User talk:Siebrand/Archive04

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Bot too fast

Your message on my Talk page on Commons was:


català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | македонски | Nederlands | norsk | polski | português | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you.

This is so silly. You have tagged this picture at such a speed that I had no chance whatever of typing in the copyright info before you tagged it. In fact your bot had an edit conflict with me as I put the data in. Please allow at least five minutes between my uploading the pic to Commons and you tagging it. I don't type at professional speed!! - Arpingstone 21:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Adrian, please don't take it personally :-) As far as I know it skips the uploads in the last 20 minutes, but I'll do another round of checking. Thanks for your notice and thank you VERY much for all the fantastic contributions you made that I see popping up just about everywhere! Cheers! Siebrand 22:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I was correct: you uploaded the file at 35 mins. past the hour. The bot tagged at 56 mins. past the hour. That is in my opinion a very reasonable time between an empty upload and automatic tagging. If you are of good faith, you can safely ignore the automated message (and delete those hideous messages from your talk page :P). Cheers! Siebrand 22:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't realise the gap between my upload and my tagging had been so large. I'll make sure to be faster in the future. Apologies for my impolite language above! Best Wishes (and thanks for all your great work on WP)- Arpingstone 14:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I think I've grown elephant skin in the past 18 months on both Dutch Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. No sweat. Have fun and by all means keep on contributing, Adrian! Siebrand 14:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture in commons

In Equus caballus the CommonsDelinker deleted a picture with the following explanation.

  • (Aktuell) (Vorherige) 18:37, 7. Mai 2007 CommonsDelinker (Diskussion | Beiträge) K (8.431 Bytes) (The file Image:Wappen Bad Rappenau.png has been removed, as it was deleted by Yug.)


  1. the picture is NOT deleted
  2. the picture wasn't the main reason for this line in the gallery, it was a illustration for a link to a category, which schould not be deleted because of a missing picture.

Maybe there is a possibility to change the work of the bot? I think a white place in a gallery is not a big problem - a deletet link is a much bigger problem. Kersti 01:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As you can see the image was deleted. Siebrand 05:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Club Natació Sabadell.jpg

Hi Siebrand. I've seen that you changed the status of this picture and others. You've included "no source", which seems to mean that "This media file is missing essential source information". Well, the source information is available (somehow). The problem is that the authorization is not valid (and the uploader has been mentioned the problem and has done nothing to solve it). If you think that it's necessary to wait for seven days, it's OK, but it's not a "no source" issue. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 06:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi ecemaml. Thank you for your message. In these cases we always wait for 7 days because it's convenient. Someone start deleting all no source/license/permission in batch mode using the BadOldOnes tool after 7 days, which is much more efficient than removing individual files. Have fun. Cheers! Siebrand 06:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

White Dragon image

here it is stated that image is distributed under the GFDL terms, isn't it? Mienski 10:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please use CommonsHelper when copying images from another wiki. You can add the information to Image:White-dragon.JPG.


Beste Siebrand!

Ik weet eerlijk niet waarom je een delete-request voor dit vlag heeft aangevraagt... oké, het is een *.gif - pic en ik weet ook dat de kwaliteit niet de beste is, en ook dat er al andere bestaande versies van de vlag van de Duitstalige Gemeenschap van Belgie op wiki-commons te vinden zijn, maar ben echt bewust, wat de hele gevolgen zullen zijn? Dit pic wordt in meer dan een artiekel van wikipedia gebruikt en als je het nu laat verdwijnen zal dat meer werk en meer problemen creeren dan het nodig is... dus denk ik dat niet echt van

Op het vlak van het copyright, je hebt toch de "flags, coat of arms and seals" gezien, of niet? Voor de belgische wetgeving (want we praten hier toch over een entiteit van de belgische federale staat) zijn, as far as i know, vlaggen etc. ook deel van het "public domain"; in het bijzondere voor de Duitstalige Gemeenschap stuur ik je naar de homepage van de Gemeenschap DGlive, waar je een korrekte omschrijving van de vlag heeft en je ziet dat deze omschrijving met het hier aangegeven pic klopt (Art. 2, tweede lid van het Decreet der Duitstaligen Gemeenschap van 01/10/1991)...

Voor mij is het evenwicht tussen pro en kontra heel klaar, en ik hoop dus dat jij met het deleten nog even wacht... en vooral een feedback hier schrijft! Misschien kunnen we toch een "compromis à la belge" vinden... it's up to you!



PS: Ik schrijf hier in name van de uploader (Frink), die het helaas niet zo goed met het nederlands/engels heeft, lol.

I'll reply in English, so we can use this elsewhere. "flags, coat of arms and seals" (or {{coatofarms}}) is noting more than a notice and in no way a replacement for a valid license, given by a copyright holder. In this particular case, a source is know, which may also be copyright holder, but no free license have been given. In case of flags of the world, no rights for free distribution are given. This makes the image not free enough to be on Wikimedia Commons. The description you are referring to, is a description. Based on that description one can make various designs. The description is not copyrighted, the design most definately is. I know, this is very hard to come to terms with, but it is how it works... :( Siebrand 12:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, according to this it should be impossible to send any flag or other seal to wiki-commons because, as far as i know, there is no state-government that has until this day given its express permission to reduplicate its flag or seal... (so why you just don't remove all flags and seals from wikipedia?)
And what about this? (in combination with this Flag of the worlds link... would that be sufficient in your eyes? (or are you also reading the small caracters below the description... if it's the case you certainly will have to delete the half of all the flags in wiki-commons...))


I think it's common sense that there is a kind of traditionnal permission to use the symbols of an official administration (because in the Belgian legislation - dont' forget that it has to be applicated in this case - there's no indication about what to do in such circumstances)
and if you don't believe me... here's the dutch link to the "Belgische Wet van 30 juni 1994 betreffende het auteursrecht en naburige rechten" (Geconsolideerde belgische wetgeving - just fill in the fields, and you will see...) oh yeah, and please don't forget especially to read the article 22, § 1, 4°bis (quote) Wanneer het werk op geoorloofde wijze openbaar is gemaakt, kan de auteur zich niet verzetten tegen [...] de gedeeltelijke of integrale reproductie van artikelen of van werken van beeldende kunst, of van korte fragmenten uit werken die op een grafische of soortgelijke drager zijn vastgelegd, wanneer die reproductie wordt verricht ter illustratie bij onderwijs of voor wetenschappelijk onderzoek, zulks verantwoord is door de nagestreefde niet-winstgevende doelstelling en geen afbreuk doet aan de normale exploitatie van het werk. (end of quote) (and this is the case of wikipedia, don't you agree?). For me the conclusion is clear: this flag has never been submitted to any so-called copyright (but who ever had a copyright on the flag of a state?) and thus belongs to the public domain!
Anyway, so - in your opinion - what are we then supposed to do in our a case? write a letter to the competent minister and ask him to give his permission to use the flag or seal in wikipedia (but I think it wasn't he personally who designed the flag... see the absurdity?)? maybe should I ask the king himself or make the parliament vote a decree that allows it? - no I'm joking, but I sincerly hope that you see that you cannot always find a "copyright" or "licence" where to refer to...
I'm looking forward to your reaction on these few arguments... Best regards, Ianus
You are probably misinterpreting what I'm saying: the person that has created something based om the description should give a license. The CIA creates its factbook and because it is US gouvernment material, it falls in the public domain. We can however not use images from FOTW without permission from the author, because the use policy of FOTW does not allow what we demand from a free license. Please take this to Commons talk:Licensing if you want other opinions. Siebrand 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well then let's find another solution: In any case, the quoted Decree of the Germanspeaking Community gives a very precise instruction of how to draw this flag, and no author can claim to have drawn the "original" flag (because there simply are not 1000 ways to create it)... you agree with that? so, according to this, if you transform the flag of one precise author in that way, that it hasn't its original "FOTW-shape" any more (but still a very similar shape, because the instructions of the decree are what they are, and you have to draw the flag like this), then the problem will be resolved, is that right...? A new author will have designed the shape and the flag, and so no other author, from "FOTW" or any other one, can say that it's a violation of his copyright... isn't it? -- I also am asking this because you very kindly set my own contributions on your deleting list (thanks for this, lol -- Don't mind, I'm not angry), and precisely one of them is a transformed flag from an other one (see: Image:BE DG Fahne randlos.png -- I changed the aspect ratio (from 1:1 to 2:3), the type of the file (*.gif into *.png) and the colors of the original... you can clearly not confuse it with the original any more, so that makes me the author of that pic and the one who has the right to determine the copyright status, is that right?)
But let's get back to Image:Dgb.gif... so if we modify this picture in some way (by changing even minor characteristics), so that it cannot be confused any more with the FOTW "original" pic, you will have to agree that there is a new author of the pic, and that there are no copyright problems coming from the original author any more? Well, if this is the case, please let us a cetain delay to do this change and don't delete it directly (because -- and this is no shit -- there are really many articles in direct or inderect way linked to the picture)...
I'm sorry for spamming you discussion site, but your bot has added the deleting request, so you have the responsability to take a decision and -- more important in a democratic wiki -- to justify it. Best regards, Ianus
The problem is of a more simple nature: we cannot accept images from FOTW because of their licensing policy. However I hate to have to say it, the images have to go. If an SVG is created based on it, there is no problem with it anymore. It's silly rules, it sucks, but within the Wikimedia projects we try to host free content only. Bending the rules is just too a slippery slope. Siebrand 20:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


I updated licensing info about the file. Hope that'll suffice.--Miggawka 13:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed the text license to a template, {{cc-by-2.0}}. Thanks for fixing it. Siebrand 13:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

User:DRBot op User talk:SieBot

Ik zie dat mijn bot met de jouwe praat :) Zal ik SieBot op de lijst met te negeren gebruikers zetten, of wil je notificaties blijven ontvangen? -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Kan je de berichten in plaats van daar hier laten uitkomen? Siebrand 20:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


All the photographies that you marked that as(according to) your they had to be eliminated, are under license Creative Commons, as it is said in the summary, or the author of the photos gave to me permission to publish them.

If you do not know Catalan do not touch it and I list, that give desire of leaving the projec...

¿Thanks? --Folto 19:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding which message you are trying to convey. Could you be more specific as in which images you are referring to? Please see Commons:Licensing for more information on what is required for images to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Siebrand 20:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello. If you need, take those pictures off, i'll try to find some others without any licency problems. Sorry for it. --Litrowy 13:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Incendio Ayuntamiento Amberes.jpg

I have solved the problems with the license of the image "Incendio Ayuntamiento Amberes.jpg". Thank you.--Durero 17:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No! Thank you! :-) Siebrand 18:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving of ", Germany"-categories

Hi Siebrand, please make sure your bot creates categories, if they don't exist yet. Thanks in advance, --Flominator 07:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it does, but only AFTER all images have been moved to the new category (just as does). Have you got an example for a case where this was not done? Siebrand 09:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
none where the complete category was moved. I created Category:Ruhla from Category:Ruhla, Germany, which was not empty. --Flominator 12:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to make sure I understand what you are asking. Am I correct in understanding that you would like an existing description for the target category be overwritten by the description of the source category? Siebrand 12:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please use a correct description --JuergenL 08:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Really strange. I think it only does this if someone gives a lot of categories at the same time. Siebrand 09:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC) (encore) --Juiced lemon 09:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why this is happening. The edit summary is incorrect, the change on the page is correct. I'm using the same information for both. It might be in the threading. I'll ask a more experienced programmer for help. Siebrand 12:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep, lots of confusing edit summaries for the ,Germany change. Heidelberg instead of Hannover, Büren instead of Bielfeld. --Dschwen 18:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


Stop it! --Bubo bubo 16:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want someone to stop something, it might be helpful if you explain what you're talking about. Thanks, Yonatan talk 17:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Please be more specific. I'm running 4 bots: CommonsDelinker delinker and replacer, cat move bot and interwiki bot. Also please let me know because of which edits you would like something to stop. Siebrand 17:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

SieBot and Catfixes


your bot changed cats on some of my pictures. But the edit summary always shows not the category the bot edited, for example [1].

