User talk:Tryphon/Archive/2010

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



Tryphon, vous êtes adorable ! Merci de m'avoir prévenue. Voici un bon début d'année 2010 ! je vous souhaite qu'elle se continue de la même façon. Amicalement, --Égoïté (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Grasmere Lake 2007.jpg

Dear Tryphon,

If you can, please keep this image above which I transferred with the correct copyright and attributed author and delete this duplicate image below where the transfer was incorrectly done and the Author is stated to be 'anonymous.':

That second image is in use on German wikipedia but the copyright is a mess. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks Turelio for acting here. I guess Tryphon has been away but that's OK. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, sorry about that. I got a bit tied up these days, and had Internet access only on rare occasions. Thanks Túrelio for taking care of it in the meantime. –Tryphon 10:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :)

In passing you would be a perfectly good candidate yourself! --Herby talk thyme 10:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks :-) But I'm fine for now with letting Eusebius pick up the slack ;-) –Tryphon 10:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


Hello Tryphon,

well, I got the Acknoledgement wrong. In fact data is from Hubble Legay archive, so the upper part of the acknoledgement doesn't apply here.

Could you please restore the image, the proper acknoledgement is:


All refereed publications based on data obtained from the HLA are requested to carry the following footnote:

Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, and obtained from the Hubble Legacy Archive, which is a collaboration between the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI/NASA), the Space Telescope European Coordinating Facility (ST-ECF/ESA) and the Canadian Astronomy Data Centre (CADC/NRC/CSA).

In addition, publications of research supported by an STScI grant must carry the following acknowledgment:

Support for Program number ____________ was provided by NASA through a grant from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Incorporated, under NASA contract NAS5-26555.

according to:

Best regards,

--Fabian RRRR (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

PS.: I rechecked every image I uploaded, whether it comes from MAST or HLA and I found five files, which are from MAST ( ). May I ask you to delete them?

  • All done, thanks for checking (I only deleted four files which you tagged as copyvio, let me know if there is one more). –Tryphon 08:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are two more:

Thanks again. --Fabian RRRR (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

✓  Done , thanks. –Tryphon 07:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Top 200 images that should use vector graphics by usage

As useful as this page is, I feel it might be putting resources on images that aren't really a problem.

So I got to thinking, would it be possible to have a bot, that flags images that should be vector that are in use by featured articles?

I know this would be very different then the script you have, and would require a bot, but I wanted to get your thoughts.


--Svgalbertian (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely missed your message. I don't know exactly if/how it would be technically possible to do what you're suggesting (I mean, it most likely is, I just don't see a simple and elegant way of doing it). I'm not sure if the list would be that long either; usually featured articles get more attention, and that includes the images too, so I would suspect that most images that should be vectorized have been converted already. –Tryphon 16:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote on my RfCU

I would like to thank you for taking the time to review my request for checkuser rights. I hope one more CU will make a difference, at least for the other CUs' workload! Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. And congratulations by the way, I hope you'll enjoy your new function! –Tryphon 16:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


Sukhmani_Hope_for_Life_Film_Poster_Gurdas_Maan.JPG Why has this picture been deleted? The image belongs to the people that created the page therefore doesn't infringe on any copyright as they own the license to produce and distribute the images associated with the film as and how they wish. Please can you clarify why this action has been taken. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 11:18, 2010 February 10 (UTC)

Who are those people that created the page? Is there more than one copyright holder? In any case, for publicly available media such as movie posters, permission has to be sent to OTRS, with some proof that the person sending the mail really is the copyright holder. This is the only way to avoid having this kind of content being uploaded illegally on Commons. Thanks. –Tryphon 14:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Caspian5Baku_Bay.png

I drew the map myself. You will not find that precise map anywhere else on this planet. I am a cartographist. I wonder why stating "own work" is an insufficient indication. That is what I have been putting in the hundreds of maps I have painted and uploaded in commons for the past years. What other indication is needed?Mohonu (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get the data on which you based this map? As you can see on COM:CB#Maps & satellite imagery, maps are only free if they're based on public domain data, so we need to know which dataset you used. Thanks. –Tryphon 03:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
All the maps I have uploaded in Commons are only plain silhouettes. The basic outline is based on the Blue Marble Image by NASA, in their words: (This spectacular "blue marble" image is the most detailed true-color image of the entire Earth to date. Using a collection of satellite-based observations, scientists and visualizers stitched together months of observations of the land surface, oceans, sea ice and clouds into a seamless, true-color mosaic of every square kilometer (.386 square mile) of our planet. These images are freely available to educators, scientists, museums, and the public) , which is, as it says, public domain. By sharply contrasting the photograph in order to leave two basic colors, it loses detail, like the rivers on the upper corner, which I draw by hand. The islands and highlight frames are also added later by hand. The manual redoing of certain features is important for its graphic value otherwise little islands, lakes and rivers are barely seen. I wonder how you ended up with the idea that the image was based on non-public domain data. Have you seen this exactly same map somewhere else? If so, please point it out to me for your insistence is, to say the least, intriguing. Mohonu (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Good, then just add based on Blue Marble data in the source field (a link to the specific image would be terrific, but if it's not possible or if you don't have it anymore, it's okay). I never said I saw this map somewhere else, or that I was convinced it was based on copyrighted data. It's just that we require precise sourcing for the content we host, and for maps, that means specifying the dataset used to create it. Thanks for providing that information. –Tryphon 17:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


Hello, i saw you easily renamed my file. Could you do check out these old historical maps? [1], [2] ,especialy see the description of these last three, [3] , [4] , [5]. Most of them were uploaded with wrong or not-helpful filenames. Thankou.Megistias (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I renamed the first two, but I'm not entirely certain the proposed names for the other two are much better (and I lack the knowledge to find better ones). So most likely another admin will take care of these. –Tryphon 20:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Great things are starting to be clearMegistias (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you happen to know when will the bot start for this? Map of ancient Epirus and environs.pngMegistias (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Which bot? And to do what? –Tryphon 02:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I meant Commons Delinker bot to replace the image across the wiki's ] Megistias (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
It should be done by now. –Tryphon 20:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


I gave my justification here. If you still disagree though, I'm willing to stop, but I ask you look at those files, their detail is so low on many you don't know what they are. What's the point of having them in the category if you can't make an SVG due to lack of info? Fry1989 (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've left a comment there. Please don't remove any more tags before we can reach a consensus. Thanks. –Tryphon 20:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Top 200 updates

Hi, could you please update Commons:Top 200 images that should use vector graphics by usage? Do you think it's possible to create some kind of bot that could do it automatically? --Beao 16:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

✓  Done . And yes, it would be possible to do it automatically, but CheckUsage is not always available. Besides, I'd like to see if/how it's possible to use the GlobalUsage extension instead. So for now, just don't hesitate to ping me whenever you need an update. –Tryphon 08:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay :) --Beao 16:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
It's time to update. --Beao 11:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
✓  Done . –Tryphon 17:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! --Beao 22:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Time to update again. --Beao 17:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
✓  Done . –Tryphon 17:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I started creating SVG images for the most used chemical structures (and ones I find interesting). Is there any way to change the old versions automatically? I don't have the energy to change it in 15 languages. Panoramix303 (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so. Normally, admins can use CommonsDelinker/commands to replace one image by another globally, but it won't replace any bitmap with an SVG files as some people find those changes controversial (not all SVGs are better than their bitmap counterparts). But you may want to ask on COM:VP, maybe there's another way I'm not aware of. –Tryphon 17:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC) PS: Sorry for the very late answer, but I hadn't seen your message until today. –Tryphon 17:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


As for CD-ROM2, the article name of Commons:Deletion requests/File:PC Engine CD-ROM2 Interface Unit.jpg is not correct. Please change the name to CD-ROM2 SYSTEM or delete it. --SACHEN (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


If this guy keeps it up, should we enable this? It did properly match his most recent edits. Lupo 17:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, he seems to have his IP renewed very frequently. Feel free to enable it if he pops up again — or I will if I spot him first... –Tryphon 17:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thunderstorms on the Brazilian Horizon

Dear Tryphon, Thanks for uploading the losslessly cropped version of Thunderstorms on the Brazilian Horizon. Uploading the new version seems to have removed the annotations, do you know of any way of getting them back? Originalwana (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Here they are again. See Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator#Limitations. Since a 5px difference on such a big file doesn't make any real difference in rectangle placement, I've not recalculated the rectangle coordinates. Lupo 22:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry about that, I hadn't noticed. Thanks Lupo for fixing it, I'll watch out for this in the future. –Tryphon 08:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


I have added sources for my Bougainville map. Can you remove the no source template now please. File:Bougainville_location_and_detail_1945.jpg. SpoolWhippets (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's better, thanks. But what I was looking for is a blank map that you used for the coast lines and country shapes and such. The relevant guideline is COM:CB#Maps & satellite imagery. –Tryphon 07:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I scanned maps from the cited books, then drew what you can see in its entirety, using the scans as a guide. All I have shown is widely known land outlines, with borders and contemporary names gleaned from the cited books. Now can you please remove the no source template. If I have still not cited sources in exactly the right way, would you mind just rearranging it to suit your standards. I will then use that as a guide when doing other maps. Thank you.SpoolWhippets (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid drawing a map based on a scan of a copyrighted book is a copyright violation, no matter how you credit the source. Maybe you could recreate the map using OpenStreetMap data, and license the result under {{cc-by-sa}}? –Tryphon 08:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your interpretation. It seems to me to be restrictive and discouraging to anyone wanting to create maps. I am not a copyright expert, so to make my life simpler so I can get on with my work, I'm not going to upload any more maps here.SpoolWhippets (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm really sorry you're taking it like this. I didn't mean to upset you, and I'm not accusing you of infringing copyrights on purpose. But it's not just policy or my interpretation, it's the law: making a map based on copyrighted content is a copyright violation. I know it sucks, and I completely understand your frustration, but I hope you will eventually change your mind and contribute more maps. For pointers about free resources, see Commons:Free media resources/Map. All the best, –Tryphon 13:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I understand you are trying to be helpful and that copyright needs to be protected. No hard feelings. I need to squeeze every bit of productivity I can out of my spare time and I get a bit savage when administrative stuff gets in the way of just getting things done. I am a newcomer and what seems simple and straightforward to Wikipedians is sometimes anything but that. SpoolWhippets (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


