User talk:MichaelMaggs/Archive/2009

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.


Stari Most picture

Hi! Right, buildings are really leaning to the left. I corrected it but I dont know, can I upload the new version (and overwrite the old) while its on voting? It's my first nomination, and I can't find rules on this. --BáthoryPéter (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't change the picture while voting is in progress, but you can add a new edit below the existing one (on the same sub-page, with a new heading) and ask for votes on that. As an example, have a look at Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/November_2008#Image:Pont_de_Brooklyn_de_nuit_-_Octobre_2008.jpg.2C_Edit1_featured. Hope that helps. Good luck. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. Is it correct? Thanks for the help! --BáthoryPéter (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. I've just moved the edited version down under the second heading, which is how it's normally done on Commons FPC. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your good image File:Ammonite lamp post at dusk, Lyme Regis.JPG! I just wanted to let you know that I used it in a blog post (I, of course, mentioned you and the CC license). Again thanks for your nice image! Best wishes, Calandrella (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi! I was wondering if you could delete these photos that I uploaded with incorrect or bad names:File:LibertyBridgePittsburgh.JPG,File:7th street.JPG,File:ClementeBridge.jpg. Thanks!--HoboJones (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


I have uploaded a restitched version of Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Graffiti i baggård i århus 2a.jpg - take a look! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chania Monument of the Hand.jpg

Hi Michael, my above image was deleted by you, but File:Chania Handdenkmal.jpg still exists. Why?

By the way, could I upload my image into the german wikipedia? Under german law it should be under en:Panoramafreiheit, shouldn't it? --DorisAntony (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Chania Handdenkmal.jpg wasn't directly nominated in that deletion request, and I didn't know about it. I have nominated it myself now. As to uploading to the German wikipedia, I am afraid I do not know what their rules are - sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

For your attention :)

This thanks & regards Michael. Feel free to transclude it or I will. --Herby talk thyme 10:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks Herby. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


  • What is a bully? Please give a translation, which non-Londoners could understand too. And please answer my question, since when exactly you know the text of my email to Diti? You have asked me to post it. I did it. In Germany is at least a little Thank You in common for this. Your comments before and after I posted the text give me the impression, that my email to Diti was not new to you. So: From whom you have got the text? Btw: Are you not afraid that Your reputation will get a heavy dent, when you collaborate with Diti and his underaged gang? Mutter Erde (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC) (Source: Mutter Erde´s talk page, no answer) 11:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mutter Erde, I will answer just this one thing, but am not going to engage in further conversation. The first time I saw the text of your email was when you posted it on your userpage. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi! Can you delete some stupid photos with this category? This photos doesn't have substantial importance:


Dawid Mrożek (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't help you with an immediate deletion. On Commons, images are not deleted of the basis of "substantial importance", but whether they are "realistically useful for an educational purpose". Images that are in use on at least one WMF Wiki - as some of these are - are definitely OK, and most of the rest are at least potentially useful in my view. You might like to look at COM:PS which sets out the basis on which we keep images here. Some of the images, though, fail COM:PEOPLE as they show identifiable people in a private setting with no evident permission from the subject to having their likeness uploaded here. Those I have nominated for deletion. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)--MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

MOP barnstar

I hereby award this Photographer's Barnstar to MichaelMaggs for his excellent photographs and for joining the exclusive MOP club

Almost forgot, I hope it'll go still on time. Congratulations! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks Joaquim. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


I was the person who took the pictures for the FLMNH page. I was out of the country and just returned to discover five of my pictures had been deleted. All of the pictures were done with enthusiastic approval of the museum and I found made a very long section of text quite informative and helpful. I find they enhanced the page and found that your deletion of them unrealistic for the reason as other museums have pictures of their exhibits and they are not deleted. I would like you to fix this issue please. Thank you. wtc69789 (talk)

I am afraid that oral authorization and approval by the museum to take the photographs is not sufficient for Commons' needs. We need to be sure that the copyright owner of the original mural has granted formal permission for the original design to be re-used for all purposes, including commercial uses. Typically, copyright in the original design will be retained by the artist and not by the museum. Many museum exhibits are OK here as they do not, themsleves, have copyright protection, but this mural does. Also, for an image like this, the permission that has been granted by the copyright holder would need to be formally recorded in our OTRS system so that a permanent record of the permission can be kept. You would need to get the copyright owner (probably the artist) to send the permission to, mentioning by name the images in question, and also the specific licence/permission that is being granted, for example {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Lists of permissible licences can be found here (Creative Commons licences) and here (GFDL licences). If you would like to let me know when the email has been sent, I will check whether the permission sent is OK, and if it is will happily undelete the images for you. Please let me know if anything is unclear. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Anya Teixeira image File:095095.jpg

Dear Michael Maggs, I am distressed to see that my picture of Anya Teixeira has been removed on spurious copyright grounds. Your name turns up on the site an I would like your help in its restoration. My message to Mr Osamak on one of his panels,

Dear Osamak, It is probable that this violates Wikipedia procedures but my grievance outweighs this. The picture I took of Anya Teixeira in 1961 has been removed from her entry. I am the full owner of the copyright and I am her her executor. Will you kindly restore it. J L Gordon (<...>) 11 January 2009

Many thanks JLG <...>

Dear Jlgordon, thanks for your message. Validy-uploaded images do get deleted by mistake from time to time, and I think that is what may have happned here. Often, high-quality historic images such as yours are simply copied illegally from the internet and are uploaded here by somebody other than the copyright owner - hence the tendency for everyone, myself included, to be rather suspicious of such images. Your image of Anya Teixeira is the same as the one that appears at, and if you would be good enough to confirm that you are the same jlgordon that owns that site, I can restore your image and tag it with proof of your permission to ensure that it doesn't accidentally get deleted again.

Yes, I own the J L Gordon

We have a system of recording formal permissions called OTRS, and all you need to do, please, is to send an email to stating that you are the copyright owner of the Anya Teixeira image File:095095.jpg, as her executor, and that you have released it under the licence cc-by-sa-2.5 (which is the one you chose when you originally uploaded the file). Please send the email from the address mentioned on the website (ie the one that appears using the "Contact Me" link). I will check the email on receipt, and assuming all is OK will happily undelete your image. It would be helpful if you could drop me a note here to confirm when that has been done, so that I know when to check. (By the way, it is probably best not to post your personal email and telephone numbers here, as that can generate spam). With very best regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. i have done this many thanks J L Gordon


File:Idog.jpg(Commons:Deletion requests/File:Idog.jpg)

  • I own it. I photographed it. Lemon-s (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that, but you did not design the toy yourself, and the toy is protected by copyright owned by the manufacturers. In uploading a photograph you violate that copyright. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I understood.Thanks. Lemon-s (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi MichaelMaggs/Archive/2009, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of 100 % support. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and I promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. Please do feel free to get in touch if you feel you can improve me in any way; I will be glad to listen to all comments. Again, thanks,Abigor talk 17:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing deletion requests

Perhaps this was a rare slip of the fingers: please don't forget to mark a deletion request as closed when you delete the file. It saves naive users (me?) continuing a pointless debate. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for closing that. Actually, I speedy-deleted the image as an obvious copyvio along with other images of that user, one of which was a re-upload of an earlier deleted file. I didn't actually realise that it had been nominated for deletion at all. (ps I don't think you count as a naive user!) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you included the other files. --InfantGorilla (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


Michael, thanks for the correction... On the other hand, I placed my name on the meet the photographers as per Schwen instructions, and the info appears on the profile page as accesed by the link Dschen provided on my talk page, but does not appear on the page accesed via the main door. Is there a delay between servers? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You've done it right: I can see your entry fine via the link on the main page. You probably need to clear your browser cache (I see the same thing sometimes when going between the FPC main list and the individual transcluded pages). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Michael,

In this link, going through the main page I see nothing: #REDIRECT [[1]], however that is not the case in this other one: #REDIRECT [[2]], where the ifo does appear. Regards, --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your entry via both links. Did you try re-booting and checking again? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes I did, and even from another computer I do not see anything. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Michael, Dschwen helped me out, it works fine now. Thanks. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Dschwen is much more of an expert on that sort of stuff than I am. Glad it works now. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read

Michael, please read proposal for FPC gudelines in the discussion page #REDIRECT [[3]]. I believe that concensus could and should be built in order to improve quality ot the page, project, etc. It is clear that there are disagreements on the personal level for some, but I believe that everybody agrees that there is definitely room for improvement.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Hoocares j.r.

The user Hoocares j.r. (talk · contribs) has returned and uploaded more suspect images; in particular File:IDog amp'd.jpg, which is the same as before. Please take a look when you get a chance. Thanks! 23:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have deleted various images and warned the user. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey again ... can you take a look at File:ITurtle.jpg & File:ITurtle.JPG when you get a chance? Thanks! 19:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what to make of those. Is the design a copyvio or is it a user-created design? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Tomascastelazo - block

Hi Micheal, I'm in the process of having a look at the block on Tomas after recieving an email request. My first impression is why 2 weeks? he's been blocked once for an hour to me it appears on the face of it to be an excessively lengthy block for this user especially as his tyalk edit history doesnt have any warnings prior to the block. Other things that concern me is that theere is 5 hours between Tomas' last editdiff and the time that you blockeddiff.

As a courtesy given the user contributions would it not be prudent to advise the wider community of the block at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections , maybe get some independent input. Gnangarra 06:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gnangarra. Yes, by all means let's get further input at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections. I'll post there now. I'm not sure what you mean by the talk history having no warnings: the user has had several, as shown on his talk page. The delay between last edit and the block is by no means unusual as I was not online during that period. He was blocked immediately I saw the continuation of the behaviour for which he had been repeatedly warned. I take the view that the attacks are a pretty serious matter, particularly since they have been going on for some time, the reaction to the warnings was uniformly negative, they were not stopping, and some appear to be libellous. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


Congratulations! Are are one of bureaucrats now. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping Michael, regards --Herby talk thyme 15:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations and welcome to the team. Please make sure your fellow crats have your email (pretty sure I do) and please make sure to update the various admin lists to refect that you're also a crat now... ++Lar: t/c 05:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, will do that over the weekend. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations! Abigor talk 09:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

for cleaning my talk. But don't you concidder three days for a user saying "I will kill you" is a bit errr.... short? Regards. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 16:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I took it as a meaningless outburst. But be my guest if you want to increase it. I very much doubt there is any intention to contribute constructively. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Gone already. Did someone oversight it? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Not oversighted, I deleted it out. And I alo blocked indefinitely, see (Block log); 16:55 . . ABF (Talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Wickedauthor (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (see and :) Regards and thank you for your reply, abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 16:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

For you

WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For defending the Values of Commons--Mbz1 (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Mila, I appreciate that. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


I've opened a discussion on this block - I'm uncomfortable with the length, given the incivility linked. Perhaps there's more I haven't seen, but, he e-mailed me, I think we should look it over a bit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Already in progress at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections#Block of User:Tomascastelazo. See also his talk page, where you will see that the block has been reviewed by another admin and unblocking declined for the moment. Maybe that may change if his attitude does. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

R Miranda.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:R Miranda.jpg says "Deleted. MichaelMaggs (Diskussion) 18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)" and it didn't got uploaded again. I think you just have forgotten it :-)
--D-Kuru (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done Thanks for spotting it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A question

Hi Michael, may I please ask you what are the Commons policy for the proposal as you've made to pass. Does it need a simple majority or... Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The end result is not based on counting votes but on so-called "consensus". That in itself may need discussion. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

FP thoughts

I given some thoughts to the problems at FP I'd appreciate your opinion before I take to the wider community, please look at User:Gnangarra/Sandbox/FP thoughts and make any suggestions Gnangarra 00:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please help

Dear Admin Maggs, Can you please help...and tell me if this image can be moved from English WP to Commons: [4] ?

  • Just reading the license gives me a headache. Its a 5 year old picture of a historically important monument in Egypt and I think the other non-English wiki sites would love to use it. But reading the 'conditional use' license gives me a headache. I have asked Kanonkas but I think he's away. Will Commons accept this image on its site or is the license just too restrictive? If it was licensed as 'Attribution' I could probably move it...but conditional use? I've never seen such a license before. Please help give me some guidance. Thank You. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I would say not, I am afraid, and indeed as I read the licence I doubt it will even survive on Wikipedia. The phrase "provided that it is reproduced accurately" seems to prohibit the creation of at least some derivative works, which is not allowed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
How about just asking the uploader about it? I think there's a fair chance that the uploader, en:User:Twthmoses is the photographer "Lasse Jensen". He is still active at en-WP (last edit 2009-01-14); his user page says Danish was his first language, and "Lasse Jensen" is a Danish name. Get him to agree to a simple CC-BY license; pointing out to him that CC-BY-3.0 for instance does contain the "moral rights" clause which, I think, would at least take care of his request not to have the image mutilated. Lupo 07:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you Admin Maggs and Lupo. I will contact Twtmoses and see if he will agree to license the image with a {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} license. This are the kinds of images that WikiCommosn needs--quality photos. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Principality of Trinidad flag

User:Wiz9999 was right: the flag image at File:Principality of Trinidad flag.jpg (which I originally uploaded) is incorrect. The base of the triangle should rest on the lower edge of the flag, as in File:Flag of the Principality of Trinidad.svg. Better to delete the jpg file. Goustien (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  • OK, if it's really not useful for an educational purpose. ✓ Done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I had previously uploaded a new version of this flag in .png format (File:Principality of Trinidad flag.png), please remove this as well since it is also incorrect. I know that the check usage tool says that the file is still being used on two wiki's but I have removed it from both and the tool still has to update. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
This page was left behind: (File talk:Principality of Trinidad flag.jpg) - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - January 2009 Issue

Summary: We lead with the exciting news that we are now recognised as Wikimedia UK by the Wikimedia Foundation. This means that we can shortly open a bank account and approve membership applications. Planning is also underway for a new website and for the upcoming Annual General Meeting. Meanwhile, we continue to support Wikipedia Loves Art, which will launch on 1st February and the bid to hold Wikimania 2010 in Oxford, and bring news of recent and upcoming meet-ups.

In this month's newsletter:

  1. WMF approval and chapter formation process
  2. New website
  3. Annual General Meeting
  4. Wikipedia Loves Art
  5. Oxford Wikimania bid
  6. Meet-ups

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
A very fine piece of work just now

Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 23:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
You're not going to get a second barnstar right now, but I associate myself to this one! --Eusebius (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


Hello MichaelMaggs!

You have stated in this deletion discussion that you have deleted the image, but it is still there. What went wrong? Greets, High Contrast (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Must have forgotten to hit the button. Thanks for letting me know. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem... --High Contrast (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

An old one

Hi Michael. Perhaps you could review this old deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Estampillas-Argentina-Encotel.jpg that has been around since October 2008. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have seen it, but think I will need to leave it to someone whose German is better than mine. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
How about this google translation? Proposal: Another photo with marks of another collection area for this purpose would also be conceivable here ... I think the picture is not very happy anyway chosen because in the marks depicted Einsteckalbum yes garnicht "plugged in", so behind the film strips stuck, but were open only seem to be, probably, to greater emphasis to be placed on leave. But this is here just do not sense the thing: It should enable the interested reader not so perfectly depicted Argentina brands offered, but more generally be shown as stamps in an album stuck. I think he is trying to justify it because of the overall impression of a page of stamps in an album and not because of one individual stamp that does not comply with PD. I still stand by my deletion nomination. Ww2censor (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I am still none the wiser. I would suggest asking a German speaking admin. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not an admin here, but on de-WP, so I hope you trust my explanation: The German language comment was not a contribution to the discussion regarding the legal status of the image, but merely a comment on how this image might be replaced. You can safely ignore it, when you close the request. --h-stt !? 14:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done Thanks for the explanation. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of PeterOnIke.JPG

Hello, Michael. PeterOnIke.JPG without proper investigation by Mblumber- the image is NOT a screenshot. If you look at the metabata information attached to the image, the image was taken (by me) with my own point and shoot digital camera while at the studio. I'd appreciate any feedback. Thanks! --SB080 (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see the metadata and I have no doubt you took the photograph. What's not clear to me, though, is why the image displays very obvious LCD-like pixels when enlarged in Photoshop. They are quite different from the pixels generated by your camera, and are much lower resolution. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The image was resized from the original 1936X1288 size, to 800X600. So, obviously if the image is enlarged pixilation will appear. I will be more than happy to upload the original 1.5MB image if that helps. Thanks!

--SB080 (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you send the unmodified version to me by email please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Pays-de-la-Loire flag.svg

You closed the deletion request. Why didnt you remove the red box from the side? Yours --Jodo (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange, the deletion request notice usually gets removed automatically. I have deleted it manually now. Thanks for letting me know. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, i didnt know that this is done by a bot. Thanks for removing. --Jodo (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Vitor mazuco

Hi I am Vitor Mazuco and please I need to be release, I know I did wrong, but I need!

Sorry, I will not unblock. You were given several chances to contribute constructively but you chose not to. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Presidentkennedy1963 24.jpg

This one is a derivative work of the one you just deleted. Rklawton (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done. Thanks for letting me know. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Interpretive signs

Thanks for your advice on the help desk. I've just provided a link to a good representative photograph illustrating the types of signs under discussion Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have replied there. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
And I'm composing another reply, now. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:CeltismSymbol.PNG and Image:CeltismSymbolWhite.PNG

Why did you delete those images when they are derivative of public domain images created by me from scratch (see Image:Triple-Spiral-Symbol-heavystroked.svg etc.), so there's no copyright problem in that respect -- and furthermore, they're part of matched icon sets, and so could be useful... AnonMoos (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've undeleted. Could you add a proper copyright notice to them, please? Both at present suggest they are the sole work of the uploader. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I added the source info which was below the template also to the "source" field of the template, but I don't see how that affects the copyright status... AnonMoos (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks OK now, in that the source is properly shown. Actually I doubt that the work done was enough to convert a PD source to a GFDL end product, but as that is what's claimed, let's leave it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)



Are we in a editwar on the undelete page? :p

I saw your edit with the text the it wasn't closed yet, so i decided to close it but I forgot the header. Thanks for fixing that.

Best regards, Abigor talk 20:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we were doing things at the same time. Sorry about that. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It solved now, that is the most important. Abigor talk 21:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't let the conversation go on in the section above. That is closed and it is not permissible for Sherurcij to keep editing in a closed section. I will add a note to the user's talk page --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia removal of image thiefingarden.jpg

Hey man, I took the photo myself, the game is mine and I don't understand why you removed it. It was fitting, it was informative and it was not offending in any way. Could you please explain it to me? Perhaps I failed to indicate this when I posted it? I can't remember. I did the same with an image of a Sony MSX HB 10 P and nobody seems to have a problem with it, it's the same kind of case.

