User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 8

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

This is an archive of older talk for User:Infrogmation


July 2009[edit]

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for the category fixing. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Atlantis silhouette.jpg[edit]

You recently deleted the image of the Space Shuttle Atlantis transiting the sun. While I see that on his personal site he claims full copyright, this seems to contradict NASA's website,which while giving him credit, also claims credit. This can be seen in NASA's image of the day gallery (not astronomy image of the day where many of the files are under copyright.) NASA's copyright policy clearly states that any image on the site is in the public domain unless otherwise noted. On this images page (currently number 49 in the image of the day gallery [1]) their is no mention of copyright, leading me to believe that the image is in the public domain as a work of NASA and the photographer is unlawfully asserting copyright per NASA's copyright policy [2]. In any case I would like the image to be restored so that a full discussion may take place before deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made a request that this file be undeleted at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests if you wish to comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

New user overkill?[edit]

Hi, I wonder if the last part of this edit [3] is a bit of overkill for a new user. They didn't actually upload any copyvios since the first warning (all were uploaded before), so they did not continue to upload despite the warnings. Is there not a simple "stop" message template to use, before we get around to threatening to block them? Also you didn't sign the message so they can't leave you a message if they have further questions :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


File:TeouletsCocaCola.jpg[edit]

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

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Liftarn (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Kindness[edit]

I want to leave a note here, since I read your user page "After a month in exile due to Hurricane Katrina, I came back to my beloved devastated home town." Sorry to hear this and I know you are a kind person. What is kindness? It is sheer attention not to be unkind to editors, members or little people here who desire to share their wisdom amid the tight rules of Commons. If a little editor uploads cherished and notable images of his or her notability, then, a push button to delete the same is akin to Katrina, and you know what I mean. Thanks.--124.106.81.33 08:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. My intention is never to be unkind (though I regret that I sometimes I let it show if I get particularly annoyed or exasperated). When I delete images, it has nothing to do with kindness nor other emotions I might feel. My deletions follow the rules of Commons to my best judgement. As Commons exists for specifically verifiably free licensed useful images, there are many images which might be appropriate elsewhere but are not appropriate for Commons. If there is some specific image you have in mind that prompted this comment, let me know and I might have a better idea about the issues involved. Thanks. Infrogmation (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Deletion is a process and kindness is never part of it lest judgment be tarnished. Wikipedia, Wikinews and Wikimedia Commons were conceived to share wisdom. In the process of doing so, people, meaning human beings with brains and emotions, including human anger, vengeance, vendetta, bitterness and lust for getting even amid dire PAINS, are essential ingredients. It is once wisely said: do not sleep with the enemy. IN FINE, deletion can well be defined in a word: greedy or rather vengeance. Anyone, everyone, including all are aware and like dogs sniff their enemies. IN THE END, however, the entire universe is really made up of only 3 words as the good Count of Monte Christo had summarized: Wait and Hope!--124.106.81.33 07:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Martí[edit]

Hi there infrogmation, I think I have followed your instructions, but I still your advice, below:

"Show the source photo is public domain and correct the image description and I'll vote to keep;... "
  • Can you tell me if I have done it correctly, or if I have to do something more? here after this I would like your guidance for uploading some other material but please I need all the support that you can provide [me] to resolve the issue that you have call my attention to. Infrogmation, beforehand, thank you for your prompt response over this matter. John Manuel15:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks okay now; I think the problems were resolved and I have closed the deletion request. Thanks. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Infrogmation for your support.
  • I need your help with some materials from an international non-profit that has provided me with some photos and other stuff to upload, basically it is its logo, and other photos of renown academicians and administrators who are cooperating with this organization. My question is about how I can upload that logo if it is only supposed to be used for that organization? I mean, under what license so it can be used [these logos] for documenting this non-profit in the wikipedia and other projects but not by other people and of course without violating any rule or Wikimedia policy?
  • Ok Infrogmation, thanks once more and please take your time, I know you are busy with other issues, in the mean time I will do my best and I know I shall be eventually received your guidance about this. Greetings, Sincerely, John Manuel21:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

