# User talk:MECU/Archive/Apr2007

Jump to: navigation, search

## Welcome

Welcome to the Commons, MECU/Archive/Apr2007!
 First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing. Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines (P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

## Ditka crop

Hi, I cropped Image:Mike Ditka.jpg so his face is more easily seen at thumbnail size. If you don't like it, just revert, but I do think it makes him easier to identify at w:Mike Ditka. —Angr 18:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

## Image:RQ-4 Global Hawk in hanger.jpg

 Image deletion warning Image:RQ-4 Global Hawk in hanger.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Pmsyyz 19:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

## Image:RedactedCAC.jpg

 Image deletion warning Image:RedactedCAC.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

This is an automated message from BryanBot. 11:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

## Flickr reviewers

Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

## Image:1053.jpg

 Image deletion warning Image:1053.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Rtc 10:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

## Clemens pic

As you can see from my comment on the flickr page I asked him if he took it (as I doubted it) he must have added that comment recently. He listed it as cc-by so I took him at his word. Simple error on his part. Quadzilla99 19:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I'm pretty sure the Getty comment wasn't there when I uploaded it (he added it after I asked the question), not that it matters. Quadzilla99 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

## Image:Eminem Live.jpg

Hello MECU. The picture of Eminem was CC-BY when i uploaded it, the user simply changed the license after that. A common problem with Flickr photos, and why we're now doing Flickr Reviews. There are many more cases like this, so i don't think this should be a speedy delete. Husky talk to me 22:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

## Image:Kellie Hoggart head (cropped).jpg

Generally, if one image is derived form another, but there's no creative change (e.g. nothing that gives rise to a new copyright), then all the source/copyright info of the source should be copied over. FlickR is the source that counts of this image. One of the reasons to keep redundant source info is that images can and do, get deleted, in an inconsistant manner, and we can't always assume the first image will be around. Regardless, we (Commons) are not the true source of the image. Saying Commons is the source, is like saying "my PC" is the source, since that's where the image resided briefly. Also, redundant copyright info, is beneficial to our re-users, who need to see and copy the info, but may not mirror all the images (particularly those not used in any article). Also, I particularly object to the removal of the link to the image on FlickR. Linking the FlickR source image, is a basic courtesty to the creator of the image, and should be done, regardless of whether its legally required. A user reading the article, with an image, should be able to quickly and easily get to the true source. Now, in this particular case, it seems the cropped image, isn't even used anywhere, so I don't care about this case, and won't revert you. But I recommend not removing source information from any image, even if its redundant. --Rob 00:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

## Image:Orata al Cartoccio.jpg

The photographer at flickr obviously changed the license! When I uploaded it, it was creative commons. You can't rely on flickr. -- AM 17:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

## Image:Sofia Central Railway Station - Mihal Orel.jpg

The image was available under the license I have specified, and the author later changed the license. What do we do in that case? Martyr 21:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The deletion should have been put off for a while, Mihal Orel has agreed to release the photos I've already uploaded under the license I've specified (and which was indeed the original one), but now have an administrator has to recover them or I have to reupload them... Martyr 17:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

## Commons:WikiProject Flickr

I have started this as a central place to discuss issues with Flickr images. Please take a look. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

