User talk:Captain-tucker/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
English: Welcome to the Commons, Captain-tucker!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Bahasa Banjar | català | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | Esperanto | euskara | estremeñu | français | Frysk | galego | hrvatski | Bahasa Indonesia | interlingua | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | Kiswahili | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | magyar | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | Plattdüütsch | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | rumantsch | Scots | shqip | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | Basa Sunda | suomi | svenska | Tagalog | Türkçe | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | Ирон | македонски | нохчийн | русский | српски / srpski | тоҷикӣ | українська | ქართული | Հայերեն | नेपाली | भोजपुरी | मराठी | हिन्दी | অসমীয়া | বাংলা | தமிழ் | മലയാളം | සිංහල | ไทย | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 中文 | 中文（台灣）‎ | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | 粵語 | עברית | اردو | العربية | تۆرکجه | سنڌي | فارسی | +/−
First steps tutorial

Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy.

Getting help

More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.

Goodies, tips and tricks
  • Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities.
  • All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery
  • Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~
  • Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!)
  • To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], which produces: Image:Foo.jpg
  • If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper
Made a mistake?
  • Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}}
  • For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

--SieBot 21:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 50350f0e879dde4c5a4dff93668a0468

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

File:Luther Burger Goolge.jpg

I believe you typoed "Goolge". — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Aafje Heynis.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 00:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


Hello, Captain-tucker. You have new messages at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Babypamper.jpg.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

IMO categories

Hi Captain-tucker, as you had taken part in the discussion of the IMO categories, I'd like to let you know that, as discussed, I've now relisted the IMO discussion here. Let's see if someone there has an idea how to resolve it so that everyone's happy in the end! :o) Regards, Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Flickr request

Hello Captain-tucker, and thank you for your application to be a flickr reviewer. The application has been removed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. Congratulations! Please see Commons:Flickr images if you haven't done so already, and the backlogs at Category:Flickr images needing human review and Category:Flickr review needed. A helpful script for easy-tagging flickr images is at importScript('User:Patstuart/Flickrreview.js'); (which you can add to your monobook.js), and you can add {{User reviewer}} or {{User trusted}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your work on Commons! :) PeterSymonds (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

misdirected comment

It wasn't user:szajci who blanked the page you thought about. :-) Take care. --grin ✎ 21:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I must have clicked on the wrong blank as user:szajci blanked the page the revision before. --Captain-tucker (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Regarding image titled Mose002.jpg used for the article Mose_Giganticus: The image licensing has been changed by the photographer, Laura Webb, to Attribution 2.0 Generic. The licensing can be found on the image's flickr page http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurawebb/753857823/. The image has been re-uploaded at Mose003.jpg with current and applicable licensing and re-included on the Mose_Giganticus article.

Kurtsik's images of Carcassone in the image not found category were likely licensed freely. Sometime last year he quit flickr and migrated to ipernity. But he did not take all his flickr images to ipernity (including most of his ones from Carcassone) He took only a few there. I had Admin Lupo mark the ones he transferred like these 2 from the image not found category:

Here is one of kurtsik's images on ipernity and it is licensed as cc by sa: [1]

When you contact people on flickr, some may look at your photostream before they decide to make a reply. Others just ignore you...as has happened to me occasionally. I had these six images undeleted (I had had them deleted originally!) after I contacted the flickr owner and he changed the license to cc by sa. Even a small photostream for people to see, is better than nothing.

As an aside, regarding dancing with wolves, I know she once licensed her images of dogs freely years ago like these two:

As usual, she later change the flickr license to ARR. In this later case, she just deleted the photo: File:Keeshond Majic standing cropped.jpg and re-uploaded it on her photostream as ARR. (I notice) The failed review occured only 11 months after upload which is excessively long.

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion about Flickr. I added a dozen photos to my stream, good idea. I have had fair results with Flickrmail'ing. Some people respond and change licenses. I have had a couple email back licensing statements that I forwarded to OTRS and as you say some that just seem to ignore me. I did get a response back from dancing_with_wolves, she said that she emailed the actual owner of the image and was waiting back to possibly change the permissions. So we shall see. Thanks again for the tip about my Flickr stream. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for adding some photos to your photostream. It looks decent now. Sometimes some people use the flickr not found category to post copyvios but they are usually speedy deleted by me within days...if I have time. These are usually recent uploads. When I first checked this category, there were some images which were actually still on the flickr link but the reviewbot malfunctioned and falsely said the image was not on the link. This happened just recently again to an image uploaded by an Admin no less! I just submit them to a new review. But in most cases, its the same sad story. The flickrreview bot takes forever (ie. more than 6-8 months) to review an image and by then the flickr owner sees his/her image used on a commercial web site and deletes it. If a flickr owner licenses all his other images freely, I usually assume good faith...unless the photo is unused on wikipedia or of very low resolution...which is a sign of a possible copy vio. Also, if this is the flickr owner's only picture on Commons, its most likely a copy vio...because one would expect other images from a person's account as in the case of dancing with wolves. Admin Nilsfanion once told me last year he usually looked at how long it took for an image to be reviewed and how heavily it was used before filing a deletion. But you can follow your own rules of course. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, this may be a copy vio: File:Semmering Railway.jpg as it is the flickr owner's only image here. But I cannot be 100% sure here sadly....since the flickr review incredibly occured more than 1 year after upload. Sigh! Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

However based on the flickr author's userpage statement, it may/may not be kept as he asks for permission for commercial uses. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Have you contacted him via email since he lists it on his Flickr page. I have had three Flickr users who had either hidden or deleted their images but sent me an email stating their CC license which I then forwarded to OTRS. So far one has made it through the OTRS queue. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I have not contacted him as I stated in this image's history here. I don't contact people who delete images. I only contact people who have not deleted their images...whose flickr images rest in the "possibly unfree category." Thank You. Feel free to contact this person if you wish. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
With regard to File:Keeshond Majic standing cropped.jpg, I got an email today from the copyright holder of this image stating that it was licensed as CC-BY which I forwarded to OTRS. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment I hope the messages you send to OTRS get OTRS'ed. There seems to be some delay here. Anyway, that image of Keeshond Majic is heavily used on Wikipedia at 16 pages. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I can not complain about OTRS, they have processed 2 out of 11 OTRS tickets since July 8. OTRS seems link a thankless job. It took several emails to get something from the real author of File:Keeshond Majic standing cropped.jpg. It's a good photo and deserves to remain here and on Wikipedia. Have a good weekend. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Leucanthemum x superbum 'Becky' in NH.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments good work --George Chernilevsky 08:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice work

Tagging garbage :) Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have actually been thinking of trying to become an admin here to be able to expand my ability to clean things up. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense. Commons has plenty of admins most of whom do very little :( I became one a while back on a similar basis. Feel free to include new user pages while watching - some are very "out of scope"! I'm around from time to time if you need me - cheers --Herby talk thyme 17:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Commercial computer games

Sorry ,i did not know that uploading a file related with a computer game is a violation.The reason is:i am new here.It wont repeat.

Copyright can be confusing. Casebook is a good place to start to get an idea what you can upload. Let me know if you have any other questions. --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: User:Rizome/A.PLANTILLAS/translate

Hello!!
Thanks. I designed the template, with a small font to {{{translated}}} because I wanted not to make it very big. Now, I've done two modifications[2].

