User talk:Storkk/Archive 3

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.

File:Ely Dagher.jpg


You have deleted my photo. It is a picture of myself take by a photographer friend and i added his name for the credit but i also have the right to use my own photo.

How can we fix this ?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaverandbeaver (talk • contribs) 10:04, 05 October 2016 (UTC)
@Beaverandbeaver: your photograph has not yet been deleted, however there is a deletion request ongoing. These usually last 7 days, and you are welcome to comment on it Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ely_Dagher.jpg. Note that the copyright for a portrait photograph is almost always held by the photographer rather than the subject, and since we only accept images that anybody can use for any purpose (including commercial), if you have publicity or publication rights, that is not sufficient to upload it here. As previously mentioned, the photographer will need to confirm the license by following the instructions on COM:OTRS. In order to keep the discussion centralized, please continue this discussion on Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ely_Dagher.jpg rather than here. Storkk (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Your question about the photo of me used on Wiki's Jeffrey Robinson page

Hi there, I understand from Dani that she has filled out all the appropriate forms and certified that her copyrighted photo ( ) is free to use. Is this finally over? I believe the CCAS listing here suggests it is, but I would appreciate your confirmation. Thank you/ JR

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SJR524 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Ticket now looks OK, and I've marked the image as confirmed. I'm not sure what the "CCAS listing" is, and I would suggest not relying on it: the image only became "OK" in a sense, when an OTRS agent (in this case myself, but it could have been any agent) confirmed that the ticket was valid and marked the image as OK. Glad that it worked out in the end though! And thanks for facilitating the rights release for the image. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


Hello! Why so fast? You deleted the file before the author was able to sent her permission. Please undelete it and give the author at least two-three days to send the e-mail with permission. Thank you. Bladyniec (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

It was marked as a copyright violation that had previously been published at ... this is a textbook case of a {{Copyvio}}, and no grace period is necessary or appropriate, hence the term "speedy" deletion. If the photographer does confirm a free license by following the instructions at COM:OTRS, the file's undeletion will be requested by an OTRS agent. Storkk (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I know it's from the website. I marked it myself. Please just give me one day and everything will be okay. The author is waiting with sending mail to OTRS, but she marked a link to the picture which does not exist anymore because you deleted it. Bladyniec (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Please have the photographer reference "File:Vincent_3.jpg", the OTRS agent will take it from there. The correct procedure for this is outlined at Commons:OTRS#If_you_are_NOT_the_copyright_holder; had the file been tagged with {{OP}}, it would not have been speedily deleted (or even tagged as a copyright violation), but now that it is deleted it should not be restored while OTRS is pending. Storkk (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, e-mail to OTRS has been sent. I hope the picture will be restored soon. Bladyniec (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@Bladyniec: the image has now been confirmed and restored. Please note that there was a transliteration error, and his stage name is "Vinsent", so I have moved the file: File:Vinsent 3.jpg. Best regards, Storkk (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

‪File:Jean Pierre Winter 2015.jpg‬".Deletion request

Hello Storkk, I confirm you that I am the author of the portrait of Jean Pierre Winter, and I'm Ok to publish it in Wikemedia under the following licence : CC-BY-SA-NC-ND 4.0 (I don't know how to change the license which is actually : CC-BY -SA-4.0 ) if you can help me this matter, it would be great. Thank you very much, —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

To keep the discussion centralized, please confine your comments to the Deletion Request, which can be found at →Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jean_Pierre_Winter_2015.jpg←. I have copied your comment there, and replied there. Storkk (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Advice to me?

This comment seems added as an advice to me. Did my comment have any insulting tone? I just pointed the relevant part in the guideline as it was derived after enough community consultation. Anyway, thanks for leading me to read his user-page. I have no plan to comment further; even reply to this. Jee 03:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jee! No, and I'm sorry if you took it that way. I was addressing what I thought was hypocrisy from Winkelvi when he asks for special consideration and understanding on his userpage and then calls you a "kibbutznik" and derides what you are doing as "hair-splitting". Storkk (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
No worries. ;) Jee 11:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Roy Wang September 2016.jpg

Hi Storkk,

I noticed you have requested deletion of an image I uploaded with the reason (Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing: NC & ND clauses are not acceptable). Can you explain further why? I don't believe I am violating any copyrights here.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prideofgabrielle (talk • contribs) 14:17, 06 November 2016 (UTC)
@Prideofgabrielle: please read COM:L. We only host media that can be used and modified by anybody for any purpose, including commercial. Licenses which only allow "for non-commercial use given that no further edits were made to the photograph ..." are not acceptable. Warranting that others can use the file commercially and with modifications (such as with the {{Attribution}} template that you used) is a copyright violation, given the license terms you mentioned. Storkk (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: thanks for the reply. The owner/photographer actually says that the photograph can be used commercially with permission. How can I upload this without violating copyrights? Will it suffice if I obtain the owner's explicit permission to use it on Wiki? Or say ask the owner to upload it herself as "my own work"? Thanks for the help!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prideofgabrielle (talk • contribs) 23:28, 06 November 2016 (UTC)
@Prideofgabrielle: please have the photographer follow the instructions on OTRS. This lets us archive the license correctly. Please do not re-upload it yourself. Once the photographer has confirmed with OTRS they could upload it themselves, but better would be to ping me here (or alternatively request undeletion from another administrator). Storkk (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks + request

