User talk:Ruthven/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

File:Eraldo Pecci(1).jpg

Ciao. Ho fixxato questo file, facente parte di questo elenco. A differenza di quanto riportato in precedenza, lo scatto non è precedente al 1975 (cosa abbastanza palese alla luce degli sponsor di maglia) bensì appartiene alla stagione 1988-1989: è uguamente in regola, o va anch'esso in cancellazione? --Danyele (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Danyele: , cancellato. Grazie. --Ruthven (msg) 14:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: permessi

Scusatemi, è la prima volta che sono riuscito ad avere un permesso di riutilizzo di foto copyright ed è pensavo andasse bene così. Se mi fai la cortesia di modificarne una poi vedo come hai fatto te e mi regolo di conseguenza il resto e il lavoro sporco lo posso fare tranquillamente io.--Threecharlie (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Scusa ancora, la prossima volta vedo di stare più attento. :-/ --Threecharlie (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, già che ne stiamo parlando. Mi sono accorto che non mi ha mandato tutte le foto relative alle calciatrici del Brescia però credo si possa comunque utilizzare quelle che sono presenti sul sito perché è stato linkato che provengono da lì o mi sbaglio?--Threecharlie (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

(rientro) Ok, l'unica foto che si era dimenticato di inviarmi via mail l'ho caricata prendendola a bassa risoluzione dal sito; ora ho alcune altre foto che mi ha sempre mandato via mail in altra risoluzione, che sono (mi dice) presenti nel sito ma altrove (e non so nemmeno se ve ne siano che non sono presenti nel sito). Che faccio? Devo buttare tutto? Non so nemmeno se il responsabile del Brescia che me le ha inviate sia ancora in organico, tanto che mi chiedeva la cortesia di completare l'operazione prima della fine di maggio. Attendo news.--Threecharlie (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Tavole Schiavoni

Grazie infinitamente. A me erano finite in fondo al "cassetto" delle cose da fare... :-P --Retaggio (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Mariage carnavalesque de Basile et Pat à la mairie du XXème arrondissement.jpg

Je confirme que Bjmarc est bien l'auteur de la photo File:Mariage carnavalesque de Basile et Pat à la mairie du XXème arrondissement.jpg

Basilou (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

They deleted file you approved

File:2017 Australian GP security team.jpg <- OTRS permission processed... Seems to me they don't even care you approved this, sorry you waysted your time(Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)) Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem with that picture is the copyright infringement of the map in the background. Jcb (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I can Cropp it, but all the other photos were uploaded with one OTRS email before it. I guess you chose the wrong email to approve. Bad luck for me LoL(Australianblackbelt (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC))

@Australianblackbelt and Jcb: I undeleted the file, and kept a cropped version. --Ruthven (msg) 09:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Clearly Ruthven you are a bloody legend, and not just for this instance I might add... Thanks again.(Australianblackbelt (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC))

I deleted this File:Terry_Lim_hall_of_fame.jpg set to speedy delete cause it is the wrong one I uploaded (Australianblackbelt (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC))

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Big Black Sound Of Impact.jpg

I left a message here rather than closing it because Magog the Ogre is an experienced and respected colleague and he apparently saw something here that he didn't like. I think it would have been better to wait a day or so for him to clarify his reason. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Hi, I did the same kind of consideration, but, looking at the file, I really haven't found anything wrong with it. I thus supposed that it was a mistake of Magog the Ogre in nominating this specific file. Magog, you can write me back if it isn't like that, and we re-open the DR. No problems at all. --Ruthven (msg) 14:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Iovitzu Popescu lecturing 1982.jpg

Hello, Ruthven! I just wanted to thank you for sorting out the permission for File:Iovitzu_Popescu_lecturing_1982.jpg. You have my deepest appreciation! The feedback I got from you certainly helped me improve my wikiskills. Take care! --Flaviu stokker (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Cancellazioni

E che devo fare? Il danno oramai è fatto. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Cosa abbiamo su FoP? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 17:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

La cosa è complicata (ovviamente), ma sembra che in Italia la libertà di panorama si applichi sotto numerose eccezioni. Il diritto d'autore sull'opera, ossia il diritto fisico di modificarla, spetta all'architetto e "scade" con la sua morte. In questo senso, gli eredi perdono ogni diritto (cioé, non vi è bisogno di chiedere loro il permesso se si deve aggiungere un'ala ad un edificio, per esempio). Questo influenza anche ciò che ci riguarda, ossia le fotografie di edifici.

Chi preserva il copyright sulle opere architettoniche è il Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali. Ma sono solamente protette le opere d'ingegno con un carattere creativo (legge del 1941, come ben sappiamo - Art. 20, 2° comma – Art 23, comma 1). Allora chi è che decide che un'opera architettonica sia a carattere creativo e quindi da vincolare? Un giudice? L'architetto? Un admin? No, la Direzione Generale Arte e Architettura contemporanee e Periferie urbane (http://www.aap.beniculturali.it). Si parla di "Architettura contemporanee e Periferie urbane" perché le opere antiche (ossia 70 anni dopo la morte dell'architetto) cadono sotto un'altra legge. Sono protette quindi solo le opere registrate presso il DGAAP, come la Facoltà d'Ingegneria di Napoli di Luigi Cosenza, vincolata nel 2005. Chi può richiedere il vincolo? Lì sta il bello: sembra che solo l'architetto possa farlo, mentre gli eredi no (sentenze del Consiglio di Stato: Sez. VI, 26 luglio 2001, n.4122 e 15 aprile 2008, n.1749). Quindi, ad autore deceduto e opera svincolata, ci sarebbe effettivamente libertà di panorama. Se l'architetto fosse ancora in vita, potrebbe sempre richiedere il vincolo alla DGAAP, se non lo ha fatto già (l'approvazione può richiedere alcuni anni).

Mi sono fatto passare le sentenze e la risposta dell'avvocatura dello Stato. Devo studiare bene la questione, ma ciò potrebbe aprire nuovi orizzonti. Cioé, le opere di Piano sono o saranno probabilmente protette da copyright, mentre quelle di Cosenza no (almeno quelle non vincolate). Ti tengo al corrente dei miei studi... --Ruthven (msg) 13:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Quindi di fatto si conferma quello che mi avevano detto un amico architetto e un altro avvocato: la cosiddetta proprietà intellettuale sull'opera si considera estinta alla morte dell'architetto perché gli eredi non possono sapere quello che l'architetto avesse in mente su eventuali modifiche. Quindi pure per esempio il nulla osta di un erede sulle modifiche non ha titolo a sussistere perché l'erede potrebbe fare qualsiasi altro mestiere che non lo rende titolato a esprimersi sulla materia. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Blackcat: Esatto. Anche se conserva i diritti morali, il parente non può fare nulla (forse al limite intentare una causa se l'opera è usata per denigrare o se viene snaturata, ma ne dubito). --Ruthven (msg) 13:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

In ogni caso era una cosa senza una logica, così come senza logica è l'accanimento di nostre utenti quali Emmepici cui ho consigliato anche in privato di soprassedere e di non sparare sui nostri perché già bastano i tedeschi a venire con l'accetta a spiegare a noi le leggi italiane (ancora ricordo il casino che fecero con il PD-ITA che, siccome un tribunale austriaco aveva riconosciuto il diritto di un fotografo tedesco a Vienna, allora il PD-ITA non valeva più perché secondo lui la sentenza si applicava a qualsiasi caso di PD fuori dal suo Paese ).
La cosa ha una base di buonsenso, perché innanzitutto non esistono cause in Italia sulla violazione della libertà di panorama (e sapendo gli italiani come fanno causa sulla qualunque, figurati se non l'avrebbero fatto), secondo perché il principio è che se io possiedo una villa disegnata da Piacentini, posso farne quello che voglio, anche scattare foto e venderle, perché la proprietà è mia, e nessun erede può pretendere niente sull'opera di mia proprietà.
Parimenti ponti, scuole, ministeri, sono proprietà dello Stato o degli enti locali che, se non mettono limitazioni, è pubblica. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Blackcat: Piano... Gli edifici statali entrano nel dominio pubblico 20 anni dopo la costruzione, non subito. Comunque dubito che Piano non abbia mai intentato causa per violazione di diritto d'autore; per quello chiede il vincolo per le sue opere. Comunque la legge sul copyright italiana ha questa nozione di "creatività", che almeno nel caso degli edifici è ufficializzata. Dovremmo trovare una lista (o un motore di ricerca) di edifici vincolati, per cominciare. --Ruthven (msg) 19:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

E chi dice di no? 20 anni praticamente sono il 95 per cento di tutto l'esistente. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 09:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Permission question

Hi Alex, would you consider the link provided by the uploader at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Øyvind Holmstad as sufficient proof the images are his own and freely licensed? The name is the same here and at the link given. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Of course not: nobody tells us that the person behind the pseudo is the author of the brochure. However, you can ask him to send an OTRS permission (or a confirmation of the uploads) to permissions-no, using his Lamelltre Holding address. --Ruthven (msg) 17:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

OTRS forwarded permissions

Hi Ruthven. How is it going. While I was processing 2017052210012931, I found 2017051010007666 which was sent by the same customer. This looks to me like it is a forwarded permission and I am not sure if we are permitted to accept these. For my ticket I chose to ask for clarification because it also received a forwarded message using very similar wording (lack of GFDL version, and the comment inside ' marks). I feel like it may be important to re-review 2017051010007666 and ask the party who was forwarded to re-clarify if the email was legitimately sent. What are your thoughts, is this necessary? Cheers, seb26 (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seb26: We are of course able to accept forwarded permissions (just check the Plain format tab, in order to check that it is not a forgery). In such cases, you put in CC the author (the one whose message has been forwarded) to inform him/her so to have an answer if something is wrong. --Ruthven (msg) 17:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

How does one identify it is not a forgery? Isn't the text of a forwarded message simply included in the body and can be edited by the resender before resending? seb26 (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seb26: Yes, but it is complicated. In any case, we allow people to "represent" others, and to forward permissions. If it is a forgery, the author in CC will answer: "Hey! It's a copyrighted image"; it's all we can do. We do not have to turn paranoiac toward authorisations, as any kind of permissions can be forged, if you think about that. --Ruthven (msg) 20:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree there are limits to what we can do, but I don't see how that document really invalidates the idea of being cautious about email forgeries. Forging an email to look like it was forwarded from professional@photographer.com is frighteningly easy. I have edited forwarded email messages frequently in the past when I needed to show a friend just a portion of the full email. You can also edit what was quoted and adjust it as you like without evidence. They really are not a very trustworthy or verifiable source of information. Even on-wiki discussions which are far less consequential, we always refer to diff links and never copy paste other people's statements to other pages with their signature still on it, because we trust that the page history is the only authoritative version of what was said and anything else can be edited by anyone. When you consider that permissions are supposed to be a correspondence between us and the copyright holder, why do we permit a third-party middleman to be responsible for passing along the correspondence? It's nice when some users go to the trouble of reaching out to copyright holders who are unaware of Wikipedia and are keen on contributing, but after that, why is that third party user still involved? The presence of two template messages about forwarded statements seems like a strong enough suggestion to me that they are not/should not be permitted. Anyway, Help:Verifying_permissions on OTRS wiki has already had a discussion on this. I agree with you that copying the copyright holder into the message is a good way to ensure validity, although with my tickets I've been quite frankly happy to leave the ticket open and the files pending until the copyright holder responds themselves saying 'yes'. With respect to the ticket I mentioned above, a general question about the lack of GFDL version: is that important like it is with CC licenses or is it not important with GFDL if the version is missing? seb26 (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrato de Guillermo Silveira

En relación con los últimos mensajes sobre "mi" retrato de Guillermo Silveira, debo indicar en primer lugar que, efectivamente, entiendo sobradamente que, sin otro tipo de pruebas más exigentes, cualquier persona podría atribuirse la autoría de cualquier obra y la consiguiente propiedad intelectual sobre ella o cualquier elemento de la misma.

Así las cosas, creo que, en el caso que nos ocupa, debo incidir en dos preguntas o cuestiones fundamentales:

¿Existe un libro titulado Cien artistas de Extremadura (Badajoz: Carisma Libros. ISBN 8488964110) del que es autor un tal Miguel Pérez Reviriego?

A esta primera pregunta, puede contestarse simplemente accediendo al Catálogo de la Biblioteca Nacional de España http://catalogo.bne.es/uhtbin/webcat e introduciendo en el campo AUTORES el ya mencionado Miguel Pérez Reviriego.

Asimismo en las web:

https://www.iberlibro.com/Cien-artistas-Extremadura-P%C3%A9rez-Reviriego-Miguel/1484706741/bd

y otras…

Queda por demostrar, pues, que ese Miguel Pérez Reviriego autor del libro titulado Cien artistas de Extremadura es el usuario Mperezreviriego, o sea, yo…

A este respecto, debo destacar que mientras que el DNI de Miguel Pérez Reviriego es el 0 8 772 919 Y, la contraseña del usuario Mperezreviriego es 919 772 8; es decir, mi número de DNI invertido, sin la letra y sin el 0.

Si todo lo dicho no ha sido suficiente, ruego me indiquéis a la mayor brevedad posible la naturaleza CONCRETA de otras pruebas de que Miguel Pérez Reviriego es el usuario Mperezreviriego. Lógicamente, no tendría ningún inconveniente ni problema en presentarlas. Saludos de --Mperezreviriego (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Ítem más

Abundando en lo dicho anteriormente sobre la naturaleza de otras pruebas que demuestren INEQUÍVOCAMENTE que Miguel Pérez Reviriego es el usuario Mperezreviriego, podría, lógicamente, enviaros cualquier dato, fecha, etc., que me pidierais al respecto. De nuevo, saludos a la espera de vuestras indicaciones. --Mperezreviriego (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Por ejemplo, si fuese necesario, podría enviaron a la dirección de correo que me indicarais una imagen escaneada de mi DNI o cualquier otro documento acreditativo de que Miguel Pérez Reviriego, autor del retrato de Guillermo Silveira, y el usuario Mperezreviriego somos la misma persona. Saludos de --Mperezreviriego (talk) 09:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mperezreviriego: Si, es una buena solución. Puedes preguntar el operator que te ha contestado per mail si le va bien (pero penso que si). --Ruthven (msg) 10:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

En mi torpeza para todo este tipo de cuestiones no sé a qué operador que me haya contestado por email te refieres para enviarle la imagen escaneada de mi DNI. ¿Podrían concretarme un poco más la dirección del envío? Saludos de --Mperezreviriego (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mperezreviriego: Escribiste a OTRS, ¿correcto? Pues, has recibido una respuesta desde OTRS a la cual hay que contestar. Estas cuestiones se arreglan por email. --Ruthven (msg) 16:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Jacques Arnaud

Hi Alex, I was reviewing File:Photo Jacques Arnaud wikipedia.jpg and two other images of his paintings I have already nominated for deletion, but I have a problem with his death date because fr:Jacques Arnaud states 2008 in the infobox but the lede says 1990. So I looked at the WikiData that says 2008 and has a reference which I think is a different person. The birthpIace is not Montpellier but Saint-Pierre-les-Églises (Vienne). I also looked around for any other biographies that could confirm the death date which I am inclined to think is 1990 but I could not find anything. Maybe you know where I can look to verify the date. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: On the BNF you find for the writer, journalist and French resistant

Birth : Saint-Pierre-les-Églises (Vienne), 10-07-1918; Death : 24-04-2008

I don't think that it's the same person as the painter (actually someone pointed at that in the frwiki talk page)). Well done! --Ruthven (msg) 07:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed the WikiData death date reference entry and it was a robot that posted a notice of my deletion nomination on the talk page. I'd really like to find a death date reference, so if you find one please add it or let me know. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

license text

Hi, I'm writing you about [[1]] this image was marked as public domain when I posted my deletion request. Can you point me to the part of the license that allows a derivative work to do that? The author did not edit the license, another editor did. Is that consistent with Wikimedia commons policy? I also wonder if marking derivative work as "own work" is accepted practice. O18 (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@O18: ALL licenses we accept here (Creative Commons CC BY SA in primis) allow to modify the works. In that case, the text of the license in File:USDebt.png says:

   You are free: to remix – to adapt the work

This means that you can modify the work and redistribute the result under the same license (read below the "Under the following conditions" part).