Pay attention?!?
The link on the Flickr page leads to "Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic".
Granted, it's my first uploaded image, but I thought I covered it all. What did I miss; and if I missed nothing, would you please restore it? Thank you.Better than Hustler (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know that my recently uploaded files, File:Grand Cypress Two.jpg, File:Infrared photograph of American flag.jpg, and File:Infrared photograpg of maples.jpg, were approved of.Better than Hustler (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, it has nothing to do with the flickr license, but specific laws in the source country (in this case, the U.S.) regarding something called freedom of panorama. This link, included in the deletion log, explains it. In short, a picture of a sculpture is a derivative work, which means that part of the copyright on the picture belongs to the artist who made the sculpture; in some country, it is allowed to release the picture anyway if the sculpture is permanently located on a public location, thanks to the freedom of panorama, but it is not the case in the U.S.
The other pictures you uploaded are fine, though, so don't be discouraged! –Tryphon 08:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I will certainly take it under advisement. Thanks for the explaination, and kind words.  :)  Better than Hustler (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Igerman i-DESIGN 01.jpg

Dear Tryphon I ,Vadim Gousmanov am an author of this image: for article "Игерман": I allow to use this file for Wikipedia.

It looks like a corporate image, whose copyright older is a company rather than an individual. In these cases, it is best to send an email from an official address to OTRS giving details about the license. About what you said above, do you realize that by publishing images here, you don't only release them for use on Wikipedia, but anywhere, by anyone and for any purpose (including commercial use and derivative works)? –Tryphon 10:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Info eco log.gif

FYI, I restored this file, which I had tagged with {{PD-textlogo}}, as I'm pretty sure it doesn't pass the threshold of originality, even under the most restrictive legislations. Feel free to open a DR if you disagree. –Tryphon 17:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Salut Tryphon (je suis francophone moi aussi je te rappelle ;),
Voui, on est bien d'accord, c'est bien du domaine public. Ma souris a ripé en supprimant l'image (ça part vite ces machins-là...) : il s'agit simplement d'un spammeur sur Wikipédia dont je supprimais les importations devenues inutiles. Désolé du dérangement.--Bapti 18:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah je vois, pas de problème alors dans ce cas. –Tryphon 19:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


Sorry, but why did you delete this picture? I got author's permission for uploading it to wikipedia. What was the reason for deleting it? — Soshial (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case, please ask the author to send it to OTRS (refer to this email template to see what is needed). But if the permission you had was for uploading it to Wikipedia, you should know that it is not sufficient; we only accept images which can be used and modified by anyone (see COM:L for details). –Tryphon 22:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


Looks like I missed responding to the deletion request on this. It looks to me like you've made a mistake in deleting the image, as everything at (where the image is sourced, which is my site) is CC3.0 licensed. I've uploaded it again. for further discussion please. MikeGogulski (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please send an email to OTRS so that they can record that you are the owner and copyright holder of this website? Thanks. –Tryphon 21:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Please ignore that, I just noticed the note at the bottom of your website (which was also mentioned in the DR, I don't know where my mind was). Sorry for the inconvenience. –Tryphon 19:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Probe Deletion Consideration

Hi, appreciate your speedy work. All images with tags of and, have been released for free use through wikipedia by their respective holders Jean-Luc Ernst and Dlynn Waldron. Await response within a reasonable timeframe before deletion. Thank you. --Yu8es (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

How could they, they're not the copyright holders. Owning the media doesn't mean owning the rights. Anyway, if you believe you have obtained proper permission for these images, please have the copyright holders send it to OTRS. –Tryphon 19:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

File:CAT Billboard Flickr.jpg

Tryphon, it is unclear to me why this file was deleted given that it is under Creative Commons licensing. Please explain the rationale for the deletion. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it's a derivative work (a picture of a copyrighted object). In order to publish such a picture under a free license, one needs two authorizations: one from the photographer (we have this, it's the cc-by license on flickr) and the other one from the copyright holder of the advertisement (this one we don't have). –Tryphon 20:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Who would be the copyright holder of the advertisement and how would I possibly obtain it? Thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I've no idea, but judging by the content of the add, would probably be a good place to start investigating. If you can find someone with the authority of licensing the ad, have them send an email (see this template) to OTRS so that we can keep a record of the permission. Thanks, and good luck. –Tryphon 22:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

SVG validation

I just noticed you did the validation on my last uploaded svg files (like File:Euclid_Octahedron_1.svg). I'm new both on commons and on using Inkscape... so I'm now in a trouble. I'm not able to find the correct tips to correct my files... can you kindly tell me where should I search? --Aldoaldoz (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well sometimes it's very easy to fix, sometimes it's not; but in any case, if the image displays properly, you don't need to worry too much about it, and maybe someone else will fix it for you (that's what the {{invalidSVG}} template is for).
Anyway, I had a look at File:Euclid_Octahedron_1.svg, and the first thing I did is to save it as plain SVG (in Inkscape, select Save As..., and in the drop-down list at the bottom of the window, choose Plain SVG); then I checked the file in and it complained about numerical IDs. So I opened the SVG in a text editor (vim, but use whichever program you like best) and manually replaced IDs such as id="5" with id="path5". And then it passed validation so I uploaded the new version. Hope this helps; don't hesitate to ask if you need anything else. –Tryphon 20:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much... I just corrected the two other octahedron files! Now I must work on the other files of mine...
A question more: once I upload the correct files, may I add the "validsvg" template myself? --Aldoaldoz (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for taking the time to fix it. And yes of course, feel free to add {{validSVG}} as soon as it validates. –Tryphon 09:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi again... I see from your user page you also use Inkscape... so I ask you, just for curiosity, do you also have such ID problems? In case, has this problem been reported to the guys of inkscape? --Aldoaldoz (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually no, I don't have this problem. For paths, Inkscape usually generates IDs of the form path2816 (you can change it manually by right-clicking on the path and selecting Object Properties. I'm using Inkscape 0.47 (on Linux, if it makes any difference). If you systematically get numerical IDs (try it on a new document, just create one path and check its ID), then maybe you need to upgrade, or if you already have the latest version, report it as a bug (although it would really be strange if it affected you and not me). –Tryphon 14:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I use Inkscape 0.47 too... but may be I found the reason for this odd behavior! Due to the geometrical drawings I'm producing, I first work on Autocad, export to wmf and then import in Inkscape. And I'm having problems just with the imported objects... --Aldoaldoz (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
That must be it then. I strongly encourage you to report this bug if you get a chance; it's most likely trivial to fix, and I'm sure they'll appreciate the feedback upstream. –Tryphon 19:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Done! --Aldoaldoz (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This one gets to me

I am sure you realise it by Commons will miss you and I certainly will. I really do hope to see you around again - you have done some good work here. --Herby talk thyme 08:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

+1 --AFBorchert (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
+1 ...and rather strongly at that. Finn Rindahl (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
+1 ... I can do nothing else but agree. Kameraad Pjotr 21:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
As things settle - seems to be happening - it would be good if you felt able to return sometime :) Regards --Herby talk thyme 08:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all for your kind words and your support. I was really disappointed by how this whole issue has been dealt with. Disappointed by Jimbo Wales' lack of honesty, his complete disregard for our policies and his lack of trust and respect for the admins (and the community in general) who abide those rules and believe in making decisions based on consensus; but also by the reactions of some admins who promptly put Jimbo's plan into motion, without waiting for a formal statement from the Board or initiating a discussion among us on how to proceed. This goes against everything that allows this community to function, and that allows us to do our job in a consistent way.
So yes, thing have settled a little bit, some damage has been repaired, but not everything is forgotten or forgiven. I will continue contributing to this project, because it seems we are back in control of our policies and the current status of our "explicit content" policy is much less repressive as what Jimbo was trying to implement. But I will do so as a regular user for now, as I don't feel like using the admin tools just yet (I notice my bit was not removed, but I'll ask a 'crat to do it).
So things didn't turn out to be as catastrophic as they may have been, but this episode still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. –Tryphon 15:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Great to see you back --Justass (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Big ditto :) --Herby talk thyme 16:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Even Bigger ditto :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)'crats can't remove the bit. I'm not going to tell you how it can be removed though - keep it at least for a few days
Thanks :) Right, I remember now there was a proposal to enable 'crats to also remove the bit, but I guess it didn't go through. I'll ask a steward then (that's right, I figured it out on my own :) )Tryphon 18:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
You can't - I just blocked your Meta useraccount... :P No seriously, do what you want - and even if I tturned out to be wrong about Kameraad Pjotr, I'm still convinced you would get the tools back whenever you feel ready to start using them again. Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
:) I've just place the request on Meta. I think it'll be good for me to take some distance from the administrative stuff for a while, but I'll keep your advice in mind and won't hesitate to request it back if/when I feel I could use it again. BTW, you're one to talk... when are you getting your admin bit back, mmh? –Tryphon 18:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I resigned "under a cloud of controversial circumstances", and that controversy has still not been resolved. Basically the controversy is between me and myself; while part of me loves this place and most of the people contributing here, another part is seriously fed up with it - in particular with users showing up here to keep on trolling at a new arena after having being banned on their homeprojects. This ambivalence has grown stronger (in both directions) during this recent mess. Anyway, I have agreed with myself to only reconsider the tools some time after the summer - I'll be travelling a lot with bad internet-connections anyway, so I wouldn't be of much use until then.Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)PS, but ask someone who can to put you on autopatrol. I just "patrolled" your last edit to your own talk.
✓  Done . That setting should really be the minimum when someone gives up the admin bit voluntarily. Lupo 19:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Lupo, I appreciate it! –Tryphon 19:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I see what you mean; it is an unpleasant situation indeed. And I don't know if you'll be traveling for business or pleasure, but I wish you a lot of fun either way! (I envy you, it's been a while since I had time to travel...) –Tryphon 19:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC) That's right, I forgot about that; thanks for the reminder, you take such good care of me :)
Not so much travelling as being away from home actually. I'll probably be spending most of the summer trying to fix the cabin in the woods right seen here, and then I'll be needing other tools than Special:delete - what I could have used is some of Adam Cuerdens skill in restoring old stuff.Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Whoa, looks like a nice project! You'll need a Special:Hammer and Special:Paintbrush for that :) –Tryphon 07:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Add one welcome back - you did good work. --GRuban (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