Thanks for cleaning vandalisms from my user page and talk. (The vandal is a well known in BG WP and among Meta checkusers sockpuppeteer, with hundreds of reincarnations, who doesn't have any particular problem apart from having too much time for wasting and lacking the necessary creativity to do something worthy with it :) ) I noticed that you are an OTRS member. About Ten days ago, I sent to OTRS an email with permission regarding one deleted image. Would you be so kind to extend your helpfulness and verify this permission? The Ticket is #2016102210009017, received as an automatic response to my email sent on October 22, subject "Izot 1036 C". Thank you in advance. :) (Please, answer me here, pinging me, I will be watching your talk page.) Spiritia 12:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Spiritia: I answered the ticket. I'm not comfortable taking unilateral action undeleting on the basis of this ticket, as indicated in my response. Please let me know if you think I have made a mistake, and in any case I'd be happy for anyone to overrule me or give a second opinion. Storkk (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Bild löschen

Guten Tag Storkk. Sie haben ebenfalls vorgeschlagen, meine Portraits zu löschen- dies auch ganz in meinem Sinn. Könnten Sie bitte meine Portraits (File:Simon Michel.jpg) löschen, oder können Sie mir sagen wie ich da am besten vorgehen muss. Freundliche Grüsse, SimonSMP123456789 (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Please confine your comments regarding a DR to that DR page. You can write in German. For future reference, please add new talk page sections to the bottom of the page, see Commons:Talk_page_guidelines. Storkk (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Tai Webster Photo

Hi Storkk,

I noticed you have requested deletion of an image I uploaded with the reason (Small size, no metadata, possible video crop. Photographer should confirm license via OTRS). Can you please explain further? I took this photo myself.


Latest revision as of 16:44, 14 November 2016 (edit) (undo) (thank) Storkk (talk | contribs) (File:Nebraska guard Tai Webster.jpg has been nominated for deletion)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Striker4835 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 14 November 2016‎ (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
In order to keep discussions centralized, please confine DR-related discussions to →this page←. Essentially, most photographs that we receive that are lacking camera metadata (e.g. Exif) are copied from elsewhere. If you were the actual photographer, please follow the instructions on OTRS. Storkk (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Help requested

Hi Storkk, could you have a look at this page to see if you can help to resolve a few files with unknown copyright situation? Jcb (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jcb. I admire your tenacity. I had a look and fixed the info on the last one per its description. The only one I think would be worth pursuing would be File:Rezomb.jpg, where it is not clear at all why it should be PD... the others seem probably OK, although it would be better to have more info. I see Revent is also looking at the list, so I'd wait to re-nominate that one until he (and others?) have chimed in. I have to step out now, and may not be on much tomorrow, but I'll definitely look in over the next week or so. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the rationale for the Rezomb photo seems to just be 'it looks really really old' (and that is one that I did not say keep at UDR). I had searched for it, and found nothing but copies that appeared to come from us. Reventtalk 17:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Shatrughan Sinha 00451.JPG

Sir, How the file was deleted without discussion? Please see these [1] where all the photographs were taken by me at the same event. Please undelete the file.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangulybiswarup (talk • contribs) 17:54, 21 November 2016‎ (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
It was reported as a copyright violation by MLC4U, who found the image externally at ... both MLC4U and I, when deleting it, missed the fact that that website appears to credit you. I will undelete... apologies for the inconvenience. Storkk (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign for User:The Photographer

Please excuse me spamming you, which concerns Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign. My contributions cover the architecture and culture of Brazil and Venezuela. I has basic photographic equipment: an old D300 camera and 35mm lens, and it is very expensive for me to acquire this equipment. I has recently taken several images using the technique where multiple frames are stitched together to create a high-resolution panorama. However, many times frustrated with the stitching errors that result from trying to take such photos without a proper panoramic head for his tripod. This special equipment permits the camera to be rotated around the entrance pupil of the lens, and eliminates such errors. Having a panoramic head would greatly increase the potential for The Photographer to create sharp high-resolution images for Commons. In addition, the purchase of a camera with a fisheye lens would enable 180 × 360° panoramas to be taken, which are a great way to explore a scene as though one is really there.