For the "public domain" thing (which is CC0 mark, not public domain), read carefully [2] and you'll see that it allows to do that. --Ruthven (msg) 08:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

to be clear, you're claiming that if I release an image under CC BY-SA 3.0, another person can remix and release the derivative work under an uncotpatible license? Or at least a license CC does not recognize as compatible [3]. Have you shared this novel interpretation with CC? I also wonder about a user who is not the uploader modifying the license. I don't see how that is allowable. Is there provision for that? O18 (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

this policy COM:EI appears to say that the derivative work should also not list the source of the derivative work as "own" but instead, "own based| 1= ...". I wonder what can be done about that. Maybe you can help me what what I might do. O18 (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@O18: No, I'm saying that if you release a work under CC BY-SA 3.0, it can be modified and released under a compatible license. The source of the original work must be named in the derivative work if the license requires it (this applies to CC by licenses, but not in the Public Domain images, for instance). --Ruthven (msg) 07:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Suppressions de fichiers.

Bonjour Ruthven,

Je suppose que vous me lirez, vivant à Toulouse. Je vous confirme que je suis bien l'auteur du fichier File:Hitoe (Curtains in bamboo, pines and lespedeza pattern).Detail. Matsuzakaya Collection.jpg, et que la mention au catalogue est seulement une indication de référence qui peut être utile. Par ailleurs File:Chobonaino Dogu.Hokkaido. Late Jōmon.jpg, est une photo de Commons que j'ai retouchée avec Photoshop : File:Hollow Dogu Kakku.jpg. J'en ai agrandi la taille pour être plus proche de la vérité en me référant à une vue partielle, de très faible définition sur le site du musée. Je regrette que le fichier File:Couple from Taxila. Sikap. Karachi, National Museum.jpg, ait été supprimé et qu'il apparaisse, sous des droits d'auteur présumés de Alamy. C'est bien le fichier que j'avais déposé qui a été ainsi volé à la communauté. Quant à File:Zaowouki.jpg, cette photo d'écran provenant d'une émission de télévision, avait été déposée avec une forte distorsion. Je m'étais efforcé d'en produire une image honorable et j'avais été remercié pour cela. Je suppose qu'il est interdit d'utiliser une photo d'écran de télévision. Désolé. Je travaille aussi beaucoup sur Commons, comme sur Wikipédia. Bonne journée. (Ismoon (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC))

@Ismoon: Merci pour les explications. J'ai modifié le fichier Chobonaino Dogu.Hokkaido. Late Jōmon.jpg afin qu'on comprenne bien la provenance et enlevé la requête d'élimination de File:Hitoe (Curtains in bamboo, pines and lespedeza pattern).Detail. Matsuzakaya Collection.jpg. Les émissions de télé sont couvertes de droit d'auteur en effet, ainsi que les captures d'écran ; c'est dommage car on n'a pas d'autres photos de l'artiste. Pour ce qui est de Couple from Taxila. Sikap. Karachi, l'image originale était bien un scan et donc, aussi couverte par le droit d'auteur. Seules les reproductions d'objets en 2D (peintures, dessins) peuvent être utilisées sans l'autorisation du photographe, à condition que l’œuvre soit elle-même dans le domaine public. Bonne continuation. --Ruthven (msg) 14:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion requests/File:September Großer Stern Berlin Star Gate Victory Column - Master Earth Photography 1988 - panoramio.jpg

Dear Ruthven, can you nearer explain your deletion rationale? I can not recognize "low quality" after i have restored this image. IMHO the image is clearly within the project scope. Regards --Ras67 (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ras67: Well, the photo was blurred/moved and the Victory column was cut. No EDUSE possible. Consider that there are several better alternatives. --Ruthven (msg) 19:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Files of Naples with bad file names

Ciao Ruthven. Grazie per aver creato questa categoria che tu incrementi con i files che hanno un nome numerico provvisorio che va cambiato in uno descrittivo più specifico. Vorrei solo pregarti non non metterci le foto antiche di grandi fotografi prolifici (come per esempio quelle di William Henry Goodyear perché a differenza delle attuali foto digitali dove il nome numerico è casuale e viene dato dalla macchina, in queste foto antiche si tratta invece di numeri di classificazione dell'archivio negativi del fotografo. Capisco che preferiremmo che nel nome fosse indicato il luogo e il soggetto, ma questi numeri di classifica sono molto importanti. Quando ho raccolto e risistemato tutte le immagini italiane di Goodyear questi numeri di classifica sono stati fondamentali non solo per il riordino, ma molto spesso anche per l'identificazione del soggetto e del luogo (quando mancavano). Lì dove questo nome numerico era stato cambiato da qualcuno in uno "più appropriato" ti assicuro che ho avuto molte difficoltà in più a sistemare l'immagine. Grazie per la tua comprensione e collaborazione. Buon lavoro a te. --DenghiùComm (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@DenghiùComm: Una soluzione ci sarebbe, perché comunque questi file non hanno un nome indicativo del contenuto, ossia hanno un nome che va cambiato. Fae, quando inporta tonnellate di foto da cataloghi online, usa un formato dello stile: NOME_CATALOGO_(numerazione). Nella stessa situazione, mi ha pregato di rinominare a piacere la parte NOME_CATALOGO, ma di lasciare assolutamente il numero identificativo per poter effettuare delle ricerche in seguito e/o risalire alla fonte. Potremmo fare la stessa cosa qui. Ci sarà comunque da lottare contro chi cambierà nome ai file, dato che il progetto è aperto a tutti. Ti faccio anche notare che andrebbe usato per queste foto da archivi il template {{Photograph}}, dove il numero di catqalogo appare in un campo leggibile da una macchina (i nomi dei file non lo sono, perché la sintassi è libera). Quindi, per fare quello che dici tu, piuttosto che un irrealizzabile "non tocchiamo nulla", ci dovremmo organizzare per inserire il template nei file o rinominarli a dovere. --Ruthven (msg) 08:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Le soluzioni possono essere diverse, basta mettersi d'accordo. Comunque credo che queste foto non sono la cosa più urgente da fare in questo momento in Commons... ;-) Saluti carissimi. --DenghiùComm (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@DenghiùComm: già :) Pensavo però che i template si potrebbero inserire con l'aiuto di un bot, dato che è possibile recuperare numero di catalogo e dati sulla foto. Non so esattamente a quali foto ti riferisci (forse quelle di Monti), ma sicuramente è fattibile senza perderci troppo tempo. --Ruthven (msg) 08:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Non conosco per niente questo template e mi sfugge la comprensione esatta di cosa esso comporterà. Per intanto da ieri sono alle prese con il riordino di quasi 400 foto antiche d'Italia del Hallwyl Museum che ingombravano la cat "Historical images of Italy". Ho impiegato tutta la giornata di ieri per smistarle una per una nei rispettivi comuni. Ora comincerò a riprenderle una per una per classificarle anche sotto i nomi degli autori, aggiornare le rispettive didascalie, ed i cataloghi virtuali. Mi impegnerà penso almeno una settimana. Sinceramente non vorrei dovermi occupare in questo momento anche di quelle già sistemate di Goodyear... Capiscimi. Ciao e grazie sempre di tutto. --DenghiùComm (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@DenghiùComm: mi starò cionco per qualche giorno! :) Promesso --Ruthven (msg) 12:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Denghiù veri mocc ! --DenghiùComm (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

2017050910007687

Hey Ruthven, wanted to ask about ticket:2017050910007687, the file page was marked as approved but there was no agent reply to the email. Is it done? On first glance, it doesn't look like the customer is related to the copyright holder if that image was first posted on Twitter. But you may know more than I do about this one. Cheers, seb26 (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi seb26! If you check in the upper tab "People > Customer", you'll find the other emails from the same customer. He had sent another email about the same file (now merged in ticket:2017051010012098), and I added the permisison using the wrong ticket number (now corrected); thanks to pointing it out! Cheers! --Ruthven (msg) 12:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Nice, thanks =) seb26 (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Old OTRS ticket

Hi Ruthven! Could you please check Ticket:2017050310021547 and see if the following photographs are covered:

• File:Stadio Casaleno Frosinone in costruzione 2017-1.jpg
• File:Stadio Casaleno Frosinone in costruzione 2016-1.jpg
• File:Stadio Casaleno Frosinone in costruzione 2016-2.jpg
• File:Stadio Casaleno Frosinone in costruzione 2017-2.jpg
• File:Stadio Casaleno Frosinone in costruzione 2017-3.jpg
• File:Stadio Casaleno Frosinone in costruzione 2017-4.jpg
• File:Stadio Casaleno Frosinone in costruzione 2017-5.jpg
• File:Stadio Casaleno Frosinone in costruzione 2017-6.jpg
• File:Stadio Casaleno Frosinone in costruzione 2017-7.jpg
• File:Stadio Casaleno Frosinone in costruzione 2017-8.jpg
• File:Stadio Casaleno Frosinone in costruzione 2017-9.jpg
• File:Stadio Casaleno Frosinone in costruzione 2017-10.jpg

The files are still having the otrs pending tag attached. Thanks for your time! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: Hi, thanks to point out this situation. The ticket from the photograph is acceptable. However, FoP in Italy is quite... delicate: it applies only to architectures registered to the Ministry of Culture, which is not the case for stadium (very few buildings are protected by FoP in practice). But, some commoners are quite deletionists and I prefer to prepare a full file about FoP in Italy to defend such uploads, this is why I asked the user who uploaded the photos to move/copy the files to it.wiki instead. Meanwhile, the Italian Parliament is going to discuss a new law relaxing FoP (in the next months). Finally Hedwig, do as you want! :) You can delete them, and we will restore the files later as photos of architectural works are not really covered by copyright law in Italy (as I wrote before). Cheers! --Ruthven (msg) 09:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Aloha! My intention was only to compare ticket and uploads. My Italian is somewhere around zero and Google Translate doesn't always translate the details and since it's your ticket..... I'am OK with waiting. Daphne pulled the trigger in the meantime. We can restore and add the ticket#, tho. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 22:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't really warm to have those files on Commons without being clear about FoP in Italy. In any case, the ticket is valid and the files can be legally restored. Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 07:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, thinking about it, let's wait and see what the Italian politicians come up with. It probably ends up being: --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yousef Saanei - by Ali Mahmoudi,Sanei.org.jpg

I respectfully disagree with the conclusion of this deletion discussion. There is no evidence to support the claim now made that derivative works are permitted. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@LX: Actually it's a doubt that I had as well, thanks to pointing it out. The website says just "to copy" and probaly also intends derivative works. But it is preferable to have an explicit authorisation for modifications. I'm gonna delete the file. --Ruthven (msg) 12:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering. I think that's the right call. Regards, —LX (talk, contribs) 12:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion summaries

I posted a question at Commons talk:Deletion requests#Closing deletion comments but no one replied. Maybe this was not the best forum to ask such a question, so where would be a better place to ask this question. Do you even think it is worth suggesting in the first place? Ww2censor (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Hello! How are you doing? I think that's the right place, but it's not a very visited page. You might want to link the discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals. --Ruthven (msg) 07:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, and you, I hope the summer is good there too. Maybe the sun will come back soon. I have not been to Toulouse recently and will likely not be there before October in which case I will get in touch. Thanks for the advise; I'll try that. BTW, I did an English translation of on of the Musée Saint-Raymond characters, w:Alexandre Du Mège. Maybe you would have a look over it when you get a few minutes. Ww2censor (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: The translation looks fine. So fine that I'm going to create the article in Italian! Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 11:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I am working on another one for the enwiki: fr:Camille Ournac. Ww2censor (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: I've finished the Italian version on Du Mège, but now I think that I'll write the whole story of the fake bas-reliefs and inscriptions, because it sounds funny and was a big scandal at the time. --Ruthven (msg) 13:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That was really quick. You are a good linguist. If you do write about the fakes, maybe you will replace the English version as it certainly seemed to be quite a scandal. I noticed that you used fewer citations then those I was able to find for the en version, maybe the itwiki is not so fussy. There is also a list of other sources with page numbers that "Velanes31", the original frwiki editor who is now inactive, added in their initial edit but unfortunately did not assign them to any specific prose. If you are able to associate any to specific text, please let me know and I will add them to the en version. Have a great Bastille Day. Ww2censor (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Actually I am on the beach with a mobile phone ;-) so I decided to add the sources on Monday. Italian wiki is very concerned about citations and footnotes, like the other ones I think, but it's a niche subject, so few people will read it meanwhile. I'll look into the other sources, to complete the biography as well. I was thinking about asking @Christelle Molinié: if she has more news about this affair, and maybe photos as well: it could ba a good article for the "Did you know…" weekly feature. --Ruthven (msg) 06:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Great stuff there is no hurry, but there is no beach near Toulouse!! The last tie I went it took me 2+ hours from here. Have a great time; it is a really nice day here today, so the pool will have to do me. Ww2censor (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I know: it's painful. And that's why I'm on Côte d'Azur ;-) Cheers! --Ruthven (msg) 11:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ww2censor and Ruthven, I'm glad to hear from you and I thank you for contributing to make Alexandre Du Mège famous, even in his not very clear actions, because he is an important person for Toulouse heritage. I'm quite sure that we have some documents about the bas-relief de Tétricus. You will be able to see it soon in the museum because we have decided to exhibit each month a new fake antique from our storerooms. So it will be easy to take a photo. Have a nice summer and enjoy your holidays! --Christelle Molinié (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Suvorov-campagna-Italia-Svizzera.png

Yours sincerely, Guanaco (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Palio di Legnano

Ciao, abbiamo un problema con le foto del Palio di Legnano: hanno fatto un restyling del loro sito e qui hanno rimesso tutte le foto sotto copyright (alcune sono sparite, tipo le foto storiche): che si fa, si cancellano tutte ? Ciao, --LukeWiller (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@LukeWiller: è complicato in effetti. Le foto avrebbero dovuto essere riviste da un utente "revisore di licenze", ma apparentemente non è stato fatto. Si potrebbe cercare sulla wayback machine, se la pagina sulle licenze ci sta e quindi chiedere lumi su Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Le foto storiche quali sono? In teoria, quelle non si toccano perché sono in PD-Italia (pre-1976). --Ruthven (msg) 17:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ruthven: qui trovi la pagina sulla wayback machine quando era presente l'avviso "Le immagini presenti nella galleria fotografica soprastante sono rilasciate con licenza CC-BY-SA-4.0". Ma possono rimetterle sotto copyright quando ne hanno rilasciato la licenza ? Non sarebbe una cosa logica: nel momento in cui hanno licenziato i diritti di un'immagine, i diritti non li appartengono più. O sbaglio ? Non si potrebbe risolvere linkando web archive ? --LukeWiller (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC).

