User talk:LX

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Revision as of 18:56, 22 November 2010 by LX (talk | contribs) (Chris Atkinson 2006 Rally Australia Dwellingup.jpg: reply)
Jump to: navigation, search
Crystal Clear app xchat.png

Welcome to the user talk page for LX!

Sign your posts by typing four tilde characters (~~~~). If you want to start a new discussion on a new topic, place your post at the bottom of the page under == A descriptive heading ==. Please be civil, assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. (See Commons:Talk page guidelines.)

I prefer to keep discussions where they started.
If I left a message on your user talk page, please respond there.

I should have it on my watch list. (If I seem to have overlooked a response, you may remind me here.) If you write something here and expect a response, expect it here (so watch this page).

Archived discussions are in User talk:LX/Archive.



Om du undrar över att jag ändrade tillbaka den här redigeringen [1] så beror det på att jag är väldigt säker på att bilden föreställer Gustav Adolfs torg i Malmö och inte i Stockholm. Byggnaden i bakgrunden finns fortfarande kvar på torg, och burspråket är rätt ovanligt utformat. Mvh--Ankara (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Det verkar stämma. Jag gick nog lite för snabbt fram. LX (talk, contribs) 05:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


This discussion has been moved back to User talk:RASECZENITRAM#Do you own a lot of different cameras?. 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. 19:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

your assistance please...

You deleted File:Segera Afghanistan.jpg and File:Celebrating Internation Womens' Day in Kandahar.jpg. The deletion log says they were marked as copyright violations. But I received no heads-up that they had been marked.

Could you please direct me to the place where the discussion of this copyright concern took place? Geo Swan (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not delete them. As the deletion log states, File:Segera Afghanistan.jpg was deleted by Abigor (talk · contribs) and File:Celebrating Internation Womens' Day in Kandahar.jpg was deleted by High Contrast (talk · contribs). I only marked them as copyright violations. I notified you of this on your talk page here and here.
These images were obvious copyright violations ( is credited to Marco Di Lauro/Getty Images and is credited to AP Photo/Allauddin Khan, meaning neither Flickr uploader has rights to issue valid licenses to them). As such, the files were eligible for speedy deletion without prior discussion per Commons:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion. If you have objections, you may raise them at Commons:Undeletion requests. LX (talk, contribs) 20:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Please be aware that Afghanistan is not a signatory to any international copyright agreements, and has no domestic copyright law. You called these images "obvious copyright violations". I suggest you made this comment without fully addressing the complicated status of images taken in countries with no copyright protection. I suggest this makes Afghan images inappropriate for speedy deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The country of origin is the country where the image was first published. The headquaters of Getty or Associated Press are not in Afghanistan. --Martin H. (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "The country of origin is the country where the image was first published?" That would be significant. Do you have a source for this?
  • And if these images were first published in Afghanistan? Is it your legal opinion (are you a lawyer who specializes in intellectual property law?) that publications in Afghanistan don't count? What about images taken by GIs or State Dept employees in Afghanistan -- is it your position that an image taken by a GI, first published outside of the USA, is covered by the laws of that other country? What if that country where the GI's official photo was first published was Afghanistan?
  • How do you know these images were first published by Getty or the AP? I have seen both services claim credit for images that were the work of US Federal employees. Geo Swan (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Apart from Martin's comments, it's also quite likely that the images were post-processed outside of Afghanistan, which could constitute additional support for the organisations' copyright claims even if the original photos were not protected by copyright. In any case, you did not make the claim that the photos were not protected by copyright until just now. In fact, by uploading the photos to Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons copyright license, you were explicitly making the claim that they are protected by copyright. If you believe they are not protected by copyright, a public domain tag ({{PD-Afghanistan}}?) would have been more appropriate. Additionally, you incorrectly cited the Flickr users ♪_Lisa_♪ and tldagny as authors. LX (talk, contribs) 11:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Please clarify, are you suggesting that routine image cropping, or color balancing, would allow AP or Getty to claim these photos were their derivative works, and that they owned the intellectual property rights, without regard to who actually took them?
  • When I upload images from flickr I use the flinfo or flickr2commons tools. I have occasionally added PD liscenses, when I was absolutely 100 percent certain that PD liscense was apropriate. But it is more convenient to stick with the liscense the tool wants to carry over. Sticking with the flickr liscense means that either the flickrreview robot, or a 2nd real human being will confirm that the image was available on flickr. There is no corresponding routine confirmation of PD images. Leaving the original flickr-derived liscense on the image so there is a review prevents confusion if and when the page where the image was found is no longer available.
  • I think your challenges above confirm that the deletion of these images was not routine, and that your use of speedy deletion was overly hasty. Geo Swan (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Cropping is usually not considered a copyrightable modification, but it's certainly possible to introduce modifications requiring creative decision-making of a copyrightable nature in post-processing. I don't know if that's the case here, but given that Getty and AP appear to be claiming rights to these photos, I believe an assertion to the contrary ought to be based on more than favourable assumptions.
I also think that convenience is not an appropriate reason for using copyright tags that one has good reason to believe to be incorrect. Using an appropriate tag with an explanation in the permissions field would be preferable and could still be handled by a human reviewer.
When tagging these images, my focus was on doing a routine sweep for files with information indicating that they were sourced from commercial agencies. The Afghan situation is a bit of an unusual case as far as international copyright law is concerned, and given that there was no reference to it, it did not cross my mind (nor the deleting administrators' minds, apparently). While I would still argue for deletion in this case, I probably would have gone for a regular deletion discussion rather than speedy tagging if these issues had been apparent at the time. Again, feel free to use Commons:Undeletion requests if you feel that the deletion was handled improperly. LX (talk, contribs) 12:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Sorry about all the copyright violations. I was confused about how it worked. I'm afraid you'll also have to delete the following files as well:

  • Spaghetti alla puttanesca.jpg
  • Turkey with stuffing.jpg
  • Roast turkey 02.jpg
  • Spaghetti vongole rosso.jpg

RecoveryMinded (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I tidied up RecoveryMinded's incomplete deletion request or File:Roast turkey 02.jpg before I saw this note, perhaps it can be closed speedily. I converted his other deletion requests:File:Spaghetti alla puttanesca.jpg, File:Turkey with stuffing.jpg, File:Spaghetti vongole rosso.jpg into speedies as he has stated license is invalid. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that and hope you learn from the situation and have more success with future participation. LX (talk, contribs) 13:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

File Tagging File:Pontevedra_air.jpg


the bot has only transferd the file and isn't the creator. The creator is en:User:Swamp_Greetings!

Jan Luca (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The creator, according to the file description, is the University of Santiago de Compostela. I guess you mean the uploader, though. In that case, Swamp Greetings may be the English Wikipedia uploader, but the bot is indeed the Commons uploader. I'd say the human responsible for the upload here at Commons would be whoever ordered the transfer to Commons. Where can I see that information so that I can remind them to check that the source and licensing information is complete before requesting such transfers? LX (talk, contribs) 20:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


Yes, the attribution is part of the licensing, still an advertising link to a bicycle workshop is not part of an attribution (that would be "Ralf Soletschek", as explicitly stated in the license tags). I believe making an advertising link a required part of a "free" file would collide with Wikimedia policy - no ads on Wikimedia projects. -- 10:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear (or, if you prefer),
Attributing the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor is a strict requirement of the license. There are plenty of files on Commons that have a link as part of the required attribution, and there is no problem with this. See, for example, Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2006/05#Image:Locro.jpg. I've asked the admins to look at the issue, since you've now made the same edit four times without trying to reach consensus. LX (talk, contribs) 11:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi LX. Do you want me to assign you rollback and patroller permissions? Best regards, Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 10:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that could be useful, I guess. Thanks! LX (talk, contribs) 10:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Done :). Best reards, Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 11:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

When tagging

Hello! This is just a friendly reminder to warn uploaders when you tag their images that were done via a bot (the automated tagging might warn the bot, not the actual creator). You might be interested in this thread. :-) Killiondude (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I do try to do this, at least when there is a link to a Commons account, which there isn't in this case unless one looks into the file history. I'll try to be a little more diligent. Note that the image descriptions for the undeleted files contain statements that directly contradict the supposed CC-by-sa license (ikke-kommersiell means noncommercial). Also, because of the claim that the photographs are provided by a municipality, an OTRS ticket is in order to verify the permission. LX (talk, contribs) 07:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for letting me know about that. Would you mind handling these images from here? It seems you are familiar with the language source and might be able to communicate better with that user. I would be very appreciative. Regards, Killiondude (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Gonce#File:Voseo rioplatense.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. 15:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for your notification. I'll show it to Multichill (the actual dev of the bot) :). Fale (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

User messages

Hello LX!

Such messages are ment to be only put by administrators that can easily administrate what the message tells a user. Thanks in advance. --High Contrast (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I must apologize myself! You are an admin: I was looking here for your entry, but failed. There was a positive search result then. I'm sorry! --High Contrast (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not an admin. However, having previously been an administrator, I feel comfortable enough with policies that I can confidently say that I recognise situations where persistence will result in an imminent block. I typically check back on issues like this and post a message on the noticeboards if needed, and I find you admins are usually quite responsive when I do so. With all that in mind, unless there is a specific guideline against experienced regular users stating that a user will be blocked if they continue to violate policies, I honestly don't see what the problem is. If what you say is widely agreed, then it should be documented on {{Test4/doc}} and the user message link for inserting the template should be removed from non-administrators' toolboxes. LX (talk, contribs) 13:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't play a pedant, pleae. It is inappropriate to menace some user without having the possibility to fullfill that threat. Another thing: What happened with your admin-rights? Why have they been removed? --High Contrast (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see it as a personal threat but as a warning of a rather obvious consequence. Sorry if that's semantics, and yes, I'll be the first to admit I'm a bit pedantic. If it's that important to you, I'll avoid {{test4}}, but I do still think such usage rules should be documented.
My admin rights were removed in August last year at my own request. LX (talk, contribs) 14:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Ghada Adel.jpg

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Maher27777#File:Ghada Adel.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. 06:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Feminists by country


"Restore categorisation for consistency with Category:Feminism, which is a subcat of Category:Activism. Also, feminists are not necessarily women by definition."