Please see the discussion about the Crowd-funding campaign on User talk:The Photographer#Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign and visit the Generosity Crowd-funding Campaign page to consider donating. Even a modest donation will make a difference if many people contribute. Thanks. --The Photographer 14:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I already saw this on Commons:Village_pump#Generosity_Crowd-funding_Campaign_for_The_Photographer. Given that, I think this (which is mostly copy/pasted from Colin's with "He" changed to "I" except in a few places "for his tripod"... really?) demonstrates some pretty awful judgment. Storkk (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Oooh who feel out of bed on the wrong side today! If you saw the notice on the Village Pump, you were just about the only one. It didn't register any impact on the campaign whatsoever. It wasn't until I wrote to a good bunch of my Featured Pictures friends that donations started coming in, and The Photographer is just notifying his friends/acquantancies now. Unless a message is heavily discussed at VP, it is highly likely to be missed -- it is a pretty useless noticeboard and not even on everyone's watchlist. Chill. -- Colin (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps people read it and were turned off by being approached for money. Do we really need an explicit NO SOLICITING rule? Really? When I sell my next camera on ebay, should I send you and others who might conceivably want to buy it the link? I'll be taking some trips soon, where I might take some photos - would you like to help fund the airfare? It's quite expensive! I'm shocked that this is even remotely considered OK by someone (you) whose judgment I usually hold in high regard. Storkk (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I think you're not really getting the point. The Photographer is only here, creating hundreds of high quality images, because of previous generosity by Commons users. I'm quite able to fund my own hobby and guess you are probably the same, so the comparison is not apt. Anyway, you seem to be on your own, and the response from WMF hasn't been to complain about misuse of Commons, but to suggest a Rapid Grant for even more equipment such as a new camera. Commons users crowdfunding equipment to benefit Commons is exactly the sort of activity that should be permitted and even encouraged. If you can demonstrate half the ability with a camera as User:The Photographer and the huge donation of time and images he has made over the years, then yes, you can spam me for an airfare. But I looked on your "User uploads" page and saw a dick, so I suspect not :-). And I see you mention possibility of an RFC on another page. Just chill please. If you get spammed by people every month, then create an RFC, otherwise you're just creating community discord for no good reason. -- Colin (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: That the penis picture is currently in my uploads is not something I particularly desired, but nor should it have been hysterically overwritten by a black square before deletion. If you are aware of a means to revert an image overwrite without it appearing in your uploads, I'm all ears. Luckily it is likely to be in-process deleted soon. And no, even when I've gotten my act together and uploaded more pictures I'm actually proud of, of course I'm not going to spam you. You've convinced me that we do indeed need an RFC to clarify whether unsolicited requests for money are something the community supports, and when I have some time next week I will draft one. Storkk (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I know about the dick. It was just amusing timing. I suggest you just drop the stick. -- Colin (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Amusing, considering I marked the topic as resolved way back at 14:11 and have since been told to "chill" twice, while apparently being deliberately goaded. Anyway, by all means, have the last word and then I'll again mark this section as resolved. Storkk (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Btw, that photo is good, and you should be proud of it. -- Colin (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I hope to upload more when I finally get my act together. Storkk (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

why didyou mark for deletion?

I do not think my picture should be deleted. Can we not? Chick1555 (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we not delete my photo ill do anything u want

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chick1555 (talk • contribs)
Hello Chick1555. The image was marked for "speedy deletion", but I disagreed that it was a candidate for Speedy Deletion and so converted it into a regular deletion request, which allows you and others to discuss the photo at the link provided on your talk page. In general, low-resolution and poorly lit photographs of nudity are routinely deleted as out of scope since they do not provide any educational benefit over the higher quality images that we already have. For our guideline on this, please see COM:NUDITY. Best regards, Storkk (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

thank you

Would you like anything?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chick1555 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
World peace, and end to hunger and disease and poverty, and many other things... In all seriousness, high resolution, well-lit and tasteful shots regarding sexuality are certainly welcome on Commons, but all images must have a realistic educational purpose. For nudity and sexuality, that is generally interpreted to mean "must be better than stuff we already have", per the guideline previously mentioned at COM:NUDITY. To peruse what we already have, a good place to start may be these categories. Storkk (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

thank you for remebering

Ok, I maybe overused the speedy deletion. I was just wanting to save time of the administrators Pippobuono (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pippobuono: thanks, but it has the opposite effect when we need to remove the speedy and nominate them ourselves. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Kofi lockhart-adams by Lidimentos.jpg

