User:Abzeronow/Archive4

2024 archive.

2024 New Years Message

Tous mes voeux pour cette nouvelle année, Abzeronow !
―Tisourcier

Merci beaucoup, Tisourcier. Abzeronow (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Please delete non-commercial copies of the following images

Hi, Abzeronow, I realize that I've uploaded some non-commercial copies of flickr photos, please help me delete them. Thank you. 0x0a (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done File versions that you had uploaded are hidden. Abzeronow (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! 0x0a (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Abzeronow, I noticed a similar case. The file was uploaded after flickr user switched from cc-by-sa to cc-by-nc-sa license. That is, the copy on Commons is licensed under cc-by-nc-sa, not cc-by-sa. But in the DR, some users argued that the previous license is still valid for subsequent copies. May I ask which view is right? Thank you. 0x0a (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm of the view that the nominator was correct, but I'm not going to try to overturn a decision made by the community twice to keep it especially since my view may be contentious. Abzeronow (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, there is a considerable controversy over how to interpret the "irrevocable" of a CC license. A discussion may need to be initiated on the VPC.

I'm aslo inclined to agree with the nominator, but I need to collect some information to support this view. Anyway, thanks for your opinion. 0x0a (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yakovlev SJ-100 Logo.jpg

@Abzeronow:Buenas, esta foto debería ser removido (deleted) o quedarse (kept)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd come down on delete per COM:PCP since it's not clear on how low the ToO is in Russia and part of that logo is stylized. Abzeronow (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Logo Alcaldía de Lecheria

@Abzeronow:Buenas, una pregunta el Logo de la Alcaldía de Lecheria como lo indica esta foto (https://twitter.com/Urbanejalcaldia/photo) esta en el Dominio Público ({{PD-textlogo}} porque representa una "geometric shape")?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks more complex than just a "geometric shape" to me. Is there guidance as far as ToO in Venezuela? Abzeronow (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@AbzeronowEl ToO en Venezuela es complicado pero no dice nada sobre Logos con "geometric shapes" AbchyZa22 (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Warner Bros. Television 2023 (Alt).svg

Hi, Azberonow. I want to overwritting File:Warner Bros. Television 2023 (Alt).svg with a smaller KB size of the file (come from https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/logopedia/images/a/a8/Warner_Bros_TV_2023_Print_color.svg/revision/latest?cb=20231227193226) than the original file upload by BiggieSMLZ. But sadly, the request is easily archived at Commons:Overwriting existing files/Requests/Archive 2 without any further consideration. Could you please grant me a request to do that? Thank you. Yayan550 (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't see that image you linked to. Abzeronow (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: Well, if you want to see the actual link the image comes from, here: https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/File:Warner_Bros_TV_2023_Print_color.svg, the WBTV 2023 logo kb size there is smaller (17 KB) than BiggieSMLZ's upload (476 KB). But, only Logopedia users can see that file, so i download that image. Yayan550 (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done @Yayan550: You can now overwrite the file. Abzeronow (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Ayuda

@Abzeronow:Buenas, una pregunta el Logo de la Alcaldía de Valera creado en 2014 hasta el 2017 y el autor del logo ex alcalde de Valera falleció el 29 de diciembre de 2019 (https://www.redpres.com/t35652-fallecio-el-exalcalde-de-valera-jose-karkom) según el {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} son 60 años después de la publicación y en que año subirá el Logo a Wikimedia?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

(google translate) En Wikimedia sería 2090 aunque probablemente 2075 se convierta en PD en Venezuela. Abzeronow (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Because you're a nice administrator :)

OttavianoUrsu (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Why did you undelete file:Mycock5.jpg?

You allege that there is another file that uses it. Where is this other file? Dronebogus (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is one of the photographs used in File:Various size penises.jpg. There was an undeletion request for the file after a question appeared at the Help Desk. Abzeronow (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Splitting

I find COM:SPLIT rather confusing for myself (perhaps because its suggestive of moving old revisions to a new title). Would you want to take a look at File:Photo portrait d'Andréa Furet.jpg: seems an interesting deal of learning for me. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 19:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done This is my first time doing a split. Abzeronow (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alcaldía BMUracoa (2021-2025).jpg

Buenas, esta foto debería ser removido (deleted) o quedarse (keep)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Request

