User talk:Green Giant/Archive 3

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

File:Cabeza Prieta Dedication.jpg

File:Cabeza Prieta Dedication.jpg, could you please restore it for a day so I can see if I can fix the license? Thanks. Evrik (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Evrik, I have restored it and given you seven more days to sort it out. Green Giant (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The uploader has released a number of photos into the PD. Just not consistently. There is even an OTRS notice, though I'm not sure what it covers. Evrik (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sure you know this but the PermissionOTRS template triggers a filter if it is used by anyone who isn't in the OTRS gang. Anyway, the initial email in the ticket covers the following files:
There is also a note left by the OTRS agent who handled the ticket that says that two more files were requested to be added after the uploader asked on Wikipedia, although I have not found any specific mention:
  • There is no mention of File:Cabeza Prieta Dedication.jpg, and no other emails from the uploader. Obviously this is problematic, so I have sent them an email asking for confirmation of the PD status. I will let you know if there is a reply but in the meantime it might be best to remove the OTRS template. The PD template can stay because the uploader added "public domain" when they uploaded the photo. Green Giant (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion request closing script

You may be interested in King of Hearts's script:
importScript('User:King of Hearts/closeudel.js');
You just [edit] the request you want to close, and in the drop-down list at top you'll have a "close" option. It speeds things up quite a bit. INeverCry 00:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have it in my commons.js but have no idea why I've not used it in the past! Green Giant (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion request relating to File:David Cameron arrives at 10 Downing Street 11 May 2010.webm

Hi GG, I was just about to comment on this undeletion request, but I see you've just closed it as 'not done'. I wonder if I could persuade you to re-open it for a short time, please, to allow me to comment? Looking at the legal terms of the licence I don't actually think there is any ambiguity here at all. I won't re-close with a different rationale but would appreciate the chance to put the legal argument for restoring these files. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs: - re-opened. I'm happy for you to close with a different rationale. Green Giant (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

name of pics

Hello Green Giant,

  • for indicate 1000-1900 (millennium) usign '
  • for indicate 2000-2900 (millenium) using ''

is a good practice, now if you write only 11 can be 1911 or 2011 and this is incorrect.

see you soon, thank you --Pava (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Pava, please link to where I have made this error and I will correct it. Green Giant (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I refer in this case, (without making a blame anyone) : Alfa Romeo Spider. is only a example. Thank you so much :) --Pava (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah I see. My involvement was only to split a file which had been overwritten and then merge two duplicate images. I did not name them myself. Green Giant (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Restore Files of German training frigates

Ich benutzte Bilder der Öffentlichkeitsarbeit der Bundesmarine, die inzwischen im Bundesarchiv digitalisiert sind und von dort auch für deren Öffentlichkeitsarbeit genutzt wurden,

siehe Thomas Menzel: Die sieben Schulfregatten (Klasse 138) der Bundesmarine

Nach § 5 Abs.2 UrhG sind sie damit allgemein nutzbar,

das Template ist leider mit seiner Beschränkung auf Abs. 1 nicht ganz tauglich.

Der Text im Hochladeformat zur Lizenz beschreibt allerdings zutreffend:
Amtliches Werk einer deutschen Behörde (gemeinfrei)-public domain

ich habe m.E. auch alle Bilder hinsichlich der Herkunft richtig ausgewiesen
z.B. Scheer F 216, S. 26 des genannten Artikels; Quelle: Presse- und Informationsstab BMVg 621002-39 Durch Ausbildung und deutsche Praxis weiß ich, das meine Auffassung zutreffend ist.
"I do not think" ist ein Gefühl und keine rechtliche Betrachtung, "we cannot simply assume" ist bei sorgfältiger Sichtung des Bezuges auch fehl am Platz. Ich hoffe, Du kannst Dich meiner rechtlichen Betrachtung doch anschliessen.--Erb34 (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Restore file

Hey! I saw you recently deleted File:Roger Waters The Wall Yankee Stadium 2012-07-06 3.jpg. I have control of the Flickr account. There were a lot of old images on there set to copyright, perhaps I missed changing this one to CC BY 2.0. If you can restore I will promptly correct the licensing, or if you have it, send me the link to the Flickr photo page? Many thanks. I'm going through a lot of photos from that Flickr account, so I'll try to be more careful moving forward. — MusikAnimal talk 22:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

MusikAnimal the link is this one. Let me know when you've changed it and I will restore it and do the license review. Green Giant (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Thank you! — MusikAnimal talk 01:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
And another question... I'm confused about what the "autopatrolled" user right is for. Does this not bypass the need for reviewers to verify the licenses of images I upload? Or is it just like on enwiki where it's merely the page creation itself? At any rate I will be sure to include the exact link of any given Flickr photo moving forward and be careful to ensure I correctly set the license. — MusikAnimal talk 01:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I have restored the file and reviewed the license so there shouldn't be anymore problems. I would highly recommend using the {{Flickr}} template because it is designed for those images. As for auto patrolled, it just means that we trust you enough that we don't need to patrol your uploads. Green Giant (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Мила Сивацкая.jpg