And there is another point: I use templates for the descriptions of my images. The problem is that the bot does not only change the categorys, it takes them out of my template - is that necessary? (Why I have parameters for cats: I use the gallery tool, and in order to put the automatic license categorys at the end, I include the cats in the template.)

Regards, --MdE 22:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: At least one of the cats your bot changed does not exist! I think a category should be created before moving images. --MdE 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The cat is created after the images have been moved. This is how works and has worked for ages. A few images out of a category for max. 30 minutes is not disaster. You should not categorise through templates. That frustrates all automatic processing. Siebrand 22:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
When also the cat itself is moved, there is no problem.
But what about the wrong summary? The bot wrote Würzburg but changed Regen and Deggendorf, or wrote Rückersorf but changed Eisenach...
And templates: I cannot imagine that it is a problem for a bot to begin at . Why changing the template?
--MdE 22:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Categories are by convention placed at the bottom of a file, above interwiki links; this is also an integral part of the pywikipedia bot framework. As for the edit summary: I have placed a notice about this on User talk:Orgullobot/commands. You can ask the admin who choose to place the cat move commands on User:Orgullobot/commands about his motives for using the bot as it worked. Siebrand 23:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
You should definitely not use the parameter "Kategorie=<category name>", because that is not standard syntax and is difficult to find both for bots and humans. I dont think "Kategorien=[[Category:<category name>]]" is a big problem. It uses the usual category syntax, so it should be recognisable (at least Siebot understood it). But I think it is better to put the categorisation outside of templates, like on most other pages. A standard placement of categorisation will make editing a little bit easier for most users. / 09:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, maybe it will work in the future.
I have also thought about removing the parameter Kategorie because I added it in the beginning, when I rarely had more than one category, only to save typing work. But the parameter Kategorien I want to keep because of the gallery tool. So I think I'm going to remove the first parameter, as you said, to make it easier for other users. --MdE 10:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Again a short note: What about categories in links? Could they also be corrected by your bot? An example: [2]. Regards, --MdE 17:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Nuvola apps package network.png

Hello, on w:tet:Talk:Pájina Mahuluk you requested replacing Image:Nuvola apps browser.png with Image:Nuvola apps package network.png becuse it's a duplicate. I don't understand that becuse both files are superseded by Gnome-globe.svg --MF-Warburg(de) 11:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are in a position to change the page, please make your own choice. We have stopped removing files because there is an SVG alternative. To not run the risk of upsetting a local community, I have not asked for a possibly controversial change. Siebrand 11:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, changed now to Image:Nuvola apps package network.png. Best regards, --MF-Warburg(de) 11:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Siebrand 12:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi. I was thinking about WerdnaBot again. User:Vishwin60 seems to have problem getting his Werdna replacer to work. I talked to him and tried to fix some problems, but I'm not confident that Vishwin60 is able to fix it. You said earlier that you could consider running on archiver on your existing SieBot. Could you maybe look into if you can get it to work? I don't know when User:VshArchiveBot will work, if ever. / Fred Chess 12:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have approached Werdna by email asking for the code. The response was positive but I did not get the code yet. Asking again for the code, my email remained unanswered. On nl.wp we have Erwin85 running a great archive bot. He runs it from toolserver. I'll approach for either the code or asking him to run it on Commons, too. In any case, I'll ask him to consider opening the code for wider use, preferably in the pywikipediabot framework. More later, do not expect a solution within a week. It is hard getting python coders to work on something outside their personal scope (see my unanswered request for someone to improver CommonsDelinker in COM:VP and on the Pywikipediabot mailing list. Anyway: cheers! Siebrand 14:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The code of Werdnabot is here. It's not in Python, but Perl. I would be glad to help with CommonsDelinker, unfortunately I have some other bots I need to fix/oversee/create on my todo list. If there is however anything specifically that I can help with, bug me on IRC. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi, Siebrand. I didn't know that Commons don't accept copyrighted images under fair use. I uploaded the logo because I liked to use it in my user pages in Spanish, in English and in German. I brought the image from the English language Wikipedia.
So... if the image is deleted, how can I attach the image in my Wikimedia sister projects' pages? JCCO 04:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If the project you want to place the image on does not accept fair use, there is no way to achieve your objective in this case. Siebrand 08:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Strange summary at Bot-Edit

I don't know if you already know about it, but at this edit the summary was a little strange. A lake in Germany is categorized at a Spanish (?) department?! Well, since the edit itself was correct, it's no problem. --Matt314 12:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Known problem with no solution, unfortunately. If more categories are fed to the bot, it will use the edit summary for the last category for all edits. The changes in the content are correct, however. I'm looking into it... Siebrand 15:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop your bot if you can't fix that error! [3][4][5] --JuergenL 20:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a minor inconvenience. Siebrand 20:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Image:Znaki_podwilk.jpg is my own image, made by myself, so I don't see problems with it. Thanks--Litrowy 13:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I do. We require a source, author and a license. All appear to be missing with the image. Please add it so that the file will not be deleted. Thanks. Siebrand 15:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

waiting 4 an answer

Hi, I'm still waiting for a reply on my talko-page. Ciao --CrazyD 18:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

✓  Done (a while ago already, 18:15, 14 May 2007) Siebrand 16:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi! I've replaced the voting sign image, where you requested. Regards, --Bdamokos 21:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thank you. Siebrand 22:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

{{category redirect}}

Do you currently run a bot that goes through the cats with this template and moves the pages\images to the correct cat? Yonatan talk 01:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I'd love to have one, though. Siebrand 05:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Uploading new Image

Hi! I'm new to wikipedia commons so that's why I did it wrong. The file u asked about, Image:BaDinh.jpg, was taken from vietnamese wikipedia. What do I write when a picture is from another wikiedpai project? Regards Markus a 08:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

... and how do I delete a picture that I ahve uploaded?Markus a 08:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Belmont Abbey

Dear Siebrand, you have deleted this category: [6]. There is an ongoing discussion regarding the unfortunate move of the category Belmont Abbey to Balamand monastery here. You might want to give a comment. Thanks and kind regards, AFBorchert 12:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I replied at JuicedLemon's talk page. Siebrand 17:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nuvola filesystems folder home.png

Hallo dear Siebrand image was replaced om lb:Wiki. Thanks for advertising LesMeloures 17:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Even more for letting me know :) Siebrand 17:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


Please don't delete our logo and give us back red links instead. Your deletion created red links on many wikis including WMF official wiki. Please don't do it again. Thanks. --Aphaia 17:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me check. As far as I know, all instances were orphanded and/or the local wiki was warned with a message on the talk page at least one week in advance. My apologies for any inconvenience.Siebrand 17:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please hold your promise

At the beginning of your talk_page aou promise to have all your entries on your watchlist. I'm waiting ... I'm waiting .... I've left you a message here -- Jlorenz1 20:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That message was placed by a bot and did not end up on my wachtlist. I changed the notice at the top of the page. Siebrand 09:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

uz.wikipedia image replacement

I've replaced the Wiktionary logo in the uz.wikipedia sister projects template with the proper version. Thanks for the notification. --Versageek 23:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Siebrand 09:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


Is there any particular reason to move Category:Drogen, Germany to Category:Drogen? Categories on (german) cities/villages should follow the pattern Category-City-Country, if I rembember correctly. In eg. de:Drogen (Gemeinde)#Weblinks the Commons link does not work properly since your moving. --Dundak 19:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please ask the sysop that initiated the catmove. It is somewhere in the history of User:Orgullobot/commands. Siebrand 19:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Orgullobot white list

Hi, could you ad me to this whitelist, because I often reupload images that have been uploaded with a wrong name and it's very boring to replace them on a lot of wikipages. Thanks in advantage --DieBuche 10:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not possible. Please issue the commonds on the talk page and I or another sysop will take care of putting them on the command page. Siebrand 11:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Luc besson.jpg

Hello, this picture 40px is the same than Bridget Fonda és Luc Besson-.jpg, only one cut.--Trabajonacho 14:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that YOU are responsable for adding proper source, author and license information to images. If you do so, the image can be kept. Siebrand 15:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought that I catalogued it well, was an error --Trabajonacho 23:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


Done. --Emijrp 20:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


[Click in Carmo´s photos] I don´t not if a picture of the one coin is posible can have copyright.

Sure it does. It is not a 2D-object. Siebrand 08:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

ukiyo-e categories

Hello. Thank you very much for taking care of those ukiyo-e categories (Utagawa Kuniteru, Kawanabe Kyosai, etc.). I have not been very active on the Commons, but when I am, I'm trying to build up better categorization of Japanese and Asian art and history. You've truly been a great help. Cheers. LordAmeth 13:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Just tag away. Sooner or later someone will come along and take care of it. Siebrand 14:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures from

This request shall remain open until we have definitive answer. This is nothing about "more Roman than the pope", it is about protecting Commons from stuff contradicting COM:L. There are very clear indications that this is by far not PD people incorrectly want to read into it. If you want to help, keep writing emails to IMF until they give a clear reply. If they don't, we have to assume that the stuff must be deleted. if it were PD really, there wouldn't be a reason for them not to reply. --rtc 17:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you know how things are to be done. Siebrand 17:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of why an image is not a copyright violation on the image description page

Hi. You wrote in your edit summary for this edit "Discussing on image page is unwanted." I was replying to Tauʻolunga, who was following the instructions "If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page." on its user talk page, which instructions I put there in this edit by virtue of {{subst:copyvionote|Image:SilaTonga.svg}}. Are those instructions incorrect? If so, how, and how would you fix them? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Lemme go and check. I'll get back to you. Siebrand 21:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, this was a speedy delete that caused some discussion with pros and cons. In such a situation there's no need to keep an image in 'speedy mode' for days and it's better to convert to a deletion request, which I did. I came across this image doing a speedy deletion round and I think I made a correct assessment. Cheers! Siebrand 21:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Do I understand correctly that what you've written boils down to "If an image is proposed for speedy deletion and a reasonable discussion ensues on the image talk page, please convert the speedy deletion tagging to deletion tagging, moving the discussion from the image talk page to the deletion request subpage"? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's about it. Siebrand 21:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, please see my clarification in this edit.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Morgen. Kan je de vandaal blokkeren die de hoofdpagina bevuild? Lycaon 06:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. 3 dagen blok. Siebrand 07:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Bedankt Lycaon 07:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Nog niet gelukt het gaat om User:Kazoo the Strange Lycaon 07:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Please join in the discussion on Category talk:Campaniles#Redirect. Thanks. --Falcorian (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Siebrand 07:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:WikiNews-Logo.svg

I removed the duplicate tag on this image because the item you were claiming was a duplicate was not an exact duplicate. You should send this though deletion request. Thank you for understanding. MECUtalk 17:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Siebrand 17:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Image replaced as you requested on the Māori wikipedia Kahuroa 19:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gabriel czechowicz.jpg

Hi. According to licence PD-Polish (which is still valid), all materials published below 1994 are PD, unless copyright has been specified. The source I used didn't specify neither author nor any other copyright for this photo. I hope this will clear your doubts. Rdrozd 18:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Which page was the image published on, and can you please add the information in English? Siebrand 18:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This is from printed publication, I added more information about it. For PD-Polish, the year of publication counts. As the photo was taken in 1920s, PD-Old might be possible. Rdrozd 19:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Permissions for Image:Marsz dla zycia i rodziny 2007 06.jpg and others

Hi, Thank you for letting me know about permision problems in my images from Category:Marsz dla Życia i Rodziny. This was my first attempt to publish photos for which I had to ask for permission, so I'm here to blame. :-)

I preprared a page: User:Rdrozd/Permissions, and there I pasted e-mails from copyright holders in which they agree on publication. I also translated them into English and published contact information. Is that sufficient? Does the permission information in Image:Marsz dla zycia i rodziny 2007 06.jpg look OK now?