If you want. But if you recat one category, please, do the same thing for ALL the categories. I don't like when we have a list of categories completely different depending on where we are. Swedish feminists (or whatever the subject) are not supposed to be different from Canadian or Spanish. Thank you. Okki (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that such consistency is desirable. However, my focus is on keeping Category:Sweden and some of its subcategories nice, orderly and consistent with their parent categories. That's big enough a scope for me. Even if I broaden it further, I'll always end up leaving some of the categories at the periphery of my scope in a state that's inconsistent with its siblings. The category structure will never be perfect, but I think that keeping Category:Feminists from Sweden consistent with Category:Feminism is a step in the right direction, and I hope that we can agree that taking one step in the right direction–even if you don't take all the steps–is better than taking none. LX (talk, contribs) 18:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, help me, then

I made that image. I had a note about it, I edited it, and so I deleted the tag. Don't reprimand me. Help me, if I didn't do it correctly. Evertype (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion in one place. I think Commons:Deletion requests/File:Proposed Streamer of United Ireland.jpg contains the most complete summary of the issue. If you have specific questions after reading that, feel free to follow up there; it's on my watchlist. LX (talk, contribs) 23:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi LX, sorry for the lateness of my answer but I was into a wiki-pause until a few minutes ago. The problem that you pointed out, sadly, is a pretty common problem for the imports from, mainly because Italian users tend to use in a random way the templates. I'll try to fix this with some bot running on and fixing, where possible, the wrong templates. Fale (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


HiHi, may be you are right :) I've just transferred the file, not uploaded :)--Gaeser (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not transfer files to Commons without first verifying that the information provided for the source checks out. LX (talk, contribs) 20:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of your comments on my talk page

I noticed you restored the comments you placed on my discussion page after I removed them.

I'm accustomed to using Wikipedia, a sister project of Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia users are free to remove all comments on their discussion pages per this policy, regardless of the reason for removing them. The rationale behind this policy is that the comments are always displayed in that user's talk page history which no user can delete because the software won't allow it. Wikimedia Commons' software has this same capability. Why then are Wikipedia Commons users not permitted to remove comments on their discussion pages? RecoveryMinded (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You've yet to respond to my comment. In the meanwhile, I was reading WMC policy and discovered the following info:
Most users treat their user talk pages like regular talk pages, and archive the contents periodically to a personal subpage -- either when the page gets too large, on a regular schedule, or when they take a wikivacation. Others delete comments after they have responded to them.
The above info came frome the following WMC policy page: Commons:Talk page guidelines#Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page? Feel free to verify it.
I also checked the WMC list of administrators and you're not on it (although I see you used to be one). Therefore, I doubt you have the right to restore information to my talk page after I've removed it and responded to it.
I have now responded to you on this issue twice (this comment and the following one on 11 November 2009: [2]). Also, I now have a solid understanding of WMC's copyright rules. Therefore, I'm removing your comments from my talk page in keeping with the policy I cited above. Keep in mind I will report you for a policy violation if you persist in restoring information on my talk page, something you apparently don't have the right to do. RecoveryMinded (talk) RecoveryMinded (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
First of all, thanks for your messages and sorry for not responding more promptly. I've been busy work and real life. You've raised a few different points, so I'll try to address them one by one.
Firstly, regarding the reason blanking talk page messages is strongly discouraged at Commons, I can't speak for everyone here, so I can't objectively rationalize the consensus, but I do have a couple of theories as to why things are the way they are here. Commons administrators also rely on talk pages for a lot of their work, probably to a greater extent than at most other Wikimedia projects. Properly archived pages are far easier to review than the history of a page that has been repeatedly blanked at various times.
Secondly, regarding the Commons talk page guidelines, in describing existing practices, it does indeed state that some users delete comments after having responded to them. The way I'm reading it, it's somewhat ambiguous on whether or not this deletion is typically accompanied by archival, and it doesn't say how common this practice is. (Not very common at all in my experience.) In prescribing recommended practices, it is quite clear about discouraging actively erasing messages without responding to them. Now, I do realize that you have responded to my notes, but as it was done elsewhere, that had slipped my mind when I noticed the comments being deleted. (I interact with a lot of users, and I put pages where I've left comments on my watchlist.)
Thirdly, regarding the right to revert blanking, this is not something that is limited to administrators. The special privileges afforded to administrators (deletion, undeletion, protection, blocking, file renaming and MediaWiki namespace editing) are managed through technical mechanisms, not just policy. Any user has the right to revert edits that they believe to be improper (as long as they don't edit war or disrupt the project in some other way).
I'm convinced that your removal of the comments are in good faith and based on your interpretation of the talk page guidelines. I acknowledge that you have responded to the messages and that your interpretation of the guidelines is reasonable. I'd still encourage archiving, but I won't insist on it or restore your talk page.
I hope this sorts things out and wish you smooth sailing ahead. LX (talk, contribs) 20:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing with me. I appreciate it. RecoveryMinded (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


