User talk:Green Giant/Archive 2

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

Courtesy deletion

This guy won me over, so I deleted the 4 images he was asking about. I didn't mean any disrespect to you or your close, and if you want to reverse my action, I won't give you any shit about it. Have a good night. INeverCry 10:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I respect your opinion so I won't be undeleting them but I'm not a revert-warrior anyway and it is never useful to fight other admins. Instead I've expressed my opinion at the thread. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your opinion given at the thread and with your close. One of the reasons I did the deletions, beyond having a milksop moment, was that Tsui has addressed the concern of being more careful, and so I don't think we'll see more of this from him or his subjects. I certainly wouldn't do it twice, and it's something I only rarely do at all. As for fighting with other admins, I've been known to do that now and then, and without much regret. I just make sure I'm always on the right side... Face-tongue.svg INeverCry 00:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

files deleted

Hi Green Giant, concerning my deleted files, as I understood there were deleted by me that's right ? so now, I insered them in the articles, there will not be deleted that's right ? thank you --Lesconvoyeurs (talk) 09:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Cerceris rybyensis killing an halictid bee-20140819-3.jpg


Couldn't you wait a little longer? File:Cerceris rybyensis killing an halictid bee-20140819-3.jpg We were fixing the f. problem. DenesFeri (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

DenesFeri, how are you fixing the problem? Green Giant (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I already got the permission, and Sphilbrick with a friend are trying to make it a general permit for all my pictures. That deletion wasn't an emergency. DenesFeri (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The file did not have an OTRS template and when I looked at your talkpage I saw nothing about this. If and when the permission is completed, the file can be restored. Green Giant (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

copyright for images uploaded

Hi, Green Giant. I know that my images are at risk of being deleted and I thank you for helping me with my problem. I know initially I did not provide the copyright information, but I believe I had the copyright holder send an email to permissions allowing the images to be published. These images will coincide with an article that is in the process of being published on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figurativeexpressionism (talk • contribs) 05:19, 3 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Figurativeexpressionism, the files can easily be restored once permission is received at OTRS. Wikipedia articles can survive without images so this is not an overriding concern. Green Giant (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted content

Hi, Green Giant.
I have not seen the messages until today.
These are the two files deleted:
They are on this page: [3]. How do I enter its license?
Yours sincerely.--BallenaBlanca (talk) 07:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)



You have deleted the file "File:Himno-Nacional-Orquestado.ogg" it has been provided by the chilean government (please check this) under creative commons 3.0 as stated in the link.

please undelete.


--Teamdulwich (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Teamdulwich, I have restored the file. Firstly, please note that the onus is on you, the uploader, to make sure the copyright information is correct. When I looked at the source you gave in the file page, I admit I didn't notice the tiny "CC" link at bottom right. You should make it clear by pointing to the license if it isn't terribly clear. Secondly, you got the license wrong, it is CC-BY-3.0-CL, not CC BY-SA 3.0. Thirdly, you were notified on 28 October, so you have had plenty of time to fix this issue.
The biggest issue however, is whether the license is applicable compared to the Ministry's policy. I have started a deletion debate, where we can discuss this. Please share your thoughts at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Himno-Nacional-Orquestado.ogg. Green Giant (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Gelöschte Bilder_Rosa Lachenmeier

Hallo Green Giant Die beiden gelöschten Bilder: File:Bookart Sonnenlicht 005.jpg und File:Lachenmeier Rosa 002.jpg sind beides meine eigenen Bilder und unter der CC-Linzenz mit dem Upload Wizzard hochgeladen. Was muss ich unternehmen, um die Löschung wieder rückgängig zu machen? Danke. Rosa Lachenmeier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosa Lachenmeier (talk • contribs) 19:05, 4 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Hullo Rosa. We are always concerned about the possibility of impersonation. If a username matches a notable person we need to establish whether it is the genuine person or someone pretending to be them. Please send a confidential email to; from an email address linked to or listed on your website. Once your identity is confirmed, we can restore your files.
Google translation: Hallo Rosa. Wir sind immer besorgt über die möglichkeit des identitätswechsels. Wenn ein benutzername eine bemerkenswerte person übereinstimmt, müssen wir feststellen, ob es die echte person oder jemand vorgibt, ihnen ist. Bitte senden Sie eine vertrauliche e-mail an; aus einer e-mail-adresse verknüpft oder auf Ihrer webseite aufgeführt. Sobald Ihre identität bestätigt ist, können wir Ihre dateien wiederherzustellen.
Green Giant (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@Rosa Lachenmeier: Der Rechteinhaber des Gemäldes muss eine Freigabe E-Mail an COM:OTRS senden, lg --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I found that you have deleted one image I had uploaded to Commons - The image was from Flickr, and I have exclusive permission from the original owner of the photograph (who took it and uploaded it on Flickr) (although I couldn't find where to provide that email as proof, I had a discussion with him, and he said that as long as his name and Flickr page are mentioned, he is fine, and I did that). Why did you delete it? Cupidvogel (talk)