BTW. I followed the way of describing photos in other Warsaw Events, e.g. Image:POL_warsaw_parada_rownosci_002.jpg - are they OK? There's also no clear permission from the author.

Thanks for replying. Rdrozd 19:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please archive permissions at permissions AT wikimedia DOT org, also known as Commons:OTRS. Thanks. Siebrand 20:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)



(I asked above, but perhaps you didn't notice.)

I have a question to your bot: Could it also fix categories in links, for example this is a link to[[:Category:Somewhere|somewhere]]?

Regards, --MdE 20:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that would be virtually impossible, as both [[Category:Something]] and [[:Category:Something]] mean something... :( If you think you can find a regex that would solve it, I'd be happy to run it for you... Siebrand 20:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello! I just moved that file from the English Wikipedia into Commons. How can I change the licencing? Or maybe you can do that for me (author died long time ago).----Mazarin07 20:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to add a source where the image came from. You can add {{PD-art}} to the image description for a license. In the future, you are best off to use CommonsHelper when copying images from other wikis. Cheers! Siebrand 21:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

UPA deleted image

You recently deleted a renamed file Image:UPA veterans berezhany ternopil 2006.jpg, which was supposed to substitute the following - Image:Weterani SS UPA Brzezany 2006.jpg.

After a discussion on deletion here, I thought that the duplicate tag was the appropriate way to do this process, but maybe not. What is the proper procedure then for renaming a file? Is it not to upload and the "duplicate" tag on the old one? Or did I accidentally upload a lower resolution, etc? Regards, --Riurik 23:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did not upload the original, so I tagged the other image. I was not aware of the rename debate. So I reverted your tag and duped, replaced and deleted the lower res version. If you upload a second time and make sure they are duplicates, we'll do it the other way around again... Siebrand 05:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. I am going to re-upload with the original resolution.--Riurik 18:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:UPA veterans berezhany ternopil 2006.jpg

Hi Siebrand, just wanted to note that the Image:UPA veterans berezhany ternopil 2006.jpg that you have just deleted was used in a number of articles. Can you please rename Image:Weterani SS UPA Brzezany 2006.jpg to Image:UPA veterans berezhany ternopil 2006.jpg asap ? Thanks. Wojsyl 05:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see the topic immediately above this one. Siebrand 05:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello! Can't you delete Image:Airliner_1.jpg? It's a copy of Image:SkyExpress B737.jpg. - Dmitry-spb 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

done.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Pay attention to copyright Image:Belle-Vue-kriek1440.JPG has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.

Afrikaans | العربية | asturianu | azərbaycanca | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

 :This applies to Image:Karlsquell.jpg and Image:Altoids Citrus Sours.jpg too. Benn Newman 02:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC) (last modified 02:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC))


This pict. from Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth book, film. I draw from the film.--Tamás Kádár 10:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Anything in particilar you would like me to understand? Siebrand 10:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving Category:Clerics of Norway

Is moving to 'Category:Clerics from Norway' really something we need to discuss ;) - seem pretty obvoius to me... Anyway, a vote in support of moving from a cleric from Norway: Finnrind 10:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I tagged because I didn't have time to initiate the moves yet. Tagging was a way to not have to asses twice in this case. Siebrand 11:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hallo. Dat is inderdaad een goede reden om dit logo niet aan te passen op de Commons. Op Wikispecies is lokaal uploaden echter niet toegestaan sedert enkele maanden. Hoe kan dit (tijdelijk) weer aangezet worden? Of wie spreek ik daarvoor aan? Lycaon 11:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oef, geen idee... Dat kan je denk ik het beste vragen op IRC in #wikimedia-tech of #wikimedia... Siebrand 12:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:James randi.jpg

Hello. I disagree with your deletion of Image:James randi.jpg, which seems to me contrary to discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:James randi.jpg. I therefore listed it at Commons:Undeletion requests. Thank you for your attention. -- Infrogmation 14:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I will reply there. Siebrand 15:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving Category:Canstatter Wasen

Hi there! Please let move the "Category:Canstatter Wasen" to "Category:Cannstatter Wasen" I was totally blind... Thank you very much! --Stefan-Xp 15:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please place {{move|:Category:Newcat}} on the category page so queue your request for later processing. Siebrand 15:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
OK. Thank you! --Stefan-Xp 15:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cities in Poland - wrong categorization by SieBot

As I noticed, SieBot wrongly categorized many Polish villages (former in category Villages in Poland) as cities, into Category Cities in Poland. One of many examples are here: [7], [8]. Could it be corrected? Pko 20:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's been a while (december 2006) and hard to revert now. Siebrand 21:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way: see Commons:By location category scheme: for categorization purposes this grouping shall refer to any settlement as large as a megalopolis or as small as a village. This was introduced in the page on 30 June 2006. Siebrand 17:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
So "by city" really means "by municipality", right?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Not really. A municipaly can consist of multiple inhabited communities (at least in some countries). For example in the Netherlands the municipality nl:Utrecht consists of the city nl:Utrecht, and the villages nl:De Meern, nl:Vleuten and a few more. Mostly because municipalities were merged and the old ones no longer exist. It's almost impossible to solve this riddle uniformly for all countries, so I guess the one writing the quote down, just flattended everything to cities for structure's sake. I've been in a discussion about this before that didn't end in any real consensus... Siebrand 20:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Province ecclesiastiche.jpg

I think I've done now. That's a work of mine. I forgot to select the copyright option. It's ok now?--Wento 21:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There's still no license on the image. Please edit the image page and add a license tag like {{PD-self}} or {{self2|GFDL|cc-by}}... Siebrand 21:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What license should I use for my pictures such as Image:Ewaldpers.jpg?

My English is not that good can you help me? all the pictures I have , I got from the person himself most of them are over 60 years old what do I choose when I upload? page is: ewaldmarggraff ewaldmarggraff. —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

I copied the above from User:Siebrand. You should specify the subject of the photographs (Willem Frederik Ewald Marggraff), and that the photographs are from his personal collection with his permission (perhaps via {{cc-by-sa-2.5-nl}}). However, you may have problems with the rights of the photographers, in which case you are restricted to {{copyvio}} until the copyright for photographs by unknown photographers expires in The Netherlands (in this case, in 2110 for a photograph taken in 1940), when you or one of your heirs can use {{PD-old}}. {{PD-NL-national-archive}}, which might have applied, was deleted per this log.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have also reacted on user's page (in Dutch) as I came across another photograph. Deadstar 14:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


Thank you -- Banovic 20:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

See the image talk page. Siebrand 21:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Hoi Siebrand, you were right. Please have a look at my reply (for explanation). Greetings --Überraschungsbilder 10:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for having the clarity. Siebrand 10:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | македонски | Nederlands | norsk | polski | português | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Siebrand

Sorry, but I've no licensing for this file. I've found it in the swedish wikipedia :


On my user page, w:User talk:Novalis, your bot replaced 120px-Astronaut-EVA.jpg with Astronaut-EVA.jpg. The latter file is enormous. Is there a way the bot can do better? 15:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a problem with w:Template:Award. Very strange, since this template specifies the image width as 100px... -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I have fixed it for the time being via this edit - it seems that frame and width are mutually exclusive now :(   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments on delinker

I've had some more time to examine the source of the delinker, and found some quite critical bugs. I was planning to post them on Filnik's wiki, but as it is down, I have put it on User:CommonsDelinker/Suggestions -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

See the page you linked to for comments. I mainly agree with your observations. Siebrand 00:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello Siebrand. This image is from de.wikipedia. It is a photo of a PD artwork (1846) by Fidel Schabet made by user:muesse. I think that this photo is also PD (Corel vs Bridgeman and similar judgement in Germany). --Tohma 18:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Please insure that all required information is with the image. Only then it can stay on Wikimedia Commons. Cheers! Siebrand 18:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
They are there, including deth date of Schabet (1872) --Tohma 19:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I added {{PD-art}} and removed the no source template. Thank you for the information. Cheers! Siebrand 22:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Why did you delete my photo of the icons I own? I own the artwork, therefore I won the copyright to make a reproduction of it too. Please undelete any images of mine that you've deleted. In the country I reside in you have the right to the copyright when you acquire the original. I own all the originals, and I own the copyright. At the very least you could have waited for a reply since I was on vacation. I'm very disappointed in your heavy handed actions. The licensing was correct because the image was made by me! Pschemp 21:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've moved the images to the English wikipedia where people aren't so nasty. Pschemp 21:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Please inform yourself of the requirements images must comply to on Wikimedia Commons. I/we are not nasty, we just do not accept fair use or incompletely source and licensed images. If you name the particular images and let me know why you think they should not have been deleted, I will make an additional review. Kind regards, Siebrand 22:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I am WELL aware of the requirements for including media on commons. You'd know that if you bothered to even look at the work I've done here. 1. The message left on on my talk page (though admittedly not by you) was less than pleasant. 2. If you are too lazy to ever take the two seconds to check my talk page where there is a discussion that lists the name of one of images, that's atrocious. 3. As an admin you are responsible for what you delete. 4. They were *correctly licenced*, *not fair use*, or *incompletely sourced*! They were a picture of an artwork that I own, taken by me, uploaded by me and tagged as being created by me. As the legal owner, I own the copyright and posting a picture of it that I took is completely within the requirements for commons. Your arrogance in assuming I don't know what the requirements are is further proof of nasty treatment. Just because someone came along and tagged an image doesn't mean they did it correctly and you obviously did not take the time to verify anything about the situation. Highly disappointing. Pschemp 00:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
To my knowledge your statement in #4 is incorrect. You do not own copyright on works of art you are the owner of without additional agreements in the sale. I also have a feeling you are being borderline uncivil, so please try to choose your words more carefully. Cheers! Siebrand 08:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
In the US, I certainly do own the copyright and no additional agreements in the sale are needed. Pschemp 22:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Please refer me to the relevant law, as everyone I've asked about this issue tells me otherwise. Siebrand 22:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
(b) Works Made for Hire. — In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright. Pschemp 22:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
So if I understand things well, you ordered these icons to be made in Romania - prior to creation -, they were created by an orphan, and do now legally own copyrights? Siebrand 22:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
YEs, but it's more complicated than that, they were made by a friend who is a former orphan, trained as a traditional icon painter, who now lives in the united states, because he was adopted by a US family. They were commissioned prior to creation, especially the St. Nicholas one and the trinity one because those are not such commons icon depictions, But none of this matters because I don't want the images undeleted anymore, I'm tired of defending myself. And tired of AJ stalking me across projects. Pschemp 23:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter though, I have all the paperwork which includes the commission and the transfer of copyright, but I don't want to the images undeleted here. It isn't worth the harassment. The very first message I recieved about this was uncivil, no one waited for an answer, my contributions here have been ignored (I have enough to run for admin but I don't think I'll be doing that now) and I'm frankly tired of the project. Cheers. Pschemp 22:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