  1. {{{font-size}}}: if you specify this parameter (the value doesn't afects the result), the {{{translated}}} will be shown bigger (13px), otherwise will appear as before (10px)
  2. {{{signature}}}: used to sign the intervention. This will be needed to use the template. I've added this param, because I saw that many people forget to sign his interventions after use {{User:Rizome/A.PLANTILLAS/translate}}

Sorry for my bad english
Are you agree with this modifications? --Rizome (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent job, good idea about the signature. Keep up the good work.--Captain-tucker (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
That's easy. See you. --Rizome (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

RE:Congratulations

Thank you and good luck. If you want some advices, you could ask. Otourly (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Otourly (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

1 Comment

You may consider contacting the flickr owner here since he licenses his other images freely on his photostream:

Personally, I am 100% sure it was licensed freely at upload since Mac9 has one of the best upload records here with more than 2000 photos on Commons. But the photo was deleted before it could be reviewed in time. The bad news is it looks like the flickrowner did not like his images used on Wikipedia as this shows--all uploaded by Mac9, I believe. He deleted most of them or relicensed them as ARR in some cases. But if sonofgroucho admits it was licensed as "Attribution Creative Commons" in 2005, then it might be worth a try. Its a pity this is such an important image. I don't flickrmail people who delete images. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I will try and contact the original Flickr author. Will let you know what happens. --Captain-tucker (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gaillardia x grandiflora 'Oranges and Lemons' in NH.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Ok. Maedin 12:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Note

I supported your Adminship here. Its a safer place to be an Admin than on Wikipedia. Fewer vandalism and abusive sockpuppets. Good luck. As an aside, I saw 2 images with OTRS tickets in the "image not found" category. I thought they were suspicious but tried to assume good faith here It turns out that its better to be cynical sadly.

Its amazing that new flickr images that don't show up on the flickr link get placed here instead of facing a 1 week deletion warning. I saw 1 or 2 recently uploaded images here and got them deleted. What a great way to place a copyvio on Commons! That is why I have to look at the image history of a photo...to make sure they aren't recent uploads if possible. As an aside, according to this, there is a 2 week backlog at OTRS. No wonder there's a delay. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This photo

This photo may be worth contacting the flickr owner since I see he licenses his other photos as cc by 2.0:

As an aside, I learnt that Mac9 was certainly a trustwhorthy uploader when I saw this situation...where the flickr owner changed the license and later deleted an image before it could be inspected whereas another picture uploaded the same day by him was marked in time: File:Zabid flickr01.jpg Unfortunately, the flickrbot has malfunctioned and not marked photos for 2 days now. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

  • NOTE: Keeshond Magic & Live-8 have been OTRS'ed, too. As an aside, those 3 images of Carcassone in the 'images not found' category was uploaded by kurtsik who is now at ipernity as this shows: [3] You know this, of course. But since they are unused, I am not sure if its worth contacting him. Maybe its better to ignore them. Anyway, I am glad Keeshond was saved. Congratulations! I'm just glad I don't have to live with the dog...as he/she is large! Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes got those two OTRS tags last night, still have 9 pending. Nothing yet re: File:Worshipping Nemrut.jpg. I have now gone through all of the images in Category:Flickr images not found, have to go back and ping a few people who send me emails but didn't provide the right info. I have a status page where I am tracking everything: User:Captain-tucker/Flickr-status. I have only had one person so far who was outraged to learn that their image was copied from their Flickr page. Had several email exchanges with her but she still will not tell me how she licensed her photo when it was originally uploaded to Flickr. And I agree Keeshond Magic is too big for a dog. This is my dog: File:Yorkshire Terrier playing grass.JPG. A much better size IMHO.--Captain-tucker (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Its strange that one flickr owner is outraged but won't discuss the license. Hmm! I remember one DR where a lady on flickr demanded that an image of a nipple--I think it was likely hers--be deleted. The problem was....she licensed her photos as cc by 2.0 and it had passed flickr review before she changed the license back to ARR. So, the DR was closed as a keep. You have a nice small dog by the way.

As an aside, I am having a discussion here. I wondered if someone would do this one day. I saved 4 of Mac9's images today...but I think most of the 73 (not 77 now) photos cannot be saved. That is what can happen when early Commons users didn't upload images with FlickrLickr sadly. Licenses change on flickr often and images are deleted. Such is life. Luckily this is not a problem today. Anyway, do read the discussion but its better not to get involved. Regards from Canada --Leoboudv (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I got a response back from the author of File:Worshipping Nemrut.jpg so I have another OTRS pending. From a quick glance it does look like most of the photos in the DR will have to be deleted. It's unfortunate but sometimes necessary on Commons. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately life is not fair. I have sent a few messages to 3 flickr owners today on Mac9's pictures but there are no guarantees. mac9 has too many single photos from 1 account only which isn't worth my time. In my view, if I can save 19 images, them Mac9 has exactly 2,000 photos here and the remaining 58 can be deleted....but that is easier said than done! In most cases, I don't know what the flickr owners will say...as you faced in the 'images not found' category. As an aside, I'm glad the photo of Mount Nemrut was saved...which was the reason why I rewrote its narrative from merely...Worshipping Nemrut to something much more substantial. Something that a flickr account owner would be proud to have on Wikipedia. As an aside, the flickr bot has stopped marking photos here for almost 4 days and the backlog of images waiting to be marked is large. If you have some time, feel free to mark away! Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ हिन्दी ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Captain-tucker, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons webchat on irc.libera.chat. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin webchat.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading. You can find the admin backlog overview at COM:AB.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

-- Cecil (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Congrats & now get working :) You know where I am if I can help - cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey Captain ! Thanks for your message and congratulations. Alchemica (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This image

I'm a trusted user now and can mark it but I'm not comfortable with this one since I contacted the flickr owner and the license may change. It's better if a third party checks it:

Its a nice picture and I hope it is still freely licensed when you inspect it. The flickrowner did not seem happy with the fact that her images can be used for commercial reasons. Today it looks like she licensed just this one as "cc by 2.0" If you can confirm this, please pass it. If not, just ignore it. There are 3 other failed images by her...but when I contacted her, she placed a no-Derivative CC restriction on them. Previously, it was both NC and ND. So, I can't pass them. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct File:Parigi-ristorante.jpg now has a CC-BY license. I updated the DR and removed the delete from this image. --Captain-tucker (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for confirming the license was indeed "cc by 2.0" on the flickr picture by Julie Kertesz. As an aside, I was happy to support your now succesful RfA. Good luck. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

7 images

I have received 2 messages from Gaspa and Marianone saying they licensed these photos as cc by 2.0:

Can you please check if this is true and pass them if you can verify this...as a third party. Its my first full day as a trusted user but I'm involved here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Leoboudv, you are all set. Just so you know I am putting up my wikibreak banner and I am taking a vacation. Good luck with the rest of the images. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Note

This is just to let you know that flickr review just reviewed the originally 480+ remaining images in the possibly unfree category and there are now 25-26 new images in the image not found category at 102. So, when you return from your break, you can contact the flickrowners to see if the license was indeed cc by 2.0/cc by sa or unfree as you have had many images in this category OTRS'ed. Before this recent review, the photos in the not found category fell from 85 to 76 images as the 9 images with OTRS permission were finally OTRS'ed. Congratulations. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  •  Comment Just don't bother with Ghene Snowdon's 4 deleted images here which are all under DR. I flickrmailed her and she refused to send me a reply and kept downloading new images on her account. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Update

Dear Captain-tucker,

I made an exception to my own rules and decided to contact 1 flickr owner for a deleted image. I had some suspicion it was never free at upload and true enough he confirmed the next day that he licensed all his photos as either ARR or NC and ND in 2006. See this DR

As an aside, you may be able to get a response whether positive or negative--I can't say--from these 2 flickr accounts here (Thams & Fanch) as I see they have uploaded new flickr images in the past 2 weeks on their accounts: [4] and [5]

For the first image uploaded here by Codas, it may be a copy vio since this person uploaded only a few flickr photos on Commons and that was many years ago. But I don't know for sure. He also uploaded this old photo also from Thams but he got this one right Most of Codas' own personal photos are certainly his. For the second photo, Fanch looks like he only speaks French...and the image is not used. But it is a high resolution photo and I see he licenses all his images freely. Its your call on the second one.

