User talk:LX/Archive/2007: July to September

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

La chaine RTE[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Gavigan#Fair_use_is_not_permitted_on_Commons. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. LX (talk, contribs) 17:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Gavigan#Fair_use_is_not_permitted_on_Commons. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you.

Image:Paint NET screen.jpg[edit]

Hi! Thanks for your patience and resolving this licensing problem :] Sorry for my mistake :? Regards, patrol110 19:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


Merci de m'avoir prévenue, 77bcr77 18:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


You have it! Cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Gareth edwards etc.[edit]


You must delete them please Image:GARETH EDWARDS.jpg...

Effectively, it's better...


Ddfree 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Other speedy deletions[edit]

can you look into that category ? It overflows, because of a bot-error. Augiasstallputzer 18:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot deletion[edit]

Hi, LX: a couple of years ago I uploaded Image:ProgressQuest_Screenshot.png to the English Wikipedia. It was a screenshot of an MIT-licensed program (Progress Quest), and I explicitly renounced any personal copyright claim to it. At some point someone else apparently in good faith contributed it to Wikimedia Commons and deleted it from English Wikipedia. I was running Windows when I took the screenshot -- this didn't appear to matter at the time, but last week, you deleted the image from Commons because images containing visible Microsoft Windows widgets are apparently no longer allowed here.

This has resulted in a broken image on the original English Wikipedia article. I no longer possess a copy of the original image and it now appears to have fallen off the web completely. Even though nobody individually did anything wrong, the cumulative end result of this process is that my contribution was destroyed, and the wp article subjected to wiki-entropy, for what appears from the outside to be silly procedural reasons.

Would it make sense in such cases to move the image back to the English Wikipedia (which allows "fair use" images) instead of destroying it forever?

(I'm actually wondering how Commons can contain any photographs at all under the union of the strictest possible interpretations of all copyright laws everywhere: how would one contribute a screenshot of a Windows program to Commons in the future? Is just removing the window decorations enough, or would the presence of buttons and scrollbars contaminate the screenshot? What about photographs where a Windows or Mac OS desktop is visible on a monitor in the background? What about photographs that contain portions of a car or other industrially designed object visible in frame?) --Saucepan 02:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that we've ever consciously accepted screenshots containing parts of non-free software. User:Liftarn who transferred the image to Commons incorrectly tagged the image with {{free screenshot}}, which already then stated that the image does not contain any elements of non-free software, a statement which did not apply to this image.
As a courtesy, I've uploaded a version of the image where I've cropped out all copyrightable non-free Microsoft Windows widgets and undeleted the image description.
LX (talk, contribs) 09:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi LX. Thank you very much for delete user page and block Wherethef***karethepicturesofferrol. Best regards. --Prevert(talk) 20:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'm trying to keep an eye out for these vandals. LX (talk, contribs) 20:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi LX! I noticed you have worked on this. Is it complete? If so I can get my bot to update the navigation links etc so they match the Swedish. cheers --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's complete. I think I've taken care of all the labels for all the "svsomething" language codes as well. You can have a look at my Mediawiki namespace contributions and see if I've missed anything obvious. Thanks! We still haven't changed the left-hand side menu to point to the Commons rather than the Special version of the upload page. I thought I'd announce it on the Swedish VP to give people some time to find my mistakes first. Finally, good on you for your part in reworking the upload process. LX (talk, contribs) 18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


Hello! There are 6 types of licensing my own work, but I can find none of their description, so I can't tell the difference. Could you please help me with this? Thank you in advance. Pagan 16:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope I've understood your question right: you're wondering about the differences between the licenses that you can choose to apply to works that are entirely the result of your own efforts, is that right?
The most popular licensing options here at Wikimedia Commons are the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and one of the free Creative Commons (CC) licenses, some combination thereof, and releasing works into the public domain.
There are a few varieties of the CC licenses. The Creative Commons Attribution (CC-by) license grants the most freedoms to those who use your works. Essentially, they can use your work for any purpose, so long as they credit you. The Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (CC-by-sa) license is a copyleft license, meaning anyone who wants to distribute modified copies of your work must license their modifications under that same license. Thus, a CC-by work can be modified and turned into a non-free work, while a CC-by-sa license guarantees that all derivative works are equally free.
The GFDL is similar to the CC-by-sa license in that it is a copyleft license. The ideas behind these two licenses are relatively similar, but subtleties in the wording have legal implications that one needs to study the license texts in detail to grasp completely.
Releasing the work into the public domain is similar to the CC-by license, but whether or not attribution is required may depend on the jurisdiction.
Many users also choose to multi-license their works under a combination of, for example, GFDL and CC-by-sa, to let the recipients choose which license they prefer.
I hope that addresses your question and makes things a bit clearer. LX (talk, contribs) 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Not enough evidence[edit]