File Names

Hello Siebrand! Thanks for the welcome. I categorized the images under "Tribeca film festival" and "People by alphabet". I hope that is okay. I have one more question: Is it conform with wiki guidelines Commons:Ownership of pages and files and/or a must to include wiki user names into the file name? I'm asking because all pictures have been uploaded again, 100% identical to my uploads, the only difference is that the editors name was added to the filename. [9] [10][11][12] [13] [14] Thanks in advance! Frauleinwunder 09:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for categorising the images. Please consider categorising people a bit further down in the tree. Personally I have nothing against an author's name being present in the file name, but I like the descriptive file name better (and without the author's name it is shorter). I think they initial uploads will be deleted as duplicates. Siebrand 09:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I see! So when I upload pictures I could upload them with a filename like "xyz_by username_cropped by Frauleinwunder.jpg". That's a good thing, afterall, increasing the quality by photoshopping images, eg. improving the contrast and/or color saturation, the removal of unwanted blemishes from a photo, removing advertisements from backgrounds and to resize images so they will fit more easily in infoboxes, is a lot of work and very time intensive, so it's nice to know that users are allowed to credit their own work in the file names. Thanks! Frauleinwunder 10:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't give images that name. Better would be to use the original file name (if descriptive enough) and simply add crop. Please remember that our projects are not about getting your name in as many places as possible, but about free content. Adopting the pratice described above, you might get a few frowns. Siebrand 10:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
So only certain users are allowed to credit their work in the file names, and others are not? Frauleinwunder
I have no idea what you mean by that comment. As far as I know I did not say anything about something being allowed or not. Siebrand 10:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I guess misunderstood you, I thought you ment with "I have nothing against an author's name being present in the file name" and "the initial uploads will be deleted as duplicates" that the cropped images which have been uploaded first = without user name in the file name, will be deleted. Sorry for the confusion! Frauleinwunder 10:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Siebrand, the hisotry here is that this User and an IP on the English Wikipedia have a personal vendetta against me and my work. I put my Wikipedia name in my files, and they have an issue with it, despite numerous admins telling both of them this is not an issue. They decided to take matters into their own hands by re-working my photographs to take out my image names, which is why every image this new user edits is mine. Originally, this User credited the image as their own work. Unfortunately, their intentions aren't pure, but intent on removing any connection of my photography of difficult-to-obtain people from the file names and, initially, the licensing. I've considered re-licensing, but that isn't optimal and defeats the purpose of my work. I am unsure what the vendetta is for, or why they spend so much time enjoying the goal of bothering me, but it is currently an issue being taken up by at least four admins on the English Wikipedia, and a few on here as well. Essentially, I am being Wikistalked. --DavidShankbone 19:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The admin User:Dschwen and editor User:ElinorD have been helping here on the Commons, as well as WJBScribe; on Wikipedia, admins w:User:MelEtitis, w:User:FrancisTyers, w:User:Jkelly, and w:UserWJBScribe have been assisting. Here is a diff with DSchwen, which has subsequent history here on the Commons. I'd appreciate you also warning this User against Wikistalking and to productively edit, instead of unexplained personal vendettas and disruptive editing. --DavidShankbone 19:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The file pages stated from the very beginning and very clearly the source of the original pictures. It is very interesting that you called my cropped pictures "vandalism" and inferior to yours, and called me a troll for adding them to the articles, but now that you uploaded the very same pictures with your name in the file name and deleted mine, you add them to the articles yourself. And talking about users crediting images as their own work, that's your comment, right?

Thanks again for the support. In the future, I will let the IPs do the Photoshop work, and I will re-upload what they have done with a new file name, and ask for them to be deleted off the Commons. Any less photoshop work I have to do is fine by me. Truth is, much of the work they are doing I was going to do anyway (removing ads, re-sizing); it came down to a time issue and my own impatience to get the newly-shot photographs up ASAP. On pages where I think the full-body versions work better, like Michael Apted, I will put it to a Talk page vote (feel free to vote there). I appreciate your effort, very much so. --David Shankbone 06:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC [15])

As Siebrand said, wiki is not about getting your name in as many places as possible (and in the German wiki you even added your name to the subtitles in the articles!) It's quite sad to see that some editors need to put their ego over the mission and the spirit of wiki. Frauleinwunder 19:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing on the English Wikipedia because you have been Wikistalking; you credited the images with your own name. When you replaced the images on foreign Wikipedias, you only did to the ones with my images. You only edit my images. What *is* your problem? Surely there are better things to do with your time in Germany? What you don't seem to understand is not only that your edits are problematic, so are your intentions. You aren't editing, you are stalking one person. Have you wondered why you care? It makes no difference to me at this point; there are quite a few editors and admins wise to you and your cohort's stalking, trolling, vandalizing (as you have done several times on the w:Afro page by putting a blurry photo of a man in a wig, despite four other editors removing it), that the matter is out in the open. --DavidShankbone 19:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
That I only cropped your pictures is untrue, I also cropped an image by Lisa Liang and probably would have done a couple more if wouldn't have been called a troll for doing quality work simply because one editor can't live without flashing his name all over wiki. And the picture Afro_2 [16] wasn't cropped by me but by another editor who was sentenced to oblivion by deletion as well because s/he didn't include your name into the file name either. And talking about the alleged "wig" picture, which allegedly was inferior to "your" picture [17] you added to the article, steve-o, the editor who uploaded the image, made it clear that it is not a wig:

Hello, I was asked about the picture of an afro guy that I upload and used in this article. I don't know if this is the right thread because there is no reference to this picture, so sorry if I'm wrong. I'm the author of this picture, and I can swear you that the hair is real, and it's not a wig. It was taken from a long distance, and that's the reason of being flured and unfocused. There were a lot of people that ask him for a photo (it's unbelievable as you can see), but I prefer to take it from a long distance. The only thing I can argue about it is my word, because I did not tal to him or ask him for a COA :P I don't have a user in this Wikipedia, but you can find me in spanish Wikipedia at my user page 13:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[18]

And this was your response:

It simply doesn't look real. It looks like cotton and hangs down like the ears of a cocker spaniel. Can anyone produce a link to another photo of an afro that looks remotely similar? No, because it's a wig. --David Shankbone 14:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC) [19]

The very next thing you did was you changed the image category to wig [20] and denigrated the image on steve-o's image page. [21] And yes, I was blocked for adding the very same pictures to articles you added now yourself, simply because they hadn't your name on it. In a matter of fact, everybody who dares to touch your holy cow is called a troll and a vandal and is threatened with a block. Frauleinwunder 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So much energy, so much negativity, so much emotion, so much passion, for doing so little original work but instead doing things that many people have now told you is disruptive and problematic. --DavidShankbone 20:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
And your writings on here pretty much prove the point: your edits are more about a problem with me than about improving Wikdipedia. You're working on the Commons, where this behavior isn't likely to be rewarded considering any of us could be targeted by someone with your intentions. There is incentive not to reward your behavior and mal intentions. --DavidShankbone 20:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any problems with you. It was you who started campaigning against me [22] [23][24][25][26] simply because I uploaded images without your name in the file name, accused me of vandalism for work you admittedly planned to do anyway [27], and called me a troll who allegedly vandalized wiki because I used pictures without your name in the titel, the very same pictures you now add to the articles yourself. Maybe it wouldn't hurt if someone would start to have a closer look at your intentions. Frauleinwunder 21:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)I placed the cropped photos on the pages to alert those pages that these cropped images are available in case the pages want to use them over the full-bodied versions. The Woody Harrelson photo clearly looks better, the Michael Apted photo did not; nor does the Jeffrey Wright photo, although I will do my own work on that. These are the issues despite your protestations:

  1. You claim you were simply trying to improve the images, but every image you cropped was mine. You first started editing on w:Laughter and w:Afro, both pages I edit on, as does your friend, the IP in Washington. You came out of nowhere, raised the exact same arguments, and engaged in the exact same behavior as the Washington State IP.
  2. This inclued, on May 15, adding the ridiculous photo of a kid in a wig to the Afro page. You did this as w:User:, your first IP.
  3. On May 27 you came back as w:User: to put the wig photo back on, despite seeing in the history several editos kept removing it off the w:Afro page. You reverted an editor who was the FOURTH editor (not me) to remove the ridiculous photo of the kid in the wig. You didn't revert me. On the Talk page it is clear there is only consensus by vandalizing IPs to remove my photo good photograph of a woman with a natural Afro, not a wig. The only people who don't want this up on the page are you and your vandalizing IP friend in Washington State.
  4. An hour later on May 27 you came back to remove my photo of the natural afro to put a cropped photo of Lauryn Hill who is once again, not wearing an Afro, but a wig.
  5. You say you are trying to improve Wikipedia by getting rid of advertising and far-away shots, yet you somehow cropped the photo of Lauryn Hill to put on the Afro page where your edits were reverted by multiple editors, but NOT on the w:Lauryn Hill page. Your close-up shot is clearly the better...why wouldn't you have taken the old far-away shot down and put your close-up shot there? Perhaps because it's not a David Shankbone photograph.
  6. Also on May 27 you start to edit only photographs of mine, and you replace my photograph on every national Wikipedia where they exist. I suppose to improve them? Maybe...but of course, you didn't actually put the photographs up on any of the national Wikipedias THAT I HAD MISSED, such as the Arabic Wikipedia (don't worry, I've since replaced the photo).
  7. Every edit you have made specifically relates to my work, and even when you have cropped one other photograph, you used it to take off my work, such as the Lauryn Hill in an Afro wig photograph, but didn't even bother to replace it on the Lauryn Hill page. Oh, but you did go to EVERY national Wikipedia Afro page to remove my Afro photo. You didn't do this with every Lauryn Hill page, not even on the Deutsch or English Wikipedias.

