalf of Ericsson? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkap (talk • contribs) 08:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
I understand the issue. As an author, I'm afraid you may have no right at all (save paternity attribution), because it is very likely that all rights have been transfered to your employer, per your contract. If you have had (internally) the authorization to release this file under a license that allows derivative works and commercial use, feel free to send an authorization e-mail yourself, but the OTRS volunteer who will process it will probably CC a contact e-mail found on the Ericsson website. It might be risky for you if you're not 100% sure about what Ericsson allows you to say on their behalf. --Eusebius (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Signature brute (sans lien automatique)"

Bonjour Eusebius,

Merci pour ton aide. Le problème provient certainement de ce que tu m'as signalé. La signature suivante le prouvera !

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool :-) --Eusebius (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


Sorry, but I don't know what i have to do. --Techarrow (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It depends. Where did you get the image? --Eusebius (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
A friend of mine, the person who take the photo, give me to upload. --Techarrow (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Then we need an authorization from this person. An authorization e-mail from her/him should be sent to --Eusebius (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Siège de l'OMS

World Health Organisation building south face.jpg


J'ai créé une MVR, comme tu l'as suggéré. Je pensais que tu le ferais, vu que tu as proposé cette alternative. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

C'est à dire que si c'est moi qui propose l'image, je ne peux plus voter ! Alors comme tu ne peux de toute manière pas voter, étant l'auteur, je comptais sur toi ;-) --Eusebius (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Borrado de imágenes


Creo que he cometido el error de no poner el permiso para utilizar algunas imágenes y por eso tú las has borrado. Quiero corregir el error pero no sé como hacerlo.

Te indico debajo que las imágenes proceden del Ministerio de Educación de España y aquí la pág donde se ve ese permiso: [6].

Te agradecería que me indiques cómo tengo que hacer para volver a subirlas .

Un saludo--GabrielZafra (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

“«File:Granja-de-cerdos.jpg» subido. ({{Information |Description={{es|1=Granja de explotación porcina.}} |'''Source=Banco de imágenes del Ministerio de Educación de España (La utilización de los recursos del Banco de imágenes y sonidos es universal, gratuita y abierta, siempre y cuando se indique la fuente)'''”
Hola Gabriel, gracias por tu mensaje y perdoname por my Castellano (y la falta de acentos). Habia visto la permision y la fuente, pero en Commons se necesita que autorizar el uso comercial de las imagenes, y la noticia del sitio ministerial no lo permite. Es una lastima, porque las imagenes son realmente valiosas, y porque veo que consagraste tiempo y trabajo. El peor es que no terminé de comprobar tus imagenes, tendré probablemente que borrar mas. --Eusebius (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The rest looks public domain anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Nachum Eitan.jpg

Nachum Eitan.jpg

The picture was scanned by a relative of Nachum Eitan and is released into the public domain. Barak Sh (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry but that might not be enough. The copyright holder of the original picture is the photograph, or his heirs. If the photograph was hired by the subject to take the photo, or if he was something like a friend of the subject and taking the photograph for him, we may consider that the rights have been transfered to the subject (Nachum Eitan). In that case, the copyright holder would be Nachum Eitan, if living, of all his heirs. If the subject is deceased and you are the only living heir, then we can accept your release in the public domain. Otherwise, we need the authorization from all his living heirs. Can you please tell what the situation is? If you want the answer to this question to remain private, you can send it to, with a link to the picture (and to this conversation). Thanks in advance. --Eusebius (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, it would be nice to have the date of the picture (or an approximation) and, if possible, the original author (or something like "hired photographer" or "friend of the subject"). Finally, please tell us why this picture is in scope. Is the subject notable in some way? --Eusebius (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I really don't understand why I need to go through so much trouble for a 90 year old picture of a man who died 33 years ago. It is not protected by copyright, and was sent to me by Nachum Eitan's only living heir, Ora Sapphire. If you're still not convinced, just delete the image and I'll upload it to the Hebrew Wikipedia, where I am a sysop. Barak Sh (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Because we need some info in order to be sure that it is indeed not protected by copyright, we can't just take your word for it (especially after you've stated at upload time that you've created yourself a picture taken 90 years ago). As an admin, you should care at least a little bit about copyright issues. Anyway, if you're able to tell that the picture was taken about 90 years ago, then it is ok according to Israeli copyright law, if it is the applicable one (but you had to say it, we cannot just guess it). I take the liberty to guess that the photographer is "unknown". About scope inclusion, the picture is now used in a WP article, so it's definitely in scope. --Eusebius (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean to state that I've created the picture myself, I just left the default "Own work by uploader" when uploading, which was a poor mistake (I didn't really understand that it means I took the picture myself). As for notability, he is a well-known figure in the history of Tel Aviv-Yafo. I'll remember to use {{PD-Israel}} from now on when applicable. Anyway, I'm sorry for your trouble - sadly, I'm still a novice on Commons, but I'm gradually learning the rules... Thanks, Barak Sh (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It is a "poor mistake" that almost everybody does, and the upload forms probably don't help. That's why the "problem tags" are applied quite quickly and quite often. Anyway, no trouble, we're here to deal with such things and copyright issues can sometimes be a pain in the neck. --Eusebius (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


Thank you to have told me the problem. An user (not me) has changed the template I use with the bot, adding the heading inside the template (that I added before in another way) so the template had two different heading, as you have noted. Thanks again, now the problem is fixed :-) Bye, --Filnik\b[Rr]ock\b!? 10:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


Mujodogane Muenchen.jpg

Why u write there is missing some source? --Okami-san (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have replied on your talk page. --Eusebius (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I take this photo with my own camera at the day when Markus Eckard had ve a - damn my english is shit - presentation of mujodogane. after playing the phtos on my pc i resized the photos with microsoft picture resizer cause i thaught its better to play a smaller picture in the cammons. thats all. i swear: it was me who maked this picture! --Okami-san (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OK ok, no need to swear :-) Anyway, when the picture is problematic, uploaders just say nothing. If you tell me than you actually took the picture, I must believe you. For information, it's better to upload large image on Commons: the servers will resize them automatically when they are included in Wikipedia, for instance. Just don't worry about disk usage. --Eusebius (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
ok :) thanks :) next time i didnt resize the pictures. --Okami-san (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


Why have you removed the language prompts? These were especially useful, as not everybody speaks English. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the templates added by the gadget are now autotranslated (save 3 or 4). Thanks for reminding me that I should take care of them... Tell me if you think there still is a problem I haven't seen. See also the discussion here. --Eusebius (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Important proposal

I wrote a proposal for equalizing the different picture formats on FPC Please have a look. Best regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, but I'm afraid I have not much to do with FPs... :-\ I'll have a look though. --Eusebius (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Help with photos...

Hey Eusebius, how are you? Remember me? I´m the guy from Costa Rica...

As I said on my own talk page, I need you to help me finish the Sincronico´s profile. I only need to add 2 photographs, but I need you to explain me if they are ok or not...

I´m gonna give you the band´s official site link:

I´m pretending to use 2 from that site; I already talked to the singer personally and he said it was ok... He even was glad because of my effort in doing an article about his band. But well, I´m guessing you will need a letter from him, in order to prove that I´m telling the truth. You tell me if I´m right...

Besides, I noticed that I had a problem when I showed to him for the first time the article: the link didn´t work, perhaps for the strees in the word "Sincrónico", you know what I mean? In spanish: me refiero a la tilde de la palabra. I said to him that I could get rid of the stress, but that wouldn´t be correct.

So please help me... As you may notice, is urgent.

Sorry, and thanks for your attention and patience.

Cheers...--Crowally (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I reply on your talk page. --Eusebius (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I´ll tell Eduardo (the singer) to write the letter for the permition. And well, this was the problem that I got when I tried to show Eduardo the article for the first time:
I used copy and paste in order to give him the link, and it appeared like this: The first time I gave it to him it didn´t work: all the link turned blue except for the last parenthesis. So, I don´t know why...
But well, if you copy and paste that link I just typed it will work after all, but I think it´s kinda strange, know what I mean? It should be at the end of the link "Sincrónico_(grupo)" not like the one in there "Sincr%C3%B3nico_(grupo)"
Take care out there...--Crowally (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
About the "strange stuff" in the address, it's pretty normal: non-ASCII characters have to be "encoded" in a special way in order to be used in a URL. This is just because the URL system has been designed by Americans and that it's difficult to switch to something more clever (well, international) now that the whole internet uses it. --Eusebius (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I can tell... Well, thank you for your advice an attention. Now I´m gonna tell Eduardo to write the letter in order to get the permission. Right now I´m reading the section about "Tipos de licencias", so I can tell him wich one can be useful to him...
Good day...--Crowally (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


Hola de nuevo, perdona si estoy llegando a ser un poco molesto, pero necesito de tu ayuda. Como dije en el mensaje anterior, he estado leyendo un poco acerca de los tipos de licencias disponibles, y la verdad no sé cual podría ser la indicada en el caso de Eduardo, el cantante de Sincrónico.

¿Podrías decirme cuál (o cuales) licencias serían correctas en este caso?... Muchas gracias Eusebius. Que estés bien.--Crowally (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'd choose either CC-BY-3.0 (I use it for my photographs) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (which imposes in addition that any derivative work be licensed under a compatible license). Both require that the original author be properly credited. --Eusebius (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Valued images/Recently promoted


J'ai remarqué que les plantes ne sont pas catégorisée dans cette page. J'avais posé une question à ce sujet sur Commons talk:Valued image candidates, mais personne n'a répondu. [7] Cordialement, Yann (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Je sais. Lycaon avait dit qu'il proposerait peut-être des sous-catégories, mais ce n'est pas fait. Moi, je n'ai pas les connaissances requises pour faire des propositions, et si les images sont toujours dans "recently promoted" c'est juste que j'ai eu la flemme de vérifier que c'était bien des "seed plants", alors n'hésite pas à en trier un peu de temps en temps... --Eusebius (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons Picture of the Year

Hi, would you do me a favour? We need to announce the opening of voting for the POTY final in various places. Would you mind placing a translation of this notice somewhere suitable on the fr Wikipedia, please? You may need to tweak the link by adding an extra "Commons:" so that it links back properly to the relevant page here. Many thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

POTY barnstar 1 2008.svg

The finalists have been selected! Vote in the 2008 Commons Picture of the Year competition.
The final voting round to select the 2008 Picture of the Year is open now. Voting closes 23:59 UTC 30 April (Thursday).

done. --Eusebius (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ruins of the castle in Szubin


Check well-done? Thank you for your help. :-) Albertus teolog (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks ok. --Eusebius (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

pb licence sur base de donnée videos publique

Bonjour Eusebius,

je me permets de vous solliciter en votre qualité de personnel OTRS. J'espère ne pas me tromper mais je crois que ça vous donne la possibilité de certifier qu'un document est libre de droit d'auteur.

J'utilise une base de vidéo de de Microsoft Research Cambridge rendu publique à l'adresse suivante: Il s'agit de la rubrique "Data" qui mentionne "Please click here to access freely available research data." C'est une base largement utilisée dans le domaine de la recherche en vision des ordinateurs. Je souhaite montrer le résultat du traitement de ces images sous la forme de fichiers "gif", dans la page "Camshift" (

Je vous aurais bien montrer un exemple de résultat mais le premier de mes gifs (Fichier:Ilkay.gif) a été effacé par un autre administrateur (Alchemica : pour des raisons de droits d'auteurs.

Mon article sur le camshift comporte 3 volets, et le dernier est bien pauvre sans illustrations ... pourtant j'utilise des vidéos rendus publiques. Comment dois-je démontrer qu'il n'y a pas de problème de droit d'auteurs, sachant que si j'envoie un mail aux responsables du groupe i2i qui ont rendu publiques leur base d'images, il risque de ne pas me répondre (ce sont des grands pontes dans leur domaines: Andrew Blake, Fitzgibbon et Alex Criminosi)... et si je devais leur demander une permission explicite tout de même, qui devrais-je mettre en copie de ce mail? J'ai pensez à vous, peut être, mais il me faudrait votre adresse... pourriez-vous m'aider SVP?

PS: désolé de ce mail interminable, j'espère que vous prendrez le temps de me lire.

Bien cordialement, --RB117 (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC) RB117

Bonjour. Ce n'est pas parce qu'un document est mis à disposition sur internet qu'il est libre de droits, par défaut il est sous le statut "tous droits réservés", ce qui est d'ailleurs confirmé en bas de la page que vous pointez. Donc il y a des problèmes de droits d'auteur. Cette page mentionne d'ailleurs un copyright Microsoft, si les personnes que vous citez travaillent pour MS, il est fort probable que ce soit la société qui détienne les droits sur les documents. Dans tous les cas, il nous faut effectivement un e-mail d'autorisation. Si les auteurs prennent le risque d'accorder une autorisation, je pense que l'on pourra considérer qu'elle est valide et que Microsoft est ok.
L'idéal donc effectivement d'envoyer un e-mail aux trois auteurs en même temps, avec en copie, et que l'un des auteurs réponde à tous avec une autorisation sous la forme de ce message-type. Si l'auteur ne répond pas à tous, forwardez juste sa réponse à Si le message de permission est ok, nous enverrons une confirmation en mettant les auteurs en copie (de manière qu'ils puissent contester en cas de problème). Si vous voulez que ce soit moi qui traite le message (ou si vous voulez qu'il soit traité rapidement d'une manière générale), faites-moi signe lorsqu'un e-mail a été envoyé à permissions-commons, que je puisse aller le trouver (au besoin vous pouvez me contacter par mail via le lien dans la barre à gauche : "lui envoyer un courriel"). Est-ce que ça vous paraît clair ? --Eusebius (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Images de valeur


Salut Eusebius, Il y a quelques jours deux de mes photos ont été promues images de valeur (Takayama et Kyoto). Cependant je n'ai pas reçu la notification habituelle et les deux fichiers n'ont pas été étiquetés Images de valeur. Est-ce que tu peux vérifier? Merci. --Bgag (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Merci d'avoir remarqué ! Je pense que c'était dû aux problèmes de réseau que connaissaient les serveurs à l'époque, on va essayer que ça ne se reproduise pas trop souvent... J'ai ajouté les tags à la main sur les images. Tu tiens beaucoup aux notifications ? --Eusebius (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Ce n'est pas nécessaire pour les notifications. Merci. --Bgag (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Stupid bot

Parlamento April 2009-1a.jpg

Je savais pas qui c'était un robot qui faisait le boulot... C'est porquoui je l'ai fait moi-même. Next time I'll blame Dschwen... Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever happens, remember to blame him, not me :-) --Eusebius (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

JPG images

English: Hi, i have a question: JPG images can be reupload to change to format PNG and delete JPG image, there are a template for indicate this ?
Español: Veo que sabes español, asi que explico mejor la pregunta: las imágenes JPG se pueden recargar en formato PNG, para después deshacerse del JPG?, si no recuerdo mal, los formatos JPG y GIF son formatos propietarios (non-free formats) y sería conveniente que los formatos de la imágenes sean png o svg, hay alguna plantilla para indicar que la imagen debe cambiar a PNG? Saludos Shooke Flag of Argentina.svg Flag of Italy.svg(Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 23:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, please allow me to reply in English. The JPEG format has been designed and normalized by an ISO working party, it is now public and corresponds to the standard recommentations ISO/CEI 10918-1 and ITU T.81. Anyone can thus make JPEG-compliant tools. Forgent's patent on JPEG has been invalidated in the US (it has been proved that they knew about prior art and that their patent declaration had been made on bad faith), and it is likely that their EU patent would be invalidated as well if they wanted to enforce it. Anyway, the US patent has expired now (there's another, rather sneaky patent attempt for another company, but I think it is being dismantled by the US patent office). We consider that it is a public, open format, and we recommend it for photographs (PNG is sometimes recommended for scans, but JPEG is widely used here as well). The GIF format used to be protected (patents have expired in 2007 I think), and it should be used only for animations (which PNG cannot cover, I think). For still raster illustrations that are not animated, please use PNG. And of course, if you can use a totally vectorized SVG instead of a PNG, please do.
That said, if two versions of the same image are hosted in different formats, it is ok for both to remain on Commons. We consider that they are not duplicates and can be used in different contexts, for different purpose. For instance, if you make a complex SVG, it is very ok to upload a PNG version as well, since the automatic SVG to PNG conversion made by the server can be far from perfect. Different templates exist to show the relationships between the different versions: {{Vector version available}}, {{Bitmap version available}}, Category:Templates for marking as superseded... See also {{Convert to PNG}} and the notes attached to it.
I hope I have answered your question. --Eusebius (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Very Thanks!!! Shooke Flag of Argentina.svg Flag of Italy.svg(Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 21:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


Salt lake Baskunchak in Astrakhan Oblast (panoramic).jpg

...for helping out. This nomination procedure is quite confusing. Best regards. --High Contrast (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done exactly the same mistake with my first VI nomination a few months ago. :-) --Eusebius (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Monoski.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Eusebius (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Being an admin just sucks. --Eusebius (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for making the changes.[8] Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! I missed a kind of reminder, though, it should have been done sooner. --Eusebius (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of Herodus Atticus theater

Acropolis - Herodes Atticus theatre.jpg

Hi Fantastic pictures on Wiki!

I am intending to use the one of the Herodus Atticus theater in two educational talks I will give on Greek culture - I will list you as the author and cite your courtesy for usage.

Thanks you.