I think this was what I was intending - wrong user and not thinking :) Regards --Herby talk thyme 15:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Herby, remember that you are addressing a mere mortal here - we mortals only get "Unable to proceed.You do not have permission to do that, for the following reason: Your account does not have permission to assign user rights." following such links... Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
And whose fault is that... I was assigning Killiondude autopatrol/rollback. To me an admin who leaves voluntarily and is still active deserves that until they make the "right" decision :) --Herby talk thyme 17:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes, and I have to fight a tremendous force of habit now; I can't tell you how many times I've clicked on red links to see deleted revisions, or tried viewing deleted contributions on RfAs. Feels funny being a "mere mortal" again :) –Tryphon 18:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh good - I'm glad it is annoying you...:) --Herby talk thyme 21:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ottava Rima

Hi. You have participated in the long debate about Ottava Rima. You may want to vote in the final poll about his block. I might have summarized your expressed opinion already, if so please check that it is correct! Only one vote (Symbol support vote.svg 


, Symbol oppose vote.svg 


or Symbol neutral vote.svg 


), with a block length in case of support. Nothing more in this subsection! Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


Why the warning when File:Madonna_milan2009.jpg was the copyvio? Mine was a derivative work. -- Legolas from Mirkwood 08:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Technically, it was a copyright violation too, but I didn't mean to say it was your fault. I considered removing the warning from your talk page (it's been added automatically by a script), but on the other hand I think it's important to know what's happening. –Tryphon 07:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


Nice umbrella in your sig :D --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) –Tryphon 07:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Two image

Sorry, but the sermon of Szakovics is from 1920's. Szakovics dead in 1930. Doncsecz (talk) 09:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The Novine is a old newspaper in the archives of Regional Library Murska Sobota. Another writers, newspapers, books and others apply his image. The Novine is free licence. Doncsecz (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

For the first one, okay, it seems fine. But you should not credit yourself as the author.
Regarding the Novine, it's not that simple. you have to make sure the authors of the texts died more than 70 years ago, same thing for the picture. And again, you're not the author, and you're not the copyright holder. I will tag it as {{no source since}} for now, to give you a chance to provide the correct information. Thanks. –Tryphon 07:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


hi. you wrong to delete this picture because you hurry. if you wanted me, I explaind you. please see first topic of my talk page. if you have doubt yet, please ask of User:Martin H.Mohammmad-ka (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it, but I still think it was a copyright violation. It seems to me that while the text of this website it GFDL, they do not own copyright on all the images. In particular, how do they know that the author of this image agreed to a GFDL license, and not even know who he/she is? Besides, the GFDL requires attribution, so saying the author is unknown is a violation of the license. But you can request undeletion on COM:UNDEL, and I'd be happy to have a regular deletion request instead. –Tryphon 07:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Crab Nebula.jpg

Cette image que tu as importée a été nominée par moi pour être une "image remarquable", tu peux aller voter en cliquant ici

Cody escadron delta (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Merci pour l'info! –Tryphon 07:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

My name

Please do not attach my name to any media page that I did not upload. You may mention me on talk pages where relevant. Thank you for your recent edit.[6] Jehochman (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Noted. –Tryphon 21:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

File:9-11 Memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum - Alrewas.jpg

Your interpretation is wrong if you read the text of the copyright image, furthermore, reading your talk page clearly indicates you are a pernickety twat with nothing better to do.

Delete it if you wish, people like you make Wikipedia a pain to use. Gogster (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've turned it into a DR. We can discuss how big a twat I am there. –Tryphon 13:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
It will be a pleasure to discuss your twat status Gogster (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


This is my own work. What's my abuse? Why you deleted my file?--Olexa Yur (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It was a picture of a poster; it's called a derivative work, and you would need permission from the copyright holder of the poster in order to release this picture under a free license. Sorry. –Tryphon 14:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
If you delete files, think, please, that: 1) Not everywhere in the world Internet access speed is the same as in France. 2) Not all Wikipedia members speak English as you.Olexa Yur (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
1) I know, and I'm not in France; 2) True, but English is usually the best guess (you don't indicate which language(s) you speak on your user page); we can also communicate in French or German, or if none of these are better, you can find users by language in Category:Users by language.
I'm not sure what it has to do with the deletion though. Are you saying you didn't have time to react to the deletion? And that the reason was not clear to you? –Tryphon 14:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


Your tag asked me to indicate PD-own if it was my map. I complied to this request of the tag. It is based on various military maps which are not copyrighted, but is not a copy of these maps as it is a hydrological map.Afil (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, what I said is "if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so." You did base your map on someone else's work, but did not provide any information about it. Please provide this source information, and do not remove the {{no source since}} tag yourself; an administrator will do it if the source information provided is satisfying. Thanks. –Tryphon 22:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Je vois que vous ne comprenez pas l'anglais. J'ai dessine la carte en prenant les informations d'une grande variete de sources. Il ne s'agit donc pas d'une copie mais d'une oeuvre originale. C'est ce que j'ai affirme. Vous dites que "si l'oeuvre est basee sur une autre oeuvre...." ce qui n'est pas le cas. Elle n'est basee ni sur une carte sur un site ni sur un livre ayant un ISBN. Si vous contestez cela c'est a vous de prouver que la carte n'est pas originale. Du moment que ce n'est pas une copie, il est evident que indiquer une source est impossible. Afil (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand English just fine. You said yourself, just above, "it is based on various military maps", and my message said "if it is based on someone else's work" you should provide detailed source. I'm not saying it's a copy, I'm saying (and you're saying it too, in a way) that it's a derivative work. No matter how much you changed or transformed it, as long as it's based on someone else's work you need to provide the source and show why that source is in the public domain. –Tryphon 22:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Gray area

Reginald Gray is 80 years old and therefore has some excuse for having difficulties with the arcane rules of the Wikimedia projects. But now you have even got me confused!

Re {{no permission since}} applied to File:John BeckettDCP 2420.JPG and File:Le Buveur PICT0467.JPG. These two images are photographs taken by Reginald Gray of paintings by Reginald Gray and they were uploaded by user:Reginald gray. What more evidence can you possibly need? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the thing is, anyone could have created an account named Reginald gray and upload pictures of his work. And since, according to his website, his work is "© Reginald Gray - All Rights Reserved", we need to verify that the artist did agree to release those images in the public domain (which means anyone can do whatever they want with them, including selling them or creating new artworks based on them, without even giving him credit for it). The best way to do it is sending an email to OTRS from some official address, or putting a statement on the website about the copyright status of those images. Thanks. –Tryphon 06:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Various responses:

RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

One mail stating that User:Reginald gray is authorized to upload artwork by Reginald Gray should be enough. I am assuming good faith; I'm not saying that you or Reginald gray are lying. But we have to be careful, it's so easy for someone to snap a picture of someone else's artwork and upload it here, and I don't think Reginald Gray would appreciate us hosting his work and tell everyone it's free without even checking if he agreed; this procedure that you find so annoying is actually in his own interest. –Tryphon 12:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Author vs. copyright holder

In Hungary, the employer owns the copyright if the author created the image as part of his job and no contract says otherwise. Thus, when a museum claims copyright, it does not make much sense to request the name of the person who clicked the machine (which is often unknown anyway - copyright records from the socialist era are a mess). --Tgr (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but the museum was not the photographer's employer. So the question remains, who's the copyright holder? If no author can be identified, {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} would apply, but unfortunately the image is not old enough. Anyway, we need more information about where this image originally comes from in order to evaluate its copyright status, hence the {{nsd}}. –Tryphon 11:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Projet de template PD-France

Commons:Bistro#Projet_de_template_PD-France Pour info. --Eusebius (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Genesis 2

Hi Tryphone,

I just had a message from you regarding missing copyright authentication. I believe all necessary evidence is indeed given in the file. Please, do let me know what to do to straighten this matter out. Thanks, DrGML --DrGML (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Please have the artist send a statement to OTRS stating that they authorize your account to upload those files under the specified free license. See COM:ET for an example of what is required. Thanks. –Tryphon 19:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This DR

Dear Admin Tryphon,

Could you offer a brief comment on this DR? Is the image copyrightable or not. Please feel free to vote to keep or delete either way as WikiCommons is an open society. I just realized...that maybe the situation with copyright is more complex that I previously thought. So, I am soliciting you opinion here in this DR. I am a bit uncertain now. That is all. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Permission issue regarding File:Retro beachwear 2010.jpg

Hi Tryphon, I saw your message. I think there is a misunderstanding. My first point is that this picture did not need the permission of the C&A company, as this was something that was "in the public space", and protected by the clause in the Dutch "Auteurswet" that I mentioned. But I wanted to make sure that we wouldn't get into trouble, so I wrote to C&A asking whether they shared my view that I did not need their permission, but, if they did not share my view, whether they would give me permission.