## Flickr copyvios

You have been doing lots of Flickr reviewing lately, marking changed licenses as copyvios. You are however not marking them as such when the photographer has stopped sharing the image on Flickr altogether, either by making it private, deleting it, or closing the whole account. Is there some logic to this? --Para 13:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's respecting the authors' wishes even less if we keep an image here after they have stopped sharing it, as opposed to us keeping an image they are now sharing under a non-free license. The reviewing instructions don't ask to delete images with unacceptable licenses on sight or mark them as copyvios, but instead have them looked at later through the possibly unfree category. When the time for that comes, it would be much easier to consider the validity of free license claims in batches of all the author's images or user's uploads, but it's increasingly harder when they keep disappearing one by one. --Para 13:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
If you are partial to keeping images that may once have been free, wouldn't it make sense to give the deletion a bit more thought than speedying it when you see the current license isn't free and no "trusted" user has reviewed it? If proof is the only issue, please either mark images that aren't available anymore as no source and unproven free licenses as copyvios, or add them all to the possibly unfree category, but don't do a mix of both. --Para 14:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
There are a number of things that could be done with a set of photos marked as possibly unfree were they not deleted on sight. So much work on Commons and all the Wikimedia projects using these images is destroyed when photos are being singled out like this, when all that's needed is a simple contact, preferably related to a big batch of images. People could look at the photographer's other photos here and on Flickr: are any of them licensed freely, does it look like licenses have ever been changed, are there existing permissions? They could look at the Commons user's other uploads: have they uploaded many photos that are currently not free, do their Flickr uploads consist of only those, have any of their photos been reviewed by others, do they seem to have an understanding of free licenses? There is so much information available that is ignored by deleting these images on sight as copyvios. Oh and by the way, Category:Flickr images not found could also be used instead of no source. --Para 18:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

## Image:1969 Olds 4-4-2 Convertible.jpg

Hi. Please look at the images carefully when comparing them to the Flickr ones. The above image is not the same as that on flickr I have therefore reverted youre flickrreview of that image. /Lokal_Profil 14:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I thought the image was just a crop of the image on flickr, but there are subtle differences. MECUtalk 15:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Might be worth uploading the other version instead... since we have a source and compatible license for it? Come to think about it that's what I'll do./Lokal_Profil 17:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't find that version of the image, I searched. But I agree, that's probably the best thing to do. MECUtalk 18:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

## Image:Seu Jorge

I am sure this image, now deleted, was at flickr with a CC license. Apparently his author take it out from flickr. It can happen if you delay to check the upload. Never mind. I got another Seu Jorge image at flickr. Please, check it right away. I wouldn't like to see it deleted without reason. Image:Again Seu Jorge.jpg --Luferom 15:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

## Romário

Hi, I saw the tag you put on the Flickr picture of Romário and I would like to tell that I made a cropped version of it (Image:Romário2004.jpg). I remember (very well) that the picture was published with a cc-by-2.5 license, but I didn't reviewed it at the time because I was not an administrator yet (I got the "job" one week after I've uploaded the cropped version). Well, I don't know if my "testimony" counts...but I thought I should clarify this. Dantadd 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

## Images tagged as "no source"

Hi! The other day you tagged the images Image:Naturaleza en Chiloé.jpg and Image:Nave central de la Iglesia de Achao.jpg because they were deleted from the original Flickr. I contacted the author of the photos and she send me a mail with the confirmation that the photos were released under Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 and then the photos were deleted from the photostream.

Here is the copy of the mail (in Spanish):

Hola

Te confirmo que esas imágenes fueron publicadas por mi bajo la licencia Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0, y posteriormente las eliminé de mi photostream.

Espero que no sean eliminadas del articulo, y si así lo deseas, puedo volver a subirlas para que las puedas utilizar.

Saludos

Marcela López

Now, what happens? --B1mbo 13:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC) ÖPlease forward the e-mail to permissions@wikimedia.org stating in the letter the name of the file here on Commons. /Lokal_Profil 15:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

## Image:Hoshangtomb.jpg

I have not rechecked whether the image is still on coolspark's flickr account, but he could have deleted it, because flickr has a limit of 200 photos for free accounts. Please be assured that it was released by him on CC license as stated. He is one of my contacts on flickr, and I could ask him to clarify on this page. Regards, Deeptrivia 22:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

## Image for deletion

Hi. The photos you tagged for deletion ar all downloaded from flickr with by or by-sa licence. Is something changed in commons policies? --mac 08:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

## Quality Image Promotion

 ★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Tulip Monsella 2006.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