This discussion has been moved back to User talk:TwoWings#Commons:Deletion requests/Files from Bob Bobster on Flickr. 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. 15:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey Alex! Thank you for identifying such a lot of copyvios, tagging them for deletion. :-) --Polarlys (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. It's crazy what one can dig up with just a few good search expressions. If you get a chance, please keep an eye on the Category:Unknown subcategories that mature next week, as I tagged quite a few files as missing information as part of the same review. LX (talk, contribs) 12:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, we could spend weeks just digging up album covers, google earth images and content like this. Do you use any scripts for notifying users? --Polarlys (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Just the Quick Delete, User Messages gadgets and diligent use of the watchlist. LX (talk, contribs) 12:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Seems as I need a little technical upgrade ;-) Thank you! --Polarlys (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I`m Sorry

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Medhat Montasser#Copyright violations. 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. 19:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

File tagging File:French_Cemetery_Keelung.jpg

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, LX. You have new messages at Sdrtirs's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


You poked me at about this file a few weeks ago, but I was on break. It's a copyvio, and I deleted it here. Maxim(talk) 21:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for that. Hope you enjoyed your break. LX (talk, contribs) 21:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Holger.Ellgaard#File source is not properly indicated: File:Miniatyrbåtyxa.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. 15:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Need`s to Upload Some Picture

Welcome LX,Please I need to upload some personal pictures to use. It`s Pictures of my family Thanks.. Medhat Montasser (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, and... do you need me to do anything, or why are you telling me this? Are the files within the project scope of Commons? (See COM:NOT#HOST and COM:NOT#SOCIAL as well.) Can you show that the copyright holder (usually the photographer) has approved publication under a free license? If you can answer yes to both these questions, then there should be no problem. LX (talk, contribs) 22:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Patrolling edits (COM:CVU)

Hi LX,

In case you've missed it, since yesterday the patrolling functinality has been enabled for all edits, no longer just for page creations. This enables us to track, for example, anonymous edits on Commons. I'd like to invite you to check out the Anonymous edits list and maybe patrol part of a day. See also the updated Commons:Patrol.
If you have any questions please leave message on the CVU talkpage, my talkpage or on IRC. -- Krinkletalk 23:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I did notice it and some of the discussions leading up to it. It falls within the scope of some of my usual activities here, so I'll have a look at the instructions and maybe have a go with the new tools sometime soon. LX (talk, contribs) 23:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


dont by a fool, bitte. deleting a file becausue got a "badly name"? that are a nonsence, and, rename it better way to solve this "problem" User:Fredy.00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 21:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC) (possible open proxy)

What part of Do not remove this tag until the deletion request is closed are you having trouble grasping? If you disagree with the deletion nomination, discuss it at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ukrainiannaziatrocity2.jpg. Blanking the deletion tag will not make the deletion discussion go away; it'll only make it less visible to people who may wish to object that the file is up for deletion. LX (talk, contribs) 21:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
This is just nonsense, I do not know what your problem to understand it - delete the file because it has a weird name? It simply makes no sense, and it is a mere vandalism ...
you are stupid or can not read? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 21:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll repeat this once more: If you disagree with the deletion nomination, voice your opinion at the deletion discussion. Blanking the deletion tag will not make the deletion discussion go away. LX (talk, contribs) 21:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Listen, you have a problem with reading or what exactly is going on? you can not understand that, delete the file due to improper name is this nonsense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 22:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't recall ever having expressed an opinion on whether or not the file should be deleted. Your blanking of the deletion tag will also not affect the outcome of the deletion discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ukrainiannaziatrocity2.jpg. LX (talk, contribs) 22:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Grimsta nature reserve

Hoppsan, jag var visst inne och rotade i Category:Grimsta nature reserve samtidigt som du. Hoppas jag inte ställde till någon oreda. --Zejo (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Det är ju kul att det är fler som är inne och petar i Stockholmskategorierna, men varifrån kommer uppgiften om att Grimsta naturreservat ligger i Blackeberg och Södra Ängby? Jag tog nyligen bort kategorin från Category:Bromma (stadsdelsområde), eftersom gränserna för naturreservatet enligt Stockholms stadsbyggnadskontors kartor (gröna heldragna linjer) tydligt ligger helt och hållet innanför stadsdelen Grimstas gränser i Hässelby-Vällingby. LX (talk, contribs) 15:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Det verkar stämma att det ska ingå i Blackeberg och Södra Ängby också. Jag vet inte vad det är för gränser stadsbyggnadskontoret visar, men enligt kartan på sträcker sig reservatet betydligt längre ut. LX (talk, contribs) 15:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Screen shot444.jpg

Hi LX, as I'm not sure about that myself, has File:Screen shot444.jpg really to be considered copyrighted, though the apple-photo is by the uploader himself? Is it due to the Vista-logo in the lower left corner or are there more reasons? --Túrelio (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The photograph is of course copyrighted by the uploader, who is free apply any license of his choice to that photograph, so there is no issue with that part. However, the user interface design depicted in the screenshot is that of Adobe Photoshop, which is non-free software, copyrighted by Adobe. According to Commons:Screenshots, screenshots of computer software cannot be uploaded to Commons unless the software is released under a free software license that complies with the Commons licensing policy. Consequently, the screenshots appearing in the English Wikipedia article on Photoshop (en:File:Adobe Photoshop CS4.png, en:File:AdobePS-107-System6.png and en:File:Photoshop CS3 Smart Layers.png) are all tagged as fair use images. LX (talk, contribs) 10:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Because you THINK?

