User talk:Mattbuck/Archive3

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Armenian Genocide memorial in Argentina

Please elaborate on how an image from Argentina is violating Armenian copyright laws. VartanM (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Derbyshire Images

I noticed on the Newhall page on Wikipedia that the infobox now had a redlink instead of an image. You had replaced the source image on Wiki-Commons with Newhall Memorial.jpg and the original upload has been deleted. I have replaced the redlink with a link to the replacement, which (I presume) is an upload of the original Geograph file. Note that any files I have uploaded from Geograph relating to Derbyshire locations have been used in Derbyshire infoboxes, so if you change the filename and delete the original the infobox will now have a redlink. Secondly the Geograph files may have been substantially modified. In some cases on Wikipedia a bot has been replacing the modified file with an oversized original, not corrected for colour, perspective or cropped to remove redundant information. Ning-ning (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mattbuck. Thanks for reply. I've modified and replaced the Newhall image, which was a quicker process than I remembered. I found Geograph images generally to have the following problems; too much foreground (tarmac), perspective wrong, colour balance and contrast wrong, sky burnt out (i.e. overexposed and white). Certain photogs (Nikki Madevan for one) are very good. Ning-ning (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi .... I'm concerned. I see that Sandiacre also has a red link. How many files did you rename? Ning-Ning spent about two weeks putting these pictures in place. As I guess you know if you change the name of a file then all the existing referemces are lost unless they are corrected one by one. Any suggestions? Victuallers (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! FR-BlaenauStn.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.

Ffestiniog Railway images topic at the Village Pump

I've responded to your discussions at the Village Pump (in a new thread as the Archive bot did its stuff whilst I was formulating a reply). Railwayfan2005 (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! FR DLG Penrhyn LC.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.

TUSC token 28296e8a07e1ee8416480e897d677430

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! EoM nr TYG.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.


You have marked for, and had deleted the above picture.

This may have been a PD picturein the possession of the FR Archive. We are unable to identify - as its gone. Are you able to recreate for a short period in order to gain further information, and possibly correct the tagging? --Keith (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for restore on the 2, I am awaiting a reply from Archivist.

Re Stesion Fein - See this Aerial shot from multimap. There is a main road splitting the two. However, there was promotion of the station as the "Junction" station, as the "main" station was regard as Duffws, and later the GWR junction station (site of current station). This was after the first main station was buried uner tons of slate waste!! --Keith (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

FR ME reflective.JPG
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! FR ME reflective.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.

Category:Blaenau Ffestiniog LNWR station

Category:Blaenau Ffestiniog LNWR station v Category:Stesion Fein

I see you are already on it, but please check details before transfering from outside sources. --Keith (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the caveat of "no changes under the copyright", I do not feel it right to make the changes you have done. On the other hand it does correct erroneous information given by the orignator ........ Its catch 22!!! --Keith (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I have some doubts: a copyrighted work is right in english wikipedia, but not in wikimedia commons? that's the case of File:Firefox eat ie.png. Can I put that work in, por example, spanish wikipedia? Thanks --Critica Roja (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, well thanks for the quick response, and for the information you gave me.--Critica Roja (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for supporting me in my successful RfB. Cheers, Rocket000(talk) 21:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


Yes but we host the Wikipedia logo. And many many variants thereof. It is a longstanding exception on this site. Please send this to normal deletion instead of speedy. Otherwise I guess I'll have to list it at COM:UDEL. -Nard the Bard 22:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

File:Mona Mahmudnizhad.jpg

I think you could undelete this image: en:Image:Mona Mahmudnizhad.jpg --Navid.k (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Hmm, I think this one qualifies as {{PD-Iran}} since she died in 1983 so the image must be at least 25 years old. -Nard the Bard 21:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


This page is locked so I can't fix the missing file. This image is used hundreds of times on different wikis. Could you please convert the original jpg from Image:Wappen_fehlt.jpg and re-upload since you can edit locked pages? Thanks. -Nard the Bard 21:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Old postcards