This is the e-mail sequence, I trust Google Translate will be able to explain the gist of it.;)

My first mail, through a form on their website:

message: Ik heb een rare vraag.;) Als medewerker aan de Nederlandse Wikipedia stuitte ik op uw poster in een bushokje van een dame in een badpak dat geënt is op modellen uit de jaren \\\'70. Ik zou een foto daarvan graag verwerken in het Wikipedia-artikel over Retro (zie Ik denk dat ik voor het opnemen van zo\\\'n foto formeel gesproken uw toestemming niet behoef: ik beschouw het als vallend onder \\\"lithografieën, graveer- en andere plaatwerken\\\" als bedoeld in art. 10 lid 1 sub 6 Auteurswet, dat bedoeld is om -in elk geval voor de duur dat die advertentieruimte door u gehuurd is- permanent in een openbare plaats te worden geplaatst (art. 18 Auteurswet), en dat wordt openbaarmaking van een afbeelding van dat werk niet als een inbreuk beschouwd (art. 18 Auteurswet).

Maar we proberen bij Wikipedia zorgvuldig om te gaan met auteursrechten, dus het lijkt me correct u te vragen of u deze zienswijze deelt, en zo niet, u om toestemming te verzoeken.

Ik zou mij ook kunnen voorstellen dat u geen bezwaar hebt tegen een afbeelding van uw product op een veelgelezen medium als Wikipedia.;)

Mocht u de foto in kwestie willen zien, dan stuur ik u hem uiteraard graag toe.

Met vriendelijke groet, Martin van Dalen

A lady in the PR department asked me to send the photo:


I then sent her the photo:

Geachte mevrouw [name withheld],

Bijgaand de bedoelde foto.

Met vriendelijke groet, Martin van Dalen

And she gave me permission:


I hope this answers your questions.

I don't think the OTRS-procedure does apply here, as this is for ensuring the absence of legal problems when the picture has been made by someone not the uploader. But I made this picture myself (it was in a bus stop just around the corner).

If I should copy this discussion to another page, could you please tell me where?

Best regards, MartinD (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, please do not post emails publicly without permission (both for copyright and privacy concerns). Regarding the picture, I believe advertisements like this one are not covered by FOP, because they're not permanently located in a public place. As for requesting permission, it should be handled by OTRS. But I sincerely doubt that this permission will be sufficient; the person you've been in contact with probably doesn't have the authority to license this work, and the permission seems to be limited to Wikipedia and doesn't state a free license explicitly. So feel free to convert the {{no permission since}} to a DR if you think it's worth discussing it, but in my opinion you should simply ask C&A to contact OTRS directly. –Tryphon 19:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, I think you are a bit over-cautious now.;) Do I understand correctly that I should put a different template on the page, to change it into a deletion request, and then explain why I think it should not be deleted? Which template would that be? I am hesitant to bother C&A again. This is really just about a billboard that has appeared widely during this campaign, there must have been hundreds of them across the Netherlands! Best regards, MartinD (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC) PS: About not publishing emails: quite so, and that's why I blanked out the lady's name. As you will have noticed.
There's a Nominate for deletion link in the toolbox on the left of the image, if you want to make a DR. I understand that you do not want to bother C&A again, but if you simply forward the mails you already have to OTRS, I know they will tell you it's not good enough. As for being widespread and publicly visible during the campaign, that doesn't mean it's free at all. That's even why copyrights exist in the first place: to protect works that are accessible to a wide audience (think about music on the radio, movies on TV, etc.); there would be no point in protecting something that isn't available in the first place. –Tryphon 07:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tryphon, thank you for your prompt reply. I'll think it over; while I see your point, I'm still thinking about the meaning of the section of the Dutch law that I mentioned. At first sight, it would mean that we would have to screen a picture of a Dutch street scene on anything that might be copyrighted. (Trademarks, company logos, advertising and so on.) I would think that the Dutch law on this point -this section explicitly being an exception on the normal rule of "rights of intellectual property should be respected" would allow use of this picture, without permission of -in this case- C&A even being relevant. Although I've been trained as a lawyer, this was many years ago (I somehow ended up in finance...). I have no intention of being a nuisance, but I just think my point of view is correct. Could we do it this way that we delete this file for the time being, that I read up on Dutch law, and that I come back when I think I have the complete picture, if possible with jurisprudence and so on? Would you be the correct person to take up this matter, or is there some central "authority"? Best regards, MartinD (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


Hey faggot, why this file has been appointed to speedy deletion? The license is free for CC and I quoted the author! Mateus95860 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Volkswagen logo.svg

Regarding my messing up the file: thank you for cleaning up after me, I had missed that it was supposed to go on the talk page. I do have a question though, if it's supposed to be done by a bot then shouldn't the instructions be updated to say that? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the very late answer. I guess the instructions could be updated, although most of the time the template is added automatically when admins close DRs (through javascript). But feel free to change it, if you want. –Tryphon 07:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


I'm sorry, if I can do nothing about my pictures you've labelled as copyright violation... so what about these products: are these also called copyright violation? If so, you must labelled them too..Taman Renyah (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some of these are copyright violations too. The only acceptable case is when the graphics on the packaging are too simple for copyright protection (see Template:PD-textlogo) or when it's not the main focus of the picture (see de minimis). –Tryphon 07:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What that f u c k you f a g g o t?

You b a s t a r d, I h a t e you, the images were there, quiet, and appears you and broke everything. I hope you will die.

Now, f u c k your crazy r e t a r d e d, will pay a blow job in Compton, I saw you mother giving your a s s a nigga in a jail, f u c k! Go to h e l l, GO TO H E L L, GO TO H E L L, devil is waiting for you. YOU F A G G O T! >:(

Info - user blocked - only a week for now - say if you think indef is appropriate. Does not seem to understand or want to understand Commons. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Herby. I think one week is fine; let's see how it goes after that block. –Tryphon 07:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi, Tryphon do you have an idea about the fault? It seems this is a bug from the Mediawiki thumbnail generator, the captions are none correctly scaled down for the little thumbs. Can you investigate the difference between the versions from 9 Mar. 2007 and 10 Oct. 2007? There was introduced the lack. Thanks--Ras67 (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's really a bug. I think the font renderer simply has a minimum size value set at (let's say) two, and will display anything smaller at precisely this size (this would normally make sense, as anything smaller wouldn't be legible at all). But I don't know why the behavior has changed, or if there's a way to circumvent this limitation. –Tryphon 14:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I've found a solution :-) It was strange that Inkscape shows the text in Arial and Mediawiki and Opera render it in Times. Perhaps a conflict with a global adjustment? I changed with Opera in the source text all Times loci to Arial and it rocks... Can you say me, how you save the smaller file (2,59 MB) as "Plain SVG"? My first file (3,19 MB) was saved as "Normales SVG", not "Inkscape-SVG", so i don't know, what you did. Regards--Ras67 (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Nicely done! And to your question, I don't know. I really just opened the file, and saved it as Plain SVG (which should be the same as Normales SVG). Perhaps you're using a different version of Inkscape; I'm using 0.47. –Tryphon 06:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Studio Harcourt Paris


La Librairie du Congrès n'a pris aucune photo et se contente de les préserver. La situation n'est donc pas comparable. Ici, nous avons affaire à un studio mondialement connu, dont nombre de personnes souhaitent voir leurs photos, non pas pour les sujets qu'elles représentent (bien qu'ils soient également importants), mais en tant que photos du studio Harcourt. Dans la même veine, j'espère qu'un jour nous aurons des catégories "Photos prises par tel ou tel photographe important" (Robert Capa, Henri Cartier-Bresson...) Je ne pense donc pas que ce soit une bonne idée de cacher cette catégorie, qui risque d'intéresser pas mal de monde (ce qui est vérifiable à la lecture d'articles tel que celui-ci). Okki (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Je comprends bien. J'avais d'abord pensé créer une catégorie du genre Category:Images from Studio Harcourt pour regrouper toutes les images provenant de ce studio, et garder Category:Studio Harcourt Paris pour regrouper les images concernant le studio mais qui n'en proviennent pas forcément (et certaines images pourraient se trouver dans les deux catégories, mais il me semble qu'il y a une distinction important à faire entre le sujet et la source qui n'est pas du tout visible pour l'instant). Seulement je me suis aperçu que toutes les images dans Category:Studio Harcourt Paris se seraient également retrouvées dans Category:Images from Studio Harcourt, et pour éviter une catégorisation complétement redondante, j'ai simplement appliqué à Category:Studio Harcourt Paris.
Mais je ne suis pas sûr de bien comprendre ton argument à propos des personnes qui chercheraient des photos du Studio Harcourt. Avec les catégories cachées, justement, c'est tout à fait possible. Essaie faire une recherche sur category: LOC images; le premier résultat, c'est Category:Images from the Library of Congress. De même, la catégorie est visible dans Category:Library of Congress. Donc on ne cache pas l'accès à cette catégorie, on évite simplement que les bots considèrent une image classée si elle est dans une catégorie source, et on fait une distinction claire entre le sujet de la photo et sa provenance. –Tryphon 12:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

re: File source is not properly indicated: File:Moscow_metro_map_geo.svg

Please explain why you would consider the initial information filled in the template is insufficient. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You state that it is derived from File:Map_Kakhovskaya.png and others (GFDL / cc-by-sa-3.0) by user:NordNordWest, so you need to provide a link to the others. Thanks. –Tryphon 08:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Other CC files may help, but File:Map_Kakhovskaya.png is enough for that. So I edited that information already. Please remove that lacking source template now.-- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you used other cc-by-sa files, even a little, you need to cite them as source. It shouldn't be any problem doing so, I don't understand why you prefer not mentioning them. –Tryphon 08:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Because they're technically the same with insignificate variation. Anyway I added that another file so I remove that tag now. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks. –Tryphon 08:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of JohnnyTwoShoes files.