Sincerely, Michael

Hi, thanks for your message, glad to see you find the picture useful. If by chance you come on my talk page again, I'd be interested in the full reference of your talk. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Off topic

20 April, at the time of construction, were found at Auschwitz walled bottle with a sheet. On a sheet of prisoners signed up to. Six Poles, and a Frenchman - number A12063. Frenchman still alive. [9]. Albertus teolog (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sopot Grand Hotel


I can confirm the origin of that file under the name you gave on my pl.wikipedia talk page. I completed the file info with the name of the original uploader and I hope it will suffice. If not, please let me know what else can be done - the file info on the deleted page corresponds to the description here on Commons now. Wpedzich (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you! --Eusebius (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


Hi there Eusebius, how have you been? I hope you are fine (and your family as well).

Remember me? I´m the guy from Costa Rica. I couldn´t log on these days because I have been very busy with the university, but well, I´m back...

And well, I sadly noticed that all of the pictures that I´ve uploaded in most of the articles in wich I have participated (creating or editing them) have been deleted. So, all the hard work is wasted.

Like I said some days before, I´m going to show you some of those pictures so you can tell me how to upload them again without been deleted again:

1-In the article of Carlos Luis Fallas, I would like to upload again this 2 pictures:

As you may notice, Carlos Luis Fallas was a costarican politician and novelist; he died back in 1966...

Who took the pictures? When did the photographer die? If it is after 1938, then the images are not free of rights (COM:CB#Internet_images). --Eusebius (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

2-The other article would be the one of Inconsciente Colectivo, and this would be the photo:

Inconsciente Colectivo was a rock band from my country as well, they disbanded back in 2004. (I also noticed that all the album covers were deleted as well).

You will find both articles over the spanish version of Wikipedia...

Thank you for your patience and attention, take care out there.--Crowally (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Same question, same remarks. In both cases, the photograph (or his heirs) holds the copyright by default, and you have no right to release these pictures under a free license. --Eusebius (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I see, but there´s a problem in both cases. Carlos Luis Fallas died 42 years ago, and Inconsciente Colectivo disbanded 5 years ago... I have no contact with Pato Barraza (the singer and holder of the image´s rights). Well, seems I´ll have to leave it like that then.--Crowally (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You have to be aware that the very large majority of works available on the internet are unfortunately not usable in the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. --Eusebius (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

File:World Health Organisation building south face.jpg

World Health Organisation building south face.jpg


Suite à ta remarque, j'ai essayé de corriger la surexposition. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. --Eusebius (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

J'ai des questions à propos du processus : Dschwen a reverté ma photo modifiée et a voté en faveur de l'originale. Lycaon a ensuite apparemment voté contre, mais je ne sais pas sur quelle version, et je ne comprends pas son commentaire : que veut-il dire par « over-processed, over-sharpened yielding halos » ? Que faut-il faire ? Merci pour ton aide, Yann (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sur les multiples versions : c'est le bordel à chaque fois, à ma connaissance il n'y a pas de protocole clair. J'ai soulevé le problème il y a quelque temps (en demandant sur quelle image comptaient les votes, et ce que ferait le bot s'il y avait plusieurs images pour la même nomination), je me suis à moitié fait rembarrer (mais sans que la situation soit clarifiée à mes yeux), alors depuis, dès qu'il commence à y avoir plusieurs version pour la même nomination, je retire mon vote et je ne touche plus à rien, parce que ça me gonfle... Désolé si ma réponse ne t'aide pas ! Ce que tu peux faire, c'est faire une deuxième nomination séparée pour la deuxième version, et éventuellement dispatcher les votes entre les deux versions, avec l'accord des votants. C'est ce qui me paraîtrait le plus clair, mais bon, mon avis ne sera sans doute pas partagé. Sur la remarque de Lycaon : J'en sais rien. Je ne suis pas un très bon photographe, je ne suis pas très calé en postprocessing, et je n'ai pas un très bon coup d'oeil. C'est pour ça que je n'ai pas revoté pour ta photo. --Eusebius (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, merci pour ta réponse. Je vais leur demander. Yann (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

J'ai suivi la suggestion de Carol et ajouté une version modifiée séparément. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Crop of RubyThroated Hummingbird image


I have no objection to cropping this image. Would it be proper to crop the image now, after it has been judged a quality image? That would change the image from that which the quality image was based. --JMSchneid (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No, don't change the QI, it's better to upload the crop as a separate picture. That way, the QI remains untouched and reusers have the choice. --Eusebius (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


Rochester - Court Street at night.jpg

On this DR, the uploader is likely David Selby based on the evidence from the picture I cited. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. In spite of the vicious example I've given, I'm totally prepared to believe that. I've clarified my position in the DR, I hope. --Eusebius (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have given a reply to your reply. I don't know why Evillarry doesn't correspond with you. Either he is away or he is not the uploader. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted images of user Crowally

Hi, Eusebius. Can you check the ticket 2009050410064514? It's in Spanish, and I wonder if they are the same images File:Sincrónico.jpg and File:SinCRo.jpg you deleted. Thanks. --V.Riullop (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The authorization is about different images about the same band. It looks ok but I'm not fluent enough in Spanish to handle an OTRS ticket myself. --Eusebius (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Josef-Richard-Kaelin.jpg, File:Josef-Richard-Kaelin-Medallien-Vorder-und-Rueckseite.jpg and File:Michel-Dickoff.jpg


Hi Eusebius, as I ve seen - you deleted the uploaded files File:Josef-Richard-Kaelin.jpg, File:Josef-Richard-Kaelin-Medallien-Vorder-und-Rueckseite.jpg and File:Michel-Dickoff.jpg even though I send some days before the permissions of the rights holder to as wished. Please be so kind and backup these pictures because they are allowed to publish at wikipedia. Thank you very much in advance. --Robse (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted one of these files because the permission e-mail you have shown was an authorization for Wikipedia only, which is not acceptable on Commons (as explained in the deletion summary, please read the page linked from it). If the authorization you have sent is diffferent from the one I have seen already, please tell me. Since I haven't seen the authorization for the two others, I'll add {{OTRS pending}} to them so they don't get removed before an OTRS volunteer checks your authorization e-mail (please add the template yourself when you have sent an authorization for a picture). --Eusebius (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I added new licence information as told me via e-mail (3rd May 2009 02:22 pm) from an official Wikimedia Commons member. I also reuploaded the deleted picture File:Josef-Richard-Kaelin.jpg again. All of these three pictures are fully licenced for all Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects by its owner. He also told these via e-mail to the above mentioned member. I hope that now all is okay. Thanks a lot. --Robse (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, the OTRS volunteer will update the images pages as soon as everything is ok. I can't read German so I can't do anything. --Eusebius (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. But if there is any problem please let me know, so I can translate the e-mail if its necessary.Regards.--Robse (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Templo tazumal.jpg

Templo tazumal.jpg

I am. If you want to update it so that it just says paralogical as author, that's fine too. Otherwise I don't know any easy way to prove linkage between name and username. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paralogical (talk • contribs) 01:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

That's ok, this statement from you is enough. Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Autorization letter...

Hi there... Just to tell you that Eduardo (singer for costarican band "Sincrónico") finally sent the autorization letter some days ago.

So, now what? Do we have to wait for a specific answer? Or can I just upload the pictures?

Cheers...--Crowally (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What you can do is upload the pictures covered by the letter and put {{OTRS pending}} in the "permission" field (it will prevent the files from being deleted until the email is examined). Once you've done that, a nice thing to do is to send the list of the file names to OTRS (through a "reply to all" from the authorization letter). --Eusebius (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people/Proposal

Sorry, I was thinking of something else. I need to start drinking coffee :D  — Mike.lifeguard 21:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

OK! --Eusebius (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion

Eusebius (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Laineuse.jpeg" (Copyright violation:

No, it was not a copyviolation from there (as I wrote in the summary when I removed the speedy delete template). The source you give has a lower resolution than the Commons-edition. Please undelete at file an ordinary deletion request. Nillerdk (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The uploader has admitted that he was not the author of the picture and that he did not hold the rights over it. He only owns a copy of the slide. Anyway, the fact that the author stated on this institutional source is not the uploader would be enough for me to delete. --Eusebius (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I also tend to think it is a copyvio and I tend to think you are right. But I don't know and I don't know if you know more than me. Maybe the uploader really was the photographer and it wouldn't be a bad idea to give the uploader time to state his point. I don't understand what you mean with "the author stated on this institutional source" and I can't check because the photo/scan is already gone. Your reason in the summery doesn't justify speedy deletion alone. I wish that more admins would take it easy and give not obvious cases a chance. Now all I know is that the file was deleted and I could think "another file deleted by a better-knowing admin". Please be extremely careful when doing speedy deletions. Thank you. And thank you for the doing the hard and big job as admin. Nillerdk (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The links in my deletion summary mentions "François Tomasi" as the photographer. The uploader, who is openly using his true name (I've been dealing with his uploads for a while), is not François Tomasi. As I said, the uploader admitted he was not the photographer and he only owned a copy. There's no much place for interpretation, I don't know what kind of further evidence you could need. This is probably one of the less controversial speedy deletions I've ever done. --Eusebius (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I did oversee that when I accessed the page, I just compared the photos. As already mentioned, I can't verify this, because I can't access the deleted page. Therefore it would have been useful with a more explicit explanation in the summery. I'm sorry to have disturbed you. Nillerdk (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)



Thank you for categorizing saxophone images. I was wondering, are you sure File:RoofLA5.jpg is a tenor sax? I was wondering if it might have been a C melody sax. Thank you. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It looked like a B-flat tenor sax, but I'm not a specialist at all, and you may know better than me. Please note that I have categorized some uncommon saxophones with more classical ones (sopraninos are with sopranos, double-bass-like are with basses, etc.). Feel free to improve. FYI, I've categorized saxophone pictures in order to justify the distinction I've introduced between Category:Tenors and Category:Tenor singers (and so on). --Eusebius (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I know the musician shown played the C clairnet (rather than than the more usual B flat clarinet), so I thought he might do the same with the saxophone. I can't tell from the photo. I need to show the phto to someone who knows a lot about old saxophones. Thanks for your help. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: File:The escape engine video.ogg

Please refer to the copyright information on file in the following ticket regarding the mentioned file:

Let me know if you need anything else to undelete the file. --NJ hardcore kid (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you provide a link to the specific page on where this video can be found? As soon as I see the video on this website it'll be ok. --Eusebius (talk) 06:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Janusz Radek

Well... if you don't read Polish, why doing something with Janusz Radek's categories? He is not opera singer. pjahr @ 20:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for sharing your science. It must be a pleasure to work with you. --Eusebius (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, it's clearly a copyright violation :S Rastrojo (DES) 16:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a specialist, but it is also also clearly "only text and geometric shapes". Much more complex logos have been kept on this basis. --Eusebius (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of photo

Acropolis - Herodes Atticus theatre.jpg

Thank you very much for sharing :) [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 06:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Thanks for the notification! Glad you find the picture useful. --Eusebius (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Sea tractors

Why wasn't there a discussion about this category's move? Jolly Janner (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it is a non-controversial application of the category naming policy: should be plural. --Eusebius (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I'm at it... is this category hierarchy okay? Jolly Janner (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, quite a common scheme. What would be not ok (overcat): a category or file both in "transport in Devon" and "transport in Plymouth", for instance. BTW, I'm not a native English speaker, so, "transport", "transports", "transportation", I don't really know about that (when it comes to concepts, plural is not so obvious anymore), but "Transport in ..." seems to be the common choice. --Eusebius (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Juan Álvarez.jpg

Juan Álvarez.jpg


Cette image d'une personnalité est en petit format, sans metadata, et l'utilisateur (BRMU) n'a qu'une seule autre contribution. En plus il a remplacé une image par une autre qui n'a aucun rapport. Yann (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Justement il n'y a rien dans l'historique. Ca me paraît trop compliqué pour une speedy deletion. Tu pourrais faire ce que tu penses qu'il faut faire ? C'est le dernier fichier dans la catégorie "unknown"... --Eusebius (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Changing username help

Hi, I wonder if you would be able to help out here please? Somebody needs to guide Darkbowser through the required procedure in French. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Darkbowser#Changement de login --Eusebius (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

File:ELAU Schneider kombi.svg

ELAU Schneider kombi.svg

Hi Eusebius, you have deleted this logo on 27 March 2009 as missing essential information: source, license and/or permission. There is an OTRS ticket regarding this case I am just taking care of. This ticket is not yet finalized but I took the freedom to restore the logo such that everything can be checked out by the copyright holder. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw your action on my watchlist and assumed that. Please remind them that they're releasing their logo for commercial use and DW. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I have a doubt, yet: are you sure that ELAU has the right to release the logo of their mother::: company? Schneider Electric has rights over this logo. --Eusebius (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
All this is covered by the OTRS ticket and I do not want to take that here. Please contact me at OTRS wiki, if you like. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
As soon as you are aware of the issue and still think it is ok, it's fine by me, I trust your judgment. My remark was only based on information publicly available. --Eusebius (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

NASA movies

I added source info, but I did something wrong with the templates. I tried to fix it here. The URLs are in the edit summary, but not showing in the template. Can you take a look at them (you listed them on my talk page) and make sure it's OK? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have fixed the templates and removed the problem tags, thanks for the message. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Structure of commons naming

Hi Eusebius, the structure of commons naming is in as simple as possible English: Topic/preposition/qualifiers/disambiguation, so I don't understand this move that seems to move in the other direction. Best. --Foroa (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I had regrets about it right after I commited the edit. Most of the "alumni" structure currently follows the "university name alumni" scheme, but it wasn't adapted at all with the disambiguation. I'll work on moving the all structure the other way, and I'll have this in mind in the future. --Eusebius (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

File naming

ICL 2966 mainframe.jpg

I want to upload a picture of an ICL 2966. It's a mainframe computer. The picture is called "ICL 2966.jpg". Commons won't let me use that filename, though. Can this be overridden, given that it's the most descriptive filename for what the picture is of? --ClickRick (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know whether it is possible to make exceptions to the filename blacklist (I'm sure you understand that it is generally sensible to blacklist a name like that). Could you live with something like "ICL 2966 computer", "ICL 2966 mainframe computer" or something similar? Otherwise, I suggest you find more experienced admins at COM:AN. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I'd assumed the ban on filenames "starting with" meant any filename "starting with". "ICL 2966 mainframe.jpg" does the job nicely. Thanks.
--ClickRick (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"why would an authorization be needed here?"


J'ai apposé une demande de permission sur quatre fichiers (File:Parvi.JPG, File:Exercice commandement.JPG, File:Épée2.JPG, File:Ceremonieeocm.jpg). Tu les as viré en commentant "why would an authorization be needed here?".

Passons sur la politesse de mettre un mot sur la pdd de l'utilisateur dont tu annules les modifications puisque j'ai eu la précaution de mettre ces images en liste de suivi... Malgré la mention "own work", il manque clairement l'autorisation de l'École des officiers du commissariat de la marine. CR MOMMESSIN (talk · contribs) qui a importé ces fichiers fait probablement partie de ce école, mais il n'a pas - malgré mes demandes - envoyé de courriel sur OTRS.

Ca m'agace quelque peu que tu considères toute contestation de tes évaluations comme un manque de politesse à ton égard. Je traite un certain nombre de fichiers de "statut inconnu", et lorsque le besoin d'une source ou d'une autorisation n'est ni évident ni spécifié par la personne qui tagge (de ce point de vue-là il y a des contributeurs efficaces et d'autres qui ne font que reporter la charge de travail sur les autres), je n'ai pas de raison de supprimer. Vu le nombre de fichiers que cela concerne, je ne peux pas faire à chaque fois une demande de suppression en disant "tel utilisateur a dit qu'il manquait une permission, mais je ne vois pas pourquoi alors je vote pour une conservation". De même, je ne peux pas mettre de message sur toutes les pages d'utilisateurs qui taggent de manière non évidente ou même à tort et à travers (sauf quand c'est clairement du vandalisme).

Cet utilisateur a importé plusieurs images copiées du site officiel. Je n'ai pas réussi à trouver d'où venaient les quatre images en question, mais il semble assez évident qu'elles ont été pris par un photographe officiel de l'école. Vu le background de l'utilisateur en question, il me semble plus que judicieux tout en présumant la bonne foi de procéder à une vérification.

Si tu connais le background et si le background doit être pris en compte, la bonne chose à faire est de faire une demande de suppression en l'expliquant. Les informations dont tu disposes sont nécessaires à la prise de décisions et ne peuvent pas être devinées : individuellement, les images que je n'ai pas supprimées ne présentaient pas de problème de droits particuliers.

De plus, la présence de métadonnées ne me semble pas de facto justifier le "own work" et régler le problème car des images du site comme présente ce type de données.

Pas de facto, non, mais en l'absence d'arguments précis, AGF. Pour info (sans que ça soit directement lié) l'absence de métadonnées est actuellement considérée comme insuffisante en soi pour contester la paternité.

