User talk:Rlevse/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the this page.
Archive 1 - Archive 2 - Archive 3 - Archive 4 - Archive 5 - Archive 6


BSA images[edit]


BSA holds copyright to all its images, this is not PD, it's a logo --Rlevse 00:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information but it is part of my collection of scout badges when I was a Scoutmaster, should every single badge be deleted? There are a lot of them I and others uploaded. Perhaps I can put the copyright information on the image pages of all my uploads. Keep is my vote. WayneRay 00:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)WayneRay
As these logos, patches, MBs, etc are copyrighted, they cannot be on wikicommons. YOu could use them on under a legit fair use though.Rlevse 00:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Then why hasn't someone from the two Scouting organizations put up examples of their badges and insignias??? Just remove all these notices and as previously discussed just go and delete them. Otherwise contact Scouts Canada or USA and get their permission or put a different tag in each photo. You don't have to keep coming through me. Thanks though WayneRay 19:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

World Jamboree 2007 images by Tom Warren[edit]

Hi, you have uploaded a few dozen images by Tom Warren. You have indicated that a permission has been sent to OTRS. I cannot find it. Please resend it to and let me know as soon as you have sent it. Please ensure that you mention Tom Warren and the names of the related images. Cheers! Siebrand 11:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


I've replied on my talk page. --MichaelMaggs 13:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

FP review[edit]

I have replied on my talk page. Sorry for the delay - I have been away. --MichaelMaggs 07:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator![edit]

Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Svenska | +/−

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

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

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

Please also check or add your entry to Commons:List_of_administrators and the related lists by language and date it references...

Congratulations. Please do participate in our community discussions to the extent convenient for you, we welcome your input. Oh, and FIX THAT BANNER at the top of your page, it's wildly inaccurate since it says you're not a sysop here. :) ++Lar: t/c 14:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

PS, since you don't have babel boxes on your user page (which you should fix, this is a very multilingual project) I didn't know what langs to use, you will need to do the adding to the three lists: Commons:List_of_administrators, Commons:List of administrators by language and Commons:List of administrators by date Please advise if that's not clear what to do. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Congrats. LaraLove 18:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Congrats Evrik 18:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I add my congratulations. I have no doubt that you will be a great administrator here. ERcheck 00:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

see what you think.[edit]

I tableized a lot of it. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I like it. But I just moved the images to a gallery subpage, so I'll update that. See Riana's user page too, it has some nice features. Thanks again! RlevseTalk 18:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I just slammed it again. :) I'm off now, my work here is done. :) ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sir Peter Lely 001a.jpg[edit]

Why did you delete it? Rainer ... 23:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC) PS: It wasn't a duplicate but an enhanced version.

It had bad name tag on it. I can restore it and rm the tag if you want. RlevseTalk 23:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Went ahead and restored it. RlevseTalk 23:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Rainer ... 00:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Meta stuff[edit]

I did reply on Meta but you'd left by then & rather than you get it sometime in the future I thought I'd copy it here. So - basically to say I was aware that you had an account a while on Meta and about the RfA. Despite rumours to the contrary "neutral" is just that. I don't know you yet but I do look forward to getting to know you better. It will be good to have you helping here - thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 16:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


...for taking the time to comment at my RfA! Videmus Omnia 16:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Hi, Rlevse. I deeply appreciate your support in my recent nomination. Finally, I've been appointed and I'm ready to go on working (this time with some extra buttons). If you need anything from me, don't hesitate to contact me. I'll be glad to help. Best regards and thank you again. --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Image: CharlesBukowski.jpg[edit]

Of the two images marked, Image:Buk and gleason.jpg and Image:CharlesBukowski.jpg the first has already been eliminated.

The second, also believe that must be eliminated. I believe that the author indicated (Artgal73) is not the real author of the picture; Vide: Source:

It does not include the tag {{bad name}} because the CheckUsage was not working at the time of marking.

--chico 17:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


"Dupe" is an unhelpful deletion comment. Please identify what other name this image has? Dragons flight 16:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, since the image was in use (in multiple places across multiple projects) it shouldn't have been deleted without preparing the replacement. Instead m:User:CommonsDelinker simply went through and nuked it rather than running a replacement script. [1] Dragons flight 16:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. I have learned now. It was renamed to Image:SophieAndersonTakethefairfaceofWoman.jpg. I'll try fixing it. RlevseTalk 17:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sherzer_Observatory_at_dusk.jpg vs Image:Sherzer Observatory at twilight.png[edit]

I am wondering why you replaced Sherzer_Observatory_at_dusk.jpg with Sherzer_Observatory_at_twilight.png when the user marked Sherzer_Observatory_at_twilight.png as the duplicate, so Sherzer_Observatory_at_dusk.jpg was presumably the one they wanted to keep (and was the last version they uploaded). :-) --Tony Wills 21:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't precisely recall, but probably because PNGs generally replace JPGs. Would you like both kept? RlevseTalk 21:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking at your other deletions, I think you are tending to leave the version tagged with the {{duplicate}} tag, and delete the other version, which I think is the wrong way around. I always mark the version I wish to delete with {{duplicate}}.
If I did that, I either goofed or had a reason. RlevseTalk 22:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that there is any reason we would keep pngs over jpgs or visa-versa, jpg is normally considered a better format for photos, png good for diagrams etc, but in this case the user uploaded the jpg version most recently and marked the png as the duplicate. Normally I advocate keeping both when they are not exact duplicates, or use the normal nominate for deletion process so we can discuss the reasons. But if it is the uploader of both versions who has marked the duplicate, then I would assume there is no reason to keep both (probably just a straight change in format rather than any editing differences).
Deleting duplicates is maybe not as straight forward as you may think, I have suggested some things to think about on Commons:Village_pump#Duplicated_images, what do you think about my 'rules of thumb'? :-) --Tony Wills 22:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
There does seem to be disagreement about keeping both formats or just one (some say del gif if there's a jpg some say keep both), I've seen arguments for both. If they are the same format, I generally keep the higher resolution one. For this case of jpg vs png, I'll keep both. Good rules of thumb you made, and yes it's not always clear cut. You may want to look at User:Rlevse/CommonsDelinkerTutorial, which Siebrand drafted for me and we've been tweaking. RlevseTalk 22:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
png is a large file and it also can seem soft in appearance. This particular image is already soft without additional softness from the format choice.
I question that the duplication tag was removed from it as well as the file being changed back at english wikipedia. More than questioning it, I am interested to know the logic that went into making that decision. -- carol 02:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
If I were writing a bot to do this task, I would have it first compare the dimensions of the files. If both files are equal dimensions then compare format -- and my logic starts to break down here....

images: their content, their format, their contributors[edit]