To migrate or not to migrate...[edit]

I could not help noticing that you want to opt-out. If you need help from a bot I might be able to help you. If you are interessted. --MGA73 (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please. I asked on your talk page. Thanks much, Infrogmation (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The license migration[edit]

I saw recently that you have chosen to opt out of the license migration. Although I can understand your frustration at feeling like a significant change was made to the licensing of your images without your consent or input, I would like to ask you to reconsider nonetheless. The license migration was an imperfect solution to very real and significant problems with the GFDL (many relating specifically to its use with images). Although it may seem like the change came out of nowhere, it actually was the result of 3 years of work and negotiations to address these problems, work which the public and the Wikipedia community specifically was invited to participate in. The goal of this work was not to go behind people's back to change licensing out from under them. It was actually to make our licensing match more closely the goals and intentions of the Wikipedia community. Let me see if I can provide you with an explanation for how we got to this point...

To really understand the license migration, there's a huge amount of historical context involving the history of the free culture movement that you should be aware of (if you aren't already). That information, however, would take a book to cover. Perhaps I can give you a super-condensed version:

Chapter 1: In 1985, Richard Stallman founded the Free Software Foundation (FSF) to support the burgeoning free software movement (a.k.a. open source movement). Lots of cool stuff came out of this movement, like Linux, Firefox, and most of the tools that the modern internet is built from. The foundation of this movement lies in a collection of unique copyright licenses developed by the FSF that allow people from all over the world to collaborate on creating software without anyone getting screwed over. The most famous of these licenses is the GPL, a copyleft license for computer software source code. As an afterthought, the FSF also created the GFDL license so that software manuals and documentation could also be created collaboratively.

Chapter 2: The free software movement was so successful that people started wondering if it would be possible to apply the philosophies (and legal principals) of the free software movement to more than just software. In 2001, two separate and very important projects split off from the free software movement. One was Creative Commons, the other was Wikipedia. Neither of them had anything to do with software, but they were both intimately connected to the free software movement. These two projects would launch what is now known as as the free culture movement.

After creating a successful commercial web portal (Bomis.com), Jimmy Wales hired Larry Sanger to help him create Nupedia, and soon thereafter, Wikipedia. At the urging of Richard Stallman and the FSF, Wikipedia licensed all of its content under the GFDL. At the time, this was the only copyleft license in existence for collaboratively written text. Once images and sounds were added to Wikipedia, they too were licensed under the GFDL (for lack of a better alternative).

At the same time, on the other side of the country, Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford Law professor, and some other intellectual property activists founded Creative Commons. Inspired by the Free Software Foundation's GPL license, Creative Commons developed a collection of licenses that allowed people to share and collaborate on all sorts of media (not just software) without breaking copyright laws. Initially at least, ties were very close between Creative Commons and the FSF. Lessig would even serve on the Board of Directors of the FSF for several years.

Chapter 3: In one of those interesting accidents of history, Wikipedia was in the right place at the right time and became hugely, amazingly successful. With this success, licensing issues (which had not really concerned people that much in the beginning) became more important. Now people were wanting to distribute DVDs of Wikipedia to schools in Africa; teachers were wanting to print off Wikipedia articles for their classes; bloggers were wanting to use images and excerpts in their blogs, etc, etc. What people soon realized, however, was that although the GFDL was a great license for facilitating collaboration and protecting the interests of both Wikipedia and its editors, it wasn't a great license for freely distributing information and media.

Of the provisions that were problematic, the most troublesome were:

1. Anything that included GFDL media was required to also include a full copy of the GFDL license (5 pages of text), a list of all the previous versions of that media, as well as a list of all the people who collaborated on that media. This means if a teacher wanted to print out the Wikipedia article on World War II for their history class, they would have to include about 100 pages of other junk with each copy of the article. And not only was this true for article text, but also for images and sounds licensed under the GFDL. So if someone wanted to include a GFDL sound on their radio show, they would have to recite half-an-hour of licensing text to boot.