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Colt .55#File source is not properly indicated: File:Map of fertile cresent.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. 11:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


This discussion has been moved back to User talk:William Saturn#File Tagging File:Schriner.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. LX (talk, contribs) 20:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

My contributions

Don't bother me with your templates, check this and this. Barocci (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. There was no reference to that permission on the files that you uploaded or in the sources that you pointed to. Please add {{PermissionOTRS|ticket=}} in the permissions field of any future uploads you make and edit the file descriptions of your existing uploads in the same way. This will provide the information needed for others to verify the licensing information, as required. LX (talk, contribs) 14:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Barocci (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for understanding and for your contributions. Just to clarify: by "any future uploads you make" I of course only meant uploads from should be tagged with this particular OTRS ticket reference. This was probably clear from the context, though. LX (talk, contribs) 14:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way

Filemover rights granted - not sure whether you would use it but it would seem obvious to let someone like you have them. (if you don't want them let me know) Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, that's useful. It might make cleaning up Special:PrefixIndex/File:Dsc a bit more straightforward. LX (talk, contribs) 08:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

File mover

The functionality of the template {{rename}} has recently changed. You might need to clear your cache to see the changes. If successful you should then be able to use the new "Quick adding" link in the template to instruct CommonsDelinker to replace the old name with the new name in all wikis. Please use that every time you rename a file. If further questions arise, feel free to write on my talk page --DieBuche (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


STOP SPAMMING MY PAGE! I ALREADY TOLD YOU THIS! --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Flickr review notice

Already done. Cheers. LX (talk, contribs) 17:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Girl with a nice smile.jpg

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Electron#File:Girl with a nice smile.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. 07:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Rename image

Can you please rename File:Meteror Crater in Arizone.jpg? I accidentally spelled meteor and Arizona wrong. Schuylar (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. LX (talk, contribs) 20:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Schuylar (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Info for interest only

I know you tagged some of them but I've just blocked 10 users who have all been uploading music equipment related images. Maybe they will get the point now! Regards --Herby talk thyme 08:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful! You have so much faith in people, though. LX (talk, contribs) 08:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually I have great faith in people generally (assuming I read you right) but I also know what some folk here will get up to! As always - thanks for your work here, there are few good ones left now sadly. --Herby talk thyme 08:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocage des photos concernant la biographie d'Edoardo Puglisi

This discussion has been moved back (twice) to User talk:Bezierscatane2#File:Donne di Carta (encre de Chine).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. LX (talk, contribs) 19:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC) and 21:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Tack för hjälpen

med kategorierna. Jag måste erkänna att jag fullständigt hade missat att Högbergsgatan tydligen heter Högborgsgatan numera. Något jag inte verkar vara ensam om, Högbergsgatan vs Högborgsgatan--Ankara (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ingen orsak. Jag vet inte ens hur officiellt det är. Jag tycker också att man borde hört mer om det. På både Eniros och stadsbyggnadskontorets kartor står det fortfarande Högbergsgatan, trots att ändringen verkar ha skett för cirka två år sedan. LX (talk, contribs) 14:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Ursäkta att jag snöat in på det här. Jag har kontrollerat ett antal gatuskyltar längs med Högb*rgsgatan och på alla står det Högbergsgatan. Jag börjar undra om namnbytet är en vandringssägen som uppstått på grund av en felstavad gatuskylt. Det finns onekligen ett bildbevis här (dumt nog har jag inte kollat den skylten) men det skulle kunna vara en feltryckt skylt (något som har hänt förrut).--Ankara (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, jo, det verkar onekligen så. Namnformen Högbergsgatan fastslogs 1919, och namnet har funnits i äldre namnformer såsom Höghe bärgz gathan och Högh bärgz gathan från första halvan av 1600-talet. Det känns inte troligt att man skulle gå och ändra på det. Om ingen på Projekt Stockholm vet svaret kanske man kan reda ut det med kommunen. Om jag fattat rätt är det stadsbyggnadskontoret som ansvarar för namngivningen och trafikkontoret som ansvarar för skyltningen. LX (talk, contribs) 08:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


This discussion has been moved back three times(!) to User talk:Botedance#File:La gran aventura de mortadelo y filemon.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. LX (talk, contribs) 14:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC), 15:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC) and 12:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Demano perdó

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Jbaropuig#File source is not properly indicated: File:Marc Birkigt.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. LX (talk, contribs) 09:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You will probably find it but

The talk page is partly addressed to you :) Cheers --Herby talk thyme 18:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I've replied at the duplicate entry on the user's talk page (which is indeed on my watchlist, along with the file and its talk page). The file can now be deleted (again). LX (talk, contribs) 12:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:BAURU_NOB_30.jpg

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Meloaraujo#File source is not properly indicated: File:BAURU NOB 30.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. LX (talk, contribs) 12:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Samarbete (AGF)?