LX, I sure hope that you have best intentions in mind as you contineously question the permission I got for pictures from my articles I uploaded to the commons. I obtained written permissions from authors, however I cannot provide texts for public viewing as they are distributed between several messages (for example, in one message I ask a person to allow me use of the pictures from his site, in another one they reply, but they do not cite my original quesiton, for which I do not blame them), also these messages contain my personal information which I do not want to share with the world. I hope you share my view point. Even I forwarded you (and by the way, why you, may I ask ???) or permissions designated email address in commons some of those pieces of emails, what kind of evidence is that. At some point, you people have to learn how to trust words of other people. It amazes me that you are so overprotective against good citizen, while vandals and trolls are just doing their stuff without asking. Should I continue?.. I already written that I obtained permission from authors. So, nagging authors for kinds of permissions that would satisfy your curiosity would do the trick?.. I don't think that was the original intention of Wikipedia. Best regards. Avetik 22:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My intentions are to ensure the integrity and safekeeping of Commons and to ensure that we do not host images with licenses which we are not certain the author approved. I hope we can agree that these are good intentions.
As the {{no permission since}} template explains, you have to "provide a link to a webpage with an explicit permission. If you obtained such a permission via email, please forward it to and reference it at upload." E-mails forwarded to are stored in OTRS and visible only to a limited number of trusted users.
I too wish that we could simply trust everyone uploading material to Commons, but reality is that we can't. We get hundreds if not thousands of uploads every day from people who violate copyright laws and Commons policies out of ignorance or deliberation. Permissions in particular are an area where appropriate procedures are not followed. Uploaders often request permission to "use the work on Wikipedia" when what they need to ask is under which free license, if any, the author would like to publish the work for the whole world to use, modify and redistribute for free or for profit. Authors often reply in a manner which does not clearly assert authorship and a license grant. Uploaders, again, frequently interpret such imprecise responses frivolously and select license tags which cannot actually be inferred from the authors' statements.
Then when the author finds his work, which he thought he contributed only to the wonderful, non-profit Wikipedia project, being distributed, modified and sold elsewhere because of statements made here, Commons is looking like a pretty good target for litigation (even if it's the uploader that's ultimately responsible).
And that's why we have to be so diligent. Please add evidence of the permission granted and please don't remove problem tags without fixing the actual problem. Images without such evidence will be deleted.
LX (talk, contribs) 23:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining yourself so well. So, apparently I am one of many confused and ignorant folks who want to do a good thing, but are somehow trapped in these regulations. Seems like it is a systematic problem. Well, I am still learning the rules, sorry, I missunderstood your intentions. I will try to contact authors again and solicit a clear release statements from them. Thanks again. Avetik 02:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I sent email to permissions box. What's next? When that warning tag will be removed? Just curious. Avetik 11:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Next, someone who has OTRS access (I don't) will review the permission statement. In the meantime, you may replace the {{no permission since}} tags with {{otrs pending}}. If the permission looks okay, the reviewer will then replace this with a tag which references the specific OTRS entry. LX (talk, contribs) 12:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User blocks[edit]

Let me know if you would like CU on those - I see autoblocks kicking in? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems they gave up. Thanks, though. LX (talk, contribs) 19:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


Hej, skulle du som är administratör kunna ta en titt på MediaWiki talk:Readonly. Jag la ett meddelande med Template:Editprotected där för tre veckor sedan, men det verker inte vara rätt sätt att få administratörers uppmärksamhet. / 12:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo now GFDL[edit]

Hi LX,
I contacted the owner of the promo photo of Josh Woodward you deleted earlier, and was able to convince him to licence it as GFDL. Thanks for informing me of the bad licence! (Link)
- Lasse Havelund (p) (t) 22:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Hello Lx! As you might have noticed I´ve just uploaded this img:

Since it was linked on the pt-wk ([1]) and there is a warning from brazilian Army, isaying it is allowed to work with ... Filomena

The stated source,, returns a 404 Not Found, so there is no evidence that that's indeed the source or that they published the image under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license, as you have claimed. Therefore, I have tagged it as missing permission information. There is also no sign that it was posted to Flickr, as you claim since you tagged it with {{flickrreview}}. Generally, it is better to ask first if you're unsure about whether or not an image may be uploaded to Commons or which license you should use. LX (talk, contribs) 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Crespus2006. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 12:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Violations[edit]

Dont be that harsh mr LX.Actually when you take a look at a few of them you will then be able to know that the images are not copyright vios...the one named as kunjah textile mills is the logo of a textile mill and they dont stop you to publish it or use it in an encyclopedia, and the one named Shrine of Ghaneemat is from the cam of a person as the name is given there in the pic.It is the pic of a shrine that is in my city... so what is wrong with them??? remains the question of the others i accept that i have downloaded them from Google but i thougt thay they were free as they are the pic of living what do you think?Adeelbutt88 18:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had a chat with Adeel on the English Wikipedia, and I think he understands what he did wrong now, so there shouldn't be any need for a block. Remember to assume good faith! ;) --Diniz 19:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I've replied where the discussion started. LX (talk, contribs) 19:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

is it ok now?[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Talgraf777#Image_Tagging_Image:Adam_Jerzy_Czartoryski1.png. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 14:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


This discussion has been moved back to User talk:StarWar55#Image_Tagging_Image:Artur_BalderBW.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 14:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


Can you please delete Image:JohnCenaWWEChampion.jpg. I originally uploaded it and I noticed that the uploader from Flickr said that this image is also used on his obsessed with wrestling profile. ––StormyXXX 22:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done LX (talk, contribs) 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank You —StormyXXX 22:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Carly Colon in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg and Image:Carlito-ICchamp.jpg[edit]

Again I just noticed that both of these images were on obsessed with wrestling. So could you please delete them. --StormyXXX 22:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. LX (talk, contribs) 22:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Tahnks again. --StormyXXX 22:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bob Holly in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg, Image:Sho Funaki in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg, etc.[edit]

All These images, Image:Bob Holly in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg, Image:Sho Funaki in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg, Image:Chavo Guerrero, Jr. in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg, Image:ReyMysterio.jpg, Image:Spike Dudley.jpg, Image:Danny Holly in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg, Image:Jon Heidenreich in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg, Image:Kurt Angle.jpg, Image:Kenzo Suzuki cropped.jpg, Image:Rene Goguen in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg, Image:AdamCopeland Edge1.jpg, Image:AdamCopeland Edge2.jpg, Image:Nick Dinsmore in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg, Image:Cade and Murdoch.jpg, Image:Super Stacy.jpg, Image:Gene Snitsky cropped.jpg, Image:Nelson Frazier, Jr. in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg, Image:Rob Conway.jpg, Image:Stacy Keibler.jpg, Image:Stacy Keibler in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg, Image:TrishStratus and Keibler.jpg, Image:Stacy Keibler August 2005.jpg, Image:The Highlanders in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.jpg, and these images I uploaded, Image:MysterioTagChamp4.jpg, Image:ReyAndEddie.jpg, Image:ReyTagChamp4.jpg, Image:AngleHouseShow.jpg have been found at obsessed with wrestling. I have come to you so you can delete them. Can You Please delete them for me. --StormyXXX 01:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a second here. I would like to make a comment on this before you go on a deletion spree here. As far as I'm aware, the author of the photos donated the images to OWW for use there as well. I'll contact him over at FlickR about this. --Oakster 14:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought they were originally from OWW. --StormyXXX 14:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
For one, the images Static uploaded were all from the same house shows held at January 15 and August 12 [2], so it's not like they're randomly picked. Secondly that page I just gave you is their coverage of house shows. They don't host photos for specific house show or even televised shows for the last few years, only photos for specific wrestlers. Either way, I've notified the author now. --Oakster 17:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, well I was going to file a deletion request rather than speedying anyway, since it involved so many files. In any case, the Flickr captions do raise some questions, and I guess they could be interpreted in several ways, so I think we really do need some clarifications. If we get confirmation that the Flickr uploader is actually the photographer, it would be good to document this with an OTRS ticket to avoid further confusion. Of course, if that happens, I'll also undelete the images already deleted. LX (talk, contribs) 18:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:I Dont Know.jpg[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Gwilherm_Al_Leonad#Image_Tagging_Image:I_Dont_Know.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 18:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Andros64#Please_remain_calm_and_collegial. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 18:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Andros64#Please_remain_calm_and_collegial. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 19:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Log in problems. Can you help?[edit]

