User talk:Moogsi/Archives/2013/April

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.

File: PetriTapioMattson2011d.jpg Deletion request

The file in question is being used at Ptmattson (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it hadn't been used anywhere when it was nominated. --moogsi (blah) 16:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Mediawiki... translation

Hi, plz help to create those Mediawiki page (those need for bn language).

  1. MediaWiki:Welcome/bn -> স্বাগতম
  2. MediaWiki:Welcome-url/bn -> Commons:স্বাগতম
  3. MediaWiki:Village pump/bn -> ভিলেজ পাম্প
  4. MediaWiki:Latestfiles/bn -> সাম্প্রতিক ফাইলসমূহ
  5. MediaWiki:Randomimage/bn -> অজানা যেকোনো ফাইল
  6. MediaWiki:Contact/bn (Change the english & add this) -> যোগাযোগ
  7. MediaWiki:Contact-url/bn -> Commons:যোগাযোগ

Thanks :) --Aftab1995 (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This one also: MediaWiki:Participate/bn -> অংশগ্রহণ --Aftab1995 (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done. I was just about to tell you you missed that one :) The whole sidebar is now in Bengali, thank you --moogsi (blah) 16:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank You :) --Aftab1995 (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request

Hi Moogsi, I was wondering if you could say why this isn't eligible for speedy deletion.

It is tagged as "all rights reserved" on Flickr, there's no evidence (e.g. a link to an old version of the Flickr page) showing that the image was ever released, the photographer – who might be the boy's mother – has disabled downloading, there is no model release from a parent although it identifies a minor, and the uploader has been blocked from the English Wikipedia for child-protection reasons (I didn't want to mention that in my speedy request). There also isn't really anything educational about it. For all these reasons combined, would speedy deletion not make the most sense? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I rejected the speedy as I'm not aware of any legislation in the U.S. which protects images like this of children, any more than images of anyone else. See COM:PEOPLE and Commons:Country specific consent requirements. Images of identifiable people are problematic for a number of reasons, but consent is not needed to publish this picture in the U.S. If you have another reason to doubt the source or the legality of the image, please nominate it, as I'm only describing the legal situation as I understand it. I don't think the intentions of the uploader have any bearing on whether we can host the file. Thanks --moogsi (blah) 00:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't address the copyright of the file - it is tagged with {{Flickr-change-of-license}}. The license was reviewed at the time it was uploaded to Commons and found to be compatible. The license on Flickr can change at any time --moogsi (blah) 00:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Moogsi, I know the page tag says that the image was previously released on Flickr, but there's no evidence of that (e.g. no link to an old page, no screenshot showing a release). We therefore only have the word of the photographer, and she is clearly not releasing it now. There's also no indication that the photograph was taken in a public place, so the restrictions in COM:PEOPLE arguably apply. Add to that the background of the uploader, and the fact that the image is not educational, and it seems that it's in everyone's interests to delete it, as a matter of courtesy.
If you disagree, would you at least allow me to restore the speedy tag in case another admin agrees with me? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
That's weird... I did it just before you posted that :) Yes.. those laws only apply to photographs taken in a public place, I didn't quite grasp that. As for the copyright status, CC licenses are irrevocable. You can "stop releasing" something, but you can't tell people to stop using it under the terms of the license --moogsi (blah) 01:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring it. I know people say these licences are irrevocable, but that would be for courts to decide, and I don't know to what extent the irrevocable clause has been tested. But regardless, the point here is that we don't know whether it was ever released in the first place. I would normally ask the photographer, but I'm unsure of the wisdom of drawing the mother's attention to this. It would be better all round if it were simply deleted. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