Ang. Cleanup: Finding a file on the Internet does not make one the author; -"permission" which isn't needed; changed bogus license to PD tag; don't put files in meta categories

Tack för dina korrigeringar. Jag vill redogöra för bakgrunden till detta med "permission" which isn't needed". Det är inte så att jag har hittat en rolig, slumpvis vald bild, utan en bild som är viktig för projektet Ortportaler. Skutan på bilden har stått modell för Österåkers kommunvapen: Österåker deltar i Projekt:Ortportaler.

Att jag gjorde en templet för uppladdningar från bildarkivet vid Vallentuna bibliotek beror på att jag vill inkludera dem i projektet genom en viss grad av synlighet = mall. Jag har skrivit till biblioteks bildarkiv för att informera dem om publiceringen av bilden på Commons för att försöka uppnå en viss grad av samarbete inom ramen för projekt Ortportaler. Det finns fler bilder från samma källa som jag vill ladda upp på commons. Du är säkert varse GLAM-projektet. Detta sker i sann GLAM-anda. Läs ev. mer här /Einarspetz (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hejsan Einar,
Tack för informationen! Då förstår jag tanken bakom mallen lite bättre. Några funderingar:
Såvitt jag förstår anger mallen inte något generellt tillstånd att använda innehåll från Vallentuna kommuns bildarkiv. Vi kan hämta enskilda bilder därifrån under förutsättning att de är i allmän ägo på grund av ålder (som i detta fall) eller respektive upphovsrättsinnehavare går med på publicering under en fri licens (såsom {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}, vilken dock i detta fall inte förefaller tillämplig, eftersom den förutsätter att upphovsrättsskyddet fortfarande är giltigt och att upphovsrättsinnehavaren uttrycker sitt medgivande). Mallen skulle dock kunna användas för att ange att bilden är hämtad från bildarkivet, så att den som hittar bilden här på Commons kan verifiera informationen i beskrivningen. Med detta synsätt skulle mallen passa för användning i source-fältet.
För att en sådan användning ska fungera på bästa sätt borde mallen ta bildens löpnummer (6028 i detta fall) som ett argument, så att vi kan länka till rätt sida i arkivet. Ett exempel på en mall med liknande funktion är {{LOC-image}}. Den mallen är också väl utformad och beprövad vad gäller kategorisering och liknande. Om detta stämmer överens med vad du tänkt dig, hjälper jag gärna till att fixa till mallen i liknande anda. LX (talk, contribs) 09:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Så, nu har jag gjort som jag föreslog. Mallen hittar du fortfarande på {{Vallentuna Public Library}}, tillsammans med dokumentation av dess användning. Den växlar nu språk beroende på användarens inställning (för närvarande finns den på svenska och engelska). Den lägger in uppmärkta bilder i Category:Images from Vallentuna Public Library, och mallen är själv kategoriserad under Category:Source templates. Mallen tar nu bildens löpnummer som argument, och jag har uppdaterat användningen i File:Alcea.jpg i enlighet med detta. LX (talk, contribs) 14:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Nightscream#Removal of galleries. 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) 05:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


According to Argentine copyright law, any image that is older then 25 years, that is, anything made before 1985, is legit to use without the need of the author (source still needs to be cited). On that I am clear.

Now...I have found a great deal of pictures of squads that won the Copa Libertadores. All of the pictures have something in common: they have an "El Grafico" stamp on it as you can see here.

Could I still upload the pictures as so or so I need to leave out the "El Grafico" part? Jamen Somasu (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Watermarks are discouraged on Commons. This means that versions without watermarks are preferred on Commons, and files uploaded with watermarks may have those marks removed. It does not mean, however, that you are obligated to remove watermarks from freely licensed files that you upload from other sources.
Note that {{PD-AR-Photo}} requires that you provide not only the source where you found the files, but also evidence that the image was taken more than 25 years ago and the date and source of publication more than 20 years old. If you are able to provide those details, perhaps you are also able to find original versions without those watermarks. LX (talk, contribs) 00:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi, can you delete the image Ecofet.jpg please? This image has copyright and I seen this after. Thanks -- Andrevruas (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, so I can't delete anything. If the file is a copyright violation, you can put {{copyvio|Reason}} on the file description page. Did you take the file from somewhere else? If so, why have you claimed to be the author and copyright holder? LX (talk, contribs) 05:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No heading

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Someonepakistani#Vandalism_is_not_appreciated. 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) 19:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


Why deleting infos like templates for notifying the uploader? Oh, I see. "Click here to show further instructions". This should be in a different color or else. --Kungfuman (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Uhm... I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I can only assume that you believe that I removed some information from {{copyvio}}. What I actually did was explained in the edit summaries and in Template talk:Copyvio#Languages. This is what the template looked like before I started editing (source) and this is what it looked like when I was done (source). In source mode, that may look like a big change, but that's because the information is now imported from other templates based on your selected language instead of always defaulting to English. The English version of the template itself is largely unchanged. LX (talk, contribs) 15:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Question from Kentronhayastan

