User talk:Storkk/Archive 4

Why was the file File:A very broad interpretation of the borders of Conventus Scallabitanus and the Lusitania Province (Interpretation Nº2).png not undeleted?

Both files were restored:

File:A broad interpretation of the road structure in Conventus Scallabitanus (Lusitania).png

File:A broad interpretation of the borders of Conventus Scallabitanus and the Lusitania Province (Interpretation Nº1).png

But this one was not:

File:A very broad interpretation of the borders of Conventus Scallabitanus and the Lusitania Province (Interpretation Nº2).png

There is no difference in either of these files, why would one not be undeleted?

Diogo AArq (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Diogo AArq: I did restore it, but unlike the others I neglected to remove the {{Copyvio}} tag from it when fixing its license information and it was deleted again. I've asked Daphne Lantier to restore it again. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah thanks, but now the article I'm trying to post keeps getting flagged as "Inappropriate content" even though it's an historical article. It says it's identified some words that are related to "vandalism" and prevents me from posting it. Is there anyone I can talk to? It's in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Diogo AArq (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Diogo AArq: I'm not sure how the content checks work on Portuguese Wikipedia, and obviously I don't know (and could not interpret) what you are trying to write. You may find it useful to request help from the Portuguese Wikipedia's pt:Wikipédia:Esplanada/geral. If it's only checking on Article namespace edits, you might be able to create a user subpage (e.g. pt:Usuário(a):Diogo AArq/Article_name) with the content, which could then be moved over to the main namespace. Storkk (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems I was able to create the page under my user page but I can't link it.. well.. thanks for helping I'll see what I can do moreDiogo AArq (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The problem with the link you were trying to paste is that the software cannot know that the closing parenthesis ")" is not part of the URL. You could always use wikilinking syntax like so: pt:Usuário(a):Diogo_AArq/Convento_Escalabitano. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Diogo AArq: Third file has now been re-restored. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Socks

Special:Contributions/SatanManson6 equals Special:Contributions/CoyyoteDanny, same copyvios. 54.155.207.23 14:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of Rockhold.png

The image "Rockhold.png", has been deleted by the admin/ moderator. This was uploaded by me more than an year ago. I had given all the information about the originality of the content then. Despite that, it has been removed today saying "its a copyright". Please show me copyrights of it or that image being used elsewhere. This was a personal image taken a year back to update the athletes Wikipedia page. All necessary information was provided then Even then, it has been removed, claiming it was a copyright. Kindly request it to be reinstated back as it was an year ago.

Again I repeat it is not a copyright or used without anyone's permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7leumas (talk • contribs) 15:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned both on the Deletion Request and also on the undeletion request, the photographer must confirm the license by contacting OTRS. Your undeletion request was closed as premature, since the file was not deleted at the time. It has since been deleted, but the next step is still to confirm the license via OTRS. Storkk (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Another one of my pic that was deleted by some moron claiming copied image

Please see below another of my images which was taken down by someone. Own_work_LR.png I have the original picture and it is used with permission or personal work.

I had put couple of them which were under copyrights, but not all of them are. So Please stop taking down all the images I upload. It is very irritating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7leumas (talk • contribs) 15:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@7leumas: Modulo a few minor exceptions, none of which apply here, all photographs are copyrighted at the time of creation. This is automatic, and a consequence of the Berne convention. The photographers are almost always the copyright holders, and only the copyright holders can release a photograph under a free license. You violated copyright by claiming on upload that you were the copyright holder. If you continue to violate copyright, you will be blocked from editing. Please read and understand COM:L before uploading further. Storkk (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Storkk: Let me clarify once the situation again of what happened. I had uploaded some images last week (few which were not mine but they had no issue or claims that it couldn't be used elsewhere). So Ellin Beltz flagged it saying it was sent for deletion/ general approval from others. Therefore Sanandros, came up and said there are no claims that it cannot be used and it was ok. I was fine with them deleting those if it didn't meet the criterion.

But later on after an hour or so, the same person Ellin Beltz, flagged all my uploads from last year (when I initially started editing on Wiki) as not my own. Template:Rockhold.png and Own work LR.png. This is where he was wrong and he processed it for speedy deletion. I even told him that those were legal to be used as it was personal / used with approval from friends. Remember these were not uploaded last week, but at least an year or more back. There were no issues with those two images whatsoever until last week when the guy just went on flagging all my uploads from day 1. At that time, I had provided the necessary information required for it to meet the criterion. But yet the legal ones were deleted. I don't have an issue with deleting any of them which were not legal of the ones that I uploaded last week.. but why did the ones I uploaded an year back (which didn't have any concerns earlier deleted all of a sudden)? That is my question. --7leumas (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)7leumas

Whether you owned a copy of the photo is immaterial, as is the length of time that they have been up. The fact is, that nobody noticed your uploads were likely copyright violations until now... that doesn't give them a free pass. Again: if you were the photographer of any of these images, then please follow the instructions on OTRS. For those where you were not the photographer but know the photographer, please have them do so. There is no other way that Commons will host those images. Storkk (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Unsure if I'm referring to the right thing, but that may not have been what User:Sanandros said. At both Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wanda stadium.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wanda M.jpg, Sanandros said the issue was not an obvious copyright violation, but a case of missing evidence of permission from the copyright holder. Both of the cases lead to deletion of the uploaded file, latter if no permission is received from the copyright holder (via Commons:OTRS) in a week. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 17:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I was replying to the messages on this talk page, but regardless: the solution is OTRS. I am incapable of being clearer or more emphatic than I have been, so I don't think continuing this discussion will be a productive use of anyone's time. If you believe I have erred, feel free to take this up at COM:ANU. Storkk (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I was in fact replying to User:7leumas and clarifying them, and I agree with you the OTRS solution. I'm in no disagreement with you. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 17:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Your reverts