Hola! Por qué borraste la imagen "La_Banda_del_Parque_(con_humo_de_color).jpg" como copyright violation cuando fue tomada por mí. No la saqué de ningún lado,y le pido que antes de borrar imágenes se asegure de que poseen copyright. Si no deshace el borrado, me veré obligado a realizar una queja, poseo pruebas que demuestran que la foto la tomé yo. Espero su respuesta! --Fmln93 (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Traducción automática, disculpas por mi analfabetismo:
Hola. La foto ha sido eliminada por precaución, ya que también se carga otra imagen de la misma cosa que era demostrablemente una violación de derechos de autor. Además, también han subido muchas otras imágenes con copyright. Por favor, no subir fotos al azar a través de Internet, porque va a exponer su propio trabajo a la duda. Soy incapaz de restaurar el archivo en estas circunstancias. Por favor, solicite a Commons:Undeletion requests si son capaces de demostrar que tomó la foto. Gracias.
Hello. The photo was deleted as a precaution, because you also uploaded another image of the same thing which was provably a copyright violation. In addition, you have also uploaded many other copyrighted images. Please do not upload random photos from the internet, as it will expose your own work to doubt. I am unable to restore the file under these circumstances. Please request at Commons:Undeletion requests if you are able to prove you took the photo. Thank you. –⁠moogsi (blah) 23:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
No hay problemas por el idioma, yo también tengo mis dificultades para hablar en otras lenguas. Reconozco que sí subí fotos que no eran de mi autoría, porque pensaba que no había inconvenientes en que estuvieran en Wikimedia y porque eran a mi criterio mejores de las que ya estaban. Pero como vi que todas eran rechazadas (y con rázon, aclaro que entiendo que no se pueden subir fotos sin autorización del autor), busqué una imagen tomada por mí para que siendo de mi autoría no pudiera ser borrada, pero me encuentro con que fue borrada por precaución. Entiendo su punto, pero borrarla por si acaso debo reconocer que no me parece una buena decisión. Gracias de todas formas por responder. --Fmln93 (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi Moogsi. It seems to me that you failed to think twice here. The picture has been in de.wikipedia since 2007, uploaded by an experienced user. The suspected source websites are blogs and similar with posts dated 2009 and 2010. --Leyo 09:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I certainly did :( –⁠moogsi (blah) 09:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
If you disagree with my undeletion, you may file a regular DR. --Leyo 09:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Raffaello, madonna terranuova, 1504-05.jpg

Hi Moogsi,

in Category:Terranova Madonna are 6 files. via Category:Paintings by Raffaello Sanzio in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin‎ via Category: Italian Renaissance paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin‎ and :Category:Paintings in the Gemäldegalerie Berlin by painter‎ Category:Paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin is parent company. I hope you agree that I deleted this parent company for the file.––Oursana (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes of course, it's a clear case of overcategorization on my part... I am currently sorting through files which have no license and occasionally if the categories look a bit sparse then I add some. Looks like I didn't actually look at the 1 category in this case :) Thanks for fixing my mistake –⁠moogsi (blah) 00:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested moves

Hi Moogsi, I noticed that you did some cleaning up work in requested moves; great. Concerning Groß-Buchholz (Hannover), I contested for the reason that people continue to use the silly logic that for now, they are the only one item with that name, so it should not be disambiguated. If you knew how much time I spent on renames of Kings street, Main street, Queen street, Church street, ... because of that logic. So generally, people start to understand that names of streets and quarters are better disambiguated (in fact, this should have been imposed for all places in Europe as finally, we almost always find a similar name on the other continents).

Moreover, if you have such a systematic approach for all quarters, squares and streets as in Hannover, there are much fewer mistakes made, and the name is settled once and for all. The advantages of a systematic approach are well understood by most contributors in Italy and in cities where the street names are well developed, while in the Slavic countries, there are almost permanently moving going on (I recently renamed the street Čínská in Prague that means Chinese). So personally, I almost never move to get rid of a disambiguation as the problem tends to come back anyway and each attempt to a systematic naming approach should be supported, unless you have the ambition to keep busy with renaming dor the rest of your live.

Concerning disputed requests, don't hesitate to remove long standing disputed move requests as "No consensus". Enjoy. --Foroa (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Foroa! Thanks, I used to look at this before I had admin and think why is there such a backlog here? And then like a big hypocrite I haven't actually even looked at doing it until now :)
I have created a few street categories and I actually did check whether they were the only ones with that name before creating them (well, assuming Google Maps is relatively accurate). As you say, it doesn't require any effort, present or future, if one just assumes there are other streets with the same name (as there so often are) –⁠moogsi (blah) 00:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

DelReqHandler issue

Hi Moogsi. I see this problem has affected your handling of DRs as well. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Daily DR issue. INeverCry 19:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it has definitely affected you most because of the amount of daily DR closures you've been doing. The thread on AN is good, Hopefully someone will spot something else useful. As the bug report says, the error itself is annoyingly non-specific –⁠moogsi (blah) 00:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Categorization / Cultural heritage monuments in Poland