If you could answer in my page at the english wikipedia, I'd appreciate it. Thanks (look for user:Doppelgangland). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 16:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, you may have to wait until February 22, 2009 for a reply. In the meantime, you can link from Commons to your user page on the English Wikipedia like this: w:User:Doppelgangland, but actually you are requesting a reply at w:User talk:Doppelgangland. --Teratornis (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe this is the image in question Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Thiefgarden.jpg, posting this link at Doppelganglands wikipedia talk as well (original uploader, image transferred to commons by user:Liftarn and then deleted at en: by en:user:Rettetast.Finn Rindahl (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
(Cross-posted as requested as well). The problem is that in taking the photograph you have infringed the copyright in the design shown on the screen and also the printed cartoon figure at top left of the case. So, I am afraid the photograph is not free and cannot be hosted on Commons. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

About a deletion...

I uploaded this picture about a statue around one year ago, it's been on the wikipedia page since then.

However I got a message yesterday that it was deleted because "Belgium has no freedom of panorama" and according to the reference:

[quote]There is no panorama freedom in Belgium. The modern pieces of art cannot be the central motive of a commercially available photographs without permission of the artwork copyright holder[/quote]

I'm not too convinced that it applies in this case. Or may be we should also delete all the other pictures of the same category from this list: etc..

Or may be the picture should be placed like this one?

Photographs of very old, out-of-copyright Belgian works of art such as sculptures can be hosted on Commons, but not recent ones since copyright is still held by the sculptor, or by his descendants for 70 years after death. If you can establish as "fair use" rationale, you may be able to keep the image on the English Wikipedia and somee other local wikis (that is what has been done at, but not on Commons since fair use is not allowed here. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

On LundyStamps.jpg

File:LundyStamps.jpg I believe this is not really a stamp, it is stationery depicting postage, it is like an album and so on --Penarc (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a real stamp? -What Cheek! The use of local carriage labels like these often preceded the creation of Royal Mail. (1)The Lundy Post Office promises to feed the post into the mainland postal system. (2) The public stick them on their envelopes and postcards. (3) They pay a fee for this service. That represents the three requirements of a contract which in legal terminology consists of the offer, acceptance and consideration. However, this photo quite clearly features (had the aperture been stopped down a bit more) the artistic representation of a postal address. Therefore, even if the calligrapher drops dead tomorrow, it would still be a copy vio for the next 70 years ;-)--P.g.champion (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Whether it is legally a stamp or not does not matter. It carries a copyright-protected design, and cannot be hosted here. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather late, but...

I missed this one, adding "Symbol support vote.svg Support&thanks for volunteering" now ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Had to say

I loved the Dorset photo in POTY - what a great "catch". Regards --Herby talk thyme 13:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Fortunately, it didn't run away too fast. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hamline University OTRS permissions

I have sent an email to the University. Hopefully a response should be sent in the next couple of days. If you feel need to respond please do so on my page. -- 18:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You deleted a picture of the plaque naming the Arthur F. Gorham headquarters building at Ft. Bragg. Why?

If you could let me know the image name, I will check and let you know. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you but…

maybe you would review File:Skorenovac Map 1.png, a copyright violation image. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it has already been deleted by Wuzur. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi! Can you delete some stupid photos with this category? This photos doesn't have substantial importance:


Dawid Mrożek (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You have already asked me that. See my archive page at User talk:MichaelMaggs/Archive/2009, section 8. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see anwser on my qestion. Thanks for information Dawid Mrożek (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - February 2009 Issue

Summary: The chapter is now up and running, and we have now opened our bank account. We have a new website, and are putting plans in place for the first Annual General Meeting. Meanwhile, February has seen the successful Wikipedia Loves Art at the Victoria and Albert Museum, bidding to host Wikimania 2010 has opened, and the Government's Intellectual Property consultation has closed. We also bring the regular news of meet-ups, and a new feature highlighting press coverage of Wikimedia in the UK.

In this month's newsletter:

  1. Chapter formation process
  2. Website
  3. Annual General Meeting
  4. Wikipedia Loves Art
  5. Oxford Wikimania bid
  6. IP consultation
  7. Meet-ups
  8. News coverage

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)



I was wondering, isn't there a rule for people that where inactive last run to do some admin actions or the will lose the rights.. Because I have seen user that signed last yrar, don't do admin actions and sign again now. Adminship is no big deal and no status, so get it when you need it, lose it if you don't use it....

What does the policy says about this ?

Best regards, Abigor talk 17:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the policy is at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship and it requires 5 admin actions in 6 months (until I corrected it a few days ago it incorrectly said 6 actions in 5 months, but that's not I think what was agreed). A problem this time is that warning notices were posted without first de-admining those who signed previously but then made fewer than 5 actions. I suppose that where an admin has signed again we will have to allow him/her to keep the bit for now, but next time we need to make sure the de-admins are done first. I will add a reminder to the page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


hello michael i have unblocked one of fawiki users that you have blocked him 2 days ago , he wasn't aware of policies , i told he shouldn't do anything against the policies . and i will keep an eye on his edits for couple of next days .Thanks for your attention --Mardetanha talk 09:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It was actually a month ago. Unblocking is fine, anyway: better a productive unblocked user than an unproductive blocked one. Glad you could help him out. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :-) --Mardetanha talk 18:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello; Please delete this . Regardsجمال بركات (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. If you make a mistake in uploading, there's no need to have the original image deleted. Just re-upload the correct image over the top of the old one using the same file name. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi, please in future, check the file page before delete. I only removed {delete}, added {otrs} template on file page and not noticed you on deletion request page - that was my fault. :/ Commons:Deletion_requests/2009/02/27 search string: Ivob. —Kandy Talbot 08:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Did you put something on the wrong page? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Bouncing Ball Photograph Reproduction Inquiry

Hi Michael, My colleague and I would like to present your bouncing basketball photograph to a client to purchase. They would actually be interested in about 50 units of this photograph in a large, 28" x 50" size. I do not know any other way of contacting you about this so if you are indeed interested please respond to my post in kind and I will watch the discussion board for your followup. Thank you! Claire

Hi Claire, I'm sure that can be arranged.
I have not heard from you. Would you like to post another message here ? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi Michael,

I am trying to get a copy of the permission to use an image - File:2004-tsunami.jpg - It said on the page that I would need to contact someone with an OTRS account?

I wonder if you would be able to do that for me?

Thanks a lot Michele Bourne (hmmm... not sure how you can contact me - I don't want to leave my e-mail address on a web page!)

Hi Michele. Fortunately there is no problem. The OTRS part of the image page just proves that we have recorded the fact that the photographer has freely released this image; you can ignore that entirely. The only part that matters is the box that says that the photographer has released the image into the public domain. That means that all rights have been waived and that anyone can use the image for any purpose. You can use it as you wish. There is no need to ask anyone's permission. Please post here gain if you need any more information, regards --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

File Missing ;-)

Can you e-mail me the deleted File:N808.jpg together with the description? I want to upload it on the german wikipedia, since it falls under the Panoramafreiheit in germany. It is legal and some articles are missing its image ;-) --Niabot (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not covered by Panoramafreiheit because it's not permanently located in a public place. It is only contingently located in the street. --Eusebius (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Argh, sorry, user talk page, I shouldn't have answered that... My apologies. --Eusebius (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
That's OK. Niabot, I'm sorry but I think Eusebuis is quite right here. Panoramafreiheit requires that the work be permanently located in a public place, which this is not. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
It was the design of race-car that participated in a public race. Any of this cars has its own design. If you apply this rule so directly, then you cant make a photo of nearly any race-car. Or otherwise said: We will never have a photo from a en:Itasha? --Niabot (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
It would be OK if the painted design were incidental within the photo - see COM:DM. But your photo was taken specifically to show the design, so I am afraid it is not allowed on Commons. That's why File:Honda Prelude Itasha 2009 Tokyo Auto Salon.jpg has also now been nominated for deletion. The same problem faces users who want to have an illustration of, say, a copyright album cover. I will restore the image for 24 hours for you to take a copy if you wish. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
But this was an advertisment on a racecar. I dont think, that you can compare this with an album cover. Since the Main subject is the car. The drawings are only one extra detail. Its basicaly the same as if you make a photo from a shopping promenade. In some of the windows you will cleary have one copyrighted ad. --Niabot (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The rules we are working to are at COM:DM. Maybe other wikis will be less strict. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor's index

Thank you for noticing the Editor's index to Commons and helping to improve it.

  • I intend to continue cleaning up the index, by annotating all the entries that refer to policy or guideline pages on the English Wikipedia. See my notes about the initial port from the Editor's index to Wikipedia in w:User:Teratornis/Notes#Editor's index to Commons. Basically, I copied the index from the English Wikipedia version, replacing every link that I could with a link to the corresponding page on Commons, and removing links that did not seem to apply to Commons at all. In many cases, Commons appears to lack a policy or guideline page to address an issue that seems to matter on Commons as it does on the English Wikipedia. In these cases, I'm flying somewhat blind, since I cannot judge from the absence of a page on Commons whether the policy or guideline from the English Wikipedia applies. I guess this type of situation occurs because Commons is smaller and newer than the English Wikipedia, and Commons users have not yet gotten around to codifying all their practices. Or else I haven't found all the manuals yet. Sometimes the policy/guideline page names are different than on the English Wikipedia, so it takes me a while to find them by searching. Rest assured that I am not trying to declare what policy is on Commons; I'm only trying to make the existing policies easier to find.
  • Speaking of inconsistency, I would prefer to keep the word "Editor's" (singular possessive) in the name, rather than change it to "Editors'" (plural possessive), for the following reasons:
    • To keep the wording consistent with the Editor's index to Wikipedia which has had the word "Editor's" in the title since John Broughton started the page in 2006. Thousands of editors have used the index page on the English Wikipedia without anyone mentioning (on the talk page) the position of the apostrophe as having caused confusion. While precedent on Wikipedia by no means limits what we do on Commons, I would like to keep the canonical version of the index on Commons consistent in name with the corresponding index on the English Wikipedia, to minimize confusion for all the English Wikipedia users who use the index page, and come over to Commons expecting to find a similar index.
      • If it makes sense to move the apostrophe on the Commons version of the index, we should also move it on the English Wikipedia version of the index.
      • Of course there is no problem having additional redirects to the index page with any useful name variations. But I would prefer the real pages on Commons and the English Wikipedia to follow the same name convention, if for no other reason than to avoid raising questions when someone notices the inconsistency. (Inconsistency generates accidental complexity which makes a system harder than necessary for new users to learn.)
    • Several other pages use the singular possessive form, without raising objections. Until now, it hadn't occurred to me that anyone would see this as a problem. See for example:

The top of this page says you are on break until Feb. 22, but then your contributions continued to show edits. If you are really still here, let me know what you think about moving the page back to its original name. I don't want to go to war over this, since I would lose, but I just wanted to make sure you understand the precedent of the singular possessive in names of this type. And by the way, I like that you reply on your own talk page to keep threads intact; that's the way I prefer. --Teratornis (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you're on wikibreak and Teratornis is giving arguments for the original name, I've moved the page back again (after several attempts to move that ' thingy one space back, including typos and cut&paste move from a well meaning helper - long story, link on Teratornis talk), I have no opinion about the name myself apart from that it is no coincidence that apostrophe ends just like catastrophe, you could discuss the matter when you get back. Enjoy your wikibreak. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Teratornis, thanks for the great work you are doing on this. You're right that in many cases Commons does not have written policies which directly correspond to those of the English Wikipedia. Partly that's because Commons is newer and smaller, and partly because we try here to be more mellow and to have as few legalistic procedures as we can get away with. If you don't mind, perhaps I'll go through the list and add a few extra links and remove some that are quite specific to article-writing, which does not happen much here. On the issue of the name, I'll defer to you. I happen to think it's grammatically wrong, but as you say there are advantages in keeping it the same as on the English Wikipedia. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I have been adding more links and annotations as I run across interesting things, for example COM:EIC#Inkscape. The COM:EIC#Copyright entry is becoming pretty useful for answering questions on the Help desk, except that I have not annotated all the entries well enough. Just as on the English Wikipedia, on Commons there are often several overlapping pages in the Help: and Commons: namespaces that pertain to a given topic, and an index is useful for unifying the scattered material. I could not live on Wikipedia without the index there. Please see Commons:Editor's index to Commons/About before you do any heavy editing. I would like to keep the wikitext formatting consistent with itself, and with the index on Wikipedia. I have been concentrating more on putting stuff in than in taking stuff out, so there might be some "portcruft" from the conversion from the English Wikipedia. When I had doubts about whether something belonged, I generally left it in, as long as I could find something suitable to point to on Commons. Since I would expect users to search the index with specific keywords in mind, having some bloat in there doesn't hurt much. Of course if there are any links that would mislead users then we need to fix those. There's probably no rush, as it takes a while for a tool like this to catch on. The Editor's index on en-Wikipedia gets only about 100 views per day (the last time I checked - the view counter is not working as I write this), which seems surprisingly low for such a useful tool on such a large wiki that has been around since 2006. I wouldn't expect the index on Commons to get much attention from other people quickly, so we can take our time to polish it. --Teratornis (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

your proposal

Hallo MichaelMaggs, how will we find a final decision about your proposal? Greetings --Martina Nolte (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A good question. I will look again at all the feedback over the weekend and see if I can see a way forward. One of the problems is that some views are not reconcilable - yours and Pieter Kuiper's for example. Can you see any middle ground that might command general support? I would very much appreciate any input you can give, particularly as you always provide very well thought-out opinions. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the flowers. :) At the moment I see a very good compromise in your proposal to which I would give my full vote. It is not what I think to be necessary but much clearer than the actual guideline and the most I can hope for now.
I first wanted to wait for the decision on this proposal and then start to prepair a proposal for a "task force" of people who would help to get Level 1 releases, or to help uploaders to get them, or to e-mail uploaders of Level 2 images to give statements that consent has been provided, and so on. We have such a team on de-WP and thus can save a lot of pictures from deletion. I understand that there is a great fear of loosing to much pictures (and discouraging new uploads) and perhaps people like Pieter Kuiper are more willing to support your proposal if such a helping team is provided. I would, of course, take part in such a team.
What do you think? Could this be a passable way? Could it be helpful to invite Pieter and others to discuss this idea before initiating a final voting (or decision) on your proposal?--Martina Nolte (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think this could be very useful. Let me consider a bit over the weekend. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - out of time (it needs too much thinking about). Will try to post later this week. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem, take your time. In any case, it's not an issue solved in one week. ;-) -- Martina Nolte (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I have considered again and I really don't see a clear way forward. I will post a note on the page to see if anyone would like to take it further. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Gnangarra. You found the best compromis that is possible at this time and ready to be put into the community to meet a final decision. --Martina Nolte (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Change of policy


Following the discussion at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Rocky_Steps_of_the_Art_Museum, you suggested that we discuss a possible broadening of Commons policy. Even if Mike Godwin doesn't take part in the discussion, we can nevertheless think about new possibilities in the light of his comments. What do you think? Regards, Yann (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done at Commons talk:De minimis/Public scenes. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Guangzhou-family-planning-posters-0534.jpg, File:Guangzhou-family-planning-posters-0535.jpg

Care to restore deleted files? As I understand, someone had stuck a {{poster}} template on them, which in its turn redirects to a template having to do with copyright violation... but I don't think it's applicable in this particular jursidiction. Both files had {{FoP-China}} inserted in them, which (and the linked discussion page) clearly explains the situation. Regards, Vmenkov (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done I hadn't seen that - sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Vmenkov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Own photo

Hi, I saw, that you changed some pages from saying "self" to "own photo" (e.g. [5]). It would be even better if you used the template {{own}} in the source field (this makes the string for "own work" show up localized). And the author field should ideally contain the name of the original author instead of "self". Regards, --Slomox (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, I will change that. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Fan art/Proposal

A fine piece of work. Congratulations. I left two minor comments over there, but otherwise, this looks good. My own position is pretty much explained here. Lupo 22:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving DRs

The script is ready. To use it, just add the following line to the top of your monobook.js:

importScript ('User:Lupo/da.js');

It's not yet a gadget because I'd like to see it tested a bit more. It'll work only in Firefox (well, maybe also other browsers, but certainly not in IE). I tested it on Commons:Deletion requests/2009/01/01, Commons:Deletion requests/2009/01/03, Commons:Deletion requests/2009/01/07, and Commons:Deletion requests/2009/01/09.

It only works on the daily listings, not yet on the monthly listing. On a daily listing, it adds "archive" links to all closed DRs, and an "archive all" link to the date header. Clicking these links will move transclusions of closed DRs from the daily page to the corresponding daily archive page. The script will not create a new monthly archive page if there isn't one already, but it will add a proper header to a new daily archive page.

The script will work only for sysops. It relies on section edit links being present, so "Enable section editing via [edit] links" should be checked in your preferences.

Try it, but make sure you double-check your contribs to verify it doesn't screw up. If you notice any problems, just tell me. Lupo 16:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I just noticed that we can't handle redirects such as the entry for File:Cérusite_(Maroc).jpg on Commons:Deletion requests/2009/01/13. But such cases should be rare. Lupo 16:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that sounds very good. I haven't had the chance to try it yet, but I will soon (too much on at work at the moment). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, can I ask something? Why do we need to tool for archiving? We have a bot right? And can I help test it? Abigor talk 22:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The bot sometimes gets confused and "forgets" to archive on some pages. Since the bot owner is too busy elsewhere to fix the bot, we've come up with this script as a stop-gap measure to make archiving by hand easier and faster. If you want to test it, go right ahead. Use at your own risk, though. Beware of cases like Gustav Stresemann on Commons:Deletion requests/2008/12/08: this is a new DR reusing the subpage of an old closed one for the same file. If you click the "archive" link, it will be archived, even though the new discussion isn't closed yet. Lupo 23:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
@Lupo, Thanks very much. This is really useful. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately, the script cannot reliably detect problem cases like the Stresemann mentioned above. That means on pages where such cases occur, one could never use "archive all". To ameliorate this, I've added a "skip" link for each DR. Clicking that will remove a single DR from the list of all the DRs to be archived when "archive all" is clicked. So, the procedure is:
  1. Scan a daily page for problem cases such as this one. Basically any unclosed DR where the script added an "archive" link all the same because it contains some other, already closed old DR. Click "skip" in these cases. (Only closed DRs within open DRs are a problem. Closed DRs within already closed DRs are fine.
  2. Then click "archive all".
Or use "archive" to archive individual DRs. Whatever is easier on a particular page.
To get these "skip" links, refresh your browser's cache. Lupo 20:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


You might want to seek somebody to proofread the text. Best regards. --Dferg (commons-meta) 16:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - March 2009 Issue

Summary: With everything in place for the chapter, other than charity status, we have organised the first Annual General Meeting - your chance to influence the chapter's future and stand for the board. The bid to hold Wikimania 2010 in Oxford is coming on nicely. We also bring you the usual details of meet-ups and news coverage, and details of how to propose a project, and possibly get funding.

