User talk:Samulili/Archive1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


Image:Pallo hautausmaalla.jpg[edit]

Hi Samulili, this image Image:Pallo hatausmaalla.jpg is pretty obscure and not very useful when you don't have any description to it. What little is there in Finnish doesn't help most of us. As I don't think User:Tuohirulla who uploaded it is so good in English, maybe you can translate a comment? As so often, I think the relevant info can be found as an image legend on the page where the image was originally used. fi:Kummitus. /Habj 13:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
och så förolämpar jag dig genom att skriva på engelska... jag tittade inte ordentligt på din Babel. Ursäkta! Nå, fast å andra sidan kanske det är bra om andra förstår vad vi skriver /Habj 13:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Det var ingen föroloämpning. Svenska är inte mitt modersmål och jag är bättre på engelska :) --CSamulili 15:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Marmolada Panorama

You wondered about the logo - it's just because I am a photographer and I don't like it to be abused. So I put on the wikicommon logo to identify it as the only "common" version. A bigger version is here - join it: Panorama Silvretta.

But - if the "Wikimedia Commons" logo is copyrighted, I will have to delete my photos. Can You give me further informations? - Regards, Mg-k 09:17, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know much about the Wikimedia logos. I think you'd be better off asking in the Village pump. Regards, -CSamulili 10:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


(Afbeelding:Paramecium.jpg is verwijderd: nowcommons) is removed:nowcommons nl:Gebruiker:Aleichem

Unfortunally the picture that was not the same as the one on commons has been deleted on nl because a very active deleter thought it was on commons now :o(. -Svdmolen 21:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry to hear about that :( I remember that the text underneath said that the picture was from en-wiki. I hope someone can find it there. Samulili 19:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


hi, i placed the tag {nowcommons at the picture, and i put it on the list [1]. (to be removed at once). I hope an moderater contacts u when its done. grtz nl:gebruiker:Aleichem


(Afbeelding:Paramecium.jpg is verwijderd: nowcommons) (Image is removed:nowcommons) Aleichem 20:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


Unfortunally the picture that was not the same as the one on commons has been deleted on nl because some very active deleters thought it was on commons now :o(. -Svdmolen 21:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

PNG --> SVG[edit]

I didn't create that image, so it doesn't belong in my gallery. Also, it shouldn't be changed everywhere the PNG image occurs. The PNG image matches with the other PNG images of transistor symbols. Until replacements for all of them are created, don't make them inconsistent. — Omegatron 14:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you don't want that in your gallery because you didn't make the svg-version. I can understand that. -Samulili 16:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Also, the SVG images don't render the same as the PNGs, so the tables of images look inconsistent. PNGs shouldn't just be replaced en masse as soon as an SVG replacement becomes available. See Commons:Transition_to_SVG#Notes. — Omegatron 22:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
And as for your other comment, I wasn't going to reply to it because you blanked it, but I just want to make it clear that policy is to not delete such images. (If they are exact duplicates, they have been orphaned, and the image being deleted doesn't contain any information required for licensing, it's ok, but still recommended against.) For instance, if Image:fooB.png is a derivative work of Image:fooA.png, and fooA has history, you can't delete fooA. You have to replace it with the red X image, as described in Category:redundant. In general, duplicate images should not be deleted ever, to err on the side of caution, since deletion is permanent. I've seen someone else rampantly trying to orphan and delete images, and it's a trend with the potential for great harm. — Omegatron 16:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


Indeed; the pages are under the right categories. Do you propose to create a category for each page? If you have a look the way we've organized the cat and pages of italian cities, you'll note that each page is reachable under the proper category; categories are intended to group categocies and pages. Thanks for your comprehension, --mac 11:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The pages are well selected and truly deserve a place in Commons. Therefore, they are also a good basis for categorization. I find it natural that when images on a subject X are in page X and in category cat:X and cat:X is in a supercategory (say, cat:Firenze) that the page X is also in cat:X. Otherwise the supercategory would have to links to images on X: link to page X and link to cat:X. -Samulili 11:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
But this way as a result we'll have a category for each page, and I don't find it so natural. We prefer to group pages of similar content under a super category: i.e Firenze will contain a category churches of florence, bridges as florence , etc..., and pages that are, let's say, "singular". At the moment florence as not so many pages, but have a look to category Roma, and you'll find the way we're categorizing. Moreover consider that there is a page dedicated to florence; photos that aren't so many to form a page, are shown in the city's page, like the ones of the english cimitery in florence. We're doing so, also to find out easly new photos in order to link them to the right pages on it.wikipedia. So, will you consider to adehre to a standard (not so far from what you were intending to do) we're working since one year or more, and is giving good results? Thanks, --mac 12:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that your system is not the standard. It goes straight against the rules in Commons:Category with results that are no better than that of using categories. See for example, Category:Turku -Samulili 12:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC) I take that back. The rules are not quite the way I remember them. The Florence-style is OK for me. -Samulili 12:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


Ich habe es mir zur Aufgabe gemacht Bilder sehr schlechter Qualität zu verbessern. Nach der Bearbeitung lade ich sie unter gleichem Namen hoch. Es hat aber keinen Sinn mich auf fehlende Bildlizenzen hinzuweisen. Danach musst Du Dich bei dem Nutzer erkundigen, der die Originalversion hochgeladen hat. -- ArtMechanic 12:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome log tips[edit]

Hey Samulili, I noticed you are helping out on the Welcome log. Thanks a lot!!! We really appreciate it. It is hard work. :)

Here are some tips:

  • Install MediaWiki:Quick-delete.js (see the talk page for how). It will give you the ability to "mark as no source/no license and warn uploader" with one click!
  • When you mark images for deletion (such as logos "{{copyvio}}"), it is a good idea to tell the uploader what they have done wrong and ask them to read Commons:Licensing and ask questions at the Commons:Help desk. Otherwise if they come back and their image is just gone they may not realise they have done anything wrong. The earlier we warn them the better.
  • If someone only has one image uncategorised, I would usually just categorise it myself with a edit summary like "please categorise your images so others can find them!". But it's up to you, giving them {{please link images}} is fine too. (better than neither)
  • If you can, please try to use a meaningful edit summary (pretend the user is checking their watchlist - including the phrase "or this image may be deleted" should make them pay attention :)) - "subst:nsd" is extremely cryptic.