See please, "category" of this cultural heritage. Tamplate "zabytek" with number of heritage and description is in the category. 13:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sorry. Carry on :) –⁠moogsi (blah) 13:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

bn translation

plz fullfill this request.Also this one --Aftab1995 (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done, thanks again –⁠moogsi (blah) 17:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Wishing Steps licence

Popular file :) 7 languages. Yeah, you can update the license to Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0, but it looks like its already been done... Thesteve (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi Moogsi. I found your culprit. This is a sock of User:Mabel-100. I've blocked the new account. INeverCry 00:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


I'm the author of the Wikipedia article the above image was deleted from, I just noticed it's deletion. The article is currently queued to appear on Wikipedia's main page DYK. Although there may not be enough time to get the image reinstated for that, I'd still like to proceed with whatever may be necessary to reinstate it. Can you please advise me as to what is needed, from who, and sent to where? Appreciate it. Thanks in advance. Penwatchdog (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, hopefully you understand from the reason why the file was deleted. The uploader (who appears to be the author, judging from the promotional wording of the descriptions) uploaded the picture apparently with no knowledge of Commons' licensing restrictions. I know that that they don't want people to use the file for free, so I can't claim ignorance here.
Obtaining permission to use the file via OTRS would take too long. I don't know how much time you have. I would ask the uploader User talk:Alcharpentier whether it is possible for them to upload the picture again with a free license, but to make sure they understand what that means, and not claim "All rights reserved". I have absolutely no idea how willing they would be to do this. Tell them it's because the image will be linked from the front page of English Wikipedia and, seeing as their purpose appears to be promotional, that will probably bend their ear. If they want to upload the picture again, ask them to use a different filename, as a new user they will not have success uploading over their own deleted file. If that fails you could try contacting them at, depending on how much time you have.
Let me know if you get anywhere. I'm sorry that you used media which isn't free –⁠moogsi (blah) 06:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and you also might ask at COM:AN and see if anyone else is willing to undelete the file now for this reason. Someone else might do it (no guarantees :) –⁠moogsi (blah) 06:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I put in a request at [DYK:TALK] to try to have the article's DYK appearance delayed while I try to work something out. I've notified Al Charpentier as well but I haven't heard back yet. I'm sure this is an oversight on his part; if he uploaded the file its a sign he's willing to allow its use. I have no idea what kind of licensing he uploaded the image as, but he uploaded it. It's the weekend and I haven't got much time to spend with this but I'll check in as possible. Thanks for your help. If there's anything you personally are in a position to do, or find someone to do, great. Will keep in touch. Penwatchdog (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Hiya Moogsi. Currently: the Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations wiki already made its appearance in DYK yesterday without the image, but I'd still like to get the image into the article for posterity. I've had contact with the uploader/author. I'd neglected to mention to you I'd been in touch with him/them from the start, as I'd been the one who solicited the image from them in the first place. Although they've now re-iterated their permission to use the image again, seems like they've lost patience with dealing with the procedure (maybe they'd had problems before?). They've provided their consent in their most recent Email to me, giving me permission to upload a new lower-res version of the same image (which they've provided) and use it in the wiki article. So, can you please advise me of the proper procedure? I'd be happy to spend the minutes to do it myself, BUT, I don't want to've put in my own time then only to have the same thing happen again!
If I simply go through the upload process using my own User-name, but include my Email communications with Al Charpentier somewhere within the upload (which also shows their contact information), will it pass without further problems? Based on what I'm explaining to you now, can you help/make it pass without problems? Your continued assistance in seeing this through is highly appreciated! Penwatchdog (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello :) If your email correspondence:
  1. Is with an address which is identifiable with the rightsholder (probably * or similar in this case)
  2. Contains an explicit statement which releases the file under a Commons-compatible license ("You can use this on Wikipedia" isn't enough)
Then you can forward the email to (tell them what the filename is on Commons!) and put {{OTRS pending}} in the license section of the file. Then you're done.
If you don't have permission in that form then I'm afraid you have to ask for it again. Commons:OTRS shows what we usually require when work is not the uploader's own, or has been previously published. I'm sorry this has been so annoying for you. User:Alcharpentier's identity as the rightsholder was unknown to us, so their uploads were treated like any other image from the internet which gets uploaded to Commons (we get a lot of that) –⁠moogsi (blah) 08:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  ?Something like this...
"I, (person), a recognized representative of (group), creator and copyright holder of the image (name), allow permission for it to be uploaded to the "Wikimedia Commons" database under the "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0" free license agreement. I/we give consent for the upload to be handled by Wikipedia author (& Wikimedia contributor) (me) whom approached us personally to use the image in his (title) wikipedia article. I/we understand that by permitting this upload, we are also allowing the image's further re-use. Any inquiries regarding this matter may also be directed to me/us personally at"
...and by replying in that manner by Email to me, showing their direct "person@group" Email address, should allow me to proceed with the upload? And for it to be acceptable for (OTRS?)? And I should include all-the-above in the upload info? Thanks for your continued assistance. I feel like such an idiot with these matters! Penwatchdog (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It's fine. There is an email template halfway down Commons:OTRS which you can use. The process isn't as transparent as it could be –⁠moogsi (blah)