Dear Sir! I’m not sure about your reverts on my SLA edits like this one. I’d moved all files called somehow “Urspring” to “Ursprung” which is an usual issue for this area here and in Wikipedia. I want to get rid of this problem for longterm and still wonder why you did this change. I’d double checked all these files and there is no need any more to keep “Urspring” somehow. A such redirect is not usefull and lead to confussion. Redirects should be used for alternative naming but not for failures. Your comment “file has been at this name for 5 years, no need to delete redirect” is defiantly not a valid and a relevant argue. Please revert your changes asap by yourself. Thanks for your understanding. --Derzno (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Derzno: No. We leave redirects whenever there is no compelling reason for deletion. See COM:FR: "Please consider creating file redirects instead, where applicable and possible. ", and especially "In most cases, a file redirect should be left on the original page, except if it is a misleading or promotional name." In this case "misleading" means something like "cat" instead of "dog", not a typo in the name. The reason for this is that we encourage other external projects to use our files, and some may hotlink them. By removing redirects, this would break their usage. Please stop requesting their deletion. Storkk (talk) 07:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear Storkk, many thanks for your quick response. I know this guideline of file renaming but can’t find any agreement that the old filename needs to be kept in a redirect. In the section https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_renaming#Redirects you can find only a description how it works and not that SLA is not allowed. Your concerns on any broken links out of wiki-family definitely I don’t care. That's not our problem. If someone using links he needs to ensure from time to time that the link still valid. Please be reminded that from outside pages nobody taking care if Wikipedia using links and we have a lot of work to repair such links again and again. So in short please show me the clear rule that the old filenames must be kept. Sorry to be so nasty but I was told in the history many times of such undocumented unusual customs without any background behind. --Derzno (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Derzno: um... I quoted the relevant parts of the page. Hope this helps, Storkk (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, it is also in the German (of course it is, but I shall quote it for you): "In den meisten Fällen sollte auf der Originalseite eine Weiterleitung hinterlassen werden, es sei denn der originale Name ist irreführend oder als Werbung zu werten.". 08:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly the case. The German rule sounds to me as “should be” and not as a “must be”. Unfortunately “Urspring” is used many times in wiki de world and it is a wrong naming of this subject. I have mover rights since long times but using it only very limited on important cases only. Here I’d replaced “Urspring” by “Ursprung” what looks slightly as a typo but leads to much more confusion. Anyhow, if this is not understood and accepted by you and other admins, what should I say? Keep it as it is but don’t be afraid if people getting impression we are distributing rubbish. --Derzno (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:戸田氏鉄像 ／ 大垣城 - panoramio.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:TODA Ujikane1.JPG

Thank you for your administration. But these images were not deleted. Please double check. Kind Regards--Y.haruo (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Y.haruo: Error on my part, now corrected. Thank you for catching it! Storkk (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.--Y.haruo (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Haha1979

Thanks for the deletions, do you think Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Haha1979 is moot now?   — Jeff G. ツ 17:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. I didn't see the DR. Storkk (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Сохраните эти файлы.

Привет, Storkk Можете ли вы сохранить эти файлы, которые были номинированы для удаления, так как я не вижу причин для их удаления. Вот следующие файлы.

File:Jesus Nazareno 101.jpg

[[:File:Mama Mary please pray for us.jpg File:Mama mary 1.jpg

Я уже указываю свою причину на странице обсуждения удаления. Пожалуйста, разрешите эту проблему как можно скорее. И дополнительный комментарий, один из этих файлов используется в одной из статей в Википедии.

С уважением

---

Нигде 12:50:, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Нигде (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The wikipedia article you cite states that the first image was from the 1700s. That there are multiple statues that are so venerated is obvious from the fact that File:5-ns-aranzazu.jpg and File:SanMateo,RizalChurchjf5467_11.JPG are not the same. We need evidence of the actual date of each sculpture, and I am not willing to believe a simple assertion that they are all from the 1700s. Storkk (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Спасибо за ваш ответ. Обычно образ, которому была предоставлена ​​каноническая коронация папы, является подлинной. Этот образ является одним из доказательств.

Изображение File:SanMateo,RizalChurchjf5467_11.JPG Также построен в 1716 году после того, как первоначальный образ был провозглашен покровительницей города.

И изображение, указанное в File:5-ns-aranzazu.jpg Ношение ее епископских регалий

Некоторые файлы, загруженные там, одинаковы с этим файлом File:5-ns-aranzazu.jpg Эти файлы включают File:Aranzazu San Mateo 6.jpg

Надеемся на ваше уважение по этому вопросу

---

Нигде 14:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC) }

О загрузках Maybeonlyone

Как вы думаете, решение этой проблемы, так как исходный образ Богоматери Аранзазу указывал в файлах тезисов:

Поскольку этот оригинальный образ Богоматери Аранзазу был доставлен на Филиппины в 1705 году ?

Пожалуйста, разрешите эту проблему и сохраните эти файлы как можно скорее

---

Нигде 11:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Нигде (talk • contribs) 11:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

There has been so much vandalism and deception surrounding these files, that I am disinclined to spend my time on this matter. I will copy your comment to the DR, but that's as far as I will go. Storkk (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

О загрузках Maybeonlyone

Не могли бы вы также добавить мои предыдущие комментарии на странице обсуждения в DR ?