Hi. I see, that this file was to be deleted, but it seems it's still there. Regards. Pibwl (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done. Thanks for letting me know. I could have sworn that I had deleted it. Green Giant (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Mykonos Biennale

Hi you deleted the following files:

  1. 00:14, 23 October 2014‎ Mykonos Biennale 2013 Invitation.png (en).
  2. 00:10, 23 October 2014‎ Mykonos Beinnale 2013 Lucas Samaras Boni Windmill.jpg
  3. 00:10, 23 October 2014‎ Mykonos Biennal 2013 - Pedro Tyler.jpg
  4. 00:09, 23 October 2014‎ Mykonos Biennale 2013 The Ariadne Project.jpg
  5. 00:09, 23 October 2014‎ Mykonos Beinnale 2013 - The Sylvia Macci Dance Group.jpg
  6. 00:09, 23 October 2014‎ Mykonos Biennale 2013 - Cinema Mando.jpg
  7. 00:09, 23 October 2014‎ Mykonos biennale-2013-first day-flower girls.jpg

I had the right to submit these images. By submitting these photos I did not commit any Copyright violation. Only two were not my own, but I had full permission top use them. What Commons:Licensing should I be using in future to avoid this problem? Can I only submit my own ? Do you need a notarized oath ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venieri (talk • contribs) 17:54, 18 January 2015‎ (UTC)

Since the images were originally from another website, you will need provide evidence that you are either the copyright holder or you have permission from the copyright holder. Have a read of COM:OTRS and follow the procedure outlined there. We need a license statement from the coopyright holder of each image, preferably using the template at COM:ET. The licenses should be sent by email to However be aware that there is always a backlog and especially recently with Christmas the backlog is even bigger. Green Giant (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

How to restore the photos, what letter do you need

how can you restore the photos, it would be great

have a nice day

VIVA WIKI :Yours sincerely, David Adam Kess (talk) 27th of January 2015 (UTC)

do you wikipedia editos get points for deletion, this person deleted every single one, BrightRaven , made a rapid edit deltion request immediatly, as soon as i posted them on 10:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks again ǃ Green_Giant

File:(Artist Daniel Reinoso) at Parque El Ejido ' detail photographs of Modern Art.JPG File:(Artist Daniel Reinoso) at Parque El Ejido ' detail photographs of Modern Art 008.JPG File:(Artist Daniel Reinoso) at Parque El Ejido ' detail photographs of Modern Art 007.JPG File:(Artist Daniel Reinoso) at Parque El Ejido ' detail photographs of Modern Art 009.JPG File:(Painter Daniel Reinoso) at Parque El Ejido ' detail photographs of Modern Art 009.JPG File:(Painter Daniel Reinoso) at Parque El Ejido ' detail photographs of Modern Art 008.JPG File:(Painter Daniel Reinoso) at Parque El Ejido ' detail photographs of Modern Art 007.JPG File:(Painter Daniel Reinoso) at Parque El Ejido ' detail photographs of Modern Art 006.JPG File:(Painter Daniel Reinoso) at Parque El Ejido ' detail photographs of Modern Art 005.JPG File:(Painter Daniel Reinoso) at Parque El Ejido ' detail photographs of Modern Art 004.JPG File:(Painter Daniel Reinoso) at Parque El Ejido ' detail photographs of Modern Art 003.JPG File:(Painter Daniel Reinoso) at Parque El Ejido ' detail photographs of Modern Art 002.JPG File:(Painter Daniel Reinoso) at Parque El Ejido ' detail photographs of Modern Art 001.JPG File:(Artist Daniel Reinoso) at Parque El Ejido.JPG File:(Artist Daniel Reinoso) at Parque El Ejido ' detail photographs of Modern Art 004.JPG File:(Artist Daniel Reinoso) at Parque El Ejido ' detail photographs of Modern Art 005.JPG File:(Artist Daniel Reinoso) at Parque El Ejido ' detail photographs of Modern Art 003.JPG File:(Artist Daniel Reinoso) at Parque El Ejido ' detail photographs of Modern Art 001.JPG File:(Artist Daniel Reinoso) at Parque El Ejido ' detail photographs of Modern Art 002.JPG BrightRaven (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Arthur E. Chase.jpeg

You removed a photo with the notice: (Removing "Arthur_E._Chase.jpeg", it has been deleted from Commons by Green Giant because: Missing essential information such as license since 17 January 2015 - Using [[:commons:COM:VFC|V)

1. When I uploaded the photo, I included the text of an email from the photographer/copyright holder. 2. After receiving a notice from WikiMedia I contacted the copyright holder and asked that he send a letter to with the text taken from the appropriate template. 3. On January 18 the photographer notified me that did that and included a copy of the photo so that it could be identified. 4. Can you please check on that, then reinstate the photo if all is in order (or forward my request to the appropriate Wikipedia address/page)? 5. If not, can you please send instructions on how I should handle this. The photographer does not have experience uploading to Wikimedia. Unclefeet (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

✓ Restored. Please do not post emails on any open wiki because there is a risk of spamming of the email addresses. I have hidden your initial edit to prevent this. As for OTRS and emailed permissions, it is just a matter of time but please note that therer are currently almost 900 emails that need answering and there are few volunteers. Green Giant (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Suppression de fichiers sur la page Renaud Paulian