Yeah, it really sounds like this is not about me, but about your efforts to improve WIkipedia. Do you wonder why you were blocked? So there you are in Germany, one of the most storied and beautiful countries in Europe, and you are engaging in Wikipedia spats started by a friend of yours in Washington State. And you are frustrated because your efforts to bother me have been unsuccessful. Do you nearly have this animus toward me to invest in it long-term, as I do with my own photoraphic work? I'd hate to think that some day you will be sitting around a bar telling your friends that THIS is how you used your time in Germany, instead of exploring the Black Forest, the cathederals, Heidelberg, Berlin, the white wine country, making friends that will last a lifetime, but instead picking fights with some guy on Wikipedia. Sounds like you really "get" what life, and your Germany experience, are all about. Warring on Wikipedia. Why even bother to be in Germany? You could have done that here. --DavidShankbone 02:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time today to respond to DavidShankbone's newest accusations and personal attacks, but I noticed them and will comment tomorrow. Frauleinwunder 20:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:IC 1992.gif


you have deleted image:IC 1992.gif which was a very important document used in the lemma de:InterCity. Could you please restore the image? If that's not possible, can you at least restore the description so that I can re-upload the image.

Your comment suggests that I should tag an image to prevent it from being deleted. Can you please me how to find appropriate tags for an image?

Thank you very much in advance.


The image was lacking a license. I saw you had already uploaded the file under a correct license. It's now ok :) -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Bryan. Siebrand 12:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wall painting "Tintin" at Brussels

Hi Siebrand,
some time ago you deleted a Tintin wall painting at Brussels for violation of copyright. Now it seems that someone uploaded it again ... image:Mur peint Bruxelle crop.jpg
Regards, Lars

Thanks for the notice. You could have nominated the image(s) for deletion using the option in the left column of the wiki. Cheers! Siebrand 18:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons boycott in disgust

Like Pschemp, I also will not be uploading images to commons in future. Regards, Samsara 00:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like an interesting me too response from soneone who appears to have had not even one deletion request for his uploads on Commons. Too bad you make the choice that your material cannot be used in all Wikimedia projects, but only there where you choose to upload it. Apparently you are not in full understanding of the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation. Thank you for your comment and I wish you fulfillment in your endeavours elsewhere. Cheers! Siebrand 07:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You guys here on commons are really lucky. You must be getting so little training to behave the way you do. I keep saying this to people - get your info first. Nobody ever does. It's like taking a knife to a gunfight. But the problem at hand seems to be the admin culture here on commons, and just how to be just a little bit nicer to each other. That would help, you know? Regards, Samsara 16:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Trying to piss all over me and expecting me to change my behaviour toward you isn't going to get me all sympathetic towards you. I wish you the best; here or elsewhere. Cheers! Siebrand 22:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

i want to delete my picture, it's an error

what i have to do to destroy my image? (File:Semoun.jpg)


--Danielizq 09:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

✓  Done Siebrand 09:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Villa Giulia, Rome

Hallo, to me the phrasings "Villa Giulia, Rome" and "Villia Giulia in Rome" are alike, but this said, who decided to move "Category:Villa Giulia in Rome" to "Category:Villa Giulia, Rome", and when? The category scheme for Italy normally requires the "in":

I can adapt to any wordings, but please do not change haphazardly just one single item, thus creating dis-homogeneity and incoherence with the other entries: either you change all of them, or no one. Please let's find a solution. Thank you. --User:G.dallorto 10:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see this edit by User:Gryffindor. I think it's best to ask him for an explanation and/or (re)solution. Cheers! Siebrand 16:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

2 pictures

Hi dude, User talk:Soljaguar. Cheers!--Soljaguar 11:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

✓  Done Siebrand 16:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Self made

So, I can take any picture I want, then put "self made" and that's it. No further explanation or proof. The heaven for copyright violators. Dantadd 13:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

At least he took the trouble of claiming the work. If you suspect the uploader of copyfraud, please show some evidence, I do not see it at the moment. And yes: put own work in the description, slap a {{self}} template on it and you're done until you're caught... Siebrand 13:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The user has uploaded two pictures: one is an evident copyvio and was deleted. The other one probably is also a copyvio, we cannot take always the task to browse all internet searching for the violation. It's an exageration of the principle of assuming good faith. Dantadd 14:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Which user are we taling about, again? I'm unfortunately making too many edits to remember or look up... Siebrand 16:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Beschreibung des Oberamts Biberach

We have a small problem with the deletion of Image:Oberamt_Biberach_Vorsatz.pdf. Please can you clarify the reasons for deletion.

  • The Book Beschreibung des Oberamts Biberach, Cotta, Stuttgart und Tübingen 1826 is dated from 1826 and therefore in the public domain.

The same is with Image:Oberamt_Tettnang_Vorsatz_Friedrichshafen.jpg and Image:Oberamt_Tettnang_Titel.JPG

  • The Book Beschreibung des Oberamts Tettnang, Cotta, Stuttgart und Tübingen 1838 is dated from 1838 and threfore in the public domain.

Please can you give us an reply on these questions, we hope that can give you the information you need to restore these 3 files.

I think there has been a small misunderstnding

--Joergens.mi 15:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Image:Oberamt Biberach Vorsatz.pdf was tagged because it had no license on 21/5 and deleted today because the issue had not been resolved. PDF's are also usually considered to be out of the project scope, as we can handle images, but not PDF's. If possible, please re-upload as individual image pages.
  • Image:Oberamt_Tettnang_Vorsatz_Friedrichshafen.jpg: deleted because 4 apr 2007 11:42 MesserWoland (Talk | bijdragen | blokkeer) verwijderde "Image:Oberamt Tettnang Vorsatz Friedrichshafen.jpg" (In category Unknown as of 26 March 2007; not edited for 9 days)
  • Image:Oberamt_Tettnang_Titel.JPG: 4 apr 2007 11:42 MesserWoland (Talk | bijdragen | blokkeer) verwijderde "Image:Oberamt Tettnang Titel.JPG" (In category Unknown as of 26 March 2007; not edited for 9 days) (Terugplaatsen)
I can undelete the images, if you make sure the earlier issues are resolved immediately. Whomever uploaded the images, should for sure re-fimiliarise him/herself with our requirements (User:Pfaerrich). Siebrand 16:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your information. Could be so kind to restore the images.

We hope that User:Pfaerrich can upload the :Image:Oberamt Biberach Vorsatz.pdf again. for old books it is not so unusual to have them as an pdf file. Very often faksimile scans of old books are packed in a very compact form into one pdf file. for example I've had a 30 MB pdf File containing 614 pages which will expand to 315 MB as single jpg files. I will inform User:Pfaerrich and beg him to fill in a PD-old this time

Greetings --Joergens.mi 17:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Siebrand! There is no excusation for your deleting the files which are clearly PD. PDF isn't out of the scope of our Wikisource project und I KINDLY REQUEST YOU TO GIVE A PROOF IN COMMONS POLICIES that PDF is out of scope --Historiograf 18:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Siebrand! PDF and djvu files are used on German Wikisource as another download possibility and to deal with the disadvantages of the wiki’s layout. The project hosts various well-known and large digitalisation projects. We should support their fine work and increase the acceptance of Wikimedia Commons by handling their files carefully. Is there a CommonsTicker on It helps users to follow actions on Commons. Regards, --Polarlys 19:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess this issue is now resolved with restoring the files and adding the licenses. As you are well aware, uploaders are primarily responsible for leaving files with complete information. It's not my job as a janitor to dive deep into every {{no license}} issue and be battered for it. I'm glad it has been resolved now. Cheers! Siebrand 20:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank your for your quick response. As I could see there was a license information, but in an very ununsual way. It was only written without using a template. I think this case is completely closed and everything is ok now.
As you say Cheers! --Joergens.mi 21:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 :-) Siebrand 21:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


You erase a image that i created and i give all the rights Image:HugoMoshArtlogo.jpg Atte- User:Hugo Mosh

All images on Commons require a source, author and license. A license was missing, so it was deleted. You can best re-upload the image and ensure all required information is present. Cheers! Siebrand 16:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello, You left a msg to me telling me that my upload needs the spcification of the author/cpoyright. Is it all? Can you tell me where can I complete this info?

ilomenacs 23:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please let me know which image on this wiki you are talking about. As you can see there is a lot of traffic on this page. Siebrand 22:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello: You left a message on my talk page about this image. I uploaded it from NASA, so I think it is okay. I left the url from where I found the image. Its a NASA site. I'm new at uploading images. If there anything else I can help with, please let me know. Gaff 03:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Please also categorise your images so it can be found, too. Cheers! Siebrand 22:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Air_Berlin_Tegel.JPG and DSCN0962.JPG

Hi Siebrand, the two photos image: Air_Berlin_Tegel.JPG and image: DSCN0962.JPG are from me. I am S. Müller. I possess 2 different Kameras.One small Digicam for on the way and the other one for professional pictures. S. Müller 06:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to my pitch name, because that someone me in the forum advice. It again to S. Müller changed. How can I now confirm which I the photographer am from this picture? S. Müller 06:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You can mention your real in at your user page (User:Kchamp) and you can use both in the author field (or sign like you just did here. Thank you for your clarification. Siebrand 07:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The picture image: Air_Berlin_Tegel.JPG has allegedly still no by permission. Is this still changed? Thanks

S. Müller 08:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thoese things do not disappear automatically. Someone has to remove them after everything appears to be in order. I also slapped a {{self}} template in the license. That's more clear. Thank you for your effort. Cheers! Siebrand 08:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagging Image:Allium_moly2.JPG

Hi Siebrand, I've tryed to put the image ok with license and category... Could you please take a look? I'm a new and dummy user :-)) Thank you.--Clematis 11:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's great now. I slapped a {{self}} on the license tag, just to be sure. Siebrand 11:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot!! I'll use the {{self}} in the next uploads.. --Clematis 16:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok now?