Cupidvogel, the file was deleted because the Flickr source says "All rights reserved". We cannot host such images per Commons:Licensing. If the Flickr user changes the license to an acceptable one, then please ask me to restore the Commons file and I will carry out the license review myself. Green Giant (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I notified the original uploader, and he has changed the license of the image to 'Some rights reserve', which permit distribution under attribution clause, which I am attributing here. So that, according to me, qualifies as a Wikipedia candidate. Please re-upload the image. Cupidvogel (talk)

Krist & Münch

Hi there. On 01.11.14 you deleted three pictures. I put them up, with the help of the wiki upload tools and send an e-mail to the german wiki commons team. Why did you delete them? I resent the e-mail to the corresponding international adresses. So please undelete them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 13:24, 4 November 2014‎ (UTC)

On that date I deleted dozens of files, so you will need to give me more information about which files you are referring to, because my mind-reading helmet is broken and unlikely to be fixed anytime soon. Green Giant (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Since all three files carried "KRIST & MÜNCH", as in the header of the text, in their name, I assumed, that one doesn't need a mind-reading helmet, but only a normal mind. Since I was obviously misguided, here the name of the files: KRIST & MÜNCH leer.jpg; KRIST & MÜNCH voll.jpg; Foyer KRIST & MÜNCH.jpg Thanks in advance and best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 13:37, 5 November 2014‎ (UTC)
A normal mind would have listed the required files rather than expecting the admin to scamper around and spend time looking for them. The normal search function does not show deleted files. It would have been easier if you logged in or told me your username.
Now I have looked at the files and it seems you failed to provide proof of permission, which is why the files were deleted. I have also searched the permission queues in the email system and I cannot see any email that relates to these files. Are you the copyright holder? Could you tell me which address you sent your email to? Any details like the subject line or the date would be appreciated. Green Giant (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for all the hassle. I know its your spare time also. This was the subject line: »Freigabe »Foyer_KRIST_permission-de@wikimedia.org6_MÜNCH.jpg«, »KRIST_permission-de@wikimedia.org6_MÜNCH_leer.jpg«, »KRIST_permission-de@wikimedia.org6_MÜNCH_voll.jpg«« And it was sent to: on 07.10.14 Thanks in advance. Best regards:::::
Hi, just wanted to know, if the permissions are alright this time? Thanks in advance.


Hi Green Giant, thank you for your message. I was not aware of that new function, thank you for pointing it out to me. Thank you for offering your help, I will let you know as soon as something comes up. Sincerely. Gryffindor (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I was wondering what was the problem with File:Old_EHT_bottle.jpg. Ellin Beltz tagged this as "no permission" and you deleted it. The author sent us at ticket:2014101510014261 and Jcb undeleted it. However, I don't see what was the problem nor the need for an OTRS tag. whym (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that on the face of it, such an image doesn't need OTRS and I wouldn't have tagged it myself. However, when I read the related email it seemed to me there was uncertainty about authorship; in particular the green sentences and the bottom part of the email suggest that the uploader might not be the same person as the copyright holder. It appears from the bottom part that the uploader sent an email to the author(s) after reading Ellin's notification. The fact that one of them then sent a license suggests to me that the uploader was wrong to claim it as own work. I'm not sure why I didn't add a note at OTRS but I would want to know which of them is User:Brbngurl. Green Giant (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The image was stated to be own work and was not. Hence the tag and deletion. When the picture disappeared, the uploader apparently emailed the author(s) who sent OTRS form and image was restored. I can't claim the Mona Lisa as own work and have it stay on Commons !! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies, Green Giant and Ellin Beltz. I have some things to ask in response, but it seems to be better placed at File talk:Old_EHT_bottle.jpg, as it's not specifically about Green Giant's action anymore. I'll post there later. Thanks, whym (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


Porquê que estão a eliminar contas e até mesmo vídeos, músicas e imagens?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 04:54, 9 November 2014‎ (UTC)

We delete files for a number of reasons including copyright violation. Which file are you asking about?
Google translation Borramos los archivos para un número de razones, incluyendo los derechos de autor violación. ¿Qué archivo está usted preguntando acerca? Green Giant (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Lorde in Seattle 2013 -1.jpg


You deleted this file and you where absolutely right but could you please undelete the file per this request? It turns out that the uploader is the Flicr account holder so the file should be okay. Natuur12 (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you take another look at File:Lorde in Seattle 2013 -1.jpg? You restored it but Taivo immediately deleted it. See the discussion at this link. The file here is not the file at Flickr. It is similar, but a different file that the author of the series specifically licensed for use here. (Look at the right hand.) Dwpaul (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