... Vous avez logiquement (compte-tenu de la date) supprimé les fichiers de la page citée ci-dessous. Pourtant la demande de permission OTRS a été faite en temps voulu (cf ci-dessous). Pourriez-vous avoir la gentillesse de me dire ce qui ne va pas ? Le courrier ci-joint vient d'être envoyé à l'adresse des demandes de permission. Merci. --Erwan de Kerhister (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

✓ Restored - you should use the {{OTRS pending}} which makes it easier to identify these files. Please also don't include personal information here. Please note that currently the Commons mailboxes alone have almost 900 emails to deal with. It may be some time before your email is answered. Green Giant (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Vogelpark Viernheim pictures deleted 8.12. User "Der Super-Dickmann"

Hello Green Giant,

you deleted some of my pictures I uploaded. Can you please help me to find the right licence to select after uploading, I am new with Wikipedia? For all the photos and logo I uploaded, I know all of the photographers personally, I just did not know what to select. We are a club/ association and have the rights also on our own logo of course.

Fresia´s City Coat of Arms Deleted

Hello Green Giant, I´m Ivotoledo45, and I´m worry about of delete of one of pictures in the Wikipedia´s article of city of Fresia ("Escudo_de_Fresia.jpg"), my dude is what was the problem with he file (in commons) and how can restore back in the article Thanks P.D: I´m also speak spanish

Once Again On the Image of Alexander Zhirkov (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 shot by myself only, 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

Sutisupply pictures

Hi Green Giant. I noticed that you deleted three files from suitsupply (Suitsupply_singapore.JPG, Rijkscampaign.png, Olympics_12.jpg)- it was very correct of you to remove them due to missing license, but if you could bring it back up, i am more than happy to update the license and copyright for those files. Would that be a possibility? Thank you very much!

Hope I'm doing this right...

Hi, I'm making a Wiki article for a company and the file I uploaded is their logo. I did answer the questions truthfully - I didn't create this logo and I don't have an official license. But I mean it's not like I'm using it to sell or anything, and a logo is relevant/necessary for a company page. How do I go about getting a license or whatever?

Thanks, Morgan

Copyright status: File:Chief Catalyst

Hi, Thanks for pointing this out as I awnna ensure that the file I upload and will link will be all legit and valid. I already got the authorization of the holder. Let me get the written confirmation and send it out. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiefCatalystEdDeCosta (talk • contribs) 10:18, 7 November 2014‎ (UTC)

How to correctly upload pictures to Common?

Hi Green Giant,

Since you have deleted my image of Antoine Arnault by Dominique Maitre ( on Commons, could you please tell me how to correctly upload an image to the platform? I am indeed very keen to learning how to relevantly contribute to Wikipedia! But it seems like I didn't understand the guidelines

Thanks for your time, Limeea

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Yarrrick

Hi, I am allowed to upload the images of movies posters under a free licese bellow. I send email at permissions-commons@wikimedia.orgAdd a week ago. How it is possible to proof it? Thank you for your help and answer User:Yarrrick

Movies posters File:Sitting pretty on a branch poster.jpg File:Post Coitum poster.jpg File:The feather fairy poster.jpg File:It’s better to be wealthy and healthy than poor and ill poster.jpg File:An Ambiguous Report About the End of the World poster.jpg File:Bathory poster.JPG File:Wildflowers poster.jpg

Juliette Longuet Image

Dear Green Giant,

I previously uploaded the Juliette Longuet image and it was deleted because written consent from the photographer was needed to upload it. I emailed the consent to Wiki a few months ago but still haven't received a response. Is there a quicker way to get that doc to someone to review and allow me to re-upload the image?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprosper1 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 7 January 2015‎ (UTC)

Cprosper1, apologies for the late reply. There is a quicker way, but it requires the copyright holder owning a website. If that is the case, please ask them to post the largest version of the image to that website together with the license of their choice, and then let me know how to find it. I can carry out a license review and if all is well I can immediately restore the file. Otherwise if the copyright holder has ever verifiably published the image before you uploaded it here then I could try reviewing that. However, please note that it might require a couple of messages back and forth between us before the review could be completed. I hope that helps. Green Giant (talk)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sardar Thakur Singh Sandhanwalia-1.png

Hi Green Giant, the uploader of this file contacted me via email to get this image re-stored. Per your comment at the deletion discussion, the painter holds the copyright for the portrait and a legal document will be required to transfer it. Can you tell me what can I advise to the uploader. For example, is there any Wikimedia Commons' format for such legal documents and in case he obtained such document, would he have to send it via OTRS? I am sorry, I am not very familiar with the Commons copyright policies. --Vigyani (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Vigyani, thank you for asking. I cannot advise on legal documents because that is a matter for lawyers but the copyright holder could license the work by sending a statement to from a verifiable email address. Usually such an email address is associated with a recognised website of the copyright holder. If there isn't a website, then an email address associated with where somebody works might be acceptable. Addresses from a free provider like Gmail or Hotmail will require more scrutiny because it is so easy to obtain one.
However, if they don't have an email address, it might be possible to modify and print the sample statement at COM:ET and then ask the copyright holder to read and sign it. If their first language isn't English, the statement is available in several other languages, although I'm not sure if we have a wide variety of languages covered yet. Anyway the printed document can then be scanned and sent to the same email address as an attachment. The OTRS agent who handles the email may request some sort of further verification. I would also advise a large amount of patience because the email system is always backlogged and has become more backlogged since Christmas.
There is another route that is probably quicker but involves the copyright holder owning a website. If that is the case, they could post the largest copy of the painting on the website together with their chosen license e.g. CC-BY-SA-4.0. When that has been done, let me know how to find it and I will carry out a license review which would mean I can restore the file immediately. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Trusted user ? Just curious