  1. PNG vs JPEG, dimensions are the same and the surface is completely photographic: Image:Sherzer Observatory at dusk.jpg and Image:Sherzer Observatory at twilight.png. First thing, this is a terrible photograph -- if I were home right now, I would do what I could to get a better (if not an awesome) photograph of the dome to what I will affectionately call my observatory (even though 'mine' burnt down and it wasn't mine really). The dimensions are the same but the png is 1.27 MB compared to the jpegs 200 KB. Simple diagnosis, get rid of the weighty one. A technical note about those two images. Twilight is a scientific name and dusk isn't. The photographer, uploader and namer of the file never completely grasped the mathematics of twilight, and should not have been naming images in this way.
    • So you're saying you want to get rid of the png in this case as there's no reason to keep it in this particular instance? See note at end too. RlevseTalk 12:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I originally uploaded that image as png because I like the way that png is not lossy. Of the many reasons that I want the image to be deleted now, several of the reasons have to do with the way that acronyms and file format names get abused. Keep it or delete it; I don't care so much about that within the simple fact of the existance of two images which are the same photograph but different files types. It should be renamed, I don't think it was twilight yet when I took it.
  2. PNG vs JPEG, dimensions are the same but the surface area is mixed photograph and single colors: For Image:Components of TIROS Spac0056-repair.png and the already deleted jpeg version: the large single color area made png a better choice even though the file size of the png (969 KB) is terrible compared to the jpeg (236 KB). Thumbnailing of the image made the red surface look extremely artifacty in the jpeg version. The restorer perhaps should have indexed the png or depending on the definition of restore -- made an svg of it.
  3. JPEG vs JPEG, dimensions are the same, surface is photographic: Image:Coney Island beach and boardwalk scenes LOC-2117u-original.jpg and the one that I found here originally which had been uploaded from . This was by far the most interesting two files which contained the same image that I have ever seen. The version that is here was gotten from LOC as a tif and saved at 100% jpeg compression (for the comparison, not a typical choice I might make) as the version from Flickr had been. The one that is on flickr right now is 6.21 MB and the version that is here is 3.44 MB. This was such an interesting situation that I got my favorite graphics software and compared the two images as layers in the same image space (using one as a lower layer left at Normal mode and the other as an upper layer set to Difference mode). There is a slight difference in the two, but I don't know enough to say which one is better. I can see though and the differences are not worth twice the file size. I also wondered if there was a linux kernel or something like that hiding in the comment location of the image image file (I was told that a second executable file in that location was highly unlikely). Typically, in a case like this, I would suspect that the smaller of the two had been saved with smaller compression levels. The 100% compression used for both files is what makes this the most interesting two files I have ever seen (not the content).
  4. JPEG vs JPEG, one has a smaller dimension: Image:Strandgatenbg-modf.jpg and Image:Strandgatenbg.jpg I had to look at the upload history and the dates to determine what had happened with this image. The modified version is a really really good repair of the first version which was uploaded here. I think that the original had been saved with a jpeg compression that hurt the image. Or even a blurred version. The modified version was sharpened and leveled and looked so much better. Then the original uploader uploaded a not so damaged version. Had the uploader uploaded a version which was just a larger version of the damaged original -- the smaller repair would have been still the better choice. Then more: (this is about personality and the way the commons gets used) I did not mark the modified smaller version for deletion. I am a graphics artist who would like to show my skills while contributing to a public collection like this. The photographer who took the photograph seems to be doing the same thing (with the stylized photographer thing on the image description). The person who modified the image did a great job -- I actually prefer editing like that and that would be my preference of style if I were living where I wanted to live. So, the point is that in this case, not only did I have to look at the images and the history -- I had to think about how the sharing of images is being used here.

Prognosis: if the dimension size is the same and the uploader name is the same, honor what the uploader requested regardless of format used. Using software or even people to delete images makes me very nervous due to the conditions outlined in the fourth situation here. I happen to like what I discovered while investigating those images but who knows what similar situations like that I might have missed? -- carol 04:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Rabo Karbakian: The only way to know a good painting is to look at a million paintings first. It is not an exact quote, but close enough. -- carol 04:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
One more suggestion. You should check the version of the creative commons license. I uploaded images here as GFDL that had been already online (in 2003) with a creative commons license. I read that thing wherever it was that said that the bot also had a preference for less restrictive licenses. Short of actually reading these licenses myself what I hear about cc licenses is that once they are applied they cannot be retracted, so personally, I have been more careful lately to make sure that the original license is included with my older images. Perhaps that could be checked with the date in the exif information and the version of the newer restrictive license.
Assuming that people understand all of this stuff when they first start to upload images is perhaps the worst assumption that a person or software can make. To be perfectly honest, I think that my earlier images were online with the nc-sa 1.0 license. If these few images are going to be a problem with the creative commons people -- perhaps their lawyer should contact me personally about it. Being a earlier user of this license has not done much for me and if my images are that important then so am I. -- carol 07:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
You're obviously very knowledgeable in the technical aspects of digital images. This is quite informative to me. Yesterday I did a lot of work with CommonsDupes so I only remember part of the case you're asking about. What I can say is I had not ill intent at all, I never do, and what I did was probably simply that I did not realize your intent. When working the dupe categories, I apply the generic rules, sometimes with exceptions, and make the best decision I can. See note below number 1 too. RlevseTalk 12:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I learned some image basics from some people who knew a lot about digital images. My 10 years of experience which amounts to zero value in the way that world economics are tallied; it seems like there should be people who are interested in tallying that to be worth something (to me directly).... I actually miss the comparatively good feelings that were 'teenage angst' when compared to this incredibly not sane 'adult world'. I did not think that you deleted things with any ulterior motives, I just thought you deleted them.
GIMP 2.5 is able to do 'the impossible' which is to determine what the original compression level that a jpeg was saved at, btw. There is a darn good chance that the next Photoshop will also be able to do this as it is a parasitic relationship (or something like that). When that happens, please be one of the people who knows how they repackage the work of source you can read like that. This information is all things I heard and GIMP confirms this when I am checking these images out with it; so maybe photoshop or paintshop pro or imagemagick can do the same thing -- I don't know the facts about this. It is too much of a pain to even think about running that stuff on linux to compare and confirm.
Also interesting is that since the holiday season started, the software that was used on the images is not being displayed either here or on Flickr on the internet that I am using, like it used to be. Picasa was the maker of that one really suspiciously large image.
I don't mean to be a commercial for the software that I use, however, honestly comparing the files that are made with the different software is very interesting.
Actually sorting through those images (not using software but using human brains) was a very very good experience. If I were running things, I would disconnect the gamblers and the contest people and make it possible for people to just contribute by sorting through some of the collections of unsorted images that are here. It was a good experience with the exception of the really bad feelings I was getting about the ways the task could be abused. I learned a lot about images, the images which are here, the category tree and reasons that the information template and a good description are useful. And the little marks that get added via the upload mechanism. The Summary and License subheading, for instance. While I was working on things, that subheading reappeared for a while as did the advertisement for who the donations were going for. It would be interesting to know from the people who are running things what they think or know is happening when those changes and marks on the uploads are added and get changed like that.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I only know what I know and I can at least be honest about that. Btw, can you get a screenshot of what this talk page and my user page looks like in your browser for me? -- carol 23:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mark Buehrle.jpeg[edit]

You indicated that this image should be replaced by Image:Game 2-Starting pitcher Mark Buehrle.jpg, but I'm not sure that this is correct. The two are derived from the same source, but Image:Mark Buehrle.jpeg has been digitally sharpened, and as such is of superior quality. -Hit bull, win steak 16:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

oh yea, I'll fix it. I think that they have the same res but gam2 is smaller, threw me off. I didn't notice it was sharper. Thanks for pointing it out. Deleting dupes isn't as simple as people think ;-) RlevseTalk 16:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 ;-). It might be easier working from Siebrands lists as all the images listed there are indeed exact duplicates, so all you need to worry about is not loosing any info from either. :-) --Tony Wills 19:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
That's on my list too. RlevseTalk 21:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Chad map[edit]