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Konigstein81.jpg is very interesting, and it would be nice if we could extract from it some useful policy or at least guidance as to how old postcards should be handled. I have hundreds which I could upload, but many will raise the same issues as this, and I don't want to have to go through the same old arguments every time. Even better would be to work out some rules on anonymous images generally, but I suspect from past discussions that that will be much harder. I am thinking of working up a policy page on postcards, at least. If you have any thoughts on the general principles that should apply, could you leave me a note on my talk page? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


Hi Mattbuck, I've fix the licensing issue by adding {{gdfl}}, modifying {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} and {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}. I would like to request that the nomination for deletion be withdrawn. Regards, Nat (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Flickrbot down

Dear Mattbuck, Do you do some Flickr reviews? Poor but hardworking Sterkebak has been handling most of them but he now has to go and the flickrbot is still not operating AFAIK. See here: [1] I saw 130 images waiting to be reviewed right now. I first noticed this problem and mentioned it on Village pump...and I think someone has to help out here if the flickrbot is down. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)



Yesterday we talkt on irc about a backlog on Category:Unsourced Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR.I just revieuw en tagt the last image in the cat. All images are checked now. :)

Sterkebaktalk 19:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a trout

No, you don't get a healthy trout!

Dear Matt,

what the heck did you think when you tagged the U.S. locator maps such as Image:Map of USA NE.svg as {{subst:nsd}}?? Even if these, technically, didn't have a source, they were rather clearly just standard locator maps created by a Wikipedian, probably heavily used in many projects, and the uploader had given in "other versions" a link to the base image he derived these from. A little bit of looking around would have found the source: Image:Map of USA without state names.svg, derived from Image:Map of USA with state names.svg. If you had just added the sources, we could have avoided a rather annoying incident. Of course the images were deleted after a week, and of course CommonsDelinker delinked them in all projects. And of course that upset a great many people at all those projects. The images were restored, the source was added, and CommonsDelinker was blocked on at least one project. The deleting admin is taking most of the heat, and rightly so, as he didn't think either, but your blind tagging these images as nsd was at least as bad.

Keep the trout as a reminder to apply a little more common sense when something isn't exactly like policy says it should be. (Maybe the community at large would also deserve a small trout for not having noticed these nsd-taggings before the deletion.)

Cheers, Lupo 13:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Used condon.JPG

Why did you delete my image??. It's a photo that i made, I took that photo, Why does my image need copyrights if i took it, and it doesn't even have advertisement. HAMM (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

that blurred part it's just the date of the image, i cannot show you the original image because i deleted it from my pc (Grrrr), but, you can see this image that i took with the same camera (my phone) and see the date exactly on the same side of the image that you deleted. So, can you restore the image, plz?, because i dont have it anymore =( . HAMM (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. HAMM (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Bristol MMB H6 Broadmead.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bristol MMB H6 Broadmead.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:Chauchina coa.gif

The image has been OTRS pending since september 24, today Maxim deleted all the images with the template {{Vexilla Hispanica}} without checking this. I have request to Loco085, an spanish speaker OTRS volunteer to review my mails, but no reply yet. Cheers, KveD (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Bristol MMB D0 Galleries.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bristol MMB D0 Galleries.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.

Moratock artwork

This is public domain and has never been copyrighted.I know this artist and he does it for free just as I do. I don't see how on my artwork of my states quarter that I actually did for the Government is not within scope.Its how the quarter came to be...Yet this very site has copyright pictures of strippers and porn stars all over it and I know its not with permission...I don't know where you're from but I read the rules and I see nothing wrong with any of my pictures.I took the pictures as you did of buildings you didn't build. So tell me whats the difference? I know you didn't get permission to take photographs of business properties which actually has copyrights to thier blue prints... I'm not an idiot and I know what I'm posting and that I took all the pictures and my own designs.I think its just as important or more so than a naked women and buildings... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 18:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC) (UTC)