James J. Gibson picture

Hi Green Giant,

I found the picture for James J. Gibson from the Albanian Wikipedia article on James J. Gibson: I imagined that by using a picture from another Wikipedia page, it had already undergone all necessary copyright investigations. Also, under licensing on the page it says that the copyright holder has given permission for the image to be freely reproduced, distributed, etc. I tried sourcing the image as best as I could, but there wasn't much information to go by. Let me know what I can do to do a better job. Thanks! Pinkfloyd6491 (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Pinkfloyd6491, the problem is that some Wikipedia's allow fair use images, which means you can upload a small copyright protected image purely for information purposes. On Commons, we require images to have a clearly identified author/photographer, license, and source. The SQ-WP file has none of this so it cannot be used as source. The uploader there is not the copyright holder, so they cannot license the image. If the photographer is not known, it is not enough to say that you don't know, you have to demonstrate that it is widely known to be by an anonymous author. You will have to work out the copyright status based on the table at Commons:Copyright rules by territory#United States. If you can demonstrate that the image is in the Public Domain (PD), (as opposed to publicly viewable), then the image can stay. If it isn't PD then you could upload it to English Wikipedia as a fair use image but you will need to meet all ten non-free content criteria. I hope that helps. Green Giant (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Braci.jpeg and other photos

Hi Green Giant,

Thank you for your help.

I do have permission to upload the photos that were deleted, in fact I asked the authors of the photos to send me the incensing permission(using the template), which I forwarded to yesterday. Is this not correct? As I am new to Wikipedia, I would greatly appreciate any information you can give me. RaffVitali (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


INeverCry 20:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Replied by Helectronic Mails. Green Giant (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Les bourgeois de la ville parlant au juif errant.jpg

Hello Green Giant, Here's the source of the image I used. Is there a problem to keep it ? I used it to illustrate an article in Wikipedia : "Bonjour Monsieur Courbet".’Histoire+de+l’imagerie+populaire,+écrit+par+Champfleury&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=ixdlVNjnG4T2Orm2gCg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=L’Histoire%20de%20l’imagerie%20populaire%2C%20écrit%20par%20Champfleury&f=false Take care, Secotyne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secotyne (talk • contribs) 20:53, 13 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Secotyne, we get lots of files uploaded everyday without appropriate copyright tags, and we simply don't have enough time to examine each one in detail. This is why I use a semi-automated tool to tag such files in the hope that uploaders take notice. For your image, without more information, I would guess that the file needs a {{PD-Art}} template, combined with a second template depending on the date of the author's death. If it is more than a hundred years ago, then the second one can be {{PD-100}}, but if you look in the See Also section of that template page, you will see a number of alternatives. Green Giant (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. will check and come back to you. best. Secotyne.

Deleting of File:1960 to 1990 Cockpit ILS instrumentation.JPG

Hello ! I wrote a reply at File:1960 to 1990 Cockpit ILS instrumentation.JPG Could You please have a look at the new circumstances please. On my talk-page, I belive it is. So I don't re-upload an unpermitted file. Thanks Boeing720 (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Replied on user talkpage. Green Giant (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Reg Your answer at my talk-page about this issue. Giving ME work to do, is OK, I think. But giving George Carty a lot to do (through me), feels all wrong. At
George Carty has been enlighened about Public Domain, and answers that he doesn't mind if we use this image. And if You look to the left (column), You will see that it indeed is THE George Carty - and not any other George that has replied. And I frankly understand if mr Carty doesn't want his e-mail address published all across the globe. Besides both George Carty (author) and Tony Madge (chief of SIMVIATION) are British citizens, aswell as HJG. If mr Carty is nice and gives us his permission to use the image, then I cannot possibly understand why we have to bother him a second time, and demand that mr Carty must read a lot of stuff which presumably doesn't interest him at all, aswell as sending an e-mail. He has previously had a "public" e-mail address, but now he only responds through the SIMVIATION/ HJG forum. Besides, from the point of HJG / SIMVIATION a (part of a) screenshot of their gauges cannot matter, since no source code is involved. And we have the author's permission for a Public Domain upload. I can make the added pinters better though. But I do not feel comfortable to bother mr George Carty again. Is this really necessary, or is it a punishment to me, that didn't got it correct the first time. I'm sorry to bother You once again, this way. But to my knowledge, we have no other PD-photo or other PD-image which clearly shows how ILS-system looks from the pilots instruments. And we have a PD-permission from the author. Cannot see why this isn't sufficient. The tag should be PD. I don't think mr Carty would appriciate a questioning of his approval. It borders to insult, in my mind. Thanks Boeing720 (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Arturo Ansaloni with U. pumila 'Ansaloni'.jpg

Dear GG, At a loss to understand the problem here. The photo is not, never was, copyrighted. The photographer, Buisman, died in 1936 scarcely a year after it was taken, and the photo has been used freely in a number of Dutch publications about elm. Do I understand (forgive my ignorance, I'm not very au fait with Commons) that it would be OK to use under English Wikipedia? Help appreciated. Regards,harvey (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ptelea, please read my comment in the section above. Your file did not have a license or a copyright tag. As the uploader it is your responsibility to make sure it is tagged properly. The file has been restored to allow you to fix the problem, but please don't leave it too long. Please read Commons:Copyright rules by territory to work out what is needed. Green Giant (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No license since tagging

Dear Green Giant. User:Yann and myself have been discussing how the daily amount of files in Category:Media without a license as of 15 November 2014 (example) can be reduced. The current idea is that all files which have both no license and an external source (unlikely own work of the uploader) should be directly tagged as copyvio and not be queued into No license since because a license alone would help and permission is not likely achievable.