Hi. You removed the "trusted user" infobox from my user page which is fine by me, because I never considered myself a reviewer. Just out of curiosity, is there a way for you to check if I ever was one? Because I can't figure out why I used it. Tracked down the date I placed the infobox on revision date. Thanks — Ineuw talk 01:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Ineuw, it appears you have only ever been auto-patrolled and a file mover according to your log. Personally I think the trusted template is misleading, which is probably why you and 15 other non-reviewers had it on your user pages. However this worries me far less than the four users who had listed themselves as Commons administrators despite never having been appointed as such! By the way, have you ever considered becoming a reviewer? Green Giant (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. You hit the nail directly on the head because the word "trusted" doesn't indicate "viewer". Perhaps renaming the template with a redirect would be the solution. Never considered to be a reviewer and currently am heavily involved with proofreading on Wikisource. I would not be able to contribute properly.— Ineuw talk 15:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rio Ceará.jpg

"From the Flickr image it is clear that this is a photo of a photo. That does not "magically" transfer the copyright to the Flickr user. The uploader has not identified the actual copyright holder, which would be the person who took the original photo"

It was already said that it's a photo of a photo there, but what says that the "photographed photo" was not taken by him? Just because you don't believe he was able to have taken that "photographed picture"? The act of taking a photo of a photo means in all circumstances that the "photographed photo" belongs to somebody else? If the photo is there, it's to be assumed that belongs to him. This decision was based on a prejudice, presuming that the photo was not photographed by him when there is nothing that evidences this. This is wrong. The file was properly licensed according to COM:EVID and was deleted with a simple opinion, with no evidence.

What bothers me the most is that you didn't even read what I wrote in the deletion request, you just said what was already said in the discussion, as if it was for the first time. I don't know what to think about all of this injustice, really. Nakinn 03:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all I did read what you wrote, but you were busy trying to get the nominator to prove the Flickr user wasn't the copyright holder. That is not how COM:EVID works; the onus is on you the uploader and anyone else that supports keeping the file. You are very mistaken if you believe that taking photos of other photos automatically makes you the copyright holder. Secondly, you need to look at the wider picture. Have a scroll through the other images in his photostream, like this, this, and this. It is clear that he is taking photos of postcards and passing them off as his own. Thirdly, this is Commons, not Wikipedia, so appealing to Wikipedia policies doesn't work. Green Giant (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
As I said in the discussion too, COM:EVID says that my burden is to prove that the photo is properly licensed, and thats it. Anyone can make any accusation in deletion discussions, even the most absurd ones, like saying that a photo belongs to Barack Obama, and just because someone makes absurd accusations or simple "I don't think this or that" means I must find a way to prove anything there? I really think this is not how COM:EVID works either. I looked all the photos, and the only thing I saw was a person taking pictures of "postcard style" pictures. Why you have to think that the "postcard style" pictures were not taken by him? What reasonably makes you think this way? I don't want to be disrespectful, but I can see only one reason: bias. And I was not trying to use Wikipedia. It was only an article, not a guideline. Nakinn 04:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Just a curious fact: the guy uses a Nikon D3000 to take photos owned by others. Just curious. Nakinn 04:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that sometimes there are absurd nominations but in this instance there was a genuine concern. The bottom line is that we need to know who took the postcard photos, before we can host such images. There is no bias involved except that I have to apply Commons policies regardless of whether I like the image or not (and believe me when I say I liked it). Every week, the admins have to delete around 1,500 files because of copyright or scope problems, so we don't have time for bias. As for the camera, it doesn't really matter if it is the best camera in the world, because he hasn't given any indication that he owns the copyright to any of those photos. I am willing to believe he took the non-postcard photos in his photostream but not the postcard ones. Green Giant (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I will not discuss this anymore, since it's clear to me that you will never give a real reason to think that the photos are not owned by him, but only the erroneous statement:
If someone take a photo of a photo, means the photographed photo do not belong to that person, in all circumstances, even if theres nothing indicating this.
But I'll bring something new to the table: in the album (here) he says Escolha seus modelos pelos números nas fotos e faça já seu pedido (Choose the model by the number in the photo and make your order now) and theres his e-mail, his full name and phone. He sells this paper "postcards". So, the photo only belong to him if he says on every page "I own this photo"? (which would be very weird, since people in flickr usually don't do this) Or will you say that you believe he sells illegal photos? Nakinn 20:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Physically owning a photo is not the same as owning the copyright to that photo. Let me give you an example - let's say I have just bought a copy of The Da Vinci Code from Amazon, whose website has a picture of the book cover. Does that mean that Amazon owns the copyright to the book or do the rights belong to the author of the book, Dan Brown? Obviously it is the author and in the same way we are interested in who took the original photos, not just the person who posted them to Flickr. The fact that you don't like this answer doesn't change the fact that it is based on Commons policy. If you feel that there are grounds for restoring the file, then you can try Commons:Undeletion requests. Green Giant (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
What would make someone sell postcards on the Internet, on flickr, about a touristic place in Brazil, where it's possible to find postcards in every corner of the city, if not because it's unique work, his work? Nakinn 23:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
"If there is any question, evidence may need to be supplied", says COM:EVID. How much more evidence it's necessary? I think I presented to you enough evidences, but it seems that I can bring all evidences in the world and you still will need the author to say "I own this", even if people on flickr don't do this. Nakinn 23:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
You have answered your own question, because this is Wikimedia Commons, so it doesn't matter how things are done on Flickr. Commons respects copyright even if the copyright holder does not. If those postcards are his own work, then it seems strange to take photos of them, when clearly he has the technology to transfer his photos to the internet. The only realistic explanation is that, like a lot of small businesses, he buys the postcards in bulk from a supplier. Then he takes photos of them and posts them to Flickr to sell them. Green Giant (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The guy owns a photography studio, here you can find the facebook commercial page, where some of the "postcards" are posted, like this, with "Studio Chacon" stamped on the photo. Nakinn 00:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The first link doesn't work, is there a mistake in the URL? What convinces you that the guy owns the studio? Is there a link from the Facebook account to the Flickr account? Green Giant (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