Why protect the file? Since it's only one user being disruptive, it seems better to me to block the user in question. Nyttend (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The user is complaining because his/her file has been cropped here and this cropping replaced his/her file in en.wikipedia. Apparently, his/her website not been shown in the metadata is not ok with him/hers. I suppose s/he tried to crop the original file in order to replace the current one in Wikipedia. Maintaining the metadata. By the way, could you please revert this file to its very first version (without watermark). Strakhov (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)i
@Nyttend, Strakhov: because it was one file, and one user who uploaded that file, I thought it would be least disruptive to put a short-term protection on the file and warn the user, rather than block the user and leave the file. As far as I can tell, the user is trying to revoke their license, whatever they are currently claiming they are trying to do. The first version they uploaded contained no watermark that I could see, and subsequent uploads are obvious deliberate deteriorations. It's now the end of a Saturday night here, and I've had a couple drinks, so if you or anyone else thinks other action would be appropriate, please feel free to revert. I won't take offense at any action in this case other than a deletion of the file that I consider to be correctly licensed. Storkk (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the rationale and the unprotect permission; I just left this as a request for information, and I wasn't planning to undo anything unless you actively told me to. The user's since graffitied the derivative work, but since that was done (and reverted) more than three hours ago, I'm not going to do anything at this point. However, I'll block if I see additional vandalism before any other admin does anything (i.e. if another admin does something or says that they won't do something, I'll stand aside), and if the block's levied, there won't be any point to continued protection. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@Nyttend:}, Storkk. Hi guys. Everything is ok with me, but please, consider reverting to the full original version without watermark... Besides that, since this user continues blablabla-ing everywhere in es.wikipedia (almost legal threats), I think a solution would just be cropping his/her version with crop tool (maintaining the metadata) and using that one in the infobox. Strakhov (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Why? We handle disruptive users through means such as explaining policy to them, protecting pages, and blocking them; we don't cater to their demands when those demands go against our policies. If you have your own reasons for requesting this (e.g. the original version works better for some purpose than the modified version does), please explain — that's a completely different situation and we'd be quite willing to consider. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@Nyttend: I don't think that that would be catering to their demands, quite the opposite given the first version has no obvious watermark. @Strakhov: if I revert to the original, and you use croptool again, would you then overwrite File:Kofi_Lockhart-Adams.png? Storkk (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
We pretty much always try to keep the original metadata unless it either wasn't applicable or wasn't appropriate in the first place, so I expected that the first version had included some inappropriate metadata. If it all is appropriate, it should be retained, and I have no objections; thank you for correcting me. Nyttend (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Let's see. The croptool has not been used to crop the image, but external software (Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)). Metadata have been lost in the process. If the original image is restored (2,447 × 2,520 (2.69 MB) compared to the current 1,195 × 2,100 (1.48 MB)), I will crop it with Croptool, maintaining the metadata, and uploading the outcome, for example at File:Kofi lockhart-adams by Lidimentos (cropped).jpg (the uploader was disturbed about his/her name disappearing from the filename too...). I guess it's not possible overwriting files (File:Kofi_Lockhart-Adams.png) with a different extension (.png) (I really don't know... ?). Done that, I guess the PNG cropping by User:Sixtrap is kinda disposable... I don't know if having a different format (.PNG) is enough to grant its keeping... Strakhov (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@Strakhov: I missed the different extensions. Since the file is not currently being used, I see little harm in reverting to the original. Please go ahead with cropping as you see fit. Storkk (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Unused images with no real likelihood of use are out of our project scope, so they can be deleted uncontroversially. If the crop itself is good (i.e. the right area was cropped out), just crop the JPG with the same image boundaries. There's no real point in converting a JPG to PNG, if I understand rightly, so a PNG won't be used in place of the JPG, and the lack of proper metadata will actively cause the PNG to be of poorer quality than the JPG. If I understand rightly (yes, that's a big "if"), therefore, the PNG can easily be deleted if you upload your new crop as a JPG. Nyttend (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@Nyttend: in general, yes... but it would not be speedy-able I think, even if the new crop is exactly the same dimension, per Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates. Storkk (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. That's why I said "uncontroversially" and not "speedily" :-) My point is that a DR wouldn't be likely to get any opposition. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


Hi thumb I have also tagged it. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Pannam2014: ✓ Done, thanks. Storkk (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

WU-14 / DF-ZF

hi I made this image, do you want to see my Wings3D file? The background is CC0. If you want to delete it because you have a better one, alright. But I didn't broke any copyrights. Take my 3d modell: Tlwm (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Tlwm. The image was previously tagged for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. I disagreed that it was obvious enough to speedily delete, and converted it into a regular DR to allow for time for discussion. Please keep all discussion related to this file at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:WU-14_HGV.jpg, so that the discussion can be followed in one place. I see that you have already found it, so I won't copy your comment there. Storkk (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
ok, understood, I stay there, it's not used anymore on any other then the Russian DF-ZF page. I saw that a (i assume) Chinese user changed the image.Tlwm (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Deletion of "‪File:RT photo.jpg"

Hi Storkk,

I got message that the file "‪File:RT photo.jpg" is up for deletion. Please note that I have already requested the Copyright owner of the file PRIA to write to As per my recent talk with them they have done it as per the permission template.

So I request you to wait for some time and check if the mail has been received. In case it has some errors I will again request fro the copywrite permission with corrected version. Hope you will consider my request!



— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazingnaive (talk • contribs) 18:27, 06 December 2016 (UTC)
All discussion related to this should take place on →this page← as indicated on your talk page, to allow the conversation to be followed in one place, and to avoid duplication. Storkk (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Miniature toy pictures.

I will try to upload some locally where fair use is more taken into account. I understand the policy, but still think that in most cases, toy manufacturers (if the brands are even still used) appreciate free advertising above copyright infringement. I appreciate Wikipedia wanting to avoid any possible legal inquiry. Still, it seems in most cases, who is to care? Articles discussing the toy brands without showing the toys have little function. You do what you need to do. Thank you. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

While one of our primary uses is indeed as the image repository for Wikipedias, our mission is to be a host of free media that anybody can use. We do not allow non-free media, regardless of how encyclopedic it would be or who might care, since that detracts directly from our goal. In case you have not yet read them, please see COM:PRP and COM:Fair use. Storkk (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Here are some ideas of how model and miniature cars should not fall under copyright protection. These are my own creation for thought:

1. They are utilitarian. Toy cars produced in miniature, as extensions of the real cars they copy, are essentially utilitarian. Though they do not function like real machines, they normally exist as playthings, usually for children, which is a utilitarian function, just perhaps not an adult one. They also usually serve a promotional function as children playing with, for example, Chevrolets, are then encouraged to grow up and buy Chevrolets, a promotion of the automobile industry. An inherent truth in the business of toy cars, as seen in the fact that in many cases the real manufacturers would make in-house toy models for play to be distributed or sold to children (Hudson, Citroen, Alfa Romeo). This is a traditional purpose for toys which has existed at least since about 1930.