@LukeWiller: In teoria non possono tornare indietro. Però, onde evitare una cancellazione di massa, è bene mettere le mani avanti e chiedere alla comunità come regolarsi. Credo che risolveremo inserendo un tag. Fai tu o preferisci che faccia io? --Ruthven (msg) 19:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ruthven: aspetta un attimo. Forse rischiamo di fasciarci la testa per niente. Magari si sono dimenticati di reinserire la scritta quando hanno fatto il restyling. Domani gli scrivo e gli chiedo se hanno cambiato idea oppure se è stata una dimenticanza. Ciao, --LukeWiller (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@LukeWiller: Magari ricorda loro elegantemente che le licenze non si possono ritirare. Ma probabilmente è l'azienda che gli ha fatto la web che ha messo un "Tutti i diritti riservati" di default. --Ruthven (msg) 19:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, l'e-mail quasi quasi gliela scrivo stasera. Prima sto sul generico, poi se mi dicono che è stata una cosa voluta, gli ricordo che non potrebbero farlo. Ti terrò aggiornato. Ciao, --LukeWiller (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC).

@Ruthven: l'ufficio Palio mi ha accennato ad una possibile dimenticanza. Chiederà comunque conferma. --LukeWiller (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC).

@Ruthven: problema risolto. Hanno rimesso la scritta: evidentemente è stata una semplice dimenticanza quando hanno rivisto il sito. Ciao, --LukeWiller (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC).

@LukeWiller: Vogliamo fare lke cose per bene e pararci il sedere per ogni eventuale modifica del sito del Palio? Inserisci {{LicenseReview}} in tutte le pagine delle foto provenienti dal sito del Palio, così verrà "verificata" l'effettiva verifica. PS: Non c'è bisogno di scrivere {{re|Ruthven}}: sei già sulla mia talk ;-) --Ruthven (msg) 09:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppure si potrebbe inserire il link a Web Archive: all'epoca l'avevo trovato. Dimmi tu ciò che sarebbe meglio. --LukeWiller (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@LukeWiller: Meglio la prima, che è un meccanismo rodato qui. Fai appello a webarchive solo in caso di necessità per provare che il file era con licenza libera al momento del caricamento. Con la license review obblighi un utente coi relativi permessi a controllare la fonte: un Web archive umano! --Ruthven (msg) 09:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, allora provvedo subito. Ciao, --LukeWiller (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC).

 Fatto ho inserito il template dove necessario. Ciao, --LukeWiller (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC).

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Obsolete North Dakota Highway shields

We do delete superseded PNGs - see several requests linked off Commons:WikiProject Highways/Precedents. --Rschen7754 21:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: You're right, but several files were still in use. First replace them with the SVG version before requesting deletion. See COM:Redundant. --Ruthven (msg) 05:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

They were already replaced during the deletion request. --Rschen7754 06:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: Well done. I delete the files. Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 07:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering! --Rschen7754 18:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

da cancellare

Special:Contributions/Agoinvena, bufalaro vandalo con tanti saluti da it.wiki :-P --Civvì (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

License review

I've noticed a lot of the files from https://wilde-planten.nl/ (and maybe others) marked cc-by-sa-2.0 (generic) are actually cc-by-sa-2.0-fr. I'm not sure of the legal differences between the two, but it seems to be worth marking. Guanaco (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Guanaco: I've noticed that as well. I think it's the same, but it's better to stick to the license. Using cc-by-sa-2.0-fr. Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 08:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Ticket:2017071210011341 : Merci pour ta réponse

Hello Ruthven, J 'ai pigé et attends la modif de l'autorisation. J'en profite pour te demander si tu sais par hasard comment introduire une image dans le Modèle infobox Biographie2  ? Cela n'a pas l'ait d'être de la tarte . Je voulais justement introduire le portrait de l'artiste .Tu peux me répondre dans ma page de discussion ? .--ildiko Dao 16:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ildiko Dao (talk • contribs) 16:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Ci ho provato

Ci ho provato, ma non ha funzionato, parliamone meglio stasera nella nostra chiacchierata su IRC (se ci sei) --Los Vegas (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Euphydryas: Visto che siamo in tema, se dovesse interessare: meta:Steward_requests/Username_changes#Los_Vegas... Denghiu. ;) --Lucas (msg) 11:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Block on me

I must say, it appears very unjustified and none of my actions seem to have indicated any need of that. Now that it's over, I'd like to take another look at it to make sure this will never happen again.

The block log says, "Uploading out of project scope files after warnings." First of all, what warnings are we talking about? There's been one polite request (I assume a warning is something that has the special orange template, or at least includes the word "warning," or anything) to discuss before any further actions, after which, as you may see in my contributions, I didn't do anything except to peacefully respond. Second, I fail to see how a new version of that file could theoretically fall under out of project scope? I have carefully read Commons:Project scope and I don't see anything I have done does not fulfill the set criteria: this is certainly a media file, svg allowed, licensing okay, educational purpose obvious (see transclusions of the file in en.wiki at very least), not excluded educational content. And even if there is something, why was the uploader not even notified of that at very least and I blocked?

The block message on my user talk page provides, however, a different (!!) reason: "edit warring and inserting nonsense material." First of all, I fail to see how "inserting nonsense material" could possibly be a reason to block anyone under any circumstances. Anyone is okay to be bold and make mistakes and "nonsense" is just an opinion, right? What could, however, be punished is the persistence to go against the established consensus. Yet after I was first reverted, what I did was to engage in a discussion with the reverter in de.wiki (there's a good rule in en.wiki, in which I am usually active, called BRD, which I followed. Not sure if there's a similar rule in Commons but Commons itself surely shares the same spirit of civil discussions). Kolja listed his arguments and I listed mine; I tried to explain why I saw his arguments as insufficient and I added more, after which he stopped responding to me despite still being active even on that same user talk page. Upon waiting for a week (6.5 days actually, but I'd lost any hope for any response), I re-reverted him, assuming he'd run out of arguments. That happened 26 days after he reverted me and that was my only re-revert; I don't see how that could qualify under the title "edit war." (And even if so, does his re-revert within a day really not qualify?) What I also did was to provide some actual references to the map (in its description); the map was entirely unreferenced up to that point. These references are references to the subject of matter itself rather than doubtful third-party sources. (They are still there, but ignored and contradicted.)

So again, I don't see how I deserved that block. If there's been a misunderstanding, I'd love you to remove the undeserved block entry from the log. If you think I actually did something deserving that, I'd love to hear from you on that so it never happens again (and in this case, I'd love to know why Kolja's actions were fine and what is the difference).--R8R (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, please, when you respond, please ping me so that the ping echoes to en.wiki and I see your reply sooner.--R8R (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Richiesta informazioni licenze

Ciao, l'utente Alfre.g mi ha mandato questo nella mia talk:

"Buongiorno Bbruno. Potrei per favore condividere la sua foto delle gallerie dell'ex Pozzo Coscia (ora quasi completamente tombato dopo la costruzione dell'ultimo grattacielo)? Se sì, con quali riferimenti posso citarla come autore? Grazie, un cordiale saluto. Alfredo Grasso (se preferisce, può contattarmi anche su Facebook: ho come foto del profilo dei modellini di treni) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfre.g (talk • contribs) 17:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)"

Non saprei cosa dire perché non mi intendo di licenze, quando ho caricato la foto il sistema l'ha caricata in automatico con questa licenza. Io personalmente non ho problemi riguardo l'attribuzione, ma ci devono essere delle regole di Wikipedia. Cosa posso rispondergli? --Bbruno 16:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bbruno and Alfre.g: La licenza CC by-sa 4.0 con la quale è caricata l'immagine è abbastanza chiara (è quella di difetto usata sui siti di Wikimedia): per riutilizzarla, bisogna obbligatoriamente citare l'autore e ridistribuire la copia con la stessa licenza (inserendo un link al testo della licenza). --Ruthven (msg) 19:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Violazioni di copyright

Mio caro, alla mia età non prendo ultimatum da nessuno, figurati da te che neppure conosco ! Comunque ti puoi rasserenare dato che ho deciso di non collaborare più a Commons proprio perché mi sono stufato di avere a che fare con gli zelanti ed ossequiosi gendarmi del (presunto) copyright. Si prega quindi, e vivamente, di non inviarmi ulteriori messaggi relativi a Commons- --Francescosaverio50 (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

restore files

Hi, Mr. Ruthven, I am writing to ask you if you could restore some PD files while keeping a recently blocked user, I had tried to do some bugs at the COM: UDR, but without many results, I would ask her if they could do something for some recovery:

• Special:DeletedContributions/Глинистый сланец

--87.14.89.82 15:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, several files are actually copyvio. If some image in PD is needed for a Wikipedia, or another project) page, I'll recover it gladly, otherwise it is pointless to waste time. --Ruthven (msg) 15:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

wait, I'm not all copyviol ,,, look I'm seeing some of the issues already made, where some files were restored:

• Here
• Here
• here

these are three restoration issues I asked, and slowly began to move, but unfortunately they stopped in half,, would you feel like to restore them to someone else? --95.248.92.61 17:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI: This is a A3Cb1 sock, longtime abuser. Get's blocked and then from nowhere dynamic IPs show up whining. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: Thanks. In fact I "saved" some of these DR in the past for PD, but those massive uploads are long to check; that's why my opinion is to recover only the ones that will be actually used. Otherwise it's useless to waste time. Cheers! --Ruthven (msg) 08:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-India

Hi, I saw your closure at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_संदेश_हिवाळे. Please be aware that for photographs from India, it's publication+60, not PMA+60. Jcb (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb: I just noticed that, thank you. Do you have an automated way to restore the files or shall we do that by hand? --Ruthven (msg) 17:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, this can only be done by hand. Jcb (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb:  Done --Ruthven (msg) 18:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

F4BI078

Hello, I saw that you unblocked F4BI078 after he contacted you via OTRS. He hasn't responded to anything in English, so I think there's a language barrier. Would you check up on him and his files?

I'm particularly concerned about the authorship of files from http://www.tonypiaceri.it/, as they span multiple decades and may not have the same copyright holder. Guanaco (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Guanaco: Hi! He wrote to Italian OTRS for those photos. I asked him to insert in the website the release under CC BY-SA (even if several of them are actually PD-Italy), thing that he has done. In the next days I suppose he'll upload the photos again, that's why I unblocked him. The more recent photos should be of his authorship (or his father, but he has the authorisation), the other ones, as I said, are PD-Italy (or a work for hire for his father). --Ruthven (msg) 07:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Everything sounds good then. I'll keep an eye on his uploads and license review them as they come in. Thanks for helping with this. Guanaco (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Guanaco: Thanks. In fact, instead of an OTRS ticket, I told him to upload the files with the license review: it is easier to monitor them, and to do a case by case distinction (and I just noticed that I gave him the wrong parameters!). Cheers, Ruthven (msg) 07:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

COM:UDR

Hi, It seems you closed some requests several times. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Yann:  The same you did this morning it seems. I dunno, the javascript is giving me some troubles lately. --Ruthven (msg) 18:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes. I have JS loading issues today. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MSR - Satyre (2 gradient black) - Ra 36.c.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support--Jebulon 19:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MSR - Buste d'un inconnu (2) - Ra 72.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support--Jebulon 19:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Re:

salve signor Ruthven, le scrivo perchè ho notato che di recente le ha ripristinato alcuni file sulla sezione king george del COM: UDR, sono file caricati dall' utente Глинистый сланец, che venne bloccato con l' accusa di essere una marionetta dell' utente a3cb1,, cosa assurda perchè i file copyviol li caricava l' utente Lûgnûg, unica vera marionetta di a3cb1, noto anche che Глинистый сланец ha fatto qualche errore,, ciò nonostante molti sui file cancellati erano dei sovra caricamenti e non solo usati da wikipedia per vari progetti,, vorrei chiederle se si potrebbe avviare un continuo ripristino dei seguenti file cancellati,come aveva fatto nel settore dei Ritratti di Re Giorgio IV--82.52.13.76 15:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

La richiesta deve essere fatta in COM:UNDEL da altri utenti e con una valida motivazione. --Ruthven (msg) 15:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

il problemma è che quando faccio la richiesta fornendo ogni spiegazione e fonte necessaria, la mia richiesta viene cancellata a vista senza neanche essere discussa o analizazta, e questo è veramente irrispettoso--82.52.13.76 17:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Forse era irrispettoso caricare tanti file in violazione del diritto d'autore, forzando a del lavoro inutile tanta gente (anche nell'ultima lista di richieste ve ne erano). Lascia che siano altri a richiedere eventuali file utili. --Ruthven (msg) 18:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Galleria borbonica - Cistern and switches (Naples).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Risposta al commento sul mio scritto nel Bar italiano riguardo la cancellazione di un mio file di mate.

Preg.mo signor Ruthwen , ritengo che wikypedia ( e la rete in generale) sia un mezzo alquanto importante per pubblicare lavori originali di qualsiasi argomento( da prima dell'inizio del nuovo millennio); certamente le riviste scientifiche specializzate sono altersi' importanti, come lo e' sempre la stampa su carta, ma per un informatico che ha studiato e progettato reti,un sito come wikypedia e' fondamentale;certo i lavori pubblicati devono essere chiari e significativi, ma anche chi li analizza e discute, deve farlo con attenzione e competenza, evitando di cancellare lavori utili e performanti 8 che possono pure essere pubblicati su riviste specializzate); porgo cordiali saluti.--Giustino Carinci (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lage Erfbrug 1924.jpg

Hi, I noticed that you added an undeletion cat to this file before delete. This has no effect, because the file disappeared from that category at the moment of deletion. Instead, you can add it to the DR. (Please don't forget the 'noinclude' tags, to prevent the daily archive page from being in the category as well). Jcb (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb: Thank you. I didn't thought about that. I'm going to correct some categories I placed in that way :-/ Ruthven (msg) 17:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Júlio Chaves.jpg

Hi! Please reevaluate your closing. As i said, the source http://pt.vvikipedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ficheiro:J%C3%BAlio_Chaves.jpg was uploaded in 06.2017 but was previously published via grabbed from internet = (example) http://dublanet.com.br/forum1/showthread.php?20631-ENQUETES-Personagens-Ficcionais&s=26898ac8501653c84e67b6f9bd4a995a&p=128723&viewfull=1#post128723 (2016) or http://obutecodanet.ig.com.br/index.php/2009/08/06/dubladores-descubra-quem-esta-por-tras-das-vozes-dos-personagens-famosos/ (2009) or http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Julio-Chaves/ = http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/_img/actors/julio-chaves-7.57.jpg (last modified: 2012) or etc. etc. Thx. Gunnex (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Btw, the uploader is part of the local sock farm pt:Categoria:!Fantoches de Wariowa (+100 socks)... Gunnex (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gunnex: I found the file on another source from 2011.  Done Next time, directly put such files as speedy, using the original copyvio URL. Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 17:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Reuploaded?