2. Anything that included GFDL media was also required to be licensed under the GFDL. So if, for example, you wanted to include a GFDL image in a book you're writing, you had to release the entire book under the GFDL license as well. This basically meant that virtually no commercial products would ever include Wikipedia content (for better or worse).

3. The GFDL was incompatible with Creative Commons licensing. This meant that while everyone else was free to trade media back and forth using CC licenses (which had become the de facto standard for non-software media). Wikipedia was left on a licensing island all by itself.

4. The GFDL was only designed for U.S. legal jurisdiction. While Creative Commons licenses are designed for worldwide use, the GFDL is specifically tailored to U.S. copyright laws. For an international project like Wikipedia, this is a big problem.

5. Although this was not problematic provision per se, being licensed under the GFDL basically left Wikipedia at the legal mercy of a single person, as Richard Stallman was not only the founder of the FSF, but also its figurehead, chief license author, and benevolent dictator.

Chapter 4: The Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikipedia community addressed these problems with a two-pronged approach. In actual practice, all of the problems above would be completely ignored. Reusers of Wikimedia content were never expected or asked to actually follow the problematic parts of the GFDL license. If you read through our instructions for reusing or mirroring Wikipedia content, you'll see this is still the case today. We just ask that you credit Wikipedia, mention the GFDL license, and link back to the original media. On the Wikimedia discussion lists, this was called the "wink and nod" policy.

Behind the scenes, however, various people, myself included, began lobbying the FSF to address these problems. Because Wikipedia was the largest user of the GFDL license on the planet, we felt it was only fair that we have some input on revising the wording of the license. Between 2006 and 2008, the FSF solicited feedback on the GFDL license and released periodic drafts of a new GFDL 1.3 license. In these drafts, they made limited concessions to the requests of Wikipedia activists, but essentially retained the spirit and purpose of the original license, namely supporting copylefted software manuals. Gradually discussions stalled as the two sides became more entrenched in their positions and less cooperative.

In 2008, however, the Wikimedia Foundation stepped in and began negotiations with both the Free Software Foundation and Creative Commons. The result of these long and tedious negotiations were that the FSF would keep the GFDL license exactly how it was, but allow Wikipedia to migrate to a Creative Commons license. Although such a move was completely unprecedented (and legally tricky), it seemed to be the only solution that would make everyone happy. The FSF got to keep its licenses intact and Wikipedia got to finally join the rest of the free culture movement under the Creative Commons banner. Plus it would mean that our licensing policies could finally be sane and we could ask people to actually follow them to the letter instead of using the wink-and-nod policy.