But it looked like you were doing a great job. Thanks again :)

cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and useful advice.
1. I think I have installed the js-file User:Samulili/monobook.js. What should it look like to me, how should it work?
2. Indeed a good idea. To make it easier, I made this proposition at Template talk:Copyvio
3. You're quite right. I wasn't thinking much, was I?
4. If it's not very inappropriate, I think I'll speed things up by just pasting what I have in my clipboard. After all, the admins will understand and the user should get a notice to their talk page.
Samulili 12:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
For Quick-delete, it looks right. Do you get the extra links on the left in the toolbox when on an image page? Using it will also put good edit summaries.
Also for 4, I don't know what browser you use, but I use FF and it can "remember" values I've typed before (Tools > Options > Privacy > Saved forms > tick "Save info") so I just type one or two letters, then my long edit summary pops up and I don't have to type the whole thing. Probably IE has a similar thing, if you use that. cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 22:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Flag of Hong Kong SAR.png[edit]

Re [2] - Please kindly reconsider your vote. Thanks. — Instantnood 19:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reconsidered and I understand your argument. However, I'm sorry to say, I don't agree so much that I'd vote for keeping the png. Samulili 09:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks anyways. Mind sharing the reasons why you didn't agree? — Instantnood 17:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Image:BYwork.jpg[edit]

The photograph is in public domain and I scanned it myself. Scarlight 11:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Short notice: An own scan never generates own copyright (lack of originality). Regarding the PD-anonymous thing in old Palestine. I am feeling a little bit unconfortable with that PD-anon from 1910-1920 as we have in many places in Commons a more conservative rule that PD-anon is assumed 100 years after anon publication. Arnomane 09:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Hello. Congratulations. You are now a Wikimedia Commons administrator and you now can place {{user admin}} on your user page. Don't loose the fun with these admin rights. ;-) If you have any questions for example on deletion guidelines just ask me (I am as well on IRC in #wikipedia-de oder #wikimedia-commons channel most of the time). By the way Category:Against policy and Category:Unknown need urgently some help on reducing the number of copyvios awaiting their deletion. ;-) Have fun, Arnomane 09:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! :) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

File:Vigeland stampvoetend jochie.jpg[edit]

Hallo Samulili, kannst du mir die norwegische Löschbegündung zum Bild:Vigeland stampvoetend jochie.jpg übersetzen? Ich habe nämlich auch noch einige Fotos aus dem Vigelandpark die ich hochladen wollte. Deshalb währe es für mich wichtig die norwegischen Urheberrechte zu kennen. Vielen Dank im Voraus (bitte hier antworten) --Jom 12:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the translation in English:
§ 24. Works of art and photographic works which form part of a collection or which are exhibited or offered for sale may be depicted in catalogues of the collection and in announcements of the exhibition or sale.
Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially.
Buildings may be freely depicted.
-Samulili 12:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry by the links[edit]

I'll check all my contributions on the next days and I'll fix the missing links.

Could you advice about a legal stuff? I took this photo. It is a low-resolution newspapper photo. What about license? DarkElder 00:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:AugustWitkowski-popiersie.jpg[edit]

I'm author of this photo, I taken it 25.04.2006.
I don't know rules on Commons yet so I thought that it is enough to select correct license.
What should I do now? Add info about author and date when i taken it, or something else/more?
sorry for any mistakes in my english
and btw there is information about author, but in polish :))) --Plokin 21:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

ok then, I'll try to check it, but it is impossible until september --Plokin 10:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Etelän kanaalin tunneli[edit]

On siis jotain epäselvää kuvassa, jonka kopion Ranskalaisesta wikipediasta? Itse on tiedä moisesta mitään, mutta eivätkö kaikki Wikipedian kuvat ole kuitenkin yleisessä käytössä. En ainakaan tee kauppaa moisella. Siis mikä on oikein pihvi? En siis tajua pienintkään noista ja näistä oikeuksista! --Alexius Manfelt 17:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


why did you delete that img?!?!?! I told it was taken by one of my friends, thats why she was not looking to the camera!!! leave me a comment on my discussion.--Electrican MV 00:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

but the lastone WAS TAKEN by one of my friends.. the first, not. --Electrican MV 23:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why you deleted my image?[edit]

Hi, I'm user Superori

Yesterday you deleted the image JamesPeris.jpg for reason that this image has copyright.

Why you think that this image has a copyright? I upload this image with a GNU licence and I'm sure that this image hasn't a copyright because this image was created by me.

Please, tell me what criteria do you use to think that some images are copyrighted.

categorising images[edit]

Kiitos infosta liittyen kuvien kategorointiin - teen niin vastaisuudessa. Hi and thanks for the info on categorising images. I'll do that from now on. Cheers, --Aerolite 23:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


Hello. You deleted 4 images unrder this heading according to wn:Wikinews:CommonsTicker. A couple of notes:

  • deletion request images should always be unlinked.
  • closed deletion requests should not be immediately archived because it makes them harder to find. (where is this debate now? I can't find it.)
  • it's better to refer to the date of nomination in the deletion reason, because then it will be easy to find the nomination in the archives, rather than if you link to template:deletion requests which always changes, then it will be hard.

cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I wasn't thinking very clearly over my frustration about the size of that template. But do you mean that deletion request images should be unlinked from other projects. I thought these were "critical". -Samulili 08:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Hm... COM:DG is not very clear but I believe deletion requests should be unlinked. If we can discuss them up for up to 5 weeks I think they're not very I have a feeling I discussed it with Arnomane somewhere but it is not written in any of the policy pages. Well I guess it's up to you then. My personal preference is always to unlink. As more and more projects get CommonsTickers, I hope we will have less and less unlinking to do. Thanks for helping on that page, it is a huge pain! pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
You have a good point there. I've started removing links from other projects (excluding wikinews whose pages are protected). -Samulili 11:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please restore Image:Lion snarling.jpg[edit]