Please tell if you see an image, which violates copyrights. For most photos of different people from the adult industry there acutally is a written permission to release these under a free license. Look for the OTRS template note. Most buildings are not considered to be copyrighted, though some special are - e.g. the Louvre's glass pyramid in Paris.
There is a huge difference of photographing a building you did not build and an artwork you did not create. Thus such an argument is invalid.
Though I must say that the artwork itself could very well be relevant for articles on Wikipedia. Due to the same reason it is important to clarify the copyright status of the artwork. --|EPO| da: 18:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Kyran Bracken

Beware of usage when deleting renamed file [2] [3] (I also failed at that, found it when fixing mine). Platonides (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Bristol MMB E1 Cabot Circus.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bristol MMB E1 Cabot Circus.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.

Quality Image Promotion

Bristol MMB G0 Cabot Circus.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bristol MMB G0 Cabot Circus.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.


Last time I checked, I am adult, I have children twice your age and grandchildren that are older than. Learn your place. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I live in reality. Not some fantasy world that you have created for yourself. Just b/c some idiot absent-mindly gave you some "sense" of authority doesn't mean that you know what you are doing. There is this thing called respect, which you seem to lack. Grow up, kid! Dancefloor royalty (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Apart from demonstrating your disdain for W:WP:CIVIL, do you have a relevant point? You seem to be uploading images that don't have acceptable licensing conditions (or clearly visible licensing) for use on Commons. Mattbuck has pointed this out to you (and given you no reason to complain about his tact), but it doesn't matter who points it out to you (or how old they are!) - content for the Commons has to be "free" to at least GFDL or CC-by-sa standards. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


Hm, Commons might have a vast amount of copyright violations if you're right. As an example, what do you think of Image:MerryChristmasNolaLimo.jpg? Wondering, -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Bristol categorizations

Please stop, this just isn't working.

You appear to be doing two things, both of which I'm sure from the best of intentions, but the results aren't working out for the best.

Firstly you're ruthlessly killing off any implied super-categories
(i.e. removing Image:Cumberland Basin.jpg from Category:Bristol Docks because it's in the more-specific Category:Cumberland Basin which is in turn a sub-category of Category:Bristol Docks).

This is a controversial practice. In a hugely over-stuffed category, it certainly needs doing. It wouldn't be a good idea to have it in Category:Bristol (of which Category:Bristol Docks is obviously a sub-category). However Category:Bristol Docks isn't unwieldy as it stands and isn't damaged by having Image:Cumberland Basin.jpg directly in it.

In theory this removal of transitive categories is fine, because they're implied by the hierarchy. On some of the wikis I design, I use this a lot - but I also use the DPL extension, so as to present the results in a human-friendly fashion (not really an option under wikipedia-scale loads). That's the problem with this excessive absolutist stripping: it makes the encyclopaedia unbrowsable by human users trying to look through the categories.

Ask "a user" to describe Image:Gardiners Straight St Bristol.jpg and they'll say "a building in Bristol". However you've removed it from there. It's still implied, but only by going through two levels of sub-category through Listed and Grade II listed buildings. Now how many users of the encyclopaedia are going to be either helped or hindered by this de-categorisation? Although this change has some "justifications" around it, then the results of it are to make the encyclopaedia less useful.

There's also the issue that category membership isn't always isomorphic to the set inclusion of the members themselves. The fact that "Cat A" (by the category's definition) is a sub-cat of "Cat B" doesn't always mean that all members of Cat A are implied member of Cat B (by the reasons for which they'd be placed into each cat). This means that automatic script-based stripping of implied categories frequently goes wrong. As an example, please take a look at Image:Speed of the Wind Dinky toy 23E.jpg and User_talk:Erik_Baas#Category:Dinky_Toys
Andy Dingley (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Bristol area categorizations

You're re-organising the Bristol district categories in a way that is hard to understand and certainly unhelpful to the encyclopedia. Please stop.