Je me permets donc de remettre ces demandes de permissions sur les images en les datant du 1er mai car Unknown as of 26 April 2009 a déjà été vidée.--Bapti 16:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Et moi je te suggèrerais de faire une demande de suppression massive à la place. Je ne vois pas pourquoi ces fichiers auraient besoin d'une autorisation en l'état, mais si ton expérience de cet utilisateur t'amène à penser que ce n'est pas son travail, il t'appartient de nous en faire part plutôt que d'exiger des gens qu'ils obéissent à tes injonctions de suppression sans poser de question. Question de politesse et d'efficacité de la communauté dans son ensemble : si chacun bosse dans son coin sur la base d'informations qu'il ne partage pas, il ne faut pas s'attendre à ce que les autres partagent ses conclusions. Mon jugement actuel, c'est qu'en l'absence d'un signe tangible comme quoi l'uploader n'est pas l'auteur des photos, il n'y a pas de raison de supprimer. Mon opinion, c'est qu'on ne devrait pas utiliser {{npd}} lorsque la source de la photo est discutée, ça ne fait qu'apporter de la confusion. Je ne te jette pas la pierre, l'utilisation de ces templates est actuellement plutôt non-déterministe et les contributeurs ne sont pas aidés par les règles exprimées. Je travaille sur une amélioration, je te proposerais bien de participer aux futurs débats mais si je me souviens bien ce genre de trucs sur Commons n'est pas ta tasse de thé. En ce qui concerne ces fichiers en particulier je laisserai à un autre admin le soin de les traiter : je ne vois pas de raison à la speedy deletion, je n'ai pas les éléments pour faire une demande de suppression et je ne goûte pas particulièrement les conflits interpersonnels. En espérant que nos futurs contacts pourront être autres qu'épidermiques, --Eusebius (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Category renaming because I have mEsSeD up

Hello Eusebius, We met recently on my talk page about an authorship issue. At commons, I have created several categories today but as I was not so familiar I made cApiTaliZatiOn mistakes. I am very sorry for that! Here are the categories I have created:

Category:Fire Engines of Memphis, Tennessee‎

Category:Historical Fire Engines of Tennessee‎

Category:Fire Engines of Tennessee‎

Could you please rename them to:

Category:Fire engines of Memphis, Tennessee‎

Category:Historical fire engines of Tennessee‎

Category:Fire engines of Tennessee‎

I have populated the categories with images already an I hope the renaming is possible without uploading all the images again. I am not very familiar with the renaming procedures at commons and you are the only one I actually know around here. If I need to change all the category links on the image pages, please let me know on my talk page at, that's where the chances are best to reach me. Thank you very much! doxTxob \ talk 01:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, that's no big deal as long as you spot the issue and request things to be fixed. I'll do that. In the future, should you have a similar request, you can go there. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Zadnie_Koło_a1.jpg, File:Zadnie_Usypy_a1.jpg

Zadnie Usypy a1.jpg

So, I am Opioła Jerzy Selso (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


Bonjour. I have an autograph of Sir Edmund Hillary, which his article lacks. I know that the United Kindgom policy about autographs is different than e. g. the Czech one, so I want to ask if you don't know by any chance whether I can upload an autograph of a person from New Zealand. Best wishes, --HTO (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not really sure about that, but, according to this page, I would say that NZ is a "common law" country (because of their link with UK) and that the same reasoning is likely to apply. But I have no idea about the originality threshold in NZ, it might be as low as in UK. You should probably ask there. --Eusebius (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello and thank you very much. As usual, you are kind and helpful. Best wishes, --HTO (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Pictures uploading

Good morning Eusebius,

I would like to explain you that the pictures I uploaded are not under copiright and that I have the permission of the author to upload them. I have to confess that I'm not really skilled about uploading media; in case I committed some mistake (i.e. information associated to the pictures) please feel free to come back to me with your feedback.

Thanks, regards.


--Gmartinico (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Then you should: 1) not state yourself as the author when you are not, but instead credit the actual author and indicate your source in the relevant fields, and 2) send the authorizations you may have, preferentially in this form, to so that they can be validated. Once you have sent such an e-mail, please apply {{OTRS pending}} in the "permission" field of your uploaded image, so that admins know that a permission is being examined.
If you have such permissions for the files I have deleted already, or for the remaining one, please send them (but please do not reupload images, they will be restored if necessary). --Eusebius (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Korolev Ivan.JPG

Hallo! You wrote: Reason for the deletion request: Doubtful "own work", ungrounded PD claim. (File:Korolev Ivan1.JPG) You can see it

It's my photo cause I took it from my family photo archive (Ivan Korolev was a brother of my grandma). — Preceding unsigned comment added by S-Serge (talk • contribs) 10:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi. As you can see, I have not speedily deleted the picture, but nominated for deletion so that there could be a debate, and you have the opportunity to give us more info. I suggest you do it on the page of the deletion request. It is the only place where it can be useful. --Eusebius (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

VI demotion

Curculionidae on Betula Richard Bartz.jpg

I was just about to ask if I did this VI demotion right. I see you have already removed it from the VI galleries as well. That is it, isn't it? --Slaunger (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I also created Valued images demoted in 2009. --Slaunger (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec)I think that's it, yes. Honestly, I didn't want to let the bots handle this, I think they would have done part of it but not all of it (the list of VI by scope was already handled by EuseBot, but it's only a side-effect of my lazy programming style). The bot features I should have a thorough look at are demotion, image renaming, image deletion and, in a general manner, updates of stuff linked from the scope. It's a bit sensitive since VIs are refered to at multiple places, and in multiple manners (in galleries, in template parameters, in lists of plain text, with or without links in the scope...). I don't know who designed this project, but he surely doesn't like programmers :-) --Eusebius (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Then I should not like myself, as I work with programming on a daily basis myself;-) Kidding aside I think there are certain aspects which are quite bot-friendly, like the status field, which categorizes images to state-specific categories, and the fact that we use templates so much. We actually tried very hard to have bots in mind right from the beginning. I think it is OK that the bot does not handle demotions - yet. I mean we have had two so far or something like that, so it isn't much of a burden to switch to manual when that occurs. However, the number is likely to increase in the future, as we get more VIs. --Slaunger (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. I use the low demotion rate as an excuse for not working too much on VICbot :-) I truly believe the VI project was designed with bots in mind from the beginning, but there are a few pitfalls anyway. EuseBot takes advantage from the automatic template categorization (status-based), for instance, and now I call it "lazy programming style" because the code is not as robust as it should be: a promoted VI which is sent to MVR is removed from the cat of the promoted VIs, whereas it remains a VI until it gets demoted. That makes it removed from the list of VIs by scope. Plus, I find it not so easy to work with templates, but I'm still a beginner with pywikipedia (and Dschwen, who is not one, writes code that is not able to handle automatically every kind of links in the scopes, because of the struture of links and templates). Everything in MediaWiki should be coded in XML :-) --Eusebius (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


Category:Theory_of_relativity --Schekinov Alexey Victorovich (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

пожалуйста. --Eusebius (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


Sorry but the warning about this file that you gave me is misdirected. I only reuploaded the file that was erased by a blank file (that has been already deleted) being uploaded by the original uploader, and readded the licencing that was stated on the original upload. I dont claim any copyrighted or work on this file, nor i know who is represented on this file, as i was only reverting vandalism. The one user that is making this\was?) claims is User:F Anderssen. With best regards Tm (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Those messages are generated automatically when an image is tagged. Feel free to remove it from your talk page, I've copied/pasted it on the relevant user's talk page. --Eusebius (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the answer. I received another warning that i will copy to the original uploader talk page. Tm (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

New version of file "October Revolution celebration 1983.png"

October Revolution celebration 1983 3.png

I have rescanned this file from the original slide. New name: "October Revolution celebration 1983 3.png" The spots should be gone from this file now. I'm still not satisfied with the color balance, etc. Thomas Hedden (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but can you remind me what the issue was? --Eusebius (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please check this

please check this file File:RochesterNightSkyLine.jpg

i believe it should be removed for improper licensing usage. Evilarry (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been flagged as copyvio and deleted before I came back to Commons. Thanks anyway! --Eusebius (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

VI closure


Pourquoi certaines nominations ont un message May be closed if the last vote was added no later than... et d'autres non ? Comment faire apparaître le message ? Merci, cordialement, Yann (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Salut, le message apparaît lorsque le délai minimum est écoulé et que l'on peut fermer une nomination : 4 jours pour un candidat qui n'a que des Symbol support vote.svg Support ou que des Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (statut "supported" ou "opposed"), 7 jours dans tous les autres cas. Pour les faire apparaître, il faut juste attendre que le délai soit écoulé. S'ils n'apparaissent pas alors qu'ils le devraient, il faut normalement juste purger le cache de MediaWiki (pour que la page soit recalculée). J'espère avoir répondu à ta question. --Eusebius (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Oui, c'est clair. Merci, Yann (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Image replacement

Hi Eusebius. Are you sure that the quality of the larger image is better?

original derivative version

IMHO the derivative version seems to show some compression artefacts. --Leyo 08:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't see the larger file was a DW of the smaller one. Feel free to delink back if you think it's better. I won't delete any of them, obviously. --Eusebius (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
No worries. I think it is OK as it is now. --Leyo 11:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No OTRS permission category

Peugeot X82.jpg

About this edit, I'm not really sure what you mean. No files should be tagged by mistake. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean "by the bot", but "by users": at upload time, many images which do NOT need an authorization (own work, not published elsewhere, clear cases) are tagged with {{OTRS pending}} because the users are unsure of what the "permission" field means. These files end up in our backlog but we shouldn't delete them, we must simply remove the OTRS-related tags. This is independent from how the bot works, but I think a notice here is a good idea, to avoid blind deletions. --Eusebius (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I think we should address the root of the problem, not supplemental issues that result. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The root of the problem is the comprehension users have of the upload form. It is the root of most deletions on Commons. If you have suggestions to improve it, please go ahead. --Eusebius (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at the recent edits of the new bot, and found an example of what I mean. --Eusebius (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Erna Hamburger

Erna Hamburger (1962).jpg

Bonjour, merci encore pour ton appui pour les images concernant Emil-Edwin Reinert. J'ai un problème actuel avec Commons:Erna Hamburger] Je viens de télécharger une seconde image et aimerais qu'elle fusse l'image de référence, celle qui est sur Wikipédia. De plus , quand on clique dessus, elle s'ouvre TRES lentement. Erna était suisse, mais tout de même. Merci d'avance, --Schnäggli (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour. Je ne vois rien de vraiment anormal, et surtout je ne vois rien que l'on puisse faire. Il est normal que les premiers chargements soient plus longs (il faut que les serveurs calculent les miniatures), mais à terme l'image ne devrait pas être plus lente à charger que n'importe quelle autre. S'il y a un problème, c'est probablement un problème de lenteur des serveurs, et il ne vient pas de la photo. --Eusebius (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture reuse: Adam and Eve

Zampieri - Adam et Ève (détail).jpg

Hi I would like you use your picture of a painting showing Adam and Eve, for educational purpose in Denmark. Best regards Lotte Djursner from Clio Online, Denmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 07:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi. I'm delighted to see that you find my work useful. Thanks for notifying me. I would be grateful if you could credit me as the photographer, and give me the references of the reuse, if it is something public (because it's always nice to know). Best regards, --Eusebius (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: OTRS pending bot

The bot can only handle a certain number of the categories at a time or it dies; I wasn't able to run it yesterday due to some server errors, but hopefully I'll be able to do so later today or this evening. Also, since I've been given no direction on how to handle the "OTRS received" templates, the bot is currently ignoring these for now, so they'll remain in the "backlog" until someone from OTRS takes care of them. One more run should clear out what's left of the backlog, those images excepted. Hersfold (talk/work) 16:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK OK. Do you have plans to run the bot automatically at some point? --Eusebius (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oversight sur commonswiki

Salut Eusebius,

Sais-tu comment fonctionnent les élections d'oversights sur commonswiki ? J'ai lancé une prise de décision sur frwiki pour débloquer le statut d'oversight là-bas, mais on se demande comment se passent les élections chez les autres wikis. Pourrais-tu laisser un mot ici si tu sais comment ça marche ? Merci ! Elfixtalkdiscuter 09:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC) (j'ai également demandé à Lucasbfr de enwiki et Carbidfischer de dewiki.)

Salut, désolé mais je ne suis pas très au courant de ce genre de choses (d'autant que les oversights sont apparemment moins actifs sur Commons que sur les WP). Tu devrais demander à Rama, qui est oversight lui-même. --Eusebius (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Merci de ta réponse. Je vais voir. --Elfixtalkdiscuter 18:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Subdivision of Man made structures


Pourrais-tu donner ton avis sur ma proposition ? Voir Commons talk:Quality images#Subdivision of Man made structures. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ce ne serait pas plutôt pour le projet VI ? --Eusebius (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Non, il s'agit bien des images de qualité. La catégorisation des images de valeur est à mon avis bien meilleure. Il serait utile de la prendre en exemple pour les QI. Yann (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Désolé, j'ai confondu avec ton autre post. La catégorisation des monuments et bâtiments est évidemment trop large, c'est principalement à cause de ce constat que nous avons passé du temps à améliorer la catégorisation des VI (qui vient de celle des QI, à la base). Ceci dit, pour les QI, c'est peut-être aussi moins important. --Eusebius (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


How can I ovewrite an existing image using Commons Helper. Somebody stoled my image and says he's the author. Answer me in english or french, I understand the both. --Cezarika1 (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Overwriting an image is generally not a good solution, but there certainly are other ways. Do you mean that some user has taken an image of yours and uploaded it here on Commons? Could you point me to the image and to the source? --Eusebius (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is my photo:, on roWiki. Here is the image on Commons, with a fake author: Please delete these images (original and duplicates), because I want to copy the image with Commons Helper. --Cezarika1 (talk)

Would it be ok if we simply correct authorship information on the existing image on Commons? After that, you should ask a Romanian admin to remove the original (I have no authority there). I think it is better because the original image page on ro has very few info on it. --Eusebius (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Church monuments

I have added some information for you regarding the above on my own talk page. I am finishing Commons today. There is more I would like to do to sort out similar funerary categories, as I have always done in the past, but I'm afraid you might revert any further edits I do. For instance, I would like to recategorise the images under Sepulchres, as they are only sepulchres in the very broadest of senses and I always understood that the categories were supposed to be as specific as possible. Funerary art was a subject I studied at University. If I am not considered expert enough, I shall stop my edits. Sorry, I thought I was being helpful. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I will reply on your talk page, I'm reading it right now. I don't question your expertise, it's only about the logic of a few moves. --Eusebius (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


Initial message: « User:ParisDreux », posted by Eusebius (d · c).

Salut. Désolé de t'embêter, mais je trouve que tu as un peu exagéré. Je ne dis pas que ce que tu as supprimé ne devait pas être supprimé, c'est sans doute le cas (en tout cas pour les "petites" c'est évident), mais sur la forme, c'est ce genre de truc qui fait que les admins de Commons sont au pilori en ce moment. Les images ont été supprimées sans aucun message sur la page de l'utilisateur (alors que ça doit toujours être le cas), et avec un résumé qui ne dit rien de spécifique. En regardant les logs d'une image supprimée, il devrait être clair pour un utilisateur lambda qu'il y avait une bonne raison pour la suppression, et les administrateurs, en regardant les logs supprimés, devraient avoir accès aux éléments de décision précis. Pour les petites images, il était nécessaire de fournir le lien puisqu'on pouvait le trouver. Pour les grandes, à mon avis le speedy n'était pas justifié : le "copyvio" n'est basé que sur ta conviction et sur des éléments (les EXIF et l'historique de l'utilisateur) qui auraient dû être partagés dans un "mass deletion request", qui n'aurait eu aucune raison d'être cloturée en "speedy". C'est vrai que j'aurais pu me cogner la mass deletion request moi-même, avec toutes les images, petites et grandes, et je sais que c'est chiant à faire, mais tout de même. Je te serais reconnaissant de bien vouloir laisser un message sur la page de discussion de l'utilisateur disant ce que tu as supprimé (en résumé), pourquoi tu l'as fait, et comment il peut contester la suppression au besoin pour certaines images (pour info, pour chaque fichier que j'ai supprimé il y avait une notice de copyvio sur la page de discussion, et c'est ParisDreux qui les a virées). Je te serais aussi reconnaissant de faire un peu plus gaffe à la forme... Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Salut. Je comprends que nos avis divergent, et même si j'estime que le comportement des administrateurs de Commons peut être amélioré, cela ne sera pas fait sans une modification des règles qui préconisent aux administrateurs de supprimer « dans le doute ». De plus, quand je m'occupe de la suppression de plus d'une centaine de fichiers aux alentours de minuit — et en l'absence d'un système semi-automatisé qui me mâcherait le travail —, j'ai du mal à motiver la suppression du fichier plus que par un “Copyright violation”. Sur la forme, j'ai aussi une remarque à te faire : pourquoi avoir inondé la page de discussion de l'utilisateur de {{Copyvionote}} (je n'y vois pas l'intérêt, à part agacer), plutôt que de rédiger un message personnalisé, faisant optionnellement une liste des fichiers que tu as supprimés ? C'est ce que je fais quand je procède à des suppressions immédiates, ça prend une dizaine de minutes de plus et permet de montrer au « fautif » qu'on essaie de l'aider. Ceci étant dit, je reconnais mon erreur et tâcherait de laisser quelqu'un d'autre faire le travail à ma place la prochaine fois, il vaut mieux ne rien faire que mal le faire (il y en a qui ont le Special:Nuke facile). Je m'excuse également (je n'y ai pensé qu'en me levant ce matin) de ne pas avoir laissé de message sur la page de Parisdreux (talk · contribs), en effet en cas de plainte cela aurait été à toi qu'il se serait adressé, alors que c'est moi qui me suis occupé d'une grande partie des images. Je vais lui laisser un message de suite. Diti the penguin 10:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah ben ça, j'ai pas dit que j'étais blanc comme neige non plus. Si j'ai "inondé" la page de discussion, c'est parce que j'utilisais le lien "report copyright violation", qui génère les messages utilisateur et un lien de suppression avec un résumé adapté. Encore une fois, ce que j'aurais dû faire, c'est une demande de suppression en masse... mais c'est chiant. Sur le "principe de précaution", il n'étend pas le cadre des speedy deletions (pour lesquelles le copyvio doit être "obvious"). Je pense que les gens ont raison quand ils reprochent aux admins Commons de faire des speedy trop facilement. Prends pas trop ça comme un reproche, j'ai ce défaut aussi. Merci pour ta réaction en tout cas. --Eusebius (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Oui, tu le dis toi-même de toutes façons, « c'est chiant » ; c'est pour cette raison que la plupart des admins Commons — moi y compris — ont tendance à « expédier » les tâches administratives, pour avoir le temps d'en faire plus, la charge de travail administrative étant relativement importante (mais personnellement, j'aime bien être occupé par ça, ça montre qu'on est utiles, dans un sens). Ah, et j'ai laissé un message à Parisdreux (talk · contribs), on va voir ce que ça va donner. Diti the penguin 11:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Merci. --Eusebius (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

L'ultime Chimère


J'ai effectivement mis les images provenant de la série de bande dessinée L'ultime Chimère à jour sans autorisation. Mr Laurent-Frédéric Bollée et la maison des éditions Glénat vont ajouter leur autorisation dans quelques heures qui viennent.