Sorry if you already knew most of that, but I wanted to make sure you had a good understanding of the process that led to the migration. If you still want to opt-out, your decision will of course be respected. Kaldari (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time and leaving this detailed message. Yes, I was aware of the outlines of this story. I am aware of the utility of Creative Commons licenses, and the awkward aspects of GFDL. I understand the sentiment that, in retrospect, it might have been better if somehow Wikimedia could have been Creative Commons licensed from the start. However trying to change that retroactively does indeed seem, as you say "legally tricky" at the least.
While I'm not without questions about the migration and Wikipedia, my opt out notice does not apply to my contributions to such collaborative works. My opt out applies only to the files (aka images or photographs) which I am the sole author and copyright holder of. I simply state that as author and copyright holder, I have the right to determine the licensing under which I will share this work. Other parties may either accept or reject my work under the conditions I offer, but have no rights to change my license without my consent.
I certainly have nothing against Creative Commons. The overwhelming majority of my images on Wikimedia were and are licensed under various Creative Commons licenses, and over the years I have voluntarily added Cretive Commons as a licening option to hundreds of my my images originally uploaded under GFDL only. As I've stated repeatedly pretty much everywhere the matter has been brought up, I am also frequently willing to allow reuse of most of my images under even broader options IF asked. My refusal to go along with applying the "license migration" to works which I am the sole author of is based on the point that the author/copyright holder needs to be the one to make the decision of conditions of authorized reuse of their work. Much the same reason as why I might willingly give someone money if asked, but would vigorously resist if someone tried to grab my money without my permission.
While there are probably many users little aware of the differences between licenses, I think there certainly have been some who selected their licenses with due consideration. I recall some years ago that the very awkwardness of the GFDL license requirement to include a text license with reuse was considered a possible advantage in some situations. A GFDL license, the understanding went, made an image suitible for projects like Wikipedia and similar on-line reference works, or print or DVD copies of the same, but made it very unlikely that the image would legally be reused on, say, a postcard or souvenir mug. Some users chose GFDL with just such thoughts in mind.
I am aware of the migration being done by special arrangement with the FSF under the "or later" clause of GFDL. If applying this to single author works which have been shared with Wikimedia under GFDL is legal, it seems to me a technical legality of questionable propriety -- like an unethical salesman using the fine print of a doccument to get a result other than what the customer thought they were agreeing to.
That is why I voted against the "migration" as it was proposed. The applying the "migration" to single author works shared with Wikimedia is a trampling of the rights of the authors to chose how to license their works. I wish now that I had brought my serious objections up in a wider variety of forums, and feel guilty that I did put a major effort into seriously campaigning against it.
"Opting out" seems rather curious. Wouldn't it be more ethical to ask people to opt in, and only change the licenses of those who permit it? Still, "opting out" was supposedly allowed. As one of the few ways I could express my lack of consent to what I considered an improper violation of authors' rights, I therefore decided to opt out. The process, I found, was very difficult. I think I'm a good deal more Commons savvy than the average user. Still it took me many hours over many days, going through many pages on both Commons and Meta, then hundreds of edits, followed by thousands of edits by bots. And at writing I'm still unsure if my "opting out" has been completed and successfully stated in a way that will be acknowledged. I am certain that if the procedure were easier (for example, I suggested that there be a page somewhere for uses to add their name if they wish to opt out-- and bots could then take care of anything else) more contributors would have opted out. I think that even greater numbers of contributors would opt out if they were informed that their works are being relicensed without their express permission and there was something they could do to object.
I therefore decline your suggestion that I "reconsider" my opt out. I hereby opt out of this and any other attempt to change licensing without the express consent of the author. I hope this clarifies my position. If you have further questions, feel free to ask. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The opt-in option would have had similar problems down the road. Since it is virtually impossible to properly educate every uploader to Commons on the technical differences between the licenses and why CC is preferred, it is likely that a very small percentage of uploaders would have "opted in". Indeed, my own extensive efforts to try to convince uploaders to reconsider opting out have had 0% success. At some point in the future, either the community or the Foundation will likely phase out GFDL licensing completely, as was done with Non-commercial (NC) licensing many years ago. The only reason we aren't doing that as part of the migration now is due to the terms of the agreement with the FSF (and to smooth the transition with reusers). When the GFDL is finally phased out, all of the GFDL-only images will have to be deleted. Obviously, it's a lot easier to deal with a few dozen opt-outers complaining about licensing changes than it would be to deal with hundreds of non-opt-iners complaining about their images being deleted. Of course, ideally the issue would be discussed thoroughly with each and every commons user, but that just isn't practically possible. Your analogy of someone demanding to take your money doesn't seem that accurate to me. You donated your images to Wikipedia under a copyleft license. Apart from some important technical details, that agreement is still being honored (in spirit at least). If you don't like how it is being honored, you are free to opt-out or delete your images. Yes, opting out could be much easier. Unfortunately, the entire migration for Commons is being handled by 4 community volunteers working under a very tight deadline. Obviously our top priority isn't making sure that opting out is effortless. Not because we want it to be hard, but because we have a lot of other work we have to complete before August 1. I apologize that this seems inconsiderate and heavy-handed. Please try to keep in mind, however, that this is all being done by volunteers with good intentions (and with the approval of most of the community). Kaldari (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Two points:
1)NO, I had NOT "donated [my] images to Wikipedia". I retain copyright (with the exception of a very small number of my images which I released to the public domain or otherwise forfeited). I have generously allowed Wikipedia, Wikmedia, and anyone else to reuse my copyrighted images under the licenses which I have specified. Is that distinction really not clear to you? Did you misspeak? I hope so; this seems an important point. Is there really an impression that copyrights of uploaded images have been ceded to Wikipeia or Wikimedia, and if so, what if anything is it based on?
No one said anything about ceeding or donating copyrights to images. I was talking about donating the images themselves. Kaldari (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
2)If Wikimedia wishes to phase out use of GFDL only images, that is Wikimedia's prerogative, like any other decision made on the reuser's side of a licensing agreement. What I object to is the attempted usurpation of the decision on the author and copyright holder's side as to what license they agree to share their work with potential reusuers.
I actually agree with this partially. I was one of the people who originally supported getting changes made to the GFDL rather than migrating. But since so few members of the community were interested in being involved in the original discussions (which have since been deleted from the FSF site, but some of which can be seen here and here), it never went anywhere. Without more public pressure on the FSF to make concessions, the Foundation wasn't in a strong position to negotiate. The solution that emerged reflects that, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
My impression is that the "migration" is being done more with the apathy than the approval of the majority of the community, but I'll let that one pass for now. Thanks for taking the time to discuss. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, that may be so, although the turnout for the vote was more than I expected. Kaldari (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