2. Replication of the real thing. Most toy and model makers in replicating real cars are not seeking the uniqueness of artistic representation. In fact, quite the opposite is true. When Matchbox makes a Mercedes-Benz C-Class sedan, its goal is the same as when Corgi Toys makes a C-Class sedan – to make, within the craftsman’s skills, the most accurate representation possible. The goal is normally the most accurate portrayal possible of the real car in miniature, not a unique artistic expression. In other words, the fact that one maker chooses to paint on rear lights while another manufacturer chooses tinted plastic lenses is not an effort to produce an artistic rendering - it is an attempt to replicate the real car as closely as possible – so adults and children will buy the ‘car of their dreams’, etc. Local choices in manufacturing serve only to transmit the idea of utilitarian function to the smaller replicated object. The goal is to recreate the real car, not artistically diverge from it. Over time, as manufacturing processes have become more precise, model manufacturers replicate the real car with greater and greater accuracy, thus emphasizing the real, usable, actual purpose of the object. The concept, of course, does not apply to Hot Rods, Customs or other fantastical creations (for instance by Mattel Hot Wheels) which do not replicate any real vehicle. These would be covered by copyright law. Attempts to recreate the real vehicle would not.

3. Licensing backs the idea of utilitarian function. Until the late 1980s, toy producers could recreate any vehicle they liked without paying royalties. After this, GM, Chrysler, Ford and other manufacturers required royalties of the toy manufacturers. This process resulted in two things. Fewer manufacturers who could afford the licensing and more precision replication in the toy or model as firms had closer contacts with blueprints and plans. This enhances the theme of utilitarian function in models. Auto companies want to maximize profits and protect their creations. Model manufacturers strive to make the most accurate representations of models possible – as much as possible, to recreate utilitarian and promotional function of the vehicles in miniature, thus the idea that different toy makers strive for uniqueness or artistic representation in their product is, at best, an imprecise argument.

4. Commercial exploitation generally does not apply. After the above, one might say, “Well there is always the possibility that images of these toys and models may be sold or used without due remuneration to the owners” - and this is a possibility, I suppose. Many, many books, from well-known publishers, though, discuss models of many kinds, from many companies and many different countries without direct permission from manufacturers. Most photos in a Wikipedia environment are examples, and, in any event, show only portions of vehicle or a car from one angle. To steal a design to develop a real car, one needs more sophisticated plans or blueprints than can be obtained from a picture or two.

Thank you for your consideration. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Your interpratation of the law in the United States appears to conflict with actual case law as summarized by Elcobbola and previously indicated in the DRs. If you believe this is in error, please take it up at COM:VPC so that more expert opinion than mine can weigh in. If you believe our policies are correct but that I or Elcobbola have misinterpreted or misapplied them, please make your case at COM:Undeletion requests. (Please only do one of those, since it is better to have the discussion in one place that happens not to be my talk page). In either case, while you might consider just copying and pasting your above arguments, I would suggest re-wording a little to make explicit why Elcobbola's summary of US law is incorrect. Storkk (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Storkk, above Cstevencampbell says "These are my own creation for thought" and on the talk page of the Models Essay, where he repeated these comments, he said "much of this is (sic) exists in my ideal legal world". The Models Essay is about the real world, not the world as Cstevencampbell may wish it. Frankly, I'm not interesting in entertaining fantasies and the thoughts above ignore, are ignorant of, and resoundingly refuted by United States law (and Commons policy). I don't know what Cstevencampbell seeks to accomplish. Эlcobbola talk 16:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: I was unaware of the "ideal world" comment as it was not made here. In that case, @Cstevencampbell: there are many things in this world that we might wish were otherwise. With regards just to copyright law, off the top of my head, I think that every country should have Freedom of Panorama laws, and that copyright lasts ludicrously long in most jurisdictions. Unfortunately, they don't and it does. Administrators here are bound to act on (our understanding of) the law as it exists. Storkk (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Infinite (Eminem album)

I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I saw that as evidenced by the fact that I linked to it in your undeletion request. Storkk (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleted files!

Hello, What do you mean by "Scope"? A genuine, sealed birth certificate of a public figure is probably a reliable source, at least it's still more reliable than newspaper headlines are. --Rita saber1 (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

First, we have no means of validating that this is a "genuine, sealed birth certificate of a public figure". Second, please see w:Wikipedia:No original research, w:Wikipedia:Verifiability as to why it cannot be used as a reliable source. Thirdly, if you decide not to keep discussions in one place, they risk becoming very difficult to follow. Storkk (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

RE: I have made some derivative works of your files

Hi Storkk! Thanks, I'm fine and you? No problem about the license, cc-by-sa-3.0 is perfect, and you can just link the original map in "Other versions" section. About the border between Forlì-Cesena and Rimini, I'll try to update it in the week-end, thanks for the input! -- 06:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion request of File:John Rotellini.jpg

Hello, I am sorry to bother you. I am the photographer and sole owner of the copyright for this image. After reviewing the criteria for upload, I shouldn't need to submit anything further for this file as I own all rights and am the originator of the work.

I am sorry if I am missing something here, I am relatively new to all of this and want to make sure I always go about doing things properly.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojohot1 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Because we cannot confirm that you (Jojohot1) are indeed you (John Rotellini, photographer and subject of the self-portrait), please follow the instructions on OTRS. This allows us to verify your identity confidentially and archive the license. Thank you. Storkk (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: I have made a derivative work of your file

Hello. Thank you for your kind word!
Thank you also for the information about the use of the map. The credit line as you indicate it is fine for me. Et votre français écrit est très bon ! Sting (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Arbol Navidad 03.gif
Merry Christmas, Storkk!
Hi Storkk, thank you for all your valuable contributions on Commons. This help fulfill the number 1 goal of Commons: To be a free, educational media repository for everyone.