Since I have an apparent conflict of interest with anything related to DCW, I thought seeking assistance from any admin should help. Could you please merge File:Wiki Loves Muslim Academia logo.svg and File:Wiki loves muslim academia copy.svg. The former should appear as the current version. The user who uploaded File:Wiki loves muslim academia copy.svg did it in a hurry despite me telling them do db-author it because it wasn't anyway approved to be used in any case for WLMA, a program by DCW, which I lead. TheAafi (DCW) (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@TheAafi (DCW): The files are merged but I probably created an extra revision by accident since this was the first time I have merged a file. Abzeronow (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick help. Best of luck with future tries. TheAafi (DCW) (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You might want to delete the redirect as it won't be anywhere used, and isn't even old enough. TheAafi (DCW) (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Overwriting existing file

Hi @Abzeronow, thanks for your hard work. :) Did you perhaps miss the entry for File:Logo SG Dynamo Dresden neu.svg? Bildersindtoll (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

good catch

I dont think either are actually licensed for usage in commons, it is a regular mistake. I am reluctant to engage on the issue, as my Indonesian language usage is very very rusty. If I had either the time, or the energy, I think I could halve the amount of similar items on commons, simply by pointing out the lack of suitable licensing. Sorry, I am not very helpful. JarrahTree (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I will nominate them for deletion. Abzeronow (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Giordano Bruno Lattuada.jpg

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Giordano Bruno Lattuada.jpg

Deletion here was more the question of whether the photograph was "published prior to 1978", than when it was taken. Neither the uploader, the blog it was copied from nor the user who voted to keep it had anything to say about that. Belbury (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: Per orphan works policy, we generally assume publication near creation unless there is evidence to the contrary. The photograph from the age of the sitter and the style of clothing appears to be from the 1950s. In order for it not be published before 1978, the unknown photographer would have had to have taken the photograph and then stuck it in a drawer for more than 20 years. Italian simple photographs are creation plus 20 years so the publication before 1978 is a consideration of URAA, and as stated, we don't have evidence that URAA applies here. Abzeronow (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I'd missed that there'd already been a fuller discussion of this at Commons:Undeletion_requests#File:Giordano_Bruno_Lattuada.jpg! Belbury (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

No problem, I'll link that to the DR (I would have done so when it was archived, but I'll do it now). Abzeronow (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Tm

Just comment one thing. User Tm is using the issue in the Noticeboard to blatantly forge and reopen old wikidata conflicts that were not directly related to this topic, and in which I have no responsibility. Apart from the fact that he is making false statements against me and against the other user (Lopezsuarez). I have told Tm privately, so that he has the decency to not manipulate my words and make this even worse. But it is really shameful that from the first moment he had a disruptive [and tolerated] attitude, and that on top of that I was the bad guy in your eyes (although you later corrected it).

In essence, I gave in to find a solution to the conflict. And he (Tm) reluctantly accepted your disposition, only to go to wikidata to extend the conflict. And for dessert, the user Tm poisoning the environment even more. But after all, I cannot understand why this user is tolerated with everything. CFA1877 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Abzeronow, sorry to burst into your talkpage, i will not comment the accusations against me made by this users, but i am only going to tell you that i have made a conteur argument of the Noticeboard with links to to back up and as evidence of what i say related with this subject (and these user accusations). Sorry and regards. Tm (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Bhadreshkumar Chetanbhai Patel.jpg

Hi. File:Bhadreshkumar Chetanbhai Patel.jpg appears to have been reuploaded. I tagged it as G4.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 23:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeff. Deleted again. I'll raise the issue at COM:VPC because I hadn't heard of US ToO covering "booth pictures". Abzeronow (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Ayuda en UDR (Undeletion Request)

@Abzeronow:Buenas, por favor en el COM:UDEL (en la parte "File:Logo Alcaldía Municipio Blvno Angostura (2021-2025).jpg") esta foto debería ser restaurada (support) o no restaurar (oppose)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Overwriting File:Warner Bros. Games logo (Alt).svg

Hello, Abzeronow. Could you please make the File:Warner Bros. Games logo (Alt).svg overwrite for everyone? Because i want to replace the incorrect version of the logo with the correct version taken from WBD brand website. Further source come from Logopedia. (https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/logopedia/images/b/b6/Warner_Bros._Games_Dec-2023_%28without_wordmark%29.svg/revision/latest?cb=20240208160325). Yayan550 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yayan550:  Done Abzeronow (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I wanna try to overwrite File:Nick Jr. logo 2023 (outline).svg to update it to the official version