Image:Cumberland Basin.jpg is an area between Hotwells and Spike Island, two well-recognised and long-established local placenames in common use. You've categorized it into Clifton instead, an area some distance away. This is not helpful, even to people who know Bristol's layout.

I assume that you're doing this on the basis of council wards. Now as is always the way of council wards, no-one outside a few councillors knows where they are! No-one knows what "Cabot" is about, let alone "Ashley". In particular, if you're using the name "Clifton" in a different way (i.e. the ward), then the category name as it stands is most unhelpful. It would have been better if you'd created a new cat of of Category:Clifton ward, Bristol and used that. If you'd also left Cumberland basin in the Hotwells category, then that might even have been useful.

In extremis, this is leading to such harmful edits as you then removing the commonscat from W:Fishponds because you'd destroyed the relevant category at Commons. How is that action helpful to the encyclopaedia? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


You know you should let someone come back with a rebuttal before you delete stuff. cause you may end up deleting something that shouldn't be like this image for was not a derivative work.--   ChristianMan16  16:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It was a totally different work...but what ever I'm not fighting you.--   ChristianMan16  18:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Then again I will say that the copyright on that design has probably expired considering the last time it was used was 2002.--   ChristianMan16  18:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

PD-old-70 begins on January 1st

Hello Mattbuck,

I copied an excerpt of the relevant European directive in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pyr shi01.jpg. Teofilo (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Cross of Sacrifice.jpg
Dear Mattbuck,
Thanks for your support of my Request for Adminship. I’m honored by your trust.

Cheers, SterkeBak

Quality Image Promotion

Sea Mills dock wall and bridge.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sea Mills dock wall and bridge.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.

Cleaning up your own mess ...

No, there has to be a more tactful way to put it than that, but why is en:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mattbuck empty? A sensible chap like you should be able to breeze through, unless Commons admins happen to be the targets of this months three minutes hate. Then you'd be able to delete pics once they were on Commons. Wouldn't that be fun? We have perpetual backlogs with that, and with image stuff in general. And there are vast numbers of undiscovered image atrocities on enwiki that need sorting. Surely you're tempted? Please do let me know if you are. Now, what about that Rod Ward guy, he looks like another likely victim ... All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I already did my research! You were blocked a whole once, for breaking the three-revert-rule, for an eternity of 24 hours, a year ago. And I'm struggling to see why copying stuff to Commons should cause the Ffestiniog Railway WikiProject (really?) to implode. I don't see how anyone could blame you for that. I've never nominated anyone myself in spite of having voted in a gazillion RfAs - lazy sod - so I'll go and speak to an expert about how to go about this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Damnit Matt, run anyway... you'd be a great admin! Giggy (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


You're right, the 2006 should have been the date I scanned and uploaded this image, but even then I got it wrong for 2008! I don't know for sure, but I think I probably took this about 1991 on the way to the Balloon Fiesta. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Night in Bristol

Thanks for filling in Night in Bristol. edward (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Euphonia violacea.jpg

Thank you for your help (I think I'll never can understand all the subtilities of these licenses...) :-) Totodu74 (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OK ! If I have had this before... Thank you (again), Totodu74 (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Jamstykklogo.jpg

Good day, I am the copyright owner of this image as I have purchased FULL RIGHTS! Perhaps an e mail asking could help before I go through the trouble again. What specifics do you need so that this doesn't happen again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 22:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC) (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Rockwebhosting logo.jpg

Hello- I uploaded this image to accompany an educational page about this company in Wikipedia. Please let me know how it is "out of scope." Thank you, Overdark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overdark (talk • contribs) 22:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC) (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me! I did indeed create the image myself. So there should be no problems unless the page gets speedily deleted? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overdark (talk • contribs) 23:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC) (UTC)

Thanks again!