  • Lastly, As for the 2 bee eaters, I see there are other images of birds from the same flickr source [(Bill and Mavis)] here The license is all the same: "cc by sa." I find this photo interesting since it passed flickr review only 2 months ago but was later deleted on flickr: File:Astros clinch playoff berth!.jpg I don't know if it proves anything though. Its just intriguing. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I tried flickr mailing .Tham and Fanch (the latter in both english and french) today but I don't hold out any hope as I have tried to contact them before. I was able to pass one photo today after many emails back and forth. File:GU001.jpg I had to send the Flick user screen shots on how to change the license from ARR. BTW, what I do with emailing Flick users is that I setup a separate Gmail account that is connected to my flickr account so all of this does not fill up my personal email and it keeps me more isolated from all of these Flickr users since I do sometimes email them back directly instead of using Flickmail. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment: You managed to save that image of Hauteville house! That's amazing. I was tempted to DR it...but there was no replacement images. I think my mail system is similar to yours in that my E-mail account is also connected to flickrmail. So, if someone sends a flickrmail, I immediatedly get a reply on my personal E-mail. As for flickr licenses, many people don't know how to change them on flickr. I had to send 2 messages to save this image by Mac9 here And the flickr owner was an Admin on flickr but as she said to me, she rarely changed flickr licenses. I think Thams will probably not reply but Fanch might since he licenses his photos freely. As an aside, I saved 15 of Mac's 77 photos under DR and tagged 1 with a change of license tag after showing the 57 FlickrLickr images uploaded from the source flickr account. I suppose 16 out of 77 is better than none. But if it was Urban, I would have given up hope entirely here Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • PS: You may know this but there is another way to get permission from flickr owners who may refuse to change the flickr license--OTRS. I had a few instances where the flickrowner was willing to let an image which failed flickrreview to stay on Commons but they didn't want to change the actual flickr license. So...after explaining the situation, I would say. "You can also allow this image to remain on Commons without changing the flickr license. Just send send me a message like this: 'I, [Type in name of flickr owner or flickr account] do license this image [copy and paste in the commons url link for the image file] on an "Attribution ShareAlike Creative Commons" license. I will then send your permission to be verified and safely archived by an Administrator on Wikimedia Commons.'
I had several images OTRS'ed this way including this example or this one. In the second (quite rare) case, the person both sent me the OTRS message and changed the flickr license. You can see its interesting image history. I hope this helps....especially for people who don't know how to change flickr licenses. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have done the OTRS method many times. I have had 15 images from Category:Flickr images not found-old converted to OTRS tickets and have 4 pending, see: User:Captain-tucker/Flickr-status. Here are my stock Flickr messages that I paste into Flickr emails: User:Captain-tucker/Flickr-messages. It works very well for people who have either deleted their image of have had their images deleted by Flickr's subscription policy. Most people are very happy to have their images on Wikipedia. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks sir for your comments here. It is good to have you as an Admin on Commons. With kind Regards from Canada. As an aside, is it true that if you don't renew a pro account on flickr, all but your most recent 200 images are automatically deleted? This seems quite harsh. If you are on a basic account, the limit is also 200 images, too? --Leoboudv (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, according to Flickr's help page, for free accounts Photostream views limited to the 200 most recent images. I can not see paying for a Pro Flickr account. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That is most unfortunate. I have had my flickr account for maybe 1 year and only have 65 images on it. I would never pay $25 US a year for a pro account since I take so few photos. I had wished flickr was more reasonable and would limit the resolution on basic accounts to 1042 X 768 pixels (as they currently do) without any limits on uploads. I place some quality photos on my small flickr account so people will take me seriously if I ask for a license change. But life is not fair. Thanks for your help, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Rivkin.jpg

FYI, this file, which you deleted earlier today for copyright violation, has been uploaded again by the same editor. I have nominated for speedy deletion.--Jay Tepper (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I deleted the file again and added a {{Dont recreate}} tag to the users talk page.--Captain-tucker (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Just so you are aware, I sent him instructions via email and additionally on his talk page on forwarding permissions for the photo from the copyright holder to COM:OTRS so you may see the photo uploaded again. See User_talk:Sbsnet#File:Rivkin.jpg_2. --Captain-tucker (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I see that he instantanously uploaded the picture again, with the OTRS-pending tag. It still gives the source and author of this photo as "Steve Rivkin," which is quite impossible unless he photographed himself in the mirror. Wouldn't it be safer to sort out the copyright issues before allowing this photo to be uploaded? Putting aside the labeling issues, I doubt very much that he could have contacted the photographer in such a short span of time. I suspect that Mr. Rivkin simply may not understand the copyright issues involved.--Jay Tepper (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
COM:OTRS does say that once you send the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to upload the image and add the {{OTRS-pending}} tag to the image so assuming that he did actually send the email then he is following the rules. His user page does state that he is working on a wikipedia article on Rivkin and that he already gave his permission for the photo. So I am assuming good faith and will let the OTRS process work. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I see your point. But the subject of a photograph ordinarily does not own the rights to the photo unless they have been assigned to him or her. That was my concern here, as it states the author was the person photographed, and the user page states he was given the photo by Rivkin, not the photographer. --Jay Tepper (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Warthog Photo

This is a photo that I submitted and there is a problem. As soon as I know what it is, I'll correct it if I can.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Warthog_06-13.jpg#file

Just thought it was a good photo of a warthog. It belongs to me and was taken by me - I waive all copyrights.

Andrew

Andrew, the only problem (not really a problem, more like a warning) with your photo is that it is not categorized. So it would be harder for people to locate it. According to en:Warthog the species is Phacochoerus africanus so it should go into that category, Category:Phacochoerus africanus. To add the category just edit the page and enter [[Category:Phacochoerus africanus]] at the bottom. If you are going to add more photos to Commons which I would highly recommend you should read COM:CAT and enable the HotCat gadget in your preferences/Gadets screen. It makes adding categories much easier. Good Luck. --Captain-tucker (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Worshipping Nemrut.jpg

Dear Captain tucker,

I just today asked someone on OTRS about whether he could find the OTRS permission for this image and he said, he couldn't locate it here (the second note was about the image.) You may wish to resend the permission again for that image. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


Ploče

Hi!

I deleted that page because there is already page named "Category:Ploče"where all photos are available and can be placed small info like I did with "Category:Široki Brijeg" and "Category:Grude"--Anto (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I'm glad the second permission for Worshipping Nemrut was found. By the way, this image was OTRS'ed some time ago: [6] Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, getting behind keeping track of the Flickr OTRS's doing all this admin stuff. It is amazing the stuff people upload and say that they are the author.--Captain-tucker (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I am a fan of Roxette and this was the only image of Marie F on flickr that I knew was taken by the photographer. Just 2 years before she became an international music star. The others were all copy vios though they were correctly licensed as ARR:
  • File:Marie Fredriksson by Thomas Evensson (1987).jpg

There is an interesting discussion about the date from the flickr source. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

More OTRS problems

Hi, sorry, I'm now having trouble finding the permission emails for this and this, which Leoboudv asked about. I did find one of your emails (for File:Zaslona tlumaczenia.jpg) had been filtered as spam, but I couldn't see any others in there. What address was it sent from? J Milburn (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I resent the OTRS email for those two images, They are both on the same email with the subject: permission for http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:San_Juan_de_Amandi_(Villaviciosa,_Asturias)_01.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:San_Juan_de_Amandi_(Villaviciosa,_Asturias)_02.jpg. Note that the permission email from the Flickr user is in Spanish. It was sent from the same email as the OTRS ticket for this image, ticket 2009071810024813. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Found it, dealing with it now. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This image

Can you check and see if this image by Mac9 is now "cc by 2.0."

The flickr owner says he changed the license. If it is confirmed, plesae pass the photos and cancel the DR. If not, please ignore my request. As an aside, I did not know OTRS messages can be tagged as spam sometimes. This seems unfortunate really. If those images were not OTRS'ed within 2 months, someone will usually target them for deletion sadly. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

All set. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I knew the license was 'cc by 2.0' but since I was involved with the DR, I'm not really comfortable marking it since I'm not a neutral third party. Anyway, I have salvaged 20 out of Mac9's failed 77 images (25%)...which is good enough. I'm done with contacting fickr owners here. I am sure the rest were also licensed freely at upload but the flickr owners either refuse to respond to my request to change the license, give OTRS permission...or even reply. At least these 2 significant photos were salvaged thanks to a kind flickr owner:
  • File:Philadelphia-stairs.jpg
  • File:Philadelpia-merchant exchange.jpg

The Philly stairs was supposedly used in a Stallone 'Rocky' move if I recall. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

2 images by Zuppo

I saw S. Zuppo gave permission for 1 of his images. If you are interested, the last review by MGA73's bot turned up 2 new images by him now in the 'image not found' category: [7] and [8] Hopefully, he will give OTRS permission too. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sent a Flickrmail to S. Zuppo and 14 other Flickr authors from Category:Flickr images not found-old, will see how many responses I receive. --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I know who will not reply: Ghene Snowdon. I had contacted her earlier about these 4 images here which are all under DR. She refused to send me a reply and kept downloading new images on her account. How rude...but that's life. Today all her images are ARR. Note: as for Mac9's images, I have asked for the DR to be open until August 18. After that they're history...but at least I got the more important ones salvaged. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!