In this month's newsletter:

  1. Chapter formation process
  2. Annual General Meeting and Board elections
  3. Oxford Wikimania bid
  4. Project funding
  5. Meet-ups
  6. News coverage

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Newsletter delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

POTY 2008

Hi Michael. I fear that we will need much more thorough vote checking. Lycaon (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Arrgh! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This image

Dear Mr. Maggs,

I am not very familiar with the Magnus Manske upload bot. It was used to upload this image: File:Juragua Nuclear Power Plant.jpg from Cienfugos, Cuba.

Was this bot somewhat similar to FlickrLickr in that it could only upload freely licensed images? The original image has been deleted by the flickr account owner but I notice he has a set of 22 images from Cuba all which are still licensed as "cc by sa 2.0." If the answer is yes, then perhaps the bot did make an error by not approving the image. In this case, you can approve it. Or else, you can delete it. What do you think? according to this, it is/was a nuclear power plant. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I am very sorry but I don't know anything about that bot. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The bot checks the license on Flickr at the moment of the upload and sets the license tag according to the settings on Flickr with no possible interference by the user who triggered the bot. It is registered as trustworthy and we can rely on the license tag set by the bot. HTH --h-stt !? 10:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Good to know, thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


Hola, me gustaría que por favor me diera una explicación de porqué ha borrado la imagen, ya que se indica que es de hace mas de 70 años. Gracias.

Hello, I would like to please give me an explanation as to why you deleted the image as it is shown that more than 70 years ago. Thank you. (google translation) Miguel Ángel "fotógrafo" (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you know when the painter Evaristo Domínguez died? He must have died more than 70 years ago for the image to be allowed. It is not enough that the painting itself is over 70 years old.
(Babel translation): ¿Usted sabe cuándo murió el pintor Evaristo Domínguez? Él debe haber muerto hace más de 70 años para que la imagen sea permitida. No es bastante que la pintura sí mismo es durante 70 años. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fan art

No problem, the idea was to try to avoid being so repetitive in references to Harry Potter, and try to raise other examples to ilustrate each point. Belgrano (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Fan art