বাংলা | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Македонски | മലയാളം | Português | Русский | Svenska | +/−

float  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators noticeboard. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

--Neotarf (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Thanks for all of your contributions at Wikimedia Commons! :-) Steinsplitter 17:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! :) –⁠moogsi (blah) 19:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


Thank you! BTW, I notified him the copyviolation, then he uploaded another copyvio. Bye, --Delfort (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Robert Ross monument

The monument was created in 1821, 100 years before even the concept of copyright itself was introduced. What kind of "copyright violation" have you found in this file and why was it deleted in such a hurry without waiting? Deinocheirus (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason for the deletion should be visible to avoid confusion. It was:
Marking as possible copyvio because © Courtauld Institute of Art:
The issue is not with the copyright of the sculpture, but with that of the photograph, which is separate. See Commons:Image_casebook#3D art (sculptures etc.) Please let me know if you have any questions, I'm sorry that this was deleted without apparent explanation –⁠moogsi (blah) 12:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
You mean that 2D copy (photograph) of a 3D artwork is protected by a separate copyright? That's news to me. OK, understood. Thanks for explaining. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

small error in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Letky 2.jpg

Hi, I'm not sure it's necessary to bother you about this, but when you closed the deletion request you wrote "deleted." I don't think that's what you meant. Rybec (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Haha, thank you. No, that's not what I meant :) –⁠moogsi (blah) 23:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Ophélie Koering 02.JPG

Hi Moogsi. I just tagged this as a copyvio because it was watermarked, and you deleted this and another one. Now I've come across Category:Ophelie Koering and found that the same uploader has been providing high-resolution quality images including metadata. So from the technical point of view this might well be the original photographer Carlotta Forsberg whose images are also being used all across the web. I've left them a notice about OTRS at their user talk. De728631 (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, I wouldn't have noticed. If the uploader is the photographer then, as you say, she will have to confirm her identity as her work is very much previously published. It's also possible that the uploader is the subject - Elfy70 for someone named Ophélie born in 1970 is not a big stretch :) –⁠moogsi (blah) 00:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I've been thinking about the "Elfy" connection too. Might as well be someone from her agency. De728631 (talk)

File:SIOM.jpg and File:SIOM at night.jpg

Hi Moogsi - a file you removed for copyright violation has been re-uploaded by User:Saikatsit as Own work- see: here. Cheers, Acabashi (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up :) –⁠moogsi (blah) 02:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Why did you remove a picture with a valid license ?

Hello, On the french page Niko Bellic on Wkipedia (, I added a photo of the character that I have upload myself on Wikicommons : File:Niko Bellic.png, but you have remove the picture with the reason : "Copyright violation". However I posted this picture from the Internet by an advanced search where only images without copyright were display. What's more I checked the license Creative Commons on the website of the author before upload on Wikicommons and it was valid. Thanks for answer me and sorry for my english.