Большое спасибо. Я ценю ваше внимание на этот вопрос.

---

Нигде ---- 12:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Нигде (talk • contribs) 12:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I have made a note of them so that the closing administrator does not miss them. Storkk (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

OTRS

Hi Storkk. I saw the several email notifications that emanated from my submissions to the Wiki Loves Nigeria 2017 photo contest about 24 hours ago. I am sorry for the delayed response to queries. Still getting a hang of wiki actually. Please, you must know that I have sole ownership of all the images I submitted to Wikimedia Commons, including those of yesterday. I have a Flickr account where I share low-resolution images, with rights reserved, something you may have noticed already. What are the implications if I choose not to change the copyright status to 'free licence' ? I am only willing to offer free licence to Wikimedia Commons on account of the ongoing contest. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 105.112.29.48 (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I presume this is Dotun55? You forgot to sign in when leaving a message. You should be aware that all the free licenses we accept (including the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license that you chose) are perpetual, and do not expire at the end of the contest. You are allowed to apply a more restrictive license on Flickr and a less restrictive one here, but you should be aware that anybody could just download them from us instead of Flickr after the contest is over. You cannot revoke free licenses. If you still choose to do so, and want us to keep your photos up (and we would love to, we don't have very many high quality images from Africa), then you would need to email the OTRS team by following the instructions on OTRS. An OTRS agent will then confirm that you are the actual photographer (perhaps by asking for a copy of the RAW file or JPEG with full EXIF metadata, which would be kept confidential, or asking you if there is some other way you can prove you are Adedotun Ajibade... that should suffice, since that name is credited in the metadata). If, however, you did not realize that the license was perpetual, and would prefer not to share your photos under a free license, then simply don't email us. The photos will then be deleted. Normally free licenses are irrevocable, but we would not be sure that you the uploader is the same as the photographer, so we would likely determine the license was invalid. There is no way that you can take part in the contest and then revoke the license. Best regards, Storkk (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Changing Flickr Licence to 'Attribution, Non-Commercial'

To clarify, this sub-heading was added after my first reply below... Storkk (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi storrk! Thanks for the clarification. I think I'll go with changing Flickr licence of my Wikimedia contributions to 'free', as opposed getting authenticated by OTRS. Please, how am I certain that my submissions have been entered in to the contest? Thabks for the compliment on my photos by the way! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 105.112.20.131 (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dotun55: I'm not 100% certain, but I think your photos are correctly in the contest. I think this happens just by tagging them with {{Wiki Loves Earth 2017|ng}} as long as they were uploaded during the contest period. All the photos you uploaded this month appear to be correctly tagged (I think the upload wizard does this for you). If you need confirmation, please email wikimedia-ng@lists.wikimedia.org. I've never participated in a contest, which is why I'm not too certain about this. Cheers, and thank you for the great photos! Storkk (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dotun55: unfortunately, we cannot accept Non-Commercial licenses. Please see COM:L and Commons:Licensing/Justifications. The most restrictive license we accept is the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license. Storkk (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

RE:Redirecciones después cambiar nombres de archivos

Gracias por el aviso. La redirección File:Detalle.jpg la envié a borrar por el Commons:Café#¿Plagio de imagen?problema que se causó por tener un nombre tan genérico, gracias a la intervención de Anna lo pudimos solucionar. Antes de marcar las redirecciones para su borrado verifiqué donde están enlazadas. De todas formas, gracias por el aviso (generalmente en es.wiki se suelen marcar para borrado rápido. Un saludo --Jcfidy (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jcfidy: Con esa herramienta, sólo es possible de comprobar WMF enlazadas. No es possible de comprobar, por ejemplo, Wikia, o algun blog en Internet. esWiki puede tener diferentes políticas, que pueden tener más sentido para eswiki, ya que no actúan específicamente como un host de medios. Saludo, Storkk (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Löschungen

Hallo Storkk, ich finde es schade, dass Du meine Bilder gerade gelöscht hast. Ich habe vor vier Tagen an den User Steinsplitter wegen der anstehenden Löschungen folgende Mail geschickt: Hallo, auf der Seite Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Der wilde bernd stehen mehrere Fotos von mir zur Löschung an. Ich habe dort zu jedem einezlnen Bild schon etwas gesagt, doch ich bin, gerade auch nach der letzten Anmerkung von User:Ellin Beltz ratlos, was ich tun kann, um die Bilder "zu retten". Ich verstehe die Einwände nicht und bin deshalb auch nicht in der Lage, auf Englisch über sie zu kommunizieren. Viele Grüße Bernd Wältz

Er hat mir bisher nicht geantwortet, so dass ich geglaubt habe, die Löschung würde vorerst unterbleiben, bis meine damit im Zusammenhang stehenden Fragen geklärt seien.