## Image:Newtondale with S15.jpg‎

If an image is released under a cc-by-sa licence or whatever, it cannot be revoked. The picture was released, it was then deleted for whatever reason by the author, but it is still released. That's not my fault, but just deleting the image because you don't trust me sounds a lot like a case of bad faith on your part. Dunc| 09:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

## Dario Sala

Although the image is already deleted, the phot was used with the permission of the author. Minfo-nutella 21:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

## Just a present

Keep up the good work with the Flickr images and don't be afraid of the angry mob of users on your talk page :) -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And just a small question, there is a source on Image:At the botanic gardens.jpg -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
If I'm not misstaken the FlickrLickr user account cannot upload images unless they are under a free license at that time. /Lokal_Profil 16:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I would think so, but it was under flickr-review, and if I'm thinking about the same image you're talking to me about, then there wasn't a source provided for me to flickr review with. So deletion seemed best. MECUtalk 17:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Think thats a missunderstanding. The image is tagged as copyvio not no source. /Lokal_Profil 17:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so you're talking about the image Bryan was talking about above. Okay, I see your point then. I'll remove the tag. MECUtalk 17:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that. Thanks and enjoy your easter :) -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

## Wrong review

You marked the picture Image:Donarute.jpg as non commercial. Please, check again because there is (there never were) no restriction on the source page ( http://flickr.com/photos/66056363@N00/241660627 ). Dantadd 18:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The admin that delete the picture believed in your review. I know you're doing a wonderful job with Flickr pictures...and...problem solved, the image was undeleted. Thanks, Dantadd 20:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

## Upload summaries

For some reason, I had it in my head that using that box would overwrite the existing image description... huh. I'll try to remember to leave an upload summary in future... Shimgray 21:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

## Your vandalism

Do you feel well? See: [1]. You 15 seconds after loading send template {delete}? Come toone's senses! SZPANER 00:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I always loading image, I later write down licence. Many persons do so. You 15 seconds after loading send template {delete}!!! This is vandalism. 15 seconds this is not ~5 minute, because really after 5 minutes was possible calmly to send these template (not 15 seconds). SZPANER 00:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

## Sci_nautico.png

hello MECU, let me know what licence might be better for it and we will change it. Thank you--Luzz 00:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

## Woops

Hi, Mecu. I think you already reviewed Image:Hennepin Avenue-Minneapolis-2006-12-14.jpg. I just uploaded on top of it (cropped) and to be safe, put in a new review tag. Sorry for the extra work. Thanks very much for the time you are giving to Flickr reviews. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 01:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

## HI

Please, check this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Neoneo13/gallery. Thank you. --Suradnik13 19:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Because, on that page are scanned pictures from croatian (ex-yu) book, and represent copyright violation, and nobody do nothing about that. --Suradnik13 09:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, thanks --Suradnik13 16:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

## Mind if I pilfer User:MECU/Flickrreview?

It would be very helpful. Mind if I copy it over (with the history too)? Do you have any helpful hints? Just trying to get on my feet and it is a bit tedious. Regards, Iamunknown 04:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

## Image:Damian Conway Head.jpg

i removed your deletion sticker, because the pic stands under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License, sory for beeing unclear first. and that it is part of a website is no reason for violation because yes it is a slightly derivative work but for that i have permission too, from the owner of the website. i will send his agreement to licence@wikimedia.org, I know the procedures. :). best Lichtkind 10:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

## Help with a Flickr image

Mecu, are you a trusted user? I wonder if you would have time to look at Image:Minneapolis-Panorama-2006-10-20.jpg and see why it is failing bot review? After the first fail I tried retagging. This time I tried retagging and reuploading. Somewhere I could have made an error.... Thanks. -Susanlesch 01:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your help. I fixed a few URLs and may find some more I did wrong... -Susanlesch 01:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

## typical response

Yes, that's a typically aggressive, elitist response that I would expect. Dunc| 22:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

## Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

MECU/Archive, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and Commons:Deletion requests), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references....
EugeneZelenko 14:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Don't keep as close an eye of RfAs here as I do on en.wiki. I'm sure you'll do a great job. 14:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

## Image:Buddha Rennenkampf.jpg

Hi! Regarding [2], have you actually verified the licence? If so, could you please provide enough details on the description page for others to be certain about it? I can’t even find the image at the stated source. —xyzzyn 04:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK, although I feel it could have been deleted as lacking licence information. (We can expect this kind of claim to be actually verifiable…) If the deletion process here was as efficient as en:WP:IFD, I wouldn’t mind using it, but I don’t like leaving an image for a couple of months (until somebody takes care of the backlog) when it’s a copyvio with ${\displaystyle >0.95}$ probability. Starting normal deletion request anyway. —xyzzyn 13:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

## County coas Sweden

When you deleted the superseded Swedish county coats of arms (like Image:Hallands läns vapen.png) you forgot to change links to this images in the other projects. Would you please make up it? --::Slomox:: >< 13:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm? --::Slomox:: >< 13:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I answered on your post on my user talk. --::Slomox:: >< 16:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you please correct your mistake and change those links? --::Slomox:: >< 13:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Not that I should reward your behavior, when you could have taken care of this yourself, but see [3]. It'll be done sometime by a bot.
Reward my behavior? You mean: caring about not destroying articles on other projects? Why do I have to be penetrant to get an answer? Is it that hard to answer a question on your user talk? Why don't you do your job? Bored about it after only two days? An admin has to check, whether an image is used on the other projects, before deleting it. If the image is a copyright violation and swift reaction is needed, this rule is less rigid. But: It is ridiculous to say swift reaction was needed after already two years, in which the image existed on Commons. And then the image was superseded too. So you were able to change the images to the superseding image. And secondly this shows, that the motif of the image can't be a copyright violation, cause if Image:Hallands läns vapen.png is one, the superseding Image:Escut de Halland.png must be one too. Lacking source and copyright violation is not the same. So no need for speed. It's your duty to care about, as deleting admin, not mine. And this is not only about Image:Hallands läns vapen.png, but all Län vapens. You deleted at least 18. That means around 18 broken articles on each project using the pictures. For Image:Hallands läns vapen.png there 26 instances of the image, so 18*26 = around 468 damaged articles. Very poor performance for an admin, very poor performance. On the deleting part and also on the discussion part. --::Slomox:: >< 17:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I placed the images in the Orgullobot queue now and your user name in my personal user blacklist for massive ignorance. Commons as a project is to help the other projects by providing images to illustrate their content. If you don't like to work for this goal, if you don't mind about withdrawing our content provided to them for no good reason (despite: the rules say I don't have to), then why did you apply for adminship? I don't understand it. And bye. --::Slomox:: >< 16:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

## Templates

Heh, I just did that out of a habit, the real change was the 'd. ;) Yonatan talk 15:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You forgot the 'd, that was what I added. ;) Yonatan talk 15:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

## Low-res images

Hi MECU. This edit worries me a bit.

All the images from this user (Image:Vista aerea treppio.jpg, Image:Chiesa treppio.jpg, Image:Organo treppio.jpg) are extremely low-res, in fact I'd call it "web resolution". They have basically no source information or description. A user on IRC just alerted me that they come from this site.

So three things worry me. One is that you don't show greater skepticism towards "web resolution" images, especially when combined with poor source info and description.

The second is that you "copy license from other images by author". I don't think it's OK for us to make those type of assumptions, even for reliable users. Only the author can release the work under a license.

The third is that all these edits you undid were by User:GeorgHH, who is an admin, and it worries me that you essentially reverted another admin's work without discussing it with them at all (as far as I can see at least). If you were going to do that it would be courteous at least to explain why.