Example: is a typical netcopyvio case which at first should stay online for 7 days and second should not pollute the maintenance categories.

Please let me know what you think about this. Thank you. --Krd 22:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I agree it makes sense to tag them as netcopyvios. Howevef it doesn't make sense to tag such files more than once as is the case with the example above ie both no-license and no-permission. I have been wondering whether it would be better if the software automatically tagged these files with date specific tags instead of the generic monthly one, but then that might fill up the maintenance categories. Green Giant (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
So, you support that files as described are going to be tagged as copyvios automatically? Do you think this needs further discussion somewhere? --Krd 15:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes I support that. It might be worth raising this at the admin main board on the off chance someone might complain about "communication". :) Green Giant (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the message. otrs ticketː 2014081410004821. I just forgot to add it in the description. Please undo the delete. ̴-- Praveen.

OTRS - Kokaia

Hi! Several days ago you replied to the OTRS ticket from . He replied to you yesterday and added some more files, but hadn't received any answer, I realize that OTRS is overloaded, but please, maybe it is possible to manage the permissions issue a little bit faster? Thanks in advance :(--George, 09:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

License for Image

Hi Green Giant, I would like to send the certificate and ask for the permission to Keep the image on the Wikipedia page I did for the gallery the owner is the gallery itself, I found this should I send it to the gallery? Thanks, Krokamaora (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Picture removed

Hi, You removed a photo i uploaded to wiki commons and i was using it for a book chapter for an assignment. I thought i had followed the correct steps to upload a picture. Could you kindly help me re uploa the picture to use it again? If you go to my user page you can access my chapter through there just click on dehydration and mood. Thanks

Brookelouise23 (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)brookelouise23Brookelouise23 (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

On the Image of Alexander Zhirkov from Bishkek

Hello Green Giant, I would like to stress that this photo (File:Alexander Zhirkov, Chairman of the State Assembly of the Sakha Republic, Commemorates Maksim Ammosov (1897-1938) in Bishkek. 13.11.2014.jpg) was taken by me alone in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, and I permit the Wikimedia Commons to use it in any format and to change and amend it any time in any languages. Thanks, T.Chorotegin 14:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Essay spammer

Have a look at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ultimatessay. The inconclusive result suggests to me that it's a spambot scraping up proxies and creating accounts. Whatever the program is it doesn't create more than one account on a single proxy. I'm sure we'll see more... INeverCry 02:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I suspect you are right because the files looked like an attempt at cheap advertising. Green Giant (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of WorldAviation?

You seem to have deleted the file File:WorldAviation.198409.FullColour.png although I have sent an email to OTRS around three weeks ago to state that the file is suitable for usage on Commons, stating the standard redistribution rights as being applicable to it. I mentioned doing so on the image's talk page as well. I believe the image was deleted in error, please reinstate or advise what Commons have found missing, which information it needs to bring it in line with Commons requirements. Thanks for your time and for keeping Wikipedia and Commons standards as high as it is. 6th Common Sense (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@6th Common Sense: I have searched the OTRS system and found one email from a week ago, not three weeks ago. I have sent you a reply, asking for more information. If you read COM:OTRS carefully, it asks you to use {{OTRS pending}} to alert other users to the fact rather than posting a message on the talk page. I have restored the file and added a different OTRS template, noting that an email has been received but was insufficient to prove permission. You have thirty days from today to get the permission confirmed, otherwise the file will be deleted again. However, if permission is received at a later date, then it can easily be restored. Green Giant (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


I'm sorry to meet you like this, but it's been years since I've seen you - how do? Just wanted to say that I'm glad to see that you are still around! Are you here more than on English Wikipedia? THEPROMENADER 00:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Good to see you too. I was just about to post on your talkpage. I have been more involved here since last year and far less on Wikipedia. I see you are as diligent in Paris-related matters as ever. Green Giant (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Noooo... I was gone for years! I only returned briefly in 2013 when I heard the noise around that image (WW I ; ) and returned again one year later to see the exact same thing, with the exact same canvassed actors, as the year before. That and a newspaper article (it's nothing important but it was interesting all the same - I can send you the full version if you like) brought some new contributors to the article, and they're presently working on improving it (all the shenanigans made it lose its GA status)... they've been getting a hard time from a certain contributor (yes, the same as before) so I decided to stick around and stick up for them this time. I've contributed a thing or two (more about urbanism), but my work there is basically done. But it is a shame to see the article still have the same problems, and that no-one has or will do anything about it. But I'm quite busy these days, and there seem to be enough contributors there now to 'face up'.
I did contribute to a few things over the years... the catacombes, Paris mines, Haussmann's renovations... lately I've been making maps (I have access to loads of data thanks to my work with the city of Paris) - you can see a few on my Wikipedia page. It's much easier these days than it was back in 2006 ; ) THEPROMENADER 00:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and I have contributed quite a few (old) maps and (my) images here, too, over the past year. One got a GA nomination... I haven't looked in at them in so long. THEPROMENADER 00:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