singers[edit]

I understand your point but, if you are searching for Opera singers and, usually, you do not know(very few people nowadays know who are this great singers) the name you are lost, and I think it could add an extra interest to the Wikipedia to expand the knowledge of very talented people from the past, if not erased but think before in the amazing comparative weapon the wikipedia is. thanks for your consideration, cheers--DEDB (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Concerning User:Altairisfar[edit]

Hello Infrogmation!

Thanks for your opinion. I respect the excuse of User:Altairisfar. Revenge is really not my aim, but such behaviour must have consequences. But you are right, that duration of his blocking should be reduced. I would suggest one month, or at least 2 weeks. --High Contrast (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed that you have changed the blocking-duration of User:Altairisfar. As I already said above, I agree with that. But can you please add a comment that the changing to a short term block was discussed with me? So that there cannot arise the impression that it could be a over-the-head-decision. Thank you. --High Contrast (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Certainly. I edited the talk page here. I hope that is adiquate clarification. If not, let me know or add whatever else you think is needed on the talk page. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

ParisGlorieDeLaRepubliqueFrancaise.jpg[edit]

Hi Infrogmation,
Leopold Morice is the author of the Statue of the Republic, Place de la République in Paris. You can check e.g. here or there. The book A Photographic Trip Around the World, John W. Illiff & Co., Chicago, 1892, is wrong (that may happen, even for old books). This statue has nothing in common with Auguste Bartholdi's Statue of Liberty, although the classical pose looks the same.
Cordially. --9jules9 (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Explaining that in the image description is certainly welcome, but please do not modify the "original caption" section. The section "original caption" preserves word for word what was written in 1892. Certainly such 19th century captions sometimes have ignorant attitutes and sometimes outright mistakes, but I think they are historical doccuments showing how the image was described at the time it was first published. I have added comments per your notes above to File:ParisGlorieDeLaRepubliqueFrancaise.jpg AFTER the original caption text. Further improvements in the modern description is welcome; I just wish to keep it seperate from the old text. Thank you much. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for added informations. I completed them. Yours, --9jules9 (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

File:CanalMidCityYesIndeedHarsh.jpg [edit]

Hello!

With difficulty to perceive this graffiti. Surely 1% area of the photograph. Greetings from Pomerania. --Pomeranian (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(People) of (place)[edit]

hello,

For the United States, we used "from" for practically all the categories (see Category:People of the United States by city). If you want, you can request a bot to change all that, but we've to do the same thing on the English Wikipedia who use commonscat links in their categories. Okki (talk) 08:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC) ps: sorry for my really poor english.