I am currently logged in under my correct username, but I am afraid I recently may have inadvertently changed my password when I attempted to create an account at wikipedia. So now I am afraid to log out.....because I am not sure I can get back in again later.....Am I right to be concerned, or are usernames distinct between wikipedia and wikimedia commons?

KnowItSome 21:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User accounts at different Wikimedia projects (such as Commons and the different language editions of Wikipedia) are all independent from one another (at least so far: there is work being done to change this, but nothing actively deployed). If you have an e-mail set in your preferences, you should be able to get your password e-mailed to you in case you've forgotten it. LX (talk, contribs) 22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for fixing my omission of a license from the subject image in this edit. Also, you will probably be interested in my post to User talk:RunLikeAnAntelope.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I have no problem with the addition of the {{flickrreview}} tag, which only formally noted that I verified the license on Flickr, which is true (and was implied by my edit summary). I probably should have added it myself. But yes, double license tags seem a bit silly. LX (talk, contribs) 18:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


holA yo no habia visto las otras advertencias.

y que licencia le pongo a las imagenes de kingdom hearts--Fefefe 15:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User_talk:Stahlkocher#Do_not_blank_your_user_talk_page. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 13:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I answered you on my talk page. May i now life again in peace? -- Stahlkocher 13:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You are so right. May i now blank it again? -- Stahlkocher 14:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I thing you now became hostile and uncivil. What a big step forward. I added a OTRS number. May i now live again in peace? -- Stahlkocher 14:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Disputes noticeboard#User:LX_and_User:Stahlkocher. LX (talk, contribs) 15:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

FOP in germany[edit]

Hi LX, you made my day with this edit: [3]. Since now the Germon-FOP became suddenly "non-commercial". Well, thats wrong. It actually is "non-derivatve". Also not sufficient for commons. Like this Image:Petter Solberg 2006 Rally Australia Dwellingup.jpg image. And you obviously have no allowance to use it for commercials. To make it worse, FOP it is not a question of taking the image, but of publishing it. In germany (and probably is most countries, who cares). A small difference, you know? Just have a look at Category:Buildings, so much copyrigted work, over and over, no sources, no copyright-owner....

I wish you the very best and that you may trace down any so called "copyright-infringement"! -- Stahlkocher 15:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Microsoft Sign on German campus.jpg at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Microsoft Sign on German campus.jpg. I've copied your comment there and responded there. LX (talk, contribs) 16:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


Hello, I've just seen your name on the recentchanges page. I need to delete these two images:

  1. Image:600px Rosso e Nero3.png
  2. Image:600px SKONTO su sfondo blu.png

The first is an unuseful copy of Image:600px Rosso scuro e Nero.png (which I noticed too late), whereas the second is no longer needed as I substituted it with another, less generic image. I also created this deletion request page.
Could you please delete these images? Thank you very much. --Freddyballo 18:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the first one as a duplicate. You may tag any other duplicates for speedy deletion with {{duplicate|Image:Other file.jpg}}. The reason you've given for deleting the second one doesn't fall into Commons:Deletion guidelines#Speedy_deletion, so I'll just let the deletion request have its course for now. LX (talk, contribs) 18:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I reworded my reason in a better way, is it OK now? --Freddyballo 18:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


I note you haven't nominated Image:Cascabelcolombia.jpg for deletion yet, you might like to know its possible source is [4], same picture, same filename, site has copyright notices but I don't see any particular attribution for that image. Hope that helps :-) --Tony Wills 13:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the infringing image. Thanks for your detective work! LX (talk, contribs) 18:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


This discussion has been moved back to Commons:Undeletion requests#Image:Wolf-n-horsy.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 18:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Image:Order Zasługi RP.jpg[edit]

I wouldn't like to take part in nonsensable edit wars.For your information : The previous uploaded Order Zasługi RP was self-made. I've inform Polarlys that, where he found the copy of this photo is a page of my own.