If the two of you know each other, then this isn't a fair process. I will wait to see what Zolo has to say about this, and perhaps complain to other admins as well. Such disputes must be handled by uninvolved admins, which is apparently not the case here, much to my surprise. Godefroy (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

For someone with so few edits, you sure know a lot about wikilawyering (are you on English wikipedia as well?). But you'll notice that Green Giant came quite after the fact, and I did not report you directly to him. And it's quite obvious that I did not even know he was here! But please, complain away! On concerned talk-pages, if you please: this is a personal space. THEPROMENADER 01:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Godefroy, we don't really know each other, anymore than you and I know each other. Happening to be acquainted with someone from a long time ago on another project does not mean I cannot be fair. If you look at the file history, I restored it to what it was before you two started disputing it and I have protected it to stop further edit warring. You will also note that I left you a note on your talk page informing you about the AN/U thread and reprimanded Promenader for not doing so. I haven't taken the liberty of blocking anyone or of taking sides, so it isn't an unfair process. By the way, uninvolved in this context means not being involved in the dispute. I last edited the Wikipedia article on Paris several years ago, so it is a very tenuous link. However, if you wish to complain about my actions, please feel free to utilise the same admin board. Green Giant (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
No, you restored it to what it was AFTER ThePromenader disputed and reverted it (I had never disputed anything in the first place), and that's clearly taking side. That means if I edit any file at Wikimedia Commons now, and ThePromenader reverts me because he doesn't like my edit, my work will then be reverted because there is a "dispute". How convenient! And I'm quite angered to see that some work that took me more than an hour to select and adjust the pictures probably was deleted just because of one contributor complaining and one admin taking side. Anyway, I'll wait to hear what the other admins think of this. Godefroy (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Did you happen to notice that there was already a version there by Dr. Blofeld. You replaced it with your preferred version, which is where the dispute begins. If you had been the original uploader, I would have restored it to your version. Please also note that this file is in use in 15 other Wikipedias, and not just the English article on Paris. Did you consult all of those Wikipedias and obtain their agreement that the file needed changing? As I have said on the admin board, take this to the file talk page. Green Giant (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and Green Giant, if you do want to continue this on my talk page (if this is your 'place of business'), please do. See you soon! THEPROMENADER 01:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Presidente Mariano Rajoy Brey 2012 - La Moncloa (Recortada).jpg

You removed this image on the basis of a wrong idea. Template:PD-La Moncloa refers to images uploaded after November 2012 in the Moncloa website, not in Wikipedia. Such an image dates of July 2012, so it is free. Please, could you revert this deletion? Impru20 (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I have restored it but to be fair the template only says "This template is only valid for images uploaded between 2007 May 26 and 2012 November 26." There is no mention of the upload being at the Moncloa website rather than here. @Martin H.: for more expert opinion. I think the template wording needs a slight tweak. Oh and by the way Impru20, this is WikiMedia Commons, and Wikipedia is a separate project over there somewhere. :P Green Giant (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The permission on La Moncla website has been changed on November 26 2012. Therefore on November 27 2012 and any later date there was no permission to reuse content from that site no matter when it has been published. The conditions for reusing at the moment of reuse are important. --Martin H. (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Martin, that seems pretty clear. I am going to nominate the file for deletion instead of a speedy. Green Giant (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Converted ON LSD Trip.jpg