Hi, could you tell me whether these two files are the same? File:The Latsos, Giorgi Latso and Anna Latso.jpg and File:The Latsos Performing.jpg. Guanaco (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Guanaco: No, they are different. --Ruthven (msg) 21:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

WLM 2017

Hi Alex, I was in Toulouse yesterday to take some photos of missing historic monuments from the fr:Liste des monuments historiques de Toulouse but unfortunately, besides being a rather overcast day, there was a braderie in the city with very many shops having sale items outside in the streets as well as many people, so it was rather difficult, but I did get some photos taken if not the best. Anyway, I seem to remember you live or work near the Rangueil area where there are a few places that needs photos and I am very unlikely to get there before WLM 2017 ends at the end of the month. The places I noted are: Château de Bellevue, Rangueil, (I think tihis is near Hospital Bellevue/College ?), Studium des Dominicains de Rangueil, Rue Lacordaire, Propriété La Redorte, 42 chemin de Clotasses (near Rangueil) and Belvédère de Toulouse, 51 chemin des Clotasses (south of Rangueil). Maybe I will see you in October or November. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: hello! Usually, to locate monuments that need a photo I use https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikishootme/index.html which shows the wiki data items without an image. I will take advantage of the last summer days to go around and take some shots. The château de Bellevue is in a private park, so I don't know if it will be possible to go near. Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 06:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem with Wikishootme is that it shows all images not just the historic monuments and that September is the upload time for those. It has been some time since I used one of the historic monuments lists but if I remember correctly, it fills in details from the list directly was well as the WLM tag. Wikishootme is certainly useful for finding images needed in an area and I must remember to use it more locally as there are many articles missing images, even around me. Access can certainly be an issue at private properties, such as the château de Bellevue, but sometimes one can sneak in and out quickly or maybe there is no one in residence, or they are abandoned, such as Category:Château de Lézignac that took me quite a bit to find and needed to scramble through overgrown vegetation. What a sorry sight to be so vandalised and I have even more image but just uploaded a selection. Good luck and enjoy the end of summer. Ww2censor (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with the fr:Liste des monuments historiques de Toulouse. At 5 rue de la Pomme is listed a building called "Hôtel de Guillaume de Bernuy" but I was talking to the conservator at the Vielle Museé de Toulouse and he said that building is called "Hôtel de Buet" and sure enough there is w:Hôtel de Buet article and the photos are similar to ones I took (see this Flick image). However the Mérimée listing shows a different building but at that address. Skyscrapercity has a long post with many images about several Toulouse buildings but the outside photo is the same as the 5 rue de la Pomme building that Mérimée lists and there is an article for that building w:Hôtel de Bernuy and the coordinates show it at Rue Gambetta and a Google streetview confirms that. So there seems to be some mix up at Mérimée. How can we deal with that? I will reverse my edit to w:Hôtel de Buet that was based some of the error information that it was also Hôtel de Guillaume de Bernuy. Maybe it is just the image at Mérimée is wrong as they also list this as the Hôtel Bernuy on the rue Gambetta.

On another issue, I took some photos of 30 rue de Changes but did not realise that the registered historic part is actually just the statue and I only took wider images of the building. I cropped one but it is really not very sharp, so maybe you can pass by one day and take a new close-up photo. Regards Ww2censor (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Honestly, I have no idea what's going on on Merimée. Let's ping @PierreSelim and Christelle Molinié: , they might be aware of the issue here. BTW, are you aware of Journées européennes du patrimoine 2017, this weekend in Toulouse? --Ruthven (msg) 14:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully the others can help figure this out for us. No, I did not know about the patrimoine day in Toulouse but we have guests on Saturday and the F1 Grand Prix is on Sunday, so I can't attend. Thanks anyway, it looked quite interesting. Ww2censor (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ww2censor and Ruthven, a few months ago Midesmap made a very good job about the geolocation of the hôtels particuliers of Toulouse on Wikidata and I tried to help him for some difficult cases. There are two Hôtels de Bernuy, one was belonging to Jean and one to Guillaume. So there are two items on Wikidata, one for Jean rue Gambetta, usually called l'hôtel de Bernuy : Q22938605 and one for Guillaume rue de la Pomme usually called hôtel de Buet Q22938620. I think your are right, the image on Mérimée is not the good one. I will ask my colleagues who work for the service régional de l'Inventaire to check these informations. Have a good sunday, and take nice photos ! :) --Christelle Molinié (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Merci infiniment, Christelle. Ww2censor (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Mosiacs

Please re-read Commons:Deletion requests/Murals in Wales, and undelete the images of mosaics, which are permissible as "works of artistic craftsmanship" under UK Freedom of Panorama law. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Andy, so the discussion of 2D vs 3D was totally useless O_0 Restoring... --Ruthven (msg) 08:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the files. Unfortunately, this does not restore the to the various Wikipedia and other sister project pages that were using them. Do you have any suggestions for resolving that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Yes, the edit button in the various pages ;) you can also check the edits from the Commons Delinker and revert them, but there are A LOT. Cheers, Ruthven (msg) 16:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ruthven and Andy, thanks for restoring these. I will try to restore them to Wikipedia articles where this has not already been done. Rather than moving these out Category:Murals in Wales I think we should accept the view that "murals" can include mosaics, and reword the copyright warnings in Murals in Wales and similar categories to clarify this. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Lrw

{{Lrw}} is the subst-only template used by reviewers. Uploaders should use {{License review}} or {{LicenseReview}}. Guanaco (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Guanaco. you see: I never use it usually =) --Ruthven (msg) 10:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:L'Isle-d'Abeau-Isère-gare-08.JPG

Hi. In this DR, I also mentioned a second file to delete. Could you deal with that ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@TwoWings:  Done --Ruthven (msg) 07:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Wiki loves monuments

Salve Ruthven . Le scrivo per avere delle delucidazioni riguardo a delle foto che ho caricato per il concorso WIKI LOVES MONUMENTS ; su alcune di esse mi è apparso l'avviso che il soggetto ripreso fa parte dei beni e del patrimonio dello stato italiano . Vorrei capire se devo eliminarle perchè non ho le autorizzazioni per pubblicarle oppure se sono avvisi che escono fuori in automatico e quindi , posso "ignorarli" . La ringrazio anticipatamente , buongiorno . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Framor1981 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Framor1981: Buongiorno. In Italia i patrimoni dello stato non si potrebbero fotografare, a meno di un uso strettamente personale, pena forti multe. Wikimedia Commons ha una "deroga" e quella scritta serve a ricordarla. Un'altra buona pratica sarebbe di aggiungere nelle pagine delle foto di un Bene culturale, il seguente template: {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}. --Ruthven (msg) 08:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Query

I'm surprised by [your admin closure] here. I understand that the copyright owner may be the producer or the director of a film as this isn't unusual. I still own the copyright of lots of pictures on commons. What I do not understand is why we are are not taking the word of a reputable company that they have permission to release it with a cc-by-sa license from the copyright owner. I think this is an important point as it effects hundreds of images (if not millions) that were not actually loaded by the copyright owner but someone working on his/her/their behalf. If a company has been given permission then how do they convince you that they do have a legal right? Do we need to find affidavits for every picture? Surely the cc by sa logo means something if it comes from a reputable source?

Surely this means that we cannot load any pictures from Flickr as how do we know that cc by sa pictures were loaded by the copyright owner? Libraries and museums are loading pictures but they may be paying third party companies to work on their behalf. These companies are not the copyright owner - they only have legal permission to release these pictures. Can you refer me to where this has been agreed by commons consensus. I'm hoping you are mistaken as will undo a lot of useful (and IMO legal) work. We will need to move lots of pictures back to Wikipedia or Flickr commons for safe keeping. Thanks for your help Victuallers (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Victuallers: A lot of accounts on Flickr do what is called "license washing", in good or bad faith. Here they probably had the right to publish the movie from the copyright holder, and probably they assumed they had the right to change the license. We have no proof that the copyright was transferred, and only the author can give it. --Ruthven (msg) 12:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you confirm that you would give the same result if the company was ABC, the BBC or the WMF? This is "the world’s largest legal digital distributor of African movies" as noted in Wikipedia. Its a company based in London. Are you accusing them of behaving illegally? I do not want to see Wiki commons accused of assuming that that because this isnt an American company then we assume that it behaving illegally. I know that license washing exists but the fact that such a thing is possible does not mean IMO that we should assume that "the world’s largest legal digital distributor of African movies" is doing it. Please reconsider your position. IrokoTV video grabs have been approved by several admins and the actual video you object to is used for other pictures on commons. If you are sure that you have consensus for your position then we are going to need to move 1000s of images out of commons. Victuallers (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Victuallers: Not only I am sure of my position, but I can tell you that without a permission from the author/copyright holder(s) via the OTRS system, uploading such files is a copyright violation. In alternative, it is possible that the TV has acquired the right to the produces/director, but we need a proof of that. --Ruthven (msg) 09:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm just looking at this tweet where our activists have persuaded another organisation to label their web site cc-by SA. What is the point is its unlikely that the minister took the pictures on the site. This is a damaging point of view. Surely this means that no other organisation can use picture from commons if they take a similar point of view. Given a document with a thousand pictures in it then they will need to also check the trail back to the original copyright holder because they cannot take our word that we have the right to publish. Still you are sure. I'm am going to check this elsewhere. Your idea that taking material labelled as cc-by-sa is "loading such files is a copyright violation" makes the WMF into master criminals as we do this millions of times a day. Thanks for your time. Victuallers (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:BSicon uexCONTfl !.svg

Hi, I accidentally stated the wrong file as duplicate on this page (I renamed the files after I had nominated the duplicate for deletion). The file for deletion,   (uexCONTfl !), is a duplicate of  (uexCONTl+g) (not …l+f). Could you review the nomination? Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done @Jc86035: In those cases, don't open a DR, but use {{Duplicate}}. Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 09:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Traitement d'une Undeletion_requests

Bonjour,

Vous avez traité la demande de restauration de documents liés à Adrien Tournachon (je vous en remercie) mais il y a l'un des fichiers que vous n'avez pas restauré : File:Tampon seul.png. Est-ce un oubli ou y-a-til une raison qui fait qu'il ne pouvait pas être restauré ?

O.Taris (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@O.Taris:  Done En effet je l'avais sauté. --Ruthven (msg) 09:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Merci. O.Taris (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

How to participate in OTRS? --189.115.167.74 00:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

First, start having an account. --Ruthven (msg) 09:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Cat-a-lot mistake

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I've reverted a few hundred of your edits from 9 February 2017, which mistakenly incorrectly categorised images into Category:Buddhist temples in Chiang Mai. You might want to check for similar edits to see if other mistakes were made. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Paul 012: , honestly I don't remember how I did these edits in February. However, there are a lot of Buddhist temples in Category:Media needing categories as of 22 December 2016, maybe you can categorise correctly some o'them. --Ruthven (msg) 09:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stecenko.jpg

Hi, do you have any indication that the author would have died before 1951 as stated in the license? For PMA+70 countries it should be before 1947 and we use 1897 as a cutoff if we don't know the author. So for 1951 it would be logical to use 1901 as a cutoff. This picture seems to be from after 1901 based on the birth date of the depicted person. Jcb (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb: I got confused by the mention of "stampa"="newspapers" in the PD-Ukraine template that appears in the Italian version of it: Template:PD-Ukraine/it. Now I read an English translation of the copyright law: "Article 10. The following items shall not be objects of copyright: (a) daily news or details of current events that constitute regular press information;"; so here "daily news" is intended as "written news". Do you concur? So, this file should be deleted and recovered in 2042? --Ruthven (msg) 09:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that would be correct I think. Jcb (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb:  Done... and the template translated in a more precise way. --Ruthven (msg) 11:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Jcb (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

CropTool mistake

Any chance you could just delete File:Eire Robert Emmet (2010-09-20) (cropped).jpg that I mistakenly made using CropTool to crop and rotate the original image that has been overwritten with a cropped and rotated version, so there is really no need for a redirect. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 10:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Ruthven (msg) 11:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Segnalo

User_talk:Aless56, guarda i caricamenti e la talk, strarecidivo. Tutto tuo. --Civvì (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

File:EU28-further enlargement map.svg

Hi! You may remember there's been some controversy over the file last month. I am initiating a discussion to settle the matters. Please comment on the issue at File talk:EU28-further enlargement map.svg#Coloring Russia and Kazakhstan. In addition to that, it'll be great if you suggest any Commons users who could comment on this issue. Thank you!--R8R (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@R8R: Thanks for the notification. In case, you can also bring the discussion to attention in a short note in the Village Pump. Cheers, --Ruthven (msg) 12:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

You're very welcome. That's a good idea, thank you; will do later today or someday soon.--R8R (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Bitte um Mithilfe

Hallo Ruthven,

File:Articolo consegna a Pecori Giraldi della spada d'onore.jpg hatte ich wegen fehlender Quelle markiert. Danach bekam ich diese Anfrage. Meine Antwort auf deutsch wurden wohl nicht verstanden. Ist es möglich, dass Du weitere Informationen wie Zeitschrift, Jahrgang, Nummer, Seite sowie, wenn möglich Autor/Autoren ergänzt? Amano i saluti e il lavoro gioioso ancora, Hystrix (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hystrix:   Done Aber ich glaube, es gibt keine Rechte: die Zeitung ist 1922. Jetzt schreibe ich ihr. --Ruthven (msg) 09:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests

salve Ruthven ti scrivo se posso chiederti il ripristino di alcuni file cancellati che facevano parte di alcune voci inserite in wikipedia, e cancellate da un bot, essendo dei file di genere storico, dovrebbero essere di competenza PD:

• File:Giovan Girolamo II Acquaviva d'Aragona.png
• File:Hermann Billung.jpg
• File:Albrecht II. von Sachsen.jpg
• File:Heinrich der Löwe.jpg
• File:Kaiser Lothar I.jpg
• File:Ritratto di Giulio Cesare Borromeo.jpg
• File:Giacomo Attendolo Sforza.png
• File:Afred Graf von Schlieffen.jpg
• File:Borso d'Este (1605-1657).jpg

questi file elencati sono immagini che facevano parte di voci inserite in wikipedia, si potrebbe ripristinarle, per poi reinserirle nelle seguenti voci di loro appartenenza?,, potresti finire tutto il piccolissimo elenco per favore?--79.17.31.58 15:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

License provenance, closing discussions

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ricardo Latcham.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grete Mostny Glaser.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Enrique Ernesto Gigoux 3.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Humberto Fuenzalida.jpg: you basically brought forth a claim that was not in the licensing discussions, and then instantly closed the discussions as "keep". I would think that would be even more extreme than closing a deletion discussion in which you have participated, which is itself a no-no.

Why do you think the Museo Nacional de Historia Natural de Chile has rights to these photos and can grant a CC-BY-SA license? (That's not a rhetorical question, you may have a basis that I'm missing.) As far as I can see, they all appear as illustrations in articles written by people other than the photographers in question. A license like that would have had to be granted by the photographer. I imagine things are in order about the museum granting the CC-BY-SA license on the articles themselves, but strongly suspect that with reference to the images this is license-washing. You didn't give me any chance to make that case in the discussions, though, because you basically gave your view and then instantly closed them, deciding you were right. - Jmabel ! talk 22:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"Instantly"? The DR were open more than 2 weeks ago, so I don't see your complain here. The museum might have acquired the rights, produced the photos themselves, obtained the rights from an archive and then published then under CC BY-SA, etc. Supposing that they have no rights without a basis that is not a personal opinion is not a valid reason for deletion. You can try to write to the museum inquiring on their source: it can be an useful information to decide. --Ruthven (msg) 22:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Instantly after you presented your view of the matter.

The fact that the museum might have rights is hardly following the Precautionary principle. - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Errr... you're admin, for what I see, so you should know how do DR work. If you don't, please go read Commons:Deletion requests. I was not participating to the discussion: I was giving the closing reason for keeping the files. --Ruthven (msg) 07:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm eminently familiar with Commons:Deletion requests, and (per my remarks above), I think you've misunderstood how it is supposed to work. I don't believe that a closing admin is supposed to bring in arguments that have not occurred on the thread, then close immediately on that basis. I would like to continue this discussion more broadly, rather than just the two of us disagreeing. We can do this either at COM:VP, via a request for undeletion, or (imaginably, but I think not) at COM:AN. Do you have a preference? - Jmabel ! talk 14:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Would you have preferred a more standard: "no valid reason for deletion"? If you feel more comfortable, I can change it. When the deletion request doesn't seem valid to the closing admin, the request is closed and the files kept. --Ruthven (msg) 15:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It is obvious we won't get consensus. I'll take this to the Village pump. - Jmabel ! talk 16:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Solely commenting about the procedure, an admin can certainly bring in arguments that have not occurred on the thread to close a DR in one way or another. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stefan Toshev.jpg

Hi, could you have another look at this DR? PD-Romania seems wrong, because the person is from Bulgaria, not from Romania. Jcb (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb: , my mistake. Finally deleted. --Ruthven (msg) 20:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Jcb (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:S Ferri S Alberto.JPG

Hi, could you have another look at this DR? It's clearly visible that this is not a 2D reproduction of a 2D work as stated. See the part of the column on the left side, the shadow of this column is also clearly visible in the picture. Permission from the photographer will be needed. Jcb (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree. You can crop the image if you prefer. --Ruthven (msg) 15:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I will crop it. Jcb (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Kosem Sultan Murder Sahand Ace.jpg

Hello!