You incorrectly deleted Image:Lion snarling.jpg without first correcting links to it, e.g. on en.wiktionary. Please reply on my talk page there, wikt:User talk:Connel MacKenzie. Thanks in advance,

--Connel MacKenzie 14:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

(I have to reply here because your user page seems to be locked in en-wikt.) Thank you for your note. En-wikt links to that image had been removed before I got there. However, wihtout your note, the image would still be lingering in many other projects, and although correcting those links is not required in the case when an image is against Commons policies, I was still happy to orphan this one. -Samulili 17:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, yes my talk page was protected during a vandalism flurry. Replies here are appreciated - I'm glad to hear that you are using CheckUsage properly for this sort of thing. It is much nicer to all the sister projects involved. P.S. Where can I lobby against the policy you refer to above? (The policy that says it is ever OK to just delete an image, without de-linking it first, that is.) --Connel MacKenzie 22:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Village pump would be the place. But now with CommonsTicker, I doubt your suggestion would gain much support. -Samulili 09:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
That is your opinion, which you are certainly free to hold. But mine is that CommonsTicker makes the abuses of not running CheckUsage and orphaning images first, more obvious. Image deletion remains highly disruptive to sister projects, with or without CommonsTicker.
And thank you for that reminder about my wikt: talk page. It has been unprotected again (even though replies right here are better for this.) --Connel MacKenzie 16:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Commons-l subscription[edit]

Hello Samulili,

as per Commons talk:Administrators, I am asking all admins to subscribe to commons-l, a mailing list for Wikimedia Commons policy and project discussion. Since many admins are only on Commons infrequently, this is a good way to alert people about important happenings. The mailing list is nominally multilingual, but predominantly English.

If you are already subscribed to commons-l, I apologize for bothering you, and you are free to ignore this message. If you don't want to use your regular e-mail account, feel free to leave me a message, and I can send you a GMail invite. Traffic on the mailing list is relatively low, and we do not expect admins to read all messages to the list, but it would be nice if you could check on it at least every few weeks. Thanks for your time,--Eloquence 23:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Kathryn Holloway Image deletion question[edit]

Hi, I see you deleted Image:Kathryn Holloway.jpg which was used in Wikipedia:Kathryn Holloway. I uploaded the image to Commons, as a copy at Wikipedia:Image:ScottK2.jpg, which the photographer (not me) had uploaded. Could you let me know the reason for deletion (or point me to the relevant discussion)? If there's something wrong with it, then the one still at Wikipedia should also be deleted (fairuse is not being claimed). Also, the Commons article/gallery Kathryn Holloway should be deleted, since there was only the one image in it. --Rob 18:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for asking. En-wikipedia has a license {{GFDL-presumed}} which that image uses. In Commons, we have decided that the license is not accepted. I also want to thank you for pointing out that page, I had not noticed it before. -Samulili 05:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Hangyy[edit]

You are a bot now too? :) There is no user by this name, I'm a bit confused... --pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So am I :) -Samulili 07:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Categorisation of images[edit]

Hi Samulili ! And tank you for your piece of advice. Thanks to you, I know now that it's necessary to categorize every new picture. I will pay careful attention for my futures contributions. --Icarus Vitae Inari 23:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on my talkpage[edit]

Hi, you want to delete the uploaded file of the Asturian comarcas, I've indicated everything I could with that file, see:
Summary & Description: coloured version of comarcas of Asturias ; Source: User:Llull ; Date: 15-07-2006 ; Author: User:Llull; Permission: Public Domain ; Other versions: ; Licensing This image has been (or is hereby) released into the public domain by its author, Llull. This applies worldwide. In some countries this is not legally possible; if so: Llull grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. File history: Legend: (cur) = this is the current file, (del) = delete this old version, (rev) = revert to this old version. Click on date to see the file uploaded on that date. (del) (cur) 18:02, 15 July 2006 . . Torero (Talk | contribs) . . 270×108 (28,824 bytes) ({{Information |Description=coloured version of comarcas of Asturias |Source=English & Asturian Wikipedias |Date=15-07-2006 |Author=User:Llull |Permission=GFDL presumed by Jmabel |other_versions=

What's left? How much information do you need? Be clear or not. Regards, Torero 17:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, merci![edit]

Thanks for the advises! I have already put my photographs in some galleries and categories. I wonder how to delete photos once I have uploaded them? I have a duplicated picture I would like to remove. Thanks in advance --Yoda 18:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Do you mean pictures Image:Jiquilisco.jpg and Image:Bahia jiquilisco.jpg? You can add {{badname|Bahia jiquilisco.jpg}} to Image:Jiquilisco.jpg. -Samulili 18:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Permission grant by email[edit]

I recently made a couple of attempts to get a license for wikipedia for specific images. Fortunately I was successful and I have uploaded them. I just want to make sure that the information I put on the file page is sufficient to not have it deleted. I rarely come to commons and don't want to see the image removed. See Image:Congdon-headshot.PNG for an example. Thx in adv Trödel 14:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture deleted[edit]

Hi Samulili,

You've just deleted the image shown recently under the link :

I'm a little bit surprized because on the 16th of July I sent a message to info-en at in order to clear the copyright status of this creation. Please note that I didn't upload myself this work. Here my message :


I've just seen the creation which is shown here :

There is a question about its copyright status. This work is released under the "free art license" : This license is quite similar to the cc-by-sa.

The creation comes from a project that Regina Celia Pinto (Brazil) and myself developed about one year ago. The project is called "bigsheep" and can be found under the following adress (just scroll down to find the picture) :

So I think I've cleared the question of the copyright status. If you want to know more : just ask me !

So I would like to have your comments.

Waiting for your answer.

Best regards.