✓ Done With all this auto-translation stuff, even creating simple templates is not so simple anymore. :) Feel free to tweak it to your liking. Rocket000 (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I've just noticed, though, that when the tag is added to an image it appears on the page with a spurious code fragment after it. See eg File:Bullwhip and IJ hat.jpg. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Fixed... although, I got to say that was a very interesting bug. It was caused by the documentation (the part you can copy and paste to make translations). For some reason, MediaWiki was reading the closing tag even though it was between s! I had to break it up like so: </noinclude>. I shouldn't need to do that.. [[User:Rocket000|Rocket000]] ([[User talk:Rocket000|talk]]) 16:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC) :::Weird. Really glad you're around to sort out stuff like that :) --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC) == Change to pd-us == I can see why [[:File:Area 51 28 August 1968 2.jpg|Area 51 28 August 1968 2.jpg]] could be a work of the US federal government, however, the source of the picture is the Federation of American Scientists which has distributed it under a free license as long as the copyright is included. To change it to a PD-US I would think we would have to show that the scientist who took the picture did so as part of their job responsibilities working for the US government (and not just as an individual who took a picture during their workday - are all pictures taken by GI's a gov't work - I think not unless they are in an MOS pertaining to public relations/historical documentation.) In short - I don't see why the license was changed without explanation given that they are both free licenses, and the first license is supported by the source of the file, where the PD-US is conjecture near as I can tell. --[[User talk:Trödel|Trödel]] 18:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC) :Hi. I changed the licence following the discussion at [[Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Area 51 28 August 1968 2.jpg]], when closing as ''keep''. The source website identifies the image as "''ASGS Aerial imagery''". "ASGS" = US Geological Service, which I believe is US-gov. If I had left the original licence I would have closed the deletion request as ''delete'' since the wording appears to prohibit the removal of the licensing information from the image itself, which would make it insufficiently free for Commons. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC) == [[Commons:Valued image candidates/Groyne at Mundesley, Nofolk.JPG]] == Hi Michael, I found this incomplete VIC, that you once created. Could you delete it as it is hanging in the system as a non-closed candidate? --[[User:Slaunger|Slaunger]] ([[User talk:Slaunger|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC) *{{done}} --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC) == [[Commons:Fair use]] == Was your not changing the shortcuts [[COM:FAIRUSE]] and [[COM:FU]] on purpose or was that an oversight? [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 23:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC) :I did! (Maybe I forgot to hit save ...) --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC) == [[:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sept 11 monument in NYC - August 2004.jpg]] == Hi Michael. Am I correct to close named DR with a keep, based on the ''de minimis'' argumentation? [[User:Lycaon|Lycaon]] ([[User talk:Lycaon|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC) :Difficult, but I think it's OK to keep. At some point a collection of many copyrighted things becomes a general photograph of the collection. I think the same would apply to, say, [[:File:Prague beletrie.jpg]]. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC) == RFB == Hello, I just noticed your comment on the rfb for Kanonkas.. Are you sure you have the date correct? The last quistion is posted 30-03 and that is yesterday and not three days ago. Please correct me if I am wrong. [[User:Abigor|'''<font color="dark red">Huib</font>''']]<small>[[User_talk:Abigor|''<font color="black"> talk</font>'']]</small> 12:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC) :Sorry - I can see my posting was ambiguous. I was referring to the 16:19, 28 March 2009 posting when Patricia asked what she called an "additional question". It is this, that both Kanonkas and Patricia call her "last question", which has so far not been replied to. Patricia followed up on the lack of response with her most recent posting yesterday, but so far that has drawn no reply either. I have clarified my post. Thanks for pointing it out. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC) == [[Commons:Valued image candidates/Superphénix.jpg]] == Hi Michael, I'd like to hear your opinion about FOP in France for this VIC. --[[User:Slaunger|Slaunger]] ([[User talk:Slaunger|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC) :IMO, there is no copyright on industrial design. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) ::The design looks strictly utilitarian to me. Let's just send Yann to jail for having jeopardized national security. --[[User:Eusebius|Eusebius]] ([[User talk:Eusebius|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC) :::Clearly exposing my lack of knowledge of the subject, I'd like to know: If the design is strictly utilitarian. does it then imply that there are no problems with French FOP for this image? --[[User:Slaunger|Slaunger]] ([[User talk:Slaunger|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC) ::::I'm not an expert in this either, but not all buildings are protected: only those having some "''definite artistic character''". I would think there is a very good argument for saying that this is more functional than artistic, and hence it should be OK. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC) :::::OK, thanks Michael, Yann and Eusebius. FOP in France always confuses me. --[[User:Slaunger|Slaunger]] ([[User talk:Slaunger|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC) == Common's image of Platypus is <u>a Copy vio</u> == Dear Mr. Maggs, I am contacting you directly about this image: [[:File:Ornithorhynchidae-00.jpg]] As you can surmise, the copyright is uncertain because this image, reportedly from Striatic's flickr account, cannot be verified today since it has been deleted. However, I have good reason to believe that the image is in fact a copy of another image ''and was not taken by Striatic''. If you examine the image closely, you notice there is very little resolution at all: only 550 X 336...and no metadata. This is a possible hallmark of a copy vio. Secondly, please examine the image history. Two separate users, Pengo [ here] and '''Admin Jusjih''' [ here] both state that the image is non-free and was originally derived from the web site of [ Latrobe Council] in Australia. Finally, I carefully checked striatic's flickr [ page] and I notice that he occasionally copies images from other sites. Crucially, striatic, in his [ list of visited places] never once states that he has been to Australia or seen the Sydney Aquarium...although he has some legitimate pictures from Canada where I live and which is on his list here. :I believe that the above image, which is heavily used on Wikipedia <u>cannot be used on WikiCommons</u> and is non-free. Its use throughout all the wiki sites should be replaced by this second image which was certainly taken by the uploader given the solid metadata and high resolution: [[:File:Platypus.jpg]] I am putting a bit of my credibility on the line here but if you don't trust me, please feel free to contact Kanonkas or Lupo or MBisanz or Jsmith about my trusthworthiness. I have done my best to follow Common's rules and not a single flickr image which I uploaded to Commons has failed review. I always make 100% sure that the flickr account owner did really take a certain photograph and did not engage in flickrwashing. Finally, please contact Admin Jusjih here if you wish (no, he doesn't know me) There should be a rule that if the copyright of an image <u>cannot be proven</u> , is suspicious and may be non-free, it should be deleted and replaced. In this case, you have a solid second image here with excellent copyright and metadata. I have to go now to bed now as it is 3:25 AM in Metro Vancouver but please give my message some thought. Please don't ignore it sir. Thank You, --[[User:Leoboudv|Leoboudv]] ([[User talk:Leoboudv|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC) ::Yes, I entirely agree and I have speedy deleted it as an obvious copyright violation. The animal (but not the background) was copied from, which says on its copyright page that only non-commercial use is allowed. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC) {{Comment}} Thank you sir for taking action here. The image was somewhat suspicious...but it didn't occur to me to inspect its image history until yesterday. As an aside, here is a very small list of flickr images I have legitimately placed (and used) on Commons: *[[:File:18th dynasty pharaonic crown by John Campana.jpg]] *[[:File:Victory stela of Psamtik II at Kalabsha by John Campana.jpg]] *[[:File:Crown of Sit-Hathor Yunet (Senusret II's daughter).jpg]] *[[:File:Mask of Amenemope1.jpg]] *[[:File:Tutankhamun's bed (Cairo Museum).jpg]] *[[:File:Psusennes I mask by Rafaèle.jpg]] *[[:File:Sassanid silver plate by Nickmard Khoey.jpg]] *[[:File:Marie Fredriksson by Thomas Evensson (1987).jpg]] I hope you enjoy them. It was a struggle to find the only legitimate image of Marie F of Roxette whch was taken by the flickr uploader himself....but I did it. I used to edit heavily on Ancient Egypt but I have slowed down somewhat in 2009 and concentrated more on Commons now. With kind Regards from Canada, --[[User:Leoboudv|Leoboudv]] ([[User talk:Leoboudv|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC) :They look very useful. You're doing some good work there. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC) == [[Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard]] == Would you mind, when you have some time, to do some copyediting on this page? Also, suggestions on layout are more than welcome (I just copied [[COM:AN]])... [[User:PatríciaR|Patrícia]] <sup>[[User talk:PatríciaR|msg]]</sup> 19:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC) :Thanks for doing this Patricia. I don't think any copyediting is needed.--[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC) == Note == Dear Sit, Have you seen this [ DR] Your decision making process came up. In any case, I doubt it can be kept on Commons. The sculpture is much too modern and is certainly not 70 years it cannot be kept under US FOP. Regards, --[[User:Leoboudv|Leoboudv]] ([[User talk:Leoboudv|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC) :I have had nothing to do with that one. The "declaration" by "Mike" that is referred to is Mike Godwin, not me. It's clear that Commons policy requires this to be deleted. Mike has made several of these unsourced declarations. We go on our understanding of US law, not Mike's declarations. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC) :Sorry for the misunderstanding. "Mike" is a very popular name. When I worked in a big box grocery store in Metro Vancouver, I once had 2 managers named Mike. --[[User:Leoboudv|Leoboudv]] ([[User talk:Leoboudv|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 03:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC) == Ghost user == Hi Michael, Would you please check [[User:Master Ren'|this user]]? He was active only two days: 24 October 2008 (uploaded one file) and today (voted in FPC). Still some images of him were deleted for copyright violation. When did he uploaded them? Cheers, [[User:Alvesgaspar|Alvesgaspar]] ([[User talk:Alvesgaspar|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC) :I'm not sure I know what you're asking Alvegaspar, but since Michael is on wikibreak I'll try to answer anyway. Feel free to poke me if I got the question wrong. There are 4 deleted uploads from this user, one from December 12th 2008, two from dec. 28th 2008 and one from february 12th 2009. No other deleted user contributions. Regards, [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] ([[User talk:Finnrind|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC) ::But the weird thing is that none of those uploads are recorded in the list of the user contributions. [[User:Alvesgaspar|Alvesgaspar]] ([[User talk:Alvesgaspar|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC) :::That's not really weird, as the uploads have been deleted they're only listed in "deleted user contributions" (which I believe is visible to admins only). The weird thing is that this user, from limiting their activity to uploading a copyvio every other month has started participating in FPC-voting. If this is about eligebility only the contributions that haven't been deleted should count as activity. Regards, [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] ([[User talk:Finnrind|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC) ::::Thanks Finn, I was not aware of that procedure. We don't have prerequisites for voting on FPC ... except not being a sockpuppet. That was my first suspicion. But since this same user has an account on e:wiki, maybe that is not the case. Anyway, it's strange how a newcomer is able to use such a sophisticated signature. -- [[User:Alvesgaspar|Alvesgaspar]] ([[User talk:Alvesgaspar|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC) == [[Commons:Deletion requests/Image:“青枣铁路”连接示意图.gif]] == Hello Michael, Meanwhile the Chinese Wikipedia article has been deleted, so I would say now that the picture should be deleted alongside. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] ([[User talk:Teofilo|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC) :I would tend to think it's OK per the comments of J Smith, but feel free to renominate for deletion if you like. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC) == [[:file:European_Commission_outside.jpg]] == []This was an ongoing discussion without any consensus or conclusion. Read the discussion before you delete things. It may actually contain nuances. Please undelete the image. - [[User:Ssolbergj|Ssolbergj]] ([[User talk:Ssolbergj|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC) :Hi. As you saw, I closed the DR on the basis of [[Commons:Freedom of Panorama#Belgium]]. The legal situation in Belgium is very clear and architecture is of course copyrightable in the same way as any other artistic work, subject to freedom of panorama rules to the contrary in some countries. As explained at [[Commons:Freedom of Panorama#Belgium]], Belgium is not a country which allows such an exception. That is well-established law, and many similar photos taken in Belgium have been deleted for identical reasons. You may not be aware that DRs are closed not usually on the basis of consensus, but on the application of the law and of Commons policy: see [[Commons:Deletion requests#Overview]] - "''The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy''". If you still disagree with my closure you can filer an appeal at [[COM:UDEL]]. If you disagree with what is stated at [[Commons:Freedom of Panorama#Belgium]] you would need to open a discussion at the talk page. Regards --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC) == File:Salvador5.jpg == File:Salvador5.jpg I changed the copyright... Is correct? Will is not correct write me...--Estruch 19:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Excuse me, my Englsih is very bad and something times I understand something things... Sorry --Estruch 19:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Hi. Can you provide some evidence that you took the photo (eg do you have a higher resolution scan or an uncropped version?} It is best if you reply at [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Salvador5.jpg]] (You can write in Spanish). --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC) == [[:File:Dave Rowbotham.JPG]] == Hi, it's my uploaded file, taken from the web (see details in the link i wrote). Confirm it, please. [[User:Francodamn|Francodamn]] ([[User talk:Francodamn|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 01:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC) :Hi, I'm a bit confused about this. The fact that it was found on the web and not taken by you means we will need permission from the original photographer to keep this. There is reference on the page to OTRS, but no ticket number is given and I can't find thre image in the OTRS system. Did you or the photographer send proof of permission to OTRS? If so, could you tell me the email subject line so that I can search for it? Regards --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC) == Cosplay == I have not been able to find too much, but I have not had the time to search thoroughly. The Lucasfilm case in the UK[] was fascinating, where the storm trooper costumes were ruled to be neither sculptures nor works of artistic craftsmanship, which would imply that photos of that type of thing are always OK. It is pretty obvious that selling unlicensed costumes themselves can be a copyright violation (even in the UK); [ here] is a similar story in Japan. I'm not sure that ''photos'' of costumes are covered similarly though; calling that a derivative work is a pretty big stretch. They are certainly completely "transformative" (the photo can't be used for the same purpose as the costume), and it is rather difficult to argue that the photos would affect the market of the costume. I'll keep searching, but if such photos were really an issue, you would think that at *some* point there would be a lawsuit and decision on the matter, and if none exist that would be a decent indication that such things are never infringing. [ This case] argued that costumes were "soft sculpture" and that reasoning was rejected. I'll keep looking though. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC) :Thanks very much. Will get back to this when I return from Wikibreak. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC) :I need to know more about US copyright law. Have just ordered a big thick textbook on the subject from Amazon :) --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC) :Big thick textbook (1100+ pages plus supplement) has arrived. Virtually nothing on cosplay :( --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC) == Protection == Hello, Salmon09 is a new user, so auto-confirmed protection is sufficient for him. And I blocked him for 2 hours. That's IMO sufficient for him to understand that what he did is not right. I think it better not to prevent edits from the whole community when the disruption comes from one user only. Regards, [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC) :OK. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC) == Zack Snyder == Hi. You deleted a pic of Zack Snyder per [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zack Snyder in 2007.jpg]]. Can you do me a favour and cast your eye over [] and let me know if I can upload that? It seems to tick all the boxes, but lately photos I upload are being deleted due to stuff I just don;t get, so I'm going to take the precaution of asking now. [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] ([[User talk:Hiding|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC) :I am afraid not. If you click on the copyright link for the image you will see that it has been relased under the licence "''Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic''". That means that re-users are not allowed to modify the image, which is an essential freedom for Commons. We would need a broader licence, as set out at [[COM:PS#Required licensing terms]]. If you are happy that the Flickr user is really is the copyright owner (I haven't checked to see if that looks reasonable) you could ask him/her to re-license under an allowable Commons licence such as {{t|cc-by-sa-3.0}}. I hope that helps. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC) ::Fair enough. Is there a list of which cc license are allowed. I'm having trouble locating stuff on commons these days, it's probably staring me in the face but I can't seem to see it. I had thought no derivs was fine, but either that's changed or I've been mistaken. [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] ([[User talk:Hiding|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC) :::You can find more information at [[COM:L#Acceptable licenses]], but as far as I know we don't actually have a complete list of acceptable CC licences anywhere. We certainly should, and you are by no means the only person to find our help pages pretty unhelpful. I'm engaged in a long-term project to re-write them all, but some of the pages such as [[COM:L]] are so complicated as well as being so important, that it's not a trivial task. In the meantime, there is a useful index you can consult, at [[COM:EIC]]. Do feel free to ask if there is anything that's unclear. I well remember the very steep learning curve I encountered when I first arrived here. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC) ::::The worry is that I've been here 4 years and I still can't grasp anything. But thanks, I'll try and compile a little list for my own purposes if I can. [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] ([[User talk:Hiding|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC) ::::Found a list at [[Commons:Creative Commons copyright tags]]. [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] ([[User talk:Hiding|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC) :::::Ah, well done, I'd completely forgotten about that page. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC) == Important proposal == [ I wrote a proposal for equalizing the different picture formats on FPC] Please have a look. Best regards --[[User:Richard Bartz|Richard Bartz]] ([[User talk:Richard Bartz|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC) *{{done}}--[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC) == [[:File:Martin Hannett.jpg]] == Hi, i question if you can accep this image. There are problems about its characteristics. [[User:Francodamn|Francodamn]] ([[User talk:Francodamn|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 01:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC) :No I am afraid we cannot keep this one. The listed internet source does not appear to be the copyright owner, and in any event the website does not state that the images used are available under a free licence. We have to assume therefore that the image is fully copyrighted by somebody, and we can't use it. I see there is a {{T|OTRS}} tag, but there appears to be nothing in the OTRS system that relates to this image at all. As the photo seems to be an obvious copyvio, I have deleted it, but it could be undeleted if it's possible to find out who the copyright owner is and to get written permission. Regards, --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC) == This image == Dear Sir, *I think you forgot to delete this image [ here] --[[User:Leoboudv|Leoboudv]] ([[User talk:Leoboudv|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC) :{{done}} Thanks for pointing it out. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC) == POTY vote == Done, sorry. -- [[User:Elfix|Elfix]] ↗<sup>[[User talk:Elfix|talk]] ⋅ [[w:fr:Discussion Utilisateur:Elfix|discuter]]</sup> 22:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC) == POTY vote /de == Ill try my best on WP:AN on de.wp to get into [[w:de:Wikipedia:Hauptseite]], section "Wikipedia aktuell". But one thing: The link [[:Commons:Picture of the Year/2008]] is by far to complicated, I will klick on [[:Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Voting]] - and im scared by so much cryptic text. I would prefer a link to [[Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Finalists]] or better the german version with a (shorter) explanation and a localized red box "One vote in total" on all sizes galleries (small medium large). --[[User:Martin H.|Martin H.]] ([[User talk:Martin H.|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC) :After i made the translation i see, that it would not be a good idea. So everything ok, I go to de.wp. --[[User:Martin H.|Martin H.]] ([[User talk:Martin H.|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC) ::translated the banner, see my talkpage, translated [[Commons:Bild des Jahres/2008]], [[Commons:Bild des Jahres/2008/Wahl]] (/Voting), [[Commons:Bild des Jahres/2008/Finalisten]]. --[[User:Martin H.|Martin H.]] ([[User talk:Martin H.|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 01:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC) :::Thank you. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC) == Re: WP:POTY == {{done}}, while I was voting at that time I didn't see the rule. Sorry for any inconvenience I have made.--[[User:Jimmy xu wrk|Jimmy xu wrk]] ([[User talk:Jimmy xu wrk|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC) == This work of art == Dear Sir, Isn't this FlickrLickr image a work of modern art...which means Commons cannot keep it since US FOP only applies to buildings: *[[:File:Holocaust Memorial.jpg]] Its a pity that Commons presumably can't use it but its not used on Wikipedia at present. Regards, --[[User:Leoboudv|Leoboudv]] ([[User talk:Leoboudv|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC) *As an aside, is a first edition 1925 edition of Mein Kampf acceptable for Commons: [[:File:Erstausgabe von Mein Kampf.jpg]] Just curious. Its a good picture and is used on Hitler's English wikipedia article. Its from the German historical museum. --[[User:Leoboudv|Leoboudv]] ([[User talk:Leoboudv|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC) :To the Mein Kampf photo: its ok, the book cover is simple text - it looks artistic but it is a simple [[w:de:Fraktursatz]]. Its a photograph of a 3D object, so the photograher/uploader obtain copyright on his photo. However a cutout of the book cover would be considered a simple reproduction of 2D work and would be assumed ineligible for coypright. --[[User:Martin H.|Martin H.]] ([[User talk:Martin H.|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 01:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC) *Thanks Martin for the help on the book. I don't know about the Holocaust memorial, though. --[[User:Leoboudv|Leoboudv]] ([[User talk:Leoboudv|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC) :@Leoboudv - You are right on FOP. I've speedy deleted [[:File:Holocaust Memorial.jpg]] as it has also failed Flickr review. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC) == Archiving open DRs == You may want to [ check] some of those DRs you just archived. They were actually reopened. I made the same mistake right before you (I was too anxious to use Lupo's awesome script ;). [[User:Rocket000|Rocket000]] ([[User talk:Rocket000|talk]]) 20:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC) :Drat. OK, I'll check through them tomorrow. I'm hoping Lupo's next script will be able to sort out copyright problems and close all DRs automatically :) --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC) :{{done}}. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC) == Ping == I'm not that familiar with the process, not to mention the new one :) [ I'll keep this in my mind], next time. Best regards, --'''<font face="Arial">[[User:Kanonkas|<font color="#FF7133">Kanonkas</font>]]<sub><small>[[User talk:Kanonkas|<font color="blue">(talk)</font>]]</small></sub></font>''' 14:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC) :Don't worry - the page was changed only very recently. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC) ::If I may ask you a question, it's about [[Commons:Changing username/usurp requests]]. Is a crosslink really needed? I've read [[Commons:Changing username#Allowable usurpations]], but I can't see where it says a crosslink is needed. It depends on the situation? We've got SUL, but I think there are some instances where a crosslink from your local project would be better. What do you think? --'''<font face="Arial">[[User:Kanonkas|<font color="#FF7133">Kanonkas</font>]]<sub><small>[[User talk:Kanonkas|<font color="blue">(talk)</font>]]</small></sub></font>''' 15:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC) :::The reference to the need for a diff appears at step 5 of the Procedure section. Generally, a diff is needed if the user wants to be renamed to a name already in use on another wiki. But if it is just a Commons namechange, with no effect elsewhere, no diff is needed. I think the page still needs more clarity, and I'm looking at setting up a template for requesters to use which will make it easier for 'crats to check what is going on elsewhere. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC) ::::I agree. As I did find the procedure a bit hard to understand. Thanks for clarifying. --'''<font face="Arial">[[User:Kanonkas|<font color="#FF7133">Kanonkas</font>]]<sub><small>[[User talk:Kanonkas|<font color="blue">(talk)</font>]]</small></sub></font>''' 15:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC) == Not own work?? == Hi I wanted to ask you about the deletion request for [[:File:Lumbo3.svg]], how did you make sure that I didn't create that picture?? how could you tell, even the link in the discussion is not working, and I for your information I created that picture, the only thing I am in doubt with, that Can we use real car destines in our created pictures??, but about the picture I created it, thank you for your time, please replay to my talk page, or ping me once you replayed [[User:Madhero88|Madhero88]] ([[User talk:Madhero88|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC) :Hi. This relates to [[Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lumbo3.svg]]. I'm not questioning that you created the svg file, but the problem is that it appears to be closely based on [ this web image]. The web site says "''All images are free and intended for personal, non-commercial use only. Commercial redistribution is not allowed in any form''", which unfortunately is not free enough for Commons. All Commons images must be released under a free licence which allows all uses, including commercial. The image you uploaded purported to use the licence cc-by-3.0, but you are unable to release the image under such a broad licence given the restrictions which apply to the original. As you are not the copyright owner of the original you cannot release your copy under a licence which is broader than that allowed by the copyright owner. Sorry. Very nice work, anyway. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC) == POTY == {{done}} I have voted just for one picture. Thanks. [[User:Dollymoon|Dollymoon]] ([[User talk:Dollymoon|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC) == European money and commons == You're not involved but your input would be valuable on [[Commons_talk:Licensing#Banknotes_question.2C_esp._EUR]]. I'm not really active in Commons politics, and I definitely do not intend to get all banknotes removed, but it seems that most related [bills and coins] license templates were written with a lenient approach (to put it nicely), most [bills] images were uploaded by people with huge amount of copyvio warnings on their talk pages, and nobody on the licensing talk page seem to have a clue [but good advices, which unfortunately I possess a lot myself as well]. If you couldn't care less you're free to say that, Rocket000 kindly pointed me to you that you ''maybe'' can and will provide opinions. (Main reason to come up with that is that I have to understand the Euro case before I start to ask for legal permissions of various kinds for Hungarian money.) Thanks! --[[user:grin|grin]] [[user talk:grin|✎]] 15:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC) :This needs a bit of thought. Let me get back to you. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC) ::Take your time. Thank you. --[[user:grin|grin]] [[user talk:grin|✎]] 21:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC) == Policy change == Please take a look at [[Commons talk:Bots/Requests#Change of policy?]]. [[User:Multichill|Multichill]] ([[User talk:Multichill|talk]]) 12:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC) :There is a discussion starting at [[Commons talk:Bots#page re-write]]. Would you like to comment there? --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC) == Policy for changing the license of an image == Hi Michael, Do we have a policy page somewhere, where it is clearly stated that changing the license of a published work to a more restrictive one, is explicitly not allowed? Specifically, I have a change from {{tl|GFDL}} to {{tl|GFDL-1.2}} in mind, see the discussion I am having at [[User talk:Fir0002]]. As I see it the clause 10 in that license states that a user has the option of using ver. 1.2 or any later if the GFDL license has ever been used. Fir, on the other hand, argues that he sees the situation such that he can change it to a more restrictive one, which then applies for new users usages of the image. For usages prior to the license change the ''or later'' clause applies. This does not seem right to me, but I cannot find any notion about it in [[COM:L]], where I had anticipated that it would be mentioned. --[[User:Slaunger|Slaunger]] ([[User talk:Slaunger|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC) :I thought this would be easy to answer, but it isn't. Let me look further and I will try to get back to you tomorrow. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC) ::OK. Thank you for your time. Best wishes, --[[User:Slaunger|Slaunger]] ([[User talk:Slaunger|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC) ::: Maybe [ my thoughts] (in ''add 2)'' and ''add 3)'' will help you ::: --[[User:D-Kuru|D-Kuru]] ([[User talk:D-Kuru|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 02:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC) It does seem odd, but so far as I can tell there is no explicit policy that says that a licence tag cannot be replaced with a more restrictive one. However, that does not necessarily mean it is allowed. It is well understood that the CC licences we accept here are irrevocable. In other words if I (person A) license one of my original photographs to you (person B) under a particular licence, and you make use of the image relying on the rights granted under the licence, I am not allowed to rescind the rights I have already granted to you for example by making you pay retrospectively for uses already made. But Fir is suggesting something rather different, that I could prevent you from making ''future'' use of the image; in other words that your existing uses would be protected but future uses would not. I think that is wrong, since the whole bundle of rights given to you is irrevocable, not just some of them. Of course, if I license to person B, I am perfectly at liberty not to offer a similar or indeed any new licence to someone else (person C) if I do not wish to do so. I still have the original image on my computer disk and the licence I have given to B does not force me to make another copy of my file and give it to C. But B has an already-licensed copy, and since I cannot rescind the terms of that licence there is nothing I can do to prevent B licensing to C under those original licence terms. So C can use the image, but only if he obtains it from B under the terms of B's licence. That is the case here. A is Fir and B is the WMF (ie Commons). Commons has been hosting the image by virtue of the rights provided by Fir under a particular licence, and has been relying on the licensing terms to offer to the world sub-licences under the permitted conditions. There is nothing to force Fir to re-issue his image to anyone, but there is nothing in my view he can do to regain full control now that the image has been put into the hands of another (ie Commons) under a free licence. There is a slight complexity at least under English law, and I suspect Australian law will be similar. When a right has been given to person B by person A under a ''contract'', person B can rely on that contract to enforce the right if person A tries to take it away. But where something is given as a ''free gift'', the same does not necessarily apply unless the recipient has taken some action in reliance on the gift. If I give you £10 to buy yourself a few drinks, I can change my mind and ask for the money back up until the time you do something in reliance on the gift, such as spending the money. Here, Fir has effectively granted the rights to WMF as a free gift, and probably could rescind if there were no reliance. I would argue, though, that the WMF has indeed been relying on that gift for some time, specifically in order to host the image and to make it available to third parties. That is the purpose of Commons after all. The concept of "gift" and "reliance" is a Common law one, and the rules elsewhere may be different. That is why this is such a difficult issue and one that is no doubt going to keep a lot of international copyright lawyers busy as this goes forward. Given the difficult legal issues involved we ought that the very least to make sure our policy has something written down about this. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC) :Hi Michael, thank you for your thorough reply. I will inform Fir about your reply, but not do anything further about it until we have clearer guidelines concerning license restrictions. --[[User:Slaunger|Slaunger]] ([[User talk:Slaunger|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC) ::Hmm I'd never thought of WMF as Person B... and I'm not convinced it is person B. Because there is no offer/acceptance situation between myself and WMF. It seems more like the medium from which other people can avail of the offer of the image. It is, by analogy, the newspaper in Carlill and Carbolic (AFAIK). But largely I agree with your summary and what I'm arguing is that Person B is all the people who used my images prior to the license change (rather than WMF), and Person C is all the people who are using the image now. ::Again for the reasons above I don't think you could consider an upload as a gift to WMF - when you upload an image there is nothing to indicate to the uploader that he is providing a gift to WMF. I certainly don't consider my uploads as a gift to WMF - the only reason ''I'' upload to commons at all is so that other language wikipedias are able to access the files and in turn people looking at articles are able to access free knowledge (in the form of photos). But even if you ''did'' consider it as a gift, I don't think you could argue that WMF has relied on it, since it hasn't used my photo 'in order to host it'. In other words if I gave WMF a gift of $10 and they used it towards funding a new server farm, then you could argue it has acted on reliance of my gift and I can't retract my $10. But there is no such link between an upload image, much less a few terms in a license, and hosting. In the ''very'' unlikely event that you could prove such a reliance <small>(here I'm doing a classic lawyer approach of covering all bases even for arguments I reject! :))</small> then I would argue that since commons can still host the image under GFDL 1.2 only it hasn't suffered a detriment as a result (it's not like I've suddenly changed it to an unacceptable license such as All Rights Reserved). It is still hosting it and providing it to Person C (who I think is actually Person B but for the sake of the argument...). With the drinks analogy, I'd suggest the change in license is like giving you the money in a different currency (eg euros instead of pounds). ::Given the above ambiguity in terms of the current restrictions on changing image licenses, and the absence of a clear policy, I don't think it is necessary for me to revert the license change. If a policy is created to that effect (I think this would probably require such a restriction to be made clear on the upload form - as it is on the edit page form) my position will probably change (although it would be a bit dodgy for such a policy to act retrospectively :)). --[[User:Fir0002|Fir0002]] [ <small style="color: #C6CACC">www</small>] 04:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC) <small>At least I'm able to justify the time in this ongoing discussion as it provides a good way to reinforce what I'm learning this semester in contracts :)</small> :::You have every right to change your licenses whenever you want. But that doesn't mean others have to. See, once you choose a like the GFDL, then anyone can upload your work under that license. We say that licenses are simply irrevocable and that's why you can't undo it, but in reality, it's because that exclusive bond between the copyright holder and the work is gone. It is a gift to the public, not Wikimedia. However, this doesn't mean we can't have respect for our generous uploaders. I think as long as it's still an acceptable license, let the uploader do it. It's not like it will affect the people that have already reused the content (plus there's always the history for those determined people). GFDL anything is a good thing. [[User:Rocket000|Rocket000]] ([[User talk:Rocket000|talk]]) 06:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC) ::::Indeed a copyright holder may change the licence on any image. They cannot restrict the licence of any current use of an image already uploaded to the commons to a more restrictive licence but they could make the current licence less restrictive. Perhaps a decent example of this issue is [[:File:Mótmæli vörubílstjóra 1.jpg]], a Flickr image that was uploaded in April 2008 and reviewed by the [[User:FlickreviewR|FlickreviewR]] robot which confirmed the CC w/attribution licence. The image was recently tagged as a copyright violation because, since the commons upload, the copyright holder/Flick uploader has changed his Flickr licence to full copyright. The image was licenced to us under the CC licence and the fact that the owner has changed the Flickr licence does not affect the image uploaded here, nor any appropriate uses made of our image. However, if someone else decides to make use of the current Flickr image they will be in breach of copyright because there is now no free licence available for the Flickr image but if a user wants to use our image and its licence they could do so. None of those changes affect us nor our use of the image. [[User:Ww2censor|Ww2censor]] ([[User talk:Ww2censor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC) :::::I think the key difference between your flickr example and here is that with the flickr one WMF is clearly person B from which person C can get the image from. In the case of an image uploaded to commons I doubt that WMF is person B (as per my discussion above and below with D-Kuru). --[[User:Fir0002|Fir0002]] [ <small style="color: #C6CACC">www</small>] 23:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC) ::::: @ Fir: Of course there is an offer situation between you and WFM! When you uploaded the image you gave the whole world (the whole world includes WMF) the offer that everybody can use your image under 1.2+. Commons is not your private homepage or flickr where you can host also ''All rights reserved''-files. Even Commons may offer you some private space where you can introduce yourself, you can't upload a tonne of self-portraits (as you could do on flickr and on your private homepage). Why shouldn't be ''B'' the WMF? Commons is not a one-way street or ''the original source'' where you <u>have</u> to download the image. ("one-way street" means that person ''D'', ''E'', ''F'' and ''G'' only download a specific image only from Commons and they do not share it. Commons is thereby the only traffic way (''street'') on which the image gets shared). Share means ''D'' sends the jpg file to ''G'' or to ''F'' or whoever). Example: If you upload an image under a free licence to Commons everybody (''B'' (B includes WMF)) can use it under the licence you have chosen. If ''C'' sees, likes and finally decides to reuse that image C don't have to join the image's page on Commons to download that image. If ''B'' hosts the free licenced image on a webpage with the licence-required notes ''C'', you or I could use that image under the displayed licence terms. ''D'', ''E'' or whoever can use it under the old licence even you have changed the licecne meanwhile. Now I could also upload the image to Commons with the old licence. I tried to create a timeline below: : taking image -> upload to CommonsCommons -> time goes by -> licencechange -> time goes by : <span style="color:white">----------------------------------------------</span>| : <span style="color:white">----------------------------------------------</span>L-> reuse by ''B'' -> ''C'' sees the image -> reuse by ''C'' -> ''D'' uploads it to Commons ::::: Images under a free licence can be shared in any way (Internet, USB-stick, Bluetooth, Peer-2-Peer-Networks, ...) as long as the person who uses the file accepts the restrictions of the licence. I don't think that you can seperate the people in "use before licencechange" and "use after licencechange" because B can still share your image under the icence you you once agreed with. You gave the permission to use your file to everybody not only to that who downloaded/used your images during the time before the licencechange. Thereby you also gave the permission to the WMF to use your file under 1.2+. ''B'' and the WMF were allowed to use you file under 1.2+. Where is the difference between ''B'' and the WMF? You said that people who used your image before the licencechange can use it under the old licence but people who want to use it now have to accept the new licence. From my point of view the WMF is allowed to use it under 1.2+ the same way as ''B'' is allowed to. Images under a free licence don't have to be downloaded from the original source where they once were uploaded (If it would be otherwise we would get into trouble with flickr). ::::: I disagree with you that an image can't be some kind of ''gift''. A gift doesn't need to be material (as for example a five Dollar note). It could also be immaterial as for example cashless payments (just numbers moved from one account to another), know-how (knowledge; for example for Wikipedia) and of course images. Of course you can donate images. You can donate images as well as you donate the time it takes to take and upload an image. [[:en:Donation]] says "A donation may take various forms, including cash, services, new or used goods including but not limited to clothing, toys, food, vehicles, [...]" ::::: I already mentioned that but I will say it again: You are free to change the displayed licence. You are free to choose a new licence for new uploads. However, we are free to use the old image under the old licence. (As I already explained: there is no ''old'' and ''new'' reuser. Moreover it would be impossible to tell if that person is an ''old'' or a ''new'' reuser.) ::::: @ Rocket: Of course you can change the used licence and of course it will not affect people who already reused the file. However, it also won't affect people who will reuse the file, because they can of course use it under the old licence. If there is no difference between a licencechange and no edit at all why should the template be edited/the licence be changed? Moreover I think that you missed that not everybody who want to reuse the file is able to work with the wikisystem. It takes some time to know who wiki works and that the history does not show the real history of a page (due to included templates etc.) ::::: "However, this doesn't mean we can't have respect for our generous uploaders." Even my text may sound a bit rude I respect Fir's work and I like many of his images. However, I think that we all on Commons are equal and nobody is [[:en:Wikiquote:Animal_Farm#Chapter_10|"more equal"]]. Admins have the same rights as Bureaucrats, ''ordinary'' user, Stewards and so on no matter how many images you have uploaded. If we allow the licencechange for one image we can allow licencechanges allaround as {{u|-jha-}}, {{u|EvaK}} and some more already tried to do. The next step will may be that a user who licenced his images under {{tl|PD-self}} switches to {{tl|GFDL-1.2}} and we just keep it, because you can have a look at the history anyway. I also don't think that we can ''allow'' (or just to look the other way) a licencechange, just because a user has uploaded some more images than another user had no matter if both licences are accepted or not. ::::: @ MichaelMaggs: Sorry for craming your talk page with that long text. It wasn't planned that long ::::: --[[User:D-Kuru|D-Kuru]] ([[User talk:D-Kuru|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC) ::::::I'm not sure of your legal knowledge but it strikes me that you're arguing from a much less technical (and more emotive) perspective than MM and myself. As far as I can see there is no offer between WMF and myself - WMF is merely the platform on which I create the offer to other people (commons ''is'' in fact like flickr in this respect). And yes you're right there's nothing stopping C getting it from B etc etc but WMF isn't B IMO. So if there was a website or whatever out there which has a copy of my images under GFDL 1.2+ they will be able to keep it and redistribute under that license. Just because B can redistribute it under 1.2+ does not mean that commons can. In terms of using the license that B or C has for the image to overwrite my files on commons, see Dschwen's comment and my reply on the original thread on my talkpage. ::::::Also you misunderstood the discussion on whether the upload is a gift. Obviously an image can be considered a gift - that is not being disputed. What is in question is whether WMF could be said to have acted in reliance on the gift (which it is argued would make the gift unretractable). If, however, commons hasn't acted on the gift (and frankly I can't see how it has), then the uploader is free to retract the "gift" - unlike a contract, gifts can be retracted at the will of the offeror. A gift here, in it's technical form, is the alternative to there being a contract between WMF and myself with regards to the images I uploaded. Note I don't think there is either a contract OR a gift situation, but a gift is the more likely of the two, and in the event there was a gift I would argue that I'm free to retract it. ::::::Finally, and I don't wish to insult you, but I would request that you be a little more concise with your posts as I don't really have the time to dig through masses of text in search of actual arguments. You ended up repeating "From my point of view the WMF is allowed to use it under 1.2+ the same way as B is allowed to." and derivatives about 6 times in your last post... --[[User:Fir0002|Fir0002]] [ <small style="color: #C6CACC">www</small>] 23:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC) :::::::''Just because B can redistribute it under 1.2+ does not mean that commons can.'' What if I'm person B and I upload it to Commons? WMF is no different from Flickr, me, or anyone else. All Commons is, is a place where we share sharable stuff. There is only two letters here. A, which is you, and B, which is everyone else. The point of changing the license would be to make it ''seem'' more restrictive to those who have no knowledge of the previous license. Do you think Flickr users who change their license, change it back when they realize that it doesn't matter because Commons wouldn't go along with it? No, because on Flickr it ''is'' under the new license (but if Flickr wanted to, they could prevent that). [[User:Rocket000|Rocket000]] ([[User talk:Rocket000|talk]]) 01:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC) <- Fir, I don't really think you have a strong case on the WMF not being person B, since of course a person can be either a legal or a natural person. Copyright can be presented as a gift, just as any other right can (though there may be certain statutory restrictions). On the "reliance" issue, we may I think have to differ. I would, however, be interested to hear your views on the scenario where you upload an image to Commons under one licence, I take that image as I am entitled to do (from history if necessary if you have changed the licence tag in the meantime), and then re-upload it myself. As person C who has obtained the image from a broadly licensed source (person B) there would be no difficulty in my re-uploading the copy under the same broad licence I obtained it under. I don't see any legal justification for you then to change the tag on that image. Obviously that would all be an idiotic hassle, but could in principle be done by bot. In my view, your best legal and perhaps moral argument may well be that the change to {{tl|GFDL}} that allows it to be converted to CC-by is in conflict with Clause 10 GDFL which requires new versions to be "''similar in spirit to the present version''". However, no doubt that has been considered in detail by the WMF lawyers and those of the Free Software Foundation, and presumably they have got their arguments all ready to meet the first legal challenge. I would like to put to the Commons community that we should have an explicit policy that disallows licence restrictions unless they are accompanied by a reason acceptable to the community. There are two specific issues that ought to be discussed: (1) should that be for future uploads only? and (2) given that neither you nor anybody else who uploaded under GFDL could have had the slightest idea that such a huge change would be made, is it reasonable to allow you to make the restriction anyway? After all, we do even allow discretionary image deletions if the reason looks reasonable. What do you think? --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC) :*Seen your comments will reply properly as soon as I can (this won't be for a day or two). In breif: 1) I realise that WMF can be a legal person but don't think a contract exists. Gift seems more likely; yes I suppose we'll have to disagree. 2) see Dschwen's comment/my reply on original thread on my talkpage (yes your scenario would work in theory). 3) 100% agree on the 1.3 not retaining the spirit of the GFDL. 4) I would definitely like to see some kind of policy on this issue --[[User:Fir0002|Fir0002]] [ <small style="color: #C6CACC">www</small>] 06:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC) :::Thanks for the reply. I do appreciate the pressures on your time at the moment (just wait until you get to Land Law, though...). btw there definitely is no contractual situtation here, and ''Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company'' isn't of relevance. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC) ::::Yeah I can imagine it gets pretty hairy. The problem is I've reached the point in semester where all the lectures think OK you've learnt enough time for an assignment (I've currently got an assignment in all four subjects - three of which are due in the next few days and the fourth is a major design project). Anyway can't waste time on whinging! ::::I think I dealt with 1) sufficiently. 2) I think the scenario would be a bit dodgy unless you could prove you'd download the image with a 1.2+ license and even then (as I mentioned on my talkpage) you'd probably need to retain the original as otherwise you'd have no source information. ::::3) is certainly the crux of the matter - you say WMF has carefully considered any counterarguments to the change which makes it seem all the more devious of them to make such a change. I mean CC-by-SA already exists for those who wish to use it, but here we have WMF seemingly exploiting section 10 to converting the license I chose into one they'd rather I chose. I mean that's really wrong that you can't have your choice in license respected by a community which exists on good will. And so yes I suppose the appropriate thing would be to move the issue to a larger forum (although I fear I won't be able to participate in the discussion due to time commitments IRL). I also fear that the most vocal members of the wikimedia community are those who are heavily into the free content movement and so I fear that the interests of those who upload to wikimedia primarily to support the different wikipedia languages (such as myself) will not be represented... ::::4)I guess this has become somewhat academic now, but why do you say Carlill v Carbolic is not relevant? What distinguishes commons from the newspaper in Carlill? --[[User:Fir0002|Fir0002]] [ <small style="color: #C6CACC">www</small>] 23:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Guys this isn't rocket science. The GFDL license is a perpetual, non-revocable license (as are all free licenses). When you uploaded the file with a GFDL tag, you published it under that license. You cannot unpublish it or revoke the license to substitute it with a different one. You can add new licenses or even republished it (under a different file name) with a different license, but you can't undo what you've already agreed to. This is policy: "Such a notice grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, '''unlimited in duration''', to use that work under the conditions stated herein." There is nothing ambiguous about this. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC) :And FWIW, there is nothing "sneaky" about the license migration. This process has been ongoing for 3 years and open to public comment and participation. Objecting now that the process is reaching it's conclusion isn't very helpful. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC) :Also, ''Carlill v Carbolic'' and contract law are completely irrelevant. The GFDL is a license, not a contract.[] [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC) ::Well actually it was very sneaky - despite this being a fundamental migration which will affect many many commons users I haven't seen any notification of it anywhere. I would much prefer to see a notice concerning this migration rather than "Scholarship applications for Wikimania 2009 are now open. Apply now!" appear on every page. Why not put an info box in people's watchlists? It all appears very devious to me... --[[User:Fir0002|Fir0002]] [ <small style="color: #C6CACC">www</small>] 00:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC) @MichaelMaggs: I know I've already alluded to section 10 before, but I've also just "done" uncertainty in contracts and it does strike me that section 10 should be severed as uncertain and illusory. It appears to give WMF unlimited unilateral discretion in modifying the license and including terms which I never agreed to when I uploaded (as in the case of this migration). Mind you this discretion should be limited to reasonable modifications by way of "the spirit of the GFDL" clause - but as already mentioned it doesn't seem to have been effective in current v1.3. 1.3 seems to have been a twisting of the GFDL to suit WMF in its migration attempt :( --[[User:Fir0002|Fir0002]] [ <small style="color: #C6CACC">www</small>] 00:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC) :I can understand your point of view here, but I am with Kaldari in saying that as the GFDL is a licence not a contract, nothing is contract law applies. By the way, in case you haven't seen it there is now an open discussion on this at [[Commons talk:Licensing#Propose explicit condition of perpetual and non-revocable license]]. Would you like to comment there? I have mentioned your issue, and there have already been a couple of sympathetic responses. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC) ::That article certainly did suggest there is a fundamental difference between contracts and licenses. However, I have several issues with it. ::1) Their fishing license example does seem very much like a contract. "I don't have to promise anything further to go fishing after I pay for my license" - the payment is providing consideration to the promise to allow that person to fish. It seems entirely consistent with the Williston quote for what is a contract. ::2) The further quote from Professor Moglen "licensors offered an exchange of promises with users: 'We will give you a copy of our copyrighted work,' in essence, 'if you pay us and promise to enter into certain obligations concerning the work... The GPL, however, is a true copyright license: a unilateral permission, in which no obligations are reciprocally required by the licensor." is not consistent with the GFDL. Because the law does not look at the adequacy of the consideration there isn't a difference between making the licensee pay $100 and $0.50 - it is sufficient they have incurred a detriment at the licensor's request. And I think that would extend to the non-monetary detriment (to the licensee) in having to include a copy of the GFDL etc. I'm guessing that is sufficient consideration as it is precisely what the licensor demanded of the licensee - I will give you a copy of my copyrighted work if you include a copy of the GFDL with your reproduction. ::However, even though I'm not very convinced by that particular article, it would appear that copyright law/licenses are a separate (although I'd suggest connected) areas of law. ::Finally thanks for for informing me of that discussion (I'm surprised and disappointed I wasn't informed earlier by Kaldari) and for raising my issues --[[User:Fir0002|Fir0002]] [ <small style="color: #C6CACC">www</small>] 13:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Hopfully I can manage it that the comment stays short. Some parts are exactly that what I think (which is not very often written in a very friendly way) However you may don't take it personally.<br> 1) You claim I argue more emotional than technical: That is in fact rubbish. I actually know several ways the discussion can go and it seems to me that this discussion is just a waste of time, because you won't change anything on your own. I actually don't understand why you should be allowed to keep 1.2-only while others (EvaK, -jha-,...) are not. EvaK and -jha- tried to revert their 1.2+ templates to 1.2-only. Many user (including me) did hundreds of edits to undo that stuff without notifying or asking them. We just clicked the revert button. For me such arguments are only a try to get rid of 1.2+.<br> 2) When you uploaded your files under GFDL you gave the permission to everybody to use your file and not just to those who used it. Thereby everybody is still allowed to use your file under 1.2+ even it is not displayed. Everybody includes also organisations as the FSF and the WMF. <br> 3) Version 1.3 and especially section 11 "RELICENSING" is in fact "similar in spirit to the present version" of GFDL. It is similar in spirit to the present version (which I think you can call ''original idea'') because it ever was the motivation that files can be shared, modified and used for any purpose (including commercial usage) for free (even the restrictions are hard to realise). 4) What I think: : a) Even the possibility of relicencing your image is within the spirit, section 10 and the ''similar in spirit''-part must not be used (or rather abused) to include every crap in the licence because folks like the WMF want to see in there because they think that your files/text can't be used as easy as they would like. The FSF gives the right to relicence your images (which are still copyrighted even they can be used under a free licence) to the WMF which outsources this decision (wich musn't be done with levity) to thousands of user who may ride on the free-licence-wave for a week and then they publish there images under ''All rights reserved'' on flickr. Moreover the FSF gives all the other MMC-sites the right to relicence your images even the WMF does not do so. Because of this and other unsolved issues I voted against the relicencing. In short: They take your copyright and smash it into pieces. : b) Even I don't think that you can retrieve the 1.2+ agreement I think that you can demand that what GFDL was, because you agreed to the licence in the past and not to some crazy, everything changing ideas will came up and (I guess) will come up in the future (Maybe the next "relicencing" will be the release into the public domain, because the WMF is not fine with CC-BY-SA-3.0+) I think that you can change it to a 1.2+ version with a front or backcover text which says that you don't agree to major changes (as for example relicencing). You should have the right to vote if you want the new changes if you released a file under that licence. In short: 1.2+ -> 1.2-only = NOT OK; 1.2+ -> 1.2+ fortcovertext = OK : c) I have to admit that I didn't search for it, but I have seen no indication that GFDL should be changed to CC (or as the WMF says: ''dual licenced''). I guess that many uploads wouldn't be GFDL (1.2+) if we would have known that GFDL is going to be CC. : d) @ Fir: Would it be OK for you if we move your old files which were 1.2+ to a different template even we don't change the licence for now? 5) MichaelMaggs is maybe interested in [[Commons:Lawbook]]. I created this page due to such discussions. Even it is no guideline for now I hope that I can improve it with your ideas (of course you also can improve it) that it becomes a guideline, because it includes important (so far not mentioned) parts about licencing and retrieving a licence, attribution and not allowed restrictions on Commons. If you have any suggestion don't hesitate to add it at [[COM:AN#Commons:Lawbook]] or somewhere else where I can find it. <br>It is not as short as I hoped that it will be but I think that I would made it a way longer if I didn't care ^^' <br>--[[User:D-Kuru|D-Kuru]] ([[User talk:D-Kuru|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC) ::In the same "no offence" spirit allow me to make some frank replies: :::1. Unfortunately you are again disregarding the arguments raised. Just because a few users didn't know their rights and allowed you to revert them does not prove a point. "Your Honour I had a right to rob this person because the last five people I robbed didn't care" is not going to stand up in court. :::2. "everybody to use your file and not just to those who used it" doesn't really make sense. Commons is a repository. There is no indication on the [ upload form] that Commons is a user - it indiscrimnantly uploads whatever image you put in the upload form. :::3. This point has been discussed elsewhere (above and on the Licensing talkpage). I can't see how you can claim it retains the spirit by allowing you to use a completely different license. That destroys the GFDL as a distinct license. I uploaded under the GFDL NOT the CC! :::4. I'm glad that you can see how wrong it is to go behind the wishes of the uploader (I think that's what you are saying?) but I don't see the difference between going back to GFDL 1.2 only and going to GFDL+ and front covert text. I can't really see the point of moving the images to seperate template - for the sake of efficiency it's best to have them in one spot. A recent example of this was a week or so ago I had to fix a spelling error in the text. --[[User:Fir0002|Fir0002]] [ <small style="color: #C6CACC">www</small>] 08:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC) :::: add 1. "Your Honour I had a right to rob this person because the last five people I robbed didn't care" I have to note that sentence somewhere because it is just a way too awsome to park it in an archiv :-) every person in the world had the right to use your file under GFDL 1.2+. So all people were allowed to use your file and not just those who really used your file. I hope it's more clear now. I know that that piece also does not make very much sense so far so seemy contribution on your talk page. :::: add 3. I read a contribution by a user who worte a mail to one founder of the GFDL and that guy (founder of the GFDL) wrote that he is pretty fine with that relicencing idea. I think that the spirit of the GFDL ever was that files can be freely used and not that the GFDL stays alive as long as possible until the images go PD 70 years after the persons death. I think the text just was a way to tell the people what they are allowed to and what not (Even, I guess, many people who ever used a file or published a file under that licence really read the licencetext). But the spirit is (as I know) nowhere specified so there would be no use of guessing what the spirit could be and what the spirit is not so I will not write any more words about that :::: add 4. I don't think that they thought of relicencing when they created section 10. The reason I would include section 10 is that the licence can be updated without notifying everybody who used my licence (which is, I guess, far away from easy and possible) to fix some issues and problems which may will turn up. So a 1.2+ covertext would include all such minor improvements while those blatant tries to relicence your files without your permission wont be tollerated. I know that it looks like ''We take the best and the rest is for the pigs'' but you can't use GFDL updates and/or improvements if you licence them under a single version number; but if you don't want that the FSF and the WMF makes a fool out of you you have to choose a single version number. So GFDL 1.2+ covertext is the only way that you don't get screwed with new "similar in spirit" stuff. :::: --[[User:D-Kuru|D-Kuru]] ([[User talk:D-Kuru|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC) *Forgive me for interjecting, but what rights does a user have regarding deletion of an image they have uploaded? Because technically, they would be the same rights as changing the license, because technically, you're deleting the original image and uploading a new image with a different license by changing the license. For instance, if I have file ''x'' open in a window under license ''i'', and Fir changes the license to license ''ii'', at what point does the change of license take effect? When Fir changes the license, or when I refresh my browser? Also, I think that the Commons would be party ''b'' given that the Commons describes itself as accepting images per certain conditions, for example file types. I think that means there are conditions on uploading a file, and that therefore some party has set those conditions, and that therefore there is a party ''b'' which has set those conditions and recieves things according to those conditions. Additionally, I am unclear what would stop someone uploading the image under the original license? I don't know whether the Commons is backed up or snapshots are taken, but I would imagine that too would impact upon a user's license change, surely? Having looked at the upload process, I'd note it contains this text: '''This donation is non-revocable.''' I don;t know when that was added, but that seems fairly clear. See []. On a side issue, having just looked at the conditions of submitting text, I am unclear on how that applies to licensing. If text is contributed '''under the GFDL''', technically, that means anyone can change the terms of any license. Doesn't it? [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] ([[User talk:Hiding|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC) **If you read all of this discussion you'll find most of your points have been brought up elsewhere. In short: changing the license is not the same as deleting - it's offering the same image under different terms; refresh case is largely academic (it would be at the refresh); commons backups wouldn't satisfy unless commons was a user and just because commons imposes conditions on the files which can be uploaded does not make it a user; yes in theory you could reupload under GFDL+ but in practice this would be awkward; that "donation" text does not appear on the [ upload form I use]; only the photographer has the right to change the terms in which he/she releases the image. --[[User:Fir0002|Fir0002]] [ <small style="color: #C6CACC">www</small>] 08:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC) **Just to expand on my previous point on conditions of upload do not equal commons is a user. Think about commons as a warehouse full of books which it gives out to people for free. The warehouse might only accept books of 120pages or less and with authors with a surname beginning with A, but that doesn't mean that it is also reading (using) the books. --[[User:Fir0002|Fir0002]] [ <small style="color: #C6CACC">www</small>] 08:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC) OK guys, a very interesting discussion but it's getting a bit long for my talk page and I'd be grateful now if you'd continue it at [[Commons talk:Licensing#Propose explicit condition of perpetual and non-revocable license]]. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC) == deleted image == Hello! Why did you deleted []. Where do you know that this ist copyrighted design from? thanks --[[User:Trexer|Trexer]] ([[User talk:Trexer|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC) :Hi. This is a 3D model/toy, and copyright in the design belongs to the designer or his/her employer. By taking a photograph of the design and uploading it you are infringing the copyright, hence the image has to be deleted. please see [[COM:DW#I know that I can't upload photos of copyrighted art (like paintings and statues), but what about toys? Toys are not art!]]. regards --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC) == Copy vios == Dear Sir, Are these images all copyright violations? I note they all failed flickr review too: *[[:File:Pocketpc11.jpg]] *[[:File:Pocketpc12.jpg]] *[[:File:Pocketpc17.jpg]] *[[:File:Pocketpc16.jpg]] *[[:File:Pocketpc18.jpg]] *[[:File:Pocketpc19.jpg]] Maybe they should just be deleted given their low resolution and licensing problems. The uploader left long ago in October 2006. --[[User:Leoboudv|Leoboudv]] ([[User talk:Leoboudv|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC) *As an aside, it is strange you have 1 month long [ DR]s for such obvious cases. --[[User:Leoboudv|Leoboudv]] ([[User talk:Leoboudv|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC) *{{done}}. Yes, often DRs do take too long. I wish we had more admins actively involved. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC) *{{Comment}} Thank you. Yes, I know that Commons has a backlog lasting almost 1 year for DRs which is unbelievable. MBisanz is away until June so he can't tackle that pile sadly. With kind Regards, --[[User:Leoboudv|Leoboudv]] ([[User talk:Leoboudv|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC) == [[:File:Otokar Cobra 4x4 Turkish Army.jpg]] == Hi Michael, you closed [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Otokar Cobra 4x4 Turkish Army.jpg]] as Already Deleted, but the DR was also about [[:File:Otokar Cobra 4x4 Turkish Army.jpg]]. Could you please delete that file too? Thanks, [[User:Pruneau|Pruneau]]<sup>[[User talk:Pruneau|talk]]</sup> 17:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC) :Also, you closed [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jakowlew Jak-52 D-EJGS.jpg]] as Kept, but still [ deleted] the file... ;-) [[User:Pruneau|Pruneau]]<sup>[[User talk:Pruneau|talk]]</sup> 17:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC) ::{{Done}}, thanks. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC) == Non-commercial? == Dear Sir, Was one of the reasons Commons has to use image with no Non-commercial restrictions connected to an attempt to minimise its legal liability (in case the images were misued on other commercial web site). I was told by Admin Borchert that it was actually a choice by the Commons community to set this rule. Its all quite confusing to me personally even though I obey the rules. As an aside, I have seen flickr images which are licensed as ARR actually used on other web and blog sites. I guess some people have no respect for the law. They simply rip other people's images for their own use. Thank You, --[[User:Leoboudv|Leoboudv]] ([[User talk:Leoboudv|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC) :Sorry, I don't know the answer to that. I think it was an early decision of the Wikimedia Foundation. It applies to all WMF wiki sites, not just to Commons. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC) == PD-ItalyGov == Thanks for the notice. But what about all [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-ItalyGov|the images using this template]]? [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 20:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC) :I don't think they can all be deleted en masse, as there may be other rationales. They will have to be looked at one by one. Most now have no "licence", so they can be deleted if no-one does anything. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC) == Football team logos == I noticed [ a spate of logos] claimed to be copyright of the uploader [[User:BYF079|BYF079]]. What do you think and what's the best way forward? They seem to either be direct copyvios or derivative works of copyright works. TIA [[User:Ww2censor|Ww2censor]] ([[User talk:Ww2censor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC) :Yes, some do look very dubious. I would suggest leaving a message on the user's talk page and nominating for deletion any that appear to have been copied from elsewhere. I have already speedy deleted one file and left a warning not to upload copyvios. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC) == Doctor == [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lepromatous Leprosy.JPG]] - so you knew better than the doctor? /[[User:Pieter Kuiper|Pieter Kuiper]] ([[User talk:Pieter Kuiper|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC) :I know Commons guidelines, yes. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC) ::A reasonable assumption is that the doctor had the patient's permission to publish this photo. /[[User:Pieter Kuiper|Pieter Kuiper]] ([[User talk:Pieter Kuiper|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC) :::Personally I find that assumption completely unreasonable & counter intuitive. Visits to a doctor are confidential. Personally I would assume that any photography was '''not''' for public consumption but for private research etc unless explicitly stated because of patient confidentiality & for the possible legal pitfalls of your "assumption" Pieter. --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 08:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC) == Deleted image == All editors here chose to keep this image []. And you deleted it. When some people gave you sysop status, you think they turned you in some kind of GOD? You opinion, alone, means NOTHING here, you know that? [[User:MachoCarioca|MachoCarioca]] ([[User talk:MachoCarioca|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC) :Excuse me? Commons deletion requests are not majority votes - they are an opportunity for the community to voice opinions and/or provide information, and then it's up to the closing admin's judgement whether to keep or delete. If you don't like the result, you're free to open an [[Commons:undeletion requests|undeletion request]] to have the case looked at again. Personal attacks are not necessary. -- [[User:Editor at Large|<font color="#3A66A7" face="Palatino">Editor at Large</font>]] • [[User talk:Editor at Large|<small><font color="#325C74">talk</font></small>]] 01:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Are not votes? Ok. So, what counts is the will of the administrator? All the editors there claimed to keep it. Just in case... [[User:MachoCarioca|MachoCarioca]] ([[User talk:MachoCarioca|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 04:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC) To [[User:Editor at Large|<font color="#3A66A7" face="Palatino">Editor at Large</font>]]: sorry pall, 'personal attacks' are not just done with words but acts too. This delection was a 'personal attack ' to me. [[User:MachoCarioca|MachoCarioca]] ([[User talk:MachoCarioca|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 04:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC) :An undeletion request has already been filed I think. :@MachoCarioca: have a look at [[Commons:Deletion requests]] and you will see that "''The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy. If the closing admin is unable to say with reasonable certainty that the file can validly be kept it should be deleted in accordance with Commons' [[Commons:Precautionary principle|precautionary principle]]''". --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC) == Deletion of [[Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/CommonismNow]] == Hi Michael, I can't understand why you deleted [[Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/CommonismNow]]. It is my understanding that all old bot applications are archived on [[Commons:Bots/Archive]]; is there a reason why this should not be done with this application? Regards, -- [[User:ChrisiPK|ChrisiPK]] <small>'''([[User Talk:ChrisiPK|<span class="signature-talk">Talk</span>]]|[[Special:Contributions/ChrisiPK|Contribs]])'''</small> 12:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC) :Oh, sorry. That was with a batch of old bot requests which were never archived and in some cases never actually posted to the bot request page. I have undeleted and archived it to the proper place. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC) ::I guess I should have mentioned somewhere when I created [[:Category:Unlisted requests for user rights]] (which is now almost empty anyway) that some of them had multiple votes and discussion which seems to suggest that they were at one point in time listed on the request page and somehow got removed (and thus never added to the archive page). Sometimes users who withdraw also remove the entry before a 'crat sees it. [[User:Rocket000|Rocket000]] ([[User talk:Rocket000|talk]]) 18:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC) == I screwed up == Hi, Michael. Back in January, I requested deletion of [[:File:Madrean sky islands.jpg]], because of possible copyvio. You closed the deletion request (see [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Madrean sky islands.jpg]]). However, [[:en:User:Mmcanis]] pointed out to me that back in 2006, [[:en:User:Tom Radulovich]] posted a permission email to my talk page by the illustrator, granting permission. See [[:en:User_talk:Hike395/Archive_6#Madrean_Sky_Islands_Image]] for details. I realize that this isn't an official OTRS-tracked email, but nevertheless, I think I asked for deletion incorrectly. I hope you would consider undeleting the image. [[User:Hike395|Hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 04:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC) :Thanks for letting me know. I wouild be happy to restore the image if we had clear permission but I'm afraid that "''I think its fine to use the image''" isn't a definite enough release under an allowable free licence. Ofen wording like that accompanies press releases and so on, but they are not allowed here as it is is uncertain whether the copyright owner allows commercial use and derivative works. I think we'd need something sent to OTRS which specifies a definite licence. Sorry. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) ::OK, thanks. [[User:Hike395|Hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC) == Images from Terry Whalebone on Flickr == Hi, Thanks for sorting out the [[Commons:Deletion requests/Images from Terry Whalebone on Flickr|deletion request]] for Terry Whalebone's images. I've noticed a couple of others in the list that were kept that look a little dodgy to me. *[[:File:Maserati works team Aintree 1957.jpg]] *[[:File:Vanwall VW5 Aintree 1957.jpg]] I didn't notice this before but it seems fairly impressive for him to have had a Nikon E3100 digital camera in 1957! It looks to me that these might be photographs of photographs! [[User:Readro|Readro]] ([[User talk:Readro|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC) :I agree and have nominated them for deletion. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC) == [[:File:Trimborn_Farm.jpg]] == Hello, Michael. I just noticed the archived deletion request you fulfilled for this image []... funny how no one ever bothers to notify me of such things. Anyhoo, I encourage you to remove all of my major contributions (images and their accompanying articles) as they should all be considered suspect. Regards. [[User:Sulfur|Sulfur]] ([[User talk:Sulfur|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC) == File:Stephen Harper (Official Photo).jpg == Hi. I chose you at random from [[:Category:Commons OTRS volunteers]]. Hope you don't mind. There is a [[:en:Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Harper photoshop|debate over at Wikipedia]] over the appropriateness of adding backgrounds to this image of the current Canadian Prime Minister. I just want to confirm: # that the permission allows derivatives (I'd be very surprised if it didn't, otherwise it wouldn't be allowed on the Commons, but let's put this issue to bed at Wikipedia); # if the OTRS provide any author or date information, so that those fields in the {{tl|information}} template can be completed; and # if there is any indication as to who granted the permission, the source of the image (right now it is a very vague "Government of Canada", which makes one wonder as to the legitimacy of the OTRS), and if the permission extends to the original photo (before the background was cropped out). Much thanks. Sorry to trouble you. --[[User:Skeezix1000|skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC) :Hi - sorry not to have got back to you: I am on a short Wikibreak at the moment. I would be happy to check if you can wait a few days; if not, you might like to try someone else. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC) ::I don't think there is any huge rush. Thanks for the note. --[[User:Skeezix1000|skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC) :::I am sorry to say that there are problems with this OTRS ticket, and I do not think the permission granted is acceptable. As it stands, the image ought to be deleted. It seems clear that the image is © Office of the Prime Minister, as in one publication it has been labelled "Reproduced with the permission of the Office of the Prime Minister". So the copyright owner does not seem in doubt. However, the original OTRS volunteer asked the copyright holder to confirm that the image "''is indeed in the public domain and is a "freely-licensed official image?" (part of this description is that the image is available for commercial and derivative use by anyone)''". The reply says "''You could use the attached photo - it is the official one. If needed, give credit to the Prime Minister's Office for the copyright and authorization to publish on your site''." :::Unfortunately, that is hardly a clear enough confirmation that the image is being released to the public domain. If the person answering had truly understood what was being asked he would not have mentioned giving credit, or authorization to "publish on your site". This really needs a further approach to the copyright holder in order to clarify what is in fact being granted. The image may really be public domain, though given the form of words used, I very much doubt it. As it stands, the best that can be said is that there is permission to use on Wikipedia, which of course is not good enough. The last correspondence was in May 2007. Would you like me to follow it up with the copyright holder, or would you prefer to leave it to the original uploader? --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC) ::::Thanks for looking into that. Would you mind following up with the copyright holder? I think we need someone who has a clear idea of what is required to make that follow-up inquiry. Again, your help is much appreciated. --[[User:Skeezix1000|skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC) :::::Yes, sure, I'll do it today. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC) :::::{{done}} I will let you know how I get on. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC) :::::No reply. I have followed up today. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC) :::::::Thanks for doing this. I suspect you might never hear back, but it's worth a shot. Since we last spoke, the original uploader [ posted a note] over at Wikipedia saying that he obtained proper authority from the PMO to use the image, suggesting that we were "beating a dead horse". I directed him to the discussion here on your talk page, but haven't heard from him since. --[[User:Skeezix1000|skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC) ::::::::It seems the original uploader does not realize that the "permission" previously obtained is not sufficient for Commons/Wikipedia. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC) :It's been a month since you first made an inquiry with the PMO. I suspect at this point you are not going to get a response. What now? Nominate for deletion? --[[User:Skeezix1000|skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC) ::Surprisingly, I had a response a couple of days ago, which included a new official photo. But I still don't have agreement to a valid release, and I have gone back with another email yesterday asking again. Given the correspondence so far, it looks unlikely that they will do more than send out their "official photo" (with no proper licence). --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC) :::That's interesting. It sounds like you are having a bit of a one-sided conversation, but at least they are not ignoring you. --[[User:Skeezix1000|skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC) ::::No further response. It seems clear they don't want to release any image under a licence that we could use. I don't think there is much more I can do; sorry. I'm deleting [[:File:Stephen Harper (Official Photo).jpg]] now as it has no valid licence. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :::::There are also the derivative images [[:File:Stephen Harper (official photo edited).jpg]] and [[:File:Stephen Harper official portrait.jpg]]. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] ([[User talk:Thivierr|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 01:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :::::: Done, thanks. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 06:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC) ::Michael, don't apologize. You did everything you could. Thanks for the help. --[[User:Skeezix1000|skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC) == Removed image == You removed this image today:[[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hng2 2.jpg]], with a reason: "no licence". Unfortunately ALL of them has licence and they are in wiki commons! Please restore it, that image is very important in that article! THX! Here are the links to the images (to previous ones to):[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] Please responde on [[en:User talk:Baxter9|my talkpage]].[[User:Baxter9|Baxter9]] ([[User talk:Baxter9|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :Hi, you'll need to make sure that a link to each of the original images is included in on the image page, so that others can check that everything is freely licensed. I'll undelete for 24 hours to give you time to do that. By the way, one of the links you left on my talk page was to a category not an image, and others were to Wikipedia pages. You may need to check them. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC) ::Hello! I did not create that image, but i will fix it, if you recover it. Thank you![[User:Baxter9|Baxter9]] ([[User talk:Baxter9|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :::OK, it's done. Thanks. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC) ::::Done! THX again![[User:Baxter9|Baxter9]] ([[User talk:Baxter9|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC) ::::: Great. That looks good. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC) == Olympic medal image == Surely this image of [[:File:1988 Olympic Winter Games medals (three cropped).jpg]] is a copyvio. It is not a 2D original but a 3D original so is copyright of the original designer or commissionor of the medal. What is your opinion? TIA [[User:Ww2censor|Ww2censor]] ([[User talk:Ww2censor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :Yes, I agree, in order to keep this we would need permission from the original designer, not just the photographer. I suggest nominating it for deletion. (The 2D - 3D thing is only relevant when the coin is old and itself out of copyright. In that case, the photographer's permission only is needed). --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC) == Do you see what i have said ? == You removed file "Wernher von Brown", that was made of mine.This file was supplied with text in what there is clearly said this person is worldwide known person.There are a lot of his portrets in public domain. So there are no copyright problem. Then why?--[[User:Vitold Muratov|<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Muratov Vitold|''Витольд Муратов'']] ([[User talk:Vitold Muratov|обс]], [[Служебная:Contributions/Muratov_Vitold|вклад]])</span>]] ([[User talk:Vitold Muratov|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC) :I think you are referring to [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Вернер фон Браун.jpg]]. The drawing seems to have been copied from a photograph, and the fact that there may be lots of portaits available on the internet does not make them public domain. See [[Commons:Image casebook#Internet images]]. If you can tell me what the drawing was copied from, and we can establish that the original really was public domain, it may be possible to undelete the file. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC) == Ask for OTRS ticket id == I see that you are the one who deleted [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Giao Dien XaLuanCom.jpg|this]] because of out of scope reason. The uploader has uploaded these photo in, and I'd like to ask for these OTRS tickets so that I can check and add appropriate templates in I'm a volunteer in OTRS. Thanks in advance. [[User:Vinhtantran|Vinhtantran]] ([[User talk:Vinhtantran|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC) :sorry, there is no information about a specific OTRS ticket on the image page. When the image was deleted the only OTRS information was {{t|OTRS pending|year=2009|month=March|day=10}}. Sorry I can't help. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC) ::Vinhtantran, the ticket is [ 2009031010034762]. --[[User:AFBorchert|AFBorchert]] ([[User talk:AFBorchert|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC) == Deleted Image == I don't understand what makes this[] image a derivative work, when other images are similar to it in []. That is photos of boxes or blocks of chocolate (in their packaging). The (R) on the packaging seemed to be the original reason for it being flagged, however this is also on [], [], [], [] - among others. :It's a derivative work not because of the (R) logo but because of the original artistic design on the packaging. Such a design is copyright-protected in the same way as any original painting or photograph: see [[Commons:Image casebook#Product packaging]] There are many other packaging images are copyvios as well, but [[:en:WP:Other stuff exists|Other stuff exists]] does not mean that we should keep this one. Of the images you listed, two are OK because the designs do not reach the threshold of originality for copyright protection: designs that are essentially a word and no more don't get protection. The others I have speedy deleted as obvious copyvios. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 06:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC) == [[:Category:Stamps of Afghanistan]] == Would you by chance have any idea what license tag would be suitable for these? Being works of the Afghanistan government I guess they have no copyright but {{tl|copyrighted free use}} doesn't seem appropriate (nor does {{tl|PD-ineligible}} for [[:File:Cover Afghanistan 1954.jpg]] even though it probably is ineligible being a scan of non-copyrighted work but the reason is a little off). [[User:Rocket000|Rocket000]] ([[User talk:Rocket000|talk]]) 03:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC) :Hmm, haven't come across that before. Maybe Lupo will know? Perhaps we need a new tag for "no copyright exists in this country". --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 06:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC) ::Yeah, we probably need a new tag here. I'll have to look into a little more. Thanks. [[User:Rocket000|Rocket000]] ([[User talk:Rocket000|talk]]) 15:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC) == Image:Raiderhighres.jpg == Hi, Michael. Considering no one else had expressed a desire to keep the image, I'm puzzled by your "keep" verdict on [[:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Raiderhighres.jpg]]. If you had specific arguments against deletion, I would rather you had contributed them to the discussion, allowing me to respond, rather than just closing it as a keep. Specifically, I have two concerns. Although the current official logo is indeed very different, the image description says "FHS Red Raider live traced mockup high resolution" It's the "traced" bit that worries me. Another reason you gave for keeping it was that the image was "in use". The problem is that it is in use on the [[:w:Fairport High School]] article to represent the mascot. It ''should not be'' because it is not representative of the actual mascot; in fact I intend to go remove it right now. Could I get you to reconsider deletion, in light of the fact that the uploader claims it to be "traced" and that the only usage of the image was improper? -- [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC) :I agree that the word "traced" is a bit worrying, but I have no idea what if anything it has been traced from: certainly not the original mascot drawing, as both the outline and the internal artwork are quite different. It may have been traced from an original design of the uploader. Whether the image is used in Wikipedia or not is for the local community there to decide, but whether used or not this I think within [[Commons:Project scope|Commons scope]], provided of course that it is not a copyvio. If anyone can identify an image from which it has been copied or traced, we may have to reconsider, but for the moment I think it should be kept. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC) == DELETION OF ANYA TEIXEIRA PICTURE [[:File:095095.jpg]] == I did all you suggested in January. You promised to follow it up. Regrettably it is still missing from her article. J L Gordon :Sorry, I think I missed your reply back in January, but it was noticed and the file restored by Rjd0060 on 2nd Feb. It's been available since then. I have put it back into the enwiki article for you. regards --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Yes.Apologies.I did not look directly but my source was a reproduction of an earlier version. I now feel like an MP in a dreadfulexpenses error. JLG == Seriously == How do you close [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wild Side Story 1976 Life.jpg|this]] Deletion Request after only 1 day of being open?? Commons doesn't have a 5 day or 7 day rule like en.Wikipedia?? '''-''' [[User:Allstarecho|'''A'''LLST'''✰'''R]]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>[[User talk:Allstarecho|echo]]</sup>''' <sub>'''[[Special:Contributions/Allstarecho|wuz here]] @'''</sub> 09:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC) :Requests can be closed in less than 7 days if the closure is obvious - as it was here. Any image that is in use is by definition in scope: see [[Commons:Project scope#File in use in another Wikimedia project]] - "''A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough''." --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC) ::Well we need to get that rule changed. Horribly low quality images like that one need to be set on fire and purged from Commons. I can't imagine an real print encyclopedia ever using an image like that. You can't even make out the faces in the image it's so horrible. '''-''' [[User:Allstarecho|'''A'''LLST'''✰'''R]]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>[[User talk:Allstarecho|echo]]</sup>''' <sub>'''[[Special:Contributions/Allstarecho|wuz here]] @'''</sub> 09:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC) :::Commons doesn't decide for the wikis which images are "good enough". If a wiki decides that a given image is useful to them we keep it even if the quality is poor. Only where a image is not used (and is unlikely ever to be used) will we consider deleting it on quality grounds. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC) ::::Well, you should probably go on and close [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sunbathing.GIF]] as well then. Thanks. '''-''' [[User:Allstarecho|'''A'''LLST'''✰'''R]]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>[[User talk:Allstarecho|echo]]</sup>''' <sub>'''[[Special:Contributions/Allstarecho|wuz here]] @'''</sub> 09:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC) == monobook.js == I've made a number of changes in some scripts (DelReqHandler in particular) to fix some security leaks. I've also cleand up my [[User:Lupo/monobook.js]] a little, so it should be safe now to copy. Which you should do; otherwise the quick-deletion links in the upper left corner on image pages won't work anymore for you. Stuff that you may enable without running into troubles is marked by appropriate commentaries. After copying it, don't forget to [[MediaWiki:Clearyourcache|reload your browser's cache]]. Oh, and with that, you definitively should have the "[del]" links on ''log'' pages. Cheers, [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 12:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC) :What great service! Thanks. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC) :Still no ''[del]'' links on the logs page, though :( Could there be some interference with the code that adds thumbnails to the log listings? --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC) ::No. I also have PrettyLog enabled. Hmmm... I'll test a bit more. Any error messages in FF's error console? [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 12:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC) :::P.S.: And what gadgets have you enabled? [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 12:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC) ::::No, there is nothing in the FF 3.0.10 error log. Gadgets: "+" and "*" tabs, Quick Preview, Pretty log, Gallery Details, Quick Delete, User Messages, Tineye, Cat-a-lot, Hot Cat, PermissionOTRS, EnhancedUndelete. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC) :::::Stranger than strange. With exactly the same configuration, I ''do'' get these pesky links. See [[:File:Log with del links.png|here]]. I have ''no'' idea why you don't get them. Sorry. [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 13:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::It's a problem at my end. The computer is playing up and I don't think it cleared the cache properly. I had to reboot, and now everything looks fine. Many thanks. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC) :::::::That's a relief. I was worried I had missed something obvious. [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 18:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC) == [[:File:Richard Bell artwork.jpg]] == You deleted this file today, but something wnet wrong. It's description page still exists and the log is empty ([]) [[User:Syrcro|sугсго]] 19:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC) :I don't know why that happened, but it seems that somebody else has [[Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention#Deletion problem|noticed a similar problem]]. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC) == User:Felipeslp81 == Had a look at this. This user is [[:es:Usuario:Felipeslp87]], and also active at skyscrapercity as [ Alfonsoslp87]. He is also active here at the commons as [[User:Felipealf87]] (not blocked, last upload May 16, 2009, two days ago, using a DSC-W35). many of the images of [[User:Felipeslp81]] were also shot with a DSC-W35 (a pocket camera, point-and-shoot). I would not delete everything. It appears to me that it is credible that he own a DSC-W35 and delete only all files indicating other models or otherwise clear copyvios. I have not found any of his images anywhere else, including skyscrapercity. The DSC-W35 images look like they could indeed be his own. Apart from his blemished uplaod history as [[User:Felipeslp81]], he also had to face criticism at skyscrapercity (of all places!) for bad sourcing and for apparently not having gotten all facts right. (See [ post by "stardust" on this page if you can read Spanish].) I have no idea, however, whether that critique was justified or not. It reads as if it was. Cheers, [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 21:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC) :OK, thanks. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC) ::And if you [[MediaWiki:Clearyourcache|reload your browser's cache once more]], GalleryDetails will even give you the camera info right there on the log page. :-) [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 16:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC) :::Unfortunately not. I get the ''[del]'' entries on the logs page now, but can't see any camera info. Do you mean the EXIF? --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC) ::::After yesterday's experience with the "[del]"-links, are you sure it's not your computer acting up again? Here's another [[:File:Log with camera info.png|screenshot]]. (Of course, if there is no EXIF info or it has no camera info, there's nothing to display.) [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 19:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC) :::::It could quite well be my computer. FF kept crashing and doing odd things, and I have had to do a full re-install today, including wiping out stored info such as passwords etc. It's certainly not worth you spending time triple-checking everything. Maybe the info will appear as if by magic one day. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC) :::::Yes, it was my machine. I am on another computer at the moment and everything looks just fine here. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC) *Well, never mind. Yann has now deleted all the file he uploaded. So what. [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 19:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC) ::Great :( I was waiting till I had some free time to look over the images carefully and do them one by one. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC) == Wikibreak == Hello, I have a stupid quistion, I would like you to ask you to restore my adminflag. Last week I decided to go on a wikibreak and removed the admin flag. However I will stay on my break but the regular people keep coming to me when the need help. With the adminflag I can help them, and I had enough edit's to stay admin for a few months before Inactivety gets become a problem.. Best regards, [[User:Abigor|'''<font color="dark red">Huib</font>''']]<small>[[User_talk:Abigor|''<font color="black"> talk</font>'']]</small> 18:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC) :Sure. Done. Welcome back :) --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC) ::This ain't a stupid question!!!111onehundredeleven :) →[[User:Nagy|<span style="color:#088A08">Na</span>]][[User talk:Nagy|<span style="color:#FF8000;">gy</span>]] 20:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC) <nowiki>:') Huib talk 18:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - May 2009 Issue