Je voudrais également réserver toutes images présentes pour mon projet sur Wikipédia et j'ignore comment le fait-on.

Merci de votre compréhension et cordialement, CuriousReader User talk:CuriousReader 13:20, 17 juin 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour, si les autorisations sont envoyées rapidement, pas de souci (les ayants-droits sont bien conscients que ça autorise n'importe qui à réutiliser les images pour n'importe quel usage, y compris commercial, y compris pour la création de travaux dérivés ?). Que voulez-vous dire par "réserver toutes les images présentes etc." ? --Eusebius (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
En ce qui concerne réserver toutes les images présentes etc., je voulais juste dire de les mettre de côté afin que personne ne l'utilise avant que les images ne soient finalement autorisées.
Merci, CuriousReader User talk:CuriousReader 14:32, 17 juin 2009 (UTC)
À partir du moment où elles sont sur Commons, tout le monde peut les utiliser ! Le seul moyen est de les supprimer. Les "tags" présents sur les images avertissent les réutilisateurs qu'une autorisation est requise. Si vous préférez, on supprime toutes les images et on les restaure une fois qu'on a la permission. --Eusebius (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Pour info ils ont commencé à être supprimés par d'autres admins, vu qu'en l'absence d'autorisation ce sont des violations évidentes du droit d'auteur. --Eusebius (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

signature brute

Bonsoir et merci pour la signature (problème rectifié).

--Parisdreux (d) 19:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

rayon de soleil

Rayon de soleil et hirondelle 2.jpg


i have used this great image in an art piece. i have followed your instructions and have linked to your image.

you can see this work here:

thank you for your artistic generosity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 06:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

You're welcome. --Eusebius (talk) 06:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Z 21500 Nantes Baco.JPG

Oui c'est moi. Pourquoi ? Bonne journée, Babskwal (talk) 07:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Parce que cette image avait été supprimée, étant attribuée à "Vincent Babilotte" sans permission explicite de sa part. À partir du moment où vous affirmez que "Babskwal = Vincent Babilotte", par contre, pas de problème. J'ai restauré l'image en associant votre nom à votre pseudo. Si vous ne souhaitez pas que ce lien soit explicite, faites-moi signe (mais la procédure serait un peu plus compliquée). --Eusebius (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Anglosaxon England

Inglaterra anglosajona new.png

Hi! I've seen you have deleted an image about Anglosaxon England (Inglaterra_anglosajona_new.png). It was a translation of this one: English kingdoms 600.png. I supose that the user who translated the names forgot to write the source. Can you do anything? It was used in a featured article in Spanish Wikipedia. Thanks. --Millars (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Image restored, info updated. Thanks for providing the source. We should really set up an efficient inter-wiki notification system to avoid such issues. Sorry about the inconvenience. --Eusebius (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem and thank you very much. See you. --Millars (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Problème avec le file File:Villa_bonelli.jpg

Ciao, j'ai reçu un avis de ta part me disant que je dois mieux spécifier le copyright de cette image. Je ne sais pas quoi faire, parce que j'ai simplement pris l'image qui était en it.wikipedia et je l'ai transférée en Commons. Aide-moi, svp, à faire ce travail. Merci! --Croberto68 (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour, le fichier est marqué comme étant créé par la NASA, mais aucune source n'est fournie. Pour pouvoir garder le fichier avec la licence NASA, il faut que l'on puisse vérifier qu'il a bien été publié par la NASA. Il faudrait un lien vers une page d'un site de la NASA où ce fichier apparaît. --Eusebius (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Le fait c'est que celui qui a chargé l'image en n'a mis rien d'autre que ce qui se trouve dans la même page de Commons. Ahi! Je ne peux rien faire. J'attends la cancellation (!) de la page. Ciao. --Croberto68 (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC) NB L'image en se trouve à cette page.
Je suis désolé, j'ai cherché mais je n'ai pas trouvé de source non plus. --Eusebius (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Public Logo (Maaden.PNG)

Dear sir, i've just sent an email as requested for [this image]. Please check your inbox and verify. Best Regards, Ammar shaker (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. If you have sent the e-mail to the right address, an OTRS volunteer will process it. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


Nangka 2009 track.png

Ok, I think I got them all, thanks for notifying me about it Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Could you just have a look at this last one? --Eusebius (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've added the summary to that one also. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. A gift for you! :-) --Eusebius (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Yay! Thank you too :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Flickr Licensing

How can I upload a file from Flickr? I found this and this on Creative Commons, so the images are licensing.--Whatnwas (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Not any Creative Commons license is acceptable on Commons. The files you point at have NC (non-commercial) or ND (non-derivative) restrictions which are not permitted here (see COM:L here for the acceptable licenses). The Flickr acceptable licenses are CC-BY and CC-BY-SA (attribution and attribution share-alike). When you find an image with such a license (and you think the image might be useful on Commons), just use the Flickr upload tool, which will take care of almost everything for you. It will also prevent you from uploading wrongly licensed images.
Once a trusted user or a bot reviews your Flickr upload, DON'T MODIFY OR REMOVE THE REVIEW (any image from flickr must be reviewed at some point). If the review is ok, it must be left as a proof (so that the copyright status of the picture is not questionned in the future). If it is not ok, the image must be deleted unless you get a specific authorization from the Flickr user. I hope my explanations were clear. --Eusebius (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi. Could you please check the ticket for File:Constantino_Leon-2.jpg and File:Constantino_León1.jpg? Then the speedies can go. Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Insufficient permission, no news from user for a while, four files deleted. --Eusebius (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Lycaon (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Interior of SPENS.jpg & File:Odbojkasi_Srbije.jpg

Interior of SPENS.jpg

Those photos were taken by Ilija Studen, my fellow student. He deactivated Facebook account, so I can't take screenshot as proof. But trust me, he knows for this, and i wouldn't stole images and give credit to an author, when is more simpler to say that I am the author. --BokicaK (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you have his authorization, but please just make him send it through the normal way. --Eusebius (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OTRS for few images? Ah... --BokicaK (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

We have OTRS tickets for individual images, or for large batches. No pb. --Eusebius (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ilija uploaded those photos to his personal blog. Is it good enough? --BokicaK (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if the files are available somewhere else with a compatible CC license, no pb. Would you please care to state it as the source, check that the CC license on Commons is the same as on the blog and remove the problem tags? I can do this myself if you want, but later, not now. Additional remark: if the blog becomes unavailable, it is possible (although improbable) that in the future somebody challenges the source info (there is no such problem with registered OTRS authorization, but I understand the process can be cumbersome). Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. --BokicaK (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, You have already done. --BokicaK (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


Bonjour Eusebius, j'espère répondre au bon endroit. Concernant les différentes photos postées (pour Claude Verlinde, Jean-Pierre Alaux & Félix Tisot) il se trouve que je suis le galériste de ces artistes et possède donc tous les droits de reproduction des oeuvres. Pourriez-vous m'indiquer la démarche à suivre pour apporter cette preuve ? Cordialement. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouletalex (talk • contribs) 09:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Bonjour, je ne suis pas sûr de savoir de quelles images vous parlez. Quoi qu'il en soit, dans le cas général ce sont les créateurs (ou leurs héritiers) qui bénéficient du droit d'auteur. Si vous voulez publier des reproductions de ces oeuvres sous une licence libre, il faudra que vous prouviez que les artistes ou leurs ayants-droits ont renoncé par contrat à l'intégralité de leurs droits patrimoniaux en votre faveur, ce dont je doute. Je parierais plutôt sur le fait que vous disposez d'une license d'exploitation des oeuvres, ce qui ne vous confère pas la propriété de leur image. Bien évidemment, je me base sur l'usage habituel et il est possible que pour une raison ou une autre vous possédiez effectivement les droits patrimoniaux sur ces oeuvres, ou plus simplement que vous soyiez mandatés par les artistes pour parler en leur nom (encore une fois, il faudra le montrer). Concernant la procédure, nous demandons une autorisation sous cette forme (éventuellement modifiée pour les cas particuliers), à envoyer par la personne autorisée à la formuler à Toutes les communications avec les adresses mail de la fondation sont strictement confidentielles, ce sera donc l'occasion de montrer éventuellement des copies de contrats ou de mandats pour justifier de vos droits. Si tout est ok, un "ticket d'autorisation" sera délivré, qui ne comportera aucune info privée. J'espère avoir répondu à votre question, si ce n'est pas le cas n'hésitez pas à me recontacter. --Eusebius (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Une probleme avec mes images.

Kopirkin print04x 1.jpg


Est-ce que vous pouvez m'aider?

Je ne sais pas anglais (je suis Russe), et je ne comprends pas que-ce q'il faut faire avec mes images, quel sort des permissions je dois mettre?

Ma page: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan.liskom (talk • contribs) 13:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Bonjour, je vous ai répondu sur votre page de discussion. Dites-moi si vous préférez que je vous l'explique en Français. Vous pouvez aussi contacter directement un administrateur russophone. --Eusebius (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Merci pour votre réponse. Je travaille au Liskom. Peut-etre ce sera plus facilement, si j'écris que ces mes images (non des images de Liskom)? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan.liskom (talk • contribs) 13:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
Non, si ce n'est pas vrai. Des dérivés de ces images peuvent aisément être trouvés sur internet, ce qui vous amènera à être accusé de violation de copyright, et les images à être supprimées. Il faut juste une autorisation de Liskom. --Eusebius (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Bien. N'éloignez pas ces images, s'il vous plaît. Je dois parler avec mon directeur sur la permission. Merci beaucoup!

Ivan.liskom (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour! J'ai ajoute l'information necessaire aux photos, regardez, s'il vous plait. Avec logo c'est plus difficile, j'essaierai le televerser sur Wikipedia, comme "non-libre". Ivan.liskom (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Non je regrette, vous n'avez pas "ajouté l'information nécessaire", vous avez changé la paternité de l'image, ce qui n'est pas correct. Je fais une demande de suppression pour qu'il puisse y avoir une discussion et que ce ne soit pas juste entre vous et moi. Je supprime le fichier immédiatement car c'est en fait une copie d'un fichier provenant de --Eusebius (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
C'est dommage que vous ne me croyez pas. :) Kopirkin (site est un produit de la compagnie "Liskom" - Je travaille a "Liskom". Regardez mon email - Et c'est vraiment moi, qui a fait ces photos. Et ces photos ne sont pas la propriete de "Liskom". Que je dois faire ? Ecrire de mon email une lettre avec la confirmation des permissions ? Ivan.liskom (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Je suis prêt à vous croire, comme je l'ai dit dans la demande de suppression, mais il faut faire les choses bien : une photo qui appartient à Liskom ou à Kopirkin, ce n'est pas la même chose qu'une photo qui vous appartient à vous, même si vous êtes le dirigeant ! Vous avez dit que le propriétaire était Liskom, puis vous avez dit que c'était vous, puis finalement on découvre que c'est Kopirkin ! Ce n'est pas une question de "vous croire" ou pas, il faut que vous donniez des infos correctes ! Donc oui, comme je vous le dit depuis le début, il faut un mail d'autorisation "officiel" de Liskom et/ou Kopirkin pour les images qui appartiennent à ces sociétés. Si vous souhaitez rédiger ce mail en français, le texte standard est ici et l'adresse est Apparemment il n'y a pas de modèle en Russe, mais vous pouvez envoyer un message similaire, en Russe, à (il sera juste traité moins vite). Dites-moi dès que vous avez envoyé un mail, en me précisant quelle photo il concerne, que je puisse restaurer les images au besoin.
En ce qui concerne le logo, je pense qu'il est mieux pour vous de le télécharger directement sur Wikipedia avec une licence "fair use". Si vous le mettez sur Commons avec une autorisation, vous permettrez à n'importe qui de l'utiliser à des fins commerciales et d'en faire des travaux dérivés. Ce n'est probablement pas ce que vous souhaitez. Si vous mettez le logo sur Wikipedia, dites-moi lorsque je peux supprimer le fichier sur Commons. --Eusebius (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour! Nous avons écrit la lettre à l'adresse de l'adresse Aussi j'ai téléchargé le logo sur Wikipedia, comme non-libre. Ivan.liskom (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Merci, je m'en suis chargé. --Eusebius (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

File from English Wikipedia

Hello, I have one question - can you help me, please? I wrote on slovakia wikipedia article about Anna Stanhope - Seymour (this article on slovakia wikipedia). I found her picture on english wikipedia - this picture. Can I upload this picture on commons? If yes, is thise good method: I choose It is from another Wikimedia project, in section Summary -> Author I give Alberia torkenkluvin, in section Sumary -> Source I give or only English Wikipedia? And what I give in section Sumary -> Permission? It will right: This image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus 100 years? Thank you much for your time, --Amonet (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. This picture could probably be imported on Commons, but first you have to find out when the work was created (and if possible, by whom, and from where the picture has been grabbed). Depending on what you find, the license tag will probably be {{PD-art|PD-old-100}}. I'm afraid I cannot help you much with the import process, which is specific to the source project, I think. I don't know much about that, but you should find what you need on en:Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

San Marco

please stop deleting redirects from Italian names to the approriate English name. Unless you want to adopt Italian as the default language for Wikicommons.... Thans. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop creating redirections from the main namespace to the category namespace. There is no valid argument for that, sorry. --Eusebius (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Please join the discussion. --Eusebius (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies, according to the admins community it was wrong to delete the redirect, and I won't do it anymore. --Eusebius (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


Erechteion - chapiteau.jpg

Great photograph of the anta capital of the Erechtheion - I am considering using it to illustrate an article in the academic journal, The Classicist. Thank you for making such a clear image available for use. Yours Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 03:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm glad you find it useful. --Eusebius (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Duke of Argyll coat of arms.svg

Duke of Argyll coat of arms.svg

Thanks for your image of French heraldic crowns - duc v2.svg. This seems also correct for Scottish duke arms (as well as French), see scots peerage yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

French heraldic crowns - duc v2.svg
Yes, the use of fleurons (I know only the French term, sorry) on ducal crowns seems rather standard in all Western Europe. Nice CoA! --Eusebius (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Could delete the 5.000 cats by a bot

In case you need help :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No objection, I only do that mechanically while talking on the phone ;-) --Eusebius (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems Abigor is talking to :-) Only reason for not doing it already was because it would flood recent changes. So I was waiting for admin status for my bot. But seems like that the problem is solved soon. --MGA73 (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


Oh no

ImportError: No module named MySQLdb

It just doesn't cease to surprise us. --Dschwen (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a $PYTHONPATH problem. We had the same issue on the older stable server. There is a commented line in, I guess it should be modified, uncommented and copied to --Eusebius (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
BTW, did you receive the latest VICbot report by e-mail?? I didn't. --Eusebius (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Argyroteta aquatica Paar.jpg

Hi. I've changed the scope on this nom per your comments. Please revisit. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


Salut Eusebius, j'espère que tu vas bien dis moi si tu sait si Diti conte ou non remettre mes photos un jour. -- 17:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Je veux bien les restaurer si tu me donnes la liste des noms de fichiers dont tu es l'auteur. Ton message sur la page de Diti était un peu vague, comme il y avait plusieurs images pour les mêmes sites ce n'était pas facile de savoir de quels fichiers exactement tu parlais. Au pire, si tu as toujours les fichiers tu peux les réimporter, maintenant que ce qu'on peut faire ou pas est clair pour toi. --Eusebius (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Voila la liste je ne crois pas que j'en ai oublié et je te garantie a 100% que ces photos sont belles et bien de moi.