Hello, Abzeronow. Could you update File:Nick Jr. logo 2023 (outline).svg to unlock overwriting for anyone? I wanna replace it to have the official version with the official blue color. The source came from Logopedia, and this is what I wanna update it to: https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/logopedia/images/d/d3/NICKJR-2023-Outline.svg/revision/latest?cb=20240129075100 RobloxMiner$$ (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@RobloxMiner$$: I cannot see the svg in that link. Abzeronow (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

How about this: https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/File:NICKJR-2023-Outline.svg RobloxMiner$$ (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@RobloxMiner$$:  Done Abzeronow (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Turns out not only is the blue in ‘Jr.’ the official blue, but this is actually the official version of the outlined logo. Didn’t see it until I noticed the difference between both versions of the outlined logo. RobloxMiner$$ (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Update of map

You killed Lithuania and Croatia in map ! And Andorra is also missing. --92.76.96.107 00:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC) File:Same-sex marriage map Europe detailed.svg

I reverted to the last attempted version, which was not thumbnailing before. Hopefully this fixes the issue. Abzeronow (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Using/ illustrations

Thank you! So much :)

can I thank you by offering something of my artwork?(Original numbered lunar print of your choice)

I notice that because of the deletion of my file: two pages no longer have the illustration so, can you notify them that they can use the image? their page reference is here 📌 File history Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.

Date/Time Thumbnail Dimensions User Comment current 01:06, 9 December 2019

1,193 × 757 (265 KB) VeronicaInDream(talk | contribs) User created page with UploadWizard You cannot overwrite this file. File usage on Commons There are no pages that use this file. 👇 📌 File usage on other wikis The following other wikis use this file: Usage on bg.wikipedia.org Уич хаус Usage on ru.wikipedia.org Витч-хаус

(I don't know how to notify them)by myself https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#c-Abzeronow-20240223183400-File:Lunar_Glitch_VHS_01.png VeronicaInDream (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Your gratitude is enough for me. I don't require anything beyond that, and not even the gratitude is required, but is appreciated. I will restore the usage of your file on Bulgarian and Russian Wikipedia shortly. Abzeronow (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I tried restoring on Bulgarian Wikipedia but was reverted. I don't speak Bulgarian so I can't really ask why they did so. Commons Delinker didn't have any listing for the Russian Wikipedia entry. Abzeronow (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi 👋

you were really respectful! I thank you for checking all of this; ps: the Bulgarian version (short version) (https://bg.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Уич_хаус) only is up to date; the Russian version (long and more complete) has not yet been able to even restore the version including the illustration -> https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Витч-хаус MANY THANKS 🙏 (maybe you can you just notify them?) if you can’t restore .. a++ and, please let me know if I can do anything for help (I mean for help you in any ways for something now or later if you need something) bye! VeronicaInDream (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Copy of the previous format

Hello again;

I have an email copy of the version including the (missing viewable) image and its description on the pages that uses it so I can send you the email because copying and pasting it here does not give you a correct overview (I have to on my smartphone because my computer is broken)

Thanks a lot VeronicaInDream (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Question

[1] If the drawing is made from a photograph, is it free? --Воскресенский Петр (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

If a drawing is a derivative work from a CC-BY-NC photograph, it is not free enough for Wikimedia Commons. Your drawing can be licensed as CC-BY-NC on a website that allows noncommercial-only works. Abzeronow (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• • If I draw an antique statue, then I am its copyright holder. All known photographs of this bust have the same projection and it is clear that the drawings will be similar to it, but this does not mean that I am reproducing someone else’s work --Воскресенский Петр (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
    • p. 105, and, and--Воскресенский Петр (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
      • I can definitely see differences in lighting though in the photographs, and different parts of the antique statue are emphasized as far as the different photographs. I took another look at the drawing, there are some details on the Getty.edu photograph that aren't in the drawing. @Holly Cheng: @Yann: Abzeronow (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
        • @Воскресенский Петр: Are you saying that you did not refer to any photos of the bust when drawing it? Did you see it in person? If you drew the picture based on the bust itself, then there is no problem. However, if you were basing your drawing on photos of the bust, those photos have their own copyrights, and that's where the copyright violation comes into play. —holly {chat} 17:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
          • Only work made on directly based on the original work will be protected. A drawing based on an image from my head is mine alone. And it does not matter whether I have seen the bust, seen its photo or read its description--Воскресенский Петр (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
            • I don't think you quite understand what I'm talking about. Why don't you tell us the story behind your drawing? How did you decide to do it from this angle, and what did you use as your inspiration? —holly {chat} 23:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
              • I studied the descriptions in the books and all available photos. And based on this information, I made a drawing --Воскресенский Петр (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• This is the statue. I don't think you draw it from the original. Yann (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't understand you --Воскресенский Петр (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Yann, that's a different statue. See https://flinterm.home.xs4all.nl/Vakantie-in-Kynouria.html. —holly {chat} 23:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Danish sailors on warships and all kinds of other images released as public domain