You wrote, that this file is "clearly PD-old". So you know who is the author of this picture and when it was done?

--Удивленный1 (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It is written that it was done in the XVII sec. --Ruthven (msg) 16:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

"It is written", but we don't know whether it is true - the source of this picture is dead link. Searching on the network give no satisfactory reliable result. We don't know nor name of author, nor origin of the file, nor other information ... I suggest to delete this file. --Удивленный1 (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Delinker

Hi, I'm confused by Special:Diff/260727586. The decision that this is copyrighted was made in Denmark, but this object is from Japan. It looks like Japan has a high threshold of originality for utilitarian objects, based on Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Japan. Guanaco (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Guanaco: Global's knifes are a registered design. I always replace heavily used files before a very probable deletion: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kitchen knife by yashima.jpg. --Ruthven (msg) 21:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I've commented at the DR. Guanaco (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Fine, thank you. {{Copydesign}} seems to be quite explicit on such cases, but better leave the deletion to an admin more experienced on the topic. --Ruthven (msg) 21:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Several works released for public domain by artist, attacked and removed

IMPORTANT NOTICE: File of Daniel Pavon Cuellar works created by artist Daniel Pavon Cuellar, released for public domain but attacked by the Wikipedia user who requested the removal, as well as several other works and pages from Wikipedia. The same person who is attacking online the artist AS retaliation of the lawsuit filed see TRAVISCOUNTYCOURT(DOT)COM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austintexasart (talk • contribs) 01:32, 1 ott 2017‎ (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Puerta principal AESF.jpg

Hi, Ruthven. Could you elaborate a little bit more on your reasoning here? Two arguments are provided by the uploader to support a compatible license claim: that the picture comes from a legal text (it doesn't) and two legal statements in the source, where a valid license is allegedly provided (it isn't valid at all, as it doesn't even mention a possibility of reuse). Thus, what's the point? Thanks --Discasto _talk 09:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC) PS: it's exactly the same case as with File:Sede del Centro de Investigación en Agrigenómica.jpg. Again, what's your point?

@Discasto: You wrote: "None of the licensing conditions provided suggest any kind of compatible license", which is untrue as a valid license template has been provided. I invite you to open a new DR, elaborating a little more (like you did here). Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 10:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ruthven, I do think you can speedydelete the pictures as the copyright violation is clear. A "valid license template" is useless unless what it claims is true. I do acknowledge the wording (mine) was poor (I sent for deletion many files in a row) but license templates must be verified. Otherwise, a DR hadn't been opened, hadn't it? Best regards --Discasto _talk 10:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Discasto: Yes, but wording is important, in particular now that there is a so big backlog. Now I don't have the time to re-check everything, sorry, so the best solution is to open a new DR with as much information as possible. --Ruthven (msg) 10:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Arnaldo pomodoro, lancia di luce, 1995, 02.jpg

Ciao Ruthven, questa scultura è stata esplicitamente autorizzata per wiki loves monuments, chiedi a User: Cristian Cenci (WMIT) la copia dell'autorizzazione e non farle cancellare prima. Grazie!! --Sailko (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Per favore, puoi annullare la cancellazione? Grazie!! --Sailko (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

No tu non capisci, non è copyviol se c'è l'autorizzazione. --Sailko (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2017 (

Hai poresente le immagini della fondazione Cariplo? Tutti autori moderni? Ecco è lo stesso discorso. --Sailko (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Grazie. Senti Cristian se hai bisogno. Concordo casomai che andava segnalato il tutto un po' meglio in categoria o nei file. --Sailko (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent DR's

Hi, you recently closed a few deletion requests. You kept them but marked them deleted. Could you please amend the noms. Such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:MukarramAhmed.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ZahidAliKhan.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ArshadMadani.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:WarisPathan.png--Saqib (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Saqib, thanks for pointing it out. It was a "button" mistake, now corrected. --Ruthven (msg) 12:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

File:La CGT vous baise.jpg

Hi Ruthven, could you please kindly clarify your closure : anonymous works do not fall in the public domain before 70 years from publication in France. Thanks, — Racconish^☎ 17:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Racconish: Nothing, it was a mistake/miscalculation. Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

「にしん街道標柱の説明板」削除について

議論に僕の意見を書きこんだにも関わらず、何の意見も出さないで勝手な削除を行ったあなたの行為は不当な行為です。

反省を促すと共に、今後は勝手な削除編集行為に一切タッチしない事を強く求めます。

--BATACHAN (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Havit' 'a scrivere bbuono!

Guagliu', nun 'aggio capite na mazz' 'e tutte chille c''avite scritte cca 'ngopp' 'a sta ppaggina. Si nce vulimme capi', havit' 'a scrivere bbuono, int''a na lengua ca capisco, si no, facimm''a fin' 'e ppulicane. --Ruthven (msg) 20:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Ihre Löschaktion

Hallo Ruthven, der Maler der Kreuzwegstation starb nach den mir zunächst vorliegenden Informationen 1946, nach neueren Recherchen jedoch erst im Juni 1947. Auf jeden Fall ist er 70 Jahre tot, sodass Fotos von seinen Werken sollten veröffentlicht werden dürfen. Trotzdem haben Sie File:Kreuzweg Kärlich, 5. Station, G. Kau (2016-07-29 Sp).JPG gelöscht, und es wäre interessant den Grund zu erfahren. Beste Grüße -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Sprichst mit Themightyquill. --Ruthven (msg) 20:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Ich denke, Sie haben gelöscht. Oder? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I file cancellati si possono recuperare; quindi se il proponente (Themightyquill) conferma ed è d'accordo, possiamo riconsiderare la cancellazione. --Ruthven (msg) 21:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ruthven: You can see my interaction with Spurzem on my talk page: User_talk:Themightyquill#L.C3.B6schen_macht_Spa.C3.9F. My opinion hasn't changed, but perhaps you will judge the evidence provided differently that I did. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Spurzem and Themightyquill: Deutschen Nationalbibliothek is a more trusted source than an auction site. Please see WP:RELIABLE and Was sind zuverlässige Informationsquellen?. I therefore confirm the deletion. --Ruthven (msg) 14:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please look here. Georg Kau died in June 1947. But if you think that he is alive than it may be. And if you mean that it was necessary to delete the image of his painting than it is in order. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Spurzem: If he died in 1947, regardless of what month, then deletion is in order. It will be undeleted in January. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Mir ist es egal, was Ihr macht; ich verliere jedenfalls mehr und mehr die Lust hier mitzumachen. Ich habe viele Bilder zu den Commons beigetragen, von denen ich annahm, dass sie für das Gemeinschaftsprojekt wertvoll sind, und ich gebe zu, dass es mir sogar Spaß gemacht hat. Aber wenn ich diese „Erbsenzählerei“ sehe, wie wir im Deutschen sagen, dann vergeht einem die gute Laune. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Das ist keine "Erbsenzählerei" – che in italiano ha un senso un po' più sessuale :), ist das Gesetz. Dura lex sed lex. --Ruthven (msg) 19:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Izmir - İzmir

Hi Ruthven, do you have time to help with executing this CfD? I bit off more than I could chew. I've moved a lot, but there are still a lot more to go. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: Let me see... I saw the other one as well, but in these days I am prioritising other stuff. With time, we'll close them all. --Ruthven (msg) 19:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: So you mean all down from Category:İzmir_Province? It's a huge work, and maybe more feedback should be taken. I mean; it's not only the births... --Ruthven (msg) 19:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, Guanaco started it. Nice! --Ruthven (msg) 20:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I had already tagged Category:Izmir and Category:Izmir Province months ago with no response. And really, it's the name of the city and the spelling used by English wikipedia. No reason not to use the Turkish i. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so we should have a list of the categories to move. From what I see, a lot user already the "I" with accent. There are some others still written "Izmir"? --Ruthven (msg) 07:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: I have moved some. If you find more "Izmir", please tell me. --Ruthven (msg) 11:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Template

Grazie. Da buon utonto, però, non sono certo di averlo usato correttamente: come ho fatto qui va bene?--Eustace Bagge (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Eustace Bagge: , eh no. Lo devi usare al posto del tag licenza. --Ruthven (msg) 16:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, grazie.--Eustace Bagge (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Category talk:Images from Gallica to be checked

See here. Cheers, — Racconish^☎ 11:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Non hai visto o non concordi?

qui non citandomi non ho modo di sapere se non è valido o non hai visto. Secondo me considerare in copyright un simbolo storico è solo complicarsi la vita. Se prendo la faccia, cambio due o tre dettagli e ci scirvo accanto con gli stessi colori un'altra cosa tipo "pastifico sardo-cordo" dubito che la linea di traghetti mi possa portare in tribunale... quella testa non è un'idea "creativa" loro, le variazioni sono solo minime su qualcosa che è in pubblico dominio da centinaia di anni. Fossi un sardo o un corso mi offenderei pure...--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: No, un simbolo storico "rifatto" recentemente è coperto da copyright. --Ruthven (msg) 07:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Ruthven non mi risulta. Non si può coprire con copyright una cosa che ha variazioni minime di una cosa che non è protetta, bisogna dimostrare che c'è un intento creativo originale al massimo e qui è evidente che non c'è, che volevano usare quel logo in quanto storico, non basta tinteggiare di bianco la faccia e tagliare una benda. Comunque se questo è quello che pensi, scrivilo esplicitamente in procedura, così in futuro ne posso parlare ancora. Tipo se qualcuno mi mostra una sentenza di tribunale. Per me se cambio un dettaglio e faccio un nuovo logo simile non possono opporsi, e il motivo è che un dettaglio o due non cambiano nulla.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: Se la decisione non ti aggtrada, puoi sempre richiedere il ripristino a COM:UNDEL. Grazie --Ruthven (msg) 08:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Dunque questa non è una risposta seccata perché finisce con un grazie, quindi posso aggiungere un'ultima cosa. Cosa è che non mi "aggrada"? Direi che tu non lo abbia scritto esplicitamente lì davanti a tutti. Non è una questione di smaltire il lavoro, non è un ufficio questo, le piattaforme coperative si basano anche sull'assumersi "responsabilità", se prima non commenti esplcitamente, poi a richiesta dai una risposta secca ma senza link o altro e infine di fronte a una precisazione che ha alla base proprio future discussioni collaborative rispondi un po' alla burocratese, che ci si può fare? Nulla.

Al massimo linkarla in futuro a altri se ti chiedono un parere per dire che l'importante è chiedere, la conoscenza ha la precedenza sul fare in una piattaforma che punta alla cultura. Non ti pagano di più se fai 1 o 10 quindi 1 tanto vale farlo bene salvo case di forza maggiore. Tanto vale anche non rispondere in un minuto per non dire nulla, ma prendersi un giorno. Mi sembra un buon messaggio tu che dici? Potevo ignorare una cosa su cui sono finito per caso ma appunto non l'ho fatto perché non è opportuno in un ambiente wiki farlo. Solo così si costruisce qualcosa che duri. Mi spiace per chi si troverà in situazioni simili e avrà a seconda dei casi un logo tenuto e uno no. Almeno potrò dirgli, se lo incontro, che c'ho provato. E poi assieme metteremo insieme i suoi casi e quelli che mi ricordo e andremo non a UNDEL ma in una talk generalista. Che cambia un file? Nulla, sarebbe una propsettiva miope.

Perché semmai la prima cosa da fare sarebbe riflettere su Commons:Threshold_of_originality. Non lo faccio vedere per dare spazio all'interlocutore e ai suoi argomenti, ma l'avevo fatto. La Corsica Ferries - Sardinia Ferries dovrebbe essere francese come sede legale. ma pure per la legge francese disegnare un mento squadrato e una benda corta difficilmente è considerato "empreinte de la personnalité de l'auteur"... cosa mai voleva comunicare l'autore? Cose c'è della sua "personalità"? Nulla, è solo un logo storico scopiazzato.

Le cose fatte bene sono fatti di piccoli passi, incluso questo. Prima se ne discute davvero, imparando. poi si va alle discussioni generali. Questo che io sappia è wiki, e questo faccio.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Allora, dato l'arretrato di lavoro e il tempo limitato che ognuno di noi ha, è impossibile disutere ogni decisione presa in DR con ogni utente che non ha visto la sua proposta accolta e che si sente frustrato; quindi - a parte chiare sviste - non si ripristinano i file dopo le chiusure. Rimango della mia opinione, sopratutto perché ci sta una lunghissima casistica su Commons di file cancellati per esattamente lo stesso motivo (se si è interessati all'argomento, ci sono le DR passate sui loghi da spulciare - se ti interessa creare una casistica, si può creare una categoria per le DR di loghi cancellati, ma a me non interessa recuperarli e -di conseguenza- lavorarci su perché li considero come promozione); è quindi inutile discuterne qui, per quello che, se vuoi una seconda opinione, ti ho indirizzato alla pagina apposita. Nulla di che fare un dramma, ma, ripeto, è inutile assillare chi fa le chiusure di DR con discussioni lunghe perché si finisce (come capita per altri utenti) per avere le DR in cui si interviene completamente ignorate, proprio per non dover ogni volta giustificarsi e rispondere e perdere tempo prezioso. --Ruthven (msg) 08:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

In tal caso per me è meglio dire "non ho tempo", non "è così". E comunque una cosa è che ti assilla sul file, un'altra chi ti pone un dubbio di ordine generale. Se non si agisce sul secondo caso, aumentano poi molto di più primi, frammentazione chiama frammentazione. Pensa come sarebbe diverso se in chiusura ci fosse un link più chiaro a un elenco di casi simili e la linea guida, a discussioni pregresse chiare. Avresti meno dubbi, meno risposte da dare e persino più utenti competenti in futuro che facciano parte del lavoro... Non è un'utopia, appurato che non c'è limite e che c'è backlog (ed è enorme comunque, soprattutto di casi ovvi individuabili seza problemi) alla fine l'unica scelta sensata è sempre fare le cose in profondità. Non siamo qua per vivere le frustrazioni di un ufficio pubblico senza personale ma per creare competenze. Tutto qua.--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Georges Ronsse, suivi d'Alfredo Binda et de Nicolas Frantz, dans le championnat du monde sur route professionnel, en 1929 à Zurich.jpg