The image page had the following information:
A imagem faz parte do acervo de criações coletivas do Projeto BIG Sheep. As autoras responsáveis pelo projeto são Regina Célia Pinto e Isabel Saij.
I will restore it and I hope you will add the required information using the {{Information}} template. Best regards. -Samulili 12:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I put in the Photo Informatin template and filled it out for you, it may need checking and update informaion, gracius amigo WayneRay 14:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Thank you for the quick answers and actions. Best regards Copyleftisa 17:47 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Image deletion[edit]

Hi, saw you deleted Image:Imperia sanremo.jpg. I restored it because it was tagged, after an anonymous edit had deleted the license info. Not really your fault but anyway just wanted to let you know. NielsF 15:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I marked one of the two, can't remember which, as a duplicate, now. -Samulili 17:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
We seem to have had an edit conflict which I didn't notice, anyhow I orphaned and deleted image:Sanremo 0001.jpg. NielsF 01:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Milton Keynes[edit]

You also deleted Image:Milton Keynes Central Station - surely you could have left a message at user talk:Concrete Cowboy  :( -- 00:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Sorry, it was another user's pic of Milton Keynes Central. But you also deleted a few others of his that were really good. Couldn't you have left a message on w:talk:Milton Keynes?

I wish I could answer that question, but I'm afraid I don't know which images you are talking about. Recently I have deleted hundreds of images that have not had a source or license for several weeks. These pictures you refer to must have been among them. -Samulili 08:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Flag of Italy.svg[edit]

Thank you. The version you protected is the consensus version, so I am extremely pleased with the protection. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

OMG, it's not the the wrong version? This is why admins should pick the version they protect totally at random :) -Samulili 20:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I wrote the Italian embassy about the colors and see what happens next. I had to use one Embassy before to sort out the flag mess at Switzerland, I am surprised I have to do it again with Italy's flag. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


Ah, this whole copyright thing is giving me a headache! Concerning this picture, you removed the copyright that I uploaded it as and replaced it with a lack of information. While the picture is not my own work, the author posts her pictures online and says on her FAQ page that her pictures can be used as long as they are cited (For some reason the site is down now but the original response to the question of use is quoted under permission). Furthermore, I made sure and emailed her to ensure permission. I explained the situation, then said:

I assume from your FAQ that this isn't a problem. I uploaded it under Creative
Common Attribution 2.5 (,
which is basically "free for use as long as one credits the author."
If you do not want your sketch there or would like to change something
then you can go ahead and delete/change it yourself (or tell me to).

To which the original author answered:

Ahh! Awesome! :D Of course you can use it :) Thanks for the heads up!

So basically, since the author of the picture has agreed to this, what needs to be done to make the use of the image acceptable? Crito2161 03:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Deletion requests#Image:Farben logo.jpg[edit]

Please stop repeating these claims made by the "copyright for designs" lobby. These things are not protected by copyright. I have explained the situation at length, please be rational and don't claim the contrary just because your subjective feeling is different—this feeling is wrong. Legislation wants only a limited protection for designs since if they would be protected 70 pma and without registration, that would essentially kill the design industry. If you properly register your design and pay for it, you can get a limited design patent protection for a few years. --Rtc 14:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wostok 1 Start.jpg[edit]

Das Bild Image:Wostok 1 Start.jpg wurde bereits am 24. November 2005 von mir auf Wikimedia Commons hochgeladen. Auch wenn es Dir nicht gefällt, hier sind alle Sprachen gleichberechtigt. Die exakte Transkription in Deutsch ist Wostok. Es ist nicht in Ordnung das von mir mit viel Mühe bearbeitete Bild zu stehlen und ohne Hinweis auf den Ursprung unter neuem Namen hochzuladen (ein halbes Jahr später am 19. Juli 2006 als Image:Vostok 1 Launch.jpg). Das von mir hochgeladene Bild nun auch noch zur Löschung vorzuschlagen ist eine Frechheit und widerspricht allen Regeln der Wikipedia. -- ArtMechanic 15:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Image of Commodore Barry Bridge[edit]

I have used this image:

I have found a new image of this brigde, it is better, more quality and resolution. You can delete de old image, I don't need it and there is a copy in english Wikipedia.

You are wrong[edit]

Not, you are wrong. I know better than you the Canary Islands, and my edition is more correct. See other maps exceed this Spanish region. Thank you. 15px Satesclop 13:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not just. I don't speak English. This text is an automatic translation. 15px Satesclop 15:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I have placed the Canary Isles more near the African continent ([3]). Is it correct? I hope that this one problems has been solved. 15px Satesclop 15:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


Honestly, I must say that I find it rather disturbing that you unilateraly decided to delete an image on the grounds that the copyright situation not is clear. For another time I hope that you will give the time to discuss a proposed image and investigate the comprehensive sets of regulations applied. Bertilvidet 11:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded the picture since it has a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License v. 2.5. It available here. I believe you put the right lincense now Bertilvidet? --Mandavi 13:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's discuss. But the image is a derivative work and free use is not allowed. -Samulili 08:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Rather than attackıng one single image, may I suggest that you raise your concerns at a more general level for instance at Commons_talk:Derivative_works#Political_advertisements Bertilvidet 11:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

color bars for photographs.[edit]


You seem to understand color management and are interested in color accuracy.

We have some photographs of objects where the colors are so innacurate that it is laughable (eg. paintings). As a suggestion for people interested in taking the time to produce a highly color accurate photograph, I have suggested that we have a page suggesting use of a standard color bar target within the photo itself.

I wonder if you would be willing to contribute any thoughts to this. -Mak 18:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Flag of Italy.svg[edit]

Despite what User:Zscout370 may have told you there have never been consensus on the color of the italian flag. I promoted a discussion on the italian village pump and it turned out that 13 people out of 15 prefer to use #FFFFFF as white and don't consider the pantone color to be appliable to the digital image.