I noticed that you changed Image:knud-gislesen.jpg from pd-old to pd-art after I added the source, does this mean that the picture no longer is in danger of deletion? Finnrind 12:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't before I changed that license, but technically it needed PD-art, as it is a 2D reproduction. If it wasn't there might still have been copyright on the photograph. Thank you for adding the source information. Cheers! Siebrand 12:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hm, do you say the file never was in danger of deletion?? That doesn't correspond with my understanding of your message on my talk page... Anyway, thanks. Keep up the good work! Finnrind 12:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
That's not what I said in reply to your question. Your question was if the image was no longer in danger before and/or after my last edit. My answer was that it was not. Before your last edit, it was, because there was no source mentioned that could help in establishing age needed for PD-old or PD-art. More clear? Siebrand 12:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, think I got it now ;-) Finnrind 13:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Image:Manresa.jpg

Hello, I've sent the email that the City Hall sent me via mail allowing me to use that image. Anyway, this image is from a Public Institution, and has a Public Domain License according to Catalan Laws ( and I think according to laws in most of the countries). --Grieret 12:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please follow the steps as they are explained on the message on your talk page and send the permission where it is to be stored. Cheers! Siebrand 12:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No source of Image:116959161 3d51851476.jpg

I saw you marked no source on Image:116959161 3d51851476.jpg. Images from flickr that have these numbers as names can be found by putting in to the URL bar and then the first set of numbers, in this case 116959161. It'll take you right to the image on the user account, in this case which can then be put onto the image page and presto, image source found. You could then flickr review while you're there too. MECUtalk 13:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a lot of work for someone else's sloppery... Siebrand 16:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Oplontis_Pièce_81_oiseau_picorant_des_figues.jpg

Bonjour Siebrand ! Je suis très ennuyée : mon anglais est trop pauvre pour que je puisse répondre dans cette langue et mes compétences techniques trop limitées pour que je sache comment réparer l'erreur (si erreur il y a) commise. Toutes les photos sur la villa de Poppée à Oplontis que j'ai mises sur commons hier ou avant-hier (?) ont été prises par moi en 2004. Je les ai recadrées au mieux parce que je ne suis pas très douée en photo. Donc en clair, j'en suis bien l'auteur et je les déclare libres de droits. Je pensais avoir bien suivi la procédure décrite pour les mettre sur commons en choisissant la licence à côté de laquelle il était écrit en gros : RECOMMANDEE. J'ai peut-être commis l'erreur d'indiquer Alter Mandarine au lieu de : Moi-même pour le nom de l'auteur. Ou bien suis-je allée un peu trop vite : j'en ai chargé plus d'une vingtaine à la suite ... Voilà. Maintenant je ne sais pas comment récupérer ça et je suis bien ennuyée parce que ces photos permettent d'illustrer plusieurs articles sur la wikipedia française : fr:Oplontis (que j'ai initié) et fr:Torre Annunziata (que j'ai complété). Merci donc de me dire en français et pas à pas ce que je dois faire et que je veux bien faire à condition que ce soit à ma portée. Amicalement --Alter Mandarine 15:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Voilà : Je l'ai chargée à nouveau, en conservant le même nom puisque c'est avec ce nom qu'elle est importée sur les articles. J'espère ne pas avoir fait de bêtise ??? Merci de me tenir au courant --Alter Mandarine 15:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Alter Mandarine. My French isn't good enough to answer you in French or read all the nuances in your messages. I did see you tried to re-upload your files and that you state here that you are in fact the autor of the works mentioned above and below. What you need to do is add a license. That could be {{self|GFDL|cc-by}}, {{PD-self}} or {{GFDL-self}}. So far you have only indicated that you are the creator of the work, but you have not licensed it. Please do so. For full information, see Commons:À propos des licences. Cheers! Siebrand 16:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Voilà voilà ! :) ! I try in English (that will not be sad ...). Uploading twice, the licence was not yet good (still without, but I am sure I choosed it in the small list : the third, I believe ? ) Well : I upload it a third time but changing its name : + bis repetita in the end, before jpg. And this time, it's good ! You can delete (you can do that ?) the first, witch is stayed without licence. I'll change it (I'll put the good, with licence) on the french pages of wp with the third version. That's all right ? Kind regards ! --Alter Mandarine 17:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Oplontis_Pièce_81.jpg

Même chose que ci-dessus ! Est-ce que les 20 autres vont subir le même sort ? Je suis un peu inquiète ... --Alter Mandarine 15:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

idem ci-dessus ! amicalement --Alter Mandarine 15:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see the above response. Cheers! Siebrand 16:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Same thing ! Thank's ! Ciao ciao --Alter Mandarine 17:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello, Siebrand,

Sorry to bother you, but I am new here and still cannot get used to the rules of uploading and licensing images. About the above image: I created it myself using Inkscape after searching with Google and not finding similar image in the Web. I want it to be placed in Commons in the category Category:Coordinate systems under a copyleft licence as free as possible: reproduction, copying, modifying etc.

I tried to upload the image anew with this specifications and hope I was successful this time. Lyudmil Antonov

No bother at all. We try to help each other where we can, Lyudmil :). We require three things for each image: the source, the author and a free license. We preferable also require a description and some linking in categories or galleries. Your image currently contains everything but the license template. Please consider one of the following: {{self|GFDL|cc-by}}, {{PD-self}} or {{GFDL-self}}. Good luck. Cheers! Siebrand 16:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad name

You tagged Image:IMGP0450.jpg with rename. I've tried to follow the suggestions in the template message, could you please verify that this has been done as it should be. Regards, Finnrind 17:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I did a minor cleanup in the CommonsHelper output, but nothing substantial. Cheers! Siebrand 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Narita, Chiba.svg

Here is the orginal, [28], please add it to the template. --Jonte-- 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please use CommonsHelper. There is a link in the welcome message on your talk page. Cheers! Siebrand 19:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi, what is the meaning of this [29]? The owner is Hebrew Wikipedian, and the image was originally uploaded to Wikipedia. Since when do you need emailed permission in this case? Yonidebest Ω Talk 20:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

THe original location of the file was not there, so how can we ever verify the file was actually uploaded by that user? That is why I added a request for permission. A link to the original file location added by a trusted user will of course do; that also means a license check. Siebrand 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
How can you verify the file was actually loaded by that user if the picture was deleted? We delete pictures that have been uploaded to commons. Considering the user is a wikipedian, verification can easily be made by turning to the author. Yonidebest Ω Talk 21:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If an image is moved from a Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons, all information has to be transferred. Please try and retrieve the original information. You can use CommonsHelper in new cases. Please promote the use of that tool. Siebrand 22:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I have already talked to it's designer and he said he will help make it support Hebrew too. Onces the Hebrew works, I will promote it. Yonidebest Ω Talk 00:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Zoo_press.JPG


It appears that your Caps Lock key is stuck. What is it you are trying to ask? Siebrand 21:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I did not steal your picture, I deleted it. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


I think you are at the wrong project. We only write here without Caps Lock on. Siebrand 07:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Enterprise telefoon.jpg

Hi, your Bot uploaded this image. Given that its a photo of a copyrighted three dimention design the photographer can't release this image under the GFDL... I think this image needs to be deleted. WjBscribe 03:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a sane assessment. Slap a deletion template on it, I'd say... Siebrand 07:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

More information,author

The author of Image:DucadoVasconia.gif is Ekahitz Arrikibar, creator of a web page. I've spoken with him and he give me permission for all images of the web ¿Do I have to put the e-mail there? Thanks. message by User:Nafar 14:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see {{no permission}} for how to deal with this. Thanks and good luck. Siebrand 14:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

About Image Tagging and Licensing

I write to you because it were you that send me the Image Tagging... Anyway, what should i use? The PD-self or the self|cc-by-sa-2.5 ?

Cerastes 14:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Whichever you think serves your goals best. I cannot really advise on this. Please read en:Public domain, en:Creative Commons and en:GFDL to inform yourself. An often used tag is {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-2.5}}. Cheers! Siebrand 15:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay! But just so you know...look at the picture: Image:Cerastes GBA SP Tribal Edition.jpg so you know if it going to be deletde. Just in case please. Thanks for your attention. // Cerastes 15:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks OK now. Cheers! Siebrand 15:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay! Thank you really much!

Image:DS PokéPark.PNG

Haven't I put the license. Thanks for the warning! I'll put it right away.

ManecoWifi 15:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for licensing it. However, since the actual image that you used is (as displayed by Pokemon Elite 2000 - News Archive - April 2005), and that website appears not to use the GFDL, I have requested that it be deleted as a copyvio.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
✓  Done Siebrand 17:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Blason-pierre-cluny.JPG and Image:Anneau_episcopal_cluny.JPG

I added the license, sorry for the lapse of memory --Quark 18:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No sweat. You really have to link to a more clear permission. I do not see that you are the author on the source site, as you are known here as Quark. Siebrand 18:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • on is the site “galerie roi et president” it indicated in top on the left photography of “Pierre-Emmanuel Malissin” and “Frederic Valdes”, license free subject indicating the authors and the site, I am “Pierre-Emmanuel Malissin”, Quark is my Login and I fear of not changing it in my Wiki account, how to make ? --Quark 19:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You can make a [for a change of username], or you can make clear that your actual real name is different from your username (e.g. by signing [[User:Username|Real Name]]. Cheers! Siebrand 19:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • ok i try else I added on the gallery photography of Pierre-Emmanuel Malissin Quark nickname!
      • I modified my signature and I asked for the change of my login, but I cannot update my signature on the existing pages. --User:quark|Pierre-Emmanuel Malissin 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Things are more clear now. I would tweak the signature a little more if I were you, but those are the details :-) Cheers! Siebrand 22:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • hello is the problem of my images it regulated? , because on the image “Image: Anneau episcopal cluny.JPG”, the text “the image will Be deleted seven days” always appear, which removes it? thanks --Pierre-Emmanuel Malissin 09:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jade goody.jpg

Hi Siebrand,

I saw your tag concerning this picture. It was, as I mentionned, on the English Wikipedia see this [dif]. It was mentionned that User:Orielglassstudio was the auhor and placed it under GNU Free Doc License. I just made the transfer to illustrate the same article on the french Wikipédia.

Sorry if I made a mistake.

Kind regards. SalomonCeb 19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please use CommonsHelper when you transfer images. You can still use it for this image. The link is in the information on top of your talk page. Cheers! Siebrand 19:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


GDFL (self-made)

Is it ok, if I took a photo, and after from my photo I painted it, and I took a photo about the painting what I uploaded to the

What is your problem? I saw a lot of opportunity (tags) but I didn't know what I could choose. So which one is the best for this picture?--Tamás Kádár 19:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it ok now?--Tamás Kádár 19:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You added {{self2}}. You do have to add two licenses after that, f.e. {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-2.5}}. Cheers! Siebrand 19:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I used it: {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-2.5}}. Is it ok now?--Tamás Kádár 12:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you. Siebrand 12:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Blason de Gordes.jpg

What on hell are you doing... What the point of warning someone about a file if after he answered all the questions you remove everything ?

you ask me about the file, I first answered you and then complete its tag... I have all the aurtorization on a written paper from the town and someone from the french project blason that is waiting for this image to make a 100 % free two use copy fully autorized by the town (owner of the picture and 100 % legal regarding the french laws on copyrights)... I have been working a lot to get this official written autorization and you delete this picture without asking me or telling me WHY first, this is the base of any "colaborative project" !

Please, let me know what is going on.