--Parisdreux (d) 09:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
OK Je m'en occupe dès que j'ai le temps. --Eusebius (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
J'ai fait une demande de dé-suppression. Désolé pour le retard. --Eusebius (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Salut, je voudrais savoir si les catégories qui ont été mise sur les images sont remis automatiquement ou non et si non qui doit les remettres ?
Bonne soirée --Parisdreux (d) 20:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Arf, j'appréhendais cette question... Les catégories ne sont pas restaurées automatiquement. Ou bien tu les recrées, ou bien tu attends que je les restaure (ça me prendra un peu de temps, donc pas tout de suite). --Eusebius (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
salut, bon je vais le faire tu as assez de boulot comme ça
Bonne journée --Parisdreux (d) 06:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Et voila j'ai remis les catégories des images (j'en ai proffiter aussi pour remettre un peu d'ordre dedans car c'était mélangées) enfin tous est ok bonne soirée.
--Parisdreux (d) 20:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, bonne continuation. --Eusebius (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Valentim#Quelle und Lizenz zu File:East_Sea_en.png

Why me? I'm not the uploader, that's User:Jyusin. --Valentim (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this automatic message is apparently sent to the last uploader, not to the creator. I forward it to User:Jyusin, feel free to remove the notice from your talk page. Just don't take it personally (but if you have some info about sourcing, please do share it). Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Scope change

Salut Eusebius. Would it be appropriate to change the scope on someone else's nomination? IMO the Florida bit prevents the nomination to gather support and Ianaré has been absent since July 7th. Lycaon (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess that if everybody else agrees that it is better, then it should be ok. Technically, the set can also be declined as is and renominated with another scope by anybody, but this is just unneeded bureaucracy. Leave a note on the candidate page saying that it has been done because the nominator was absent. Side note, be careful at promotion time, for a VI set (almost) everything has to be done by hand. It should be ok if you follow the instructions here. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Cat sync feature

Hi Eusebius. I like the idea of your new bot. The only problem is that I start it myself. If it could take input from e.g. User:Docu/standard.js (a page only admins and I can edit), it would be possible. -- User:Docu at 12:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It has been requested by bureaucrats (as a condition for the bot to run) that it take its commands from a protected page, sorry. I hope that some day, trusted user, not only admins, will be able to edit them. However, I'll arrange a talk page for non-admins to request synchronizations. --Eusebius (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The protection level of the .js page is even better than the one of the page you are currently using (it can't accidentially be removed according to #Permanent_protection). Input on talk pages would work as well, but there aren't that many admins active in categorization. -- User:Docu at 12:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but the protection level is definitely not better, since allows a non-sysop to edit it. I don't understand why you want commands taken from your user space, or for a JS file. --Eusebius (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Only one non-sysop user can edit it. -- User:Docu at 12:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The question is: WHY YOU? --Eusebius (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I did some categorization before and could fix it myself I would break it. -- User:Docu at 13:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure of that, but it's not a matter of trust here, I mean why you and not the many other people that could also do that? There is no good reason to deport part of the process to a user's namespace. Since I have no authority to decide about this protection thing, I suggest you either 1) request that trusted users be given the ability to edit protected pages and request the trusted user status, or 2) request the sysop status (if this is really what you want). --Eusebius (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


Pour information ;)

Bonne continuation.--Bapti 06:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, merci de l'info ! À bientôt, --Eusebius (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Erased image, again uploaded

Hi, you erased few days ago this image File:Cpto. fondo sevilla 09..jpg, but now the user User:Cosguidiego again uploaded the same image, with the license problems again. --Taichi (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: Cosguidiego is a spanish sportsman named Diego Cosgaya, and was blocked in Spanish Wikipedia because promotioned himself. --Taichi (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the info. Uploading pictures about himself is not really a problem on Commons, it wouldn't be considered as self-promotion as such, but most of them are problematic from the authorship/licensing point of view. --Eusebius (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


Tours - palais de justice-edit 1.jpg

Hi Guillaume, I have uploaded an edit of one of your Tours palais de justice photos. You can see it here. Lifting the shadows revealed a lot of noise, unfortunately, but I did the best I could, :-) Feel free to use it if you think it an improvement. Regards, Maedin\talk 18:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, could you please explain briefly what you did? --Eusebius (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure. I used Adobe Photoshop; in the "Image" menu, under "Adjustments", there is an option called "Shadows/Highlights". It has several separate slider adjustments, but basically there is an adjustment for "Shadows" and an adjustment for "Highlights". By adjusting the Shadows only, I was able to increase the brightness while not affecting the sky. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to do this without using that specific tool in Photoshop. It's one trick I've learned and I'm really not much of a photo editor! Then I used a photoshop plug-in called Noiseware to try and clean up the noise a bit. Do you have Photoshop? If not, I may be able to assist. Maedin\talk 06:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm working with Photoshop as well, I'll explore those settings... I also have Noiseware, and had noticed the denoising. Thanks for the info! As far as I know, increasing the brightness always increases noise. --Eusebius (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


Affiche Quarxs.jpg

Bonjour Vous avez mis un tag speeddelete sur une image de l'affiche Quarxs que j'ai chargée. L'ensemble des images que je mets dans la galerie MoBen (mon pseudo d'artiste) sont créées et produites par omi. Elles sont toute vérifiable sur mon site ou Je suis l'auteur de la série Quarxs et de toutes les oeuvres représentées sur ces images. Cela fait plusieurs fois que je charge des images qui disparaissent ensuite. POurriez-vous m'indiquer comment procéder pour ne pas avoir à faire plusieurs fois le travail. cordialemetn Maurice Benayoun ci-joint l'autorisation officielle pour les images issues des Quarxs.


I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the TV series Quarxs and the images related to the series including File:Affiche_Quarxs.jpg [].

I agree to publish that work under the free license [11].

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a non commercial product, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

July, 22, 2009, Maurice Benayoun ( COPYRIGHT HOLDER )
Bonjour, pour ne plus avoir de problème il faudrait envoyer, dans un e-mail à, le texte de permission que vous avez mis sur votre page de discussion, avec également un petit mot d'explication (tout cela peut être en français). Si les images sont sur votre site officiel, c'est plus pratique, vous pouvez donner une permission pour "toutes les images qui proviennent du site X", par exemple (envoyez l'e-mail depuis l'adresse de contact du site en question, pour faciliter la vérification), ou encore pour "toutes les images, importées par MoBen, provenant d'oeuvres dont Maurice Benayoun est le titulaire des droits". Une fois que vous avez envoyé cet e-mail, vous pouvez apposer {{OTRS pending}} dans le champ "permission" des images concernées, pour signaler qu'un e-mail de permission est en cours de traitement (les tags "permission manquante" peuvent alors être retirés). Une fois l'e-mail d'autorisation validé par un agent OTRS, ce dernier apposera (normalement) sur les images un nouveau tag, que vous pourrez ensuite mettre directement sur toutes les nouvelles images déjà couverte par l'autorisation que vous avez envoyée (faites attention que ces images soient bien clairement référencées dans votre message). J'espère que j'ai été clair, sinon redemandez ! --Eusebius (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Kenora Mural.jpg

Hi you've started a deletion discussion for the above image as US FOP doesn't cover artworks. Notwithstanding the fact that Kenoria is in Canada and not the US ;-), I've also noticed that Canadian FOP doesn't cover 2D artworks. Please feel free to nominate the image as a copyvio speedy deletion. --JD554 (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, sorry about reading the image page too quickly! The image will get deleted when the DR is closed. --Eusebius (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


zie deze bestanden, ook anoniem?

sta ik op een of andere zwarte lijst of zo? of kan je mij gewoon nie af? respect ken je duidelijk nie! Carolus (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

  1. I can't speak Dutch.
  2. Don't come on my talk page to insult me. You're not on any "black list", but it is a good way to get into one.
  3. There is a huge difference between the file I have tagged and the ones you have listed here: although every one of them should have a valid author field, the files listed here are public domain anyway, because of their creation date. It is different in the case of the tagged picture: if it was first published anonymously, then it is in the public domain (because the picture itself is more than 70 years old) according to the European copyright laws. Otherwise, copyright runs until 70 years after the death of the author, so we need to know his year of death. --Eusebius (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


  1. (Deletion log); 08:49 . . Eusebius (Talk | contribs) restored "File:1912 spanking iillustration.jpg" (6 revisions and 1 file restored: didn't see the malformed DR)
  2. (Deletion log); 08:49 . . Eusebius (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:1912 spanking iillustration.jpg" (User request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:1912 spanking iillustration.jpg: could be construed as illegal art in some jurisdictions, would rather not have it uploaded under my name)

It's my understanding an uploader can request Speedy Deletion, as I did in this case; could you simply re-delete it and remove/close the DR page? I'd rather not have it drag out for a week or two. Much thanks. Max Rebo Band (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, there are only four valid motivations for the speedy deletion of a file, and I'm afraid it isn't one, sorry. Formally, I'm not even sure "user request" is stated somewhere as a valid reason for deletion (it is evaluated on a case by case basis). It is not against you or your request, I'm only trying to do things the right way. However, if you can show evidence that the file is a copyright violation (showing that it was not first published in the US), it could speed things up a lot: "clear copyvio" is a reason for speedy deletion. --Eusebius (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The file was "Kept", and it was not re-uploaded under another's name. I have the right to disassociate myself from this image, and I'd ask that you either re-upload it yourself, or ask someone else to do so, if it cannot be deleted. Max Rebo Band (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I've seen. Honestly, I don't want to upload it myself. I'll see what I can do. --Eusebius (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Ali Parvin by Ali Kaveh.jpg

The Author tells here that he was working for "Donyaye Varzesh magazine" from 1971 to 1975. (Persian: سال 50 تا 54 در مجله دنيای ورزش كار كردم) the picture was taken on 1973 and I'm Sure it was published. This picture is one Iranian football's historical pictures and was shown at Author's exposition. (Persian: عكس‌هاي علي كاوهدر بوفه گالري ماه مهر به نمايش درآمده‌اند) Iranian football medias are not such professional to have an archive from unpublished pictures in 1970's! I have no doubt about it. All pictures I've uploaded and you tagged {{no source since}} are the same. I don't ever let myself to upload a picture in wiki when it is forbidden. I had uploaded some Iranian Copyrighted pictures before in en.wikipedia while I didn't knew they should be permitted, and after I knew, I myself tagged {{speedy}} for them. so be sure I've uploaded permitted pictures... but I don't know exactly from where I catched some of them. Amirreza (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I guess you told Mardetanha, right? he knows sth about my illegal uploads in I can't find complete info for some of the pictures! are they going to be deleted? Amirreza (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I talked to Mardetanha on I guess he agrees with me about that the pictures are surely published before 1979, but I can't strongly Proof, so I requested him to delete pictures. Anyway thanks. :) Amirreza (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'm sorry I couldn't answer more swiftly, I was not online. If you and Mardetanha (yes, he's the only Farsi admin we have, I think) have reached an agreement, I leave the details to him. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


Congratulations! It has bot status now. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Eusebius (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


Delete him now, im upload him my stake. --Fredy.00 (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, deleted. --Eusebius (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Repeated offender

Hi Eusebius.

User:Cacafuti14 Seems to need a break, they have recreated on of the pics deleted in the morning. --chris 17:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks of the info, apparently he's been taken care of (quite severely) by another admin. --Eusebius (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, nevertheless. --chris 20:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)



Hello, I found images File:Illus-050-1-.jpg and File:Eleanor_of_castile.jpg on english wikipedia. I give there also link on their web site (on en wiki). On english wikipedia are like public domain. What is wrong? Thanks, --Amonet (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. What is wrong is: we have no information whatsoever about the source. Without any info about the date and origin of the document, how could anyone say that it is public domain? Unfortunately, if you haven't uploaded the pictures yourself, it is very unlikely that you know more than me about these files... --Eusebius (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Kulikov's paintings

Kulikov Pilot M.M.Matveev 1939.jpg

Good day! Of course, I'm a new user, but is it right to upload my great-grandfather for me? Kulikov is my great-grandfather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniaromanoff (talk • contribs) 19:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi. Yes, you can upload those files. I've made a mistake when I nominated them for deletion. Actually, the works of Kulikov are in the public domain in Russia because of the second point listed in {{PD-Russia-2008}}. So, actually, anybody can upload these files. If they were not in the public domain, I would have asked you a formal authorization to publish them, which you could have given only if you were the only heir of Kulikov (but no need to bother about that).
Please allow me to make a suggestion about how to license those files, so that they fully comply with the Commons policies and guidelines. My remarks are motivated by the fact that on Wikimedia projects, it is considered that when a public domain painting is photographed, there is no new copyright. Therefore, the files shouldn't be under Creative Commons or GFDL license, instead they should bear a Public Domain tag (the full guidelines about that kind of stuff is available here: Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag).
  • If you are the photographer of these paintings: in order to acknowledge that there is no new copyright, you should use {{PD-Russia-2008}} (instead of the current license tags);
  • If somebody else took the photographs: you should tag the files with {{PD-art|PD-Russia-2008}}, and credit the photographer if you are able to do that.
If you need an admin speaking your language in order to explain you things more clearly and precisely, you have a list of admins by language here (if you need a Russian-speaking admin, I'd suggest EugeneZelenko, very active). If English (or French) is ok for you, feel free to ask here for help or explanations anytime. I hope my reply was clear enough! --Eusebius (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


Im understand your warning, mr. Eusebius. I will be careful. --Fredy.00 (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


Sorry, but this photo is my, because i know Irén Pavlics. Doncsecz (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a photograph printed in a newspaper, or with a similar technique. Who took the original photograph, when and where was it published? --Eusebius (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The original photo is an grey image, what indeed was use in tidings. My brother is mayor and his village work Slovene Local Goverment. I wrote article in the tidings Porabje and from there get this photo, what is now my property. Doncsecz (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Who initially took this picture? It is unclear to me, from what you've said. --Eusebius (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Now whose the original i don't know, only i get in the editorial office from the general editor, because i demands. The image besides passport photograph, anno Irén Pavlics was loses. Doncsecz (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bridge Building in Art Form Gothic Image Use

Tours - Cathédrale Saint-Gatien - voûtes de la nef.jpg Message on your image use. Check out the article. Comments are welcome, doubts, questions, etc, The Sun Maker is an open site.

Thanks for the notice, glad to see you find the picture useful. --Eusebius (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I just used your image of the sculpted rodent in Amiens

Amiens Cathedral - sculpted rodent.jpg

Dear Eusebius,

On my blog, Carbon Based, I just used your image of the concealed rodent at Notre-Dame in Amiens. MAny thanks for making this cool photo available.

The link is

All the best, Brian Thomas

Thanks for the notice, glad to see you find the picture useful. --Eusebius (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Creator template

Hi, I'm removing the creator artist template from some works of art, because moving to sub-categories. The problem of those template is that they automatically put the artist category and you cannot remove it from the template unless you wish to risk a hundred or more images becoming suddenly orphan and uncategorized. Some categories of artists are over-over-over-filled, so that's the only way to make them a little clear, especially when there are paintings with more than 100 images, all with different names... please do not undo and if you know a place to discuss the matter (like a Wiki project art) I'll be pleased to do it. --Sailko (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I know that some people are currently "cleaning" the creator templates from automatic category inclusions, but I have no precise link for you. I guess that the right thing to do would be 1) to remove the category inclusions from the creator templates and then 2) to check categorization of the files using this template. Or maybe the other way around, but in the end the files should transclude the cleaned creator template again. I won't revert you again but I hope you'll do the full process! Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but I also understand that this is a "titanic" task for a single user, maybe a bot could help. --Sailko (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi, you just deleted this file File:PeterWilliams(actor).jpg. I transferred it from the english wikipedia to Commons in order to use it in another wiki-project (dewiki). The original file is here. It is lincenced with several licences I considered suitable for a transfer to Commons. Could you please tell me, what my mistake was and how the file could be transferred correctly? --Che010 (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the delay, I was on a break. The file got deleted because it is stated to come from, but we don't have a permission from them. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

File:DetectionVisage Ilkay.gif

I suppose you get a lot of these questions. You have a thankless job, unfortunately. So first I'll thank you. Thanks for keeping Wikimedia legal.

Having said that, can you help us to get this image back?? We have struggled, literally, for years to find an image for Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence. This one was the best that has shown up. We are very sorry to see it go. Any advice? I don't know how to find out who originally uploaded it, and to help them to correct their error, whatever it was. ---- Wikipedia:User:CharlesGillingham talk 16:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message and sorry for the delay, I was on a break. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid there's nothing I can do to "make this image legal". Here, by default, both Microsoft Research and Rachid Belaroussi hold copyright over the picture, and what we need is a formal authorization to publish this image under a free license (the "courtesy" statement is usually seen as a one-time permission, unsuitable for Commons). MS Research may or may not agree to that... The standard agreement can be found here, and the formal procedure OTRS. If you are in position of obtaining such a statement from the copyright holder of the picture, please come back to me and I'll help you with the procedure. --Eusebius (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Images en provenance de l'album Picasa

Bonjour Eusebius, J'ai posé une question à laquelle je souhaiterais ta réponse. [12]

--Cordialement, Kasos_France, (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour et désolé du retard, j'étais en vacances. Si c'est la question sur Picasa et Flickr, je n'ai absolument aucune réponse à apporter, désolé ! --Eusebius (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Valued images/Recently promoted

Salut, Pourquoi ton bot a-t-il rajouté des images déjà classées ? [13] Pour les 3 qui restent, je m'abstiens de classer les images que je ne connais pas. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Salut, désolé j'étais en vacances. Est-ce que les images ont été rajoutées une nouvelle fois par la suite ? Si oui, il y a effectivement un problème qu'il faut que je regarde de près, sinon c'était juste un problème de retard de réplication de base de données. --Eusebius (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

No lo sabía. Gracias por informarme.--Jlechuga86 (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

OK... --Eusebius (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Usuario Turing92

Hola, lamento muchisimo lo de las imagenes que violan el copyright. ¿Como puedo eliminar las imagenes que lo violan? Y otra cosa, ¿como puedo indicar la licencia de una imagen que ya he subido? Gracias por la ayuda y lo siento otra vez.