Hello, je suis curieux de savoir ce qui te fait estimer que cette photo est au dessous du seuil d'originalité, notamment en termes de cadrage, de composition, et d'éclairage (pour autant qu'on puisse en juger d'après la variante publiée qui est manifestement recadrée), et pourquoi, subsidiairement, tu estimes que le principe de précaution ne doit pas s'appliquer à cet égard. Cordialement, — Racconish^☎ 09:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Racconish: La Suisse (comme l'Italie) a ce concept de photographie non originale ; il s'agit de photos qui représentent la réalité sans l'altérer. Une photo d'un photographe professionnel dans son studio, avec des spots, du maquillage, etc... est une photo qui ne rentre pas dans ce cadre là. Les photos qui apparaissent sur les journaux pour illustrer la réalité et sans originalité (comme dans notre cas, où les coureurs ne se sont sûrement pas alignés pour faire plaisir au photographe et où quiconque aurait pu faire la même photo s'il avait été au même endroit) sont donc dans le domaine public. --Ruthven (msg) 11:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Merci de ta réponse rapide. Je ne suis pas d'accord avec toi, au vu du considérant 4 de l'arrêt Bob Marley [4] et du considérant 2 de l'arrêt Meili [5]. La raison pour laquelle le portrait de Meili a été jugé en dessous du seuil d'originalité n'a rien à voir avec un éclairage de studio (qui n'est pas non plus le cas de la photo de Marley), mais il s'agit de l'absence de toute caractéristique originale dans la composition du portrait centré. L'arrêt Marley indique toutefois que "si la nature de l’objet ne lui laisse que peu de marge de manœuvre, la protection du droit d’auteur sera accordée même s’il n’y a qu’un faible degré d’activité créatrice". Sauf erreur de ma part, il est d'usage sur Commons, par application du principe de précaution, de ne pas extrapoler l'arrêt Meili et de se limiter pour son application à des cas très similaires de portrait centré de face. Cordialement, — Racconish^☎ 11:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Ce cas m'a semblé exactement ça: une photo où peu de marge de manœuvre n'est accordée au photographe. Tu peux cependant demander une seconde opinion à COM:DR, en proposant une seconde fois la photo pour l'élimination, je ne m'en offusquerai pas ;) Bonne journée --Ruthven (msg) 12:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

FAQ

Hi Ruthven, I've seen your decisions about my DRs and please, could you furthermore tell me in what cases is it possible to remove your own works. Thanks in advance.--g. balaxaZe★ 15:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Giorgi Balakhadze: Commons' Licensing policy requires contributions to be released under a "non-revocable" license. This means that the copyright holder cannot cancel the license and prevent people using the work under the terms of that license. Non-revocable licensing is to ensure that people using Commons content can rely on that license to use Commons content, and to make derivative works. A release of a work into the public domain by the copyright holder is also not revocable. Creative Commons has this to say on the subject: CC licenses are not revocable. Once a work is published under a CC license, licensees may continue using the work according to the license terms for the duration of copyright protection. Notwithstanding, CC licenses do not prohibit licensors from ceasing distribution of their works at any time.

So, we do not delete the files that are regularly uploaded, unless the request is done right away (one week after upload max) or if there are serious personality rights issues and/or unwanted personal information in the photo. In your case, none of these conditions are met, and the files can be useful to the community; so there are really no reasons to delete them. --Ruthven (msg) 16:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Ruthven Thanks for your thorough answer!--g. balaxaZe★ 18:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Darsena di Milano

Ciao, mi potresti cancellare Category:Darsena di Milano, che ho creato per sbaglio ? Non mi sono accorto che esisteva già Category:Darsena (Milan) (l'argomento non era categorizzato bene: ho appena provveduto a correggere le imprecisioni). Ciao, --LukeWiller (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done@LukeWiller: In questi casi puoi richiedere tu stesso l'immediata usando {{SD|C1}} (categoria rinominata). Ciao --Ruthven (msg) 11:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, grazie, in effetti ho cercato un template simile a quello di it.wiki ma non l'ho trovato... :-) Ciao, --LukeWiller (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC).

Foto

Ciao, ti scrivo qui in italiano per capire meglio. Volevo chiederti come faccio a trasferire in it.Wiki quei file che forse verranno eliminati da Commons. Grazie mille! -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: Ahimé non ci sono modi automatici di trasferire le foto su it.wiki (che vengano rimossa, sicuro). Per ricaricarle bisogna farlo una ad una a Speciale:Carica. Lo so, il caricamento su it.wiki non è dei più moderni. Lì il template PD-Italia basta. --Ruthven (msg) 20:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Okok perfetto, lo farò. Scusa se ti disturbo, ma già che ci sono, colgo l'occasione per chiedetelo, quindi per caricarle su Commons, ulitizzando la licenza PD-Italy, le foto devono obbligatoriamente essere state scattate prima del 1976? -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: Si e nella stessa occasione inserisci i due template {{PD-Italy}} e {{PD-1996}}. --Ruthven (msg) 21:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, ho capito, grazie mille per le spiegazioni e scusa ancora il disturbo. Buona serata! -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Views of Centre Pompidou-Metz

Hi. I can understand that you kept some per de minimis, but I can't understand that choice for File:Le centre Pompidou Metz (4913885445).jpg, which really features architectural elements as the main focus (and with enough originality). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@TwoWings: I considered it a detail. We can delete it if you like... --Ruthven (msg) 07:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not really about "liking it" (if it was only linked to that, I'd keep everything !). It's just that it's an original detail of the architecture. Generally, that kind of file is deleted. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@TwoWings: It's kind of a borderline case. By definition, a detail doesn't reflect the whole architecture, and you cannot really say if it is "original". --Ruthven (msg) 07:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I'll launch a separate DR. Because IMO it is obvious that this detail is original. You don't find such a structure anywhere. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Universal globe images undeletion

Hi Ruthven. Last month you undeleted File:Universal Orlando Resort Wikivoyage banner.JPG so I could transfer it to Wikivoyage. I forgot about the request, but I'm now getting back to it. I also need to have its source image, File:Universal Orlando Resort April 2010 01.JPG undeleted so it can be transferred as well. Can you do that, please? And if you wouldn't mind pinging me so I don't forget again, I'd appreciate it. Powers (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@LtPowers:  Done Write me back when done, so that I can delete the files again. Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 15:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm all set now. The files can be deleted, and the deletion discussion that was opened on the banner can be closed as moot. Powers (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Fichier Denis Brogniart supprimé

Bonjour! J'ai bien noté que le fichier de Denis Brogniart a été supprimé. L'auteur que j'avais mentionné Stéphane Lemarchand caricaturiste, a écrit une lettre de demande de licence libre à Wikimedia Commons me donnant l'autorisation (Armorino) d'utiliser tous les fichiers dont il est l'auteur. Faut-il qu'il adresse une lettre pour chacune de ses oeuvres ? Ya-t-il une autre raison de suppression ? Merci de me répondre --Armorino (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Armorino--Armorino (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)le 16 octobre 2017

@Armorino: Il suffit d'un seul courriel pour toutes les œuvres. Les images seront récupérées quand le courriel sera lu, car l'autorisation de l'auteur devrait suffire. Par contre, pour rendre la procédure plus rapide, il serait bien de mentionner les noms des fichiers dans le courriel. --Ruthven (msg) 08:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Permissions Tag Missing For Reviewed Image

Hi @Ruthven: ,

Thanks so much for your help adding permissions to the images that I uploaded. I noticed that one image (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jimmy_John_Liautaud_with_a_Jimmy_John%27s_employee.jpg) is still missing the permission tag after your edits. Was this intentional? If so, please let me know if there is some additional information I can provide regarding the image.

Thanks! Wineconnoisseur2016 (talk) 05:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Wineconnoisseur2016: Thank you for pointing it out. It is possible that the page is a redirect from another name; that's the reason the tag is missing (because I remember checking it). It is now corrected. Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 07:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Soyuz TMA-7 Patches

There are three Soyuz TMA-7 patches. You have kept derivative one. What about original ones? Alex Spade (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm leaving it to a more experienced admin, as the discussion seems fuzzy (maybe you can explain it better to me). In the one I closed, the consent was pretty clear. --Ruthven (msg) 07:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

PS: @Alex Spade: I now see what you meant. Originals kept. --Ruthven (msg) 07:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Filippo Nigro D.Barraco.jpg

Non so se ho fatto giusto, il ticket va messo nella source? Io intanto l'ho messo lì, se non va bene poi mi "istruisci"? Grazie! :-D --Civvì (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Civvì: (facepalm) Il ticket va messo in bella vista col suo bel template {{PermissionOTRS}}. Per facilitarti la vita, attiva Preferenze > Accessori > PermissionOTRS (in fondo). Comunque, bella pelata che si è fatto Filippo Nigro! Stava meglio nell'altra foto, dillo pure al PR! --Ruthven (msg) 13:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Tra l'altro guardando i dati exif l'autore non è quello che ha mandato l'autorizzazione :-O e ora??? (cosa ti facepalmi? io dentro qui sono un newbie!!! binaistuniucamers!!!)--Civvì (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Civvì: non è molto grave: gli riscrivi e gli chiedi copia del contratto che lo lega a Giovanni Zanghi, per dimostrare che ha incaricato il lavoro. Se non ce l'ha, allora chiedi l'autorizzazione da parte del fotografo, che a questo punto detiene i diritti d'autore (e non il PR). Nel frattempo correggo il template nella pagina. --Ruthven (msg) 13:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Giancarlo22.jpg

Segnalo, scroll down per apprezzare la completezza del gioiello (che è pure copyviol). :-D --Civvì (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

"Il 23 ottobre 2009 Giancarlo, scrive un brano dopo il sisma che ha colpito la regione Abruzzo, la canzone è intitolata “Domani non guarderò” e viene realizzata con gli artisti Terry Schiavo, Charlotte Crona, Massimo Alessi, Luca Riva, Alex Rusconi, Paola Peroni, Enrico Beruschi, ecc."

@Civvì: Mi piace il tema della canzone, il titolo e la lista infinita di artisti (ecc...)! --Ruthven (msg) 13:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Admins also make mistakes :)

Hi. I guess you made a mistake when DR'ing File:Nina Kolleck, Berlin 2011-08.jpg. Best. --E4024 (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@E4024: Do you mean that the file has to be kept? I totally agree with you; that's why I converted this Speedy deletion request in a regular DR, so that the closing admin can decide to keep it. --Ruthven (msg) 14:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Forget it, maybe it was my browser... :) --E4024 (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@E4024: no problem at all ;) --Ruthven (msg) 14:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Photo deletion

Hi, you deleted the Photo:Sebastian Schwiecker 2014.jpg with the argument "copyright-violation" – Can you prove this? Thanks, --Jensbest (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Codc and Jensbest: Actually, checking it on Google, I found all the links provided by Codc in his speedy deletion request to be likely copying from us. Thank you Jensbest for pointing it out, so I could give a second check. --Ruthven (msg) 14:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Often a photo with low resolution is also finding in other parts of the internet then commons and for me that indicats that a photo was a copy violation because actual cameras allways taken pictures with higher resolution. Absense of reasonable EXIF-datas are a second indicator. So I tagged it as copyvio. --Codc (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

A difficult decision. Maybe the original uploader can help. In this case I trust the experience of you both and thank you both for your quick response. --Jensbest (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

clichés et photos

Bonjour, Ces photos servent à illustrer la page de l'artiste typographe Marc Borgers. Je ne vois pas comment vous persuader qu'elles ne contredisent pas les règlements de Wikicommon. Certaine ont été prises par moi-même, d'autres m'ont été remises par l'artiste lui même... Posez moi les questions et j'essaierai de vous y répondre ! Merci, et bonne journée. Logrual (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Seraidi-Annaba.jpg

Hello.Why did not delete this file quickly?Do you suspect it is not stolen from the Internet?Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 No link was provided, so it was difficult to check to what you were referring to. A proof o copyvio must be provided. --Ruthven (msg) 15:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a search link in Google.Thanks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 Doesn't work like that, sorry :) You do a Google search and you find an image on a website that was published before the upload on Commons. Otherwise, we can use a regular DR, allowing users a full week to perform such search. --Ruthven (msg) 15:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Suvorov

Ciao Ruthven! Ti ricordi questa immagine?

Hai letto come abbiamo chiamato il povero Suvorov? ;-) --Pulciazzo (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pulciazzo  Done --Ruthven (msg) 17:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Uhm... No! Non del tutto. Hai letto anche il nome sull'immagine accanto alla stellina? --Pulciazzo (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pulciazzo: Ok, ora dovrebbe essere a posto --Ruthven (msg) 07:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S.: Ti segnalo anche: Trocche100.

 Fatto, grazie, e al prossimo intervento vandalico lo si blocca anche qui. --Ruthven (msg) 12:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:A.italicus.PNG

I nominated the photograph File:A.italicus.PNG for deletion because it is taken from a copyrighted journal article found here: http://www.microbiologyresearch.org/docserver/fulltext/ijsem/23/1/ijs-23-1-37.pdf. The document is marked "Copyright © 1973 International Association of Microbiological Societies". I don't understand how you could close the deletion request as "no valid reason for deletion". Is this not a blatant copyright violation or is copyright violation not valid reason for deletion? I can understand that the second image in the deletion request may not be a copyright violation because it contains mostly text, but could you please have a second look at the first one and reconsider? Thank you. ChemNerd (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@ChemNerd: The fact that a work is copyrighted doesn't mean that "all rights are reserved", and they can be published under a free license. This is our case, please read: their policies: "With the exception of Microbial Genomics, all OpenMicrobiology papers published in the Society’s journals are published under a CC-BY licence." --Ruthven (msg) 12:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. However, based on the link you provide, I don't think an International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology paper from 1973 would qualify as one of the "OpenMicrobiology papers" (a modern concept) that are under a CC-BY license. Maybe a wider discussion would be helpful; but in any case, I don't think it's worth my time to pursue this further. Regards, ChemNerd (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Modern architecture in Le Mans

Was not deleting File:MMA Gare Sud.jpg just an oversight, or is the case somehow different? - Jmabel ! talk 17:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Probably a problem with the script. Now deleted, thank you. --Ruthven (msg) 17:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Ticket#2017101410004384

Hello, Ruthven. I have an OTRS photo (email received but not processed yet), but I don't receive other emails now, mightbe you help to check? Thanks. Kelvin Hui (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kelvin Hui, generally it takes about two months to have the ticket processed. --Ruthven (msg) 05:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Categoria da rinominare

Ciao, qual è l'avviso per far rinominare una categoria ? Category:Azzone Visconti walls (Milan) è sbagliata: dovrebbe essere Category:Medieval walls (Milan). Azzone Visconti le ha solo completate e infatti il nome più comune per definirle è "mura medievali di Milano". Ciao, --LukeWiller (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@LukeWiller: Ehhhh... quella è una delle procedure più lunghe e lente di Commons! In breve, devi aprire una richiesta a Commons:Categories for discussion e se è ragionevole, fra un anno o due rinominano la categoria. Altrimenti fai tutto a mano, spostandone il contenuto, ed inserisci un bel {{Category redirect}} nella categoria d'origine, sperando che nessuno abbia da ridire. --Ruthven (msg) 16:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Propendo per la seconda ipotesi. Ho appena eseguito i tuoi suggerimenti. Ciao, --LukeWiller (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC).

Aggiornamento file

Ciao, è normale che mi faccia vedere ancora la vecchia versione del file, magari per un ritardo di aggiornamento del server ? --LukeWiller (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC).