Please edit with more care in the future. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 17:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi MECU,
I know you were trying to do the right thing and give this user the benefit of the doubt, but web resolution + poor/minimal description/source information is a very strong copyvio indicator. This is what I do if I see suspiciously low-res items but I want to give the user the benefit of the doubt: I ask them to upload the original hi-res files over the top of the existing files. If they are in fact the creator of the material, they will no doubt still have the originals available.
I think it is acceptable to copy a license from a user that has established what license they generally use. Like, for me, if you look at the images I have uploaded on my userpage, they all generally have the same license, so I would prefer you to add that license than delete for not a license.
Sorry but I still really strongly disagree about this. License tags shouldn't be about user courtesy but are something more like legal declarations. If a user forgets to tag an image, just remind them to do so! If in the meantime their image gets deleted for lack of license info, we can easily undelete it (and in such cases we are always happy to).
Please talk to other admins about this stuff, on talk pages or IRC. Maybe some will disagree with me, but I feel that in both these cases there are good reasons for the conventional responses to be what they are.
cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

## Copyright question

Hello! This image is in a website that uses non-commercial license, however, the guy in the photograph died in 1902, so it must have been shot before that, is the photograph in public domain? Wooyi 03:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Now it's uploaded Image:Horacegrayphoto.jpg. By the way, when I click "upload file" there are many options to click, which one applies to pictures with copyright expired? Wooyi 00:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

## Deleted image

You deleted thaiboksen.jpg which I got from Flickr. I tagged it using the autotagger, according to Flickr uploading it to Commons did not lead to a copyvio. Perhaps you could tell me why you still deleted it? Maarten 20:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you ever answer questions on your talk page? Maarten 21:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It would've been easier if you'd place your answer on this page. Maarten 22:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

## Imagen borrada

No entiendo por que borran las imagenes que claramente se indican que son fotografias propias. ¿Se erigen ustedes en comisarios de la censura? the preceding unsigned comment is by Codifiva (talk • contribs)

## Image:Poznan 28 06 1956.jpg, Image:Zadamy chleba.jpg

Can you give me information on content of that page before it was deleted? I was not notified of any problem, but I think I might have uploaded them and if so I usually provide all the necessary information. In any case, please restore them to en wiki under fair use or send them to me in an email at piokon at post dot pl so I can rectify this copyright paranoia problem which gutted several articles on pl wiki (the images were surely licenced under Template:PD-Polish and source were documents of w:Institute of National Remembrance). Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. Although online source is not required (I think?) the photos came from this link. In the future, please notify the uploader BEFORE deleting useful photos (this SHOULD be the policy, sigh). Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Since you deleted them, please click undelete, paste the link I gave you above (gallery page) and all will be done. Why should I go to all the trouble of recreating descriptions, etc.? Also I don't remember exactly which one of several variants was uploaded, and would like to recreate the article with the same pics as they were before the deletion (who was the uploader, anyway?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned in that licence template, ‘Please provide where the image was first published and who created it.’ Unless that URL is actually the site of first publication, it won’t do as evidence of the absence of copyright. —xyzzyn 06:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
With exception of the few photos at the bottom (described in captions) which were published in foreign newspapers and are likely not under above license, rest comes from the archives of Polish secret police (spies... you can even see a few photos made from hidden cameras and such). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

## Re: Re: speedy delete of flickreview failed

I responded to your comment on my talk page. Regards, Iamunknown 01:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

## Bey from Karabakh

This [4] was not a copyvio or anything contrary to any wiki rules, the image is in public domain and is by a notable artist. I don't know why two users suddenly started a campaign to delete it today, and apparently succeeded, but please restore the image and perhaps consider notifying them to stop their unhelpful actions. AdilBaguirov 19:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

## Thank you

thanks for telling what i did wrong. i looked at other screenshot images and found out how to do it properly. once again, thanks

## Image:Mapa Andrade Araujo2.jpg

Of course it's a clear copyvio (it's exactly the same map), but ok, I've already done a deletion request. Dantadd 16:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