Could you revert to the other version? Could you also reverse the related flags? There is some other way I can try if you refuse (excluded bitching on

Bye and thanks, Paulatz 17:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You may answer here

I think you should do like Deusentrieb suggested in Village pump: have two versions of the flag. I don't see a difference between the two version, I don't even know which version I have locked to. I really have no interest in anything but stopping the endless reverting. -Samulili 18:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
This is wrong. People on national wikipedias expect Flag of Italy.svg to be the best representation of the Flag of the Italian Republic. Having two files is not the optimal solution.--FlagUploader 01:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I think of several other national flags having more than one version, such as South Korea and Japan. They mostly involved on if a border should exist on the flag or not (I say no borders). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, we can have two versions, but I (and most of the italian commoners) would prefer to have white in the "default" version, I promise we will create a "Printable Flag of Italy.svg" using the pantone colors. Paulatz 06:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Done: 1, 2, 3, bye Paulatz 07:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Images unprotected. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

License tags in Image:Ciudad Real (catedral).jpeg[edit]

Please stop removing the license tag from Image:Ciudad Real (catedral).jpeg. The cc-by license states in plain English that "[one] must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor." The licensor chose that attribution be given to the company in publishing the image in that manner on their site; there is no reason whatsoever to consider the image does not fulfill the license terms. Taragüí @ 22:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank for your remind.[edit]

I will add [[Category:]] tag in pictures I upload as soon as possible. And sorry my english is very poor. --Vegafish 14:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi Samuli,
why you deleted Image:Madrid-MetroLogo.png? Yes, of course, I know that is the official logo of the Madrid metro. But this logo is too simple that it can be copyrighted (see also Template:pd-ineligible). Therefore I would restore the image, okay? Greetings from Berlin --Jcornelius 23:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Krasnoyarsk coa 1804.gif[edit]

The files are identical, excluding file format and forgotten vector-images tag. Do you think we should discuss this deletion? Usually I set such a mark only in clear cases and planning to delete these files in a short time expected for orphaning and getting possible uploader reaction. In the other cases I do like here. (Please answer here). --Panther 07:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

didn't you forget something?[edit]

--BLueFiSH  14:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not required to remove images from other projects when deleting images that are in Category:Unknown and its subcategories. -Samulili 14:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
here is the source for the image
search in for 558596 and you will find the image with "Use Restrictions: Unrestricted". best regards. --BLueFiSH  14:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Good that you found it. To add to my earlier comment, it is true that I could have done what you suggested but I tend to trust in CommonsTicker to share the burden. -Samulili 14:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
i found the source in the deleted description page in german wikipedia. it's a pity that this information was not included in the commons description page. In this case it was good, that you didn't remove the image from the various pages. It would be nice if you could ask the next time an administrator of german wp wether he can find some informations to the source of an image in german wp. mostly the german speaking admins here are also admins in german wp. again best regards. --BLueFiSH  14:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


That would be, um... alphabetic to people who speak English?? Not sure where the myriad of non-alphabetic characters fit in the alphabet. :P --pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be alphabetical to those who use latin alphabets. I moved "suomi" just before "svenska" and "magyar" before "nederlands". -Samulili 09:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Jean Sibelius[edit]

Hi. I see you tagged a picture of Jean Sibelius as derivative. Is there a reason you didn"t tag all of them? --Bdamokos 22:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't tag other images because I just happened to come accross this single one and I wasn't looking for anything more.

The laws outlined in Commons:Derivative works how do affect my right to publish a picture in Hungary that eg. under Suomi law would be copyrighted in Finland? Please answer at my talk page at my Hungarian talk page or here. --Bdamokos 22:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I really know very little about international copyright. But the way I understand it, is that when you operate in country X, you only have to care about the lwas of country X. -Samulili 19:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Follow up question: it writes at the derivative page, that I couldn't publish a photo of a building in Hungary, does this mean the photo of any building published in Hungary, or a photo of a building located in Hungary? And for my previous question("The laws outlined in Commons:Derivative works how do affect(...)) substitute Hungary with a country with more liberal laws than Finnland.--Bdamokos 22:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a question I don't know an answer to. -Samulili 19:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Answer to your question of Meta[edit]

Samulili, just wanted you to know that I answered your question on Meta. If there is anything you want to discuss specifically or any discussions going on please feel free to point me to this issues. Thanks for your question. Alex756 15:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Hello. You recently deleted the image at Image:Teneriffe,Queensland1.JPG. I didn't realise that there was a source problem as I don't usually log into commons unless I'm uploading a picture. I do most of my editing at Wikipedia. I'm still a bit bemused as to why there was a source problem as my edit description on the log page contains the text "Source: Own work. Photo taken by User:Adz on 7 November." This suggests to me that I included that text on the photo page itself. I was wondering whether it would be possible for you to un-delete the photo, and if there is still a problem with the source info then perhaps I could fix it up. If not, I'll upload it again. (please reply on my talk page, or better yet, on my wikipedia talk page). cheers -- Adz 01:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am happy to license under GFDL. Thanks for restoring the picture. I appreciate it. -- Adz 08:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Dupe deletion[edit]

Yeah, I run CheckUsage before deleting dupes, and orphan apropriately in other projects. With #34 I certainly did orphan it as best I could (this edit on [4]). I think the only remaining use of the image is on the German Wikipedia on de:Diskussion:Israel. However, Toolserver seems broken at the moment (for me) so I cannot check for any other usage (I may have missed some). As that talk page is protected, I couldn't remove it or think of an appropriate place to leave a message. As it was only that usage I couldn't deal with and the harm to de.wp was low (it was only on a talk page after all), I felt that the deletion was probably OK; though I'll bear it in mind if it isn't...--Nilfanion 13:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Re Image:Waha JPG00q.jpg[edit]

You quoted [5]. But what does this mean? He made this edit after I had written to him on his talk page. Does he want Image:Waha JPG00q.jpg deleted? And why has he uploaded so many copies of it in the last days?

Again, I would appreciate it very much, if you can clarify these issues.

Fred Chess 16:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin news[edit]


If you consent for statistics to be published about your actions as an administrator, please sign here: Commons:Administrator permission for statistics. (I expect that most people will not have a problem with it unless you are especially concerned with privacy.)

Also, please be aware that we now have a Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Please put it on your watchlist, if you haven't already!

cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC) P.S.: Pardon if this is a repeat (bot debugging...)