I hope it is ok if I answer in English (dime si no entiendes el inglés). In the case of your pictures, if they're actually unfree, there's no way you can make them free. They're just not old enough (I think), and the websites from which you took the picture have absolutely no authority to give you/us any authorization to publish them. They're probably in violation themselves (and they probably don't even know it). --Eusebius (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
To indicate the license of a picture: just apply the proper license tag on it. You have to be sure that it is available under this license, however! In doubt, ask. --Eusebius (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


También quiero añadir, que me puse en contacto con los propietarios de la web donde encontre la la imagen Mherla37.jpg y me dieron permiso para publicarla siempre y cuando no fuera para comercializar con ella, tan solo con fines informativos. ¿Por que la han eliminado si me dejaban ponerla?

To accept this picture, we would need an authorization from the editor of the book. Again, the website on which you found it has no rights over the picture. --Eusebius (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Entiendo el inglés. Gracias por la ayuda proporcionada. A partir de ahora ire con más cuidado a la hora de subir imágenes, asi que siempre subiré imágenes que haga yo mismo. Gracias de nuevo, y lo siento por las imagenes que hayan violado el copyright.

--Raúl Gilabert (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


The deletion is based on the internal statutes of the site here. They are in spanish, but they state that they mention intellectual rights as part of their patrimony (with no mention to any release of rights under a free licence). Somewhere else it states that only the members may use the images, and only with authorization and as long as it isn't "abusive use" (uso indebido). Even more: no matter who this user is or wich position does he hold in the organization, the statues can't be modified except by a meeting of directives in order to do that, so he can't release the rights all by himself.

After checking this, it seemed clear that the site hasn't released the images under a free licence, and that this user does not have the power to do so, so a speedy deletion seems to be the right course of action. I have explained all this to him after deleting the images, in the same time you wrote to me. Belgrano (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. --Eusebius (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for copyright advice, still learning

What Creative Commons licenses can commons materials be in?

And is this a different case from

Thanks! --Bcjordan (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand now. I found: thanks for the heads up --Bcjordan (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on it sounds like CC-BY-SA flickr photos should be fine. Can I undelete? --Bcjordan (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are fine (NC and ND restrictions are not), but the file has been deleted for a different reason, and will not be restored: the Flickr user had no right to release this picture under a free license (or at least, we have absolutely no sign of that). The original artist, Willard Wigan, still has copyright on the picture and we would need a formal authorization from him to consider this file ok. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


Working on the bed of the gave de Pau 5.jpg

Per my lousy mail client - this is what I was on about! I really don't know if it is very interesting. If it is I'll work on it & I have another one too (similar). Thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 15:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what they're doing - maybe preventing the Gave from modifying its route or from becoming too large, I don't know. I've left a word on the talk page of Gave de Pau. Want me to duplicate it on the local Village Pump? --Eusebius (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure - it was getting "silted up" I guess with spring melt water and so they were removing some of the bed of the river in a lorry (which is in another photo).
Do post anywhere you like - it would be good if it were useful to someone. Regards --Herby talk thyme 16:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
First reactions: mostly, they groaned about the image not being categorized and geotagged :-) I'll add the categories they have suggested, I leave the geotag to you. About the subjet, one valuable comment. Rough translation: it doesn't seem to be a gravel exploitation, more probably a river "re-calibration" (what I had supposed) or cleaning works preliminary to the building of a bridge or to the reinforcement of the banks with rocks. --Eusebius (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Pics by User:B4ssf4n

Please help me!! Why do you delet my pics (Chity1.jpg - Chity4.jpg)?? I'm the photographer myself, some pics are from a friend. please help me to declare everything right. I have just tried to fill out the upload form exactly and it still isn't right. I'm despared.... ~~--b4ssf4n

About the pictures taken by your friends: you cannot upload them without them sending us a written formal authorization. The simple way would be: ask them to create their own accounts and upload the pictures themselves as their own work, as you don't have the right to re-license them yourself. About the other pictures: if you took them yourself, why do you mention other people and websites, and why do they bear copyright watermarks from other websites? If you are the photographer, you should be able to upload the original files, in full resolution, as they came out of your camera, and not derivative works taken from third party websites. --Eusebius (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. is my own website!! I will upload pics without watermark now, hope it will be ok this time.--b4ssf4n
Yes, pictures are preferred without watermarks, but here it is more a matter of previous publication. Images already published elsewhere needs a formal authorization (so that they don't get deleted on sight later as copyright violations of your website). If you are the photographer, you can follow the procedure here (please send the e-mail from the contact e-mail of the website to simplify things. When you're not the photographer, we still need an authorization from him before you upload. --Eusebius (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Eyeball vector graphic?


Is there a good eyeball vector graphic that I can use to spruce up thumb|left?

Thanks --Bcjordan (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand your question. --Eusebius (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


What can I do now to lift the block on my account User:Trojan? I'd like to upload new images (it are no screenshots but pictures taken with my digital camera and if I had no block, I would upload them) Do I have to start a new account? Or else: could you upload the pictures for me? 13:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You've been banned. It means you're out, you can't create a new account, you can't contribute anymore. You had it coming, and for a long time. If you have good reasons to request for a block lift, go to COM:AN. But I see no reason why you should be allowed to come back. --Eusebius (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, it was wrong, but please forget it. I have a reason to come back. I have very nice pictures which I want to upload so that they can be used on Wikimedia projects worldwide. Could you please give me some time to let me prove I'm a good user on Commons? 16:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
You don't get me. For me, you have spoiled your last chance and I WILL NOT UNBLOCK YOU. I don't trust you, and many admins won't either. For me, you've been nothing but disruptive to the community and you're banned, full stop. Ask at COM:AN, dont ask me, you have absolutely no chance. --Eusebius (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 
All right, but how can I upload my pictures now? 16:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
YOU CAN'T, YOU'RE BANNED. --Eusebius (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Hansika wiki.jpg

I don't really expect to receive a permission by anyone and I am sure we shall be able to delete it for good by August 29. I had nonimated this one for deletion in the firs place, however I could not ignore the request of the uploader, especially as the photo has detailed EXIF data. Sv1xv (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I leave it to you, but maybe a regular DR would be more appropriate and transparent, if there is a debate over authorship. Anyway, I didn't mean to bother you about it. --Eusebius (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Sv1xv (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Just used one of your images on my blog, Carbon Based

Peloponnese fire.jpg

Dear Eusebius,

I've just used one of your shot of the fires in 2008 in the Pelopponese in my blog, Carbon Based, which focuses on climate change adaptation. Many thanks for making this great image available.

The URL is :

All the best, Brian Thomas

Hi, thanks for the notice. Glad to see that even that picture can be useful :-) --Eusebius (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Zeiss photos

This is my friend in Hungary. The tools of her sin. But if you want it sent approval. I write that do not use illegal pictures. opticalmicroscope.jpg Rajzok01.jpg is from my personal book. --Tamasflex (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. For the pictures from your friend: we need an authorization e-mail from him, see COM:OTRS. For the pictures from the catalogue: we need the same kind of permission e-mail, but from Zeiss, unless it can be shown that the artist died before 1938.
Automatic translation in Magyar: Szia. A képek a barátod: szükségünk van a felhatalmazást e-mailt neki, lásd COM:OTRS. A képeket a katalógusból: szükségünk van az azonos jellegű engedélyt e-mailben, de a Zeiss, hacsak nem lehet bizonyítani, hogy a művész előtt meghalt 1938.
Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Please reply to my email to see your personal address and send the approval my friend in Hungary.
The address to which you should send the permission is: (do not send them to my address). E-mails can be sent in any language, but Magyar is probably "risky" but there are several Hungarian volunteers.
Please do not delete pictures!
They will be deleted after 7 days if there is no permission, but they can be restored if necessary.
On Zeiss book is a book published in 1927 and is owned.
Owning the book does not give rights over the pictures, and unfortunately 1927 is not old enough for the book to be "automatically" in the public domain.
If you write the Zeiss company but do not know if I receive an answer.
I want to make a more ample work on microscopes, with more pictures, use all my means of knowledge to do anything further.
Are always locked to finish well.
On Tavcso_mikroszkop.jpg have written approval from that page.
The mention to see the link page.
If you read carefully my "User talk"
you will see that using personal photos or pictures from friends.
I have mentioned I do with optical pictures downloaded from the net.
If I write something pictures to friends and send to me.
My friends have such devices.
Once again please do not delete photos until no more clear that changes the page on Wikipedia.
Too bad they do not know speak English.
I use translator.--Tamasflex (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, thank you for your contributions. I hope we get a permission from Zeiss. About the pictures from your friends, it shouldn't be too difficult, there is a "standard" permission message here (many translations, but not Magyar, sorry). Please tell me when a permission e-mail is sent. And in any case, if you have a question or a problem, please ask. --Eusebius (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Where to send pictures from my friend's approval?


I expect to send your email address. I wrote the company Zeiss, wait response. It is uncommon for a book of 82 years that you can not use pictures. This book appeared in thousands of copies. I do not think Zeiss company to answer a question like a minor. Basically advertise the company Zeiss. Please let the pictures there until receiving approval from the company Zeiss.

Copyright last until 70 years after the death of the creator (that's why he must have died before 1938). Zeiss may answer that they do not consider these illustrations protected... It would be good. Otherwise, another admin will decide whether it is ok or not, but I think they will be deleted in the end. But they will be kept about 1 month, maybe more. Do you want me to try to contact a Zeiss branch? --Eusebius (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ps: I struggle to do something and all are blocked. The system is not good. Once you link pictures of origin should not be problem. Wikipedia is not a business page. Photos loaded on the page is not lost for those pages where they were unloaded. Wikipedia must fight to use any pictures for people without education or approved by anyone. If you have a car and summers require approval to sell the company to photograph? Too bad they do not know speak English. I can not express myself well.--Tamasflex (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand you well enough... Just one point: Wikipedia must use only free content. Useful content is not always free of rights, and unfortunately they must be avoided. --Eusebius (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


Irena Pavlic.JPG

Here a new image of Irén Pavlics. Doncsecz (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You took it yourself? --Eusebius (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes. On Sunday visited to us. Doncsecz (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your work. --Eusebius (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)



Hi Eusebius!

I e-maild permissions from authors to ''. I did not hear back from permissions-commons. The page said I could ask a volunteer to look into it and kind of do a follow up.

Would you please do it for me?

I'm working on the "László Marton" article. Thank you, Dvornicsek (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I will try to have a look but I don't have much time for OTRS stuff these days. For each picture for which you have sent a permission e-mail, you can put a {{OTRS pending}} tag in the "permission" field. I will tell Commons admin to wait for the e-mails to be processed by an OTRS agent. The processing of a permission e-mail can take up to one month, please be patient. --Eusebius (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Dvornicsek (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Are this images logos?

Español: ¿Son copyvio las imágenes File:Aeotelevision.jpg y File:Aeroports de Paris logoo svg.png? Gracias

--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 23:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Si, claro. --Eusebius (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


salut, oui je me suis aperçu hier que les redirections ne marchaient pas ces pour cela que je les ai retirer et j'ai laissé vide les articles mal nommés.

--Parisdreux (d) 12:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Olivia Wilde

Olivia Wilde as thirteen.jpg

This file has watermrk; the new version that I've uploaded hasn't it. However I can't understood the reason of this modify: Cropbot has deleted watermarks, cropping the file. --DostoHouskij (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted this upload because it was not only the removal of a watermark, but also a severe crop of the background, thus making the derivative a different picture. The original should remain accessible, with the original background. Now there are two versions of the image, one without watermark but with a cropped background, and one with the full background but with a watermark that cannot be removed by cropping. I have nothing against the picture you've uploaded (thanks for your work, it's probably the most usable in an article), it's just that we should keep a version with the original background. I hope you understand. --Eusebius (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
ok, I understand (excuse me, I'm only an en-2) --DostoHouskij (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


Bonjour j'ai uploadé des dessins personnels, et j'ai mis comme source travail personnel mais ça ne vous suffit pas. Qu'est-ce que je dois mettre alors ? --Jerem115 (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Les doutes sont principalement motivés par la différence des styles (et le fait que nous recevons quotidiennement une quantité considérables d'oeuvres protégées sur lesquelles l'uploader a simplement mis "own work" dessus). Si les travaux ont déjà été publiés, une autorisation OTRS serait la bienvenue et éclaircirait la situation. Dans tous les cas, je vous invite à vérifier qu'ils entrent bien dans le cadre du projet Commons. --Eusebius (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Qu'est-ce que je dois faire pour que vous annuliez la suppression de mes dessins alors ?
Je viens de vous le dire... Avez-vous lu les pages que je vous ai pointées (Commons:OTRS/fr en particulier) ? Que n'avez-vous pas compris ? --Eusebius (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Mais je vais pas envoyé d'email alors que se sont mes dessins ?!! Ils n'ont pas encore été publié, je les met et vous trouvez toujours quelque chose à me reprocher alors que ces dessins sont de moi ! Toute ma galerie est de moi !

Cette procédure a été mise en place pour éviter que quelqu'un d'autre ne publie des reproductions de vos oeuvres sous votre nom sans votre autorisation. Elle est là pour protéger votre droit d'auteur. Si vous refusez de respecter les règles du projet Commons en la matière, vos images seront supprimées par précaution. --Eusebius (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"No clear sign of copyvio"

File:Gotta stand up.jpg
—"I'm flashing and shooting at the same time."

Isn't the fact that the uploader claims to be both the author ("own work") and the subject ("yeah, that's me showing the guys what a girl is capable of") a clear sign of copyvio? How could her shoot the picture at the same time she shows the guys what a girl is capable of? --Damiens.rf 20:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good idea: let's give the arguments after the DR is closed, it's the useful way. If you have elements showing that the subject lying about being the photographer is more probable than than the photographer lying about being the subject, please share them with us in a DR. But please don't harass the closing admin on his personal talk page. --Eusebius (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Why did you choose to be ironic and attack me instead of replying to my simples question? --Damiens.rf 16:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Why did you choose to discuss a deletion request in such an unrelated place? It is not a matter between you and me, if you have further elements which might motivate a deletion, express them in a deletion request. --Eusebius (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
That "further element" was so obvious that I expected any competent admin would take it into account. Not please stop being such a lazy bureaucrat and delete the file. --Damiens.rf 12:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not here to obey your orders. Speedy deletion is out of question, read the deletion policy again (my answer to your argument is as justified as your remark). You know how to file a DR, so please leave me alone. --Eusebius (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


The stable server restoration from backup this week had some side-effects. The crontabs are gone (will rewrite it tomorrow) and my qicvic project access was gone too. I got my access back, but since crontab is gone the bots didn't run. It's late here now (and you are out of the country as well, right?). I just ran qicbot manually. Will do the same for vicbot. --Dschwen (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be away for a few days, yes, and I can't do much, botwise. I'll have a look at it next week, thanks for the notice. --Eusebius (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not very helpful here. --Eusebius (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Trumpet mouthpiece.jpg

Salut, j'avais pourtant bien indiqué à l'époque (et elle y est toujours) la source dans la page de l'image : "Source: Wikipedia in English". Il faut savoir qu'à l'époque il n'y avait pas encore le modèle {{Information}} pour les images. Effectivement quand tu vas sur la page du wiki anglais il n'y a plus rien mais tu peux voir dans l'historique des chargements de février 2003 la ligne suivante : 22:44 Feb 23, 2003 w:User:Nevilley uploaded "w:File:Tpt-mpiece-side-large.jpg" (Trumpet mouthpiece side view large). Voilà, maintenant tu as la source et l'auteur. À toi de voir ce que tu veux faire et de pousser un peu l'enquête éventuellement. ex-Caesius alias Damouns 07:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour, merci de ton message. Non, rien de tout ça ne dit qui est l'auteur. Qui est l'auteur ? --Eusebius (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Heu... w:User:Nevilley. Bon, c'est pas grave, c'est pas vraiment une image sur la présence de laquelle je m'étais beaucoup investi. Bonne continuation ! Damouns 12:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Ben non. Il a uploadé l'image, certes, mais il n'a jamais déclaré en être l'auteur. Elle est sans source depuis son téléchargement sur en:WP, et aurait dû être supprimée depuis belle lurette ! Désolé ! --Eusebius (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Magic Software.jpg's permission still unconfirmed

Magic Software.jpg

Hello, Eusebius. The file linked to in the above header has been marked with {{OTRS received}}, but there has been no complete confirmation of its permission status in the last 30 days. From what I'm able to tell, you were the person who added this template. Would you mind taking a look at this again? If confirmation cannot be found, this file should probably be marked for deletion. This should be the only notification you will receive regarding this image, so long as the comment I added to the image description page is not altered. Thanks! HersfoldOTRSBot(talk/opt out) 16:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are not an OTRS volunteer or did not add the "received" template to this file, it's possible I made a mistake identifying the correct user. I look for the most recent diff where the template was added, so if you reverted an edit where this template was removed, I can't tell the difference. If this is the case, please let my operator know at w:en:User talk:Hersfold. Sorry for the inconvenience!