Hi Rlevse, you've apparently erroneously deleted the map of the Chadian prefectures, believing it was a duplicate of Chadian regions (which is not the case; Chad was divided in 14 prefectures, while now it's divided in 18 regions; so now the article on the English wikipedia is wrong, because of the map replacement). Could you restore the previous situation, and undo your delete? [2]-- 14:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can give me a name of the file, yes. RlevseTalk 23:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Chad_Prefectures_numbered_300px.png; it was deleted by you on December 27 with CSD 18, arguing it was "Dupe of Image:Chad regions numbered.png". Of the latter thing, that it was a duplicate, I quite strongly doubt, as there's long been a map of the prefectures of Chad on the English wikipedia, and now I can't find it anymore.-- 13:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Restored. Actually two errors were made, the person who tagged it and I both didn't realize the difference. Sorry for the trouble. RlevseTalk 13:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

PNG vs JPG[edit]

Some more info relating to an earlier discussion: On why to have JPG versions of PNG images Commons:Media_for_cleanup#PNG photos that require a JPEG version. --Tony Wills 00:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


Hi Rlevse. Thanks for your work as a commons admin. You have reverted two duplicate images that I have marked: [3], [4]. They are not identical, however the old images are of no use anymore. The first one is somehow erroneous (therefore only the “O” is showed), while the second one have been redrawed corrected by an experienced user in a nicer way. In my opinion, there is no use to keep them. --Leyo 03:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

But you had them marked as dupes, and they are not dupes, so I did what I did. I can't tell that they are of no more use or erroneous from a standard dupe tag. What exactly would you like me to do here? It's all fixable. RlevseTalk 04:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know that these images are non-exact duplicates. However, I think they can be treated as duplicates, as they are chemical formulas and not e.g. different photographs of the same object. In addition, the first one is erroneous (click on the image to see). IMHO both images should be deleted to keep Commons tidy. --Leyo 12:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that now. It also seems the two above are the ones you want deleted (as opposed to the other two), so I've now deleted them. RlevseTalk 12:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
@Leyo, if images are not copyvio and not exact duplicates there is no need for haste, they should go through a proper deletion process so it can be discussed, others may have good reasons to keep apparently redundant or apparently erroneous images. So please do not use {{duplicate}} for non exact duplicates :-) --Tony Wills 12:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
In general, I agree. However, I think it is not necessary to spend the time to go through a deletion process for chemical structures that are clearly redundant (e.g. "ugly" old versions, see example). In de-WP and en-WP (only some dozens) I have already tagged hundreds of old, replaced chemical structures that do not comply with the guidelines for deletion. Maybe it would be best to create a template for non-exact duplicates. :-) --Leyo 20:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
That may be a good idea because your typical person is not familiar with chemical structures and such, even if they were, the dupe template does not say "this is redundant though not an exact dupe". RlevseTalk 20:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It is not really the job of Commons to decide which image is better for a particular application, we just store them and make them easy to find. Redundancy we can cope with, exact duplicates are a waste of space and are liable to cause problems because they may contain different information and licensing. Everything else that is within the project scope and not a copyvio can go through a considered deletion process, it is not 'nice' to shortcut the deletion process by hoping that admins who are not paying attention will delete images as exact duplicates when they are not! :-) --Tony Wills 00:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Replied here. --Leyo 21:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Many Thanks[edit]

Broom icon.svg
Dear Rlevse,
Thank you for taking part in my Requests for Adminship. The RfA was successful and I am now an administrator here. There were concerns over my temperament from respected editors, and I have taken these concerns on board, with the aim of being a more polite and courteous administrator both here and on the English Wikipedia. If you need help with anything, here or on the English Wikipedia, such as history from deleted images and such, please don't hesitate to shout. My door is always open, so to speak. Nick 20:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC).

Kežmarok.jpg and Stará Lubovna 2.jpg[edit]

Duplication resolution was wrong. This is Kezmarok Castle on this photo and NOT Stara Lubovna Castle. So Stará Lubovna 2.jpg image has to be deleted. Doronenko 11:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just commenting on the same thing, when I saw this message already here. : I had reversed the tags on Image:Kežmarok.jpg to keep it rather than image:Stará Lubovna 2.jpg as the latter image Image:Kežmarok.jpg appeared to have the more appropriate filename (judging from edits to the description of Stará Lubovna 2.jpg and the fact that the original author then uploaded it under the new name. I'm not sure whether you didn't see that, or had other reasons to replace the other way around. --Tony Wills 12:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've restored this, as I understand it the wrong one was tagged. Please retag/use as appropriate. RlevseTalk 20:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, the correct one is now tagged :-) --Tony Wills 20:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Greenwich clock 1-manipulated.jpg[edit]

Hi, Could you please role back the replacement of image Image:Greenwich_clock_1-manipulated.jpg by Image:Greenwich clock 2.jpg these are different edits (some would claim improvements) not renamed versions! Thanks. :-) --Tony Wills 11:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've restored Greenwich clock 1, which is what I think you were asking for. RlevseTalk 20:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :-) --Tony Wills 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Always glad to help you Tony. RlevseTalk 20:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Clint Dempsey USA training.jpg[edit]

Thank for catching that. I didn't realize the resolution was different, and I'd uploaded the higher-rez one after the other one. --Ytoyoda 15:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bridge over Hanmer River.jpg[edit]

Hi Rlevse. An IP user made me aware that the image was incorrectly named. Therefore, I re-uploaded it under the correct name (Image:Waiau Ferry Bridge.jpg). The old one should be deleted, but I do not know how to deal with the fact it was elected as a Quality Image. Can you do the necessary steps for me please? Thanks. --Leyo 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but I saw this question by coincidence. Well, quite evidently, the qualities of the photo will not change by having a better name so Common(s) sense would of course say that the new image with the correct name should get the QI stamp once the old one is deleted. If this is not stated in the rules, I think it could easily be added (who would object)? Of course it is important to follow the "where used" links and get the QI galleries upadted accordingly as well as links to the nomination from the new QI page, but it should just be a matter of bookkeping as I see it. -- Slaunger 22:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree, but I want to make sure first and I've not dealt with QIs before. RlevseTalk 23:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
@Leyo, add {{badname|Image:Waiau_Ferry_Bridge.jpg}} to Image:Bridge over Hanmer River.jpg and that deletion process will look after replacing all references to it. And yes there is no great problem with transfering the QI status --Tony Wills 07:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. RlevseTalk 12:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is tagged, but on hold as the tool server has been busted for two weeks. UGH. RlevseTalk 03:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you please also delete the following dupe images that are related to the one above: 1, 2. I rechecked that they are not used in any wiki. Thanks. --Leyo 14:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. RlevseTalk 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --Leyo 08:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request[edit]

I'd be gratefull if you could provide some insight in this discussion. Thanks. EdokterTalk 01:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a licensing expert, but I know someone who is. I'll contact him. RlevseTalk 02:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

He commented on it for us. RlevseTalk 02:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Many Thanks[edit]

Dear Rlevse,
Thank you for supporting my Request for Adminship. I’m honored by your trust and will do my best to help build a better site. Durova 20:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Start small, close obvious deletion discussions. Get bolder with experience. Pretty soon Commons will have ten thousand images! (giggles, flees) ;)

Deletion / replacement[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you are currently deleting a lot of duplicate images. However, many of these images are not replaced but *deleted* by CommonsDelinker on the Dutch Wikipedia. I don't know what's exactly going wrong, and I don't know if you can do anything about it, but if you can, then please do. Regards, Pbech 22:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC) (nl:User:Paul B on Dutch Wikipedia)