Hello, I deleted the file because it is a direct copy of game artwork which is copyrighted. The license on deviantart doesn't matter; because the uploader on deviantart did not originally create the image, it's still copyrighted by Rockstar, the makers of GTA IV. The uploader at deviantart never owned the rights to the image, so they can't release them. This is a difficult thing to explain across a language barrier. If you don't understand then you can ask at Commons:Service d'aide where you might get a more satisfactory answer. Thanks, –⁠moogsi (blah) 21:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer, I have understand but I have a question : I can't upload this picture because the licence wasn't valid because don't own by the uploader but by Rockstar but can I upload this picture with a copyrighted licence like I see on the English page of Niko Bellic ( ? Thank you and sorry to disturb you. --Nicryc (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Non-free content is uploaded to the English language Wikipedia as "fair use". Francophone Wikipedia doesn't allow content under this exception, sorry. Different Wikipedias have different policies on this, see meta:Non-free content. You're welcome, don't apologize for asking :) –⁠moogsi (blah) 15:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
But, I found a photo on the Wikimedia Commons of Ezio Auditore (so a character of video games owned by Ubisoft) with a Creative Commons licence 3.0 ( Why this photo can be upload and not a photo of Niko Bellic for example ? Thank you so much, you taught me a lot about the upload of pictures on Wikipedia, thank you. --Nicryc (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The simple answer is "nobody noticed it" :) - Commons is run by volunteers and there are ~10000 new uploads per day. The uploader of that file made the same mistake you did - the file at source is licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0, but it's actually a non-free screenshot from the AC:B trailer –⁠moogsi (blah) 21:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Demolished buildings

FYI, a suggestion has been added. Hamblin (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


Hello, I've removed the template. I've copied the info from de original Russian Wikipedia and put this template:

PD-icon.svg This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Inquisitor at the Russian Wikipedia project. This applies worldwide.

In case this is not legally possible:
Inquisitor grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

. Regards, --Bagratun (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but how did you know this is the license of the file? It didn't even have one on, that's why I tagged it –⁠moogsi (blah) 23:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC) I didn't expect it to still be there! Never mind –⁠moogsi (blah) 23:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Licence File:AbsideCattedraleSarlat.JPG

Dear Mr. Moogsi, I thank you for your warning about the above mentioned image. May be, that when I have uploaded this file, I have forgotten to specify the related licence. Anyway, no doubt that it is my own work and in such cases I release the Images in Public Domain. So I have just put this tag {{PD-self|author=K.Weise}} in the file description and hope to have done the correct thing. Please check it: If there is still something wrong or unclair, please don't exitate to contact me again. Yours faithfully--K.Weise (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, thank you for adding the license! –⁠moogsi (blah) 08:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, please remove protection for a time with logo I want to download a higher quality here. You can then be put back on defense. with respect -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, the logo is fine, but do you have a vector version that you can upload to File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-ce.svg? A vector version of the loogo must also be available. Thank you, –⁠moogsi (blah) 18:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I was told that you can not use SVG wikipedia. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Quite the contrary: please re-create the new version in an SVG editor (preferably Inkscape, since Adobe Illustrator leaves a lot of redundant code) and re-upload it under File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-ce.svg — I will then export a PNG file out of that SVG and upload it to File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-ce.png so that it appears on your wiki. Thanks! odder (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-ce.svg font Linux Libertine. please put. --Дагиров Умар (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Please convert text to path in that file, thanks! odder (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, but I have to download it here and there is protection can take off on time? -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry? I meant that in the SVG file that you uploaded, text needs to be converted into path before I create a PNG file and re-upload it. odder (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
So I did the right thing? -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I did Object to Path Made. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I do not speak English and the interpreter did not translate what I wanted to say ... I did what you asked can download thank you. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank logo is now normal. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, sorry! I did update the PNG logo ages ago, just to forgot to mention it here. odder (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


Hello Moogsi, yes, of course I meant {{Self|Attribution}} as a licence. The reason why I have to sobstitute it is that upload tools do not allow me to choose it from the beginning, so I am forced to change it after uploading. My intention is to place my pictures under a "green copyright": copyrighted, but free for any uses, including commercial ones. I noticed it works better than the "cc-attribution-share-alike" in having re-user mentioning author's an source when republishing them. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 09:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

edit request

hi, i add a new request here. plz, fullfill this. thanks --Aftab1995 (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done... did you know that edit requests appear in Category:Commons protected edit requests? Someone will get round to them eventually :) –⁠moogsi (blah) 00:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, i know. but problem is they doing it 3/4 days later :P --Aftab1995 (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Temp. isn't show in bn lang. may be some problem.plz go here then remove ({{{2}}}) and add {{{2}}} [without bracket (in bn line)] --Aftab1995 (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems fine to me. Are you sure you're not seeing instances of {{Flickrreview}}? –⁠moogsi (blah) 20:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I see here but on the image page (for example:File:Dasarath Rangasala Stadium.jpg) i can't see. --Aftab1995 (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)