@LukeWiller: Svuota la cache o fai "purge" della pagina. Detto ciò, i due file mi sembrano uguali. Sei sicuro di aver salvato le tue modifiche prima dell'upload? --Ruthven (msg) 10:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Con F5 ? Ma non succede niente... --LukeWiller (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@LukeWiller: Prova Shift + F5; altrimenti c'è un accessorio "purge" che aggiunge un tab in alto per effettuare l'operazione. Quali sono i cambi che hai fatto nella versione più recente? --Ruthven (msg) 10:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Ho fatto delle piccole aggiunte, che adesso si vedono. Non mi ricordavo che bisognava anche schiacciare shift... :-) --LukeWiller (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Sto cercando di contattarti su Irc da due settimane, ma non ci riesco (non ti trovo)

Il titolo dice tutti, se magari puoi parlare dimmelo qua sotto, magari ad un orario preciso. Los Vegas (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

In queste sere c'ero. Mah... --Ruthven (msg) 08:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Strano, controllo sempre, magari per sera tu intendi qualcosa di diverso dal mio. Comunque provo a vedere se ci sei oggi verso le 21/22. Fatti trovare! Los Vegas (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

ReːCategoria utente

Grazie, è un po' di tempo che lo volevo capire. Aveva iniziato Sailko a dirlo, ma non mi era stata chiara subito le sua spiegazione stringata e non ho avuto tempo per controllare quanto detto. Va bene così come ho fatto con Macerata by user? Grazie ;-). --Camelia (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Come si deve fare invece quando sono tre le categorie? Es. Category:Montréal photos by Camelia Boban {{user category|cat=Photos by Camelia Boban|cat=Wikimania 2017 by photographer|Boban|Montréal}}? --Camelia (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Chiaro, grazie ;-). --Camelia (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Will Aid logo 2017.svg

I just happened to come across this when I was trying to find an old DR I was involved in, but BTW, I had a recent name change. TWJ = GMG. GMG^talk 18:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo:  I see. We can delete this file as a courtesy, but there are no other reasons to delete it. Besides, you still can copy it on en.wiki. Why do you want it to be deleted, if it is in use? --Ruthven (msg) 19:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't particularly care if it ends up here or on en.wiki. But someone pointed out basically immediately after I uploaded it that it was a UK organization, meaning it would fall under UK's more strict interpretation of TOO, and may not be suitable for commons. GMG^talk 19:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)r

@GreenMeansGo: From my experience, this design is very simple, and there shouldn't be problems hosting it here. In case someone puts it on DR, we'll still be in time for moving it to en.wiki. Ok? --Ruthven (msg) 20:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Was just trying to make sure I cleaned up my own messes. GMG^talk 20:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Since you seem to be around, if you have time, any input on this question would be welcome. GMG^talk 21:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

suppression du fichier "Un surprenant ami"

Bonjour! J'ai bien noté que le fichier de "Un surprenant ami" a été supprimé. L'auteur que j'avais mentionné Stéphane Lemarchand caricaturiste, a écrit une lettre de demande de licence libre à Wikimedia Commons me donnant l'autorisation (Armorino) d'utiliser tous les fichiers dont il est l'auteur. Faut-il qu'il adresse une lettre pour chacune de ses oeuvres ? Ya-t-il une autre raison de suppression ? Merci de me répondre --Armorino (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Armorino--Armorino (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC) le 16 octobre 2017

@Armorino: Une demande de license libre ne suffit pas: il faut une license spécifique, par ex. CC by 4.0. Par contre, un seul courriel pour toutes les œuvres est suffisant. --Ruthven (msg) 13:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Puerulus mesodontus female (Oo 75647).jpg license

Hello Ruthven, How do you see the license for the above image? I didn't find it. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Lymantria: Hi! At article info bottom of right hand frame. Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 14:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Aha, thanks. Lymantria (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: File da cancellare

Ma per favore. Ti rendi conto che stiamo parlando di quasi 300 file, che esistono da oltre dieci anni, e che sono stati caricati da utenti che svolgono il ruolo di amministratori dagli albori di it.wiki? I file sono troppi per poter pensare ad una svista e gli utenti non erano novellini, sapevano bene cosa stavano facendo. Non è credibile l'idea che su it.wiki, in oltre dieci, nessuno abbia mai verificato il contenuto dell'autorizzazione (non mancano di certo gli addetti OTRS nella comunità). Per cui è evidente che ciò che su it.wiki nel 2007 era considerata un'autorizzazione valida, su Commons nel 2017 non lo è più. I tempi cambiano, come sempre in peggio. E poi non bisognerebbe fare polemica? Non so se ti rendi conto che stai per lasciare migliaia di voci ferroviarie, in tutte le lingue, prive delle uniche foto esistenti. Per il momento sto contattando il progetto Trasporti, ti/vi farò sapere. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 11:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Immagino che quanto dici sia memorizzato nel sistema OTRS, a cui non posso accedere, per cui posso solo fidarmi anche se lo trovo molto strano. Il motivo per cui le immagini continuano ad essere caricate è molto semplice: su it:Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_ottenute#Trasporti c'è scritto che si può. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 11:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Non ho capito: non ha rettificato cosa e dove? Il link che mi hai fornito mi sembra confermare che il ticket è valido. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 12:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Sono andato a cercare nella cronologia e ho trovato questo. La mail risulta risalire all'anno precedente (20 gennaio 2006) pertanto la discussione al progetto trasporti è successiva. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 12:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

La vicenda non è molto chiara ma nel 2007 JollyRoger scriveva di "recessione dalle clause NC e ND" rispetto all'email dell'anno precedente, quindi sembrerebbe di capire che a quel punto l'autorizzazione diventa CC-BY-SA. È vero che nel suo post scrive "CC-by-nc-nd-2.0", ma è quasi sicuramente un errore di battitura dal momento che quelle stesse parole linkano alla pagina web della licenza CC-BY-SA . Non risulta nulla di tutto ciò nel sistema OTRS? --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 12:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

PS: per quanto riguarda gli upload, non può esserci niente di fraudolento perché, fino a poche ore fa, il fatto che l'autorizzazione non fosse valida lo sapevate solo voi del sistema OTRS. Al di fuori delle "mura" del sistema nessuno poteva saperlo, anzi in tutte le pagine di it.wiki c'era scritto a chiare lettere che le foto del sito photorail.com si potevano prendere e caricare. Se c'è un comportamento da sanzionare è quello degli operatori OTRS che hanno rifiutato l'autorizzazione e non l'hanno comunicato alla comunità (anzi dovremmo essere io e gli altri utenti del progetto:Trasporti ad essere risentiti con loro). --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 13:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

"forse all'epoca era tutto molto più un fai-da-te": ecco, esatto, è quello che sostengo dall'inizio. Ciò che nel 2007 su it.wiki era considerato valido, nel 2017 su Commons non lo è più. Anche Pil56, che ho contattato su wiki, mi ha scritto che non è affatto raro che autorizzazioni vecchie (considerate all'epoca validissime) oggi vengano messe in discussione per questioni di forma. Tu non hai nessuna colpa, non posso certo prendermela con te, però non posso tacerti l'estrema amarezza/rabbia che mi lascia questa vicenda, che è l'ennesimo segnale che mi spinge a pensare che prima avrò il coraggio di abbandonare tutti i progetti wikimedia, più farò bene. Sia chiaro non ti sto dando nessuna colpa. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 14:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Ad ogni modo, ho scritto un post al progetto Trasporti. Direi che è meglio continuare la discussione lì, così che possano leggere tutti. Ti rispondo nel merito di là. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 14:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Ho visto che stai procedendo con le cancellazioni, ti segnalo che ci sono ancora un'ottantina di file da cancellare che non erano presenti nella categoria, li trovi con questa query di ricerca (dovrebbero essere tutte, comunque controlla che non rimanga niente neanche qui e qui). Ciao --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 22:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Check up arrow.gif

I finished the cache expiring and did one actual replacement. I think it's all unused now (and actually reports itself as such?). Could you re-check? DMacks (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Ruthven (msg) 18:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Foto deleted

why did you delete some pics? that are absolutely mine, made with my iphone 5s --Liguria Pics (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

no no it is impossible. that pics are all mine. no one was copied. 100% mine --Liguria Pics (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

??? --Liguria Pics (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Weissmann FBH 2005 Irish1.jpg

Hello Ruthven, you kept this file because you missed a valid reason for deletion and because it's "in use". Well, I think "bad quality" is covered by Commons:Deletion_policy#Redundant.2Fbad_quality. Of course we always can argue where bad quality begins. In order to answer that question just try to figure out: How many persons are there on stage? What instruments are they playing? Regarding "still in use": yes, the picture can be found in Irish Folk & Celtic Music - a wikicommons page created by the uploader. It's not in use on any wikipedia version. If that's enough it would be very easy for any uploader to prevent the deletion of files at all. May I kindly ask you to reconsider your decision? Best wishes --Zinnmann (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Zinnmann: My interpretation is that the photo is used not to show who's on stage, and what they are playing, but the general view of the place. So, we do not care about the people represented, but want to show the place during a concert. I looked for better pictures, but we haven't similar ones. So, as long as it is the only photo of a concert at night there, we keep it. --Ruthven (msg) 15:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Roreto.jpg

File:Roreto.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

B dash (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Yorkshire Malteser Mix.jpg

Ich bitte erneut, das alte Bild zu löschen, weil man den FALSCHEN NAMEN des Bildes nicht ändern kann. Ich habe die Verschmutzungen auf der roten Bank jetzt entfernt und das Foto mit einer KORREKTEN BEZEICHNUNG hochgeladen. [6] Das alte Bild ist jetzt redundant. Löschgrund. Sciencia58 (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sciencia58: Ich habe jetzt verstanden (von einer Bekannten übersetzen lassen). Tschüss. --Ruthven (msg) 09:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Gruppo di immagini dubbie

Ciao, IMO quello che trovi in Special:Contributions/Alab36 è tutto copyviol... immagini a bassa risoluzione, tipico di roba raccattata on line. Dubito ci sia qualcosa da salvare.--Threecharlie (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Threecharlie: Anche secondo me. Lancia pure una DR dicendo che le immagini si trovano anche altrove e che sono a bassa risoluzione senza EXIF (cioè quello che hai detto a me). --Ruthven (msg) 10:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Dionysio Typaldos

Buongiorno Ruthven, la foto che ho caricato è stata scansionata da me , una foto di 100 anni circa che fa parte del nostro archivio di famiglia.

Ho diverse difficolta ha costruire la pagina di Dionysio Typaldos , se cortesemente potresti aiutarmi nel costruirla altrimenti devo abbandonare il progetto. Ti ringrazio per la tua disponibilità. --Typaldos (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Typaldos

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vilms Juri.jpg

Hi! Could you please rereview this since there isn't really a reason to think that image was published in 1915. Instead there is a museum database entry which is explicit: time of event for depicted image is 19.02.1918. Year 1915 is given in another entry merely in a context of depicted person's biography. Secondly, publication date, if it was known, is irrelevant to copyright status in source country since per Estonian copyright act the term for copyright to expire for an individual work with a known author is always 70 years p.m.a. 90.191.76.154 15:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Estonia was part of the Russian Empire in 1915. What has to be cleared is the publication date, which doesn't seem clear to me. If it was published before 1917, {{PD-RusEmpire}} would hold. --Ruthven (msg) 21:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Currently there is evidence (see link above) that it could not have been published before 1918, i.e. the year of creation. Publication before 1937 (publication year for source publication) is indeed currently unknown. So without providing the evidence which'd show there's no significant doubt that image was published before its known creation year, why you don't apply the precautionary principle?

As for other Estonian works that actually are known to have been published before 1917, what makes you think that modern Russian law takes precedence over modern Estonian law here? As described in DR modern laws generally apply to modern territories, Estonian copyright act also says that it applys to its territory regardless of history. Modern international law as well generally deals with modern jurisdictions. So most likely the source country should be considered Estonia here. Third countries in sense of Commons licensing policy, i.e not US and not source country, may apply different rules for foreign works. A work may not be copyrighted in Russia and in some other countries, but this isn't relevant here as far as Russia isn't the source country and copyright hasn't expired in source country. 90.191.76.154 08:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Estonia exists as a stete since 1918-02-24 (or after the Treaty of Tartu 1920-02-20): there is no copyright law in Estonia before. Thus, it has no meaning at all to apply the law of a modern state to what was de facto another country. --Ruthven (msg) 15:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Please do note that the only explicit evidence on date of creation that we currently have says that this work was created after 1917. So even if your assumption on applicability of the law was correct, then PD-RusEmpire still wouldn't apply. 90.191.76.154 15:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually I read "Date of event: 1938", which is kind of ambiguous, also because no publication is named. More clear is the date of the shot (1915). --Ruthven (msg) 16:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

As already explained above and in DR, it nowhere says that date of the shot was 1915. To be clear, there are two different Fotis database entries for two repros of the same image. One that you refer to, only says: "Content description: Vilms, Jüri- member the society of the "Estonia" theater building [in] 1915" (my translation). So "1915" is merely a year from dipicted person's biography. It has different field for date of creation (time of event). What it says (before 1938) indeed isn't very helpful. Another entry of this image (see here) which I referred earlier and now also at file page, is explcity about the date of creation: it's 19.02.1918. 90.191.76.154 16:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Cafe - panoramio (6).jpg delete?

Was File:Cafe - panoramio (6).jpg supposed to be deleted with Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Disneyland Paris? --Elisfkc (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Elisfkc: Yeah. I missed it (lately I'm having some issues with the scripts).  Done now, thanks. --Ruthven (msg) 22:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Dionysio Typaldos

Buongiorno,ho caricato l'informazione bibliogafica e ti ringrazio. Per quanto riguarda la foto,hai ragione sicuramente avra piu di 70 anni se non 100 ,ma volevo sceglire una scorciatoia,poichè quando andavo sulla tendina per descrivere l'autore e sceglievo piu di 70anni mi chiedeva di inserire il template per uso pubblico negli USA e non ci riuscito. Aiutami,con un po di pazienza, a inserire "autore piu di 100 anni". Grazie e buona giornata. Salvatore --Typaldos (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Italian stamps

BTW

Hello, Ruthven. Check your email—you've got mail! You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Ww2censor (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I know that stamp copyright may not be your expertise but here is the issue you may be able to comment on. Katharinaiv has uploaded many images but many Italian ones are of concern. They use the template {{PD-Italy}} plus a +70 year pma tag, but handily some have the names and life dates of the artists but they don't fit the 70 year term. I've posted a note on their talk page with my arguments: see User talk:Katharinaiv#Italian stamps where all the appropriate links are provided. I doubt {{PD-Italy}} can apply to the stamps in which case some stamps will unfortunately have to be deleted. Ww2censor (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you can comment on this when you get a chance. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Just noticed the ping, thank you. Up to you how to proceed with those files. --Ruthven (msg) 11:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem. But do you agree that {{PD-Italy}} cannot apply to Italian stamps? I'd like your opinion on that point. Ww2censor (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Oops, I just saw your post at the user talk page. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Before I do anything I will post on the editor's talk page to explain what I will do and apologise for the deletion of all their hard work. First I will remove the {{PD-Italy}} template from all Italian stamps and then I'll nominate them for deletion based on the dates of the designers so the groups by designer can all be easily restored together at a specific date rather than a mix of designers with different expiry dates. In the meantime I've compiled a revised Italian entry with a table of designers of Italian stamps similar to that for France at Commons:Stamps/Public domain#France. Do you think we can assume that, as with French stamps, both the designer and engraver have rights or do you think only the designer has copyright? If you happen to have a few minutes maybe you could root around https://www.posteitaliane.it/ and see if they have any stamp copyright statements. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Thanks for this work you're doing. What is actually the difference between designer and engraver in this case? --Ruthven (msg) 17:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Engraved stamps, more often 19th century and first half of the 20th century, though France still produces some engraved stamps, usually have both an designer/artist, who designs the stamps but if they are to be printed by Intaglio and an engraver which is usually work done by hand. Other methods are usually mechanical reproductions of the artist's design artwork. Also see w:Postage stamp#Graphic characteristics. As an instance many French stamps have both the name of the engraver's and designer's name printed on them, such as File:WIKITIMBRES.FR POSTE-1936-7.png which is great for determining the copyright status. Ww2censor (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: By Italian law, joint works are PD 70 years pm last living author. When two names are present, we should consider them as coauthors of the work. --Ruthven (msg) 17:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

That's what I expected to be the situation, so I'll revise the entry and post it tomorrow or the next day when I get time. Ww2censor (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I've revised the Italian entry and table in my sandbox. Maybe you can review it and then I'll post it in the stamp details page. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Contatti

Buona serata carissimo utente Ruthven, mi piacerebbe conoscerti e fare quattro chiacchiere con te quindi ti chiedo se per caso tu hai qualche social network ? --Ziraczigil44 (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

If it's another person, just request a change of filename and replace the photo in the project

Ok. And how do i do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexisVF (talk • contribs) 10:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@AlexisVF: You have to edit the page writing the name of the person in it, and use the template {{Rename}} (read carefully the instructions) to ask for a renaming. --Ruthven (msg) 10:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ruthven: well wikipedia is everythins else than userfriendly compared to other "enduser-sites". The wrong pic is used on three sites. how do i change that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexisVF (talk • contribs) 10:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@AlexisVF: On the user interface I can only agree with you. In any case, to change the file on the 3 sites, you can 1. do it by hand on each site, 2. perform a replacement request at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. --Ruthven (msg) 10:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ruthven: i hope to get the job done - im not sure in this wikipedia-jungle. My family complains abou the wrong picture "File:Vasili Nikolayevich Fersen.jpg" for years.