I wish you and your family a merry Christmas and a happy new year. Face-smile.svg
    Poké95 01:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Pokéfan95: Merry Christmas to you too, and a very happy New Year! Storkk (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Christmas shopper.jpeg Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2017 !
  • Look sweet...
  • Eat everything...
  • Seek the warmest spots to nap and purr...
  • Try to wait until after to demolish the paper and ornaments...

-- With best wishes! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, Ellin! Merry Christmas to you too, and wishing you a wonderful 2017. Storkk (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Storkk!

Thanks, Hedwig! Happy New Year to you too, and best wishes :) Storkk (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Ex Parte Quayle issued by USPTO

Hi Storkk. Just to let Wikimedia know, USPTO has just issued an Ex parte quayle decision on my commonsense improvement in the field of bidding-fee-auctions.

USPTO Ex Parte Quayle
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MikoFilppula (talk • contribs) 21:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Fascinating. If you'd like to let Wikimedia know something, please follow the instructions at wmf:Contact_us. The new photo still seems out of scope to me, and if it nobody has done it in the next few days, I will nominate it for deletion. Storkk (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Gay LIberation Monument

Your deletion of the image of this was incorrect. Before 1989, visual arts were required to have a copyright notice to be covered by copyright law:

Copyright Notice Before March 1, 1989, the use of a copyright notice was mandatory on all published works, and any work first published before that date should have carried a notice. For works first published on or after March 1, 1989, use of a copyright notice is optional.

For more information about copyright notice, see Circular 3, Copyright Notice, available on the Copyright Office website at

The "No Freedom of Panorama" rubric did not come into effect until after 1989. Please restore the image, and please don't make deletions when you don't understand the intricacies of copyright law. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Your simplification of the situation reads disingenuously. Your claim at the DR was that FOP was "overridden" by its being included in a national monument, and you made no assertion that the work was published without notice. In any case... while formalities were indeed required for works first published before 1989, for works first published between 1977 and 1989, those formalities could either be a copyright notice or a copyright registration within 5 years. Considering that it has not been established that the work has no copyright notice, and especially that George Segal was known to register his sculptures' copyrights (see VAu000455081), I see no reason to undelete. If you think I have erred, please raise this at COM:Requests for undeletion, but I'd advise dropping the condescending attitude, which doesn't help your case at all. Storkk (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, your attitude of infallibility is understandable, since you became an admin back in 2006, when they were being handed out to all and sundry, pretty much anyone who asked for it and didn't have any dirty laundy. Too bad you haven't learned anything much in the meantime. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Unless you are accusing me of sockpuppetry, there has been some kind of reading comprehension failure on your end. I became an admin earlier this year, not in 2006. I won't deign to respond to the rest of your comment. Please take your complaint either to COM:REFUND to discuss this file or COM:ANU to complain about me. Storkk (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, my mistake. then, but you still fucked up, and you still won't admit you're wrong and don't know what you're talking about. Hurray for the "improvement" you made to the Commons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
See COM:REFUND. Storkk (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
There are two questions here, REFUND would only deal with one: the restoration of the image. The other, more important question is that of your attitude and behavior as an administrator, which you refuse to acknowledge. Admins are expected to lead, and to acknowledge when they have made a mistake, not to gloss over their behavior and mark the discussion "resolved" when it is not resolved. You need to admit that you don't understand this subject area, or you are going to contonue to make the same kind of mistake over and over again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  1. Your comment at the DR was fatuous, irrelevant and factually incorrect
  2. I deleted based on my understanding of the law, which I have never claimed is infallible
  3. You then complain on my talk page with a gratuitous condescending remark
  4. I patiently explain the law as I see it, and where you are mistaken... to which you never respond except to:
  5. You continue your insults which take a bizarre twist into the twilight zone and follow on with non sequitur ad hominem attacks from there
I marked the section resolved twice because I thought I had said all I needed to say on the subject, and thought you had said everything of substance you were going to. Either take this to COM:ANU, where I have already pointed you, or don't. But kindly cease being an ass on my talk page. Storkk (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Mass messaging

Hi, rather than the arguments about a case of poor mass messaging, would you like to start drafting a Commons-specific guideline for mass messaging, including posting several users without using tools? As well as the governance problem of informal fundraising messages, we do find some users sending out lots of Christmas messages and thankspam. Understanding the boundaries of wanted messages and where informal notices cross the line into potential spamming would be a useful guideline for the community to agree. For example, any user sending out the same notice to more than 10 users, probably should be able to justify their actions as writing to "subscribers" or those that had positively expressed an interest in a specific issue. Thanks -- (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@: Despite both of us strongly disfavoring off-wiki discussions, I have discussed exactly this (among other things) with Colin recently by email. He has convinced me that it would probably be prudent to wait till after Christmas to do this something like this. In principle I strongly agree with an approach similar to the one you suggest. My initial suggestion would have been to add "Individual solicitations for money can be considered invasive and discourteous by some, and should not be made except to people who have previously expressed their consent." as the final bullet point of Commons:Talk page guidelines#Here are a few things to bear in mind... but perhaps mass messaging should indeed be discussed more generally. The wording would likely need careful thought, and "the same notice" probably wouldn't work... a simple customization would not make the mass message OK to me, and to some extent it's orthogonal to my main problem with the message... but that might be a good thing. Storkk (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC) edited to add "something like". Storkk (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with picking a neutral time. :-) I look forward to some calm discussion when it comes up. -- (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

hello sir ... wanted to know about an email i got on your behalf...

good evening sir...

i am new to wiki and had posted an image under the banner Indian roller... couple of hours back i got an email regarding the same that my image has been listen in deletion section.. could you please help me what to do or what has to be done either to delete it or to put it back on the page where i had posted it.. would appreciate all your help sir..