## RE Image

hhhmmm...one of those images is a duplicate because one is high resolution and the other is not. NASA Photos should be uploaded in a high resolution. DragonFire1024 19:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I was not aware that it was cropped :) DragonFire1024 14:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

## Review

Please, could you review Image:Maggie Gyllenhaal.jpg from Flickr? Thanks, Dantadd 20:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (again)! Dantadd 13:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

## Deletion of File:Keikogi-folded.jpg

If you'd taken a look into the image information I supplied, you could have seen that I was the creator of this picture, as in Image:Keikogi.jpg. I'm not sure that I did not forget to put up a license tag, but since I uploaded all my works under GFDL, including the one referenced as other version of the deleted image, you could have assumed that it was only forgotten and at least have given me some more time to react. I am obviously not very active here at the moment. --chris 22:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
PS: Since it was used only locally anyway I uploaded it to German WP now. Just in case you decide to correct your mistake, so you know where to find it again :-) Ah, and the correct tagging there afterwards is also English: {{NowCommons}}. --chris 23:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

## Image problem

The thumbnail-sized image (120px) of Image:UGASLC.jpg doesn't show up. I tried purging the page and that didn't work.

Can you try deleting it, then purging the page? Thanks. --BigDT 00:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

## England-Richard-I-Arms.svg

Hi! You seem to have deleted image:England-Richard-I-Arms.svg, an image which was apparently made by me some time ago, uploaded to the English wikipedia, transwikied here and now deleted. I'm not certain that I did make this image, but it's quite possible. It now seems to have been lost, since I have no idea if I have a local copy. Please could you attempt to contact original uploaders before deleting in cases such as this, so that they have a chance to clarify the situation? Thanks, Lupin 13:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

## Image:Barack_Obama_portrait_2005.jpg

Could you elaborate beyond saying this image is a copyvio and that a complaint is logged with otrs? What exactly is the problem? As for the sourcing, I can assure you that the source was correct, but they overwrote this image with the current image (see http://web.archive.org/web/20051025110718/obama.senate.gov/files/senatorbarackobama.jpg). If the problem is the same with both images, however, I suppose that would be a moot point. Thanks. --Tom (talk - email) 18:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I was asking because this image also exists on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Barack_Obama.jpg, and I was wondering whether or not I should delete it since it seems that it is a copyvio of some sort, yet there is no way I can verify this. I'm not sure if you're also an admin on en:wiki and could delete it if it is a problem. --Tom (talk - email) 18:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. --Tom (talk - email) 19:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

## Zoe Bell image

I have permission from the author (within an e-mail exchanged) to add the image and was about to add it to the talk page of the image. Is there anything else that is required for the image to be used? --Nehrams2020 21:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll reupload the image, and include the e-mail exchange on the talk page as verification. I looked over the licensing you provided in the warning template and it clearly states that the GNU license is allowed. Once I reupload it and you still notice any other issues, please let me know so I may be better prepared for uploading in the future. --Nehrams2020 21:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

## Image:Logo di Blender.png

Hi! On 22 april 2007, you deleted the image Image:Logo di Blender.png with the motivation that there was a copyright violation, when this image is under the GNU license. A prove of this can be found on http://www.blender.org/tutorials-help/faq/gpl-for-artists/: "The splash-screen and icons are GPL'd material therefore when using them the terms of the GPL must be followed. Usage of the Blender Logo is only GPL too when used within the context of screenshots of the GUI with or without splashscreen." I'm sure this situation can be resolved easily.