The photos you deleted were from a project that I am working on for JohnnyTwoShoes. I am not the webmaster of JohnnyTwoShoes, but I have the permission of the webmaster to create a JohnnyTwoShoes Wikipedia page using any images from JohnnyTwoShoes.

I will try my best at categorizing the images. I new to the whole Wiki system. If something is wrong, just notify me and I'll try my best to modify it to Wiki standards.

Thank you. StealthEnigma (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please have the copyright holder send permission to OTRS. Media found publicly on the web needs to go through OTRS to make sure that the copyright holder agrees to the terms of a free license, and can choose which license exactly they want to use. Thanks. –Tryphon 12:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Logo winterswijk.svg

Hello Tryphon. If there is any licensing issue with one of my images, or if you would like me to re-license my work, please leave me a note ...Its the first thing a read on your userpage. Funny..! Why dont you leave an note yourself? You name it "criteria for speedy deletion" on a deletionrequest. Well... Just for the record, logo's from Dutch governments are free of copyright, like the coat of arms do. There are several commercial websites like by example: (vlaggen means flags) wich are selling the logo's for profit on flags. In this case it doesnt matter, the file can be deleted anyway, becausse its a failure (SVG is still very new to me). But for the future, if you have a licensing issue with an image just leave others a note too, like you wanted it self. Regards, Arch (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I did leave you a note. And this isn't the municipality's coat of arms, it's just a logo (not covered by {{PD-NL-gemeentewapen}}). The big difference between logos and coats of arms is that the latter are usually described by law, and each representation can be quite different (for example, it could be two yellow lions facing left, but how to draw the lions is left up to the artist). This logo is an exact replica of [7], and as such is a derivative work. But if you feel I'm wrong, you can always turn the speedy deletion into a DR. –Tryphon 10:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Dont understand me wrong, the file may be deleted, it doesnt matter to me, the only thing I did try to explain, on the Winterswijk logo there's no copyright. I understand your explaination, and in the letter it indeed a derivative work indeed, but not everything is protected by law ;-) Its always the same situation in the Netherlands when I contacted them before. Anyway, its ok. TNX for explaination about note's, I understand now. Have a nice day, regards Arch (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


File talk:Tischkante.jpg. regads. --Jutta234 (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: File:Grass_mud_horse.jpg

Would you please give me a detailed reason why this image meets the criteria for speedy deletion? Thanks.--Wcam (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The explanation is at COM:DW#I know that I can't upload photos of copyrighted art (like paintings and statues), but what about toys? Toys are not art!. Your image is picturing a copyrighted work, which makes it a derivative work. –Tryphon 12:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Image:Friends.JPG

Why have you tagged this for deletion? - it is a picture I have taken and I am the copyright owner and I have given it a free licence - explanation please.... Brookie (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

See above. –Tryphon 12:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Top 200 progress?

Hi, Commons:Top 200 images that should use vector graphics by usage should be updated. How is the bot you talked about going? A Commons:Top 200 images that should use vector graphics by usage page is really needed. --Beao 15:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, since I discovered the existence of glamorous, I've kind of put this project aside. Glamorous generates the list of most used images dynamically, so it's always up-to-date. I had considered generating the Top 200 pages anyway, based on its XML output, but unfortunately the XML it produces for large categories cannot be parsed. If for some reason you still find the Top 200 pages useful, let me know; but I think this tool pretty much deprecates them. –Tryphon 08:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

BenQ T51

Sorry but not is a simply telephone? Scusa ma non è un semplice telefono? --Corvettec6r (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. It's a cell phone will Hello Kitty graphics on it. Since these decorations have nothing to do with the functionality of the phone, they do not fall under the exception for utilitarian objects; they're protected just like any other graphical work. Hence the image is a derivative work and is not free. –Tryphon 10:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Map of Ethnic Groups in Afghanistan, by district.svg

I have added my reasons on why that map should be deleted. The map cannot be modified, as we do not have enough information on the demographics of each district. The creator of the map claims that he has used However, AIMS has only covered 24 of the 34 Provinces. Among those 24 Provinces that are covered, several of the districts do not even have a district profile. And among those that do have a district profile, several of them do not have any information on the ethno-demography of the district. For example, Paktia Province has 13 districts. Eventhough they do have a district profile under Pakita Province, the district is not even part of the province any more. In other words, they have only covered 23 of the 34 provinces only. While Balkh Province has 15 districts, AIMS has a district profile for only 3 of them. I hope it is convincing enough. Thank you. (Ketabtoon (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC))

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hello, Tryphon/Archive!
Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:


2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Azua_Prov.svg

Bonjour. Comme indiqué lors du chargement du fichier, ceci est un travail de collecte personnel. Les informations cartographiques proviennent de l'Office national de statistiques qui sont de caractère public («Las informaciones publicadas en el portal de la ONE son de carácter público», voir ici). Les données toponymiques proviennent de multiples sources (en particulier des déplacements personnels) et leur conformation/vérification provient de la Junta central electoral [8]. Espérant avoir répondu à tes attentes. Starus (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Parfait! Pourrais-tu rajouter ces information dans le champ Source, en plus de {{own}}? Et par la même occasion, tu pourras enlever le tag {{no source since}}. Merci pour ces précisions, et bonne continuation. –Tryphon 08:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Salut. Je comprends pas ton jeu, tu me dis parfait et tu fais ça. La carte du pays entier a été dessinée par mes soins d'après des dizaines de cartes générales et locales incluant les cadastres (depuis 8 ans). Rien de mon travail n'est sous copyright. Que cherches-tu ? Starus (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Désolé pour la réponse tardive, je n'avais pas accès un internet. Je suis désolé si cela semble incohérent, mais le problème initial était l'absence de source, ce que tu as résolu; mais en regardant les licences des sources que tu as fournies, je me suis aperçu que l'une d'elles n'était pas libre. Peut-être que tu pourrais préciser ce que tu as pris de chaque source (comme c'est fait sur File:Map of Bangladesh-en.svg par exemple)? Je m'excuse de rendre tout ça compliqué, mais on a tellement de cartes qui sont des copies conformes de documents non-libres, c'est assez désespérant. Merci de ta patience. –Tryphon 10:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Cache issue?

Every time I view JohnnyTwoShoes.png on Wikipedia (not the Commons), it shows the permission missing template with the incorrect license. Everything on that image has been updated, including the OTRS and new lincense. Why is it showing up then as no permission on Wikipedia? Is it the cache of the page? And if so, can you clear it? StealthEnigma (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Displays just fine for me; did you clear your browser's cache? –Tryphon 10:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I Uploaded the Same Image Twice - now i can't use either?

I uploaded the masthead logo for the Santa Monica College Corsair newspaper two times trying to make a more specific file name, and now neither is being used. why can't i delete one of the duplicates? why is neither image currently displayed? why is there no "oops, nevermind" button? thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Staplejj33 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 2010 July 20 (UTC)
Actually, this image is not free; it is protected by copyrights, and you are not the copyright holder. If you obtained permission from the copyright holder to release it under a free license, please have them send an email to OTRS, and the image will be restored. Thanks. –Tryphon 11:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Tryphon/Top 200 low quality chemical diagrams

Hi Tryphon. Could you update this list (including the subcategory “expired”)? Thanks. --Leyo 13:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

✓  Done . –Tryphon 14:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Merci. Would it be a good idea to prevent CommonsDelinker from editing the page (i.e. removing deleted files)? --Leyo 14:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. Why do you need to see the dead links? –Tryphon 14:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not really need them. OK, let's keep it like it is. :-) --Leyo 14:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine either way. If you find a way to prevent CommonsDelinker from editing a page, just go ahead and do it. I just have no idea how to do that. –Tryphon 14:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
{{nobots}} --Leyo 15:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Ahhh! Very nice. I didn't know about this template. Thanks for enlightening me! So you can add it if you want. –Tryphon 15:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I just thought that you might not like to see CommonsDelinker editing your subpage on your watchlist all the time. --Leyo 15:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah okay. I don't mind these edits popping up on my watchlist, so I guess I'll just leave it like that. –Tryphon 16:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

File Tagging File:Carduelis_dominicensis.jpg etc.

Hi Tryphon - please look at the file upload histories before placing these notices. I did not upload these files, only edited them. Please remove them from my talk page and put them where they belong. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'm sorry, I don't know why the script picks the last uploader instead of the first. I'm going to move the warnings to the right place. –Tryphon 11:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! - MPF (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Polycarbonate water bottle.JPG

What DW? Any different from File:Wasserflasche.jpg ? Masur (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the label on File:Wasserflasche.jpg is ineligible for copyright (text only), whereas the label on File:Polycarbonate water bottle.JPG contains copyrighted graphical elements. And de minimis does not apply because the inclusion is not incidental. –Tryphon 16:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • following your logic, picked up randomly from the same or associated category: File:Sriracha hot chili sauce.jpg, File:Apotekarnes julmust.jpg, File:HK 2009EAG WatsonsWater.JPG, File:ELS Angles.JPG, File:Sbiten.jpg (and hundreds products more) - every single of them has label containing copyrighted graphical elements. And de minimis does not apply because the inclusion is not incidental. Masur (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC) ps. if you liked to discuss it, you should start Del Req procedure, rather than to mark file with "obvious" CV template. I highly encourage you to do this, because I'm eager to hear other people opinions as well. I remember "the beer bottles and cans case", which caused some turmoil here on Commons. Masur (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, there are many other, but we have to start somewhere. I'll make a DR for this one. –Tryphon 21:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


File:Metallica_wordmark.svg 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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Jpkmaster (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ta modification dans l'article Commons:Freedom of panorama

Bonjour. Pourrais-tu m'expliquer pourquoi as-tu retiré - sans explications - les informations factuelles que j'avais indiquées dans cet article. Je t'en remercie par avance. Cordialement. AntonyB (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Tout simplement parce que ces exceptions au droit d'auteur ne s'appliquent pas à Commons, et relèvent du fair-use (l'usage des images est limité à certaines situations, ce qui les rend non libres). –Tryphon 18:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Top 200 des images qui necessitent un svg - mise a jour

Hello Tryphon !