Hello Captain-tucker! Just wanted to say that I think you are doing a great work checking Flickr images! That is so nice that we have someone like you around :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

:D

The Copyright inspector Barnstar
Thanks for all your hard work Huib talk 11:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

DR

I filed a DR here. Please feel free to make a comment. There are 4-5 FlickrLickr images from Klassy's account here...but this is not 1 of them and Klassy needs this image as a source of revenue. Commons has no legal basis to keep it, in my opinion. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Receipt signed by Vicente Risco, in his museum in Allariz, Ourense, Galicia.jpg

Hello. When I saw the first ad, I added a license Creative Commons Share Alike 3.0, but I didn´t retire the addvice of the file, because I thought that´s something that just can do an administrator. Perhaps it was the problem, because I think the othter information is ok. Thanks for the ad, I´m not very accostumed to Commons. --Iago Conversation 12:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

3 images

Admin MBisanz decided to pass these 3 images here after seeing your wayback evidence. Dinev, I don't think, ever replied to your messages (last upload was July 27--but you had flickrmailed him earlier in July.) Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that earlier today. I have actually Flickr mailed him four times in June and July, once even in Google translated Bulgarian. Wonder why people just can't even reply back. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

File:002d Bp.VII.Rákóczi u.18.jpg

Hi. You added two free licenses, but you are not the creator as far as I can tell. How do you know that the creator wants these licenses added? Regards Hekerui (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The licenses appeared in the Permissions section when the image was originally copied over from hu.wikipedia, I was assuming good faith that these were the licenses used by the original author and copied over by User:Fransvannes since he has a very substantial editing history here.--Captain-tucker (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Weird, in this edit Fransvannes removed the licenses though. Hekerui (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
If you note in that edit that the image had both {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}, {{GFDL}} and {{Kettős licenc}}. {{Kettős licenc}} is a combination of {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} and {{GFDL}} so the image was double licensed. He was probably just trying to delete one of the set and accidentally deleted both. I have no problem assuming that the original license from hu.wikipedia was as Fransvannes stated. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure, was just wondering :) Hekerui (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem. Keep up the work on tagging images for problems. We need all the help we can get here with maintenance tasks. --Captain-tucker (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:OTRS question

The oldest ticket in the Commons permission queue is 26 days, but that's a problematic one. All of the others are younger than 20 days. What was the image you were wondering about specifically? J Milburn (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, my other one got answered earlier today, I just found this one File:AGCO-K-Big.png. It's probably passes {{PD-textlogo}} anyway, but it brought up my question about how long is too long for an OTRS-pending. Is it better to just tag older OTRS-pending with {{Nopd}} than specifically ask at the noticeboard? I don't want to bother the OTRS team with unnecessary work. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not certain- if the image is deleted, it can always be restored later, as there are a lot of admins on the OTRS team. I'll watchlist the OTRS noticeboard now so I can help out with requests there. Alternatively, I don't mind you contacting me directly. J Milburn (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Jack Kerouac

Hi, thanks a lot for your help, i appreciate you asked to the picture's owner so as he change the licence! A good demonstration of team-play on wikipedia! Friendly, --prosopee (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Mac9

I will tag a few failed or not found images as passed by Mac9 or Überraschungsbilder when I find them. MGA73 advised me to do this on my talkpage and the mass DR has been closed here I knew Mac9 knew the right licenses...unlike other reviewers like Urban or Ronline. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

 Comment: These 4 images were passed on Mac9's behalf by MGA73. They were formerly in the image not found category. I passed this so far in the same category:

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC) This is the last one for Mac here.

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I had given up on that one since the Flickr owner closed their Flickr account. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A nice tool

A nice link link for you (you must copy paste to browser):

  • http://toolserver.org/~azatoth/latest_files/?maxsize=-1&maxresx=-1&maxresy=-1&mime[]=jpeg&mime[]=png&mime[]=tiff&mime[]=svg%2Bxml&mime[]=gif&mime[]=vnd.djvu&mime[]=x-xcf&minsize=-1&minresx=-1&minresy=-1&count=1000&domain=commons.wikimedia.org&cats=Flickr+images+not+found-old+|+Possibly+unfree+Flickr+images+reviewed+by+FlickreviewR

--MGA73 (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A cool list User_talk:Para#How_did_you_make_this_list.3F. --MGA73 (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks for both. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I can't forward the information. It's my mom's email. I was hoping Flickr would use mine, not the backup one for my yahoo email. Mom doesn't want emails from them. The Flickr user, 2africa.nl doesn't use wiki. Do you do Flickr? Or know somebody who does? http://www.flickr.com/photos/41180699@N07/ This is my page. If you know somebody who can go....I had mailed the person. Maybe another Flickr member that you know can mail 2africa.nl and figure out if I really had permission. I really did. Here's the users page. http://www.flickr.com/photos/2africa/ Here's the photo as posted on Flickr. http://www.flickr.com/photos/2africa/147042746/ Have somebody mail. I can't forward the email. Not unless wikimedia has a no reply policy. Mom gave me an email for a reason. So I don't use hers. --Mhera (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh and I'm going to upload some pictures that I took of my cat. Go to my page and I'll have a list of all the photos I upload. Look there and approve it please. Oh and if there's a problem please do it on the discussion for the photo. I'm trying to get on at least every two days. I'm on wikipedia every day. (except sundays and saturdays.) Mhera (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I sent a Flickrmail to 2africa.nl asking if she would re-license the image as either CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. If the image is deleted from here it can easily be restored if the Flickr owner changes her license at a later time. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Mind telling me the outcome? Can't get mail at Flickr. Don't delete the picture please. I have it on an article on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namib_desert_horse The Namib desert horse. That picture I need for it. That's why I'm trying to get this cleared up. Mhera (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Flickr changes

Did you see this huge list of flickr changes here: flickr changes The author of the File:SteelpanVI.jpg image did license the image as 'cc by sa 2.0' as a flickr tag review on March 19, 2007 shows...its in the very first table you see though you have to scroll through it. The list also has links to other images which are unfree or not found today but were licensed freely...according to the first flickr tag review. I think we can pass images by giving a link to this page and saying according to table "2007-01-22 – 2007-01-29" it was cc by sa 2.0 or cc by 2.0 according to the Flickr tag.

  • MGA73 mentioned it in this DR. I passed 1 image here based on this evidence. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I also passed this image which was formerly in the image not found category. Please see its discussion page. It was reviewed on October 16, 2006 and found to be cc by sa 2.0 Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment: This in the image not found category was the hardest to locate on Para's change of license web tagging site. I hunted up and down for it and finally found it...as I note in the image discussion page. Its a pity the uploader never sent you a message as I see he has uploaded photos in August 2009. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:

I don't know which source you want. The image was uploaded from Wikipedia - as stated - and is an own work by the uploader over there. MachoCarioca (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see my response on your talk page. --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw but can't see the point of your act. If the license is wrong, and it seems to be the core of the problem, what about to fix it instead to delet it? Don't make sense it to me, I just uploaded it from Wiki-en where it is tagged as 'own work'. So, the source is that. MachoCarioca (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look at our COM:SCOPE, you will see that we can only house free images. So we need to ensure that all of the images here meet the guidelines in COM:L. Basically images can be free by either being Public Domain by meeting various age criteria, i.e. 70 years after the death of the copyright holder, or by meeting some specific legal requirement such as a photo taken by a US government official during the performance of their work. The other basic way an image can be hosted here is if the copyright holder declares that the image is licensed in such a way that it meets our licensing requirements, for example posting to Flickr with a CC-BY license. For any of these things to be met we need to know where the image came from, i.e. its source so that we can be sure that the image meets our licensing requirements. A source of WIki-en does not tell us where the image came from, who was the photographer, how is it licensed? I would like to be able to fix this image but without knowing anything about the source the only thing I can do is add the {{Nsd}} tag. A tineye search comes up with nothing [9]. I was able to find the image here, but that does not provide any details about its origin. --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"A source of WIki-en does not tell us where the image came from, who was the photographer"