Hi Green Giant, I saw that you added a {{OTRS received}} to "File:Converted ON LSD" uploaded by 519Clarke. I was the person who added the {{Npd}} tag because I found that the image had been previously uploaded to other websites such as this one here before it was uploaded to Commons. However, after some more checking I think that it's possible that the image may also be a derivative. I may be wrong of course, but it looks like part of it was taken from a article from The Bucks Herald. The same image was also used a 2011 Bucks Herald article titled "Bad LSD trip turned me into a preacher". If you look closely it appears, at least to me, that parts of the image are scans from another Bucks Herald article, perhaps the 1971 one referred to in the 2011 article. Moreover, the font used for "Converted on an LSD Trip" does seem like it added on computer which were not around in 1971. I cannot find the original article, but there is an image of it at the 1:05 minute mark of this video clip at "http: //". Just for reference, there were other images (See User talk:519Clarke#File:Borstal Boy.jpg, and this undeletion request) that were uploaded by the same person as "own work" that were also derivatives and I think this might be another one. FWIW, I don't think there is any intention to mislead here; I just think it's a simple misunderstanding. However, if you feel the file is good as is, then that's fine with me. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for chasing this up. My first inkling is that the newspaper owns the image, so the uploader needs to demonstrate that they are an authorised agent of Johnston Press or that the newspaper has licensed the image properly. OTRS received simply means that the email has been read but not accepted yet. There is a different template (PermissionOTRS) which means that the permission had been accepted. Anyway we usually give 30 days for permission or else the file will be deleted. Green Giant (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Like I said, I don't think there is any intent to mislead; Just a misunderstanding and nothing more. BTW, there's a date error in the File:Converted on LSD 2ndEd.jpeg summary. Not sure if non-OTRS are allowed to fix it, so just pointing it out here. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank for pointing out the date error. I have just spent the last hour trawling through emails sent by this person. I think you are correct about misunderstanding, but I am now convinced he is the person he says he is. However, most of his uploads are still copyright by other people or organizations, so they won't be restored yet. Green Giant (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I never thought he was trying to pretend to be someone he wasn't. He seems very sincere and means well. I only stumbled across his photos by accident after seeing them used in some article's (about himself mainly) that he's been trying (so far unsuccessfully) to get accepted on Wikipedia. He's just not quite familiar with en:WP:BIO, en:WP:IUP and COM:L. People have been trying to help him and explain things to him, but it can be really confusing the first time around. Anyway, thanks for sorting through this and helping out. I've already posted on his talk page that two of his photos have been OTRS approved, so hopefully he realize that he'll be able to upload his images as long as they are his and he follows proper procedure. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted image


You've deleted my image.

I was trying to upload a screenshot to Wikipedia to represent a character from a soap opera but you deleted it before I could transfer it over. How do I do this then please if I'm not allowed to upload the image first of all?--5 albert square (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You are an ENWP administrator. Surely you know that you can upload directly to Wikipedia, instead of uploading it here? Green Giant (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I am aware of that but I'm not getting the option to upload files for some reason on the Wikipedia page--5 albert square (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Then you should raise this matter at WP Village Pump but it is no reason to upload fair use media here because it is simply not allowed on Commons. Green Giant (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by We2frinds‎

Hi, I think you could wait for an answer from the uploader. That's precisely why I didn't delete them right away. Reagrds, Yann (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverted self. Green Giant (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of picture of Al-Shabaab islamic militants

Hi Green Giant, May I ask why on 7 December you deleted this picture: Al-Shabaab, Somalia (1).jpg? You say that this upload is a copyright violation, but why, since Somalia does not have any known copyright legislation. So which right, whose right, is violated? Why does this image apparently not fall under the PD-Somalia-tag? How do you know that permission from Associated Press is necessary? How do you know AP is the copyright holder (which seems highly unlikely to me). Al-Shabaab is a terrorist entity ruling certain areas in Somalia in a manner similar to the way IS currently rules northern Iraq. No AP-journalist or foreigner could venture there without great risk of being taken hostage or killed outright. So the picture is almost certainly taken by Al-Shabaab itself or by an invited Somali loyal to them. The picture was published on a Somali website (at least, that's where I found it). I feel PD-Somalia would apply. Appreciate your comments. Loranchet (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Loranchet, the first thing I looked at was your source ( which gives no indication as to who authored the photo. Just because it hosts a large copy, does not mean it is the copyright holder. Equally, the source given by the tagger (here) showed a photo by The Guardian but not the context. A Google search showed that there were several websites which also host equally large copies, but mostly without crediting the photo. However one website contained a link to an article in The Guardian, which itself credits "Farah Abdi Warsameh/AP". For me, that is sufficient evidence of authorship and the reason we need permission from AP. With no evidence that the copyright belongs to anyone else, I had no choice but to delete the photo. Green Giant (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for this explanation Green Giant, and also for taking time to dig deep to find possible copyright holders of this image. I accept the deletion. But what does it mean in relation to the PD-Somalia-tag? As Somalia does not have any known copyright legislation (which means: no protection of authorship rights), which pictures from Somalia can be uploaded? Loranchet (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
To be honest I'm not sure but certainly it would be any images that can be demonstrated to have been published in Somalia first. I think this is something only the lawyers could really advise on. Green Giant (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You deleted my image

You have deleted the image i uploaded for the page I am creating, without so much as a courtesy email to let me know and without asking if i have the relevent permisions. I have written permission and was emailed the image directly. Please restore it.

@Budo2015: please read the speedy deletion criteria and note that nowhere does it say that an admin has to give notice before deleting a copyright violation. Every day we have to delete hundreds of copyright violation files like yours and we simply don't have enough time to write emails to everybody that might be affected. When the file was tagged with the speedy deletion tag, you were notified by the tagger on your talkpage. Whether you check your talkpage is your own responsibility. On the file page you claimed that the logo was your own work and you licensed the file yourself. I am not a mind reader, so I cannot guess that you might have permission from the copyright holder. It was your responsibility to point this out on the file page. Now you are saying that someone else gave you permission, so clearly you were not telling us the truth when you said it was your own work. It might seem a trivial matter but we take copyright seriously.
Anyway, you have two options: OTRS or local upload. The file can only be restored on Commons if you go through the OTRS process. Forward your permission email to and ask the copyright holder to also write to the same address, giving as much detail as possible including the URL of the file, even though it has been deleted. We require a license statement by email, based on the sample at COM:ET. If the permission checks out, the file will be restored, but be warned that there is always a delay of about 2-3 weeks. Alternatively, you can upload a LOW RESOLUTION version of the same file directly to English Wikipedia but you have to meet all ten non-free criteria and the file will only be available on English Wikipedia. Green Giant (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict on a DR