@Ruthven: Sorry. Its to hard to undestand. Isnt its simply possible to re´revert the picture? i mean this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vasili_Nikolayevich_Fersen.jpg#filelinks

@AlexisVF: No, it's not permitted. In fact I was waiting you to upload the picture under naother name before deleting the intermediary version. --Ruthven (msg) 11:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ruthven: ok, i try to upload the picture. by the way. i only made this account to change this picture. after that i will never use ist again.

@AlexisVF: But do you know who's in the picture? --Ruthven (msg) 11:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ruthven: Yes, he´s my grand grand .... father. William von Fersen or in russia Vasili Nikolayevich Fersen. The name is correct, the picture is not. By the way, i cant upload pictures. Got this message: Your account has not become confirmed yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexisVF (talk • contribs) 11:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@AlexisVF: Ok, I can split the two pictures for you, but I have to know exactly:

1. Who's the author of the photo you uploaded (the middle one), when it was taken, and from where it comes
2. Who's the guy in the current version of the file.

Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 11:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ruthven:

1. Who's the author of the photo you uploaded (the middle one), when it was taken, and from where it comes.

-> it will get that info.

1. Who's the guy in the current version of the file.

-> No one in my family knows this guy. And we have a well researched historytree (800 years). Template:AlexisVF

@Ruthven:

Hello. Got the info from my family.

1. Who's the author of the photo you uploaded (the middle one), when it was taken, and from where it comes.

Author of photograph: photographer Reisberg

Photograph was taken in Reval (today Tallin) in 1905

Source: family archives

1. Who's the guy in the current version of the file.

-> No one in my family knows this guy. And we have a well researched historytree (800 years). Template:AlexisVF

@AlexisVF: Thank you for the information. The file is in the public domain. So, in order to publish the photo, the author must be dead from more than 70 year. If you have a proof for that, we're fine. In alternative, if the photo was a hired work, then you (and the other heirs) can write to OTRS to give the permission to publish the photo under free license. Meanwhile I perform the split. --Ruthven (msg) 21:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ruthven: Thank you very very much! My family is more than happy that this old mistake is corrected. AlexisVF

@AlexisVF: You're welcome. The older file has still the name of your ancestor, even if in the description there is a doubt expressed. It would be useful to identify the decorations he has; ihe looks like a russian admiral, but I do not have any knowledge in that field. I reckon that the best solution would be to propose a renaming (with {{Rename}}) like: "Unknown Admiral decorated with XXXXX of the Russian Empire.jpg". Cheers, Ruthven (msg) 10:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ruthven: i will keep that in mind and try to solve that "puzzle" :-)AlexisVF

Chateau de Bellevue

I only just noticed you were able to get a photo of File:Chateau de Bellevue – Toulouse (2017)-2.jpg. It looks great. BTW, did you get a chance to give my Italian stamps draft a final review before I put it on the right page? Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Hi, I thought that I gave an answer to the stamps (I do not remember on which discussion page though): there are under the "classical" copyright law. Meaning: 70 years after the author's death or after the last surviving author if it's a joint work. If the engraver just reproduced a previous work, he's not entitle to any copyright; if a derivative work was made, then yes. There is a very nice new exhibition at the Musée Saint-Raymond, you should go when you are in Toulouse. Do you plan to come soon? --Ruthven (msg) 11:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

That was quick. I revised the draft a 2nd time at User:Ww2censor/Sandbox2#Designers_of_Italian_stamps and just wanted you to give it a quick look over. I added some details about joint authors.

We were in the centre, near the Capitole, just last week for a doctor appointment and I even mentioned going there but as they close at 1800 we did not really have time. That's a pity, though my wife is not so interested in the ancient things. We will be at l'Oncopole on 14 Dec probably not at lunchtime so if you are free and can get away, maybe a coffee in the afternoon will work. Hope to see you then: I can email you my mobile number. Ww2censor (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: I had a look at Designers_of_Italian_stamps, but wasn't able to find information about the authors you do no know the dates. For the rest, it looks fine. The exhibition was really crowdy in the inauguration day, so it's better to go there on another day. They played a lot with smells, and colours to revive ancient artefacts.

File:100.3 The Sound.jpg

Hi, this is not helpful. You added the file to two separate problem categories, Category:Images without source and Category:Media without a source as of 26 November 2017, while you concluded already in the DR that there is in fact no problem. Next time please do this instead. Jcb (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb: Ok, thanks. In fact, by setting "no source" there was the risk for the file to be deleted. --Ruthven (msg) 08:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Vijay Rupani (cropped).jpg

Dear @Ruthven: You closed the DR discussion with the remark "claimed own work". With due respect, the claim of own work is by a blocked user. If it is indeed an own work, where is the metadata? And such a low resolution file for an own work created in 2016 is simply beyond my comprehension. In the permissions entry, we have been asked to contact some Aayush Sangal at his Rediff ID. How do we know it is the same as User:India Ka UP? Do we not need permissions for that? I reiterate COM:PRP. Look forward to your reply. Rahul Bott (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rahul Bott: Metadata are not mandatory, and everybody does not have a last model camera. Many photographs are taken with old phones/cameras, in poorer countries. It is possible that the file was taken from Facebook or Instagram, but without evidence, there is no reason to delete. In such cases, I recommend not to ask if it's a copyviol (if you haven't found the source), but just request the deletion of all the files from a serial copyvioler or a LTA. It's easier to get and quicker because the admins do not have to perform a web search. Please resubmit the DR on such basis. --Ruthven (msg) 08:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Risposta messaggio

no non ci conosciamo pero avrei bisogno della tua email per parlarti di una cosa, circa alcuni file visto che in passato tentai di mandarti dei messaggi sulla tua pagina di discussione, ma venivano immediatamente cancellati per colpa di alcuni amministratori che non badane che alle apparenze. Ziraczigil44 (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Per quello è facile: nel menu qui a fianco, usa la funzione "Invia una email a questo utente". --Ruthven (msg) 12:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the vandal and LTA A3cb1. Blocked across the board, 160 sockpuppets and counting. This nut just doesn't get it. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Risposta

ciao utente Ruthven, sono sempre io ziraczigil, purtroppo non trovo la funzione invia email e quindi ti chiedo se potessi incollarla nella pagina discussioni per cortesia :) Ziraczigil45 (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear LTA A3cb1, we already explained that you won't get away with admin shopping. Find another sandbox to poop in. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of files

Hello Ruthven, we noticed you deleted most/all of the images on the tavar zawacki wikipedia page. Could you please email ( tavarfineart@gmail.com ) to discuss the account hdepot. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdepot (talk • contribs) 06:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hdepot: Hi, the files were deleted for Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Hdepot, and it's up to the uploader to provide a proof that the files are free. Please read COM:OTRS. In practice, we need the written permission by the artist to publish his works under a free license, which means that reproductions of the works can be used for any purpose. --Ruthven (msg) 08:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I tagged most of the remaining files in Category:Above (artist) with the appropriate freedom of panorama template, some of which are uploads by Hdepot but still have concerns about File:Arrow Stack 5.JPG and File:Reno sf 04 005.jpg. However, the descriptions are rather scant. Cheers. Ww2censor (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Query about decision to keep image nominated for deletion

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Keikyu N1000 Series 1607 Formation.jpg

Hi. I notice that you, as the closing admin, recently decided to keep the image File:Keikyu N1000 Series 1607 Formation.jpg which was nominated for deletion. Your closing argument was that the image on Twitter was "published one month later". The original Twitter image was actually published on 5 April 2017, whereas it wasn't uploaded to Commons until November 2017 (with no EXIF data, as is the norm for images taken from Twitter). It looks to me like a clear-cur copyright violation by a user with a track record for similar violations, so I wonder if you could please review your decision and hopefully delete the image. Thanks for your time. --DAJF (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@DAJF: Thanks: I was mislead by the date in the file page. --Ruthven (msg) 07:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. --DAJF (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

vendita delle immagini di commons

salve Ruthven, vorrei chiederti come sia possibile che alcune immagini pubblicate su commons, quindi nel pubblico dominio, sia messe in vendita in rete da Alamy, con tanto di tariffario. si tratta di un abuso oppure è normale? grazie dell'attenzione

   triktrakTriktrak 18:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triktrak (talk • contribs) 18:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Triktrak: Ciao, le immagini di Commons non sono tutte nel pubblico dominio, ma molte sono sotto licenza libera. Devi vedere che licenza è indicata per l'immagine, perché cambia caso per caso. Generalmente, le immagini con licenza libera che ospitiamo qui impongono almeno l'obbligo di citare l'autore. Alamy, Getty e altre aziende dello stesso tipo spesso spacciano per loro cose che non lo sono, ma se un'immagine è nel pubblico dominio, uno ci fa ciò che vuole; se invece è sotto licenza libera, deve rispettare i termini della licenza nella ridistribuzione del lavoro. Poi, se hai un caso preciso in testa, saprò essere meno generico anch'io. --Ruthven (msg) 22:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

did you know...

...che da gennaio 2016 abbiamo questa roba qua? -_-' --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 10:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

 Fatto @Superchilum: invece lascio a te quest'altra roba. --Ruthven (msg) 11:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hiiii

Hi. I have two photos to delete. I should probably nominate them for deltetion, however I would have to nominate each one of them and state the reason for each. why not do that once and for all. I was experimenting with the original photo of a singer on which she doesn't look too flattering ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Margaret_(Małgorzata_Jamroży)_By_Daniel_Åhs_Karlsson.jpg ). I was cropping the image etc and uploading new versions to see what it would look like in the infobox eventually getting it right. However, in the process I have uploaded few other very similar versions which won't be used and are just a waste of space. These are:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Margaret_(Ma%C5%82gorzata_Jamro%C5%BCy)_By_Daniel_%C3%85hs_Karlsson_cropped2.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Margaret_(Ma%C5%82gorzata_Jamro%C5%BCy)_By_Daniel_%C3%85hs_Karlsson_(Cropped2).jpg

Do you think you could delete them? ArturSik (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@ArturSik:  Done. Next time, you can just add {{SD|G7}} to the file pages you want to delete, given that the request is done few days after you uploaded them. Cheers, Ruthven (msg) 16:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much. ArturSik (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Problem of deletd files

I uploaded some photos from this website which has cc-by icon. However, I receive the message "the following content you uploaded is not free" and the photos are deleted immediately. I observed that another photos e.g. File:171022_부산원아시아페스티벌_하성운.png from same website are acceptable. Gda0608 (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Gda0608: There are files that seems copies of paper prints (and thus suspicious). The ones with a blue light stripe. Maybe I am wrong; what do you think? --Ruthven (msg) 15:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ruthven: All photos have EXIF information so I believe that they are not copies of paper prints. I think the blue light stripe had already existed when taking the photos.Gda0608 (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Gda0608: Mind that the EXIF data don't say anything, because a photo of a paper photograph will have EXIF data of course. I restored the files anyways. --Ruthven (msg) 09:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Italian commemorative coins

Are the national sides of the commemorative coins of Italy protected by copyright? I am talking about the Eueo coins of course. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 15:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: I think that for coins, the legislation is the same as for banknotes; see Commons:Currency#Italy. The coins end up in the public domain 20 years after publication. Before they're most likely copyrighted. --Ruthven (msg) 19:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Overview of Biljača, suburbs of Priština.jpg

Hi. I see you declined my rename request at File:Overview of Biljača, suburbs of Priština.jpg. I'm not sure how it "does not comply with renaming guidelines" since I quoted C3 and explained why -- the current filename states "suburbs of Priština" which is an "obvious error" and "misidentifies objects"; en:Pristina is 100 km from en:Biljača, Bujanovac. I see the file has been recently renamed by C2, but the previous nominator apparently did that in haste, making a material error that I'm seeking to fix. If anything, it is the previous (Albanian) title that should be reverted to -- we don't mandate filenames to be in English, do we? No such user (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@No such user: Ok then. It was not clear to me and appeared that you were removing information. File renamed! --Ruthven (msg) 16:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Ruthven!!


Hi Ruthven, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 14:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Ruthven!!


Hi Ruthven, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 14:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

Ruthven may this Christmas end the present year on a cheerful note and make way for a fresh and bright New Year. I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Wikicology (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Dionysio Typaldos

Buonasera, sono rientrato stasera dal lavoro e volevo modificare l'autore della foto e inserire un autore di un membro della famiglia defunto, ma non ci sono riusciuto,forse anche la stanchezza dopo una giornata di lavoro, aspetto da lei un cortese aiuto guidandomi passo per passo . Cortesemente se lei può controllare anche se va bene il contenuto della pagina. Gentilmente volevo anche inserire una fonte bibliografica, il libro "I GRECI DI NAPOLI E DEL MERIDIONE D'ITALIA DAL XV AL XX SECOLO"autore JANNIS KORINTHIOS del 2012 di AM&D EDIZIONE,dove si parla in diverse pagine della famiglia Typaldos,attualmente l'autore sta scrivendo un romanzo su Gerasimo Typaldos. Grazie tanto. Typaldos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Typaldos (talk • contribs) 19:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The lost portrait of Hermine

Well, I think it's very clear that the engraving is done on the portrait. Not only is it the same, but it also has the same dress, the same hairstyle, and the same posture. With what is Hermine. Although this caserta does not mean that it is badly identified. The evidence speaks for itself. The portrait of Cristina, if I have seen it, it can be seen that it has nothing to do with Hermine's portrait.

I just went up more stolen where it appears identified as Hermine.They are contemporary Austrian prints, I say that they would know perfectly the aspect of their archduchess. I imagine that the portrait is in Caserta because it was perhaps intended by the king. But it is clear that Maria Cristina is not, the Princess of Savoy is sweeter features.

As for the author, I think it is also clear that it is Anton Einsle. Have a very characteristic style.

Deletion of my images?

Hello Ruthven, I appreciate your interest in keeping my wikipedia page (Tavar Zawacki) in order. It appears there has been some confusion around my identity with uploading my photos? I have recently seen that you have deleted most all of my images I've uploaded on my page. I've just 'registered' my user Hdepot to be linked to my email account, in hopes that this will confirm my identity. I would like to ask you how I can confirm my identity, in hopes that I can continue to add images of my artworks, to compliment the text. I appreciate your support and interest to keep my page in order. ~Tavar