Reuploading this image I've given the source as , and notice, that in any questions an doubts it's easiest to mail directly to

In case of deleteted images of Order of White Eagle, it was photos of exhibit from free exhibition of Polish Governmental Mint (their products) and it is possible that this particular exhibit ( The Highest Polish Order - product of Governmental Mint) was photographed not only by myself :)). But it is not the case.

In any case there are illegible photos ( without any individual features which make possible securing it by copyright law according to regulations of Berne Convention and Polish copyright law). The are simply photos of artefacts made by photograph-amateur.

All these I've written on the page of discussion. Two days after images were without any further discussion deleted. ( Take a look at the page of discussion)

There were made several year before, so argument of Polarlys, that to proove the authenticity of my work I have to give photo of professional resolution is unreasonable and unjustifiable. Besides it is curious , unusual, simly - just unexpected request for uploader.

I reserve to return to this question in the future. However - first - free use of self-made work is copyright violation the same way as an masturbation is a rape.

In this case we have no copyvio at all, and the deletion was unjustifiable and unreasonable. For today it is at least evidence of copyright paranoia and overactivity of some of our collegues.

Best regards:

Andros64 07:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to duplicate messages regarding this matter on my user talk page. I am watching your user talk page and Commons:Undeletion requests. I have responded at your user talk page. LX (talk, contribs) 16:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for Your letter. I used to reply everytime directly to my interlocutor. By the way : the term "overactivity" is IMHO just simply constatation of fact and in every activity in area of Commons we have IMHO take into account the principle of Common sense first.

All the best. Of course I'll do respect common rules and procedures , but there are binding for everybody , esspecially admins in Commons , who are people of common trust. All the best: Andros64 17:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Paint NET screen.jpg[edit]

On 30 June 2007 You removed my screenshot from Wikimedia Commons and posted in my user talk. Thanks for your advice :) Now screenshot is without M$ widgets ;) But when i was browsing category Free screenshots i was totally shocked :!: There are many graphics like mine former (with widgets). Maybe it's time to look carefully what was hosted at Commons? Regards! patrol110 13:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the widgets on the toolbox windows? I'm still quite concerned about that... As for other screenshots of Windows widgets, I'm sure there are more out there. I think I was going through Category:Windows Screenshots when I came across that one, and I know there is more work to be done in other categories. Unfortunately, the admin staff are a few volunteers short here, so we do have several backlogs of things that need to be looked into. LX (talk, contribs) 14:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chamaeleo chamaeleon Frightened thus black.JPG[edit]

Hi. You appear to have deleted Image:Chamaeleo chamaeleon Frightened thus black.JPG. What warning tag was on it? Would you please consider undeleting it while I email the uploader requesting licensing? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It was tagged with {{own work}} since 2005, and no license had been specified during that time. I've undeleted it and changed {{own work}} to {{nld}}. It will be deleted again if no license is provided within a week. LX (talk, contribs) 14:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted pictures from Red Rooster[edit]

You have deleted following pictures:

The given reason was, that screenshots of copyrighted software are also copyrighted. I am sure you don't know that the software "CDex" is released under GPL! Thus, the screenshots are GPL too!

Please tell me if I can upload them again without the fear that they are deleted over and over... Or was there any other reason why the pictures could not stay longer? Is there a way to restore deleted images? Red Rooster the preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 18:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the licensing terms of CDex; that's not the problem. Please see User talk:Red Rooster#No_screenshots_containing_non-free_Windows_widgets.2C_please and Commons:Licensing#Screenshots. Deleted images can be restored (see Commons:Undeletion requests), but images which do not comply with Commons:Licensing will not be undeleted. LX (talk, contribs) 14:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read Commons:Licensing#Screenshots and could not see any reason why the screenshots was deleted. CDex is released under GPL and this makes screenshots of this application legal for wikimedia-commons. Please tell me which content did not fit the commons-licensing, because I could not see anything in the screenshot that is not GPL or at least LGPL... Red Rooster 16:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Screenshots are copyrighted if the displayed program or operating system is copyrighted." The screenshots showed copyrighted elements, such as window decorations, drawn by the non-free Microsoft Windows operating system. LX (talk, contribs) 19:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If so please tell me, how I can create legal screenshots (without Linux). Do I only need to cut off the window decorations? Or do I have to setup "wine" on Linux to create that damn screenshots? Red Rooster 15:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe cropping away the window decorations would be sufficient. LX (talk, contribs) 09:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Abono para sembrar flor[edit]