Give me a name of the image and I'll check. You may also want to contact User:Siebrand, who is very knowledgeable in this area and also Dutch. RlevseTalk 23:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
One of the images is Image:Bilal.jpeg, which is a duplicate of Image:Bilal.jpg. All links to the former were deleted by CommonsDelinker instead of being replaced with links to the latter. Other images were correctly replaced, but as far as I can see, these were exact duplicates, and were marked as such in your summaries. 00:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Recreated and running through delinker. RlevseTalk 01:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello Rlevse, you have marked Image:Beograd-opstine-lat.png as duplicate of Image:Belgrade-Districts-Lat.png. Hence the first was deleted. But as far as I remember the deleted image showed more than the one what is remaining, namely ist was a map of the whole Belgrade commune (you can also say Greater Belgrade) and not only of the inner districts. How to handle this problem? --Mazbln 15:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I just called up the deleted image to double-check; both images are exactly the same, so there's no reason to undelete it. RlevseTalk 15:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the information. So I had something else in mind. --Mazbln 21:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

File:CMB EP42.MID[edit]

That is not a duplicate of File:CMB EP42.MID. The files may be identical, but the descriptions should be different since they are MIDI files for different songs using the same melody. Please restore the file. /Ö 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

SD request[edit]

Hello R,

I tagged Image:St John the Divine 1913.jpg a month ago for Speedy Delete after realizing I had misnamed it. This image was immediately replaced with an identical image correctly named. Would you take a look and delete this, please? JGHowes 05:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your delete request is done. Whenever you have one, tag it and let me know because the dupes category has thousands of images in it and the dupes tool starts at the beginning of the alphabet, so the zebras will likely be in there awhile. RlevseTalk 10:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Lawrence Joel.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Lawrence Joel.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Infrogmation 18:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. RlevseTalk 15:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello Rlevse, I find it strange that you do not compare descriptions and categories when deleting duplicates [5]. Simplicius 00:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, please have a look at Blaeu, there is a hole at #Germania, 1645 No. 49. You did not even check the usage in Commons. Please restore or correct. Simplicius 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I always check the usage on Commons. Did something go wrong or did I make an error, sure that's possible. But your repeated hostile accusations and assumptions of bad faith are not appreciated. RlevseTalk 00:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
My request refers to a correct description, category and licence.
Would you please compare and correct - or restore? Thank you. Simplicius 18:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The people tagging the dupes should really check that, we are merely the janitors doing the heavy lifting. I've copied the info to the active image; you may edit it as desired. You may also contact the person who tagged it if you desire. Hope this is cleared up now. RlevseTalk 10:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


All images posted Flickr, are free.--Ramonne 00:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I know. What is your point? Is there a specific photo in question? RlevseTalk 00:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Flickr[edit]

Yeah, that's advisable. People might start getting confused changing the license on Commons to that on Flickr. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Yippee[edit]

And now we are going to be <3.000 very soon (at 3.055 now). Let's keep on pushing, and soon I will make a few thousand more duplicates available for tagging. Replication lag is pretty low and CommonsDelinker appears to be doing its work in a stable fashion again, so it should be possible to make big steps again. Cheers! Siebrand 13:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Okey dokey. RlevseTalk 15:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
All done and counting down from ~9.700 now. Please do some tagging at User:OsamaK/dupes so I'll have some work for CommonsDelinker tomorrow :). Cheers! Siebrand 23:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There were 190 images still in Cat:D, so I deleted a bunch and replaced a bunch. Only got to tag a few of OsamaK's. I'd love to see Cat:D down to 0, just for a few minutes! RlevseTalk 00:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:John Marshall House (Richmond, Virginia).jpg[edit]

Perhaps, you misinterpreted what need to be done. I misnamed the file. I had marked it for a name change, but no one got to it, so I misguidely thought that asking for a delete might get some action. The file should be named John Marshall House (Fauquier County, Virginia).jpg. It is not in Richmond. The photo is good, but is not properly named (my fault). I think that the correct name would be better. KudzuVine 13:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Post links to the two files here and what you want done. I'll do what's needed and advise as needed. RlevseTalk 20:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I see that I may not have used the badname template correctly, which caused confusion:

Fixed. RlevseTalk 20:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you KudzuVine 20:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem with User:KaytraxSpecial:Contributions/Kaytrax[edit]

Hi Rlevse,

User:KaytraxSpecial:Contributions/Kaytrax blanked the file information from my Image:Zeta Jones.jpg and substituted it with an improper spamlink to an image he uploaded, which I've reverted.

I'm concerned that the image he uploaded yesterday - Image:Catherine Zeta-Jones47.jpg - which he's licensed as {{free screenshot}} may be a copyvio and spurious license, as it certainly appears to be a professionally posed studio shot. Wasn't sure if I should report this to COM:ANB or just drop a message to you about it first. JGHowes talk - 11:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

fyi, Kaytrax didn't respond to the msgs left on his talk page, so I went ahead and tagged that image as copyvio and it's now deleted. JGHowes talk - 12:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. RlevseTalk 21:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting duplicates[edit]

When you delete duplicate files you have to check that the remaining file has correct information. Image:Canto rodado.jpg has no information, and since its upload comment says "Imagen tomada de la wiki en inglés (", I think the other file should have been the one that was kept. Please also redirect the deleted duplicates to the kept file. /Ö 12:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Guess I goofed that one. Siebrand tagged it. I've put back the Many pebbles version. RlevseTalk 13:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


POV-Pushing? need protection? regards • Rohan T 21:41, 10 May 2008

and user useful contributes: Special:Contributions/Jeff3000Rohan T 21:43, 10 May 2008

Image deletion[edit]

Hi, since I closed most of the images in this group would you follow up with a statement about your separate reason for deleting this one?[6] Durova 18:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides commons not being a porn site (had two live people engaged in a sex act), and the photo was not a good one to illustrate the act in question anyway, the submitter asked everything in it be deleted. Let me guess, there's some brouhaha going on somewhere. RlevseTalk 20:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi, you deleted this image: Image:LUCIANA LEON PERU.jpg‎ and you indicate that there is this other: luciana leon.jpg. The problem is that we (Constian and me) talked whit the propher of the photo in order to her licence her photo, all what we did was in LUCIANA LEON PERU.jpg‎ her permission, her email, etc. Now, the other photo is being requested for deletion, and I need the information you deleted with the photo. Please, recover the email from the real owner and the other information you deleted together wiht the photo and paste them in my talk. Thanks. --El Mith 14:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC) PS: I'm new and besides I'm spanish speaker, so, it's difficult for me understanding all this, please, help, because, despite we got the permission required, the photo was deleted. Thanks.

data on your talk page. RlevseTalk 16:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nuvola Indonesian flag.svg and Monegasque flag[edit]

Hi, Just a question

30 avril 2008 à 22:32 Rlevse (Discuter | Contributions) a effacé « Image:Nuvola Monegasque flag.svg » ‎ (Dupe of Image:Nuvola Indonesian flag.svg)

Would you also delete Flag of Monaco.svg juste because it's the same as Flag of Indonesia.svg or would you keep both ? I'd bet that you would keep both... So why delete the nuvola monegasque flag just because it's the same than Nuvola Indonesian flag.svg ? Juste because they share the colors ? And if someone lookes for the monegasque flag we should say : "Look for the indonesian flag..." :)

Or why not delete the indonesian one ? :D

Well, that just a discution, if you agree with me, I'll make an restore demand :D


Min's - 13:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The two flags are not the same, just very similar. The ratio of width to height is different. Please keep both. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 13:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it. You may want to put a note about the aspect ratio on the image file. RlevseTalk 20:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I was specifically commenting on the rectangular flag images; I had never seen Image:Nuvola Monegasque flag.svg which you deleted/restored. I've now looked at it and it is an exact duplicate of Image:Nuvola Indonesian flag.svg; every character, so I guess it should be deleted again. Maaf (Bahas Indonesia for 'sorry'). It would seem to me that the image is of the Indonesian flag, not Monaco's, and that Nuvola Indonesian flag.svg should have the description saying that it works for either pared down to just say Indonesia. FYI, Monaco's flag is the one a lot closer to a square; Indonesia's and Poland's flags are almost, but not quite vertical flips of each other. I added notes to the three rectangular images about the similarities to the others. I checked the cia world factbook. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 08:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
See also; User talk:Siebrand#the waving-in-the-wind svg flags of Monaco and Indonesia. It may be better to get the Monaco image tweaked. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 08:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

deprecated function in your monobook.js[edit]

Dear user, I noticed that you use the includePage function in your monobook.js page.