Revert of Image:Daniella Sarahyba.jpg[edit]

Hi, I noticed you reverted Image:Daniella Sarahyba.jpg to an older version without an explanation. I have reverted it back. An improperly executed crop increases the probability of compression artifacts, and should be avoided. If you want to discuss this, please use my talk page. Thank you. --Kjoonlee 14:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cambridge Jesus.jpg[edit]

Hi, I uploaded this image from en.wikipedia and noticed that an image with identical name was deleted by you recently. Let me know (on my talk) if there are problems with this version. Thanks --Cruccone 16:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I asked the guy to ask his friend to mail OTRS. --Cruccone 16:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi ! I just noticed that you deleted Image:Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease.jpg. I looked at the deletion log and saw the deletion reason was the "no source" tag. However, one of the users of the image in es:wiki just told me that the image was properly marked with source and licence since months ago. Could you please help me understand if this image was ok, or the august 7th tag was right? In advance thanks! --Sergio 15:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi! The image was marked with license cc-by-sa-2.5. The link that was given as a source was a right one: . However, the website of Istituto Superiore di Sanità, claims copyright on its contents (© - Istituto Superiore di Sanità). It does allow its content to be used if the source is cited [6] but doesn't mention that it is allowed to make derivative works or use the images commercially. I hope that my decision seems justified, but if you can provide more information, I'll be glad to listen to what you have to say (my Italian is very bad so I may not understand everything on the ISS site). Regards, Samulili 15:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the prompt answer, I'll pass it onto the user on es:wiki, who was the person dealing with the licensing with the ISS. Regards! --Sergio 19:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
It just dawned to me, but the person should use OTRS and email templates. -Samulili 16:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

unjustified deleted Image:Ssr coelpin.jpg[edit]

Can you tell me, why this picture was deleted? Why you didn't read the image talk previously?

There are the following entries in the recommended form:

Image talk:Ssr coelpin.jpg
Description: A secondary surveillance radar (SSR) near the military airport "Neubrandenburg" (ETNU) in Germany/Western-Pommerania. This SSR uses a LVA-antenna.
Source: own photo
Date: 13.08.2006
Author: c.w.
Permission: GFDL

This picture was declared as GDFL (non-ambiguous) and you did delete it anyway! It has induced a furious discussion in the german Wikipedia. Wikimedia has lost an author therefore.

--the former user c.w. 20:22,25 September 2006 (UTC) ps: i deleted the 'wiki'- star page tabs, if you want to exculpate, then via e-mail only.

After seeing the license information on the talk page, I have restored the image. I apologize for the inconvenience. I have also placed the information on the image page, so that this would not happen again. -Samulili 06:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


I noticed that you deleted Tagore3.jpg. Actually, the image is in public domain as it is a pre-1946 (i.e. 60 year old) photo. I can provide you the sources of the photo.

The image was used in all across wikipedia, especially in a lot of featured articles. I request you to restore the image, I can provide the source and licensing tags. If you do a check usage, you'd see that 20+ wikipedias used this photo for the Rabindranath Tagore pages.

Thanks. --Ragib 20:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I restored the image, Image:Tagore3.jpg. I and another admin were tricked by a vandal who had removed the source information. -Samulili 20:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your prompt action. I have added two sources for the image, so there should be no problem with the image's source/licenses. Thanks again. --Ragib 21:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I deserve this[edit]

Català | Čeština | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Svenska | Українська | +/−

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! -Samulili

thanks for initiating some cleanup!
Eh, you do? not that I've noticed! That template looks vaguely familiar though, somehow... do you know anything about it? :) ++Lar: t/c 20:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well done[edit]

Heh, you are a funny one (saw your note above :)). Just wanted to say awesomework on the CommonsTasks. I plan to write a bunch of stuff for it soon, hopefully. The hard bit is actually getting volunteers. We need those militant enwp cleanup people :P pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: deletion subpage dates[edit]

That's fine, I've just fixed the date link on that one too. If you find any more, just change the {{CURRENTDAY}} to {{CURRENTDAY2}} and it will be ok. Alphax (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, don't remove nsd tags[edit]

It's old? Provide source: «The author and source of the file must be given, so that others can verify the copyright status» Sanbec 09:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Napoleon died in the beginning of 1800's... -Samulili 09:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary deletetion[edit]

Samulili, what was this Image:Pt-coimbra-sevelha1.jpg all about? I'm the author of the image, I've fotographed myself. Even if not, it would have been User:Saninha, which is the same, for pratical matters. I really doubt that the image lacked any information. Could you explain to me what has happened, since I can't view the deleted revisions? 20:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to here from you. I had some questions about that image and I hope we can now answer them. From my persspective, the image was uploaded by User:Nuno Tavares. S/he had marked the image with {{GFDL}} and attributed it to User:Saninha. I tried to look for confirmation and I asked which local project the image came from and I even tried to look for it myself; but I didn't get an answer and I couldn't find traces of the image from other projects. That is why I ended up marking the image with {{No source since}} and that is how it got deleted 3 months later.
I hope that you could answer these open questions and then I can bring back the image. I might have already done it, but I didn't quite understand when you wrote: "I'm the author of the image, I've fotographed myself. Even if not, it would have been User:Saninha, which is the same, for pratical matters." With kind regards, Samulili 08:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of FAB images under Agência Brasil licence[edit]

I have replied to your arguments on Commons:Deletion_requests/FAB_images. The more I read about it, the more I'm sure that FAB-created images are rightly distributed by Agência Brasil and thus fall under their licence, but I would like to have your input on it. Thanks. Antiuser 07:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. It has been a week since I first contacted you about this. I have received a reply from Agência Brasil which I believe proves that the licence info for these images is indeed correct. I would like to hear your take on this matter. Thanks. Antiuser 22:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

deletion of out-of-copyright images[edit]

I had uploaded en:Image:Smyrne_Group_of_Gypsy.jpg, identifying it as a photograph dating to 1904, thus {{PD-old}}. It was later moved to commons. You have recently deleted it here. Now the articles on en-wiki are left with broken links. This is frustrating, since I didn't upload the image to commons in the first place, and I do not entertain a watchlist here. Isn't this copyright paranoia? It was obvious from the photograph that it dated to ca. 1900, and even if we didn't know the photographer's name and address, there was no reason to doubt the 1904 date. en:User:Dbachmann 06:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Posidonius.jpg[edit]

Hi. Nice to meet you. I noticed a week or two that the image of Posidonius was missing from the Wikipedia article about him, and I finally figured out how to trace it back to the deletion. I put this image on the Commons, and as far as I can find out it is in the public domain. I'd like to put the image back, but I did not understand the reason you deleted it. Please let me know and, maybe I can correct whatever problem there was with it. Or post a more suitable image. I appreciate any help you can give me. Please answer on my English Wikipedia talk page. Thanks. --Tregonsee 19:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Here's a link to my English Wikipedia talk page where you can reply. Thanks again. --Tregonsee 14:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments in Lar's recent RfA![edit]

Dear Samulili : I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RfA which passed 20 to 1. I really appreciate the trust you've placed in me. Please help me be a better admin by giving me feedback when you think I need it, and praise when you think I've earned it. You are involved in so many neat and important things, it's just amazing. I look forward to helping in whatever small way I can. ++Lar: t/c 04:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I chose LEGO to illustrate my thank you messagess, because LEGO is a system that we build things with. Commons holds the building blocks that other wikis use to make great things. Without Commons images and media, other wikis would be much poorer. Let's help build the greatest freely available intellectual collection the world has ever known... together.