Bisher hat mir noch niemand nachvolziehbar auf meine Fragen Geaqntwortet, auch Ellin Beltz nicht. Und wie ich oben schon sagte, ich bin nicht in der lage, diese komplizierte Diskussion auf Englisch finden. Deshalb finde ich es voreilig, dass Du jetzt die Daten gelöscht hast, aber meine Fragen immer noch unbeantwortet sind. Über eine Antwort würde ich mich freuen, und Du kannst diese Mail auch gerne an einen deutschsprachigen Admin weiterleiten. Viele Grüße Bernd Wältz ---- (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Der wilde bernd. It is indeed unfortunate. However, our aim is to only host freely available media, and all of the ones I deleted were derivative works of items that you did not have the copyright to, and are not likely to be public domain, since copyright persists in most European countries for 70 years after the death of the author. This means that your photos are encumbered by copyright that you cannot control. It is irrelevant whether the museum allowed you to take photos. I linked to the relevant policies in my summary, including for the schnapps bottle whose packaging is copyrighted, and you cannot just take a photo of it and claim that you are the copyright holder. It may be possible to undelete File:Gedenktafel Smallbones Dowden Text deutsch.jpg and File:Gedenktafel Smallbones Dowden Text englisch.jpg, but you need to explicitly state where the plaques are located and where you were located when you took the picture. See COM:FOP#Germany. Storkk (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I restored the two plaques. I had missed the text outside of the information template stating that they are in an intersection. Storkk (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Steinsplitter's talk page is at User talk:Steinsplitter. It is unlikely he even saw your message at User talk:SteinsplitterBot/DR/dewiki. Storkk (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyrights

Hi.
Recently a few images that I uploaded were deleted (can be found on my talkpage). I am not asking to restore the images, but I am asking for an explanation regarding copyrights issues (generally, not about this particular incident). The first two images were uploaded through a tool. Another image was declined by this tool stating it doesnt have a compatible licence. So after a few days, I uploaded a few images with the same licence.

According to flickr these images are under "Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-ND 2.0)", through which we are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms."

And yet, these images were removed from the commons. Would you please let me know why did this happen? So that I can try to avoid doing the same mistake again. Kindly ping me while replying. Thanks a lot in advance. Best, —usernamekiran(talk) 12:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: From COM:Licensing: "Publication of derivative work must be allowed." COM:Licensing is a core policy here. Please make sure you understand it in its entirety before uploading further. Thank you. Storkk (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Yup. That's why I chose to discuss before uploading more images. :)
Thanks for the reply. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

No worries... have a good one. Storkk (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

File:BioImpacts 3.gif

Hi, a little while ago I tagged this as copyvio. However, the journal homepage says that it is published under a CC-by license. While I was adapting the licensing info (and removing the deletion tag), you already deleted the file... Perhaps you can have a look and see whether what I did was correct (the journal page does not give the name of the author of the cover, so I put the name of the journal as author) and then either delete my last edit or restore the file. Sorry for the hassle! Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Storkk (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Please undelete.

File:Topics Covered (6.002x-3).webm is from a source page with a clear CC-SA tag. All materials from those courses are released under CC-SA. Thanks, --SJ+ 15:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sj: No. Firstly, is there any indication that the channel is authorized to release MIT course videos? Its about page does not inspire confidence in its authenticity... but even if it was, the video is clearly under a Standard Youtube License, which is not Commons-compatible. If it has been confirmed as CC-By-SA elsewhere, I'd be happy to undelete if you would indicate where, since this was not indicated on the file page. Storkk (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I should have linked directly to one of the course pages. See the course itself: 6.002x. You have to log in (but can use a fake email); the license is on each page at the bottom-right. Each professor is free to choose any license they wish to on EdX. In this case, the professor is also the head of the project, and has given explicit permission and updated those webpages with the appropriate license. Regards, --SJ+ 22:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sj: That's great news! I may not be able to look into this until Wednesday. If you would prefer a quicker undeletion, please consider posting the above at COM:REFUND. Someone will almost certainly need to license review these files, since the licenses are not readily examinable. Storkk (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sj: I've taken a look... unfortunately, I don't think the situation is as clear as you suggest. Each page on edx.org does indeed seem to have a cc-by-sa license, but I don't think that necessarily applies to the material being shown. For example, the textbook page also has the same cc-by-sa notice, but to view it you are required to accept a license that is very clearly not cc... and it's published by Elsevier, who are not known (to put it mildly) for their embracing of free licenses. I'm not sure what the cc-by-sa license applies to, but I think unless we get clarity in the form of an OTRS ticket or a change of license on the youtube videos, I don't think we can accept the videos. I am prepared, however, on the basis of that website, to accept that mitxvideo is an official source for MIT course videos, so I would accept the youtube license if it were to change. If you disagree with my analysis, feel free to request an undeletion at COM:REFUND. Storkk (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Mistake?

Hi, Elisfkc left a message on my talk to say that (s)he was concerned with the copyright on "File:Esther Audu in Apartment 24 from irokotv.png". Fair enough. However you appear to have deleted it without debate. This means more work. If you look at the link below then you will see that IrokoTV allows reuse under creative commons. They allow it to be reused and they are a TV company with this policy - we need to applaud this. This was noted (I believe) in the file that is now deleted. Could you explain or restore please (as we are trying to increase articles on women and African culture.) Look here for details of the "reuse allowed" license .... regards Victuallers (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done converted to full DR. Storkk (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Thanks - if you get the time then you might confirm that the license is OK, but thx for restoring it. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Victuallers: as intimated on the DR, I am unsure the the license is OK, regardless of what the Youtube page states. I don't think Irokotv is the actual copyright holder--do you? Storkk (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

There are lots of copyright stealers in Nigeria/Ghana but IdaniTV and IrokoTV appear to the exceptions. They create their own material and run their own serials and piece works as well as films. This is more true of Ndanitv but Irokotv appears to follow the same business model. This shows screenshots that have been cleared already from irokotv]. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Victuallers: if they created Apartment 24, then sure. I don't immediately see evidence of that. I think the most likely situation is that they are the exclusive online distributors of Apartment 24, and I'm not certain that that means they can relicense them. Please comment on the DR, however... it is unlikely that the closing admin will read this conversation on my talk page. Storkk (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Re:

You could start file analysis, please? "Not all of these files are not in bad faith,,, Can you start an instant scan process for these files ???--79.31.200.224 16:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I won't, no. There are other areas both on and off wiki that need the investment of my time more than does dealing with intricate details regarding the uploads of someone who has demonstrated bad faith already and is probably trying to trick me in ways I may or may not anticipate. Storkk (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lars Cleveman and Lena Nordin in Stiffelio 2011.jpg

Hi, Storkk, I came across you comment and was wondering what the procedure is in a case like this. The user who tagged the image as a copyvio removed it from the Dutch wikipedia where I adde the image initially. I work the other way around, imo, adding images to articles action will be taken sooner if need be. Do you think I should undo the edit again referring to the comments on the copyvio issue here? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Lotje: in my view, it's somewhat pointless to co-opt CommonsDelinker's job, and a bit silly (at best) to do it prematurely. That said, this is clearly a sister-project issue: as a Commons admin, I'd think it would be extremely ill-advised to involved in pure content disputes on sister projects that I'm not an active member of, and so I'm not going to tell nlWiki how to run its business. As an nlWiki admin, I would think you would be perfectly placed to understand nlWiki's norms and rules: would it make sense to undo that edit pending the outcome of the DR? Either way, I should think that in a short time the outcome of the DR will make the optimal end result obvious. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Storkk, I appreciate your comment. Lotje (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

No worries, have a nice day! Storkk (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Template

Hi Storkk, My warped mind could not but start seeing the funny side, that the higher the senders IQ, the harder it seems for some senders to submit a coherent OTRS. Is this just me or have you had similar experiences? Why I am bring it up is because the OTRS template may benefit from an improvement or even a second alternative template made available with more verbiage to aid academics, artists etc., who's livelihoods depend partly on maintaining close control over their works. In other words, whilst we may see the existing template as very comprehensive and should cover every situation – some submitters maybe don't understand it. Have you found any 'common denominator' of failed OTRS's that may suggest I can improve the template or add a secondary one? So far, I have only discussed this with actors and professional photographers who are dependent on maintaining copyright control, and found Creative Commons went against everything they had been lead to believe unto then. Their views started to change however, when I showed them (on their very own laptops), that although WP is not a promotional vehicle, other actors and photographers upload CC-BY-SA images which end up raising their personal profile, because cc-by-sa has the potential to show their skills to a wider audience. It is a win-win for both them and us. Any thoughts? P.g.champion (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@P.g.champion: I'm not sure I'm the best person to comment on this, since I'm not a very prolific OTRS agent. It does sound like a good idea, but I'm not sure the marginal benefit is worth the effort: in my experience, the vast majority of failed tickets fail because the person who thinks they are the copyright holder is not the actual copyright holder (that was not the case for the Gasarch photo, but OTRS confidentiality prevents me from discussing specifics). Considering just the subset of tickets that are sent by the obvious copyright holder, I believe the vast majority succeed with little effort. The ones that don't are almost always because they don't understand that Non-Commercial clauses are not Commons-compatible. To address this, we have COM:Licensing/Justifications that attempts to explain why we have chosen our particular definition of "free enough" to host. I think the best OTRS agents try to treat each ticket individually, and with a degree of mindfulness and care... Freely admitting I could be wrong, I don't immediately see that a new template would help much with failed tickets. If you mean improving the odds before the ticket has been submitted, I could be persuaded that a more nuanced page than COM:CONSENT might be marginally beneficial, but I think any improvement to that page would be wholly eclipsed by a better "hand-holding" as you describe above. Sorry if I'm rambling, didn't get much sleep last night. Storkk (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't think you're rambling at all (in fact, ramblings often opens up new avenues) . Yours was the sort of feed back I need. I don't have access to OTRS submissions so I am floundering about in the dark at the moment. We don't have to discuss any (or that image that has just come to our attention) – it is the broader view that counts. For instance, Politicians quite often assume that they hold the copyright of any photo of themselves -which is often a problem to us, as their 'paid editors' on WP assume 'free'. Which we then have to spend time on - in order to delete. A resent case was were I had to disappoint the very proud parents of User talk:Ayasofya Vittoria Aguirre. It gutted me because it need not have happened if they had understood our policies. Also, it is only natural to choose 'Non-Commercial' if the up-loader can't be bothered to read and we can't be bothered to highlight the most important T&C's. Sorting all this out take up editors time, when they could be doing something better. Think you are giving me your tacit agreement that there are indeed clarity improvements which can be made – So, will crawl back into my cave and think about this some more. In the mean time -Ramble away. 18:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@P.g.champion: In my admittedly jaded view, I think much of the general problem stems from people just mashing buttons hoping to get their damn upload to work, not even attempting to read the various warnings we have already have throughout the upload process. This problem is not unique to wikis (consider the soul-selling terms of standard EULAs, Facebook et al. Terms of service, etc.), and OTRS can do nothing for this, and I'm not sure more voluminous explanations are an answer either. Just my $0.02. Storkk (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Categorizing templates

OK. Sorry. --Allforrous (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Erroneous deletion

Hello, I am the copyright owner of three of deleted images on wikimedia... :

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Suharlim_evaluating.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dr._Christian_Suharlim,_MPH.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Advocacy.jpg

I would like them to be restored by providing appropriate copyright permissions. I have already emailed permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with my permission that I release these images to creative commons attribution 4.0 but have received no response (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/christian-suharlim/media-inquiries/). Please tell me what else I need to do or if I can give any proof of ownership here on your talkpage which will get these images restored.