Overdark (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I deleted again this image, as the article on en: was finally deleted too. -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 15:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

images you deleted in error

See here. I am still fixing the images you deleted. Don't you think you could lend a hand... I must admit I thought you were going to fix the errors you made? Victuallers (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-upload hiccup

Say, you were helpful in the past when I had an uploading problem. I tried to replace Image:RiggingDiagram.jpg, which I created and uploaded, with a more recent, and more correct version, which appears on Commons here: but does not appear on the image page, nor does it appear on the wikipedia article where it is needed. Can you help figure this out and not have similar problems if I need to do this again in the future? ? (Of the two images, the correct one is the one where the four circles are UNEVENLY placed...) Also asked at the help desk, maybe someone else will get to it first, but if you could be so kind as to check, I'd appreciate it. Thanks Montanabw (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Never mind the preceeding, it appears to have been fixed. Maybe by itself...Montanabw (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


Image deletion warning Image:Ashton_Gate_vs_Borough.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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

Stifle (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:EPMD Business as Usual (shirt).jpg

Greetings sir.

In regards to Image:EPMD Business as Usual (shirt).jpg: I photographed this t-shirt myself several years ago and therefore have permission to upload it on Wikimedia Commons. I figured the author and permission fields should have made that fact obvious, if not, please let me know what else I should include to avoid future confusion. Amineshaker (talk)


Hello Matt.

Can you please protect Image:EtaCarinae.jpg? It is on the Main Page of en.wp. Thanks. J.delanoygabsadds 03:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done sorry matt just trying to help Sterkebaktalk 14:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi Mattbuck, I've just uploaded one image originally posted on it.wikipedia. The author gave me the permission to use this content under GFDL license and due to this I got an OTRS ticket. I don't know how and where to specify this info on Commons. Please, could you help me with that? Thank you in advance. Regards, --Pfalcone (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I found the template to use and I'm going to insert permission info. Could you restore the previous page? Thanks --Pfalcone (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes dealing with company logos on Commons seems to me unreproducible and at haphazard . --Eva K. tell me about it 16:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


This image is marked on the de.wikipedia as copyrighted but released under a free license - you deleted it while I was changing the language. Do I misunderstand the german tag - my german isn't that great. Trödel (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Google translate agreea with my translation. Trödel (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm seriously confused - the notice I got said I had 7 days to get the information together - and boom!!! - its already gone - can you help? Trödel (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I waste so much of my time fighting off deletion requests - I understand why the Germans refuse to upload to commons. Sorry for overreacting - I clearly indicated I had no intention of reuploading that file and deleted the comments on it, and you restored the text - if you had checked my page history - you'd see that I commonly delete comments on my commons talk page. I really don't have a problem with you - at least you responded to my complaint and have used civility when talking to me. That is much better than I have got on commons.

I understand you feel you have a responsibility to protect the wikimedia foundation; however, I know of no country that makes it an affirmative duty to delete potential copyright violations. Commons is clearly an en:online service provider under the DMCA/E-Commerce Directive. I agree that things should be deleted even if someone doesn't properly file the legal procedures for a notification letter, and we should liberally evaluate such complaints and delete claimed copyrighted material. But we go further and delete things on the spot without any complaint and do not give an opportunity to respond.

The problem with commons is that there is no such thing as a trusted user - every image of mine, that some over zealous admin (before now) has deleted because I failed to follow some, from my POV, arbitrary rule (which have changed since 2004 when I started contributing) HAVE ALL BEEN restored because I did get the proper permissions but had to expend significant wasteful effort to prove it. The really sad thing is that I'd have less trouble if I just claimed the picture was mine and uploaded it - it'd still be there. AND THERE WOULD BE NO CONSEQUENCE TO THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION because Peter said the picture could be used in anyway and that he didn't care about retaining any rights. So by honestly reporting the author of the image I end up with more problems.