This function is now obsolete, as the importScript function was introduced with rev:35064 to the MediaWiki Javascript core library wikibits.js. It also keeps track of already imported files.

To allow us to remove includePage from Mediawiki:Common.js I'd kindly ask you to replace its use with importScript (same syntax!). Thanks! --Dschwen 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Dupes tagger[edit]

Hello, could you please apply this edit on your monobook.js? That would give you shorter code and better summary "Adding {{Dupe}}. Your help is needed!". Thanks!--OsamaK 12:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 5e346ff7d4a7881f0adc1ebbadfee68f[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Image which was deleted on English Wikipedia[edit]

Hello, I was cleaning up the mess I made of the renaming of a telescope image and started to upload some images from en.w to here. Image:Image-Yerkes2small.jpg which is still at en:Image:Image-Yerkes2small.jpg points to a higher resolution image which was deleted there and I was wondering if that image could be dug out of where ever it is that deleted images go and reinstated here.

And, another interesting problem -- an image of the same building taken by a polish commons user and named with the Polish spelling of Observatory. I reuploaded it with the English spelling. When I went to change the image names, it was then that I saw that it could be argued that it was not misspelled. I thought about it for a while and decided that Polish buildings get Polish names and United States buildings get the name they have. It really was a photographer vs subject problem though. So, if I made the wrong decision about that, you can delete the renamed image, or whatever.

Thanks -- carol (tomes) 07:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

1) The image appears to have been the same resolution and I can't find a higher res version. Did it perhaps have a different name at one time on 2) You did a bunch of uploads yesterday. What is the name of the Polish image you're talking about that is a probable keep and the name of the one you probably need deleted? RlevseTalk 10:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. I only know what was on the image page at wikipedia, I clicked on the log for the image there and pasted that here.
  2. Image:Yerkes_Observatory_20.jpg is my upload and Image:YerkesObserwatory20.jpg is the original and it seems to be gone. It looks like a typo, doesn't it? It is a v for a w and it is the actual name of the building. -- carol (tomes) 11:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I still can't find the higher res one on If you do, let me know. As for the Polish one, I think I'd leave that situation as is. RlevseTalk 12:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done it again[edit]

R, I have another speedy delete request, for Image:Christ in the Garden of Gethsemene.jpg. It's a dup/incorrectly titled. Many thanks! JGHowes talk - 14:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

RE my userpage, Thanks.[edit]

I saw that someone had edited my userpage for "grammer" and immediately thought "Who the f*** is editing my userpage?". I then realized what you did and how much of an idiot I am for not noticing my own terrible writing. I mean, I do look at my own userpage fairly often. So thank you for fixing my idiocy. --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Np. ;-) RlevseTalk 17:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image: Yarn Twist[edit]

Question- why is Image:Yarn twist.png being replaced by Image:Zakrut.png? Looking at the pages, Yarn twist is the original, uploaded in May 2007, into the public domain. The one it is being replaced by is the exact same size and file type, and was uploaded by a different user in September of 2007 under the GNU Free Documentation license, Version 1.2. I suppose since the pics are the same it doesn't particuraly matter, only Yarn twist is a much more descriptive title (in english at least, though the other one might be apt in Czech or German), and the one that is being replaced is in the public domain. Loggie-log 14:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've switched the tags. You make sense. Things like this happen sometimes when more than one person uploads a file under a different license. RlevseTalk 14:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


Congratulations, We have finished dupes. Thanks for your help. There is always many ways to help, check this page if you're free. Thanks!--OsamaK 01:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I ran the duplicates query again and have placed another ~1.650 duplicate pairs on the dupes# pages. Please tag! :) Just remove the book pages and the empty pages without tagging. I am dealing with those... Thank you again for all your help. We're making Commons a cleaner place :) Siebrand 18:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of "Image:DE-PL 2008-06-08.svg"[edit]

How come you deleted Image:DE-PL 2008-06-08.svg ‎ (Dupe ofImage:GER-POL 2008-06-08.svg)? Image:DE-PL 2008-06-08.svg has working text, while Image:GER-POL 2008-06-08.svg is corrupted. And (but this is of lesser importance), Image:DE-PL 2008-06-08.svg was uploaded at least two hours earlier. /Ainali 15:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

DE-PL was the one tagged with "bad name". When they are uploaded is really inmaterial. More important is description, tagging, license, etc. Both images are tagged with "self" licenses, so who really made this? The GER-POL version also points to a PNG version. I do agree the DE-PL version has better info. Maybe you should contact the User:PeeJay, who uploaded the other version and tagged yours what he's up to. RlevseTalk 19:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes of course you are right about the timing. However, a quick look at both (original) images show that they are different, which means they were created the same day independently. But since the GER-POL version was updated today and is no longer corrupt I am content. The most important thing is that the image is good. /Ainali 19:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Okey dokey. RlevseTalk 21:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


This is your mistake. w:Raion is not a city. You mixed flags of regions and cities in the same category. --Yakudza (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops sorry, but still, why does it have Russian and English in the same category name? RlevseTalk 22:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've undone my goof, they're in Category:Flags_of_regions_in_Sumy_Oblast now. RlevseTalk 22:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
PS, what caught my was raions was in Russian/UK and cities was in English (not Gorod) RlevseTalk 22:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
In enwiki uses the term Category:Raions of Ukraine. Alternative name is a district. --Yakudza (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not sure I agree with that, but it's not a big deal. Interesting. Do you want to change the cat name from regions? RlevseTalk 23:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the names of categories in Commons should be similar as in enwiki. --Yakudza (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I've put the command into delinker. RlevseTalk 00:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you tell me what exactly you are planning to do with the categories, as I am the one who maintains them. Thank you --Ilyaroz (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing, as it was my understanding that they were back the way they were originally, which is what Yakudza wanted. RlevseTalk 09:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Great - thanks --Ilyaroz (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Proposition karta24 H.svg[edit]

I don't know if it's you or your bot who deleted this image, but it was a mistake. Actually, Image:Proposition karta24 H.svg (and similar names) are my drafts, i use it on the french Graphic Lab to work on graphic demands, so these images are constantly erased and replaced, so they are not usable. Please don't delete them again, i abolutely need them. Thanks. Karta24 (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Any time you have dupe images, the dupes tool will find them and one of them will get deleted. Is there a way you can do this without creating dupes? RlevseTalk 18:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:DNA orbit animated small.gif[edit]