Summary: Whilst our application to HMRC has not yet been successful, we're after your views on the proposed New Chapters' Agreement, your suggestions for a Wikimedia UK conference next year and your ideas for initiatives to start! We also bring you updates on Wikipedia Loves Art, Other Chapters' Activities, Meet-ups and Press coverage.

In this month's newsletter:

  1. HMRC Application Status
  2. New Chapters' Agreement
  3. Wikimania 2010 (and beyond!)
  4. Initiatives
  5. Wikipedia Loves Art
  6. Other Chapters' Activities
  7. Meet-ups
  8. Press coverage

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

would you please ...

Hi, thanks for your answer. I want to move my username from "Ayda D" to "Ayda". Would you help me? --Ayda D (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, happy to help. We do have a procedure for this, and if you'd like to go along to Commons:Changing username you can make your application there. If you need assistance with anything on that page, please let me know. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Did I do it correct? --Ayda D (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Nearly. I have replied on the page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - my mistake. You had it right all along. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --Ayda (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you move File:GeorgeFosterPeabody.jpg to File:GeorgePeabody.jpg?

Per the deletion request you just closed, Commons:Deletion requests/File:GeorgeFosterPeabody.jpg‎. I already edited the former page to prepare for the move, and checked the latter location is empty, and the COM:FAQ#How_can_I_rename.2Fmove_an_image_or_other_media_file? says "ask a friendly admin", so unless the Wacky Races thing is making you less friendly, :-) ...? --GRuban (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I remember the "friendly admin" wording as I added it myself on 17 March. That was during the period of about 3 days when the system developers switched on the feature allowing admins to move files. Unfortunately it was switched off again due to some problems (not sure what), and we are now back to the old ways again. No idea when file moves will be re-enabled. So, at the moment, the only way to re-name a file is to add {{Rename}} to the page, and wait for a bot to do it for you. That's not quick, and I discovered earlier today that the bot has been down since last month. Still, short of re-uploading under the new name, you need to add {{rename|File:GeorgePeabody.jpg|reason}} to File:GeorgeFosterPeabody.jpg, and be patient. I have returned the FAQ text to its older version for now. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Requested. Thanks, friendly admin. :-) --GRuban (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Didn't work, O Friendly Admin. Check the file page or history. Apparently need some kind of approval to make the request. You, as an administrator, have the approval, so can make the request; or can give me the approval. --GRuban (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Moving files here is still hopelessly difficult, and I can't wait for the developers to introduce proper file-move functionality. I have updated the request, and when the bot gets round to looking at the file again it should this time make the move (as long as no-one edits the file in the meantime, as I think the bot determines authorisation by looking at who made the last edit). Sorry this is all taking so long. Please come and shout at me again if it still doesn't work. Btw, I will be away for a few days this weekend. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi Michael,

Have a bit of an awkward situation - I took a photo of Dr. Ramesh Mashelkar after a guest lecture he gave at Monash Uni and I sent it to him as a courtesy and told him I planned to replace his old wiki shot with my new one but wouldn't get around to it till my mid year break. Anyway he must have been a little too keen to have it replaced because he went ahead and uploaded it himself: File:Dr.RAM.jpg. This is obviously a copyvio and released under a license I'm sure you know I wouldn't license under! I'd delete it myself but it might look a bit odd so I was wondering if you could do it for me? I've reuploaded with correct details here. Thanks, --Fir0002 www 13:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I've deleted the image since the uploader doesn't hold the copyright of the image. Bidgee (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks Bidgee --Fir0002 www 11:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
When I'm at work I have a dedicated team of helpers who look after all my tasks for me :) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way Peter, how are you finding the 5D Mk II? I'm thinking of getting one myself. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Haha I see - that's very handy :) The Mk II is very good - a huge step up from my 20D. IQ is excellent and the HD video is superb (it's a shame commons has a 100mb limit...). Its main weakness is that the autofocus isn't as sophisticated a 1 series (it's only incrementally better than my 20D). Also it doesn't feel as "sporty" as a 40D (my Dad has one) because the burst isn't as quick and the shutter lag is greater. But small prices to pay for an excellent camera which I definitely recommend. --Fir0002 www 11:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Poster of Massoud.jpg

Hi, you've deleted the above file on May 11, 2009. Can you please also delete this copy version File:Poster of Massoud, Intercontinental Hotel, Kabul, November 16, 2007.jpg Thanks!--Executioner (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Luisa Valenzuela Quito 1990.jpg

Hi MichaelMaggs, as noted at the end of this DR, I just undeleted all the images of this DR as we have fortunately now a permission in the OTRS system. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, great. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi Michael!

Little problem:
You have closed the DR of this file with the comment deleted, but the image is still there and on its discussion page you can find this note. This "problem" can most easily be solved by you. Best regards, High Contrast (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks for letting me know. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Renaming account

Hello, I've already done what I've been told to. Thanks, --Pperneta (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have replied at Commons:Changing username/Current requests#Pperneta -> Darwinius. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Hello, I upploaded a file from Wiki En using the older account (Pperneta) by mistake (it was saved in the preferences), can this be merged with my regular account? Thanks, --Darwinius (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it's not technically possible to merge accounts. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File talk:Eu-organizations.png

Hi Michael, you've added the notice: "This template was nominated for deletion, but was kept." But there is no answer on the deletion requests page and nobody has corrected the errors in the map. Greetings --Kolja21 (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

How strange. I don't know how that happened. I have removed the template from the talk page (the DR is still open awaiting further comments). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. I have no idea either, but I noticed that DelReqHandler added some strange links that just might have been the cause of this when one viewed an old revision of a deletion request page. For instance on this version, you still get [del][keep] links after the image names, but they're broken and they do reference File:Eu-organizations.png. Maybe that was the cause. I have added some code to MediaWiki:Gadget-DelReqHandler.js to switch it off on old revisions. You should now reload your cache. Lupo 22:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Nice to know you're keeping a very close watch on your code :) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I just hate bugs, in particular my own. It could maybe, just maybe, also be some interaction between the archiving script and DelReqHandler. Though I don't see quite what exactly might have happened, I notice that DA only hid removed entries from the display, but left them in the document. Maybe that confused DelReqHandler. Dunno, really, but I see that you archived the page before you kept File:Moonwalk little girl.jpg. That keep closed the DR all right, but then all of a sudden the edits to File:Eu-organizations.png appear in your contributions. Either you clicked the wrong link, or something else went wrong. In any case, I've also made the DA script really remove archived entries from the page instead of just hiding them. If such strange things with deletions and/or archivals happen again, please tell me: I don't see everything :-). If you can rule out mis-clicks, there must be a bug somewhere. (Sorry, to get the DA change, reload again.) Lupo 22:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanx. --Kolja21 (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted image

The next time you remove an administrator and another image on the argument that you gave without anyone give opinions on the disposal as you did here. I processed the Wikimedia Foundation. Harold

If you would like to do the research, and prove it is public domain, it could be restored. The policy is set out at Commons:Project scope#Evidence. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
This is why people get fed up with commons. "Women's golf competition at the Paris Olympics of 1900" - of course it was published. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
So, have you done the research that proves the photographer died more than 70 years ago? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A slightly higher resolution version of the same image lives at . It credits the image to the Olympic museum/International Olympic Committee. Not sure this helps the undeletion argument much, but if we do get it undeleted, it'll be 5 pixels larger. :-) --GRuban (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; PD-FLGov

Thanks for closing
I'd like to see consistency, with respect to such portraits, and PD-FLGov. What further I can do with respect to, e.g. without being disruptive? E.g. even if I find the same photo on flickr tagged as public domain, if I upload it, I think that would be disruptive. But what if I wrote an essay and proposed it become policy? Would that be an appropriate way to proceed? Would there be any point? I'm far from the only person who argues and thinks these portraits are covered by PD-FLGov and OK to have on wikimedia sites. I think my edits to were a productive path. Thoughts? General Counsel has already spoken. Village Pump? AN/I? Or should I just give up on trying to achieve consistency in this area? --Elvey (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You've linked to a deletion discussion on the English Wikipedia, but the status of an image, or a template, may not be the same here on Commons as it is there. Here, the template {{PD-FLGov}} has survived a deletion request and I see no reason why you should not upload any image that falls within its ambit. That's not disruptive, in my view. If anyone nominates a file you have uploaded for deletion, you can point them to the previous discussion of the template and also to the DR I have recently closed as keep. By uploading to Commons you keep all the legal discussions here and avoid having things deleted because of a possibly different view taken by enwiki. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I'll upload a few images on that basis.--Elvey (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


Please do not upload images you have copied from the internet and for which you do not own the copyright. Please read COM:CB#Internet images. You may be blocked if you continue to upload copyright violations. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

what image? -- WonRyong (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Replied on your talk. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Rejected deletion request for File:SensorSizes.png

Hi, in this deletion request you wrote: "Kept. We don't delete superseded .png files." This seems to be inconsistent with the guidelines at Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates:

A bitmap (PNG, JPEG or GIF) file superseded by a vector graphic is not considered to be exact enough a duplicate. Such files ought to be listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that they may be decided upon, case by case.

The policy states that superseded bitmaps should not be speedy-deleted since the vector versions are not considered duplicates. However, each case ought to be considered invidivually. It appears you haven't done that in this case.

This particular bitmap image has been wholly superseded by a vector version for months, and is totally unused by Wikimedia projects. The vector version is better-quality and more up to date. It's a pain to keep the PNG around, since occasionally a new project or translation will inadvertently use it, and someone will then have to point out to them the availability of the vector version.