For me, own work is own work and has a 'own license'. What about the original uploader about that? MachoCarioca (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the original version on English Wikipedia does not provide any information about the source, it just says that it is in the Public Domain, but how do we know since we don't know where the photo came from? --Captain-tucker (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I see there is {{PD-self|date=February 2009}} I think we know from where the photo comes. Is an 'own work'. I can't realize how do you want a source to an 'own work', uploaded by the copyright owner. If I take a picture of you, and have it stored at home in some photo archive (example) and someday I want upload it to Commons, the source is my home? It doesn't make sense, does it?MachoCarioca (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly, all that is on that English Wikipedia page is {{PD-self}}, the uploader did not provide as source and we can not just assume that they took the picture themselves. It could just as easily been downloaded from here. There is no way to tell since the original uploaded did not provide any information. BTW, I edited you response to remove the display of the {{PD-self}} tag. --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I can't forward the information. It's my mom's email. I was hoping Flickr would use mine, not the backup one for my yahoo email. Mom doesn't want emails from them. The Flickr user, 2africa.nl doesn't use wiki. Do you do Flickr? Or know somebody who does? http://www.flickr.com/photos/41180699@N07/ This is my page. If you know somebody who can go....I had mailed the person. Maybe another Flickr member that you know can mail 2africa.nl and figure out if I really had permission. I really did. Here's the users page. http://www.flickr.com/photos/2africa/ Here's the photo as posted on Flickr. http://www.flickr.com/photos/2africa/147042746/ Have somebody mail. I can't forward the email. Not unless wikimedia has a no reply policy. Mom gave me an email for a reason. So I don't use hers. --Mhera (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh and I'm going to upload some pictures that I took of my cat. Go to my page and I'll have a list of all the photos I upload. Look there and approve it please. Oh and if there's a problem please do it on the discussion for the photo. I'm trying to get on at least every two days. I'm on wikipedia every day. (except sundays and saturdays.) Mhera (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I sent a Flickrmail to 2africa.nl asking if she would re-license the image as either CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. If the image is deleted from here it can easily be restored if the Flickr owner changes her license at a later time. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Mind telling me the outcome? Can't get mail at Flickr. Don't delete the picture please. I have it on an article on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namib_desert_horse The Namib desert horse. That picture I need for it. That's why I'm trying to get this cleared up. Mhera (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Flickr changes

Did you see this huge list of flickr changes here: flickr changes The author of the File:SteelpanVI.jpg image did license the image as 'cc by sa 2.0' as a flickr tag review on March 19, 2007 shows...its in the very first table you see though you have to scroll through it. The list also has links to other images which are unfree or not found today but were licensed freely...according to the first flickr tag review. I think we can pass images by giving a link to this page and saying according to table "2007-01-22 – 2007-01-29" it was cc by sa 2.0 or cc by 2.0 according to the Flickr tag.

  • MGA73 mentioned it in this DR. I passed 1 image here based on this evidence. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I also passed this image which was formerly in the image not found category. Please see its discussion page. It was reviewed on October 16, 2006 and found to be cc by sa 2.0 Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment: This in the image not found category was the hardest to locate on Para's change of license web tagging site. I hunted up and down for it and finally found it...as I note in the image discussion page. Its a pity the uploader never sent you a message as I see he has uploaded photos in August 2009. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Note

I could not access the archive page personally that you sent. If the image license showed it was cc by or cc by sa, then it can probably be kept...as MBisanz did to Dinev's pictures after he saw the licenses in the past. If not, its better not to touch it because we have no proof of anything. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

True, it does not really prove anything. I put a note on the Files talk page for future reference. Thanks --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to say this but I passed these 2 images in the not found category: [10] & [11] The first was changed from the flickr license change evidence while the second was passed by MBisanz based on this message. Re this photo again File:White metal spiral staircase.jpg just send a message to uploader Sandstein. It was surely licensed freely since he is a trusted user and an Admin here. I have recently sent a message on his talkpage about 2 images and he has flickr passed other images I mentioned to him before.

As for the image of the Verona ponte uploaded by Mac9, just type in a flickrpass and date it to the time of upload...as I have done here Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

OTRS problems

I contacted someone on OTRS and he said there were problems for these 2 images you placed here I was wondering why it took so long to OTRs the firts photo. Please respond on MBisanz's talkpage. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Flickrreview script

Dear captain,

Have you had any problems marking images with the flickrreview script in the past day or so? The flickr pass and flickr copyvio buttons seem to have disappeared on my computer and I have to pass photos manually in this category here Can you try marking 1 or 2 images here today and see if the flickr pass script works for you? I tried going back to my monobook and clicking CTRL-F5 but it does not work. I have heard some rumours that Commons has had some software problems recently....but it may just be my computer that's causing the problem. Can you try marking photo and see if it is OK with your system. Thank You from Vancouver, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Leoboudv, I was able to successfully use the Flickrreview.js script [12] on File:Driving to Peshawar from Pindi2.jpg. There have been some issues with toolserver lately but I don't think that could have anything to do with the Flickrreview.js script since it runs on your browser and not on toolserver. What browser are you using? --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
You might want to try Firefox, its a much better browser, lots of great add-on's. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strange. I could do a flickrreview script pass on my sister's computer where I see the 2 marking options but 'the buttons' don't appear on my own computer which is slowing down in performance. I'll try defragmenting my computer and see what happens. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Sandstein has passed 3 images here. As far as you are concerned, are there any more images to save in the 'not found' category? It seems to me sadly that there are no more to save now...and it is time to tell MGA73 to begin nominating the images for deletion. I may type in passes for 2 images by Liftarm (not 100% sure I trust this guy!)...but I don't know the rest of the uploaders here at all. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like some more time to work on some more images. I got three passed yesterday File:Ruger_Black_Hawk_flickr_szuppo.jpg, File:Ruger_Single_Six_flickr_szuppo.jpg,File:Smith & Wesson Model 629-1 flickr szuppo.jpg when I finally got the flickr author to unhide and relicense some of his photos, and I passed one myself this morning due to overwhelming support evidence File:Allophylus edulis.jpg. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • OK. Maybe, its better to wait a month or 2 more. This is one last one by zuppo. I have passed this image based on Para's evidence and voted in the DR. Masen clearly didn't know much about image licenses sadly. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, don't know how I missed that one. I changed the license to cc-by-sa and asked for a new flickrreview. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Captain tucker, thanks for the email, I must have forgotten to tag the picture before pressing save. I have tagged it now and am wondering whether or not you support the picture. [13] User:NancyHeise (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note on image not found & unfree

MGA73 has asked me to look at the uploader's history to see if they are trustworthy. If he/she was, one can consider passing the failed image. So, after looking at this special case here , I passed the image. Its a pity the flickr review process for the failed image took forever here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Its good you managed to save the high resolution image as I had placed a speedy on it for good reason...and then changed my mind and decided to give you more time here. See the history here Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I left you the message on your talk page. I saw that you had speedy'd it and wanted to let you know that it was safe now. It's been a good day two emails from Category:Flickr images not found-old flickr authors. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
You may want to note that I passed these 2 images in your 'image not found' list: [14] and [15]

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  •  Comment: Would you like to contact the flickr owner here: [16] and see if he is indeed the uploader Ezu and if he would change the license? Just an idea since its heavily used. I'm tired marking images today. By the way, this is probably toast. I don't disagree with MGA73's reasons. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Just an info to your both. I fixed a few (5?) where user on commons = user on Flickr. I changed to "{{self|..." + removed the flickerreview failed. I also started checking images to see if they were on Paras list and if so I left a note on talk page. I newer got to pass the images as reviewed because I had a chance to get some lists from Multichill to migrate iages with. If you run into these images feel free to fix them otherwise I will look for them when I get some free time. Keep up the good work! --MGA73 (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OTRS problem

Matt Bisanz could not locate the E-mail for the first OTRS ticket you added here. This was my message to him: [17] Please send a reply to him. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Nationale Paris Metro Station 1.JPG

There is no need for universal replacement, because this file isn't in use. I had approved renaming of this file bacause i uploaded it under the wrong name. Also, i checked the usage of this image. So please delete this redirect. Thnx --Ex13 (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

CJ Charles Evans Hughes.