Thanks. --Thomas Lucking 23:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

## Image:Eu2007de.svg

You just deleted the logo that I added. It is under fair use, and is the same logo as Image:German_EU2007_logo.svg. Exactly the same. Released under the same license. Just that this new version is rendered correctly by wikimedia. Can you explain thanks? --Giandrea 22:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So, can you explain why the same exact file, tagged exactly in the same way, was not deleted? I'm referring to Image:German_EU2007_logo.svg. Thanks. --Giandrea 22:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You haven't deleted it yet, but anyway it is an European Union logo, shouldn't it be safe for Wiki Commons? It's the logo for an European institution, so it's the same as, let's say, the Italian republic coat of arms. --Giandrea 23:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice someone uploaded it again. Anyway doesn't official logos fall under a safe category for wikimedia commons? --Giandrea 23:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

## Image:Mona Lisa en Copyleft.jpg

Hello, I can't see why you deleted this image, what is the problem with it? Michelet-密是力 06:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

## Image:Bek.jpg

Hi, could you please comment this? --Hayk 18:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case please advise me whom I can apply to resolve the problem? --Hayk 07:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

## Image:Adult Movies.jpg

Hi, Michael. Please reconsider your deletion of Image:Adult Movies.jpg. I based it upon Image:Israel 6 035.Israelic Adultmovies.jpg, which is: {{GFDL-self}}; ; almost three months old; and displayed by w:Pornography in ten languages and w:de:Portal:Erotik und Pornographie. This image was displayed by w:Pornography for 48 days, from 16:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC) to 23:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (when its use appears to have been reverted due to your tagging). Thank you for your reconsideration.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

...If it's Friday and you haven't heard from me, please bug me.... MECUtalk 17:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Michael, Friday is gone and I haven't heard from you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, I copied the two previous lines from my user talk page, in case you're not watching it.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I could swear I replied to you, but apparently I didn't (I wonder who I sent that message to?). Anyways, I restored the image because I'm not sure if panorama applies and although there are visible copyrighted works which is the primary purpose of the image, is doesn't seem clear to me still. I left the derivative tag because maybe someone else can figure it out better. Sorry for the hassle (and delay). MECUtalk 02:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That restoration is appreciated, but could you please also restore the talk page? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, I copied the two previous lines from my user talk page, in case you're not watching it. Please reply somewhere that you will be watching. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the restoration!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

## Image:Schimmelpenninck.jpg

Hi MECU. I know I'm not the only one to complain here but, with all due respect, I think you have made a mistake when you deleted this file Image:Schimmelpenninck.jpg. I uploaded this file three weeks ago and I chose the tag {{PD-old}} because it was a portrait made in 1806 by the English painter Charles Howard Hodges ho died in 1837 [5]. Siebrand told me it missed some information about the source. He was right, I forgot to give the date of death of the painter. I answered him, I gave those informations, I wrote the painting is exposed in the Rijksmuseum of Amsterdam. He never awnsered me and I'm surprised to see that you deleted it beacause it had not been edited for 6 days. It's right but the needed informations were there. If the painter died 170 years ago, I think the tag PD-old was the good one. If it's not, please, tell me what is wrong :-) Thanks a lot. --Martin1813 18:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I took it from the Rijksmuseum website. The Rijksmuseum search engine don't work at the moment. I think I gave the direct link in the description box but I'm not sure.--Martin1813 08:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is the link to Rijksmuseum [6] (description). Thanks a lot. --Martin1813 15:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, MECU. --Martin1813 15:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

## Several images deleted

Hi MECU, You deleted two images that I recently uploaded on WikiCommons. You also sent me a message saing that that images where copyright violations. But, as you can see, I put the GNU license to them, because is that the license under where they are. If you want a prove of this, take a look at the section "What if I take screen-shots of the blender interface?" on this page. As you can see, all screen-shoots and logos of Blender are under GNU license, and also the site from where I toke them is a Wiki one, so all it's content is under the GNU license. I already sent you a message where I exposed my reasons, receiving no answer. I'm sure this situation can be resolved, but please, contact me! Greetings! --User:Thomas Lucking 20:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, you where right to suspect! There's a lot of bad stuff around. If there are any other problems, don't esitate to make me aware about them! Good work! --Thomas Lucking 21:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

## Thorpe pic

Wow, that was quick! Instant approval. Thanks!!! Quadzilla99 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