I have a Wikipedia account called KentronHayastan. I thought it wouldn't be case sensitive, but now Kentronhayastan and KentronHayastan are two different accounts. I always have to switch from on to the other. Do you think there's a way to transfer everything from this account to KentronHayastan so I can merge the two, without having to re-upload everything and re-edit all of the Wikipedia articles that use my uploads? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentronhayastan (talk • contribs) 19:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that can be done. See Commons:Changing username. LX (talk, contribs) 19:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo categories

Thanks for sorting my photos to more specific categories! Dmitry G (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thanks for your contributions. I'd like to offer a small hint as well: I notice that you write the date on your uploads as "27 - SEP - 2010" (for example). If you write the date as "2010-09-27" instead, the way it is shown is determined by each user's own language and date format preferences. LX (talk, contribs) 17:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll try, but I'm afraid to write "9th october" instead of "10th september" or "2nd march" instead of "3rd february". I really do mistakes in such format. So, will work on my mistakes in the future. Dmitry G (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
If it helps you remember, think of it the same way you write a number, like an amount of money: the biggest units go on the left and the smallest units go on the right. For example, if you have €412, you have four (4) €100 bills, one (1) €10 bill, and two (2) €1 coins. Same thing with dates: the year is biggest, so it's on the left, the month is in the middle, and the day is the smallest unit, so it goes on the right. LX (talk, contribs) 17:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, thank you much! Yes, today is 2010-09-27. And 2nd march is 2010-03-02. And 3rd february is 2010-02-03. Correct. It is quite unusual to be reconstructed from the Soviet format, which I used approximately 20 years of my life everywhere and every day :) Dmitry G (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

File:JustineBateman Shearer.jpg

Hi LX. You unintentionally categorized this image into Category:Items missing OTRS ticket ID. --Leyo 16:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I did. Thanks for spotting it! Fixed, I hope. Note that I haven't checked the ticket, since I'm not an OTS agent, but I did check that the uploader is, and I assume this is the result they were trying to achieve. LX (talk, contribs) 16:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. --Leyo 16:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Overcategorization and the Archipelago Sea

I have a problem with the Categories Category:Archipelago Sea and Category:Archipelago National Park: A big part of the Archipelago Sea is in the park's "interest area". In that area many of the major islands partly belong to the park. Putting the islands in the park category makes them disappear for somebody seeking an object that is not in the park (and makes private property on those islands seem like being part of the park) and vice versa. I have thought overcategorization is the least evil in this case. Do you have any thoughts?

(Where should such issues be discussed? The talk pages of categories are seldom on watch lists.)

--LPfi (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I see the problem. Creating Category:Islands of the Archipelago Sea should help avoid overcategorization. What do you think? LX (talk, contribs) 12:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Most photos of the Archipelago Sea include islands. And parts of those islands belong to the park, parts of them do not (the same problem sustains with other subdivisions). A bunch of {{cat see also}} and some explanatory text might help. I think that is needed regardless of how we categorize the files.
May be Category:Archipelago National Park should be a mostly empty category, containing only information signs, maps and other files that are relevant only for the park, and reference Category:Archipelago Sea for everything else. Hm, a category for the part of the Archipelago Sea in the interest area (ah, the correct term might be cooperation area) could also help a bit (that area has a reasonable border line).
--LPfi (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. It always helps if the entities we use for categories have good, clearly defined borders. LX (talk, contribs) 15:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A proposal (if it seems somewhat reasonable the discussion should probably be copied or moved to Category talk:Archipelago Sea):

Splitting out the cooperation area seems to make other area categories necessary for symmetry reasons. The Åland part doesn't yet seem to be categorized as part of the Archipelago Sea, but I've understood that everything east of the Åland "mainland" belongs to the Archipelago Sea. The "central and northern" is clumsy, but there is no well defined border here. The cooperation area makes the "southern" well defined, even if the term as such is vague. The eastern part is well defined by the traditional division between western and eastern Åboland, but as part of this area is in the park, we probably have to put some media in both this and the "southern" category.

The municipalities are a bit problematic, as the cooperation area consists of parts of several municipalities. I would suggest having the municipalities in the area category where their centre is and in a separate municipality category (I think only one former municipality has its centre in the cooperation area and can there be regarded as an island group).

I think islands and islands groups in the northern, central and southern Archipelago Sea should be both in the area categories and the municipality categories, as the municipality borders are not necessarily well known (and often irrelevant). This could of course count as overcategorization.

(For Åland and the east using only the municipality categories might be ok, I know less about those areas.)

--LPfi (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've responded at Category talk:Archipelago Sea. Sorry for taking so long to write back. I wanted to give it some thought, and I've been rather busy lately. LX (talk, contribs) 10:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan drawing

Sorry about that, I don't knew that this image not could. Truu (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. All the user accounts have been blocked now. --Eldarion (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the note on the DR which led me here. I just blocked some socks and closed some other bad faith DRs. Might be worth keeping an eye. Thanks anyway --Herby talk thyme 16:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. To paraphrase Samuel L. Jackson (TV version): I have had it with these monkey-fighting sockpuppets on this Monday-to-Friday wiki! LX (talk, contribs) 17:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted pics

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Danieldnm#File:BSS Sverigedemokraterna 1.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. LX (talk, contribs) 14:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

DONT DELETE the picture Maurice de Bevere

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Codeholder#File:Maurice De Bevere.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. LX (talk, contribs) 21:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Dear LX, I regretfully read that you marked as copyright violations all of my latest photos. As i wrote in their entry, this is not a copyright violation according to italian laws.