--Jmr 20:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The image was speedy deleted because of a comment you added: this picture is under the copyright of the town of Gordes imported on wikipedia commons with the autorisation of the town. It is a temporary files used in order to have a model to make a totally free to use model of it. Actually under project on the french wikipedia. There was no authorisation know or indicated, so it was speedy deleted. Siebrand 20:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
So maybe it is just a miss understood from my translation as I am french and english is not my main language... What I have tryed to explain is that the rights of copy is owned by the town who paid for it, not the artist any more. This is why I said that the copyrights belong to the town, not the artist. Then the town ("village" in fact) office gave me a paper of autorization to use this image for wikipedia (signed from the town main secretary that has the same signature power value as a mayor). This one being in a licence "free to use but no alteration", I explained them that we will need to make a totally free to use image inspired from it and they also accepted this copy.
Now, I don't want to be considered as a Spammer if I re-import the image, but as it is not the easiest to reproduce something "look like" without the model, do I have your autorization to re-import it ? Best, but i don't know if you can, would be if you put this one back with the good explanation, my english being not always easy to understand !

best regards, --Jmr 21:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"free to use but no alteration" is known as a no derivative works clause and that is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Uploading the image again would only lead to speedy removal for a second time. Only completely free content is allowed. I'm sorry, there are no exceptions. Siebrand 22:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, last try because there may be still a missunderstandment... as I say, they give me a "free to use but no alteration" (no derivative works) licence BUT when I told them this is no good as we need to make a free copy, they accepted (in a large sence)... so it is not really a no derivative works as I have the autorization for this "derivative" work, isn't it ? I understand there are no exception on a no derivative works and I respect that, but if it is not anymore a no derivative works and as we need it to have the people of the project working on the free interpretation, could it work ? As I don't want to make you spent to much time on that, if it is really not possible, a "no" answer will be enough and I will forget it. best regards,--Jmr 06:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no bending the rules. You could re-ask at Commons talk:Licensing if you require second opinions. Siebrand 07:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
My reading is as follows: "this picture is under the copyright of the town of Gordes imported on wikipedia commons with the autorisation of the town" and the town licensed "a totally free to use image", including derivative works. Putting that license on OTRS (whether it is PD, GFDL, and/or CC-BY-SA) should clear up this matter.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

other one

Entrez le texte non formaté ici Sir I am rather surprised for your demand to delete most of the images I put on commons to illustrate the articles I wrote. For BIAO images was copied from my own collection of old bank notes. For Jean Seignemartin it is as I mentionned copy made by myself from an old photo from an old book I possess and I mentionned the origin For Jules Fontanez they are photos made by myself from paintings belonging either to me or to my family and finaly the photo of Burlamacchi was made by me in Lucca Hope that these information will be sufficient to cancel the deletion. Do you sincerely think that everybody check every day your message. On a previous occasion I received in my email box a messsage which alerted me --Arsène lapin 21:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think you have information that will undisputedly prove that you can license the works that you upload have a free license, please do so. We require source, author and a free license and usability in any Wikimedia project for files to be hosted here. Siebrand 22:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


You proposed to cancel the photo from Sarrazin. I indicate that this image is a copy made by myself from a book dated 1598. Do you sincerely think that there is any copyright on that.... Too much web not enough antic books brownsing ? --Arsène lapin 21:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As stated above: please provide all relevan information for the image to be kept. Thank you. Siebrand 22:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

Although we speak both english I think that we have a very nice problem of communication, probably because you seem to be Dutch and I French. Apart from saying that I made the photos from old documents (by the way somebody who would write an article on the US dollar bank notes and put a photo of one, shoud he refer to the american treasury ?) I do not understand your comment It would have be more positive to say what kind of information is needed and how I am supposed to get them, probably certified by a public notary. Anyhow I will leave it to your great sagacity and not loose more time.

--Arsène lapin 17:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Explanation about the image of Cussac

Hello. I have noticed your message and doubt about the copyright of this visual docuement : I'm pretty sure that this image has fallen in the public domain. It has always been in fact. As a matter of fact, it belongs to the official public french investigation about the ufos. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ikimashoo (talk • contribs) at 21:19, 31 May 2007) (UTC)

I copied the above from this edit. I guess you are writing about Image:Cussac_(3).jpg and Siebrand's post to your user talk page. What is "GEIPAN"? Obviously, this image Image:Cussac_(3).jpg is not a photograph, but a drawing. Who drew it, and when, and in what country? If they died, when did they die? What was "the official public french investigation about the ufos" as it related to French copyright law and the placing of works into the public domain? Where should we "see below" for the "Permission"? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Elevador da Bica1988.JPG

Hello! You can see below the image "Source=self-made |Date=18 de Maio de 2007 |Author= João Carvalho". sory, but I d´ont speek english very well.--João Carvalho 22:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We also require a license. Please license your work for it to be kept. Siebrand 22:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I Think that now it is OK. Sory ! --João Carvalho 22:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that you are correct.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Thanks. Siebrand 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


gna, sorry, i forgot to take the license-option. actually i wanted to say "my picture, copyleft, every license possible" i'm going to change it. -- Southgeist 22:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers! Siebrand 03:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)




Código fuente de un infobox

Date May 28, 2007
Source Own work
Author Trabajo propio
Other versions


--marco 00:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please add a license to the image for it to be kept. It does not hurt to mention which image you wish to discuss, by the way... Cheers! Siebrand 03:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Cucurbita spp.

I don't speak english... sorry... but: you don't see? Image:Flower_Cucurbita_spp.jpg it's my photo, in my camera, and his plant are in my back yard... I don't understand you, sincerely...

It's not possible, though, you not understand this description: my photo. This is my work, logically...

Please, speak in portuguese with me, or in spanish... Thanks. André Koehne TALK TO ME 05:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi André. The license was missing. That is a critical requirement. Thank you for adding it. Cheers! Siebrand 09:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC) vs.

Hello siebrand, i was searching a script to upload images to reuse that in a different way and I've seen that and do, more or less, the same thing but in a different way. I've asked also to Misza13 that agree... So, can you take a look? ^__^ Bye, --Filnik 10:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Imagecopy is the nicest tool I've used so far. I suggest you try it for a bit. Siebrand 11:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:DSCF1772.JPG

Hello Siebrand,

I uploaded af photo I made myself. I specified the source: Self made and the author: Jan Lapère. What did I do wrong? Jan Lapère 14:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jan. I would appreciate it if you would upload the image with a more descriptive name, tag the old image {{badname|Image:NewImageName.ext}} and add a license to the image. Cheers! Siebrand 15:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging

To this image I add licensing:
Mateusz210 15:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mateusz210. Thank you for adding a license. Please also link your images. Cheers! Siebrand 15:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Can I delete this:
{{no license/en|month=May|day=31|year=2007}}
Mateusz210 15:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
If now a source (own work), author (you) and a license has been added: yes. Thanks. Siebrand 15:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging Image:influenza_nomenclature.svg

You tagged this image as having not enough copyright information and left me a note to a similar effect, claiming that I did not specify who created the image. However, the page clearly specified at all times that I had created the image. Furthermore, the upload form seems to be broken, as it did not add the necessary copyright information that I had provided. In order to test this theory, I just uploaded a new version of this image, specified the license again, and again the page was not updated accordingly. Burschik 16:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hoi, I think I may have mistagged. It appears the license was missing, not the creator. You fixed that. Thanks. Siebrand 23:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Imagen Plano república de los niños

Agradecería que me explique porque borró el plano de la república de los niños de mi ciudad. Si no sabe español traduzca. Creo que es hora que haya una wikimedia en español así no caemos bajo el autoritarismo de los anglosajones.


Czajko 02:08 2 jun 2007 (CEST)

Could someone please translate this. I cannot read Spanish... Thanks, Siebrand 23:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Translated version via AltaVista - Babel Fish Translation follows:
It would be thankful that it explains to me because erased the plane of the republic of the children of my city. If it does not know Spanish it translates. I believe that it is hour that is one wikimedia in Spanish thus we do not fall under the authoritarianism of the Anglo-Saxons. Czajko AKA Czajko 02:08 2 jun 2007 (CEST)
My free translation follows:
Please explain why you deleted the plane of the republic of the children of my city. If you do not know Spanish translate. I believe that it is time that there is a wikimedia in Spanish thus we do not fall under the authoritarianism of the Anglo-Saxons. Czajko AKA Czajko 02:08 2 jun 2007 (CEST)
Español: Pienso que Czajko es la escritura Image:Planoprediorepuninios.jpg de la cual que usted suprimió porque estaba "In category Unknown as of 24 May 2007; not edited for 8 days". ALE! escribió a Czajko sobre esa imagen usando {{Image source}} adentro que esto corrige, y los pehaps deben haber utilizado {{Image source/es}} en lugar de otro, como acabo de hacer en este ejemplo.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
English: I think Czajko is writing of Image:Planoprediorepuninios.jpg which you deleted because it was "In category Unknown as of 24 May 2007; not edited for 8 days". ALE! wrote to Czajko about that image using {{Image source}} in this edit, and pehaps should have used {{Image source/es}} instead, as I just did in this example.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. OK. Well, we do have the template in Spanish and he could have clicked the Espanol link to read the message in that language. In any case, on upload users should inform themselves under which terms media files are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. A failure to do so and/or providing incomplete required information, is bound to have consequences. This has nothing to do with Anglo Saxonism. Cheers! Siebrand 09:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Hee Siebrand.
Wat is er mis met de licensing van deze afbeelding? Er staat toch hoe hij gemaakt is e.d., en dat ik toestemming heb gekregen om hem up te loaden (en dus onder de GFDL te licensen)? Skander 20:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hoi Skander. Als je niet de maker van een werk bent, dan moet de licentie vastgelegd zijn. Dat is op dit moment niet zo. Zorg alsjeblieft voor een rechthebbende en een toestemming via OTRS. Groet, Siebrand 23:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Please... see Image:Angel_tekken2_01.jpg this image] license... thanks (don't speak español?) André Koehne TALK TO ME 01:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The license was missing. In such cases you can just added {{subst:nld}} and follow directions on the template. Unfortunately I do not speak Spanish, indeed... Siebrand 09:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


The author of this image is the creator of the web, I've spoken with him and he give me permission to use all images of his web. He say me that anybody can use this images, that there is not any copyright in his web page. I've written the answer that he has send me here: Image:DucadoVasconia.gif.

Sorry,my english is so bad.--Nafar 10:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nafar, thank you for your message. We need a verifiable permission. Cheers! Siebrand 10:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


? you meant sysop, don´t you? This is a main page! __ ABF __ 10:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No need to protect sysop only unless we see users longer than 4 days vandalising it. We luckily still are a fairly relexd project :) Siebrand 10:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Märklin Primex Jubiläumszug 1989 Baureihe 2702.JPG

Hello Siebrand, i'am a little late but i hav'nt seen it before. You deleted the image Image:Märklin Primex Jubiläumszug 1989 Baureihe 2702.JPG in the early may with the argument „Derivative. In category [[w:commons::category:Against policy|Ag“. I cannot follow this argumentation, its a selfmade image, it has been correctly licensed, so why you deleted it?--Mo4jolo 10:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The full reason was "Derivative. In category Against policy; not edited for 8 days". It is regrettable that the person who marked that image as {{derivative}} (within the meaning of Commons:Derivative works) did not leave a message on your user talk page. Because the file is deleted and I'm not an admin here, I can't see what about the file was deemed a derivative, of what work, but perhaps Siebrand or another admin here can tell you that.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
ok, thx, I wait for Siebrands comment.-- 16:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I restored the image, took a(nother) look at it and decided I was very unsure if it should have been removed as a derivative. I also removed {{derivative}} from the image description. Apologies for the inconvenience and thank ou for amending the deletion. Cheers! Siebrand 17:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Is the problem of this Image it solved or not? Thanks --Pierre-Emmanuel Malissin 11:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Cheers! Siebrand 17:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for the note about the fact that I did not properly indicate the attribution of this graphic. I drew it myself and release all rights. I cannot however understand your message to me. Specifically I cant figure out how to relabel this graphic as my own work and released without constraint. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smokefoot (talk • contribs) at 16:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please license it. I suggest the license {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Go to the image page, edit the page and add {{PD-self}} at the bottom. Cheers! Siebrand 17:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Judaismo david.png

Hi. please, look this thing. Do you speak spanish? I don't speak english very well. bye User:Marco94User talk:Marco94--marco 17:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please refrain from using exclamation marks (!) and CAPITAL LETTERS as much as possible. Best use a subject that links to the image concerned. You added a license which is great. I removed the template {{No license}}. Cheers! Siebrand 17:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Please look this
and this