His personal instagram account points to the studio's facebook page, called "Studio Chacon", where are the same photos posted on his flickr. Nakinn 00:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@Nakinn: Please don't recreate this file. Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@Thibaut120094: Yes, just because I proved the ownership of the file. What is wrong with recreating it? Nakinn 23:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@Thibaut120094: Why I wasn't notified on my talk page about the new deletion request? Did you read the message posted above yours? Nakinn 23:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a {{Speedydelete}} request not a deletion request, because you recreate the file without creating an undeletion request. Thibaut120094 (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there a rule saying I can only make an undeletion request and not recreate it? If yes, I want to read, please. Why I wasn't notified on my talk page about the speedy delete? I proved the ownership to an administrator, so why the speedy delete? Nakinn 23:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Nakinn, did you read the fourth sentence of the closed deletion request, particularly "[i]f the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may ... ask for it to be undeleted." You recreated a file that was deleted by community consensus, which is why it was tagged for speedy deletion. See Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#General reasons #4 for more details. As for the file, you haven't proven that Ary Chacon owns the rights. What you have shown is that he has posted a mixture of photos at Facebook, Instagram and Flickr. To take just one example, have a look at the Flickr image that is next to the one that you uploaded. Ary has licensed it as CC-BY-2.0. The same image can be found at this page where the website owner claims as his/her own work. Despite these two competing claims, there is also this website where the website owner points out that it is the front of a postcard. The back of the postcard does not contain any indication of who created it. Green Giant (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I didn't. But I did read that Thibaut120094 should have notified me on my talk page about the speedy delete, which he/she didn't. Sorry, but none of these sites claim ownership of the image. The copyright mark in these sites protect the sites. In one of your links it's finally possible to see the back of the poscard and there it is: PANORAMA Tel: XX XXXX-XXXX - Fortaleza-CE Photo: CHACON. If Ary Chacon says on his flickr that all these photos are postcards, it's reasonable to assume that all of them have the same back. Nakinn 01:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I may have missed that detail because I was viewing it on my mobile phone. I have restored the file and removed the deletion request. In the end, you did do what COM:EVID asks :). Green Giant (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Man the battlements!

Blocking a dynamic IP forever - [1], nice work Batman. Kevin (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Come on, Robin, to the Bat Cave! There's not a moment to lose! It wasn't a knee-jerk reaction, but was intended to stem further unconstructive edits by a banned user. Anyway, indefinite does not mean forever and I will unblock it sometime soon. If it is affecting your ability to edit, you can ask for IP-block-exemption. Green Giant (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

IP Block

Hi Green Giant, I noticed that you blocked an IP address indefinitely. This appears to be a dynamic IP address that is assigned by the provider where a simple reset suffices to get a new IP address. Blocks like this possibly hurt someone else who happens to get this IP address assigned but not the offending user who can switch easily to other IP addresses whenever necessary. I would suggest to block IP addresses just for 24 hours and to extend this only if it gets reused afterwards. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this. I had every intention of removing the block within 1 day but I had a suspicion that if I had only blocked for that long it wouldn't have dissuaded our banned friend, although I have every confidence he will be back soon. Anyway, I have changed this and the other IP block to one day. Green Giant (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! --AFBorchert (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal from OTRS