(hope it is alright with French, it should according to your infoboxes. Otherwise tell me and I'll switch to english !)

La page Commons:Top 200 images that should use vector graphics by usage est super utile, mais plus exactement d'actualite. D'apres Svgalbertian, tu es le grand gourou du bot qui met a jour cette liste. Tu penses que tu pourrais le mettre en route / le faire bosser un peu plus regulierement stp ? Parce qu'a vrai dire, la plupart des images du top sont maintenant dispos en SVG...

Merci ! Arnaud Ramey (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

C'est fait. Je ne fais pas de mise-à-jour automatisée parce qu'il existe un outil, glamorous, qui permet d'obtenir le même genre d'information en direct. Si toutefois tu trouves encore cette page utile, n'hésite pas à me demander de la mettre à jour. –Tryphon 12:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Merci pour la mise a jour ! Effectivement, Glamorous a l'air super puissant, mais un peu trop verbeux (bavard) en mode detail et un peu pas assez en mode sans detail. J'ai donc fait un "feature request" a Magnus pour une version intermediaire, cf .
Si les resultats sont concluants, on pourra peut etre remplacer cette galerie par un lien direct vers la page Glamorous.
Mais je dois dire que j'aime bien le "look-and-feel" de ta page :) Arnaud Ramey (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

picture copyright?

bonjour! mon francais n'est pas tres bon, mais je vais essayer de poser ma question. vous avez marque une de mes images parce-que vous pensez que je n'ai pas le droit d'en utiliser. mais j'ai le droit parce que je travaille avec l'entreprise moerer schiffselektronik et le proprietaire m'á donné le permis d'utiliser les images. qu'est-ce que je peux faire? c'est possible de repliquer en anglais ou allemand pour vous?

merci, Estehamburg (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your French is pretty good, really. Regarding the pictures, the problem is that they're available on the internet, which means anyone could have uploaded them without permission. The way we deal with the issue is that we ask the copyright holder to send an email to OTRS, from the same domain as the source website, confirming that they authorize the publication of the images under a free license. Let me know if you have more questions or need any more help. –Tryphon 09:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup pour votre prompte réponse. Alors, je vais parler avec le propietaire et il enverra un email a OTRS. Après ca, je pourrais remettre les images a Commons? Pourquoi faut-il que tout soit aussi compliqué^^ Estehamburg (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


Tryphon dans la mesure où cette photo je l'ai scaner moi même à partir d'une archive de journal consulté dans une bibliothèque, la photo perd son aspect de licence, dans la mesure où je l'ai utiliser pour mon propre travail, don je ne comprends pas ce qui te gène sur cette photo, expliques moi s'il te plait? (Akli11 (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC))

Non, le fait de scanner une photo ne te confère aucun droit sur cette image. Le détenteur des droits, c'est généralement le photographe, et c'est lui seul qui peut choisir de placer l'image sous une licence libre. –Tryphon 18:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Know-it-all

Stop hindering us in the field of chemistry and the corresponding deletion debates. I appreciate that you fight (unnecessarily) for every crappy picture, but: you donna have any clues and therefor just stealing our time.

If you can't do it cos you wanna "prove" something, I will start a de-admin. Thank you very much! --Yikrazuul (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Lovely. Since I'm going to ignore what you just said, I'd advise you to go ahead and start the de-admin right now. –Tryphon 10:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I've completely overestimated you, my bad, but COM:AN/U does it too. --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
It would have been so funny though, don't you think? :) –Tryphon 11:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Thumbs up! Again I fully have underestimated you there. If I had known you that you donna show any requisite knowledge as for chemistry ("to build a Haworth projection", sweet) I would have helped you immediately. If you had asked for help with having problems to look into categories I would have guided you in that really complicated process.
It is my fault. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

File:1893 Map of Lahore.jpg

Hey Tryphon, sorry dude I have to write here, because I don't know where else to talk. The map I posted is ages old and has no copyright issue. I guarantee you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Someonepakistani (talk • contribs) 12:00, 2010 August 31 (UTC)
The right place to talk about this is Commons:Deletion requests/File:1893 Map of Lahore.jpg. The thing is, you didn't provide much information about where the map comes from. It looks like it's printed in a book, can you give the references? –Tryphon 12:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

File:PHearstMugShot 19 September 1975.jpg

Actually, the license you used is also intended for works of the federal government only. Since the mugshot was made by the state police, it is not in the public domain. –Tryphon 10:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
And the license of File:Patty Hearst.jpg is in fact correct. Footage from security cameras has no originality and as such is not protected by copyrights. –Tryphon 10:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Checked in the book, the photo (File:PHearstMugShot 19 September 1975.jpg) is a police mugshot from San Mateo County Jail, California of 1974. Changed the license to {PD-CAGov}. Can you look at it one more time please. If it is also incorrect, there is also a good quality image on Flickr that could be used: Patty Hearst-mug_SLA-Member. Please advise.
Thanx.SobakaKachalova (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems fine now. Don't hesitate uploading the flickr image over it though; it's higher resolution, and the same license applies. –Tryphon 08:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Admin map of Zakarpattia region2 by Helgi.png

Now OK? --Helgi (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well the source information is okay now, but unfortunately, the source is not free (it's © ГНПП «Картография»). So your map is a non-free derivative work and has to be deleted. Sorry. –Tryphon 08:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
This work is a free derivative work? All maps in Енциклопедія українознавства (у 10 томах) / Головний редактор Володимир Кубійович. — Париж, Нью-Йорк: «Молоде Життя», 1954—1989 is copyrighted --Helgi (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
No indeed, it's not free either. –Tryphon 10:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Then why do not you put the copyvio template? --Helgi (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you? There's a lot to do you know... –Tryphon 12:26, 1 September 2010 (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 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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Trycatch (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

dear tryphon, you have indicated that you would delete a file which is though needed for a blog of mine - the blog is called and in connection with my application as minister of switzerland. if you click on the painting in the blog, it leads to the variation at wikimedia commons - this is a subtile joke to not overestimate swiss tradition; i fight against inhuman treatment, isolation, torture of said folksparty and for liberal humanism. my new book is: with the great schiller prize winner erika BURKART, friend of mine for 26 years. many thanks for your help to beat the fashist tendencies in my home country. best personal regards, mischa vetere member of a.d.s., pro litteris, suisa

What is going on?

I gave both the source (me) and didn't watermark the image. The only means of "credit" is a link to my site. No copyright information is present. Will (Talk - contribs) 19:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote on the image page, the missing information is where the data you used for the map comes from. I mean, did you use a blank map from Commons? Did you base your map on some other online map? –Tryphon 19:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the first time anything like that has come up for my maps. I don't start with a map from anyone else. Each map is drawn by me. Please note the templates provided don't offer a field for the source of map data. Also, Multichil by IRC said you were being an "ass". Will (Talk - contribs) 19:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's nice, but check out COM:CB#Maps & satellite imagery. Maps are copyrighted works, so even if you draw a map yourself based on another map, it would be a derivative work. I'm just asking for more information because many people mistakenly think it's okay as long as you don't make an exact copy. If you say the map is entirely your own work, it's fine with me (but it would mean you walked along all those paths with a GPS device to collect the data). If you used free resources such as OpenStreetMap, it's okay too, but you need to give credit to the contributors. If you used any other map, even if just to get the rough shape of the paths, then the resulting map is not free. Sorry if it makes me sound like an ass, but I think it's important that the content we host has a clear copyright status. –Tryphon 19:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


Seems to work on Commons, I've no idea why.

Thank you for uploading File:Shock wave around supernova 1987A (captured by the Hubble Space Telescope).tif. But I am unable to link this file to my wikinews article. My article is in here. Please leave a reply in my wikinews user talk page. Thanks.--Kanags (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that TIFF is not fully supported yet. I just uploaded a JPEG version, so try with File:Shock wave around supernova 1987A (captured by the Hubble Space Telescope).jpg, it should work. I'm glad the image is useful to someone :) –Tryphon 11:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Cheers Tryphon.--Kanags (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Dalešice Hydro Power Plant

Please see Dalešice Dam as compared to Dalešice Hydro Power Plant. May I restore, or would you like to discuss further? Kind regards. Rehman(+) 07:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean discuss it with me, you could use the category's talk page so that all interested parties can participate. –Tryphon 07:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I could do that, but wouldn't that be redundant? As this is an obvious case? FYI, the first has 14,400 G-hits as compared to 280. Rehman(+) 08:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
When someone reverts your changes, that should be your clue that the case might not be as obvious as you think for everyone. Instead of reverting again, try convincing them. –Tryphon 08:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok. ;) The editor who reverted that edit is sort of reverting all of my edits which I have made to pages that he has created or edited, thus I no longer feel like s/he is making a genuine objection, but rather something personal. But, your point is very much valid. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 08:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Wee Westie's Nuclear Ball.jpg

Hi! You mean the photo without a description is more descriptive? I think that we should respect the author description if we have no better. Also it is a kind of respect and thanksgiving for the author who let us to use his proto for free. But maybe I have an oldscool meaning of kindness... Regards Electron Smiley kabelsalat.gif <Talk?> 14:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was about to drop you a note asking you to maybe choose more meaningful filenames and descriptions, instead of using the default from flickr. "Wee Westie's Nuclear Ball" give absolutely no information about the file, and the description was just some story about the flickr user. Who cares? It's not educational at all, and frankly, without a good description, this image is barely in scope.
I would have replaced the description by something more meaningful, but I don't know much about this dog. I think no description is better than an irrelevant one because it might encourage someone else to write something better; otherwise they might think they shouldn't mess with the existing one.
I hope you'll think about it; flickr has a completely different goal than we have (they're recreational, we're educational), so transferring images from there only makes sense if you can figure out a way to accentuate their educational value (descriptive filename, description giving real information about the content of the image, and good categories). Best regards. –Tryphon 14:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
OK. In my opinon this photo can be good ilustration for West Highland White Terrier race of dogs. Something fun in it is valuable, as well. Who said that wiki should be strict serious?.. Electron Smiley kabelsalat.gif <Talk?> 15:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
That description is much better, thanks. –Tryphon 15:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Chandra licensing