Hi I reverted again the changes you made for one precise reason: My map is far from being perfect but is way better than this Image:Suomen-maakunnat-template.png. This one is completely outdated (something like 2000) and does not take any account of the most recent border changes of maakunnat, like the merger of Kangaslampi to Varkaus, the shift of Punkalaidun from Satakunta to Pirkanmaa, ans even the old merger of Kuorevesi to Jämsä (dating back from 2001 !). I also forget many other details... I do not wish to correct all the maps of Finland (it's too long and not needed enough at that time), but please check those precise points with an updated map before reverting again. Thanks in advance Clem23 12:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


Please do not delete the SovietPD articles just yet and kindly temporary restore those you deleted. Some of them are usable at enwiki under the fairuse, hsitoric, promotinal and other templates. Some may be retagged under free licenses. Original pages at commons have the necessary source info as well as the info on the original uploader. Several concerned users are now going through the commons SovietPD images sorting them out and we need the images for this salvage operation. TIA, --Irpen 02:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Elsa Triolet portrait by Rodchenko.jpg[edit]

Hi, I removed the tag No source on this file. I've added sources:Name of the photographer and date of the first publication according to another website. It has been published in 1924, so before 1950. It is so in the domain public. Did I do wrong? Please answer on my discussion page. --Sebb 22:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


Could you please tell me when {{PD-Art}} is applicable. In the template it says: due to the death of the author or due to its date of publication. Which criteria should be used for those, because it isn't mentioned anywhere. Errabee 23:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


Hei! Kun ei oo toi kielitaito niin hyvä ni voisitko kertoo, mitä lisenssiä kannattaa käyttää, jos kuvat on peräsin muilta nettisivuilta?

Hei! Jos kuva on joltain nettisivulta, pitää käyttä siellä mainittua lisenssiä. Jos nettisivulla ei ole mainittu mitään vapaata lisenssiä, ei kuvaa voi lisätä Commonsiin. -Samulili 17:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Rouge FlickrLickers ;)[edit]

Getting sloppy are we? :P I upload images at flickr by default as by-sa-2.0 (have been thinking of dropping the share-alike though). Saw that Image:Foggy Aura river.jpg and Image:Suomen Joutse, Sigyn.jpg (<- typo) was uploaded here under by-2.0. I've uploded under creative commons licenses since July.

I certainly don't mind having them here, was only a bit surprised to see the license change (but as I said, I'm thinking about dropping the SA part, will edit these too in that case). As for the "Adm" part of my flickr nick, some type had already taken Scoo (only post junk..) Cheers, Scoo 08:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry about this, naturally the license shouldn't be changed. I'll be more careful in the future. -Samulili 16:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh, no need to be (I didn't perhaps convey properly my feeling of amusement rather than annoyance), Scoo 16:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
If you're using Firefox and have w:Greasemonkey installed, check out this script. Alphax (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


For what reason was this template deprecated? Should it be deprecated on other projects as well? Centrx 23:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It can be replaced with {{PermissionOTRS|ticket=URL}} and {{PermissionOTRS-ID|ticketid}} which are listed in Commons:OTRS. Other projects may use different names or otherwise different templates for the same end so I can't speak for them. -Samulili 10:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that the reason is that, for OTRS people, it's much easier to click on an url and check the confirmation, than go searching for a ticket number. Also, I find it more discreet and elegant ;) -- Drini 03:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't use OTRS, but is ConfirmationOTRS any different from Template:PermissionOTRS? -Samulili 10:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Kuola -kuvan poistosta[edit]

hei, poistit Kuola.gif kuvan. Olin laittanut kuvaan mukaan tietoja, joten kuva ei ollut ladattu tuntemattomasta lähteestä. t. Inzulac

Please restore[edit]

You delete this images:

Source of this images is:

License is: {{PD-Russia}}

Creator died in 1947

You delete this image

Source of this image is:

License is: {{PD-art}}

Date of creation: 375-350 AD

Creator: Дийон (posible transcription - Dijon)

--Butko 10:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. A also find another deleted images of Nicholas Roerich:

Source of this images is:

License is: {{PD-Russia}}

Creator died in 1947

Restore it, please --Butko 10:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done it. --Panther 10:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Спасибо --Butko 11:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi, Samulili. You deleted Image:CNT-armoured-car-factory.jpg, and I think it should be restored. It was taken between 1936-1939 (Spanish Civil War). The Spanish copyright law states that:

  • According to the present Spanish Law, the Intellectual Property Rights of the authors of simple photographs will last for 25 years starting from the 1st of January of the year after the photograph or reporduction has been taken.
    • "Simple photographs" are those which represent reality as it is without any creative or intellectual effort Please answer in my page. I'm anxious to see it restored, so I can correct back the pages which linked to it. Best wishes, Mr.Rocks 02:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Verbascum thapsus[edit]

Hi Samulili,

according to the log, you deleted Image:Verbascum thapsus bloem.jpg because it had been listed as an Images with unknown source.