Don't you see the irony that those that truly respect the work of others and don't steal their work end up being hassled by commons admins, while those that don't respect the work of others, steal it and claim it as their own don't have to worry unless someone makes a claim against the image in writing. THAT DESCRIBES A CORRUPT AND INEFFICIENT SYSTEM. an edit I couldn't avoid making on commons, the place where admins don't assume good faith 04:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Deletionist users

Is this what you had in mind for creating a description for each of the user types? I'm going to go in later and fill in examples of each of the examples of the delirium, I've seen all of those in deletion requests. -Nard the Bard 14:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Anti Poland.png

I am sorry. My inattention. I greet You. --Starscream (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


No problem if you prefer blue, just undo it --Marku1988 (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please restore image

Hello - can you please restore this image (Image:BobandBlanche.jpg) and restore it to the w:Bob Hawke page on Wikipedia? I haven't been on here for months so I was not aware of the deletion. When I found it on Flickr it was definitely tagged as a free image. The fact it has been since deleted should make no difference. I can find the archive of the image if you want, but I need it to be restored. JROBBO (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The image source is here which clearly shows a BY license - clearly compatible with Commons. JROBBO (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


Hello Mattbuck. I don't understand why you tagged the image as no source. It is ineligible for copyright, we need no permission to upload it. Waylon (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm waitin' for an answer... Waylon (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


What's that? There is an author, there is a lizenz, at Flickr the author himself loadet the picture up unter this lizenz, yout can click on the link to the original picture an look if everything is correct. And it is uploaded here with flickr upload bot, even if I wanted to change the Lizens the author wanted , I would have been unable to do so, in using this bot. --Kersti (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for your concern. Images I uploaded for Dan Godwin, I was given images from Mr. Goodwin. He uses his images on his website: I have told him that I am going to upload images onto Wikipedia. And he said it is O.K. for him. So, what shall I use tag for this circumstance? Would you please kindly tell me what to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimiken (talkcontribs) 16:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Stupid Italian law"

Hi. You deleted several pictures with this rationale. I followed your link and cannot understand where the snip of text is supposed to come from. I am aware of the claim of the Soprintendenza ai Beni Culturali and to my knowledge, Commons has never enforced it, as it is contrary to the European legislation. How come you only deleted a couple of pictures from the Villa Giulia? Do you plan to delete every picture of a work of art exhibited in Italy? Finally, I don't understand why you speedied those pictures instead of opening a deletion request. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the Italian agencies claim you have to pay before taking pictures in their museums. What does it have to do with copyright? Those claims are very similar to museum rules, which we routinely ignore. As far as objects are concerned, we only apply copyright law. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding deletions request for Ejaculation Video

Regardingthis page Please reopen the deletion request for the removal on this video, as it has only been up for a month, and the general consensus is to bring it down. Saying that users only want to take this video down because they 'don't like it' is innacurate, misleading, and false. I quote: "both claim to be Uppladdarens egna verk (uploader's own work), which raises the question of BSP (blatant self-promotion) and COI (conflict of interest). -- 22:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)" "this video doesn't even teach you how to masturbate, it teaches you how to ejaculate, which is an instinct and completely unnecessary to be 'taught'." The deletion request, aside from not being given enough time for people to find the commons page from wikipedia, was largely against your ruling to leave it up. With the overwhelming consensus of opposition against you, you as an administrator should be on the defensive, not the offensive, and defend your position. While you did give a slight defense for your position, it wasn't much more than an w:WP:ICOULDCARELESSABOUTTHECOMMONS. "Video is at least somewhat educational, I won't delete it simply because people don't like it. If you don't want to see it, install a content filter. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)" Megastealer (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

For more information about this, I'd ask you to pop in on my talk page... this user was asking about some actions there. ++Lar: t/c 04:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request for Banksy pictures

This was my response on the deletion page:

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It´s to me absurd that somebody like Banksy, that has chosen to be anonymous, should be able to claim that his grafitti should be covered by copyright. It is likewise funny when somebody else claims that something that has an unknown originator should be covered by copyright, as copyright rules are meant to protect rights of publically known persons.
  • Boberger (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Deferred lighting.png

Hello. I just see you delete this image few time ago. Just to say, to me “Promotional content/spam” is not an argument for a speed deletion. If we can have free content, we can use it as we want, in articles we want. And maybe here it can be a usefull content to illustrate computer graphics article. Its maybe better to add a npd/nsd/nld tempate and wait a deletion. Anyway, often the media is at last deleted. Thanks. ~ bayo or talk 13:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Robert Kennedy

Hi Mattbuck, you deleted a picture of Robert Kennedy more than two months ago which I discovered by chance in an article just now. Wasn't there a bot somewhere that delinks deleted images? Maybe you can take a look into this, the picture is still being used numerous times as you can see via CheckUsage. I've fixed a few but it's just too much and too boring and I'm too lazy;-) --X-Weinzar (talk) 11:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem to have overlooked this issue, here's my question again: Whose turn is it to make sure pictures aren't used anywhere? --X-Weinzar (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your answer. So what to do now? Is there a way to send the bot around although the deletion was quite a while ago? Will someone have to fix this by hand? --X-Weinzar (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Pyrgi tabletes

Hi Mattbuck! I see that you deleted the imagens of de Pyrgi tabletes that I uploaded. It's impossible that they were violating the copyright because this photos were made by myself in an exposción in Madrid and I don't believe that anybody claims author's copyright to the etruscans!. I don't understand what problem has been with these images. :-S --Macalla (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have read the discussion abou the called "stupid italian law" and i'd like to say that the photos were taken in Spain... :-S--Macalla (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


I haven't got the name of the building, but I'll probably go through that area within the next few weeks, and I'll take a look to see if I can find which building it is. Anonymous101 talk 16:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

From memory, I'd think that the building is on the stretch of college road that is next to Bristol Zoo (although my memory is terrible) Anonymous101 talk 16:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning images Andungen_og_jeg_jul.jpg and Andungen_og_jeg_torsdag.jpg

Today I recieved confirmation (GNU) from owner Gyldendal Norsk Forlag AS, and forwarded the e-mail to the address mentioned. Is this what I do, and is this enough? Is there somewhere in the image pages I should do something? Sorry, I really don't know what I'm doing... --Meowski (talk) 10:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Deaerator2.png appears to be a copyright violation

Excuse me for bothering you. However, I note that you instigated the deletion of Image:Deerator3.png in July because it lacked proof of permission from the source of the image. It is back again, but renamed as Image:Deaerator2.png.

(1) There is no such user as User:BerkeleyLab either here in Commons or in the English Wikipedia. So a copy violation template cannot be posted on that user's page.

(2) It is an exact copy of a drawing from a presentation by Stork Power Services (a company in the Netherlands) who manufactures what is known as the Storq Deaerator. See the following websites and scroll down to the see their drawing which is exactly what was uploaded here as Image:Deaerator2.png:

I am completely unfamiliar with how to go about getting an image deleted. Would you be so kind as to implement the deletion of Image:Deaerator2.png just as you did Image:Deaerator3.png?

Thanks very much. Mbeychok (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Notice the uploader

Hi Mattbuck,

Is it useful to notice the uploader, if he uploaded an image without giving a license? (namely I saw bots noticed that uploaders too) MusicalM (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

One question more: I've enabled the tool, but I couldn't find out which link I need to use to place template:image source. Do you know that? MusicalM (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
No I cant't find it. I use this tool: . MusicalM (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll put the template manually, I can't find out which button it is. Thanks for you help. MusicalM (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


Hi Mattbuck! You have got a mail. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 19:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