I'm not sure how to approach Chandra licensing. All images are non-proprietary because they are published by NASA. Please explain what to do. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

But not all NASA images are PD (as explained on {{PD-USGov-NASA}}), and as you can see [9], Chandra images can only be used for educational purposes. –Tryphon 07:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Am I supposed to somehow change the licensing tags? I honestly don't know what the rules are or how they work. Can something that is supposed to be used only for educational purposes be uploaded to commons? ScienceApologist (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
No, we only accept licenses that allow content to be used for any purpose, so there isn't much to do but let the image be removed. See COM:L#Acceptable licenses for details. –Tryphon 07:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Related to the above topic:

 Hello, you deleted the Chandra images I had posted to work on metadata batch uploading.    The Chandra images are public domain *IF* they are all NASA data.  Many materials on the Chandra web site are not just Chandra or just NASA which is why the policy reads as it does at  this URL:   The G54 and Crab Nebula images I had posted however were both public domain as they were a combination of Hubble, Spitzer and/or Chandra data = all NASA satellites = public domain.      User:WikiXray


Hi Tryphon. I am the author of the photo and I uploaded it using the form Wikipedia provides. I have added the fact that I am the source and own the copyright and scanned the photo. Is that enough? --Warriorboy85 (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine. Thanks for clarifying. –Tryphon 08:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


Please look here Category_talk:Madame_Tussauds_London. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Wax figures. For the Beatles, one could argue that they're most likely permanently installed (they should attract visitors for years to come). With Shrek, it seems more likely that it's a temporary installation, and that it will be replaced when the movie is not current anymore (hence FOP wouldn't apply). I can turn the {{copyvio}} into a DR though, if you'd like. –Tryphon 10:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I turned it into a DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Madame Tussauds London 00801 Nevit.jpg. –Tryphon 11:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


That should you send to User:663highland, he's the photographer and the author of the image, I had just rotated a bit. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I did. Well in fact, a script did leave this message to both of you, and since it doesn't really concern you, you can just ignore it. Sorry about that. –Tryphon 12:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I thought I had checked the talk page of 663highland and I didn't see the message... But I watched the worng page :-S My failing. I will ignore the message. Regards --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem :-) –Tryphon 12:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Cinema italiano

Sorry, yes the file of Fellini is not this but this other.--G&NiO (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Answered there. Thanks for the info. –Tryphon 14:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

iPhone 4 images

I think you are not able to speak spanish so i will try to write down in English languaje. I have just aploaded some iPhone 4 photos and you have mark them for deletion.

Please note these facts:

  • Images are from ifixit.
  • All images used in ifixit ( have CREATIVE COMMONS licence.
  • Complete information about file 8and licence) you mark for deletion is at:
  • I have write down clearly licence used when uploading images. A licence that I do thonk is full compatible with Commons.

Please considere removing the "deletion" mark from the photo

Thanks.--SUPUL SINAC (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've answered there. The problem is that the license chosen by ifixit is not free, and not accepted on Commons. See COM:L#Acceptable licenses for our license requirements. –Tryphon 21:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC) not answer "there" if "there" will be erased!!!! Answer in my user talk page! So logic it must not be explained loosing time.
About iPhone4 images...I have revised Licence terms and this images are free to use! PLEASE NOTE IFIXIT LICENSE ISS DIFFERENT OF IFIXIT IMAGES LICENCES!!!
They used (people who upload to ifixit) and I am using at the moment of uploading Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike licenses that is listed as a Well-known licenses and preferred for materials on Commons here.
There are some millars of images with same licence uploaded to Commons. If you want to deleted the images I have uploaded please make coherent movements in order to mark for deleteion and delete all images with same licence uploaded before! (2995 for CC-By-NC-SA by the time I made a reseach and 2295 for CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0
PLEASE! I do really think images are well uploaded so PLEASE remove tags and if you are still thinking images should be removed ask another user to examine them and tag for deletion BUT DO NOT IT BY YOURSELF, that really seems like a personal attack!
Thanks for your attention--SUPUL SINAC (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
What I answered there was basically what I answered here: the images are licensed under cc-by-nc-sa on iFixit, and it is not an acceptable license on Commons. The fact that you uploaded them on Commons under cc-by-sa does not make them okay, it just means you didn't respect the terms of the license on iFixit (hence the copyright violation). It seems like a fairly straightforward issue to me, and a second pair of eyes will check them before deletion anyway (an administrator). But if you really think there is something to discuss, you can open a deletion request instead. –Tryphon 13:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

File:BOUML logo.png

[11] Je ne pense pas, Bouml n'est pas enregistré au Trade Marks Office of the European Union. Mais bon, le template n'engage à rien, il ne dit pas que l'image est protégée avec certitude. –Tryphon 12:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

C'est ce que je me suis aussi dit : ce n'est probablement pas protégé au sens stricte par le droit des marques, mais un tel bandeau est diplomate pour le créateur du logiciel (on dit que cette image est le logo d'un logiciel, donc à utiliser avec précaution).--Bapti 12:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Oui, de la même façon, je suis pratiquement sûr que cette image est inéligible, mais dans le 0.1 % de doute et pour ne pas relancer tout un débat sur la licence du logo, j'ai laissé la licence choisie par l'auteur. –Tryphon 13:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I have to ask, are you sure that this logo is actually distributed as part of the software package ? Otherwise that GPL license would not hold up. I can't check anymore since Bruno pulled all software releases from his website and the sf project. TheDJ (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed by checking TheDJ (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and it's still present in the 4.22.2 version, and the licence.txt file makes no mention of a Wikipedia exception. –Tryphon 21:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you, Tryphon, for doing my work for me. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :) –Tryphon 16:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi Tryphon, I believe you should have understood a difference between unfair review and a bad faith, trolling review. Having more that 100 FP, and every year at least one image getting to final round of POTY, with one getting 4th place, and other getting 5th place, I cannot care less, if my images get promoted to be FP and even less so to get QI status. As a matter of fact I did not support a few of my last FP nominations myself. If I nominate some images, it is only because I like to share them, otherwise what to take images for? Right? I consider some reviews on my images to be unfair, maybe very unfair, but I would not have ever asked those reviewers do not vote on my nominations because as much unfair their reviews are they have no problems with me personally. lycaon's reviews on my nominations are different. His sock (OK, let's call it his wife account) was used to cast a second oppose vote only on my nominations and maybe on some of Tomas, the user, because of whom lycaon "retired" and created a sock (his wife) account at the same time. So lycaon's reviews on my nominations are not just unfair reviews, they are used to kick back on me personally, as his wife said in CU request. Anyway... I know no matter what I will say, you will always be against me. Whatever...Warm regards--Mbz1 (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not against you, but I think preventing someone from voting on a particular user's nominations is a very big deal, and not a decision to take lightly. I reacted because I thought Lar's decision of forbidding Lycaon from voting on your nominations was too impulsive and did not take into account other aspects of the story. I can surely understand that from your point of view, Lycaon is biased against you (and yes, he made a mistake in the past when he and his wife both voted on the same nominations, but that's in the past). But as I said, Lycaon opposes a lot of nominations, and has rather high standards when it comes to QI or FPC, so anyone who has had a bit of friction with him could easily get the feeling that they're being targeted. And you have to admit, you tend to think people disagreeing with you are all out to get you. I've disagreed with you on a few occasions, and since then you always assume I'm against you personally (I have a barnstar to prove it); yet it is absolutely not the case, I have nothing against you. We just happen to have different views on certain topics.
So that's it, my comment was only meant to put things into perspective, and make sure that no harsh decision would be made out of what appeared to me as only a small part of the whole issue. It was not directed against you, I was just expression my external opinion on the issue. –Tryphon 15:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Lycaon is not biased towards me, he simply hates me, and the worst thing is I do not know what for. His hater towards me has started much before I filed the CU request, so this cannot be a reason. I literally begged him to explain what have I done to him, but he refused to talk to me at all. Slaunger, Mike.Lifeguard and others tried to mediate with no success. I was ready for any (and I mean any including kuiper) online and/or offline mediator. lycaon refused. All I wanted was to apologize for hurting him, and before that I only wanted to know what I am apologizing for, in order do not repeat the same "mistakes" in the feature. He refused. Up to now I have not a slightest idea what I have done to him. All this activity was before CU request was filed. Then was CU, I was really glad, when he came back after CU request was closed in 2 months or more. The only thing I wanted was to make up with him, so I left him a message on his wikipedia talk page. He removed it with edit summary "don't like stalkers". I physically feel his hater towards me in some of his reviews on my nominations, and not only on FP and QI, but even on on VI. Please see the comments of other editors after I withdrawn the nomination. I do not submit VI nominations anymore.Or let's take this example that you've might have seen at Lar's page, with lycaon's rant: "Failed picture. Why even upload??" That "failed" picture that should not have been uploaded is probably the only image of dolphins in San Francisco Bay uploaded to Commons...
There's nothing bad, if some users will not vote on each other nominations.Please take a look here. Alvesgaspar and Tomascastelazo were asked to avoid each other nominations, and they agreed. Guess what, Commons and the both users are all better off. Not voting on each other nominations is better than to ban somebody, or make somebody to leave.Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok so,

can you delete it please thanks --Jwh (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It will be deleted by an administrator. –Tryphon 05:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