If you have any information about the reasons for my "removal" from OTRS I would appreciate some facts so that I can appeal. While my removal appears to be vaguely described as "trust" but not due to any specific complaint from anyone, or action that I have taken, I am at a loss on what would need to be addressed. Thanks -- (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not privy to the reasons for your removal and I fully sympathise with you that it is a galling feeling. All I can do is encourage you to keep asking the OTRS admins, either at Meta or by email. For what its worth I think you are a trsutworthy person, because you have uploaded huge numbers of files which were educational. If you were a malicious person, I'm sure you could have included lots of copyvios and assorted problem images. Go email them, because you won't know if you don't try. Green Giant (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I just uploaded File:Aretha Franklin 2014.jpg. I saw that some other images from Sony's account are deleted, and others (File:Style of Eye Press Photo by FREDRIK-SKOGKVIST - Small.jpg, File:Alanis Morissette press photo 2012.jpg) are marked as reviewed. How are these images supposed to be handled? Hinnk (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Checkusers/Requests/INeverCry 2

Requests for checkuser are every time protected after closure, like there. Could you do that now? User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 15:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done. Thanks for reminding me - it had skipped my mind. Green Giant (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Need help (again)

Hello, I'm sorry to bother you again but I'm in the same situation with :

Thanks for your help. Reptilien.19831209BE1 (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done. Green Giant (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for the help on the file moving assistance, and the fast deleting speed. 1989 00:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

My article - what is still wrong?

Dear Green Giant,

you once checked my article "Vogelpark Viernheim" and marked some photos not correctly licenced. As I am not so familiar with webpages and licecences, I now added photos I took my own to the article. Could you please tell me if everything is right now, or do I need to do more to get it into Wikipedia? Sorry, It is my first article, although I read a lot help articles, I fear I am no expert in such things.

Best regards

Christian (Der Super-Dickmann) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Der Super-Dickmann (talk • contribs) 20:25, 21 February 2015‎ (UTC)

Most of your uploaded files appear to be fine. The only concerns are
As for your article at German Wikipedia, I can only advise you from an English Wikipedia point of view. The article reads OK, but still needs a few more references from third-party sources. Personally I wouldn't have a gallery on the Wikipedia article, just one or two images. Instead I recommend creating a gallery on Commons e.g. Vogelpark Viernheim with some of the images and then link it to the article with interwiki links. Green Giant (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Genealogia degli 'Amerighi'.jpg

Ciao Green Giant. Ho visto che hai proposto per la cancellazione il "file" File:Genealogia degli 'Amerighi'.jpg. Questo file in effetti è stato creato per sostituire il vecchio "file"File:Genealogia degli Amerighi.jpg che era sbagliato. Io non ho capito. Mi puoi spiegare, per favore? Grazie e buona giornata.

Hello Green Giant. I saw that you proposed for deletion the "file" File: Genealogy of the 'Amerighi'.jpg. This file actually was created to replace the old "file" File:Genealogia degli Amerighi.jpg, defctive. I did not understand. Can you explain, please? Thank You an good day.--Roberto.Amerighi (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikispecies logotype

I would like to ask you, as expert on licencies and logotypes, may I modify the logotype for Wikispecies? What Id like to do, is to modify the logo in Photoshop, and add user rights graphics on the logo, as can be seen on various user boxes, eg the green arrow ✓ Done for autopatrol, the pencil for admin user box, 2 tools for crat, etc. Since the logo for Wikispecies is a logo within the Wikimedia foundation, I want to be sure, before I start. Dan Koehl (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Since it is a Wikimedia logo, I suggest dropping a note to someone like Philippe Beaudette and see what advice he can give. That said, if you are going to just use it for rights then I can't see any obstacles. Most of the Wikispecies logos appear to be CC-BY-SA-3.0 or similar, so as long as you abide by the license requirements, you should have no problems with changing the logo. I would recommend that you license the new work under the same license as the original. Attribution is obviously key, so it is important to mention author and name of the original file in the author field of the new file summary. A good way of doing this is to use the {{Derived from}} template. When you upload the new work(s), let me know and I will have a look at it (or them). Best of luck. Green Giant (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I will follow your advice and check with Philippe Beaudette first, but will will let you know once I have uploaded the modified logos. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Green Giant, now I uploaded 4 modified user rights icons based on the Wikispecies logo at Category:Wikispecies_user_rights_icons. I followed your advice and gave them same copyright as the logotype. Thanks for renaming the file with double png suffix. Dan Koehl (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. The new logos look fine as does the licensing. :) Green Giant (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Consulta de borrado

Hola Green Giant, las imágenes que borraste no las tomé de Internet, sino por medio de un IPad, sugiero que revises bien por favor y compruebes el ángulo de las fotografías. Asimismo quedo a tu disposición para cualquier duda que tengas. Saludos!!! Carlosahuatzin (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Some of your uploads were found elsewhere on the internet, before you uploaded them here. For example, this one. Green Giant (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Uploads by HanSangYoon

Hi Green Giant, a few days ago you closed a DR I opened, deleting all nominated files Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by HanSangYoon. The editor has recently uploaded a bunch of very similar looking files, claiming that they took them recently. However, when asked about the low quality they responded that it was what the technicians could recover from a corrupted device (see: [2]). So far so good, however, the user also mentioned a corruption of their device before I raised the copyright concerns [3], raising doubt about if they actually did take these photos or simply uploaded the deleted files again (at a lower resolution). Could you please check the deleted files to see if they are the same as the ones recently upload, and delete them if they are (also warning the editor)? Thanks in advanced. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