2.0/3.0[edit]

When I created derivative works of cc-by-2.0 work with derivtiveFX I saw you can simply relicense under a license that also requires attribution but is newer, like cc-by-3.0. I have only changed the license on that at one pic I didn't work on thinking it's okay but I'll revert. Hekerui (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you have special sysop vision...[edit]

...can you look at this deleted file and tell me if File:Hilton-washington-dc.jpg is the same copyvio? It looks familiar, but I wanted to double check before F11 tagging it. Come to think of it, I don't even know if you can see deleted files on COM. (like you can see deleted articles on WP) If you can't access the file, no worries. Gracias. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The one deleted from Commons was from [4] The one on en:W is smaller resolution and maybe had the contrast adjusted, but is clearly from the same original photo; note the same two people in the same possitions in the swimming pool. De nada. Infrogmation (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, part deux. (random site note: Every time I walk past the Hinckley Hilton, I'm reminded why brutalist architecture is so ugly. Hopefully, the hotel will meet the same fate as this "gem".) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Catalog numbers for Edison recordings[edit]

Hello Infrogmation, I just uploaded a label scan showing a record by fiddler Allen Sisson. It's from 1925 and was recorded for Edison (see File:KatyHill.jpg). Can you tell me which of these numbers the catalog number is? Thanks in advance, Waylon (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have that info off hand. Infrogmation (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mongolian Maths Paper.PNG[edit]

Hi, I asked this at Commons talk:Deletion requests a while back and it was probably the wrong forum, but I don't know where to ask for help - I'm afraid I've picked on you since you seem to be a reasonably active admin. Sorry to bother you.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mongolian Maths Paper.PNG is a deletion nomination I created using the left-hand sidebar option. It's been a long time since I edited at Commons, but it seems to me that this deletion request has malformed somehow since the only thing linking to it is the file itself and places I have asked for help, so I don't see how anyone could be expected to find it to comment on it. I'm here to ask please (a) since you understand what a listing is meant to look like, suggest how I should sort this one out manually? (b) how can I avoid future cock-ups? My internet connection tends to cut out at critical moments, could that be responsible for the nomination not forming properly? Any help appreciated :) TheGrappler (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

From first look, it looks like the deletion request wasn't added to a daily listing. I'll see if I can fix it. Usually the instructions given in the template work, but you have to follow them step by step, and it helps if you copy and paste some. Infrogmation (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I think I got it. Infrogmation (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks. Any idea why it wouldn't get added to a daily listing - I assume the sidebar button is meant to do that automatically? TheGrappler (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Probably your browser is blocking popups. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks all! TheGrappler (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Subcategories[edit]

Hi. I have a few questions, and was wondering if you could help me.

1. Can you tell me how to create subcategories so that the subcategory name shows up as such as a link on a main category's page? I want to add the categories of Union City, New Jersey and North Bergen, New Jersey as subcats to Hudson County, New Jersey, but don't know how.

2. Is it possible to delete images? I uploaded five pics recently before realizing that they had wrong file names. I uploaded them again with the correct ones, but the initial ones with the wrong ones are still there. I tried removing the cats on them, but they're on a Media needing categories page. (They're the seventh through tenth images on that page as of this writing).

3. How do you move images from Wikipedia to the Commons? I want to move this image to the Commons' Hoboken, New Jersey page. I know bot scripts can do that, but I don't know how that works.

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Drawings of objects[edit]

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

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Akinom (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank You for deltion[edit]

Thank you deleting paisesbm.png, i am Jirisys by the way, and thank you for you acknowledging my reasons, hope to help on wikimedia soon.