## Re: Image:John Mayer 2006.jpg

Hi. You said flickr images marked as "NC or ND" can not be accepted here. I might be wrong but the CC license page for that image says you are free to to "copy, distribute and transmit the work" on the condition that it's attributed and that there are no derivative works. Does "no derivatives" also mean non-commercial use? If non-commercial use was diallowed, wouldn't the image be licensed under "Noncommercial"? Spellcast 12:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops my bad. I should've thoroughly examined that list. I didn't see a non-commercial tag so I thought it was fine. Anyway, lesson learned! Spellcast 12:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

## Walker

Can you delete this pic:[7]? It's a duplicate and the other one is not tilted and hence is superior. I don't feel like going though the trouble of listing it and everything. Thanks in advance. Quadzilla99 13:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Quadzilla99 15:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

## OTRS check

Hello MECU, please, can you check receiving a permission from Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission for Image:Mikveh Israel Cemetery sign.jpg and Image:Satterleesign.png? Date must be around 19 February 2007. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mikveh Israel Cemetery sign.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Satterleesign.png. Thank you. --GeorgHH 21:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

## Dhaka-panorama.jpg

Hi MECU, What was the problem with the image? It was from World66 website, and released under Creative Commons Attribution license. So, could you please tell me the reason behind deleting it?

We have used the photo in at least 2 featured articles in English wikipedia, and 2 in Bengali wikipedia. Prior notification would have been helpful.

Thanks.

--Ragib 15:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the page was erroneously tagged as no-source/license. Can you please undelete the image and add the World66 source/license info as indicated above, or should I upload it myself? Please reply on my talk page. --Ragib 16:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

World 66 is a sister site of Wikitravel.org , and their content is widely used. Their copyright policy clearly says that all their content is licensed under Creative commons Attribution license.

As a comparison, do we always require author name/release forms? I do not see such requirements for US Federal Govt images, where the mere mention of the source has been found acceptable. This is a comparable case, and I think unless you question World66's credibility, we can apply the same precedent here.

Note that, per the en-wiki entry,

In 2004, World66 relicensed all content to an open license first a GNU FDL license and consequently to CC by-sa 1.0 - those who had contributed under GNU FDL license were informed of the change by e-mail and had the possibility to withdraw contributions.

The site claims more than 80,000 travel related articles covering about 10,000 destinations around the world and all of them are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 Licence.

So, please re-consider. Thanks. --Ragib 16:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

## Image:Rotation2.svg

Bonjour, je viens au sujet de l'image Image:Rotation2.svg. Je demande une restauration. Je suis l'auteur de l'image comme je l'ai indiqué au moment de la création. voir http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Rotation2.svg. Je ne viens pas fréquement sur commons. Prière donc de laisser des messages sur fr:Utilisateur:HB. Merci

Hello, can you, please restaure this image I, HB, am the author of this image created with inkscape. I have also created, the same day, Image:Rotation5.svg, Image:Rotation4.svg, image:Rotation3.svg. I dont understand this deletion because I said (see this page) : "author HB". If you have another problem with some image, please, contact me on fr:Utilisateur:HB. Thanks. HB 16:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

the licence is {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}. I think it will be correct, is'nt it? HB 17:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. HB 17:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

## Thorpe pic 2

Can you help me crop and clean up this pic? It's desperately needed over on en. It's some kind of weird file that I can't edit, I can't even get it to display on my computer using Windows picture or Media center and had trouble uploading it. I'm not sure if you're aware of the Thorpe fiasco but if you have time/interest see from here down, it's on FAR and one issue is that it has no pic. Quadzilla99 04:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify I talked the flickr user into sharing so that thread doesn't relate to the flickr pic in question. Quadzilla99 05:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I cropped it and added it here and here. What did you mean by "clean up"? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 12:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I meant removing the hand from the shoulder but it looks fine, thanks! Quadzilla99 13:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC) (copied from User talk:Jeff G. by User:Jeff G.)
Sorry about not closing the small tag.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)