  • ✓ Done --Eusebius (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Looks like {{PD-textlogo}} to me. Do you mind if I restore it and open a DR for it, so we can get more opinions on this? –Tryphon 18:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually the copyright holder himself opted for WP-based fair use, therefore I don't push for undeletion, but you can file a UDEL request if you wish so. I think it is borderline for PD-textlogo but I would not oppose. --Eusebius (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Spanish-speaking admin needed

Hi Eusebius. I've evaluated the block and I've unblocked him. I assume good faith and I'll have special attention with the user. Au revoir :) Rastrojo (DES) 15:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Image du Loch Ness sur QIC

The Loch Ness and Urquhart castle.jpg

Bonjour Guillaume,
au sujet de ta photo The Loch Ness and Urquhart castle.jpg sur la page QI candidates:
j'ai tourné l'image de 0,5° CCW et c'est beaucoup mieux (je pense).... et la tour du château devient quasiment droite.
La particule de poussière est en haut à gauche, juste à gauche du petit nuage sombre (il y a deux petits nuages sombres à cet endroit). La tache n'est pas visible sans agrandissement, mais elle apparaît distinctement sous un agr. de 200%.
Si tu 'corriges' ces deux petites choses, je vais promouvoir cette image, qui me plaît.
Meilleures salutations, Claude, --Cayambe (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Salut, merci pour tes remarques. Pour le tilt je vais recréer l'image avec ta suggestion (mais pas tout de suite), c'est vrai que la ligne de côte va dans le mauvais sens. Pour la particule de poussière, si je t'ai compris, je pense que c'est un oiseau (ça n'a pas la taille habituelle d'une particule de poussière, et je ne la retrouve pas sur les autres photos de la série). Je peux le virer, mais je ne suis pas un grand chasseur :-) -Eusebius (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, c'est que c'est donc très probablement un oiseau. J'attends donc le tilt pour la promotion. --Cayambe (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done --Eusebius (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Children's cartoons

Dear Admin Eusebius,

Are children's cartoons considered out of scope or unencyclopedic? I made a comment in this DR by you. Commons has a category here for other images of children's cartoons. I was just looking at the image from a child's perspective. I thank you for any reply which you can give and only hope that someone will use the images I post on my own userpage one day. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have seen your remark on the DR, and made no further comments because I simply had nothing to add, what you said makes sense (I wouldn't push for or against deletion, actually). However, I'm not sure it is a children cartoon, and I don't even understand the meaning of the cartoon (but maybe I'm not the target audience, as you said). It would help to have the author explain the meaning and aim of the cartoon, so that it can be assessed whether it is in scope. --Eusebius (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I suppose it would help if the author gave an explanation here on the meaning of the cartoon. I thought it was fun for children...but of course, it is not a big deal to me whether the image file is kept or deleted. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if the author is Roger Flament (as this image would suggest), then it would be in scope by being a drawing of a notable artist. But of course, we need an OTRS ticket to confirm Jerem115's identity. –Tryphon 14:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Picture sourcing

hi I am not getting how to add source in to picture file. please tell me how to do. thanks Arun.punnathatta (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Who took the original picture of this file? Where id you get it from? Same questions about File:AKG.jpg (it was DEFINITELY NOT taken in 2003, subject died in 1977). --Eusebius (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi I agree that Com. AKG died in 1977. and Com. EK.Nayanar in 2004. We being party workers, were using Com. AKG's photos for so many years. There was no Copy rights/Source Informations added with that. I scanned and copied a party notice to create this file, I still remember. Same in the case of Com. E.K. Nayanar also. Nobody will never check for the copyright/source information of these files, i believe. Another problem is that, I am doing all this in the small intervals which I am getting in office. So I didnt read the full conditions for uploading a file. One more thing is that I am not getting any idea of using the codes while editing all these things. That are confusing me a lot. Thanks for your reply.

Arun.punnathatta (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

So the conclusion is, for these two files: you are not the photographer, therefore you have absolutely no right to release them under a free license in your name and declare that you have taken them, sorry! You can say that only when you are the creator of the original work. Somebody else has copyright over them, even if you don't know who. And Commons cares about that.
About the codes: I'm not sure what you're talking about, but if you're talking about the wiki syntax, you were doing things ok in the first place. If you have specific questions on how to do something, please ask. --Eusebius (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that I dont know who took that photos. And I have never seen anybody talking about the license of these photos. So according to you, we cant upload these photos at any circumstances, under any name, (I dont care about my name)??? I entered my name just because it was continuously asking that. We believe that these leaders are leaders of the whole country and I dont know whether anybody is having copyright over their photos. Anyway I am surrendering. I dont know who took those photos. You can delete those photos now itself. No need to keep it for 7 days. Thanks.

About codes, I was mentioning about the syntax itself. in case of any further upload I will ask for help.


Arun.punnathatta (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That's right, it's not possible to upload pictures for which we don't know the copyright status. When no information about the copyright status of a picture is available, the international default is "copyrighted - all rights reserved". This is why it is not possible, for instance, to upload pictures just grabbed from a random website on the internet: it would be a violation of copyright, unless there is a compatible release statement from the owner. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, so by all means, those files are ready for deletion??? If the party committee which issued that document agrees for copying that photo, we can use it here??? Or if the authority of the site ( agrees, we can use it??? Because, for us, party supporters, these photos are open to all, we never thought of these international laws... Sorry for all these troubles. And thank you for your cooperation.

Arun.punnathatta (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

To use a file, we need a permission from the copyright holder. If the party declares that they hold copyright over those pictures, maybe because they were taken by a party member on duty, the party member could send a permission, yes. But they should know who took the picture and when, otherwise you understand that it is an ungrounded claim. --Eusebius (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me my friend, I did a mistake by uploading these photos... I am really sorry. Who remembers about the 40 years old photographs.

Arun.punnathatta (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That's ok, honestly I think that a permission e-mail from the party could be accepted, you should try. --Eusebius (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to contact leaders. If possible I will get photos with "copy left". Thanks

Arun.punnathatta (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


By mistake, I have proposed the deletion of a file you already have deleted. (File:TheEnd.jpg). Now in the page is a deletion notice box for a file that doesnt exist. And i have created an unuseful deletion request page. I apologize for my stupidity. If you could repar this... - Echani (talk) 09:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the page and closed the DR. No big deal. –Tryphon 10:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Shit happens! Thanks Tryphon. --Eusebius (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Photos by User:Gorritxiki

Pottokak Munaindin.jpg

This photo was made by the uploader himself:

Please remove the "Missing permission" template. Merci. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the info. I'm just waiting for a confirmation from him. --Eusebius (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Eusebius! Yes, my name is Antxon Gomez I Think that you see same problems with my pictures. Por lo visto sabes algo de castellano y prefiero usarlo para explicarme mejor. ¿Los problemas que has detectado con mis imagenes pueden ser devidos a que los permisos estaban escritos en euskara (vasco)? De todas formas enviaré un email con los email de los grupos que que autorizaban a Wikipedia el uso de las imagenes de sus respectivas WEB sin límites. Otros casos se me hacen más extraños, ya que las imágenes colocadas eran propias. Un saludo--Gorritxiki (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Gorritxiki

Hi, thanks for the confirmation. Please allow me to answer in English, I can read Castillan pretty well but I'm afraid my writing is terrible. Euskara should be ok (although I guess very few of us can read it), the problem is that the permissions should be sent by the copyright holders to the OTRS system ( instead of being displayed on the image pages. This is to protect them and keep a secure record of their permission statement. Thanks in advance, --Eusebius (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


You deleted two of my pictures. I would like to know why! I am in the middle of the permit process. I sent an official e-mail/standard form from the author to wikimedia commons on August 26, 2009 3:04 AM. So I am waiting for the reply. As I did with all of my photos. And I am slowly getting all the permissions. AS you might as well see on the page. So why delete these two??? Dvornicsek (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, four were deleted: File:TheWildDuck4.JPG, File:Vanya.soulpepper.jpg, File:Platonov.2.Soulpepper.jpg and File:Platonov.Soulpepper.jpg, and the reason for it is stated in the deletion summary. This is because (as far as I can see) you didn't respond to my last message on the ticket number 2009082510036278. It could be a mistake, however: I might not have received your e-mail if you sent it without replying to my message (without keeping the ticket number in the subject). I will send you a reminder message from this ticket. Please send the permissions again (by replying to my e-mail), or point me to another e-mail that you might have sent. The files can be restored once we get the permissions. --Eusebius (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!
I got it! Understood! Dvornicsek (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, me too... You've multiplicated tickets, it's a mess in the system! I'll sort it out (for these files at least). Please, please, please don't do this again... --Eusebius (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


Hi, Eusebius. I guess you'd better mention it to Darkcat21, the guy who originally posted the file on Commons. Which I did was only a minor edit to the original file. Thanks anyway.--Eurotuber (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, didn't check that. The javascript code automatically notifies the latest uploader. Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for our mistakes

Ajrabarni Rajkanya.jpg

Now we understand how to apply dates on the photo. At this moment, we are editing dated on the images we upload. Sorry for our mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monarchians (talk • contribs) 06:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC) (UTC) "We"? Who's "we"? Is it a collective account? Do you realize how problematic it is for authorship issues? You cannot credit a collective account for all your stock of photographs! --Eusebius (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not know how to edit our images we've uploaded!!!! I do not know how to source the images because these come from our scanning. If you could, could you help us editing these image sources. very thanks.
You must understand that scanning a picture does not give you any right to release it under a free license. What you must provide is the identity of the original photographer and the date of the original photography. Only the copyright holder of the picture has the right to publish them. If you know the author of some pictures, please add the info to the image pages. If you know the date of a historical pictures (those in black and white), please add it! If you only have coarse information about the date of a historical picture (for instance, "before 19xx", because the guy on the picture died in 19xx), add it as well, it might help proving (in some cases) that the original picture is free of rights. In any case: the date on the image page should not be the date at which you scanned the picture, nor the date at which you uploaded it. Only the date of creation of the original photograph (or "unknown", or coarse date information as I said). Furthermore, the "author" field shouldn't be your account name, unless there is a single person behind this account and this person is the creator of the original picture. "Unknown" is better than your account name (although it doesn't help much, it gives less deceptive information).
About your account in itself: if it is a collective account, it should at least be clearly explained on the user page, and never used in the "author" field (unless a file is truly a collective work).
Finally, do not remove problem tags when you add info to an image page.
I hope things are clearer! --Eusebius (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It would be most useful if you could point me to explanations on how to translate the dates. We'll be unable to assess the copyright status of the files if we don't have the date in the western calendar. --Eusebius (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
If I edit all correct, will the problem tags removed?, if false somewhere, tell me immediately, Thank you.
I will leave the "no source" tag on each file which is not for sure in the public domain, even if you provide the author: it will mean that "the source does not guarantee that the file is in the public domain". For instance, when the photograph was taken after 1900 and we don't know when the author died. I will remove the tag from every file whose copyright status is now ok. --Eusebius (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You can apply {{PD-Thailand}} to any photograph taken before 1958. That should save most of the "historical" set. --Eusebius (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Can we apply the {{Royal Thai images}} to any photographs also?
1) Can you point me to the statement where it is said that pictures of the royal household taken by officers etc. are released under a Creative Commons license? 2) No, non-commercial and non-derivative restrictions are not acceptable on Commons. --Eusebius (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Most of the images of the members of the Royal family, even the celebrations and the official ceremonies are taken by the officers, so that is the reason I think that I can apply this template. And what types of the licence do you think it should be in the template?
What gives you the right to decide that on behalf of the Bureau of the Royal Household? Only them can do that. --Eusebius (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't you think that we are from the royal household? And is there some problem of sources of the images anymore. If has tell us immediately. So we will edit them at once. Thank you for your suggestion. We are so pleasure to have an advice from you.

(indent reset) No, I had absolutely no idea about that! If you represent the royal household, then you can send a permission e-mail (with a statement in this form) to (from an official e-mail address so we can identify you) so that the Wikimedia foundation can certify that the license template that you propose is valid. This e-mail would remain confidential (as well as the originating e-mail address), and stored on our secure server. If you want to do that, I would suggest that you choose either a CC-BY or a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Both are accepted on Commons and suitable for photographs. You can also release the works in the public domain directly, or choose another license from COM:L. If we can sort that out, it will be much easier to "clean" your uploads. By the same means (OTRS e-mail), it can be certified that your Commons account represents a given public entity, if you wish to make this identity public (it would facilitate the upload of pictures with simply the authority as the source, otherwise Commons contributors might consider them as missing a source).

If you want to send this e-mail in English, I'd be glad to take care of it myself. You can also send it in Thai language, but it will be longer, since there obviously are few volunteers speaking Thai.

I hope my explanations are clear enough. --Eusebius (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for your suggestions. If there are some problems about our uploading or else. We are going to contact you. Note: about the representing the bureau, I just asked, not confirmed where we from. Sorry for your convenience. Thank you.
OK, I understand it was a hypothetic question. --Eusebius (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello again, I have editd the author and source of the problem images already. You can remove the tag from the files and better check them if incorrect something. Thank you.
From what I have seen, all photographs posterior to 1958 are still to be deleted, I'm afraid. Besides, I haven't look at all your images yet. --Eusebius (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


Pero era una imágen propia ¿o no?

--Ánforas 15:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No, en el sentido que no eres el creador del diseño original, que es protegido. No es posible hacer una copia de un logotipo y pretender que es una creacion propia. --Eusebius (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, bien, ya entendí. Gracias. --Ánforas 21:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Copyvio spotting

Desculpe, por escrever em português meu inglês é fraco. O usuário que carregou as imagens não é o autor delas, as imagens pertencem as emissoras de televisão do Brasil: Rede Globo, Rede Record e Sistema Brasileiro de Televisão. Uma das imagens foi retirada do site da revista Isto É. Cumprimentos. Fabiano msg 21:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, but when there's an {{OTRS pending}} template, it means that the uploader has obtained the permission from the copyright holders and forwarded it to the Wikimedia Foundation. If it is not true, be sure that it is taken care about in the end. "Missing permission" is to be used when the permission e-mail needs to be sent. --Eusebius (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Other photos uploaded by Gorritxiki

Hi! I made some changes here, here and here. Would you please remove the "missing permission" templates? On the other hand, you can delete this one, because it's duplicated. Merci. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your work, but no, sorry. The owner of the website only gave a right of reproduction. This is very different from a public domain release, and is not enough for Commons (it covers neither republication, modification nor commercial use). --Eusebius (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The author says this: "LAS FOTOGRAFÍAS MOSTRADAS EN ESTA PÁGINA SON PROPIEDAD DEL AUTOR, Y PUEDEN REPRODUCIRSE LIBREMENTE SIN NECESIDAD DE AUTORIZACIÓN Y SIN LIMITACIÓN ALGUNA". Those three last words are "without any limitation". Why do you say he gaves only a right of reproduction? --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Because "sin limitacion alguna" applies to "reproducirse". --Eusebius (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, OK, maybe you're right... Cheers. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I've sent an e-mail to the author of those photos, asking him about the licence. Let's see if he answers... I'll tell you. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
OK. He appears to be in good dispositions, it would be nice if he could agree to a Creative Commons release (or anything acceptable here). --Eusebius (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

He answered very positively :-) He's going to add a CC-BY or a CC-BY-SA licence in his web. Let's wait a little bit. Au revoir!--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks a lot! --Eusebius (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Eusebius! Look at this ;-) --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice! Three files updated. --Eusebius (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I left this one also. Thank's. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done --Eusebius (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


the image Ian+jackieb.jpg was photographed by my assistant for our production of Alfred Jarry's Supermale in 1985 at the Theatre Resource Center, and has been solely in my possession since then. Jackie Burroughs and myself Ian A. Wallace agree to have the photo be released as public domain.-- 07:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Two remarks first: please be logged when writing on a talk page, and don't use "own work" statements for works that you didn't create yourself. Since your assistant (Jackie Burroughs?) is the photographer, we need a formal permission from him to release the picture under a free license. If you consider that taking a picture was part of his professional duties and that there was a transfer of rights to the employer (only if there is such a clause in his contract), please send us such a permission as the employer with the corresponding elements. The procedure for sending a permission is described here and an example e-mail is proposed here. Thanks in advance, --Eusebius (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
If you leave your session idle, you can be logged out without warning (unless you were in the middle of an edit, in which case you may get a warning when you try to save it). Brian Jason Drake 07:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Eusebius, you added a warning to Ian A. Wallace's talk page about the file missing source information. It was not missing; it was just wrong and stated in the wrong way (an "own work" statement instead of {{own}}). Perhaps that confusing warning led him to add source information to Template:Own/doc, which I reverted?