ColonialGrid, thank you for bringing this to my attention. Since there a lot of files involved I will devote some time tomorrow morning on this (it is almost 2 am here!). I'll let you know of the outcome. Green Giant (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
ColonialGrid, I have deleted some of the files as recreations of deleted content, some as duplicates of each other, and nominated some for deletion because they are fuzzy. I have left a note on the uploader's talk page and will keep an eye on future uploads. Green Giant (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I've nominated a few more that are scaled down versions of images on ENWP uploaded under the same conditions as the previously deleted ones. I'll request them to be deleted on ENWP after we get this sorted out though. ColonialGrid (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for keeping an eye on this matter. Green Giant (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Unpatrolled files an increasing problem?

I noticed a page about unpatrolled files statistics, and it seems this is increasing tendency on Commons? Ill try to do my share, but it seems that it would be good to give admins and patrollers "a push"? Or, maybe its not really a serious problem? Dan Koehl (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is definitely an increasing tendency but this is only part of the problem. Commons supposedly has 245 admins but about 25 of them do over 90% of the work. We've recently had 8 admins de-sysopped for inactivity (less than 5 admin actions in 6 months), and we removed rights from more than 40 license reviewers (see this thread). I'm not sure how many active patrollers there are but my guess is there are quite a few. Short of more active users, I'm not sure what else could be done to "stem the flow". Green Giant (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Im trying to do my (increasing) share of patrolling, and found a great tool which was new for me. I guess you have tried LiveRC (Category:LiveRC, but have you seen Real Time Recent Changes (m:User:Krinkle/Tools/Real-Time_Recent_Changes, I think it works great on Wikispecies and will try both that and LiveRC here. But if you have something even better to suggest, please do! The inspiration of patrol work always benefit by good tools, and I still dont feel really comfortable with #cvn-swc and similair. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Dan Koehl, I think it is an excellent tool but I don't know any others. Keep up the good work. Green Giant (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


You deleted this page, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Distillation setup.gif. This page was in use on en.wikiversity, and it is possible that fair use could be asserted there. But first, the deletion argument referred to the attached File talk page, which you also deleted. Please undelete File talk:Distillation_setup.gif. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Abd: - restored the talk page. Do you need a copy of the file too? Green Giant (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, that would be fantastic. --Abd (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@Abd:. File restored. Let me know when you're done. Green Giant (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. Now that I could see the page, I found this from 2004. It has become highly unlikely that this was "own work." The user had linked to the page, in fact, so he wasn't hiding it. He just didn't understand, nominator was correct. I have the image and will consider Fair Use on Wikiversity to avoid educational resource damage, but that original uploader will not be the source! Go ahead and delete. Thanks! --Abd (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done. You're welcome. Green Giant (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

My request for AWB access

Greetings Green Giant. I'm not sure if you have pings turned on or off but I wanted to let you know I responded to your request for additional information at the User rights page. I don't expect to get AWB rights, but I wanted to let you know I responded anyway. Please let me know if you have any questions or need further clarification on anything. Reguyla (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Category talk:Files uploaded by Russavia (VFC)

Greetings Green Giant, I noticed you deleted a category related to Russavia but it appears you missed the talk page. Reguyla (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

AWB rights

I responded to your comments on the User rights request page. I already figured it was a longshot anyway so its really no problem. For what its worth though, I will be pretty active here most likely for at least a while and I forsee getting quite a few edits (well over 1000) in a pretty short amount of time, probably in the next week and possible by the end of this weekend. 1000 edits for me is a trivial target. It would be a lot easier and a lot more will get done with AWB (such as working the Uncategorized images) but I'm not going to worry about it. I just won't kill myself wasting time manually fixing categorization when there are a lot of things that could be done quicker and easily using AWB in semi automatic mode. But it really isn't a big deal.