— Preceding unsigned comment added by Karankrdave (talk • contribs) 17:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Karankrdave:... if you took the photo yourself, please follow the instructions on OTRS. If not, please indicate where Snappy Shutter has indicated a free license. Thanks, Storkk (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

hello sir my photography account name is snappy shutter yes i took the photo... i have requested for deleting .. shall upload a file with exif..will that do ?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Karankrdave (talk • contribs)
@Karankrdave: that would help a little, but it would be best to email the permissions team by following the instructions on →this page←. This is because we have no way of verifying that you are the actual photographer. Storkk (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama

Hi! Why you deleted some photos like this??? It is a restaurant, no FOP here.--Paris 16 (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Paris 16: "FOP" is an exemption from certain copyright protections in some circumstances that various countries have enacted. For more information, please see COM:Freedom of Panorama. France does have a Freedom of Panorama exemption, but it is non-Commercial only, and Commons only accepts content that can be used commercially (see COM:L for more information). The photograph you point is in my opinion of the architecture and décor, so it cannot be de minimis, and to me the architecture clearly displays the individuality/originality required for copyright protection. There was no indication that it was old enough to be in the public domain, which for France, is 70 years post mortem auctoris... we would need to know the architect's date of death. Best regards, Storkk (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a old building, a haussmann building. If we need to know the architect's date of death to keep the photos, we should delete all the photos of France. I can't agree with you in this case.--Paris 16 (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
@Paris 16: If the architect has been dead for >70 years, then we can undelete it, yes... But that had not been even asserted until you suggested just now that this was a "Haussmann" building. If the building was indeed pre-1870 as you seem to imply, then please provide evidence. The fact that we have to delete other stuff is not a cogent argument one way or another. Storkk (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

How to stop this?

Hi Storkk, somehow Amitie 10g is still ignoring your warning, see here. He has been warned several times by now about his habbit of calling the work of colleagues 'disruptive'. What could be done to finally stop this behaviour? Jcb (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Sculpture photos: copyright question

Hi... Was informed that you (as well as @EugeneZelenko:) have been involved with photo deletion discussions and thought I'd see if either of you could help me understand this topic:

Several months ago I uploaded many photos I took at Grounds For Sculpture to Commons and then used them on the GFS Wiki page, as well as on a few other Wiki pages about some of the specific sculptures. A month or so later they were all tagged for deletion due to copyright violation. Despite my protest they were all deleted from Commons and the individual pages. (I was only able to save my peacock photos by explaining that these were real birds.) As best I can understand it, the deleter was claiming the law (in the USA at least) is that photos of sculptures are not the property of the photographer - but all rites belong to the sculptor. I was pointed at some legalistic Wiki pages backing this up, and did some other research, but I did not understand all the details and basically gave up.

My biggest question is... why were MY photos deleted while other photos of the exact same sculptures are still on Commons? I'd love to understand this point so I could re-upload my photos for use on Wikipedia. Thanks!

BTW, here is the deletion list for reference. Rp2006 (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Commons definitely need more maintainers. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Rp2006: As noted at the top of this page, I am extremely busy offline at the moment, and have not been active on Commons for a while, so please forgive the brevity of my response. As was previously explained in the DR, the United States does not have a Freedom of Panorama exemption for sculpture, which means that photographs (i.e. derivative works) of US sculptures that are not in the public domain themselves are encumbered by the copyright of the sculpture. It is not correct that "All rights" belong to the sculptor, rather the photographer has an additional copyright claim to the photograph, but they cannot legally release the sculptor's rights to the derivative work. To answer your explicit question, your photos were deleted because you cannot legally license those photos. Other photos of the "exact same sculptures" were not deleted because nobody has nominated them (yet) for deletion. This is not evidence of a conspiracy against you, but rather (as EugeneZelenko states), of a lack of manpower. Please do not re-upload your photos here, but feel free to nominate other copyright violations for deletion. For the correct procedure, please see COM:DR. For further information, feel free to ask a question at COM:Village Pump/Copyright. Storkk (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Never thought it was a conspiracy... just that I may have not followed correct procedure. Seems that isn't the case at all, so thanks for the info! Rp2006 (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

How do administrators manage the deletion requests?

I'm in the Commons:Deletion_requests/2017/03 page, and there are just too many requests. I'm concerned if my request will ever be seen. Holy Goo (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

edit: oh, I just noticed you don't seem to be a very active admin. Holy Goo (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Barry Kerzin meditating with EEG for neuroscience research.gif

File:Barry Kerzin meditating with EEG for neuroscience research.gif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Noticeboard summary

Dear Storkk, I am writing you just because I would like to deepen the event and because I perceive your summary in the noticeboard as a little bit unfair. :-) You said: "restoring it multiple times over Rcclh's clear wishes is clearly bordering on the uncivil as well".