The "missing source" message is used for various purposes, and notably when the authorship of the picture is dubious. I have proposed to use a new tag and message, but there has not been any consensus for it so far. --Eusebius (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Eusebius, a glance at Ian A. Wallace's contributions suggests that many other files have the same problem as this one (at the very least, they have "own work" statements instead of {{own}}), though nothing appears to have been done about this yet; you are clearly better qualified to help him with this than me! Brian Jason Drake 07:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look... --Eusebius (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)



Hi Eusebius. Could you tell me the problem with this pic? It's only a coin; it needn't copyright nor licence, it's free domain. I wait for your answer, have a nice day --Manu (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have answered you by e-mail because I hadn't seen your message here. Feel free to continue conversation here if you have questions. --Eusebius (talk) 09:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi again. I don't understand what you say, I mean, I choose the pic as my own work, because it's a photo of a coin that is mine. The author and designer are included in the information (Bank of Spain and Madrid's Mint). In the other hand, when I choose the licence I select the last one: Public Domain or GFDL. The Spanish legislation doesn't accept coins or banknotes in pesetas as a registered property. Only there's a European directive that says the national side has copyright, but this is with euros, not pesetas. I wait for your answer, regards --Manu (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. About Euros and Pesetas: yes, you're right, that's what I meant. It is irrelevant here anyway. About the issue: maybe it's a simple misunderstanding. Who took the photographs? --Eusebius (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Me. That pics are from my own collection. Anyway, I've just telephoned to the Madrid's Mint legal departament, and they've told me that it's totally forbidden publicate pics of banknotes at the original size, although it's indicate the note SPECIMEN. Pics of coins can be publicated, because in this law (Ley 13/1994, de 1 de junio. Autonomía del Banco de España) in it's 4th section, article 15, paragraph 4, only talks about facsimile reproductions, and a facsimile reproduction of a coin it's impossible, because you need metal and a mint to do that.--Manu (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, that wasn't clear, from the file description, that you were the photographer. Everything's ok then, we should just update the file descriptions (for now it looks like the photographs are from the Mint). Sorry for the inconvenience! --Eusebius (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Nope... I really can tell you they are pics of mine. The Madrid'd mint hasn't got pics publicated. The Bank of Spain has (, you can see them in this link, but only the 1999 series, as information. Moreover, in the Legal Advice of the Bank of Spain it's told that the information (pics, texts, etc.) can be used and publicated, if the result has not economic affairs, and it's told the font (in the description the font is included: Bank of Spain and Madrid's mint) and as you know, wikipedia has not an economic intention. This is the text in Spanish of what I say: "Cuando la información se incorpore a documentos u otros medios que vayan a ser vendidos o cedidos de forma no gratuita, la persona física o jurídica que la publique o difunda bajo cualquier soporte, deberá informar a los compradores y/o cesionarios, que la información puede ser obtenida libre de cargo a través del sitio Web del Banco de España, tanto antes de que paguen cualquier suscripción o precio, como cada vez que pongan a su disposición la información tomada del sitio Web del Banco de España." So, to finish... do I have to complete the description, or can you fix the problem?--Manu (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(indent reset) The problem is fixed, just try to make it clear in the future when you're the photographer (sorry again for the misunderstanding). About the "economic affairs", just for information, any content uploaded on Commons should be under a license that allows any usage, including commercial (because Wikipedia DOES have commercial activities, like selling hardopies of the encyclopaedia). Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Chernobyl State in memory of herois. On Meeteeno Chemestry.jpg

Author it uploader... --Fredy.00 (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Author is Kopchiowski O.P., uploader is User:Okman, and I haven't found any sign that they're the same person. If you know about such a statement, please point me to it! Side note: I'm sure the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias have standard procedures for moving files to Commons. Following them is necessary to both preserve the original information about the pictures and get a well-formed image page once on Commons. --Eusebius (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Ukraine has no FOP anyway, so whoever the author of the picture is, this image is not free. –Tryphon 10:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Pics I've nominated for speedy delition


Hi. All pictures uploaded by User:R.M.A, was used in the article in The page contained only Publicities about a none-notable Iranian bussiness company. (note that the page has been deleted 5 times) It seems the user is trying to use commons as a picture sharing website. so I nominate them for speedy delition. I was trying to help, not Vandalism. maybe I didn't mention the reason clearly. Is it "A page that falls outside of Commons' scope."? Amirreza (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have anything against the fact that you nominated these files for deletion. What I said is 1) when nominating a file for deletion, do not remove the existing info, and 2) when it's not 100% obvious, regular deletion requests are better than speedy deletions because it leaves some room for people to explain and argue. In the light of what you say, I'd like to add that whereas the logo should probably be deleted, the two photographs do not seem to be a problem in themselves: the problem is on fa:WP with the re-creation of the article you're talking about, but the pictures in themselves could probably be used in a non-controversial context. They're not attack pictures, they apparently do not break any copyright... Another point: it is not ok to create a WP article about a not-so-notable company, but adding media about it on Commons is ok. The scope of the two projects are a bit different. --Eusebius (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
1) Got it. I thought it is like deleting articles in Wikipedia. 2) OK. I see. Thanks for learning these points. I guess Its better to tell you these cases, not to act myself! :-) Amirreza (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Please don't refrain from nominating files for deletion when you think it is necessary, a deletion request can be closed if there's no need to delete. --Eusebius (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Photos uploaded by User:Gorritxiki (once again)

Hi, Eusebius. This morning you deleted these three photos: File:Euskal oiloa ZILARRA barietateko OILARRA.jpg, File:Terreña zezena1.jpg and File:Pottoka burua.jpg. I wonder if the author was Jose Maria Plazaola, because he gave the correct permission, as Gorritxiki showed me by e-mail. You can chek it in this photo: File:Euskal oiloa BELTZA barietateko OILARRA.jpg. I'm afraid there are more photos of the same photographer with the "No permission" template yet, as this one: File:Betizu koba.JPG. What do you think about it? --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The permissions have not to be shown anywhere on the wiki, but sent by e-mail to the OTRS system. The images from Mr Plazaola that I've deleted were the ones not covered by the e-mail received by the foundation (unless the OTRS agent has made a mistake, which is still possible). Those images can be restored when a permission e-mail is sent about them. NB: when a permission e-mail is sent about an image, putting {{OTRS pending}} in the permission field prevents them from getting deleted (at least for a reasonable time). As soon as I'm told (here would be fine) that a permission e-mail has been sent for a set of pictures, I'll restore them with the corresponding template. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I already told him about the {{OTRS pending}} template, but he didn't pay attention... I thought that the permission he sent via OTRS was for every photo made by that Plazaola... grgrgr... I'll speak with him again... Bye! --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Eusebius! Gorritxiki told me that he has sent the right permission for these files: File:Betizu koba.JPG, File:Euskal oiloa ZILARRA barietateko OILARRA.jpg, File:Terreña zezena1.jpg, File:Zarikieta zezena.jpg, and File:Betizu arriskuan irukia.jpg. Could you please check it, and restore them if everything is OK? Thank's! --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll wait for a Spanish-speaking OTRS volunteer to process the OTRS ticket, but I'll restore the files in the meantime. Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Fernando azevedo 759

Hi Eusebius, as all uploads of Fernando azevedo 759 (talk · contribs) have been found to be copyvios, I would like to increase his block to 3 days, if you don't mind. --Túrelio (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This wouldn't be my first choice, since it is apparently the first batch of uploads by this user. I usually start at 1 day, even for copyvios, unless there are aggravating circumstances. However, I'll not make a scandal if you increase the block to 3 days with an explanation on his talk page. --Eusebius (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems we have a sock-puppet: Ricardo azeveldo (talk · contribs). --Túrelio (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
No mercy then (except for the main account). I leave it to you? You want me to get involved? --Eusebius (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
After tagging the new uploads as cv, I've simply put a sock-puppet-template on the second account (without blocking him). Seems he stopped then. We'll have to keep an eye on him. --Túrelio (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Unknown languaje

In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Korolev Ivan.JPG you exchanged some words with another user in a languaje that I don't know. The deletion request is old and should be closed, but I would need to know what did he say to understand the whole thing. Can you translate his quote into english? If possible, a direct translation would be better than a "S-Serge says that...", to avoid possible misunderstandings. Belgrano (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've added an automatic translation to the page (was Russian). --Eusebius (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Www3cubed for Richard Rappaport - artist

Potiphar s Wife 1970 07.jpg

Hi Eusebius,

I've sent an email to permissions with a scan of Richard's, ( ), handwritten letter granting permission to post the photos of his work. Thank you for your help. Www3cubed Www3cubed (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

OK! --Eusebius (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Eusebius - I've finished uploading the non-titled versions but have one problem. With File:Rabbi Paris 1968 www copy 30 .jpg, I cannot get the thumbnail on Richard Rappaport to update to the new untitled file. Thanks, Www3cubed (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I see the thumbnail normally. --Eusebius (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes but the thumnail, which has writing - "Rabbi" - does not match the JPEG which has no writing. The image Name is the same in the thumbnail and JPEG. Www3cubed (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have any answer to that! --Eusebius (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My Picture


Estimado, subi una fotografia que me pertenece al wiki y puse las licencias de CC. Aun asi me dice tu mensaje que estas no estan especificadas, me podrias explicar que esta erroneo? Muchas Gracias

Mr. I uploaded the image witch licence its mine. The picture is mine and I put under the Chilean law that it is a public domin and then under CreativeCommons the type of licence. So. Can you help me to find what is missing? I think I did it right. What is missing? Thanks --crokis.chile

Hi, please allow me to reply in English (but you can write in Spanish, no problem). There might be a confustion just because you put "The Band" in the source field. Did you take the photograph yourself? PS: please limit yourself to on-wiki communication (talk pages, not e-mail) when you can. --Eusebius (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry about the email. I received one saying I can contact you both ways. Sorry. I'm a bands friend working with them, and the picture was taken by one of the members. I can use that image for any use and the anyone can use it too. There is no problem with that. So is not a good label "From the Band", what is a good way to say the author? Do yo want to upload to Flickr and then put a link to the usage over there? Thanks, again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crokis.chile (talk • contribs) 01:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

"From a band member" is probably a proper value for the source field, but then the "problem tag" applies: Commons needs a written authorization from the photographer, because he is the copyright holder. Since you know them, there should be no problem, only a little procedure: could you ask the photographer to send an e-mail to with a permission in the form of this one (here is the Spanish version), specifying the release license? This is what is meant by "missing permission". Thanks in advance! --Eusebius (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and PD-Chile was not applicable to this case, it is not for releasing a work into the public domain, only for works that are in the public domain for a reason stated in law (like when the author has been dead for 70 years). --Eusebius (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, give me a couple of days and everything will be ok, Thanks. No PD-Chile and the form filled. Thanks.

Already sent the email, how can I know if everything its ok? and delete the notice you post? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crokis.chile (talk • contribs) 17:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

When you have sent the permission e-mail for a given picture, you can add {{OTRS pending}} in the permission field of the image page, and the image shouldn't be deleted (unless the permission is not ok). I'll do that for you. About the e-mail itself, it can take a while before it gets actually checked. --Eusebius (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crokis.chile (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Undeletion request File:Ulrich Ilg 01.jpg

Ulrich Ilg 01.jpg

Hello Eusebius! Could you please undelete the above portrait (you deleted it in May due to missing permission). We have recieved a permission (ticket 2009081810013271) in permissions-commons-de. I will correct the license/OTRS-ticket-info soon afterwards. Nillerdk (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, restored with {{OTRS received}}, please confirm permission on the image page. --Eusebius (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I have changed the template accordingly. Nillerdk (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Krásný_Dvůr_-_šerm.JPG & File:Československo_–_.......jpg

Československo – 222222.jpg

Cant your explain, why im need persmision to file created by my grandfather? --Fredy.00 (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Honestly, I didn't see at first that the stated author was your grandfather. Anyway, it would be nice to send an e-mail with a formal permission, declaring that you are the only living heir of your grand-father (otherwise, a permission from each one of the living heirs is needed) and then including a standard permission statement. If you're actually the only one, it will be rather simple. Otherwise, you would have to contact other people. Of course, this permission doesn't guarantee that everything will be kept, because I think many of these pics will be considered out of scope at some point (not every single one of them has historical interest, you must admit). Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
If you're the only heir, I guess it's ok if you just state in the image page that the author is your grandfather and remove the problem tags. --Eusebius (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

VECCHI EDITORE, Registered trademark

"Ciao Fabryeditor, hai caricato parecchi file che sono violazioni di copyright e lo hai fatto malgrado le nostre richieste di non farlo e nonostante i nostri avvertimenti. Se non smetti di caricare immagini che non sono distribuite con una licenza libera sarai bloccato. Vedi Commons:Licenze per la politica sul copyright di Wikimedia Commons. Per favore lasciami un messaggio se hai ulteriori domande. Eusebius (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)"

Buongiorno Eusebius, si approfitto della tua gentilezza. Un marchio registrato è tutelato dalla legge quindi può essere benissimo incluso nella pagina di Wikipedia della società proprietaria del marchio stesso. Vedi i marchi delle case editrici Mondadori, Bertelsmann, ecc. Come faccio a caricare un marchio registrato su Commons? Mi aiuteresti tu? Grazie--Fabryeditor (talk) 08:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I don't speak Italian so I'll answer in English. Basically, Wikimedia Commons doesn't care about trademark laws, only copyright laws. The logos you have uploaded are protected. In order for us to accept them, a valid permission (release under a free license) must be sent to by the copyright holder (owners of the logo), as was explained on your talk page (detail of the procedure, example of permission statement). Otherwise, we cannot keep the images because they could be considered as copyright violations in some countries. Local Wikipedia may or may not accept such images under "fair use" status, but this is not possible on Commons. --Eusebius (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Radim Uzel.jpg

Radim Uzel.jpg

The license statement says: "I, the copyright holder of this work ...", which means that I made the picture myself. The license template is called "self". So please, don't bother me with messages like "this media may be deleted". Thank you. --Egg (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The license template being automatically generated at upload, on Commons a specific statement is required (for which your current message on my talk page is enough, of course). You have no idea how many images with "self" license tags are just grabbed from the net. Sorry for the inconvenience, anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please restore deleted pictures


Hi Eusebius. Some weeks ago you've deleted File:EinsatzeinheitVorarlberg.JPG and File:Bregenzer Festspiele Luftaufnahme.JPG because of missing permissions. Yesterday a ticket arrived at the OTRS with the permission to use those pictures under CC-by-sa 3.0. So could you please restore them? I do not know if you have access to that queue, so simply leave a message on my de-talk-page afterwards and i will add the OTRS-Infos. Thank you, --Gnu1742 (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Files restored, note left on the ticket. --Eusebius (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the quick work :-) --Gnu1742 (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about OTRS

Hi, Eusebius. I'd like to ask you one thing. Is it possible that the same uploader confirms a OTRS permission, as here or here? Thanks.--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. In theory, yes, it could be ok: there could be an initial permission covering a number of pictures (say by instance, "all paintings from X" or "all pictures of website Y") and the user might be able to use the same ticket ID for her future uploads. But in this particular case, there is an issue because those files are not covered by the stated ticket. Thank you for pointing it. --Eusebius (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. Bye!--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

suppressions de categories

Salut, je fais appel a toi pour le suppression de 2 categories car elles existent déja. Catégorie a supprimer :

Catégories en service aujourd'hui :

(De plus les articles wikipédia orientes commons vers ces catégories)

Merci d'avance --Parisdreux (d) 10:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Salut, les pages que tu pointes ne sont pas des catégories mais des galeries, par conséquent il n'y a pas double emploi, on peut avoir les deux. --Eusebius (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok merci kan meme --Parisdreux (d) 12:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This is only personal

I simply when is some rule silly, so him break - and in addition, just "civil disobedience" was at the beginning every changes. Mine opinion is, that the visual recorded information (artistic photograph is other case) simply can not be "owned". Therefore consider copyright behind pure nonsense in the event of documentary photographs.

If nature she wanted, to people stupidly and herd followed it what are they who will dictate, never go be without someone would reason and brain each individual.

My life motto: "Silly rules be by of what to tamper." Firstly when is that a for welfare things.

A be all the same to, whether is concerned Authors' Act, or about destruction life cub girls:

That is all approximately... --Fredy.00 (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It is your right to deny the legal concept of copyright. It is just not the case of the Wikimedia Foundation, which has the right to enforce policies accordingly on the projects they own. You have the right to participate to these projects only if you abide by their rules. If you refuse to do so, you'll be prevented from contributing because you represent a threat to the normal behaviour of the project (it is beginning to be the case). If your intention is to make a point about the vacuity of copyright laws, do it on your own website. If you think I'm harassing you or being too personal in the way I treat issues, please feel free to report my behaviour at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. --Eusebius (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you back to me shelter very considerately, namely appreciate.
Only am you wanted explain, that the ain't some madman, only on whole problems glare otherwise. --Fredy.00 (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude here, but it's difficult to understand your English, I'm not sure what you're saying. Maybe using your mother tongue + an automatic translator could help (in general). --Eusebius (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Branko Milovanovic.jpg

I have received a OTRS-mail regarding File:Branko_Milovanovic.jpg which you deleted due to missing permission. Could you please undelete with {{OTRS received|2009091110029336}}? Thanks. Nillerdk (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Eusebius (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

File:600px Culori Rapid.png

600px Culori Rapid.png

I didn't remowe the tag, gest check the revision history of the page. How could you acuse me whithout even checking if it was me or not? First check then edit my talk page, and remowe the "Dont remove nsd or nld" template from my page.

About the license,plese explain to me the diference betwen the file I uloaded and these ones :600px Arsenal con cannone.png, 600px_Bianco_con_diagonale_Blu_e_cerchio_Giallo_e_Blu_con_D.png and 600px_Bianco_e_Verde_orizzontale_con_leone_Dorato.png those to are derivative work of the actual logo (en:Arsenal London, en:Dynamo Kyiv, en:Sporting CP) to me it seams they didn't get permission from there owners. Luciandrei (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, I didn't pay enough attention to who did what. About the other files: as far as I can see, none of them does contain any significant element directly coming from the official crests (cannon totally different, as well as the "D" and the lion), although in the current file I cannot differentiate the features of your file from the features of the official logo. Therefore it is not original enough to be a new interpretation of the concepts behind the logo, it is a derivative work. If you question this evaluation, you can request a debate by transforming the problem tag into a regular deletion request and explaining your point of view there. --Eusebius (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I upload a new version of the image were the wings are solid, whitout the orizontal white lines and a new ball ? Would this maket it original ? ––Luciandrei (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother you about that at least. I guess all this is borderline anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


How many times does one have to email permission in this place? We did so TWICE. First on May 3 2009 when the image was first uploaded. But then warnings appeared in June alleging that no permission had been filed, so it WAS RE-SENT July 18 2009. But there was never any acknowledgment and the warnings remained. Now you have deleted it. VERY FRUSTRATING. Please see copy of the original of the two emails below: (I have bolded the actual permission from the copyright holder.) Please restore the image without further delay. --Innermusic (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)