Please don't delete this photo: File:Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes.jpg.

Instead, replace it with the image here: http://www.oyez.org/sites/default/files/justices/charles_e_hughes/charles_e_hughes_photo.jpg

It is from a public domain source. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. Logging in made the upload a new photo feature visible. I'll take care of it. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirection of File:Castel_Sant'Angelo_(night).jpg

Hi, just for the sake of interest: Is there any strong reason to redirect the old name of the low resolution image to the high resolution version. I tried to verify that no links are placed to the low resolution image with this name. BTW, thanks for removing the small version finally. Andreas Tille (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Just following the policy at Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates, it's also shown in the {{tl:duplicate}} tag, saying to redirect the file after deletion. And yes the backlog at Category:Duplicate is over 1000 images. Commons needs more active admins, there is just too much work and not enough people. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dartford Living

Hello Captain Tucker

I noticed you edited my entry for Dartford Living - the photos (magazine covers) belong to Dartford Living and have been authorised to be used on the Wiki page - why have they been removed? And how am I allowed to use them again in future (considering other magazines and newspapers have thier cover pages at their entry)

Regards, 16:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)~~ Abdel Khairoun

Abdel, the images from Dartford Living are copyright by their publisher. They can only be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons if you can obtain a free license from the copyright holder. Please see COM:OTRS for details on how to have that written permission documented. These images can be easily undeleted if your permission is approved by the OTRS team. If the permission you received was to display these images on Wikipedia alone then they may be allowed on Wikipedia under free use. Please see en:WP:FREE USE. More than likely you will have to forward this Wikipedia use only permission to the Wikipedia OTRS team, see EN:WP:OTRS. Wikimedia Commons only allow free images, please see COM:L andCOM:CB. Let me know if you have any more questions. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


Ok thank you, I will get the editor to send an email as per the advice given.

Abdelhk (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Abdel

Hello again, Sir, I have asked the editor of datford Living to create an account at wiki commons and to upload two photos as well as send an email to authorise use. The image i have at Dartford Living is the image he has uploaded... Regards

Abdelhk (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Abdel

Violation of Copyright.

Captain Tucker,

I work for Ediouro - the firm that detains the rights of the “Luluzinha Teen e sua turma” magazine- and uploaded 3 pictures of the cover of that publication but, unfortunately, you deleted one of them.

I would like to know how I should proceed when it comes to prove that there was no copyright violation. Could you, please, explain to me?

Ediouro appreciate your concern.

In case of any remaining doubt, I would be happy to answer it.

The magazine “Luluzinha Teen e sua turma” is produced by Ediouro (a Brazilian book publisher) and its images were created by Labareda.

Marianaediouro, First you need to make sure that you understand the Licensing policy for images on Commons, see COM:L. Images uploaded to Commons must have a free license, {see Commons:Choosing_a_license#Common_free_licenses). Images such as commercial magazine covers are copyrighted by their publisher so without written permission from the copyright holder we can only assume that these images are copyright violations. If the copyright holder wishes to release their images using a free license {see Commons:Choosing_a_license#Common_free_licenses), then they you can use the instructions provided here: COM:OTRS to send an email to our OTRS team to confirm that their images are indeed freely licensed. Any images can then be un-deleted when proper permission has been received and accepted. Just to be clear Wikimedia Commons only accepts free licenses. Several Wikipedia sites do accept fair use images, see: en:WP:FAIR USE, this may be an option. Let me know if you have other questions. --Captain-tucker (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Captain Tucker can you do something..........

File:Thys.4f photo from Flickr.jpg Could you please preview this? Thys.4f was the person. Mhera (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Question. I accidentally uploaded the file with the name I had it saved to my computer. Anyway I can change it? Mhera (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
First, the file File:Thys.4f photo from Flickr.jpg is licensed on Flickr as BYNC ((CC-BY-NC). Unfortunatly Commons only accept Flickr images tagged as BY (CC-BY) or BY SA (CC-BY-SA). Please see COM:FLICKR for more information. You can send a Flickrmail message to Thys.4f and ask if he/she would remove the NC restriction. I have had some good luck with this especially if the image is to be on a wikipedia page. But if the image remains on Flickr with the NC NC license it will be deleted from Commons. And to answer your second question if you upload a file with an incorrect name just re-upload it with the correct name and then use the {{Badname}} tag on the incorrectly named image. Eventually an administrator will delete the incorrectly named image. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This DR

Would you consider contacting the flickr owner here in this DR? I am a bit busy at present to get a possible license change. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

All set, I sent it directly to his @mac.com email listed on his flickr page, so hopefully we will get something back soon. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. One day someone will go through the final set of possibly unfree images category. It has been wittled down to just over 100 images. When I first worked on this category, it was 1830+ images and many were FlickrLickr images. There are still some flickr images on Commons which have never been marked. When I come across them, I subject them to a flickrreview if they are licensed freely. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagging out of project scope pages

Hey, I'm just wondering why you keep tagging these pages with the speedy deletion template. I mean, you're an admin, why not just deleting them? --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I like to put full {{project scope|Gallery page}} tag on their user page when I delete an out of scope gallery. The speedy tag shows this full version so I can then just copy/paste it onto their talk page. I could just add the generic project scope tag and then go back in and add in the gallery name, but that seems as much work as pasting in the speedy tag first. --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yeah, understandable. I don't know if you have this enabled, but with Twinkle you can just copy the pagename and warn the user for out of project scope edits, and paste the pagename into the field "Linked article". Actually, the only reason why I saw this was because your edit was triggered by abuse filter 51; I'm planning to either warn or disallow people to create galleries without images (depending on the number of false positives). If necessary, I could add an exception to not trigger sysop edits or additions of deletion templates. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer on twinkle, I have used it on en-wiki and forgot to look for it here. I have not checked out AbuseFilters yet. I would think that you would need to exempt the addition of deletion templates if you are going to act on the filter hit. Thanks again.--Captain-tucker (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This image

It looks like this DR must be closed as a delete. The flickrowner uploaded new images today on his flickr account but did not change the license of this image even though he received your message. Please feel free to make a comment/update in the DR if you wish. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I got this response:
I had an email exchange with another Wiki editor and I thought we had resolved this issue. Let me check my inbox and get back to you,
but I thought I had agreed to licensing terms already? Perhaps that was a separate entity, maybe Wikipedia?
Please give me a little time to check into this.

--Captain-tucker (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, the issue is the NC restriction. In some cases, people are willing to license it as 'cc by sa' or 'Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons' on flickr but other people say they would never allow commercial exploitation of their photos. But I agree: it is better to wait for his response to you on altering the license here then....since it is heavily used on Wikipedia. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just thought I would let you know that this image [18] that came from a flickr account, and that you verified, was actually lifted from somebodies fotopic account [19]. It would seem that according to discussion on this board [20] that the owner of this flickr account has lifted lots of photos from other websites. As the flickr account user infringed on copyright by posting the image to his flickr account, which led it to being added to Wikipedia, it should be deleted from Wikipedia for copyright infringement. Thankyou. 67.193.179.177 13:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have marked this image as a copyright violation. If you find more of these please see {{Copyvio}}. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I found another image from the same flickr author was appears to have been flickrwashed and have tagged it as a copyvio, File:BC Transit 8604 Kamloops.jpg.