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The account existed, Paul Bird is a photographer, the license was okay, the EXIF matches Paul Bird, the file size here is the biggest found by TinEye, the picture is very good. If the sock created a fake flickr account under a stolen name, where did it get this original image? Wild guesses don't help, only Paul Bird could offer new insights. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
@Be..anyone: remind me which DR this was for? Green Giant (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Good question—I just copied my comment as shown in an edit conflict to your talk page without adding context, sorry. It was about two (bot-reviewed) flickr images uploaded by a later indefinitely blocked sock, where I saw no plausible way how this could have been license washing despite of the not more existing flickr account. Some celebrity I don't know, you can see deleted files, the edit conflict was at a photo of her face... Comparing time stamps in your log with 5:12 it should be Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paloma Faith 2012.jpg. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Devon House Deleted

Hello, Green Giant how are you? I just saw you deleted the image Devon House, Kingston - Jamaica.jpg, really like you helped me explaining about licenses in Wikipedia commons and of Flirckr, and I do not understand, talk to Nigel Durrant the owner of the image and will send the following email:


I would like to use His picture of Devon House - Kingston, Jamaica ( in wikipedia for a Photo montage of the city of Kingston, Jamaica, article in wikipedia, I was wondering if you can release it by changing the permission to Either of These two options: Creative Commons -Attribution -Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons I will reference esta source and you as author. Thank you very much for your help. Please explain to me Mr.Jhosimar (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Mr.Jhosimar, you are correct in asking the author if they will change the license. It is the -NC-ND part of the license which makes it unacceptable for Commons. I would recommend pointing out that licenses are irrevocable, because some people are unaware of this. When the license is changed, let me know and I will review the license. Thank you for your efforts. Green Giant (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Green Giant, Thanks for your help Green Giant, I appreciate all your efforts to help to save that picture. Mr.Jhosimar (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Green Giant, a user of Flickr I asked to change the license of the next picture and he did (, also wanted to know if I can upload this picture with the same license as the previous picture. (, finally I want you please help me with licensed Commons, thanks for your help . Mr.Jhosimar (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Images from

Hi there. Let's get this out there: I'm pretty pissed at you for deleting 198(!) files that I spent a whole lot of time uploading. You didn't even send me a message. I have the explicit permission of the copyright holder, my partner, to publish the images on wikimedia under the given license. Many of the images you deleted aren't even on and therefor are not elsewhere listed under the other license you seem to have a problem with. There is no good reason for this deletion and I ask, insist, that you revert it and restore the files or provide me with some legitimate reason for their deletion which I can't currently imagine. I see no issue in the deletion policies with having the files listed elsewhere under another license, if explicit permission is given by the copyright holder, which it has been in this case. What is your reply? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bike756 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 18 December 2014‎ (UTC)

When the files were nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files from it was because they had an -NC license at, which is not acceptable for Commons. The only CC licenses we can accept are the ones that contain BY or SA. You were offered two options; change the license at the source or contact COM:OTRS with permission. Deletion requests usually last seven days but in this case we left it open for 17 days. When I read through it, I checked the source website and found the license still had -NC. I checked the OTRS system and found no emails about these files. Therefore I had no choice but to delete those files. You can still comply with the request by Yann and the files can then be restored. Green Giant (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is the link to the image mentioned in the original deletion request. As you can see, I've changed the license to CC-BY-SA-4.0, the same license identified for the uploaded files. The same license will appear across the site for all hosted original content. Here is a blog post on the same site, posted before your deletion, making clear that was aware of the uploads to wikimedia and explicitly mentioning the license. Please now revert the deletion. More personally, dude, this deletion does just not seem to be in good faith. 198 good images is a lot to upload and that took me a long time and a fair bit of work. You might try a bit harder get in touch, or look through the website in question to see what's actually there. Most of those images in question have never even been on the website! Deleting large bits of people's hard work (one or two images I could see), does not seem to be in the spirit of assume good faith. There are any number of ways you might have tried to get in touch with the site owner or my account here. In future, I would encourage you to try a bit harder to not discourage people who are trying to make a contribution, but maybe don't know all the rules yet. Bike756 (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Please note that Commons is not Wikipedia, although they are closely related. Frankly we would be swamped even more if we assumed good faith on every single deletion issue. Feel free to have a look through the lists of deletion requests at COM:DR#Latest_requests_to_be_closed. There are rarely, if ever, fewer than a hundred files or sets of files to look through every day. Bearing in mind that all of us are volunteers, it is a bit much asking us to email every uploader that does not read our guidelines. I would highly recommend reading Commons:Project scope and in particular the evidence section - "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence." You could have posted a link to your blog post rather than expecting us to search for it. You have complied with the license requirement 30 days after the concern was raised, although I note that the -NC license still exists in the sidebar on all pages. Bear with me while I restore your files. Green Giant (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate list