US military bases in the world.svg

Kept. Sure there's a source. If you're worried about the map being wrong, discuss it on the talk page and try and fix it, instead of nominating for deletion a file which is in use. See also COM:NPOV. (non-admin closure) –Tryphon 21:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't find the source listed on the image page. Could you please point me to the place where source is stated? Thanks. -- 09:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
In the Source field of the {{Information}} template. –Tryphon 10:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Projektyszkolneiakademi.jpg / File:Projekty szkolne i akademickie2.jpg

Regarding this edit: on the page File:Geografieraum.JPG I see the following text (I added bold): "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic and 1.0 Generic license.". So..? BartłomiejB (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's cc-by-sa-2.5, not cc-by-2.5 (I added bold too). –Tryphon 20:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, now I see the difference. Thanks for paying attention and correction! Cheers. BartłomiejB (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Azerbaijan dances - Yallı.jpg

Hi friend, why u think that this image must delete i show source –-sefer ibrahim 20:32 27 September 2010 (UTC)

But where on that source does it say it's licensed under cc-by-2.5? –Tryphon 15:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


Going a little too fast with that "speedy deletion" tag maybe. This is just a warning ticket though: you meant well. ElijahBosley (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad a proper source was added and the image could be saved, but saying it was your own work and releasing it to the public domain was indeed a copyright violation (cc-by requires crediting the author, and is certainly not equivalent to public domain). But all's well that ends well. –Tryphon 16:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Westerncultures map.png

Well this map is rather arbitrery, why should it include a country like greece while excluding romania or bulgaria. --J intela (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but you shouldn't replace images with entirely different versions. Just upload it separately, and if it's better, the various projects that used the other file might choose to use your version instead; but overwriting the file is making that choice for them, without even letting them update the caption to reflect that change. –Tryphon 16:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

File:TAMUatTTU2007.jpg Watermark

Hi, Tryphon. You added the watermark template to File:TAMUatTTU2007.jpg. I'm not familiar with this. Is it because the image shows a date in the corner? →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. If you have a version without it, you could upload it over this file, otherwise maybe someone will be able to remove it. –Tryphon 15:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'll see what I can do. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Costa Rica copyright

Did you realise that the citation you used for this edit uses Wikipedia as its source so in reality it is actually a self reference. A reliable third party should be used. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've linked to Wikipedia directly, and added the links to the relevant laws. I do not speak Spanish though, so someone else will have to point to the relevant articles of the law. –Tryphon 21:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks better now. WIPO is perhaps the best source. Ww2censor (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


File:Westerncultures_map.png 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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Antemister (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Waalsprong verstedelijking 1999.jpg

Hello Tryphon, Sorry, but just do speedy isn't acceptable. The Dutch community on nl-wiki has restored the image because the image was deleted without proper reasons. Then it is re-located to Commons. Greetings - Romaine (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

See COM:AN#File:Waalsprong verstedelijking 1999.jpg‎. What they decide at nl-wiki does not concern us. It was deleted on Commons within our deletion policy, and the only way to have it restored is making a request at COM:UNDEL. –Tryphon 08:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for my actions. I got unwantedly involved with this situation. I will suggest your reply on nl-wiki so they can handle themselves. (My actions where partly based on not understanding what the situation exactly is.) I hope that if there are any questions you are prepared to answer those for them? Thanks for the help! Greetings - Romaine (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I'll do my best answering questions that might arise. What I'm not sure I understand, is why they want the file on Commons if their policy allows them to keep it on nl-wiki. –Tryphon 09:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! On nl-wiki we have exactly the same policy as we have on Commons regarding files. In the past we have had a big clean-up for all files, and all files have been sorted out (mostly by Multichill) if they are fine or not. The ones which were fine have been relocated to Commons, while the ones which weren't have been deleted. Only a small group of files that is kept on nl-wiki due historic reasons as earlier versions of those files have historic value. All other files are deleted or on Commons, and we see no reason to have normal files again on nl-wiki. The way it went was that a file was restored on nl-wiki, and we saw it too late that it was restored to get around the deletion procedure on Commons. As normal procedure on nl-wiki, all locally uploaded files are relocated to Commons, and after that had been done, we find out why this file was at nl-wiki. I personally do not think it has been restored with proper reasons, but they tried to get around the Commons-procedures. I have said that the file must be restored within the normal Commons-procedure, and linked to the procedure-page and to your talk page as well if there are questions about it. I also said I withdraw from this situation, and that they have to solve it themselves. I have to go to work now. Greetings and thanks for the help. Romaine (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I understand now. Thanks for the explanation. –Tryphon 09:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment I have read the message on Romaines dutch talk page. The picture is not mine, but I defended it. I also asked in good faith for restoration on nl-wiki, not knowing that nl-wiki has another policy than fr-wiki, which I use most. But neither User:Multichill nor User:Romaine in uploading to commons saw in it a file with insufficient licence. I have said my word, will not comment further on that picture. Reopening the deletion discussion makes sense only if there are new persons to discuss it. Greetings. --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

File:UA Flight 175 hits WTC south tower 9-11 edit.jpeg

Dear Admin Tryphon,

This is just to let you know about this image that a photographer licensed freely from flickr. This is clearly own work by him (he says so on the flickr link) and it shows the explosion from the crash of flight UA 175 hitting the second WTC tower in the September 11, 2001 attacks. Its a very powerful picture. Maybe you can use it somewhere on French wiki if you want to. Just an idea. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi Tryphon, you advised me to think about my recent actions "especially the CU request, that was just outrageous".

I'd like to tell you one real life story, please. It happened to a French pilot from w:Normandie-Niemen, fighter squadron of the French Air Force that fought in the second world war together with Soviets. Once a French pilot shot down a Russian plane that he was sure was a German plane. He was so happy. When he came back to the base, he told a story about "stupid German pilot", who instead of attacking him turned his plane's bottom to face him. What the Russian pilot was doing? Well, he wanted to show the stars painted at the bottom of his plane's wings to his French friend. But French pilot did not see the obvious, he saw only what he wanted to see, and he continued with his attack of a "stupid German" . The Russian pilot was killed.

My CU request is kind of similar. I saw only what I wanted to see. Did I do wrong? Yes, I did wrong, very wrong, but this was an honest mistake. Please believe I did not do it in purpose to abuse lycaon. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh I'm absolutely sure you didn't do it to abuse Lycaon, and I have no doubt you were convinced your request was justified. And that's exactly what I tried to tell you at your talk page. You've reach a point where maybe, you're not able to see things clearly, and you feel like anything done differently from what you would have done in a similar situation is just wrong and should be punished. If every one on Commons had the same feeling, and was reacting as strongly as you do... well, you get the idea. That's why I was suggesting that you take the time think about the situation from another perspective (the one of the Russian pilot), and see if you could handle a frustrating situation differently, for the good of everyone. You seem to have chosen to stick with the way you were doing things so far, which I can only regret. –Tryphon 16:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Tryphon, where did you get the idea that I believe anybody should be punished? So far other users believe that I am the only one, who should be punished, and I am getting punished time and time again. I do not say I am all right, and the others are all wrong, but I am not all wrong and the others are not all right just like in a real life, you know. Whatever... No matter what I still like the umbrella in your signature Face-smile.svg--Mbz1 (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Top 200 images which should use TeX

Hi Tryphon. Would you be willing to create such a page also for Category:Images which should use TeX including Category:Images with a TeX equivalent? --Leyo 10:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Like so: User:Tryphon/Top 200 images which should use TeX? I wasn't sure if you meant two pages (one for each category), or one page with images from both categories (like the one I just created). Let me know if I got it wrong. –Tryphon 10:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Perfect, thank you. The main thing was that Category:Images with a TeX equivalent to keep is not included. BTW: I added a note that small projects are not counted. --Leyo 11:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's actually data from the article namespace of the 20 biggest wikipedias. If you'd like, I can run it again including more projects (like more wikipedias, or not limited to wikipedias), or including all namespaces. –Tryphon 12:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't it need to much resources? If not, all wikiprojects would be fine. Article namespace (i.e. where the images have to be replaced before deletion) is enough IMHO. --Leyo 12:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. On such small categories, it's not much of a problem. –Tryphon 13:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Merci. --Leyo 13:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please include all wikiprojects the next time you update User:Tryphon/Top 200 low quality chemical diagrams and Top 200 chemical images that should use vector graphics by usage? --Leyo 17:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Both done. Let me know if you need anything else. –Tryphon 18:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Merci! --Leyo 18:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


File:Scrapbook_Room.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

Please 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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Frankieerose (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of adminship :)

When are you going to ask for it back...:) (just a hint which you are welcome to ignore!). Hope all is well - regards --Herby talk thyme 17:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I should take my own advice, and since I'm hardly active in any administrative area these days, I'm not considering asking for the tools back at the moment. But I appreciate the suggestion :) All the best, –Tryphon 21:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


Bonjour, puis-je savoir à quoi correspond ceci : ? AteshCommons (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

J'imagine que ce n'est pas vous qui avez dessiné la carte du monde. Il convient donc d'indiquer la source de cette image, et de créditer l'auteur. Merci. –Tryphon 12:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

need your help

Hi Tryphon, I need your help. I have been protecting Category:People of Korea, but many users are including unrelated files like:

Can you find the actors of many illegal files above and warn them or better just delete the files!

also can you check these files and delete them because their copyrights is under question..:

Thank you so much 02Wahyudi (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Tempest V NV696.jpg

File:Tempest V NV696.jpg was nominated for deletion as it is a copyrighted images from Charles E Brown but the deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:B 26.jpg decided it was pd-ukg. As it is clearly not the case as the Brown images are now copyrighted by the RAF Museum can this decision be challenged again? thanks MilborneOne (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Connard, va! Le pire c'est que tu ne connais en rien en poupées. --Guil2027 (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons-emblem-issue.svg 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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

TreasuryTag (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


File:Confederate_one_hundred_dollar_bill_(1875).tif 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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)