2 hours

You have forgotten to actualize this DR Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:No_Israel.svg. If you want to delete the restored No Israel-image again, you need not to change it. I am considering your deadmin, because you were refeffering to another similiar Anti Israel flag, decided after a Deletion Request as kept by the uploader(!) himself. I give you 2 hours to correct yourself. PS: Admin Julo will get a similiar note on his disk. Mutter Erde (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wax Poetics Issue Covers

Matt - I work for Wax Poetics and have been, I thought, uploading everything correctly. These are images that I have a right to license, and I've licensed them with Creative Commons for use on our Wikipedia page. What should I be doing differently?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniprobably (talk • contribs) 2008-12-06 20:03 (UTC)


Thank you for the information. However, I certainly hope that you weren't intimating that that had been my argument. If so, you have missed the point entirely. It was rather to prevent exhbitionist from taking advantage of wikimedia bandwidth, and of unwitting users. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for being presumptuous in regard to what my argument may have been had I decided to further the arugment which had then been closed. My argument was not that you yourself (nor the original publisher of the material) are an exhbitionist. Rather, if approved, the dam which now seals the flow of exhbitionism would be broken... Insofar as the 'masturabtion' article in itself receives some 20,000 views daily. The rest, you can leave to your presumptuous propensities. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello, Mattbuck. Thank you for supporting me in the request for adminship. Although it hasn't done successfully, I proud that twenty-nine trusted contributors -including you- voted for me. Thank you again for your trust.--OsamaK 14:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


Protected those images & given them a warning.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


Why the file Livro_de_Todos.jpg is a Copyright violation? It's a cover of a book! Seach "Livro de Todos" in Google Image Search and see. I didn't understand what you did. --F. Paiva Junior (talk)

Ok, now I have understood. --F. Paiva Junior (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Morton Traylor Image

Thanks for alerting me. Which license would be best suited for me being the photographer?Nate2808 (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I also own the painting. Could you recommend a better license for me to use on this image?Nate2808 (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


"I know this is probably canvassing but" should be a clue. The thread is prominent enough as-is - I don't think you've helped by taking these actions.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mattbuck, hello Mike, Mike, please don't make it complicated, I already knew the page, he wasn't notifying me about that, he just shared his concerns with me, I don't see any problem here. Kind regards to You both, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 18:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Christmas review!

Rayon de soleil et hirondelle 2.jpg

Hi Mattbuck/Archive3. I would like to thank you for the interest you have shown in my request for adminship, and for the time you have taken to review my profile. As a Christmas present I've just been given the admin tools, for which I'm thankful as well. I have understood all the remarks that have been made during the review period. I will take them into account and begin using the tools with much care, until I gain more experience and self-confidence. Thanks again, and Merry Christmas! --Eusebius (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Logo with copyright

Hi, i found File:Sanisidroclub.jpg, is a logo of argentine rugby club, see with copyright, thanks & merry christmas Shooke (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Action Replay Code Manager in My PC Screen.PNG


Thank for the notice about {{Copyvio}}. I know that i can tag copyvios with that template. But in this case I wasn't sure enough so I started a normal Deletion Request.

See ya, Abigor talk 19:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Stared :))

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For always keeping a cool head and getting the right decissions with this, I wanted to tell you with this star, that I like your work and I hope you continue like this! :) abf /talk to me/ 21:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it within a scope?

Hi, mattbuck. May I ask you a question please? I uploaded this image File:No to hate propaganda by latuff It kills.jpg. Do you believe it is within a scope, and if not why not and how to improve it to make it within a scope. I uploaded this image second time already because the first one was deleted Commons:Deletion requests/File:No to hate propaganda by latuff It kills.jpg by Adambro as usual. IMO the image fits right in category Allegory and Allegories of war. Thanks for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Christianity Explored Textlogo.jpg

Hi Mattbuck, I am guessing that you felt the image was not 'texty' enough to come under the simple logo licence? If this is the issue I will seek the designer's permission for its use ... grateful for your comments. Springnuts (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)