Hi there, if I got this right you are in the process of deleting Image:DNA orbit animated small.gif, or at least replacing it in articles with Image:DNA orbit animated.gif. If you are not responsible, maybe you can point out who is. Anyway, the replacement is a bad idea. Sure, the one is just a smaller version of the other. But it is much smaller also in terms of file size: 2.93 MB compared to 659 KB. When we had the big version in the German DNA article, some people complained that loading would be very slow. Not everyone has a high speed connection to the internet. This does make a difference for many people. Just down-scaling the image via the Wiki-Software ("182px" in the image description) is not an option, because the result looks horrible compared to the small image, see right. What would be the next step? --Dietzel65 (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons policy is not to keep dupes. They are both gifs of the same thing and the small one is of much poorer quality. As I do understand your concern, I'll ask someone else who has worked this area more than I about this. RlevseTalk 09:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there really a policy that says not to keep duplicates. The deletion guidelines says that exact duplicates and scaled-down versions can be deleted, not that they can not be kept. This file is not just a scaled-down version, the speed of the animation is different, and the images clearly look different when viewed at the same size. Commons policy is to host images that are used by Wikimedia project, so in this case the "poorer quality" image has to be kept since German Wikipedia want to use it. The relevant guidelines are at Commons:Deletion guidelines#Duplicates, the only valid speedy deletions for duplicates are "in category duplicates, exact duplicate" and "in category duplicates, scaled-down version". The next section Commons:Deletion guidelines#Redundant/bad quality implies that "in category duplicates, not exact duplicate" is not valid for speedy deletion, those images should use ordinary Deletion requests. /Ö 10:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
"...the small one is of much poorer quality." Poorer quality for what purpose? For the purpose we need it for, the smaller version is of better quality. That's the whole point. Don't you agree that the left of the two images looks better than the right one? Personally, I would mind it less if you would delete the big version. It would still be a pitty, though. For other purposes the bigger version may be better. In short, these images are not the same. If some policy should really request to delete one of them (which does not seem to be the case according to Ö), it is a stupid policy that should be changed. --Dietzel65 (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll leave it alone. RlevseTalk 20:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It would have been a good idea to also remove it from the respective lists. Now User:Zirland has deleted it. I'll ask him for restoration on his discussion page. Maybe you can also undelete it yourself? --Dietzel65 (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The dupe list is clean User:OsamaK/dupes. It looks like the file wasn't even tagged this time, he just deleted it. Ask him first, let me know if there's a problem. RlevseTalk 16:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Image is back now. Thanks to whoever did it. I will copy this discussion to the discussion page of the image, this may help to avoid a rerun. --Dietzel65 (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi the reason I tagged Image:DeathPenalty.png as a dupe of Image:Map of US lethal injection usage.svg was explained just above the tag. "This png was generated from Image:Map of US lethal injection usage.svg to correct an error. The svg has since been corrected (and the colours updated). This png is an exact duplicate of this version of that file." It's therefore not a case of the svg comming from the png (which I agree warrents the png to remain) but of the svg being converted back to a png. /Lokal_Profil 13:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you want PNG one deleted? Just retag it. RlevseTalk 20:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, done. /Lokal_Profil 12:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png
Original Barnstar.png
This barnstar is an exact duplicate or scaled-down version of: Image:Original Barnstar.png There should be only one copy of an image (except this one).
After getting rid of all the other dupes, you and the other helpers have been speedily awarded.

Commons is virtually duplicates free - Thanks for your efforts! Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! RlevseTalk 01:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting of duplicate[edit]

Hi! You deleted this file Image:Flag of Free Morbhan Republic.svg because this is a duplicate of Image:Flaga morvan.svg. Ok, it is - my fault, but can you change the name of this file/move it to "Flag of Free Morbhan Republic"? That's because the name "Morvan" is the name of region in France, and this flag represents the Free Morbhan Republic (Wolna Republika Morvan in polish) - polish micronation. I don't want to make anyone mistaken about this flag and I think that this name should by exact. I hope You can understand me, I'm not very good in writing in english ;-) Thanks for help. --MichałRadecki (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I;ve undeleted the first image and tagged the other correctly. RlevseTalk 13:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


Was that really a duplicate? The kept file is the whole painting, and if I remember correct the deleted file was just a part of the painting. /Ö 12:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, I have restored it. RlevseTalk 17:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

800px-Cyclonemodels.gif versus Cyclonemodels.gif[edit]


I would like to know what guided you to ask the deletion of the older Image:800px-Cyclonemodels.gif over the newer Image:Cyclonemodels.gif ? I don't have any problem with it but I thought that the older version has priority in case of duplicate ?

Pierre cb

I don't exactly remember but someone tagged that file as the one to be deleted. I know of no policy that the older one be kept over a newer one. More important are things like: are they of same quality/pixel size, do they have proper licensing, etc. In the case of these two files, the deleted one has 800px in front of it, which is the way some cameras name the files and that may be why the person tagged this one. Granted it's not such a big deal in this case, but when you find one with a name like DSC12345.jpg and the dupe with MarilynMonroe.jpg and all other factors are equal, it's an easy choice. You may want to look at User:Rlevse/CommonsDelinkerTutorial (which User:Siebrand helped me draw up), which covers some of this and has links to some official policies. RlevseTalk 10:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
800px- is not from a camera, it is usually MediaWiki that use such names when scaling images. And the user who first transferred the files from en.wikipedia to Commons copied the thumbnail image instead of the full image. In such cases the full version should be kept. And since the deleted version has been on Commons for a long time (even if the name is not very good) it should be redirected. The only problem now is that the kept file is missing original source and author in the information template, Wikipedia is not the source and the uploader there is not the author. /Ö 10:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah...but I agree with Siebrand (see discussion on your talk page) there is not need for redirs. The delinker fixes most of those and the rest are fixed by the admin before the file is deleted. RlevseTalk 11:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Pierre cb (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sommer, Giorgio - n. 5045 - ''Roma - Tomba di Cecilia Metella'' - ca. 1870.jpg[edit]

I did not tagged the wrong one, this image has the type '' in the title, so I just cannot link it to wikipedia ([7], as you can see I cannot link it here neither, you can just use in galeries), that's why I renamed the image, but someone was smarter than me reverting my change. thank you. --Sailko (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The image that was tagged for deletion had a higher resolution. If the name needs changed, make sure you keep the resolution the same--many people inadvertently cut the resolution when reuploading--use "save link as" to avoid this. RlevseTalk 12:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Both versions on the name with no quotes (91 and 84KB) are the same resolution (200x200 dpi). The smaller file has no borders or caption - cropped using Jpegcrop as advised on {{crop}}. The larger one will stay in the file history. Finavon (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
oy RlevseTalk 01:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Lambang --> Commons[edit]

Hi. I've notice you are the person cleaning up my mistaken upload names; terima kasih. I do try and get things right the first time, but confusion sometimes occurs. There are an awful lot more to go and w:id:Pengguna:Reindra found a lot more yesterday.

I expect that you're just doing this as a regular editor, but I've not forgotten one of the en:hats you wear. You might let the powers that be know that I have about 5,000 edits to non-en wmf projects in the last 3 months; [8]. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Duplicates Image:Wernerprokla.jpg and Image:Reichsgründung1871-AW.jpg[edit]

I disagree with your oppinion regarding the quality of the images and therefore with the direction of change. You are right with your assertion that "Reichsgründung1871-AW" is slightly more blurry, BUT(excuse the exclamation) "Imageprokla" has been stiched together from two parts. These two parts don't match at the seams - not in color scheme and not in congruence. Last, "Reichsgründung1871-AW" has text superimposed on the image that doesn't belong there. Therefore these defects far outweigh the one slight disadvantage regarding sharpness. To get an overall impression of the whole scene we should undo the change. To crop single characters out of the image "Wernerprokla.jpg" will be prefarable, therefore it definetly should not be deleted.I searched my private library and also found a copy of the image there. Unfortuneately the source is rather small, so that the resulting scan is inferior to "Reichsgründung1871-AW", but I will keep on looking. Regards --Wuselig (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