This photo

Would you consider marking this photo. The flickr owner says she changed the license but maybe a third party should mark it just to be safe:

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem, all set. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. I'm glad the 2 Saab images were OTRS'ed by you. I was thinking of typing in a flickrpass for them...I wasn't sure I trusted the uploader. Now I trust Liftarm more. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 Comment: I placed a speedy delete on this photo: File:Ortigia.jpg You had flickrmailed Tham Photos on August 3 but their last upload was August 16. They are not going to pass the photo and I have no idea if uploader Codas knew the right license in 2006. He left Commons in early 2007. As an aside, you may consider tagging these images for deletion--while Codas uploads many high resolution photso which are clearly his, I doubt he holds the copyright to these 2 photos:

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 Comment: If you are able to add OTRS pending tags to future unfree photos, you may wish to contact MBisanz to then verify the permission. From his reply on the 2 Saab images, it seems your message ended up in the junk mail folder for some strange reason. If the junk folder is cleared, the permission is lost sadly. Anyway Matt will usually respond to your messages in a timely manner if he is not busy. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping tabs on them, strange thing about the junk mail??--Captain-tucker (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I cannot explain it either. But the faster you contact someone on OTRS, the easier the E-mail can be found and the picture OTRS'ed. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
PS: I typed a pass for this image as you can see in the image discussion here Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Update on your list

These 2 images were OTRS'ed in the image not found category: [21] & [22] while I passed the one on Sperecamprodon I mentioned above. So, you can cancel them out in your list. I wonder if any more can be salvaged? Perhaps only 1 or 2 at the most. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Some images by User:Morven

Ai ai captail :-) I just noticed this comment from Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2008Dec#Category:Flickr_images_not_found:

"File:Voigtländer Vito CLR.jpg and File:Yashica-Mat.jpg - User:Morven claims to have a separate email for these images giving permission. While these should probably be forwarded to OTRS, the user is both and admin and ArbCom member, so presumably that should be trusted."

There are more of these images in Category:Flickr images not found-old + Category:Possibly unfree Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR. I suggest we trust this user so if you agree we could mark these images as passed. --MGA73 (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Two images by en:East718

Also these two images File:IanFreeman.png and File:Stitch&Napao.png per File_talk:IanFreeman.png. --MGA73 (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You missed this one File:Miranda Sensorex.jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I completely agree with passing the imaged uploaded by User:Morven as completed by Leoboudv. As far as File:IanFreeman.png and File:Stitch&Napao.png I believe that using East718's en-wiki adminship three months before the files were uploaded and the web.archive.org evidence showing the Flickr user davideferro licensing his images as CC-BY that we can pass these images. I will add the tag. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I have passed that one as well. BTW, have you seen this DR from the Category:Flickr images not found-old list? --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Deliberate vote vandalism

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lockhart_Beach_Provicial_Park.jpg&diff=next&oldid=28623994
I was wondering if you would look at this character's vandalism of the vote process,
he has crossed off my vote and lied saying I am banned. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit in question was not vote vandalism, it was striking out a duplicate vote made by you in the DR in question. And vote vandalism appears to be something that you actually performed earlier in this DR by looking at this edit. And your lack of civility shown in this edit is not something that in my opinion should be tolerated. And voting like this and this is counter productive. You need to read and understand COM:L and COM:DEL, one very important line in COM:DEL is The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy.--Captain-tucker (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Note

Sorry about this DR but the copyright owner is not going to change the license despite your requests. Since there is nothing on archives for his account, I think its best to just delete. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, I have started to write up DR's on the images in Category:Flickr images not found-old where the Flickr account has been deleted. #1, #2, #3, #4,#5. I intend to continue. We will get this category emptied soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain-tucker (talk • contribs) 19:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Sad but it should be emptied... --MGA73 (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully they all will not have to be deleted, I passed three just yesterday, File:Carcassonne kurtsik2.jpg, File:Carcassonne kurtsik3.jpg, File:Carcassonne kurtsik4.jpg.--Captain-tucker (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment

This is 1 final dferro image by East718. It was never moved to Commons until I did it just today:

Please type in the standard pass for it. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

All set. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Any chance you can upload the original size image over this photo that MGA passed? I'm having computer problems:

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem, all done. --Captain-tucker (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 Comment: Sorry to disturb you but could you upload the original size image here too which MGA passed:

Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, all set. --Captain-tucker (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

File:SheffieldLanternTower.jpg

I think you can pass this image on the uploader's behalf. The uploader is an Admin on Commons. I also checked his talkpage and did not see any evidence of clear copyright violations except this minor case. If the flickr owner finally receives your message and complains about the pass...since she licenses her photos tody as ARR, you can point this out to her: [23] Also, from his talkpage, the uploader has many quality image promotions. So, I would say we can trust him.

But what do you think? Feel free to examine his contributions before you act. (PS: 10 months is much too long to review an image.) Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that this image should be passed due to JeremyA being an admin, it was uploaded two months before he became an admin but this is close enough IMO to assume that he know what he was doing. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Done. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

MetroNizami fotoes

All this photoes I made myself with my own camera in subway station, I am author.--Interfase (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes you took the photo but its a photo of artwork and you would need permission from the artist as this is what's called a derivative work. See COM:DW.

Author of these artworks was dead, but he made this pictures in Baku subway station for his people, for the culture of his country, memory about a poet of Azerbaijan, Nizami Ganjevi before his death, these artworks are in public domain. So I decided to take photo of these pictures for all people of world, who listen en:wiki. It's not bad. I only want you to know more about my country. I hope these photoes will not be deleted, and I hope you will help me wih it, thank you.--Interfase (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see COM:L#Azerbaijan, copyright works such as artwork are protected for 50 years after the death of the artist. I understand your desire to share this artist's work but we need to ensure that all images here on Commons are free and that we respect all of the copyright laws of your county. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to show that people can use these photos.--Interfase (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe so, unless the author has been dead for 50 years they still retain copyright. So in my opinion they would have to be deleted. You could ask for another opinion at the help desk. --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have wrote in help desk. Thank you.--Interfase (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Mooogmonster

I hope you saw my comment on this flickr owner's 2 not found images here I don't know what to do about them...and am not sure about the uploader--Viriditas. It is interesting that 1 of his images was used on the web but it may not prove anything. Don't know if they have to be deleted but if so then, so be it regretabbly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This image

Can this low resolution image be deleted here which I tagged: File:Relief of Amenemhet I from El-Lisht by John Campana.jpg ? It is totally unused on Wikipedia and is of inferior resolution. It was my error. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Done --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you...I must have had a mental lapse here. I see you shied away from moogmonster. That's OK. But have you see my message today here about Asta's images from S. Roe's acct to MGA? I suspect the images might be cc by sa at upload since S. Roe did not respond to my flickrmail. But as usual, I cannot prove anything and I know little about Asta's record here. I just wish Roe had said something...whether he wanted the failed images to be kept or deleted? Then everything would be clear. All I got was silence...which is not golden here.

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Provided some detail from Asta deleted contributions here: [24]. As far as Viriditas and the moogmonster files here is some info on Viriditas: 77,000+ edits on en-wiki, only 485 here and did upload four (4) flickr images that failed flickrreview: File:Wiki Wiki bus 01.jpg, flickr author: ross, File:Hula hoop girl 01.jpg, flickr author: ssandars, File:Rome gelateria.jpg, flickr author: wsmith and File:Skyline Chili.jpg, flickr author: chrisglass. Lots of edits on en wiki doesn't mean that he/she knows anything about copyrights and flickr. I don't think there is enough specific info to clearly do anything. Should probably write up all of the facts in a DR and see what other think. Feel free to write it up or wait as I will get to all of the files in Category:Flickr images not found-old within the next few weeks, hopefully. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Last file (File:Skyline Chili.jpg) is on User:Para/Flickr/Licensing differences/Compatible earlier but not anymore as Cc-by-2.0. Captain if you close the undeletion request with images on Paras list as done I will help you undelete. --MGA73 (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I have closed the undelete request, Do you want to take one list User:Para/Flickr/Licensing differences/Compatible and I will take the other User:Para/Flickr/Licensing differences/Compatible earlier but not anymore? --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment: It looks like moogmonster's 2 images here should be deleted then but this should be restored: File:Skyline Chili.jpg if someone acts on Para's not free now but free previously list.
Yes, the image on Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssandars/76723198/in/set-1644652/ is licensed CC-BY-SA now. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That is all I ask. My computer simply refuses to do this though I can flickrpass images. I looked here for any replacements for mooogmonster's wonton noodle soup image...and there is no decent ones sadly. The second image is 'so so' but in use. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas again & a DR by you