Please check this user, he created a sockpuppet account and it keeps uploading copyvio images, I can't remeber the sock's name but I know it was his original username with a number, it uploaded this image File:Cibernetico el mejor.jpg and linked it to Wikipedia [5] please check the image's history to find out his sock's name, thanks. - 18:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be Abono para sembrar flor3 (talk | contribs). Please see also Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Abono para sembrar flor.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. Sorry I couldn't look into it sooner, since I was away. I also deleted Image:El buki en AWC.jpg, which was uploaded with self-attribution using the sockpuppet account. Since the original block was made because the user uploaded images with false authorship claims, I'm reluctant to believe any such claims made while using a sockpuppet account. LX (talk, contribs) 20:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Artur BalderBW.jpg[edit]

Please, tell if its all right now. Thanks. Sincerely yours, --StarWar55 22:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It still doesn't say who created the photograph, which is needed with the GFDL. LX (talk, contribs) 20:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi, LX. According to this history log you deleted this file because it had no license. According to this and this she was never warned about it. As she did not have a link here to her usual page in es.Wikipedia then, I can understand that you did not left a message in, however you should have given her a warning in he user page here, even if her contributions in Commons are not many. She is the author of the picture and she would like the picture to be restored in order to tag it with the suitable license. Could you please do it and let her know here? Thanks. --Piolinfax (Tell me) 10:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If the user tagging the image with {{own work}} did not notify the uploader as the template instructs, that's unfortunate, but uploaders are told at the time of uploading that images without licenses may be deleted without further notice. The image had been tagged as missing a license since the day after it was uploaded in October 2005. That's more than 19 months to notice the problem. The user also failed to add source information to other uploads despite being given notice.
Nevertheless, I have restored the image, tagged it with {{nld}} and notified their user talk page here on Commons. (As a matter of principle, I don't copy Commons talk page templates to other projects to accommodate users who don't wish to discuss Commons-related issues on Commons, as this requires a lot of manual work and re-linking; if they don't want to monitor their Commons talk page, they can simply tick a box to activate e-mail notifications in their preferences.) The image will be deleted again unless licensing information is supplied within seven days. LX (talk, contribs) 12:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanx LX :). I registered in Commons 3 or 4 months after its creation and I am not totally sure that 10 months later (around October 2005) uploaders were told at the time of uploading that images without licenses might be deleted without further notice but I am quite sure that not such a notice was provided in Spanish those days. Catibel knows some English but she is not fluent with it, that is why I offered myself to let you know about her pic.
I have let Catibel know about the restored pic (probably she would have seen it anyway now but just in case) and hopefully she will add the license soon. Please notice that no Commons sysop needs copy Commons talk page templates to other projects; a short message and/or a link to the relevant page already tagged would do the trick... that procedure is not for discussion but for simple and basic notification. Anyway I am not especially surprised because unfortunately, it seems to be a common procedure in a big part of the few Commons sysops I know. I am a sysop myself and I know about the pressures and problems of it but as a matter of principle I would never delete anything without a previous, proper warning (other than vandalisms and obvious copyright violations, of course), regardless any previous set warnings the user might have come across. Anyway, thanks once again for rstoring the photo and for your time --Piolinfax (Tell me) 15:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Svenska/Swedish Polling Templates[edit]

Hi. Would you please take a look at Category talk:Polling templates#Credits? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


Nuvola apps important.svg
The user has not made any uploads since November 2006, so it doesn't seem like a block is necessary. Also, please remain calm and civil, and refrain from yelling at your fellow contributors. LX (talk, contribs) 09:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Cobaes04. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Unlinking deleted images[edit]

Hi, as I see in the deletion log, you deleted "Image:Pine.cone.jpg" ‎with No license specified since 2005. notice. But, there are still two pages which link to this image - pinus and pinus sylvestris. Would you be so kind to unlink such images in the future? Regards, Nova 10:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought User:CommonsDelinker would have taken care of that. Thanks for the notice, though. It's been unlinked. LX (talk, contribs) 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)