Please, talk me in my discussion page--marco 17:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Found by accident …

Hoi Siebrand, what happened to Image:Rodenbach.jpg? Half deleted? Greetings --:Bdk: 20:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I assume it was a half upload instead of deletion. I undeleted the file at the source, download it, removed it at the source again and uploaded it here. Thanks for the notification. Cheers! Siebrand 22:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chicagoland Map.svg


I don't understand. I always used

Original uploader was Keeleysam at en.wikipedia --Ocuish 06:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Bye! --Ocuish 06:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the license template that was present on the image is not known or allowed on Wikimedia Commons ({{PD-USGov-Atlas}}, or en:Template:PD-USGov-Atlas at the source). Siebrand 09:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Please talk to me in my user talk! If you must, delete this file. I always used Bye! --Ocuish 10:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I knw that you used commonshelper. You said that in your original message. Not all licenses are known to CommonsHelper. I'll ask Magnus to add support for it. Siebrand 10:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Andreas Freyer1.JPG

Beste Siebrand, in het rijtje foto's dat ik heb geplaatst op Commons: 1 misser. Inmiddels voegde ik "PD-self" toe. Sorry,voor het misverstand/mijn omissie. Groetend,--Gerardus 06:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Geen probleem. Dank je wel voor de tijdige correctie en dit bericht. Groet, Siebrand 09:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Hello, image was created by me, because we are not allowed to add images of musical albums on cs Wikipedy, so I wanted to use this image instead of it. Pls check one of my articles (translated from en to cs) and tell me what I can use instead of cover image Should you have any suitable replacement, pls let me know. Thank you -- Bohemianroots 22:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

YOu could check Category:Image placeholders for an icon you like. Thanks for adding the license. Please categorise your upload(s). Cheers! Siebrand 09:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


lol, it is a testing image, for checking some problems in spanish wikipedia. I will delet it soon. :P. Regards, Loco085 21:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Siebrand 11:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Image source Image:Ravi.jpg

Hi Siebrand, Thanks for your message about above image. The image has been uploaded from the following source, which has GFDL policy. The copyright policy of this site is I was not clear what tag to put to this image. We can put GFDL tag? Regards,

The wiki is indeed GFDL licensed. However, the image is of unknown origin: who created the image and which license did the copyrightholder give? I think this image cannot be kept here on Commons as it is most probably a copyright violation. Cheers! Siebrand 12:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I saw your message regarding this image which I had introduced in one article. This image comes from a publicly available document (an economics working paper) which, at least in the text I have, has no copyright sign. Is this a forbidden image in wikipedia? If it is, just delete it. Wait for your answer. Thank you.-- 08:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Every work is copyrighted, also if no copyright markings are present. You need permission and an explicit license for work if you are not an author. If this information is not provided, the material will be removed from Wikimedia Commons. Cheers! Siebrand 12:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Hallo Siebrand. Waarom heb je deze screenshot voor verwijdering genomineerd, Inkscape is een pakket dat valt onder de GPL, dus daar lijkt me {Free screenshot} op toepasbaar. Groet, Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 08:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

De Windows gebruikersinterface is auteursrechtelijk beschermd. Als je dat onderdeel uit de screenshot haalt, is die wel toegestaan. Groet, Siebrand 08:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Usgs quake seis.png

Hi, I saw your message regarding this image which I had introduced. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear: the copyright is United States Geological Survey: Public domain!. Thanks for the notification.

Please specify the source and add an appropriate license. Cheers! Siebrand 11:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I've done that, although more info about the source would be helpful.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

bitte um Hilfe

Hallo Siebrand Ich hätte gerne ein schönes Makro von einem Gänseblümchen auf nachstehende Commons geladen. Leider funktioniert es nicht. Was muss ich machen, dass so etwa doch möglich ist? Auf meiner Benutzerseite habe ich das Bild A_Gänseblume.JPG eingestellt. Species: Bellis perennis L. Template:De (protected) Liebe Grüsse aus Österreich --Böhringer 14:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just upload it, fill out the template {{Information}} and add a license (something like {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-2.5}}. Nice image, by the way! Cheers! Siebrand 14:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
habe das Problem erkannt. Ich habe das Bild in die Wikipedia, statt ind die Wikimedia Commons geladen. Danke dir--Böhringer 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
ai! ;) Siebrand 15:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Weird mistake of CommonsDelinker

See here, where CommonsDelinker only removed the path to the image, but not "thumb" and description. Other edits I checked were all OK --schlendrian •λ• 15:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I'll ask if Bryan will look into it. Cheers! Siebrand 15:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Weird mistake of CommonsDelinker (2)

This seems to be the same error that was reported right above, but just in case, I'll put it in a separate section.

Take a look at this change. It only removed the Bilde:<name> (Bilde being the Norwegian Image-tag), and left the square brackets, thumb etc. - essentially the rest. Galar71 15:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

attilakk's images

First of all, sorry for my bad english. I tried to fix my images several times, but when i click on "gallery", the page doesn't show my pictures.--Attilakk 19:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

my link to your gallery is working just fine now, showing 6 images.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot welcomes

Hello! Just a note; some new users have been pointing out that they didn't receive the "new messages" bar when welcome bots left them a message on their talk page. Since bot edits marked as minor don't leave the bar, could you change things so welcome messages are not marked as such? This will help newbies who may not see the message otherwise. Thanks! -- Editor at Largetalk 21:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

✓  Done Might take a day or two before everyone has updated from CVS. SieBot is running the new version already. Siebrand 04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Ik heb je sjabloon verwijderd, de juiste licence toegevoegd en de cat gemaakt.

Dank je voor je werk op commons, ook ik baal van nominaties van mijn afbeeldingen maar je hebt gewoon gelijk, een afbeelding hoort er gewoon goed in te staan met cat, licence etc. Jij doet gewoon heel waardevol werk voor de Wikipedia, het spijt me dat je hier zoveel commentaar voor krijgt. Groeten en het mailtje komt volgende week, Simon-sake 21:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
In principe ga ik uit van 'te goeder trouw' (assume good faith). Soms komt het echter voor dat de andere gebruiker die aanname niet maakt. Dat is jammer, maar helaas. Toch is het een minderheid, gelukkig ;). Dank je wel voor de aanmoediging. Groet, Siebrand 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Padre Saenz.jpg

I've just added a delete-author request to this image for reasons discussed there. —Cesar Tort 00:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Dude, you labeled this picture because it doesn't have enough information on the copyright??? Also, in my discussion page you stated that the author is not clear. Please! I used the CommonsHelper as you suggested me before because the pic is from the German Wikipedia! All information was generated by that tool and the info and copyright are clear. Unless the tool is not working properly, then I don't know what makes you take that desition. Please check the pic again and remove the label. Thanks. Cheers! -- 00:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not signed-in when posted this. --Soljaguar 00:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Dude! ;) Ralf Roletschek uploaded the image on de.wp stating that Marcela has created the image. We have no verifiable permission with a free license from Marcela. I did see that you used CommonsHelper, which is commendable, but CommonsHelper will not fix what is not there... Siebrand 05:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Pal! Are you erasing that picture too? Because then, I guess, with no offense, that you should have addressed this guy instead of me ;) Nice day! --Soljaguar 22:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Soljaguar, if you are the uploader of material at Wikimedia, you are held as a contact point and are held responsible for checking and adding the required information. Please convey the message if the material is dear to you. Cheers! Siebrand 22:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I have uploaded a number of images and quite a number of them are being complained by the bot. The Image:HKinternationalairportFoodshop.jpg for example is uploaded by user Sfllaw, like the description said. It has license "cc-by-sa-2.0" and has a link. I don't understand why it is complaining?? Benjwong 06:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Benjwong. Thank you for your message. We have a specific template for Flickr images. Please use {{Flickr}} and always add a license template. Brief syntax description:
|photographer_url= (optional)
|photographer_location= (optional)
|reviewer= (optional, used for FlickrLickr reviewers)
|permission= (optional, returns "see below" if nothing is filled in)
In these cases you added {{cc-by-sa-2.0}) instead of {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} (observe the last character of that string, causing no license to have been recognised. Siebrand 06:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


I am new here and maybe not using the right procedures, please check [30]. Thanks (see also Image talk:Hegel3.jpg)- Αχρήστης 06:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Αχρήστης. Thank you for posing the question. The image contained no information whatsoever (empty description page) and was deleted 7 days after you were informed of this defect. Please use CommonsHelper. You can find a link on your talk page. P.s. it is always a good idea to inform yourself before acting as ignorance is no excuse. Cheers! Siebrand 07:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Pont transbordeur


ik heb een problem met de bild van de transportbrug van Rouen. U heeft deze bild afgeschaft opgrond van auteursrechtsproblemen. Maar het was MIJN werk, zo wat moet ik doen, opdat mijn fotos niet afgeschaffen worden.

Wikipedische groeten. Postkarte von Swakopmund

Hoi Postkarte von Swakopmund. Om welke afbeelding gaat het? Siebrand 07:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Goeiedag, de bild heette "Image:Pont_Transbordeur_1.JPG" en werd aan 29 Maai afgeschafft. Wikipedische groeten. Postkarte von Swakopmund
You have anything to say about my picture, so I guess that there is no problem with it. So, I will put it back online today. Wikipedische groeten. Postkarte von Swakopmund
Thanks for your reminder. I think I missed your last comment. I'll look into it... Cheers! Siebrand 08:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The image was deleted because it did not contain a license. If you had responded within the 7 days and added a license, it would not have been deleted. You can upload it again and please ensure to add at least the minimum requirements source, author and license. Cheers! Siebrand 11:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Currambine Railway Station-burningwellpic.jpg

URrrrrg. Sorry if I sound a bit annoyed here, and I guess you are busy so you just went a bit wild with the tags, but I cant tag this any better than it was public domain. Thats what it is. Right on the website PROVIDED in the information it is plainly stated that all images on the site are 100% public domain for any use. Please untag this or explain to me what I might have done wrong so it wont happen again. I'm kind of annoyed by the over freaky police action going on in wikipedia these days. Have some good faith people. Nesnad 13:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Usually I add tags if the see something that indicated an actual license being present; errors happen, however, and this appears to one of those cases. I checked out the information present with the image, moved the license to the bottom of the image description and added that I verified the license. Thanks for notifying me. Cheers! Siebrand 13:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


I am unsure why you say the copyright for this picture is unclear?

It is clearly tagged as being Flickr, the source URL is provided, and the CC licensing status can be verified there.

Is there some other problem I should know about?

I have reworded the summary and license part of the same, but am still unsure what the original problem was. Achitnis 15:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Creative Commons is not a license. It is a menu you can use to create a license, consisting of BY, SA, ND and NC. The issue appears to have been resolved in the meantime. Cheers! Siebrand 15:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks! Achitnis 16:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi sir, i´m new at commons, help me: i created a category of Capablanca, but i created another better: José Raúl Capablanca, here:[31], i want to remove the former: Capablanca, i but i do not know how, can you?--Efegé 18:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Put a template {{speedy|Reason why to remove the page. ~~~~}} on the category page. That'll most probably do the trick. Cheers! Siebrand 20:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)