You wrote that there is no evidence that it was first published in Italy, but can you demonstrate that it was first published some elsewhere? Can you tell who is the author? I can't. And, unless you show me that I'm wrong, I can assume that they were first published in the book that I quoted as their source. Furthermore it's impossible to discover where they were published for the first time and if you want I can even say that, because we're talking about Ferraris, they were surely published on italian press at that time, what it counts it's that they were published in Italy more than 20 years ago. Furthermore, by giving the source of the file, I demontrated that it was published and created in Italy. If you want i'll attach you the photo of the book where i took the photos.

Surely I'm not a copyright expert, but nobody explained me how to handle wikimedia's rules and never had time to read them all. I only try to do my best with public domain photos which are no more eligible for copyright....... Digioman 22:18, 15 November 2010 (CEST)

The onus is on the uploader to provide credible evidence to support the licensing or public domain claims made, and on the balance of probability, I think it seems unlikely that photographs of such high-profile events would go unpublished for 35 years. The way {{PD-Italy}} is written, the very fact that the photos were not taken in Italy makes the tag not applicable to these photos. I don't know for sure whether or not that's actually the case; usually, it's the country of first publication that's relevant. If that is the case here, we would still need to determine that they were not published anywhere else before. Let's keep the discussion at the individual deletion discussions, though, as circumstances may differ. I appreciate your responsiveness, but I still urge you to take the time to read through Commons:Licensing. LX (talk, contribs) 22:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
As you can see I answered also at the individual deletion discussions, later these days I'll try to determine the country of their first pubblication. But a couple of phots you marked as copyright violations where surely taken in Italy, I'll later specify the ones. The fact is that it's very difficult to determine the author, all the photos are anonimous, and actually impossible to find where they were first published. I also found that, for the photo taken at the Swiss GP, could be applied the {{Switzerland-photo}}, I'll later let you know because I have to some how transalte the swiss law which is in german and I don't speak german.I'll let you know also for the other ones at the individual discussions Digioman 20:58, 16 November 2010 (CEST)
Dear LX, in the individual deletion discussions I marked the photos which can be deleted because I found new photos which were for sure taken in Italy and that can replace the ones I actually uploaded so that there are no troubles with licenses. Let me know, but please don't think that I deliberately tried to violate copyright laws, the fact is that I still don't handle very well those rules. byeeee Digioman 13:35, 17 November 2010 (CEST)
Thanks again for your responsiveness and for researching the sources further. I don't doubt that any mistakes you made were based on good intentions. I see users who do deliberately upload copyright violations on a daily basis, and it's quite easy to spot the difference. I'll follow up on the individual discussions where I feel like I have something to say, and for the rest, we'll just wait for other users to chime in or admins to take action one way or another. LX (talk, contribs) 12:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Dagane#File:FuerteChacal.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. LX (talk, contribs) 18:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Assist me!

Hello, LX! I'm the uploader of File:Tamil_Culture.jpg. As I am a newbie of this stuff, I have no idea what to do with source information. Can you please help to figure out what actually I supposed to do? I don't want to let the image deleted. Rather, I seek proper help to provide copyright info with my contributions. Thank you! --Chuckraverthy (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tamil Culture.jpg. LX (talk, contribs) 18:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Chris Atkinson 2006 Rally Australia Dwellingup.jpg

{subst:Fdw-puf|Chris Atkinson 2006 Rally Australia Dwellingup.jpg}} 16:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, seven five dot one one two dot one five zero dot two two six! Based on this, I assume that you are TucsonDavid. (Or do you prefer Brian?)
We don't have en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files here at Commons, there is no Template:Fdw-puf here, and templates require two opening brackets to work. You might have been looking for Commons:Deletion requests.
I can understand if you're upset about this, but if this is intended as retaliation, I urge you to find a more productive way to vent your frustration.
You seem to be concerned with the fact that File:Chris Atkinson 2006 Rally Australia Dwellingup.jpg is showing up in Tineye searches.
The first match is from, who have also added their watermark to it. As you can see, it is much lower resolution and a tighter crop than the image stored here, so there is no way that I could have derived the file from the copy on their site. Furthermore, that page is dated 2007-06-07, whereas I uploaded the file to Commons on 2006-11-10. I have been in touch with Peter Kuttner of Cobra Tuning Ltd. regarding their infringing use of the photo in August last year, and frankly, I'm disappointed to see that they have still not taken it down or removed the fraudulent watermarking.
The second match was from, which appears to be a parked domain now. Note that this site's inclusion of my photo was actually a deeplink to a low-resolution version here on Wikimedia's servers. I did also try to contact them in 2009, but they're RFC ignorant, so mails to and all bounced.
There are also infringing uses at, and cafecomf1, but it should be pretty obvious for similar reasons that they're violating my copyright and not the other way around. I hope that clears up any concerns you may have had. LX (talk, contribs) 18:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)