Thanks. Chris — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.174.191.97 (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chris. Immediately after emailing permissions-commons, you should have received an automated response with a ticket number. Could you please clarify whether you received that? Storkk (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Storkk, yes the number is 2017081510012869. I sent the initial email on permissions-commons on Aug 15th and sent another followup on Aug 22nd but have not received response. Thank you so much for your help — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:196:4600:2C90:182:FFD9:BCB3:52B7 (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chris. There is a current backlog of 7 days. The good news is that your ticket was received and is in the queue. The ticket looks like it will likely need a follow-up before being accepted however. Storkk (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Bill Gasarch.jpg

Hi Storkk. A while back you trying to help sort out Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/08#File:Bill Gasarch.jpg. That particular photo ended up being deleted for lacking permission, but it has been uploaded again locally to English Wikipedia as en:File:WilliamGasarch-OfficePortrait-Sept2009.jpg. Since you are an OTRS volunteer/admin, you probably have an idea as to whether this "new" file is OK for Commons or if OTRS verification is needed. There's no reason (unless the uploader truly wants it to stay local) for this not to be moved to Commons, but I wanted to make sure before tagging it with en:Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons. In addition, if this licensing is OK, the other deleted version might possibly be a candidate for undeletion (but again I'm not sure). Anyway, I'm posting here since you appear to be more active on Commons than English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The local file has been deleted per en:WP:F9, so you might no longer be able to see it. The deleting Wikipedia admin is en:User:RHaworth and the uploader is en:User:Egolub. It appears that the file was tagged as a copyvio by another editor and then subsequently deleted. From this edit sum, it's possible that the file might have been mistakenly tagged. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I will reach out again in the coming days, when I have some more time... there is hope that it will be restorable. Storkk (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. RHaworth clarified why the file was deleted and suggested a solution at en:User talk:RHaworth#WilliamGasarch-OfficePortrait-Sept2009. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

File:D SATYA PRAKASH.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests

Hi, I would like to know what is the issue that it has been considered for deletion ? As I am ready to provide the source file or the Raw file of the image that is completely owned by me. This image is also used by many leading newspapers which was provided by myself when asked for, you can find the image used in [Indian express] [[1]] [[2]] Let me know what document you would require from me to authenticate it. looking forward to retaining the image or help me find a way to use any other image of the personality from elsewhere. Thank you RAGZU (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@RAGZU: please follow the instructions on OTRS to confirm that you are the copyright holder. Storkk (talk) 08:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Permission query

Hi, do you have any idea how to resolve the permission at File:Bavji Chatur Singhji 01.jpg? It is obviously not "own work", as claimed, but if it does indeed come from 1925 then it would be public domain in India. I haven't checked but past experience of Indian SPA uploaders such as this one would lead me to think that there may be similar issues with their other contributions. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sitush: India's copyright lasts 60 years after the death of the artist, which in this case appears to be a "Panna Lal". I could not find the artist's death date, but it would not seem to be a priori extremely likely that a 1925 drawing would be PD in India. I will nominate it for deletion. Storkk (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

• File:Mizuki.jpg

And also:

• File:Saekistars.jpg
• File:Ironman.jpg
• File:Marikaironman.jpg

One of these you deleted and I undeleted, because the others were tagged copyvio and I wanted to list them all as a batch DR. Yours sincerely, Guanaco (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

license

There is a photo on the interent, I think it falls under public domain according to this. What do you think? Kindly ping me while replying. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst and Ellin Beltz: Hello. I went ahead, and uploaded File:Maj Gen William K James.jpg. Kindly let me know if something is not right. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 23:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Dave Toschi

Thank you for your comment supporting that I took the photo of Dave Toschi. It was in the Hall of Justice in San Francisco around 1976. Who knew that years later, Dave would be writing fan letters about himself regarding the Zodiac case!

Nancy Wong https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nancy%26Dante2.jpg

Deletion Requests

Hi Storkk ... thanks for you Voting in the Category:Kurdish Peshmerga...but I still do not understand why you voted for Deletion of the other Files as it was mentioned by the uploader it is a symbol of the Greatest Forces wich Fighted Against the ISIS unhuman Wild Attack in Iraq and especially in North of Iraq [kurdistan ] and also it is located Outside the City in an Open Space and from what I understand from Freedom of panorama (outdoor public places) I am confused about what seems to be the problem I do not think it is violating any copyright as I can see it all over the local and international media --Sarbast.T.Hameed (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sarbast.T.Hameed: you appear to misunderstand the FOP link that you have linked to here and also at the Deletion Request. I also don't know exactly to what you are referring, because your link does not lead where you intend it to lead (please try clicking it: the page has no section titled "Outdoor public places")... but I'll try to explain: The sculpture is recent, and so is copyrighted. This would be true anywhere in the world. That it is on display for all to see is not relevant to its copyright. Some countries make an exception to their copyright law that basically means that you can take pictures of an artwork that is on display without violating the copyright of the artwork. This exception to copyright law is called "Freedom of Panorama", and is what COM:FOP tries to explain. Some countries have such an exception for buildings and sculptures, some for only buildings. In some countries, the exception is more complicated than that. Iraq does not have such an exception at all, and so distributing a photo of the sculpture violates the sculptor's copyright. Here on Wikimedia Commons, we only accept images that are free in both the US and also in the country of origin, so we cannot host pictures of modern Iraqi sculptures. Other people might use these images because they are ignorant (or don't care) about copyright, or because they are using it for purposes covered by "Fair Use", or for any number of other reasons, but we do care, and because we distribute media that anybody can use for any purpose, we don't allow fair use media here. Does that help clarify? Best regards, Storkk (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