Hi there @Abzeronow,

You're a very busy contributor here and I can see you need to make all kinds of decisions. Whereas as I am relatively new and, let's be candid, have made some mistakes. To help me learn can you take me through one of your calls.

It's about a shot of a sailor on a Danish warship, once published at wikmedia here and originally published here on the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service. You may know the site. Everything they publish is published as Public Domain. In the case of this sailor on a warship, it says that the image was provided to DVIDS courtesy of the Royal Danish Navy. As you can see it is published as being Public Domain, and there is no copyright restriction.

On the good faith principle, I've assumed that as an image is published as Public Domain, and that it was provided to DVIDS knowing that everything they publish is published to the public domain, that we, in the wiki community, could proceed on that understanding.

(If we can only assume that American images, that's to say, images taken by US Military staff or government workers while doing their duties, are the ones that are "truly" public domain, then the result will be an absolute domination of images of the American military, from an American military point of view, which, personally, bothers me and could undermine our common mission of being encyclopaedic.)

I would like to continue finding valuable images that are public domain or creative commons, and using them to improve articles. Please let me know what principle I should be deploying.

Best regards,

Matthew

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@MatthewDalhousie: Yes, I am aware it was posted to DVIDS, but the copyright holder is the Royal Danish Navy, which doesn't automatically release their works to the public domain. Someone from the Danish military would have to write COM:VRT to say that they dedicate photographs they give to DVIDS to the public domain or even them saying that authorize a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license of the photograph would do. I cannot assume that this photograph is public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Abzeronow for looking at this question, really grateful.

Just wondering where you have found a document that states that the Royal Danish Navy holds a copyright on this image?

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

"Courtesy Royal Danish Navy." Abzeronow (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I hope you won't mind me saying, that the plain reading of "courtesy of Royal Danish Navy" would be "this image has been kindly provided to DVIDS by Royal Danish Navy."

And, of course, the Royal Danish Navy has provided that DVIDS where they publish everything to the public domain, and that image is clearly marked as such.

I don't believe a reasonable person could assume that "courtesy of" means "this image comes with a copyright."

That's not what "courtesy of" means.

I would like you to reconsider this matter please. Any person, acting in good faith, should able to look at that language, and that image clearly marked as being public domain, and use it as such.

Kind regards,

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I read that more as "this photograph was provided by the Royal Danish Navy, who have allowed usage on DVIDs and for the personal use of those downloading the photograph, but they retain the copyright." I'll ask my mentor @Jameslwoodward: since he's had more experience in these matters, and I know DVIDS hosting non-American military photographs and video has come up before. Abzeronow (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think Abzeronow is right. If you go to the copyright statement for DVIDS, you will see that it explicitly states that images on the site that are provided by others may have a copyright. I see no reason to believe that this one is copyright free. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward I see that here DVIDS does not not waive any publicity or privacy rights of any individuals portrayed. Fair enough. That's about the right of the Colonel (or whomever) being photographed. That doesn't affect the fact that the image is Public Domain. True? MatthewDalhousie (talk) 11:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Although we often take note of the personal rights of the people in images, that will not prevent it from being kept on Commons. However, again, as I said above, I see no reason why this image is PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you staying engaged on this topic @Jameslwoodward. The short answer to why intelligent people would view an image as PD is because it's been published as PD, having been given to a dedicated PD image hosting site.

I believe we can act with integrity and use those images as such.

I care about seeing more material on allied militaries, aside from the Americans. It would really improve a lot of articles.

Images such as the Danish sailor, have been provided to a PD images site, published as PD and can be used as such. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Your repeating the same incorrect information does not make it correct. There is nothing here to indicate that the Danish Navy has authorized a free license of the image. Also, the copyright information for the site places restrictions on the commercial use of its images which are unenforceable for images made by US personnel, but certainly apply to foreign images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Trying to keep this productive here @Jameslwoodward, and very keen to keep this peaceful and respectful. I have reviewed what I've written and in my saying that the image is on a page that states it is published as public domain is not incorrect. We can both check that. As to moving forward, I believe you would want some kind of a statement indicating that DVIDS has been given an authority by the photographer to publish as public domain. I am gathering that's what is needed. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've made contact with DVIDS and they have provided advice on this particular image, which may provide context for you @Jameslwoodward.