:File:Albert Thomas 02.jpg[edit]

Hello. Looking at Category:Albert Thomas, I see that I uploaded two photographs of Albert Thomas on the same day in 2007, and that I inadvertently indicated the date of the NPC photograph as also being the date of the G. G. Bain photograph. I have now changed the second date to "unrecorded" and corrected the source information. Thank you for wondering about this this and letting me know :-) - Mu (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


Category:Statue of Liberty[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Statue of Liberty has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

--Teofilo (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion requests/File:Phidippus clarus courtship edit.jpg[edit]

Hello, was wondering if you could take a look at the additional responses at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Phidippus clarus courtship edit.jpg. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Kaldari (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know[edit]

I'm not active at all at commons so if you need to leave me a message try my en talk page. Spartaz (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Flickr[edit]

Small world.  ;-) --Nsaum75 (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Human sacrifice (Codex Mendoza).jpg[edit]

Hello. I changed File:Human sacrifice (Codex Mendoza).jpg from a speedy delete to "dupe" and filed a "universal replace" command, since the image is used in multiple Wikipedias and the other version should be substituted in articles before this version is deleted. Thank you, Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. I just uploaded the file another time with a correct name. What should I do now? El ComandanteSkull and crossbones.svgHasta ∞ 16:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Logo’s of Companies and Organizations[edit]

Dear Infrogmation
You deleted Grahamstad_nasionale_kunstefees_logo.jpg, the Festival Logo of the biggest Arts Festival in the world [5], [6] which I published under a Non-free logo{{Non-free logo}} license, the same as for the FORD LOGO. Can you please guide me through the reasoning for the exceptional deletion Vis-à-vis the Ford Logo under the same license. The logo is published for public use by the owners, the 1820 Settlers Foundation [7]] here. Thanks for your help. Kind regards -- User:Wordscape 10:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Non-free content is not allowed here on Wikimedia Commons. (There is limited "fair use" of non-free licened material on the English language Wikipedia, but hot here.) 2)Logos and insignia which are here legitimately must either be free licensed, or consist of simple text or geometric figures which are judged ineligible to be copyrighted and therefore qualify as {{PD-ineligible}}. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I appreciate your help and explanation. Best Regards --Wordscape 18:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Mucha, Alfons - Dance.jpg[edit]

Hello,

I've noted that you have deleted that file (painting by Alphonse Mucha) which I have been uploaded 70 years after 1939-07-14 (the death date of the artist). You have stated "Derivative of non-free content: Becomes PD in January of next year, not so yet". Why does his work becomes PD in January 2010 and not on 2009-07-15 onward? 14 July 1939 is given as the day of his death all around the internet incl. Wikipedia. Do you have other informations or is there a certain time span one has to wait before a work turns PD? I'd like to have it undeleted. BFN, -- Mattes (talk) 08:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I recall this coming up repeatedly at Commons deletion requests. I think the relevent phrase is "All periods of protection run until 31 December of the year in which they expire." en:Copyright law of the European Union. If I remember correctly, this was discussed a few years ago, but I don't recall where I could find the discussion. If you think my understanding is wrong, we can bring it up at Commons talk:Licensing. -- Infrogmation (talk)
OK, now I understand! Thanks for the MSG on my talk page and on the Village pump. "See" you around, --Mattes (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Herman Shaw.jpg[edit]

Done! [8] Lamarmota (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Locomobile[edit]

The problem with stripping the cat is that it makes Locomobile disappear from Category:Steam cars, when they're one of the three obvious US makers. It would be possible to create a structure with more categories and model-based sub-categories that there are images, but that's pointless.