No criticism, but a few questions: <first two questions withdrawn, i already found that i should have been notified but someone seems to have forgotten>

  • What counts as a valid license tag? Yes, I know the pages about these, I always say "I release this image under GFDL" or such. Should that be sufficient? for example, Image:Viola pubescens 060519.PNG is listed as having no valid license tag, while the description does mention it was released under GFDL.

kind regards,

TeunSpaans 07:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! This image had only the following information:
in the series our garden
{{no license|month=June|day=19|year=2006}}
And yes, who ever marked it with nld, should have informed you. I'll restore it so you can add what ever information is required. -Samulili 19:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much! You do even more than I asked. I added the information which I seem to have forgotten on upload. I trust it's ok this way? TeunSpaans 22:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

One more question: I tagged Image:GIV de FB1.gif for deletion, and when I warned its uploader, I copied a previous message, but I am sure there is a template I can substitute. Do you happen to know which template? TeunSpaans 22:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. If I understood your question correctly, you can paste the text which in the {{no source since}} template, in this case {{subst:image source|Image:GIV de FB1.gif}} ~~~~. -Samulili 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


Its a fine job you are doing there, but how are you unlinking the images? With a tool? --Cat out 17:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not. When there's so much backlog, I prioritize and trust in CommonsTicker. -Samulili 17:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)



This user is mass-uploading images taken from

He publishes the pix under {{CC-BY-SA}}, but the source only mentions {{CC-BY-NC-SA}}. I have put a message on the talk page of User talk:Panther, but he indicates he has virtually no knowledge of English. As you are both a sysop and have some knowledge of Russian, could you please take over?

thanks in advance,

TeunSpaans 19:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 ???? Really, my bot don't knows English very well :)))). I've answered on my talk page, this problem will be resolved in a short time. --Panther 20:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Image Linking[edit]

I was uploading the images so I can post them on the Portuguese version of Wikipedia. I had already uploaded them on the English version, but I will soon be deleting those and replace them with the commons version. Thanks for your concern, but as you can see, the majority of my pics are now linked to wiki articles, and the ones that aren't are because I am currently working on the article, such as translating, etc.

Thanks. Charlesblack 16:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

haha, oh.... Thanks! Charlesblack 22:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

deleted picture[edit]

Hi Samulili,

a few weeks ago my jpg-Picture in the german Wikipedia article "Phoniatrie" named "Image:Karte Phoniater Deutschland.jpg" was deleted. I could not find out why. It was a self-created MS-Powerpoint-file, converted to jpg. I was authorized by our scientific organisation of the german phoniatrician for publishing. I'am not very used to work with Wikipedia, but I tried to fill the license form as good as I know und titulated our society as the source of origin. As it was very much work for me to upload the file, it would be very nice to help me re-organizing the upload and to reverse the deletion.

Thanks for Your help

Phoni 17:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please answer to my discussion site or give there a hint, where I can find Your answer.

The image had the following information:
== Beschreibung ==
Karte mit in Deutschland tätigen Mitgliedern der DGPP
Autor: Vorstand der DGPP
== Licensing ==
It was marked for possible deletion by User:Gildemax. You can ask him for more information, but I see the following problems with the image:
  1. The author is said to the Board of directors (Vorstand) of DGPP. However, the license claims that you made the image. Furthermore, a collective body, such as a Board, is unlikely to be the author of the map.
  2. A website address is given. When one corrects it to one gets to website but it is not easy to find the image. Therefore it is impossible to verify that DGPP has released it as GFDL and cc-by-sa.
I can bring the image back for you, but I would need to know if you also drew the map of Germany which is the basis of the map. With kind regards, Samulili 12:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Samulili,

I contacted again the president of the German society of Phoniatricians und Pedaudiologists, Professor Eberhard Kruse in Goettingen, faculty of medicine of the universtity of Goettingen, Germany ( He created the picture by itself, using a Microsoft Powerpoint pattern with the map of Germany, adding himself the locations of phoniatricians. He pleased me to post this map in the article. My work was to transform this Powerpoint sheet to an jgp-File.

I thought the link to should lead only to the organisation as verification, but You are right, this map is not published there. It's puplished nowhere. So I think, it's the best way to name Kruse as the author (in his function of the president of the society). Could You please help me in the way of correcting the declaration and bring back the map? I fear to get the most things again wrong!

Thanks a lot

Phoni, 21 Februar 2007 20:51 UTC+1

Kosmonaut images[edit]

I'm removing because there isn't request reasons out there. And the requests are aburds the images are public domain from russia space program. And you are right now deleting images and you can't do that by yourself. You deleted without discussion abusing your administator position. Machocarioca 21:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Machocarioca

Reasons were given. If you don't agree with them, you explain why. -Samulili 12:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Juan Manuel Fangio[edit]

Could you explain to me what you mean with promo photo? I mean, the image is used on the English wiki aswell. Frits 22:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Answered at User talk:Frits. -Samulili 21:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings from User:Roshry[edit]

Chupame la pija pelotudo - User:roshry

Image delete request[edit]

Could you please delete previous version of Image:Refugees family Identity.jpg? I mistakenly uploaded it. --Hayk 21:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not know who did that, but thanks. --Hayk 22:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

problem of copyright authorization[edit]

I admit that the OTRS system is a bit unflexible. I don't doubt your sincerity, so I would like to propose something easier, but I just don't what that would be – it would have to convince other current and future administrators as well. A solution, which is not very easy but it is possible, is that you get the permission in writing, scan it and send it to OTRS. I will try to think of easier ways to handle this bureaucracy but I'm not sure I will come up with anything else. -Samulili 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem I notice in such a case is that it would be easier for me to cheat by writing, signing and scanning by myself the form which would authorize me to publish the photo...
And I'm not sure it would be the right way...
An other easy solution would be to include this photo (and all the items with suche problems) on my web site (whithout any copyright mention) and next to allow me (!) to upload it on commons !
But, in this case too, I'm not sure to respect the spirit of the rules...
The last solution, is to delete the photo and all the photos for which I (and other users) don't have copyrights authorization.Davric 09:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

kuka poistaisi turhan kuvan[edit]

kuva voisi poista mutta kukahan sen tekisi --Musamies 20:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


I transferred the image from the English language Wikipedia [7], but I found the image published in most of the Portuguese press of the fall of 1925 (when the person was Prime Minister) without indication of author. That qualifies as a public domain image. Thank you for the warning. Angrense 00:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)