Looks like it's already been restored. RlevseTalk 09:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not talking about restoration. But through CommonsDelinker the images have been exchanged universally within our system. It is this consequence I don't agree with.--Wuselig (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I just rolled that one back. RlevseTalk 12:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
That was the gallery I was observing. I am not going to instist you roll back the other changes too. Who knows, perhaps my observation is just that - personal and subjective. So if others make the same observation as I do, let them complain.--Wuselig (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi Rlevse. I've uploaded a couple images but then decided to redo them and upload them as svgs. They are exactly the same, except for being in svg format. They are just black and white crest badges in Category:Clans of Scotland. I don't think the pngs serve any purpose because they are the exact same as their svg mate, and they just clutter up the category. No-one will be using them yet since they are only a day or two old. Could you delete the four pngs? They are: Image:Crest badge - Clan Macfie.png, Image:Crest badge - Clan Boyd.png Image:Crest badge - Clan Gregor.png Image:Crest badge - Clan Sinclair.png.--Celtus (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. RlevseTalk 09:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :)--Celtus (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Doi Suthep[edit]

Hi. I've seen that you uploaded collections of Chiangmai and Lampang photos. I visited Doi Suthep 2 weeks ago and saw a photo of Phaya Gue Na [9] near the exit here but did not take the photo. Do you have this one?

TECCelephant art1.jpg

Later that day, I went to the Thai Elephant Conservation Center at Lampang and bought a painting painted by an elephant named Look-kang (ลูกข่าง, spinning top) on March 28, 2008. I surprisingly found out that it may be the same painting as in your photo !! -- 2T (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Offerings at Wat Doi Suthep.jpg is mine. I don't speak Thai, my wife is Thai. Yea we were at the elephant center in late March, 26 March for the Elephant Center, so YES it could be the very same painting. RlevseTalk 02:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Caravaggio - Leda mit dem Schwan.jpg[edit]

a bit blurry and with less data

Hello, I kindly ask you to restore this image because it is not an exact duplicate to the image you've mentioned.

02:08, 17 July 2008 Rlevse (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Caravaggio - Leda mit dem Schwan.jpg" ‎ (Dupe of Image:Correggio 038.jpg) --- del log

--Mattes (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. RlevseTalk 19:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Greetings, --Mattes (talk)
Hello, you've deleted it again (probably by accident)... Please undelete, Thanks --Mattes (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Fixed, again ;-) RlevseTalk 21:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
✓OK thx. --Mattes (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


Why did that get deleted? it was no copyvio. Evrik (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I contacted the deleting admin. Since you took it and released it, I don't see why it was deleted either. RlevseTalk 20:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Replied on my talk... rootology (T) 20:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Heya, bot writer!![edit]

You wrote the rename bot (board administrators reminded me, heh)!! Would you want to write another bot? I have narrowed a few complicated things down to something that should be safe for a software to finish. Commons:COMBotBot. I can write that page differently if it will help. -- carol (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I have not written any bot on any wiki...??? RlevseTalk 20:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Didn't you write the rename bot? I spent a lot of time explaining the differences in image formats and that was here I thought. -- carol (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, not me. Go to the bot page and see who created, or the writer prob has his name on it. RlevseTalk 20:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I reread all of that and you were just learning to use the delinker I guess. Too bad, since it would be nice to have a botwriter! Sorry to bother you. -- carol (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Try User:Siebrand RlevseTalk 21:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
You know what? Okay, I did. I actually feel like an ant trying to communicate with a semi (truck) there though. Eek! My sorry about my confusion here is greater than you would know.... -- carol (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


..for your work with deleting duplicates, making Commons a dupe free place ;) --Kanonkas(talk) 18:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I find it a peaceful oasis from the drama at enwiki. RlevseTalk 19:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: AN[edit]

No problem. Being an american, I see the commercials often, so I get the idea. Again no problem.

Here's the list:

United States Army United States Air Force United States Military United States National Guard

and so on. Thanks again.Mitch32contribs 10:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm American too, that's why I noticed this. No one answered my question, so I guess that just removing the redir will fix this? RlevseTalk 10:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Not sure, Commons is way different than Wikipedia, still a few things I gotta learn.Mitch32contribs 10:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Answer from Sitbot thread on User talk:Siebrand, it's a command not a redir, see[10] RlevseTalk 21:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


Since when can DeLinker be used to Not Exact Duplicate a SVG? ( Aliter (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I don't code delinker, I don't know. But, since as far as I know, since this was replacing a gif, it's been able to do that a long time. Delinker won't replace a png with a svg though. RlevseTalk 09:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)



Please check before giving warning to others: I didn't nominate this for deletion, I closed the DR. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry. RlevseTalk 20:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for deletion of two pics[edit]

Hello! :-)

I am adressing you as you already deleted an uploaded file of mine because I had deleted it under the wrong name. I uploaded it once again under the correct name and used the "BadName"-Template for the file that was to be deleted.

Now, I am terribly sorry to bother you again, but unfortunately, a similar mistake happened to me again. The two files which are to be deleted are the following:

I already uploaded them again under the correct name, so that the two "Bodenlauben"-Images (written with "d" - Bodenlauben) can now be deleted. I have already inserted a "BadName"-Template into them.

I thank you very much in advance. Greetings, --Darev (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, done. RlevseTalk 02:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much! :-) --Darev (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion request[edit]

Hi R,

I've nom'd Image:Capitol Ltd at Thomas Viaduct.jpg for Speedy Deletion as original uploader at en-Wiki, because it is misnamed. I've uploaded identical pixel-for-pixel Image:Columbian at Thomas Viaduct.jpg at Commons. Thanks, JGHowes talk - 03:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

done. RlevseTalk 20:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

often glad[edit]

I am often glad that you are still working and doing things here. -- carol (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Your kind deletion was reverted in a cloud of lies. Template:Taxonavigation/APWebsite the concern is about a link to there from Template:Taxonavigation which was changed recently by me. The deleting administrator shows no understanding of these inter-template links -- something that I did not understand until the last few months myself, but I at least had the decency to know this. If you could delete this template again and explain to the administrator how 1)templates work and 2)how talk page links do not matter, it would certainly be an improvement for commons operation -- in my humble opinion. -- carol (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Template:Taxonavigation shows no edit by you, so pls provide diffs and more detail. Was there a discussion of this rv of my deletion? RlevseTalk 09:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
No discussion. -- carol (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Please check the connected categories that showed red after deletion of template] why I restored it. --Foroa (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Village_pump#Questions_about_pre-rendered_pages (I despise situations where I cannot write the name of the user instance which actually needs the information). Sometimes, the tools are too big for the user. -- carol (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC) and User_talk:Foroa#What_do_you_know_about_rendering.3F -- carol (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this is better left intact. RlevseTalk 20:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Now it is more interesting; an administrator with more experience with the deletion of files here and with a not so transparent administrative history. Can I ask what your reasons for not deleting it are? The only actual reason that I can think of is to leave a trail of evidence of instances of an administrator ineptitude or worse (perhaps) a way of working here which does not belong here. Perhaps the reverting administrator can answer the questions about pre-rendered pages where it was asked? -- carol (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It is very frustrating. The information about that stuff has been added here as hints and not as simple straightforward information. The "red links" that this would have provided would actually be something like "we don't leave hints now, we just provide the information as accurately as the software allows". It was not a request for the deletion of a list that was being used to cross-reference (instead of leaving "hints") and, the user who left all of those "hints" instead of just providing the information was informed of the deletion request -- a task which is beyond the skills of many an administrator here. -- carol (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Post about why it needs deleted on the admin board. RlevseTalk 21:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC) <-- approved by Foroa. And the now deleted template page was a direct link to an external web site. I have never seen how it is to get administrators deactivated here and I am sorry to be seeing a situation where it is probably the best thing. -- carol (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ask Lar. RlevseTalk 21:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Story of B-P picture was deleted?[edit]

Hi Randy, someone deleted the Story of B-P picture from the Baden-Powell House collection. Can you find out why? Wim van Dorst (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC).