And also, please note that having your images deleted may be annoying but please don't take it personally! It's not an attack on you... and copyright law is very complex (so our rules can be too, unfortunately), many people make exactly the same mistake (see, for example Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Statue_of_Catherine_of_siena_(benincasa).jpg)! Storkk (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear Storkk..believe me, I am very thankful for your effort to make me understand your and the Commons idea of Copyright Violation and maybe I also misunderstand the 3rd Paragraph of the link FOP (permanent public display) that I mentioned which is saying (The exception generally applies only to works on permanent public display) and that was what I ment that the sculpture is in a permanent public display so shuldnot be excluded as it is mentioned in the FOP ? and by the way, all the pictures are not mine but I only edited and cropped one of them and use it in the Wikivoyage for the article about [Kirkuk City] (My Home Town).. any way thanks again and best regards..--Sarbast.T.Hameed (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The sentence needs to be read in context. It means that in those countries that have FOP, it generally only applies to items that are permanently located in a public place (as opposed to temporary installations). In countries that don't have FOP, it doesn't apply at all. Storkk (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Your warning...

Dear Storkk, whatever you say, the fact is that somebody from Wikimedia has stolen this picture from my website, and - in my mind - this person should receive a warning, not me. I don't think I am impolite speaking about this. I just try to say clearly what I feel and think about this kind of attitude. Anyway, I understand it is hopeless to try to discuss with people hidden behind pseudonyms. I don't want to be part of a community like this anymore. Regards. L.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperRollex (talk • contribs) 16:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

posibility of deletion??

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:A_dome_of_Sheikh_Zayed_Grand_Mosque.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

hey Strokk!! the file in the above link was under the possibility of deletion. Can you give me the reason if it is a copyright issue or anything else as it has been uploaded under 'wikilovesemirates'... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy issac (talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem is the building is copyrighted, so photographs of the building are not free according to UAE law. Please see COM:FOP for more information. Storkk (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

CC BY-NC-SA

Hallo Storkk, ich habe wegen der Lizenz für dieses Bild File:Bartsch-Memhardt Potsdamer Potsdamer Stadtschloss.jpg mal nachgefragt. Regards, Hystrix (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hystrix: Please see COM:PD-Art. The longstanding rule here is that you cannot simply take a photo or scan of an obviously public domain work and somehow claim a new copyright on it. See also Copyfraud. I am aware that this is not true in all jurisdictions, but this is I think the only situation where we do not require a work to be free in both the source country and the US. If memory serves correctly, a handful of other images that fall into this category have occasionally been deleted in the past, I believe due to office action arising from a DMCA that nobody contested, but I'm not certain... I think Fae might know, though. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Barbara Bush Image Deletion

Hello, Can you tell me how the image of Barbara Bush that you deleted was in violation of copyright? I get very confused by image copyrights. It was already being used on another website, with the artist being accredited there, just as I did. The photo is around 35 years old. I’m desperately trying to learn. Thank you. Clarawolfe (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Clarawolfe (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Clarawolfe: . The fact that the image was being used elsewhere does not mean that you can use it here, or that it was released under a free license. On Commons, we only accept images that anybody can use for any purpose. Please see COM:Licensing for more information. All of your other images likely suffer from similar issues, unfortunately. Storkk (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I see that image licensing is very complicated. I guess that’s why most photos on Wikipedia look like they do. I don’t have the patience for the licensing research, so I’ll refrain from adding any more.Clarawolfe (talk) 07:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Mountain (2017) Poster

You deleted the updated Mountain poster provided by Greenwich Entertainment. Please let it be. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brigademkting (talk • contribs) 14:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Please read the message I left you on your talk page. Storkk (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you so much for the research you did on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:W. Langdon Kihn - I wouldn't have known where to start! And great to know they can stay :) -- Deadstar (msg) 10:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Deadstar! It's always a fantastic feeling to be able to save some great public domain artwork. Storkk (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

And in related news: Thanks also for requesting undeletion of those other two! -- Deadstar (msg) 10:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Davey ain't done

"I had just asked Davey to please stop closing AN discussions altogether..."

Boom!

Davey2010 completely missed the sarcasm (probably at least in part due to Chaddy not being a native English speaker), Chaddy declared retirement and everyone lived happily ever after Davey2010 drove another long-term contributor into early retirement.

Are we all just going to stand here? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz - Alexis is there any particular reason as to why you've created this pathetic thread instead of 'COMING TO MY TALKPAGE AND ASKING ME? ..... Your creation of these threads are beyond pathetic and quite frankly boring!,

I clearly stated in that closure "If any admin disagrees with my closure pop over to my EN talkpage and I'll be more than happy to reopen" so excuse the language but why the fuck are you here on another admins talkpage complaining over it ? .... Had you yourself asked me I would've been more than happy to reopen it,

Why have a civilised conversation when you can just create dramah?. –Davey2010^Talk 02:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You specifically invited any admin to come to your talk page to talk about it. I'm not an admin so I didn't think you'd be interested anyway. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Considering the plethora of open threads on this and related topics, I don't think my talk page is an appropriate venue for continued discussion of this. Storkk (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Reporting Vandalism

Hello dear administrator!