Hi Ellin Beltz, I removed a list here, because it was a duplicate. A hug --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not Ellin Beltz, but thank you anyway. Hug back at you? Green Giant (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Sir --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


This user, who you recently blocked, has been reported on COM:AN/B here. As you have taken care of it, could you mark that report as ✓ Done? Thanks. DLindsley Need something? 18:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Scratch that. It's been done by Steinsplitter. DLindsley Need something? 18:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Wikipe-tan holding sign Season's Greetings.png Season's Greetings and Good Wishes
Best wishes for the season and the New Year. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Green Giant - this poster was swiftly deleted after the article it represents - Goodbye Promise - was created and approved. I am Gregor Collins and I'm the co-writer, co-producer, and co-owner of the film. You had indicated on the deletion notice it is unlikely to be my own work. The poster is merely a still from the film that we decided represents the story. This is an independent film that was well-covered/reviewed and therefore any and all representation of this image is welcomed by the filmmakers. Clearly I'm not well-versed in Wiki language so perhaps you can be a little more specific about what needs to be done to have it approved with the already approved film article. Thanks for your time. Gregorcollins (talk)

Gregorcollins, you uploaded the image to Commons which is a different but related website to Wikipedia. The most important rule on Commons is that we can only host media that can be freely reused by anyone for any purpose, even commercially. For most images we accept claims that the uploader is also the copyright holder. However for things like photos of celebrities and movie posters, there is a significant chance that the uploader found the image on the internet and decided to assign themselves the right to license the image. Since it is fairly easy to create a Wikimedia account, we cannot be 100% sure of the uploaders identity; for example would you believe me if I said I was the real Green Giant? You would be well within your rights to treat that claim with caution and in my case you would probably be thinking I hadn't taken my pills today. Anyway I digress, because you have two options. Firstly, you could upload the image directly to Wikipedia instead of Commons. You could claim it as fair use by only using it in the infobox of the article. You would need to fill out a fair use rationale and demonstrate the image meets all ten non-free content criteria. You would only be able to use that image on English Wikipedia and no other Wikipedia (there are over 280 Wikipedias, each in a different language). Your second option would be to try to get the image restored on Commons, which would allow the image to be used in any of the 280+ Wikipedias. The way to do this is to read COM:L and COM:OTRS, and then send a license statement by email to Use the recommended license template at COM:ET and please don't send the email from a Gmail/Hotmail/Yahoo or similar free email providers. The movie has a website that is mentioned on the poster, so an email from there should be sufficient. When the email has been checked, an OTRS agent will be able to get the image restored. However the email system is severely backlogged, so it may take a few weeks. On the other hand, if you let me know when you've sent the email, I will try to check for it and speed the process up. Green Giant (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleting photos, "Basis" band!

Good afternoon! Why our photo has been removed? The reason was that it was photo elsewhere. Yes, we have many pages of group "Basis". This is a photo from the rightful owner. | Фото = File:Концерт в Белгороде, 28.11.2014.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 08:40, 31 December 2014‎ (UTC)

The file was deleted because it was found elsewhere on the internet with "VK © 2014" as the only copyright information. Commons can only host freely-licensed material. The only way to get the file restored is to read COM:OTRS and persuade the copyright holder to send a license statement to Wikimedia. Green Giant (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Green Giant!

Diego Grez nominations

How could I prove that there's no copyright over the images, if the images was created entirely by myself? It's quite ridiculous that I have to prove that I created a logo by myself because one user accused me of violating copyrights, which it's false. Do I have to register a image created by myself and then give the rights to Wikimedia? Even the same user (Diego Grez) couldn't find any evidence that could support their accusation; he's incorrectly assuming that because I made some symbols based on descriptions given in texts, I'm violating some "copyrights" that do not exist. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Sfs90, I left you a message about the burden of proof because it seemed to me that you might be unaware of this particular policy. On Commons we assume that every file is copyright protected and all rights reserved unless it is demonstrated to be PD or licensed. The logos I deleted had an element of creativity that goes beyond simple shapes and text or the copyright was ascribed to the parliamentary library. Whilst it is true that copyright can be transferred by operation of law or contract, we would need to see evidence of such a transfer. Without such evidence, I can only assume that the copyright for each logo is held by someone within the relevant political party. Green Giant (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Regarding “give the rights to Wikimedia“, none of the images hosted here belong to the site’s operators: all those that are not in the public domain are here under licence from their creators. So nobody will ask you to do that, but where there are any doubts concerning the source of an image, or if it has been published elsewhere, it may require an OTRS ticket to verify, in confidentiality, that the uploader is in a position to grant a free licence.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)