Easy enough to find this: Just click on the red link and it appears within the usual stuff. Commons "Link to" works for red links also. -- carol (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Wim! The DR says "Copyright infridgment probably. It is a painting from w:David Jagger, as it is also depicted in Image:Bphouse-collection02.jpg. There is no indication on why the picture would be PD (painter died in 1958)" so I'm afraid we'll need better proof of why it might be PD. If you don't have a watch set on all the commons images you are interested in, you may want to do that. RlevseTalk 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, all. Thanks for the quick response. That the Baden-powell1.jpg might be deleted is understandable: as I recall it, it was the picture itself, perhaps even retouched as on all those postcards by the picture owner (copyright holder?). However, the image:bphouse-collection02.jpg picture is a photograph by Estavao Salles, a Argentinian Scout who visited B-P House, took pictures of the house and its collection, including the painting in the setting of the collection, and explicitly made them available for PD, similarly as I see it on the image:bphouse-collection01.jpg. I'm no copyright expert, but expect that a photograph of a painting collection is not copyrighted as the paintings themselves, are they? PS. I thought I had all my uploaded pictures on my watchlist. Hence my surprise now. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC).

I have to call in back up support on this one ;-) RlevseTalk 21:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Please do. You know better whom to ask than I. I'll stay tuned. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC).
Image:Bphouse-collection02.jpg was a photo of a painting by David Jagger. The photo is thus a derivative of that painting and since the painting is still firmly under copyright the photo cannot be released under a free license.Geni (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Geni. That's an interesting statement. Would you have a proper reference for it? I would really be much obliged to see the official documentation behind this, so that we can go beyond an is-so/isn't/is-so discussion. Specifically I would like to be able to understand the apparent copyright difference betweeen the 01 and the 02 picture. Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC).
Wim, ping him on his commons talk page. He probably doesn't watch this page. I'd like to know too. RlevseTalk 21:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
In the 01 image the copy wasn't created by a wikipedian something which creates further issues (it is also a far better if lower res copy croped to the painting and with smooth lighting). 02 was created by a wikipedian (it is litaraly a pic of the painting and it's soroundings in a glass case) but is still a derivative of an in copyright painting.Geni (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Geni, I hope you won't be offended by my asking, but what do you actually mean here? Both are photographs of the B-P House collection with the Jagger painting in view, the one photograph somewhat closer than the other. Both have been uploaded by me (a Wikipedian) after mr Salles (a non-Wikipedia Scout) as the photographer kindly put them in GFDL. I have search widely on Wikipedia and Commons, but failed to find useful info about this topic of derivative work by photographing. If you could provide a reference for me, I would be much obliged. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC).

I deleted the image and have been asked to comment on it.

Some points:

  1. The painting is not in the public domain (artist died 1958).
  2. This is a reproduction of a work which is copyrighted.
  3. There is no freedom of panorama or other exemption regarding this work.

Further information:

  1. Commons:Derivative works
  2. Commons:Freedom of panorama

(Please show people who actually ask for such topics the according guidelines. Thank you!)

I also nominated the other image for deletion.

Thank you for your understanding. --Polarlys (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Polarlys, Thanks very much for this clarifying info. I didn't know this information was available on Commons, so I only looked on Wikipedia where this info is limited. Now I do understand your position, and your action to propose the other one for deletion too. Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC).

Holler House[edit]

I went and took a couple of pics of the Holler House building today: 1, 2. Hope they're useful. --Dori - Talk 17:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yea, thanks! I like the 0056 (2nd one) better. I'm adding it, both if it'll fit well in the article. RlevseTalk 20:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks a lot for your help.

--M7 (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
No problem. RlevseTalk 22:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Many Thanks[edit]

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

Cheers, SterkeBak


Commons requires a little tiding.

Hi, thanks for trusting me as admistrator. I will be trying to make a good use of this tools, and using it with care. Surely this will motivate me to work more on the project, as well as in other areas ;) Sfu (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


Did you see my latest addition? Look at Category:Strengthen the Arm of Liberty and en:Strengthen the Arm of Liberty? Evrik (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No I hadn't. Very nice. Nom it for DYK on en wiki. RlevseTalk 11:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
See this, hope you don't mind. Best regards, --Kanonkas(talk) 12:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
THanks, don't mind. Philly given due credit. RlevseTalk 13:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


Do you know of any issues with CheckUsage? Evrik (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It goes down fairly often, AFAIK all you can do is wait for it to come back up. You could report it an AN but lots of people keep an eye on it. RlevseTalk 22:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Knowing the direct link helps ... Evrik (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
COM:AN. --Kanonkas(talk) 16:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at WikiSource?[edit]


I came across a .pdf text file uploaded at Commons (Maltbie Davenport Babcock Memorial Service Leaflet.pdf). It's still in upload purgatory. Doesn't this belong at WikiSource anyway, not here? JGHowes talk - 02:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I have djvu files here that link to source. Ask Jayvdb to be sure. He'll know. RlevseTalk 02:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Missing image[edit]

Hi. You deleted Special:Undelete/Image:BSicon_eWBRÜCKE+GRENZE.svg and Special:Undelete/Image:BSicon_exWBRÜCKE+GRENZE.svg as duplicate. That's fine, BUT: if you do things like this, please do never forget to notify all pages, where this image was used. It's very hard to track down such deletions and deleting of these icons breaks lots of article layouts like this. Please always remember that Commons contents are transcluded to other wikis! If you deleted more of these icons please work through them and notify all wikis using them on the appropriate article talk pages, same for the mentioned one, of course. Thanks. --Thogo (Disk.) 15:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: I just learned that the tool showing including of images across wikis doesn't work properly and showed these images as delinked (which wasn't the case). So, not your fault. I fixed all transclusions on dewiki, but probably other wikis used these icons too, I know enwiki and nlwiki use some of them at least. Maybe better make an image redirect instead of deleting. --Thogo (Disk.) 16:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi: I always use delinker and delete when it says there are no remaining links. Yes, sometimes it doesn't work right, but usually it does. Thanks for the help. RlevseTalk 16:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Great! I hope Duesentrieb (it's his one, isn't it?) can debug the tool. The erroneous output was replicated by several people on these images, so it does really seem to be a bug of the tool rather than another kind of weirdness. It might have to do with the "+" in the image names. --Thogo (Disk.) 17:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure whose it is. Ask Siebrand, he'll know for sure. Yes, the + could be the problem. RlevseTalk 21:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays![edit]


Kanonkas(talk) would like to take this opportunity to wish you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I really do hope this can make your day slightly better, and if it has done, feel free to pass on the WikiLove to anyone you like! :) Friends, random people, and even those you've had disagreements with. Christmas is, after all, a time to forgive any past actions, and move on from them. Again, happy holidays to you all!

thanks. RlevseTalk 21:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Christmas review![edit]

Rayon de soleil et hirondelle 2.jpg

Hi Rlevse/Archive 1. I would like to thank you for the interest you have shown in my request for adminship, and for the time you have taken to review my profile. As a Christmas present I've just been given the admin tools, for which I'm thankful as well. I have understood all the remarks that have been made during the review period. I will take them into account and begin using the tools with much care, until I gain more experience and self-confidence. Thanks again, and Merry Christmas! --Eusebius (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)