  1. Rcclh wishes were against guidelines but, as you can see, I kindly explained the problem to the user. Furthermore: I stopped the reverting after the 3rd rollback by Rcclh and asked for the help of a Commons' sysop - Ruthven - in his talk page (on, by mistake), before doing anything else and even if Rcclh blanked the discussion page another time. Does this look an "uncivil" action? :-)
  2. The blanking had been reverted by User:Danyele beforehand and, actually, the blanking has been now reverted again by Jeff G.

The difference between this edit and mines is just that Rcclh didn't rollback it, and that Jeff G. can block the user if he/she stars an edit war (as he/she did in my case). :-) I'd like to stress that I'm definitely a promoter of Wikilove and kindness (I know it doesn't count anything, but because of this I just recently recived from the community a kind barnstar as the "most patient and courteous sysop" :-) ). So I am a bit sorry to read mine as an uncivil action. Thank you for reading my message. :-) --Lucas (msg) 12:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lucas: you seem to be under the impression that there is a guideline against blanking your own user page. Please re-read that guideline; it says only that blanking is "no longer recommended", but it does not forbid it. Regardless of his infractions up to that point, and regardless of your or Jeff G.'s intentions, restoring multiple times seems like petty strong-arming. That is indeed something I perceive to be uncivil. Storkk (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I understand your point. But I don't honesly think that it changes the summary above and the fact that four users (Danyele, myself, Ruthven and Jeff G.) have considered Rcclh's action as hostile and wrong because the messages in that talk page contained important warnings for sysops. Rollback an action, kindly talk to a user explaining the reasons behind it, stopping any rollback even if the user made another blanking and asking for the help of a sysop, is what happened. Citing the guidelines:
  • Archive rather than delete [the text is in bold in the guidelines]
  • Others [users] delete comments after they have responded to them (but this practice is no longer recommended - archiving is preferred)
  • Actively erasing personal messages without replying [...] will probably be interpreted as hostile.
In reaction to the aforementioned and reiterate actions, I explained the problem, stopped my edit after the 3rd RB, and asked for the help of a third user, a sysop, without rollbacking anymore.
I am very sorry if you perceived this as uncivil and I'll try to be even more civil next time. I still feel sorry for your opinion and public resume, which I consider unfair, but I respect it. --Lucas (msg) 13:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I was conforming the user's userpage with the instructions here by a sitting Administrator, and I referred to the section containing those instructions in my edit summary. I agree with Lucas's interpretations of the guidelines above at 13:05 UTC.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
This is now continuing with the exact same bullet points at COM:ANU - I suggest, rather than having a forked discussion, we continue it there rather than here unless there is something specifically unrelated to the communal discussion. @Lucas, Jeff G.: As always, feel free to remove the section resolved template if you disagree, of course. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No free

I am active member in Wiki Farsi. all of this picturce that was uploade under personal work do copywright violation by uploder. non of them are personal work.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Modern Sciences (talk • contribs) 18:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
To avoid splitting the discussion, if you wish to reply please do so in the section on your talk page. It is pointless to copy and paste the same thing there and here. Best regards, Storkk (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Pstr newmap by zeke.jpg

I am the webmaster for and I drew the map that you just deleted.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeke legeke (talk • contribs) 17:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Zeke legeke: Hi! Please follow these instructions to confirm that fact, since we cannot verify it otherwise. Thanks, Storkk (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy delete vs deletion request

Thanks for weighing in on the speedy delete request I made. Could you clarify the primary reason it was converted to a regular deletion request (was it time on Commons or the fact that I didn't provide the exact frame in my rationale)? The reason I ask is I found another image that should be deleted, as it is an outright copyright violation (I found the archived webpage it was saved from). However, it too has been on Commons for quite a while. What would you recommend I do? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Y2kcrazyjoker4: Most decisions between speedy vs regular deletions are not as close cut as that one was. A good principle is to err on the side of DR, since it leaves a record that can be viewed and tracked by non-admins. If a file has been up and in use for 10 years, I think the extra ~6 days that a DR takes over a speedy is of relatively little consequence. That said, if it is blatantly a copyright violation, then speedy is still the way to go. Use your best judgment, and the deleting admin will use theirs as well. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Sonny West Got it--we were one number off. The other one is 26413114. Fixed it on the file. We hope (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@We hope: perfect... Thanks for your help! Storkk (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


Still haven't been able to work out where I'm going wrong. & I've used this tool a lot.

BTW, VFC has a comment referring people to Rillke's talk page if they have problems. Is there somewhere else that should go instead? - Jmabel ! talk 23:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Got it to work. No idea what was different. - Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jmabel: It's a rather large javascript script running on a rather javascript-heavy site, so any number of things could have gone wrong, my gut says probably in the browser. If it happens again, first thing I'd try is restarting your browser. I think Zhuyifei1999 and Perhelion have taken over the maintenance of most of Rillke's scripts, VFC included. Perhaps the sidebar should just point people to MediaWiki_talk:VisualFileChange.js rather than User talk:Rillke. Storkk (talk) 09:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)