In regards to the comments about Russavia, I made that comment after noticing several categories while I was doing categorization. I'm not trying to get involved in anything or trying to stir the pot on controversial issues. I simple posted an observation and a suggestion and Fae seems intent on turning it into a personal statement about hurt feelings. Remember I am pretty new here and did very few edits here even with my old user name. Other than being roughly familiar with Russavia's situation in general, I have not history or interactions with this contraversy. Perhaps it would be best if we simply avoid categorizing or modifying files that Russavia interacted with? That seems perhaps draconian, but no more draconian than assuming that I am trying to stir the pot because I suggested cleaning out some stuff that has no chance of ever being used again. Perhaps if you and Fae feel that the WMF made a mistake about blocking Russavia I suggest you take it up with them, I suggested to them myself I felt they made a mistake so I am not the enemy here. I'm a very active editor and I am trying to learn the process here, please try and be patient with newbies like me. It takes time to learn the rules, contreversies and sore subjects when we don't edit here. Cheers. Reguyla (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Reguyla, try again in a month and with some more edits, and I will be happier to consider more permissions. As for Russavia, I don't see any point in people speculating about why he was banned. The only person who can do anything about the ban is Russavia himself and I have told him as much. Unlike English Wikipedia, there is no automatic policy of reverting all edits ever done by a blocked or banned user. Unless Russavia's uploads fit one of the general deletion or speedy deletion reasons, there is no reason to avoid them. If you could do some manual categorisation and checking of those files then that would make it more likely that you could be granted AWB rights. Bear in mind that being blocked elsewhere is not an obstacle to getting most rights here. Russavia was an admin here even though he was blocked on ENWP. My main objection was that you didn't mention your blocks and your other accounts. Green Giant (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think I am asking for all Russavia's edits to be reverted cause that's not what I am saying and at this point, frankly, I wish the ENWP folks would undo all my edits since editors aren't needed or wanted. I spent a lot of time on that project because I believed (and continue to believe in) it only to be treated like a second class citizen because I wasn't an admin and there is a developing culture that non-admins can't be trusted. The only reason I didn't mention it was that it was basically irrelevant here because I hardly edited here with that account. The reason I started using this account was because I already had created it here and at Wikia prior to the global userright sync when it was less needed to have a consolidated account. So since the account already existed it made sense to use it. I might resubmit for AWB rights at some point in the future it just prevents me from doing as much for the project that's all, it really doesn't hurt me other than waste time having to spend 20 minutes clicking on 50 articles to categorize them rather than just do them as a group in AWB and be done in 5 or less. I had thought about waiting when I requested the access but there are a lot of the same admins here as there and its unlikely that I am going to be treated any differently here than at ENWP knowing what my old username was and that I think editors should be treated equally and fairly not the double standard that currently exists throughout the WMF projects. Ironically, the only way to fix that is if I am dishonest and abandon this account and create an entirely new one which I should not have to do because a few entrenched admins have made me look like the A-hole to protect their power and abusive tendencies and others don't want to do anything to stop them. Anyway, see you around. Reguyla (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


GG, this file may have been in use cross-wiki, so an "out of scope" close based on low quality seems inappropriate. (See the delinker log. Some bug prevented it from removing pages, so there are present redlinks on en.wikiversity, for example.) Would you reverse that close because of actual usage? Or would it be better for me to request undeletion on the process page for that? --Abd (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Abd, I've restored the files temporarily. I'm viewing them on a mobile phone so I can't say they are low quality for sure but I do recall thinking they were when I deleted them. If you think any other of them are worth keeping, let me know and I will reconsider the deletion. Cheers. P.S. I might not respond quickly. Green Giant (talk) 07:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. All the files are either in use, or were in use and will presumably be restored if removed by Delinker. The nomination of File:2-year-old-jogging(2).gif was on the basis of suspected copyvio, but there was no support for that in the comments. Rather, the uploader's description crediting his grandson's parents for permission to photograph their son was mistaken as a photo credit. We can easily imagine a better quality image as being superior, but these choices are up to wiki editors, even quite poor images can have educational use, and, of course, COM:INUSE trumps the argument. So I would agree "low quality, out of scope," as to files not in use, I would start to question this a bit if the file is only in use by the uploader on a user page, but these were mainspace usages. As you have not been explicit, what should be done with any open deletion requests or unremoved tags? --Abd (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
To be explicit myself, I'll be happy to do any cleanup, but I don't want to remove DR tags without permission. --Abd (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
If you're happy to do the cleanup, add an extra note in the DR's, stating why these files have been restored, just below my closing sentence. Remove the DR notices but include a link to this discussion in the edit summary. There needs to be a {{Kept}} note on the talk pages of the affected files, linking to the relevant DR. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done [4] I hope I got it right. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I think you have done it right. Green Giant (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Image added - Permission authorized

Green Giant, you recently contact me about an image upload/copyright issue. If you look through the edits, the Permissions group helped me with the edit and adding the image on properly. Please research those things before writing. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfly2015 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 19 March 2015‎ (UTC)

I have restored the file and added the appropriate tag, something that should have been done as soon as they dealt with your email. My main concern is that you have not yet identified the photographer or why Will is the copyright holder, when he is clearly sat in the photo. If someone else took the photo, it is best to ask them to contact OTRS and give us an idea of the copyright status. Green Giant (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Will owns the copyright for the photo. I have sent you an email regardless the status. This issue should now be closed. For for reference going forward, the subject can also have the copyright while being in the photo as cameras have the timer setting for taking their own photographs. That method of taking pictures has been around for a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfly2015 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 19 March 2015‎ (UTC)

For future reference, I am fully aware of timers and I am also an OTRS volunteer, a Commons administrator and a long term contributor to Wikipedia. The crucial thing is that YOU the uploader must provide information about the copyright status and should not expect us to guess. Green Giant (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have mails from Permissions of Wikimedia Commons from just yesterday and they assured me all was ok. Please look it up if you need more help. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfly2015 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 19 March 2015‎ (UTC)

I have written in to Permissions regarding your removal of the photo and "Michigs" addition. The artist does not want the photo that replaced the one I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfly2015 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 19 March 2015‎ (UTC)

I have replied. Please check your emails. As for which image to use, that is entirely a Wikipedia choice. You can request a change at the article talk page. Green Giant (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)