I have not asked for a decision to be reconsidered before, so could you tell me the right way to pass that information about copyright on to you - or any other decision-maker?

Best regards

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, there is no reason to believe that a "courtesy of" image comes without a copyright. You may either put forth the statement from DVIDS here or at Commons:Undeletion requests, but be aware that that will not be sufficient -- we will require a statement from the Danish Navy via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Deleting "EightTNOs" image in different languages

Hi,

Since you've deleted File:EightTNOs.png on the grounds of copyright violation and lack of attribution, I want to ask you if that means we would have to delete all other derivatives of this image. There's many different versions of this image as we can see in Category:Trans-Neptunian objects, and I don't see a reason why these versions should be kept but not the EightTNOs image. @Renerpho: pointed out in the discussion (the talk page of that file is deleted unfortunately) that the Haumea illustration is the main reason why the image got nominated for deletion in the first place, and most of these EightTNOs derivatives I mentioned earlier use this copyvio illustration of Haumea. Nrco0e (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

By the way, in the deletion discussion, I did mention that I was going to draw a replacement for the EightTNOs image. I'm not finished with it yet, but I do have some progress. I don't think I am able to send it here, but if you're interested in seeing it, I can PM you through email. Nrco0e (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I suppose @Renerpho and @Tomruen might be interested, so I'll ping them here. Nrco0e (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, and the PM. If replacing the image(s) in the various articles becomes easier if we wait for the replacement before deleting them then I suggest to do so. @Abzeronow: Can you access the deleted talk page? If so, retrieving the rationale for deleting it (which I unwisely pointed to in the deletion discussion, not realizing that it wouldn't be preserved) would be nice. Renerpho (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The derivatives affected by the unfree Haumea image are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; also 7 which is not in the category linked by Nrco0e (are there more?). There are numerous others that are derivatives of the EightTNOs image, but don't use the Haumea image. I'd have to read my own rationale again to remember if there was reason to delete those, too. Renerpho (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Concerning the Haumea image, the talk page said

"The Haumea image was published in 2011[2] with a Creative Commons 4.0 license. One condition of that license is attribution (credit: SINC/José Antonio Peñas), which is not done in the Wikimedia image. Renerpho (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: In any other case I would have simply nominated the image for deletion, because its license is wrong (3.0 vs. 4.0, no attribution, and this is not "own work"), but considering how much this file is used, maybe it can be rectified without the trouble? Unfortunately I am not sure what to do, because so many users have contributed to this. Renerpho (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Note that the Haumea image was removed once before (as a non-free image) in 2016, but was added back a few days later without explanation. Renerpho (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The SINC image was licensed CC BY 3.0 at the source at the time of upload to Commons. The source licence was later changed to version 4.0. Indeed, the file versions that include the SINC image cannot be kept in this file which is multi-licensed with version 1.0 etc. The file history could be split to make two separate files. The credit could be added in a separate file that would be licensed with version 4.0 only. However, the SINC license page has a strange restrictive clause that might contradict the CC license, so it's not clear if this image is really free. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)" Abzeronow (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for retrieving the talk page section, Abzeronow. I think the part of the license that Asclepias was referring to is this: El uso de los contenidos bajo la licencia Creative Commons BY 4.0, no permite, en ningún caso, la explotación, sea o no con fines comerciales, de los contenidos de SINC para la creación de publicaciones, en cualquier soporte, cuando estén integradas mayoritariamente por contenidos de la agenciasinc.es.[3] That's a strange restriction indeed, and I don't think it is compatible at all with CC-BY, making that license null and void... Maybe that's of relevance for the decision whether to delete/keep the derivatives linked above. In any case, the EightTNOs image was deleted based on the SINC Haumea image, so I believe that all derivatives that use it have to go, too. Renerpho (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'll start adding a temporary and hidden category to the files derived from Eight TNOs, and I'll do a mass DR (or a few of them) to deal with the other files. Abzeronow (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I've created it now Category:Haumea SINC files. Feel free to add files that have the SINC image of Haumea in them to this category. Abzeronow (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:BALANÇA DOS PRIMOS A RESOLUÇÃO E DEMONSTRAÇÃO DA CONJECTURA DE GOLDBACH (1).pdf