Category inclusion isn't a defining property, particularly when the tree is as sparsely populated as it is here: it implies that there's some useful connection between member and category, it doesn't imply that every item in every sub-page downwards forever must also be an absolute inclusion into that category. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Locomobile made steam autos for some 5 years, then switched to gasoline internal combustion autos which it made for some 25 years in larger quantities. Most Locomobile images on Commons are not of steam cars, and that's likely to still be the case even if we get 100 times as many Locomobile images. My inclination would be to include the individual images of steam Locomobiles in Category:Steam-powered automobiles. However, if you think appropriate, we could create "Category:Steam-powered Locomobile automobiles" (or a similar name) which would be a subcategory of both "Steam-powered automobiles" and "Locomobile vehicles". Other thoughts? Thanks for your work. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Apache Kid[edit]

Thanks for adding the source to File:Apache Kid No 19 Marvel, 1956.jpg, but are you sure it's from Marvel? I understood that Marvel was created with 1º issue of Fantastic Four, in 1961. If it's from Atlas, who would later turn into Marvel Comics when they replaced monster comics with superheroe ones, it should be noted that way.

But, more important, we would need some rationale to confirm the statement that copyright was not renewed. After all, in the time period of 1923 and 1963 we can also find the first appearences of many Marvel superheoes still being used (Fantastic Four 1, Amazing Fantasy 15, The Incredible Hulk 1, Journey into Mystery #83, etc.); and even before Marvel, Timely and Atlas created characters wich are still used by Marvel (like Captain America or Namor). Not renewed copyright is easier to be asumed with publishing companies that had gone out of business than with others that, like Atlas, simply renamed themselves and keep working today.

I'm not saying this to be a copyright violation, only that for {{PD-US-no-renewal}} publication date is not enough, as not all US works done before 1963 have fallen into public domain. I checked also the wikipedia entry, and found that the comic books of Apache Kid were reprinted by Marvel in the 70s. Belgrano (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I removed the "no source", as the source seemed pretty clear to me from what the uploader wrote. I have no info on whether the copyright was or wasn't renewed, nor if the publisher info is accurate; I suggest you ask the uploader about that. If I can be of any help, ask. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Stamp deletion[edit]

Excuse me bothering you but Juliancolton suggested you could assist me with this issue. You might be able to advise me on a particular deletion. I recently noticed that Kameraad Pjotr, who had deleted File:Stamp Italy 1917airmailC1.png which was undeleted following this undeletion request, also deleted File:Flugpost 1918-1.jpg on the basis of {{PD-old}} being invalid. As this was an image that had been around since 2006 though I did not upload it, I would need to go look at it to see what other copyright claim can be made if {{PD-old}} does not apply.

Please review the last template statement on Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates where this template is stated to be good. Was he correct that the {{PD-old}} copyright template is invalid for this stamp and do you know, or can you see, what other stamps did he delete based on this claim? It may be possible to rescue them all.

I presumed the PD-old template was proper but strictly speaking this stamp File:Flugpost 1918-1.jpg is not Austrian. It was issued in March 1918 by the Austro-Hungarian Empire and not by the state of Austria that was established in December 1918. Either way, I would like to get hold of the image and the details because if it is not free, I may be able to upload it to the en wiki under a fair-use claim. Can you help one way or the other? Thanks (I am watching this page, so no need to leave a talkback.). Ww2censor (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you have been actively editing, so when you get some time can you please respond to this request. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. I should have replied sooner, if only to tell you "sorry, I don't know". I can say that {{PD-Old}} is dependant on knowing the death date of the creator or copyright holder. For items printed in the 1910s, we cannot assume that the author has been dead for 70 years if the author is not identified. I haven't worked with copyrights of early 20th century European stamps. {{Anonymous-EU}} may well apply to many but I don't know enough to be sure of the details. I suggest you contact some other Commons participants who you have seen working with these types of stamps. Or, a message on the talk page of Commons:Stamps/Public domain might get attention of someone knowledgeable about stamp copyrights. If you can't get an answer in those ways, try asking on the Commons:Village pump. I hope this is of some help. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually I, and Stan Shebs, are a few of the people watching and occasionally posting to the Commons:Stamps/Public domain talk page, but there are few others consistently around. I have used {{Anonymous-EU}} before but don't have sufficient specialist literature in my library to look up if a stamp designer is recorded. This usually requires rather detailed books and not just regular stamp catalogues. Perhaps, being a defunct government, makes a difference in this case. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Cleveland Anthony umbrella.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 18:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)