So I see no policy that would prevent the deletion of superseded PNG images in general, nor any extenuating circumstances for this one in particular. Moxfyre (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded and the related discussion. Best practice is to link to the vector version from the bitmap. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the explanation. I hadn't thought about the attribution required by licenses. Hmmm... Moxfyre (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

please take a time and eXplain ! =

ok, it is very easy to delete, but who take some minutes and explain? Commons:Deletion requests/File:Timir Pinegin sailing style on Star keelboat from book 1979.jpg in human language, please explain who even by any countrys law can be owner of such photos? Suwa (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The photograph will be copyright-protected even though it was taken in the USSR. Copyright most probably belongs to the photographer or his/her employer. If the photographer has died copyright has probably now passed to the heirs. I am afraid it is often not easy to locate copyright owners, but images cannot be kept here if they are still likely to be protected, whether or not we know who the copyright owner is. I can't read the web page that is linked to - does that give the photographer's name? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

File:HMS Lion (Lion-class battlecruiser).jpg

Hello MichaelMaggs. I was just looking at the deletion log for File:HMS Lion (Lion-class battlecruiser).jpg where you wrote (05:58, 10 September 2007) Web souce says "Other photos are taken from government sources and are therefore already public property" which is incorrect for the UK. The image is now on Wikipedia under fair use restrictions. I'm not sure I understand your deletion summary--why would {{PD-UKGov}} not apply? Because the photographer is unknown? The ship was scrapped in 1924 and it appears to be a government photo. - Gump Stump (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was deleted a long time ago. The websource is totally unreliable as it assumes incorrectly that all UK Government images are PD. However, as you imply, old UK Government images may be OK now, as Crown Copyrighht will have expired. The requirement is that it is a photograph created by the United Kingdom Government taken prior to 1 June 1957. We have no evidence that the photo was taken by a Crown Servant (eg a member of the armed forces) but since it seems very likely that it was I have undeleted the image for you. Regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. It does not seem to have been undeleted though, unless I'm mistaken? Thanks, - Gump Stump (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, in the heading you missed out the File: prefix. It's called File:HMS Lion (Lion-class battlecruiser).jpg. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Agh, stupid. Thanks. - Gump Stump (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Saltlaketornado.jpeg

Hi, would you mind undeleting File:Saltlaketornado.jpeg? I have posted what I believe is sound undeletion reasoning here, and there have been no objections almost a month. I'd really like to have this image back for use at Wikipedia. Thanks! -Runningonbrains 18:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been following that. Can you give me a day or two to read up on it? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done I have commented here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived but not closed

Hi! I just noted that Commons:Deletion requests/Image:תמונה 682.jpg had been archived, but it has not been closed yet. I have no idea whether this was you or someone else, but as you have been working on the backlog, you probably know what to do about it. I have since learned more about Israeli FOP and crossed out my {{vk}}, but I am quite neutral/uncertain on what to do with this image. I think it can be kept as a Gesamtkunstwerk, but it is also possible that Teofilo's cropped version should be restored, and the original deleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks for letting me know. No idea why it was archived. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Breakfast at Tamahan Ryokan, Kyoto.jpg

Hi, MichaelMaggs. I like your photo very much. I upload pictures myself on Wikipedia commons but they aren't cool are yours yet. I posted a comment on en:Talk:Kaiseki. There are some users on Wikipedia Japan asked me to tell you and Wikipedia English editors about it. So I helped them out this a little translation. Please let us know your opinion.--Takoradee (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much for your comments. If editors at the Japanese Wikipedia feel that it is not a good illustration, please remove it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


Already ✓ Done, Michael. Thanks for notice me. Any other changes feel free to contact me. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Deletion request

Thanks for closing this. There was another duplicate upload (File:George. w. bush official portrait.png) that was included in the discussion and also needs deleting. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge ( 15:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done. Thanks.

Urgent request for your attention

Hi, please have a look again at File talk:Flag of the Republic of China.svg, this dispute seems to be ignored by everyone, if you are not going to intervene, please advice what is the next step I can take. Arilang talk 13:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is not much to add to my comment at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention#File:Flag of the Republic of China.svg color is wrong. Anyone who disagrees with the existing colour should upload another version. The discussion should then move to whichever wiki the file is being used on, and the local community there should decide whether they prefer the existing colour or the new one. This is not a dispute for Commons. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Smithsonian Diorama deletions

Hi MichaelMaggs,

I emailed the Smithsonian regarding the images of the Dioramas Funkmonk and I put up for deletion. I received a response from them today which clarified their position of images of the dioramas, which was they are not CC compatible. Is there an appropriate area to post the email here on commons so that future questions on these matters can be referred to the letter without contacting the Smithsonian again? Thanks--Kevmin (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there isn't, but there ought to be. In the absence of any better place I would suggest adding a section for Smithsonian dioramas at Commons:Bad sources, and then sending the email to OTRS for permanent storage. Then, a link can be added on the Bad sources page to the full text of the email in the OTRS system. I wouldn't post the email publicly as it may not have been intended for public viewing. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)--MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)--MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


There is something wrong with my talk page. Regards; Felipe Menegaz 14:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There was an incorrect redirect. It should be OK now. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Plastic surgery

I happened across the images of User talk:Bhalberg all of which look like copyvios per the links on each file page, and I have nominated them for that problem, but I also followed on to the uploads of User:FacialSurgery which all, except the Cessna image, look like advertising from the source links which is a plastic surgery practice of an identical name as the uploader. How best do I deal with these images, or can you do it for me? Ww2censor (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to follow it up. Actually, I don't think this is advertising. He is posting images from his website, true, but they are useful educational images. Posting images of your own profession isn't prohibited. But there is a problem in that the website reserves all copyright, so we need to make sure that we have a proper release for the images, and that the Commons user is the same person who owns the website. I will email him. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed User:FacialSurgery images are good ones and it would be a pity to lose them just because we cannot confirm their licensing. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


At Usurp requests I have requested to usurp a name. Could you have a look at it? Thanks. //Tanziz (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have replied on that page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.//Tanziz (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


You have deleted a scan that I would like to use for research. Is it possible to contact the person who originally posted it, or acquire that image someother way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photografr7 (talk • contribs)

It should be possible for you to contact the uploader via his/her talk page. If you can let me know the name of the image you are referring to, I can easily let you know who uploaded it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Licensing and permissions

Hi, I asked a question regarding copyright at Commons:Bybrunnen and was pointed to an example of a picture you had deleted as an answer, but I'm not quite sure it's the same thing as I want to do. What I want to do is to illustrate a few articles on different magazines – on Swedish Wikipedia, where "fair use" isn't accepted. Every picture has to be free to use et cetera. So, what I want to know is: if I take a picture of, say three issues of each magazine, and get the copyright holders explicit permission to release my picture, is that enough? Or do the cover illustrations have to be released as well (which won't happen, of course)? /Julle (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Where a photo shows a magazine cover, there will be (at least) two copyrights involved: that of the photographer and that of the magazine owners. I am afraid you will need permission from both in order to upload the image here, though the first part will be easy if you have yourself taken the photo. Even if you get permission from the magazine owners, that may still not be enough since the owners will not always own the copyright in any photos or illustrations that appear on the cover. They may have a licence to use a particular image on the cover, but that licence may well not allow them to sublicence others in a broad enough manner for our purposes. That all sounds a bit theoretical, and I might be able to help in more detail if you could let me know what you have in mind. Is there an image of this magazine on the web already, or something like it, that I could have a look at? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, with "copyright holders" I meant that I was planning to ask both the owners of the magazines and the illustrators of the covers in question. This and this picture are two examples of the magazine covers; I was planning to avoid issues with photos not taken with the magazine in mind, since that might be a bit more tricky. I haven't got around to arrange, take and upload any photos yet, as I'm not sure it would be strictly legal, but I had something like this in mind, though perferably a bit closer up and not so many. /Julle (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, and I should probably add: one photo per magazine, of course, but with several issues in each photo. /Julle (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Those will be OK if you can get permission from the magazine and, if different, from the holder of the copyright in the illustration(s). Also, for images like that, the permission that has been granted by the copyright holder would need to be formally recorded in our OTRS system so that a permanent record of the permission can be kept. After uploading, please ask the copyright owner to send the permission to, mentioning by name the image in question, and also the specific licence/permission that is being granted, for example {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. The email must be sent from a domain which can be identified with the copyright owner (eg if the copyright is owned by a company, from the company's domain). Lists of permissible licences can be found here (Creative Commons licences) and here (GFDL licences). If you would like to let me know when the email has been sent, I will check whether the permission sent is OK, and if it is will tag the image for you with the OTRS number so that isn't accidentally deleted as a copyvio later. So long as you can get proper permission, even closeup images will be fine. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, good – then I know what to do when I do it. Thank you for your time! I'm going on vacation now, so it'll have to wait, but I'll remember to get back to you later, when/if I get the permissions. /Julle (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
OK,. best of luck. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
"The email must be sent from a domain which can be identified with the copyright owner (eg if the copyright is owned by a company, from the company's domain)." – This might be a bit tricky, of course. Not so much when it comes to the owners/editors of the magazines as the illustrators (and I'm pretty sure they all still own the copyright to their cover illustrations). They probably don't have their own domains. Ah, well. I'll see what can be done. /Julle (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, and we may just need to take a view on that. With luck, the magazine will assert ownership of the illustration copyright, which may simplify things, as in that case permission from the illustrator would not be needed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Transcluded user templates with embedded license templates

Hi Michael, There is an issue with a user license template of yours and Commons policy. I have drafted a post about it: User:Slaunger/Sandbox/COM:AN message. I intend to post it shortly on COM:AN. Since your user name is mentioned explicitly, I thought you should have a chance to preview it and correct factual mistakes, if any. --Slaunger (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kim, the proposal looks fine to me. I did mine before I realised the potential issue, and am happy to subst: the licence or to remove the template entirely. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
OK. Good. It is only a few files and it can be solved quite easily in your case by simply adding explicitly the license templates to each of the few affected pages and then remove the license from you user template. No need for substing then. --Slaunger (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support :-) wadester16 00:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

More plastic surgery

I warned User:Paravis about some of his uploads here and he has replied that the doctor, for whom he photographs, has updated his terms webpage. However I am not sure the phrasing is appropriate to comply with freely licenced images per Wikimedia. They have confirmed an "Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" CC licence that I found it at Commons:Creative Commons copyright tags. He also asks other questions concerning a possible further about 3000 images. Please have a look at his post on my talk page and see if you can help clarify his issues. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this one. Ww2censor (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I do have a different (but similar) question about licensing -- this image is a photograph I took of a product we use here in the office. I have not found any similar images for use on the Wikimedia networks. But ... As this is a photograph of a product, I wanted to make sure that I am not stepping over the line with any copyright infringement or anything. Our surgery photos/video are definitely home-grown and I know I'm not going to have anyone breathing down my neck about the licensing. But this, well, it's still a little unclear to me. Anyways, thanks again. Paravis (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is OK. There is no copyright in the shape of a standard bottle, as such, and the printing on the label won't attract copyright protection either as it carries only a printed design which is so simple as to be ineligible for protection (it has no illustrations, photographs, artistic logos or anything like that; and there is not enough text to attract textual ("literary") copyright like that of a book). Be careful, though, with photos of packaging and the like, since a lot of packaging carries printing which will be copyright-protected as an artistic work. For that type of packaging you would need permission from the copyright owner, usually the manufacturer. See Commons:Image casebook#Product packaging. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Much thanks Michael. Paravis (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Masoud Barzani

I'm getting a error every time I try to edit that page, so I'll use your talkpage instead. Someone at [Masoud Barzani]] said the page should be moved instead of deleted. But there's already a page with the correct spelling. Which is why I think it should be deleted ~ Zirguezi 17:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ubuntu logos

I noticed you closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ubuntu Logo.svg so maybe you can take a look through Category:Ubuntu Linux and delete others. We have lots of Ubuntu logos and various forms of derivatives. With something this simple (probably PD-ineligible due to being very simple shapes, but not something I would put to the test legally), I can't really tell what all needs to go. There's some questionable de minimis cases as well that I think you'd be better at handling. Thanks. Rocket000 (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi Michael. Can you have a look at this drafted dispute resolution process? Best regards Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 21:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have it on my watchlist, thanks, but I'm not sure I want to jump in just at the moment. I'm unsure. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I was thinking about this side of the draft: Commons:Centralised community discussion#Process. Some of the comments at the talk page related to this may help. See Commons talk:Centralised community discussion#Selecting the group for some ideas. Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 01:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Lake Meredith NRA Fish Fry Tournament.jpg

Hi, would you please restore the image, amend the deletion request and add the following source to the files description page? The original small version is still available on the NPS servers, just fallen out of use on an actual website. --h-stt !? 13:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Now undeletion request filed, have a nice holiday. --h-stt !? 07:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion of File:World Digital Library - Launch.png

Hi there. You might recall closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:World Digital Library - Launch.png as delete, which I agree was fully justified. However, I have (finally) received a response from the copyright holder, giving permission. Therefore, I think it's likely that now it should be undeleted. Since you're on vacation, I've listed the undeletion request at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:World Digital Library - Launch.png. Hope you don't mind. In any case, thanks for deleting it when you did (I'd have done the same)! -kotra (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - July 2009 Issue

Summary: This month, we bring exciting news about our Wikimedia Foundation Grant, as well as news on our chapter Initiatives (get involved!) and our opt-out of Phorm. We also talk about Business Cards, a recent interview of our Secretary for use in university courses and Wikimania 2013 - which seems a long way off! We also include our regular features of chapter activities from around the globe, press coverage, and meetups!

In this month's newsletter:

  1. Wikimedia Foundation Grant
  2. Chapter Initiatives
  3. Phorm
  4. Business Cards
  5. Wikimania 2013
  6. Wikipedia in universities
  7. Other Chapters' Activities
  8. Press Coverage
  9. Meet-ups

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

'your picture has really touched my heart'

gaspar baptista from goa,india


Hi Michael,

can you please have a look on my user-discussion, where I am asked about the deletion of a drawing File:Bear_Grylls.jpg. Am I right that you deleted that picture?

thx --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - August 2009 Issue

Summary: Our Initiatives are starting to be developed - please get involved! In this newsletter, we also announce the results and prizes for Wikipedia Loves Art, and we bring you the latest on our Charity status application, in addition to our regular features on Other Chapters' Activities, recent Press Coverage and recent and upcoming Meet-ups.

In this month's newsletter:

  1. Initiatives
  2. Wikipedia Loves Art prizes
  3. Charity status update
  4. Other Chapters' Activities
  5. Press Coverage
  6. Meet-ups

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Photographers Blackbelt

Wikipedia laurier photo.png
Judo black belt.PNG
I hereby award at you this Photographers Blackbelt for your outstanding and excellent pictures.
--ComputerHotline (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hello, MichaelMaggs/Archive!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:


2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 20:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

photo of Fringilla coelebs

I've found in wikipedia one of your photos. It is a Fringilla coelebs. I ask you the permission of using it for a book of the Regione Umbria (Italia) that will be free distributed. I will credit you with your name under the photo and thanking you in the "credits" of the book , is that ok for you? If you would send me your mail address I will be very pleased to send you the book when it will be published. If I should need some other photos of other species of birds (in the book there will be 76 species) could I use photos from your web-pages?

Best regards,

Giuseppina Lombardi

I have replied by email. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - September 2009 Issue

Summary: This month, our Initiatives Director explains our Initiatives, we update you on our Membership (including some new benefits for members!), keep you informed on our Charity Status application, and update you with our regular sections regarding Other Chapters' Activities, Press Coverage, and UK Meet-ups!

In this month's newsletter:

  1. Initiatives
  2. Membership
  3. Charity status update
  4. Other Chapters' Activities
  5. Press Coverage
  6. Meet-ups

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain

Could you please explain your closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poster of Massoud, Intercontinental Hotel, Kabul, November 16, 2007.jpg?

Nominator asserted the image violated our rules on derivative works. He questioned why the image bore a {{PD-Afghanistan}} template.

While a photo of a politician's campaign poster, in other countries, like the USA, might legitimately trigger concerns the photo violated our policy on derivative rights I am concerned that the {{PD-Afghanistan}} template was recoginized as applying to both the photo of an Afghan politician's campaign poster, taken in Afghanistan and to the poster in the photo.

The nominator seems to be saying that we should assume the photo was taken by a European. They base this assumption on their own personal opinion -- "original research" if you will. And, even if the Massoud did employ a foreigner to take this picture, if the picture was taken in Afghanistan {{PD-Afghanistan}} would still apply. Geo Swan (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgotten deletions

You closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:VZLAVoteBurning6JPG.jpg as delete, but you did not delete the file. Same for the other numbers in this series, it seems. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Typhoon Generation.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
And another one: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portale Annibale Mariotti.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Done & deleted. Pieter, Michael is active only very sporadically these days; he "temporarily retired" in August and has edited only rarely since then. Lupo 22:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Lupo, but can you also delete File:VZLAVoteBurning1JPG.jpg and the other numbers in this series? Also those were closed as delete. See User talk:Maxsmodels for the whole series. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. Lupo 08:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi Michael, I noticed you were semi-retired or on a break -- I hope you will feel better and return even if you don't get involved in all the heavy debates; your experience and expertise are valuable . / Fred J (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of photo

Michael -

It's been quite a long time for me on Wikipedia. I recently logged in and noted that an image of mine had been deleted:

The actor in the image was NOT Haley Joel Osmet, it was Lucas Riney. My company, Adakin Productions holds 100% of the copyright for the film and the images of the actors therein. Although I was, formerly a cinematographer, I was the producer and director of the film that frame was taken from and own the production company - all rights are mine to assign. When I was an active Wikieditor, I utilized that image as a technical example of film aspect ratios, if I recall correctly. I have been away from Wikipedia, so missed the note that was placed on my page regarding the deletion discussion. I'd like to appeal this decision and have the image reinstated. Please let me know what I need to do.

Jay Holben LACameraman Adakin Productions Los Angeles, CA LACameraman

I would recommend that you send an email to OTRS. See COM:OTRS for information on what it should contain in the email and the address to email it to. Bidgee (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Usage of Dendrocopos Feather Image


The photos you take are very well done. In particular, I wanted to ask about using the Dendrocopos feather image in a 3D composition for a website banner. The website is at, though the banner mentioned hasn't been officially finished yet.

I know that you didn't request that you be notified specifically on the feather image, but I saw on the other images that you did request such a thing, so I thought it would be best to let you know anyway.

Edit: of course, it would be best to give you contact information. eztenia (at)


Sure, feel free to use it, but please attribute the image to me. All the best, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)