I just wanted to report vandalism caused by an registered user. The so called User:MazzyBor keeps uploading mostly Serbian and Yugoslavian flags in a never adopted darker color shade and recently he started rewriting history and spreading Serbian irredentism by overwriting a correct map, claiming former Byzantine lands, almost the entire Balkans were Serbia in the year 1358 and Austria beeing a part of Germany (which not even existed in that time), also he made countries like the "Republic of Ragusa" totally disappear. (No sources were even added on this edit; I have reverted it to the correct version)

I just wanted to report this, and I hope you will have time to check this out.

Best regards, MateoKatanaCRO (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@MateoKatanaCRO: I am not a subject matter expert, so cannot weigh in on this. If this is a content dispute, you may wish to bring it to a wider audience's attention via the COM:Village Pump. If you think this requires administrative sanctions, please report this at COM:ANV... but before you do that, you're strongly encouraged to try to resolve it amicably. I note that you have not left any messages on User talk:MazzyBor. Best regards, Storkk (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, admin. Lots of vulgar penis in Turkish (sik) and other "f..." words (verb conjugations) here (which you can also compare with the "siqim/sikim" on my TP; well that one is more accustomed to the Azeri alphabet). All that sh.. must be rev-dele'ed, IMHO. I would also appreciate if you could also delete this talk somehow; in a couple of days I have been obliged to use more curse words than I may have used in all my life. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi E4024. I've reverted that edit. I am, however, of the opinion that revision deletion is much too liberally applied, and don't think it is clearly warranted in this case, although I may of course be wrong. Storkk (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You mean writing "I will fuck you all" several times in Turkish is OK? Interesting. --E4024 (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No. It's not OK. That's why it's reverted. Storkk (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, feel free to revert the message on your talk page. You don't need to keep it there if you don't want to... although I generally lean in the opinion that it demonstrates the idiocy of the person attacking you. But I could see why it might be disturbing. Storkk (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm keeping that message because the issue is not closed for me. (See my talk and ref to you at the TP of User:Sakhalinio, please.) OTOH as I "feel" the blocked user is "mocking the block" with one of their "several" user names as of today, I believe it should not be closed for the community either. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

If they are evading a block, please report. That is sockpuppeting and is very clearly not allowed. Storkk (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Look at my few edits of today and you may see whom I suspect. The admin who blocked them can also make a quick check and see if their block is being evaded or not. --E4024 (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I have looked and I don't, but I don't know how long you want me to spend looking through edits playing a guessing game about what you're talking about. I'm sympathetic that you have been insulted and nobody was listening, but please stop playing games: if you have something to say, then say it. Storkk (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not playing any games. I'm only respecting the principle of innocence of third parties. Would you like anyone to mention your name directly as a suspected sockpuppet? I made very few edits today, among them 2 DRs. One is about a flag ("invented islamic flag", like all those flags that the attacking user made and I got deleted). Look at it. It was also used as a hoax. This user name was not used since more than a year and suddenly today began to produce unnecessary (invented) "crescent" flags again. (It was full of wrong categorization -like the other user name's flags.) More than enough clues to suspect, but as I cannot check their IPs, prefer not to name people. No games here. (I told you everything, has four legs, not a table, says miaou... Or quack quack. :) --E4024 (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything blockable. Timing might be suspicious, but that's about it. If you wish to file a checkuser request, please do so at COM:RFCU. Storkk (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You've been nominated!

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Merchandise_giveaways/Nominations#Storkk --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Steinsplitter! And thanks for your support, too, Jcb. I will have to make room in my t-shirt drawer :-) Storkk (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Admin work

Hi. Can you dedicate some of your time to stop vandalism please... Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done thanks. In future, please report at COM:ANV, where it can be dealt with quicker. Storkk (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi. One file has not been deleted? --Микола Василечко (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done thanks... I seem to have missed the title file. Storkk (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

tonynetone

Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with tonynetone

I had asked N sanu to take a look at the eclipse pictures to see if it would be worth it to look deeper into/ask permission for them. Thanks to N sanu, we now know it wouldn't have been worth it.

You missed File:Medieval Art and Architecture.jpg and File:Moon (3307422404).jpg. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 12:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done thanks. Storkk (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

NARA/NARAS

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Grammy Awards

"Grammy award is copyrighted by NARA."

To avoid confusion, I just wanted to note that NARA stands for "National Archives and Records Administration". The Recording Academy could be abbreviated as NARAS, although that is their old former name. This is especially confusing because stuff from NARA is typically in the public domain. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 07:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

OK. Struck the erroneous and irrelevant bit. Thanks. Storkk (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. I was trying to create a DR for File:Şéx Said Seriyyeleri.jpg. For some reason the gadget that I always use did not function. Then I tried to copy-paste to the file, without success. In the end I pasted the nomination to the TP of the file. Can you give a hand, please? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like I managed it. Sorry for disturbing you. --E4024 (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Looks like you handled it well. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit summary

Apologies for this - Autofill fail!, The edit sum was meant to simply say "noted", Anyway apologies. –Davey2010^Talk 15:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries... perhaps consider sanitizing your Autofill considering what happened last time an edit summary you left when removing a note from your talk page was considered uncivil. Instructions for Firefox & Chrome are here. Storkk (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

By all means block me if it'd make you happy, I barely ever edit here so I'm not remotely bothered about being blocked but many thanks for bringing that up. –Davey2010^Talk 15:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no intention of blocking you. I merely suggest that if you have that kind of thing in your autofill, you might find it prudent to remove it from your autofill. To avoid misunderstandings. Storkk (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)