User talk:P199

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the Wikimedia Commons you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at

This is the user talk page of P199, where you can send messages and comments to P199.
  • Please sign and date your entries by clicking on the appropriate button or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
  • Put new text under old text.
  • New to Wikimedia Commons? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers as soon as possible.
  • Click here to start a new topic.

বাংলা | български | čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | français | hrvatski | italiano | 한국어 | മലയാളം | português | русский | sicilianu | 中文 | +/−

  • Be polite.
  • Be friendly.
  • Assume good faith.
  • No personal attacks.

Photos marked for deletion[edit]

Hi P199,

You have marked these pictures for possible deletion.

I am the creator of the article Ron Baird, I have a family connection with him (which I have disclosed), and used these pictures with his permission. Let me know if there is anything I can do to verify the validity of these photographs.


Artscanada (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Artscanada: A family connection or permission is not sufficient. The photographer of these images him/herself has to explicitly release the images with a Commons compatible license, see COM:OTRS. Please continue the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Artscanada. --P 1 9 9   21:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Leopard cat range.PNG[edit]

Hi, please be aware that a map is not a 'Geographic or topographic feature'. Maps are copyrighted. This map is clearly above TOO. Please reconsider your closure. Jcb (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

  • @Jcb: We have had this discussion before. It seems your interpretation is far stricter than what COM:DW says. In this case, the base map is nothing more than a simple outline of country borders. As per COM:DW: The factual information, such as boundary lines and locations of landmarks, is supposedly unprotected. By comparison, I deleted a map today that clearly presents the map info in a proprietary way and does not meet the exceptions stated in DW (File:Cartefortant.png). --P 1 9 9   18:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Do you mind if I renom for second opinion? Only very few admins keep such maps. Not sure if you are familiar with the process of map making. Being a pilot, I have had to learn a lot about this. A map of such a part of the world is (unlike e.g. some square US states), not just simple data. The earth is more or less spherical, while maps are flat. Map makers have to make several choices to bring the advantages and disadvantages of several approaches (e.g. constant angle, constant distance) in a balance, so that the combination of those factors leads to a map that is the most suitable for a certain purpose. A map like this one is really not something you draw on a rainy afternoon. Jcb (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
      • @Jcb: I'm sorry, but the means and methods of map making are not the issue. DW are based on the final result. Suppose this map was indeed based on a non-free image and we asked the author to redo it based on File:BlankMap-World.png, it would look exactly the same! That shows that there is nothing proprietary on this map; COM:DW states: A map isn't copyrightable if the idea it expresses could only be done in one way. IMO I feel this applies to simple outline maps. Regards, --P 1 9 9   18:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
        • "could only be done in one way" - this is definitely not true for suchs maps, there is big variety of possibilities and there are many different results possible. See also en:Map projection. Jcb (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jcb: This requires much wider discussion than just the 2 of us. Better to do this at the Village Pump then to nominate individual images. Regards, --P 1 9 9   16:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Almost all admins do recognize that maps are copyrightable. I do not see a wider problem here. While handling the Images without source backlog, I come accross many unsourced maps. Basically there are three possibilities:
    1. I find the source (e.g. via information outside the 'source' field) and that source is free, e.g. CIA maps.
    2. I do not find a free source and I start a DR. During that DR, somehow new information leads to a free source. Result: file is kept.
    3. I do not find a free source and I start a DR. No free source is found during that DR. Result: file is deleted.
  • In case of this file, the DR was closed as kept, while a valid free source was absent. This is normally unheard of and should not happen. I can accept that an admin could somehow misunderstand DW, but I would be negligent if I would not try to fix this with the involved colleague. Jcb (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Deleted pictures[edit]

Hello colleague. I would like these photos to be deleted. Very much please.

Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ragnar Holte.jpg[edit]

Hi, I would like you to be more specific when closing this DR. Please explain, what discussion do you mean — random speculations on the age of the photograph, which has been never published before uploading on Commons or unreasoned voting, started due to canvassing on svwiki? What is your opinion on this comment, concerning COM:HIRTLE? Sealle (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • So are you going to reply? Sealle (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Sealle: Re-evaluating now. Give me another day. --P 1 9 9   21:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Should I still wait for an answer from you? Sealle (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Sealle asked me to comment. At moment, the file states 1966 as creation year. No proof for that is given, but considering, how Ragnar looks like, this is plausible and in my opinion the photo is in public domain in source country Sweden, because 50 years from creation has passed. But current license states: "You must also include a United States public domain tag". I'm afraid, that the photo is still copyrighted in USA. No publication data here. If the photo was ever published, then 95 years from first publishing is needed, but if it was never published, then 120 years from creation is needed for public domain. Taivo (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sealle: Done. Sorry, Commons was pretty low on my priority list this week. --P 1 9 9   18:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I follow this discussion because I think it is a very interesting issue. I interpret this sentence "The only mention of such a rule was added in 1994 with the URAA in 17 USC 104A, which automatically restored copyrights on many foreign works, unless these works had already fallen in the public domain in their country of origin on the URAA date, which is January 1, 1996 for most foreign countries" in this paragraph [[1]] that public domain in Sweden [PD Sweden Photo] also means public domain in the USA. This regulation is also stated in this tag: [PD 1996] Photos before 1969 only had 25 years of copyright in Sweden. So they became in public domain in Sweden 1994. So, therefore, I would say that this photo, also should be in PD in the USA. --Tore Danielsson (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Link to where it is written about the old law in Sweden about 25 years after publicity, which Tore mentions. Adville (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop contributing to this discussion here. For those unhappy with the outcome, see COM:UNDEL instead. --P 1 9 9   17:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was ok to ask you to re-evaluate according to the fact that were not looked upon, because @Sealle: asked you here and you re-opened without any problems. What is the difference now? According to @Tore Danielsson: the Swedish laws were looked upon wrong (assuming 50 years when it was 25) and therefor it was not judge in a correct way. Adville (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Special rules for friends and admins on Commons? I really wondered what I wrote above because you are the one keeping and then when a friebd asks you to reopen you do without hesitation and delet the picture without looking inte the laws (maybe trusting him?), but when confronted you did a misstake from an admin from another wiki you say "go to UNCOL" instead if you are unhappy... why not just take a look into it again? Adville (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Adville: COM:AGF. This has nothing to do with friends or admin status. When I originally closed the DR, I only looked at the consensus that the image was from before 1969, but User:Sealle brought to my attention that I had overlooked the copyright status in US. But since you are bringing more new arguments, it is indeed the right procedure to bring it to COM:UNDEL. --P 1 9 9   14:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation, and excuse me to be so eager to get a reply. This is the first conflict I've been involved in on commons (started on svwp by sealle with revenge deletions here). Therefor it looked strange when he proceeded (without contacting another admin in the first case when he said he would, but forced you to answer here...). We will go to that page and ask for undeletion because, as @Tore Danielsson: said we need a case where it is stated "this is how it works with Swedish pictures before 1969". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adville (talk • contribs) 14:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion Request[edit]

Dear 199,

I don't know how to use a talk page so apologies if this is incorrect, but you are the administrator who closed a deletion request, here, as kept.,_Switzerland.jpg

One administrator argued to delete because the photographer who submitted the photo, and took it, was the person submitting the deletion request. Another administrator, who argued the photo should be kept, used the reasoning that it was the only usable photograph of this author, but in fact there is now, on wiki commons, an excellent and authorized photo of this author. The photo under review doesn't look anything like the author, and was taken backstage after her reading. She was not aware her picture was being taken, and this was in Switzerland, where consent must be granted to take and publish photos. Lastly, the photo is so distorting as to be defaming. You can see that she has no idea the photo is being taken, and the photo looks nothing like her. On your contribution, you write "in use." But the photo is only in use because it was previously the only photo on wiki commons. Others have tried to swap this awful photo for the legal one that looks like her, but wikimedia seems to switch it back for some reason. Finally, the photographer who took and uploaded the photo to begin with was, again, the person who submitted the deletion request, so there's no dispute there. He also doesn't want this photo on Wiki Commons. Please help. Thanks. Rosepoussiere (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

it's quite strange that a professional photo that looks like the author was immediately deleted, and a harmful terrible photo taken with no consent remains for the world to see ... thank you for adding supportive commentary to deleting the awful image. But I wonder why the useful and accurate image was deleted, since the photographer herself put it on the commons? 00:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)