In your closing comments, you noted that this file "would be better off as an upload to Wikisource". However, Wikisource does not generally accept unpublished manuscripts by contributors, such as this one. Would you mind updating that bit? Omphalographer (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, I edited that part out. Abzeronow (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

About the deletion request

I apologize for my insistence on inviting you into the discussion. I have noticed changes in the facade of the building, which will probably prove critical. I would like, if you are able and willing, to take a position, at least for the last time, in the discussion. IM-yb (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It's fine. I'll leave a response later today. Abzeronow (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 61

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024

• Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
• 1Lib1Ref results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Aula_Paolo_VI

You deleted and keep images at random. I feel discriminated. --Bahnmoeller (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It may feel random to you but I was making judgement calls as far as de minimis in some of the photographs rather than just deleting everything because of the lack of FOP in the Vatican. I can assure you that I was not taking who took the photographs into consideration when I was deleting. Abzeronow (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I dont believe you - you kept the panoramico images. There is no reason to keep these and to delete others. Bahnmoeller (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

They were de minimis. The cityscape was the subject, not the individual building. And if you believe I deleted an image in error, you can make an undeletion request. Abzeronow (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Message from IP user

Oui je suis complètement d'accord pour la suppression de la couverture " les lettres infernales de ratel sigma. 2001:861:3B81:E290:CCE8:2D02:FD84:6F1A 03:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Request to Overwrite File - 1st Oscars

On the Commons:Overwriting existing files/Requests page, I requested to change an image of File:1stOscars 1929.jpg to a higher res one. Would you be able to let me upload that new version? Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Yoshiman6464: I have approved your request at OWR. Abzeronow (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you help me?

I've recently made a file of the Cuban Coat of Arms with the flag stripes in their original blue scale, to make the former coat. When uploading it to Commons, it loaded wrong, and accidentally I finished to upload it. Well, I investigated how to delete it, but only an administrator can do that. So I'm asking you to do that. You will find easy to find it by typing in the search bar "Former Coat of Arms of Cuba". It's the black-coloured option. Thank you so much. Have a nice day. SunMoonAndLight (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Marked it for speedy deletion (qualifies under G7 since you uploaded it less than seven days ago.) Abzeronow (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much. SunMoonAndLight (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Pan American Airways

Hello again, following our exchange about Fokker F.VII/3m, I now discover that there's a problem with the Pan American Airways category here. The category contains the Wikidata item Q7129586 in an infobox that instead belongs to Pan American Airways (1996–1998) as per Wikipedia article, but no such category at Commons. I'm tempted to just amend the Wikidata item and remove the Commons infobox, but unsure how it might co-exist with the current infobox on the Wikipedia 1996–1998 page. Perhaps as a Commons admin, you might action or advise accordingly. MTIA, PeterWD (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

More thoughts - perhaps we should rename our categories here as Pan American Airways (1927–1950) and Pan American Airways (1950–1991), to reflect aircraft types and liveries, although not necessarily reflecting legal company names ? PeterWD (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Amending the Wikdata item and removing the infobox seems to be the simplest solution. As far as the other thing, I could start a CfD to ask about the best way of reorganizing the aircraft subcategories since as the U.S. public domain expands, we probably will be getting more photographs about Pan Am's early years. I could also ask about the main categories and what others think might be the best way to organize it so things can be easily found. I could definitely create Fokker and Fairchild categories for Pan Am if they are not already existent. Abzeronow (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Crocus City Hall 2020.jpg

Hi, could I please have your opinion? I've uploaded this image today, and now it's protected. I'd replace current version (3648 × 2232px but with cropped bottom) by this one: [4] (2560 × 1707). Which one would be better? Thanks, Quick1984 (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Why not just upload the uncropped photograph as a different file? (assuming that is also from the same Russian website as the currently auto-protected file.) I could see potential use for either. Abzeronow (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Cablevision (Lebanon).png

@Abzeronow:Buenas, esta foto debería ser removido (deleted) o quedarse (kept), una opinión?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Reluctant delete since Lebanon's ToO is unknown. (Apologies for the late reply, was not near a computer until now) Abzeronow (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Abzeronow:Gracias por responder, pero ese Logo que contiene era solamente texto con "CV" pegadas (osea pasaría como "simple"). AbchyZa22 (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)