Dear captain tucker,

I had a closer look to the image you restored above and I notice that it was Viriditas who first uploaded the image in early 2006 and it was also Viriditas who later tagged it for deletion when the license changed. See this Doesn't this suggest that we can indeed trust this uploader since he did copyvio work in 2006 prior to flickrreview coming online in November 2006? He seems to be a rather conscientious and careful uploader from his nomination here in July 2006. After all, how many people would tag an image they personally uploaded for deletion due to a license change? I don't know of many. As for the flickr owner (s. sandars), he first licensed his images freely since some of his earlier photos here were FlickrLickr, then he put an NC restriction and later he licensed them freely again. I noticed this because I found a slew of possibly unfree images from his account which were licensed as 'cc by sa' in early 2009. So I ordered {{Flickreview}}'s for them. Like these three below:

This would suggest to me that these 2 images uploaded by Viriditas can be passed because we can trust him: [25] What do you think? Does this sound logical to you? Or do you think I should ask MGA to look at this message I left here on your talkpage before you make a judgment call here? Please make a reply after you read through my comments here. I know...its a lot to swallow. I think I am at the stage where I can personally trust Viriditas but then I am not an Admin like you or MGA. I think one can pass those 2 images by Viriditas now. But what do you think? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, this DR by you can be closed as keep since Admin Ecemaml personally assures us that the uploader knew what licenses were acceptable here. (I had asked her about this) She knew Manuel in the past before he left Commons because he had a conflict with another user. If you withdraw your nomination, it can probably be closed as keep and passed with Manuel as a trusted user too. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I see that you have passed both Viriditas images, I think I would have gone the DR route but I see that MGA73 has approved so no big deal. As far as the DR I would prefer to have another admin just close it as keep without withdrawing.--Captain-tucker (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I hope I did not wrong you in any way. Basically, I passed them and asked MGA to look at Viriditas' July 2006 edit and see if he could personally trust the uploader. If not, I gave him the option to just revert my pass. Viriditas did indeed tag copy vios on images in 2006---which is good because we can trust him. I thought he was certainly fine because there was none of his images in the 'possibly unfree' category unlike say Mac9 (who was fine at upload except that the flickr owner' changed the license) or Urban...who caused me so much heartburn that I had to support this mass DR by MGA. So many different people on flickr criticised me for seeing their flickr photos here (which were uploaded by Urban)--despite the fact that they failed flickrreview--that I knew Urban did not know the license rules. In one case, a flickr owner told me that her standard license was CC BY NC ND SA. After a while, I dreaded even hearing Urban's name. By the way, if possible, please try to upload the original size images below. They seems to be good pictures:

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Leoboudv, Of course you did not wrong me in any way. I have uploaded the max resolution for the two Flickr files. Now off to undelete some files from Para's list. What BTW is wrong with your computer that you can't upload files?
  • It may be a problem with a bot script but I can't be sure. Until 10 days ago thereabouts, I had no problems here but now when I try to upload the highest res. image, I get kicked back to 'upload image'. But I can flickrreview images from my computer. I could try my sister's computer but she has her own work to do. Oh well, as long as I can mark images, I'll live.
BTW are you in North America or Europe? I find most Admins here are from Europe which is 9 hours from me. So, I usually contact MBisanz in NY if I have serious things to do. (He's still awake when I contact him!) Regards from Metro Vancouver, Canada. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Managed to upload the max resolution image here. Maybe my computer is working again. These things can be 'moody.'

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

East coast of the USA so I am in the same time zone as MBisanz. --Captain-tucker (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OTRS invitation

The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our permissions and photosubmissions queues. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider seeking approval at the volunteering page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 19:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Shuffleboard.jpg

Hi Captain-tucker,
are you sure it is legally o.k. to upload a high-res version at a time when the image had been put under full copyright on Flickr? Do we have any policy for such cases? --Túrelio (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This image was restored as part of this undelete request. Since Flickr does not have a mechanism for uploading a new version of an image (as far as I am aware). I am assuming that the image on Flickr now is the same image that was license verified by Para on this list. So the higher resolution would have been licensed in the same manner. But I am open to another interpretation as you have much more experience on Commons than I. I have no problem with deleting the high resolution image if you feel that it is not a valid upload. --Captain-tucker (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Oooh, that makes it even more complicated. And no, I don't have a fixed opinion about that. Do you know, whether the Para-List-Flickr-"reviewed" version was the lower or the higher res one? Are you aware of any earlier discussion about such problems in general (not necessarily related to this image) ? --Túrelio (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The Para list only checked the license on Flickr and there is no info on the available resolution. I have asked MGA73 who created the undelete request for an opinion and asked him to reply here. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I understood it this way: Para made his list by comparing the id-number in the link on Commons to the id-number on the image on Flickr. All sizes has same id so we can't se which size it had when the license was checked. If it is possible to upload larger versions later and keep the same id-number then we could have a problem. Maybe Pare can help? --MGA73 (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I have sent in an email to the Flickr help desk asking if it's possible to upload a higher resolution image over a lower resolution image and keep the photo id/URL the same. I have a Flickr account and could not find a way to accomplish this using their standard web interface. I would imagine that it will take a few days for someone to get back to me via email. I looked through their help forum and it did not look like their was a way to upload a new version of an image but we will see what the official word is. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks for restoring these 2 images but I'm afraid they cannot be kept since COM:FOP in South Korea is similar to US FOP laws. (the signs are modern art) That was what Admin Tryphon told me when the copyright owner changed the license and he restored many images from this account:

Good luck in restoring the rest of Para's list. It is a very large list indeed. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, too long a list, moving too fast and not thinking. --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hehe I know that... You get blind and if deleting admin did not give a good deletion reason things can go wrong. I found this image File:Masiela Lusha.jpg. License is ok, but there is no author and Flickr image is deleted. Any good idea? --MGA73 (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah and why is this one a copyvio File:312781000 abb65f68b3.jpg? --MGA73 (talk) 10:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
You might as well get the last questions. Can these be undeleted per Fanart: File:Chii_and_Dark_Chii.jpg, File:Cosplay_girl_3.jpg and File:Yasya_cosplay.jpg
And is flickr uploader = author? Is so watermark is no problen File:Stryper.jpg? --MGA73 (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Why copyvio IanThorpe.jpg? --MGA73 (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Hm... seems I can find more work for you File:250771566 45d3b085a3.jpg + File:250771567 9098b80748.jpg and File:250774341 f01091920f.jpg. No specific reason for copyvio given. --MGA73 (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Whoa! Slow Down, I am still working on the list.  :-) --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I know... Just finished one list... Put all the crap on your page ;-). Anyway I hope that some of the files I undelete makes your list shorter... --MGA73 (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I started from the bottom of your list and then met someone you undeleted. Guess you are done now? --MGA73 (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My opinions on the above:

  • File:Masiela Lusha.jpg - The arguments in the DR seem completely wrong. The author is paulo StopoliS and the image was reviewed by FlickreviewR to be CC-BY. What more could you want. But this flickr author is listed here: Commons:Questionable_Flickr_images/Users/Inactive with this DR with some bad comments about his/her flickr uploads. There are not archives of the users Flickr photostream and the image does not have any tineye hits. With the comments from that DR I would be wary of undeleting.
  • File:312781000 abb65f68b3.jpg - This is certainly not a copyvio now. Should go though undeletion. Digging a little deeper on this one, the flickr author has two other very similar photos on their photostream, one of the others has a tineye hit here where it says that the photo is from her official web site. So I am leaning towards leaving this deleted.
  • Fan Art - I have not really studied the Fan Art policy. Will need to investigate a bit more on those.
  • File:Stryper.jpg - I don't see a problem with this image, the flickr author clearly licensed it as CC-BY regarless of the © in the watermark.
  • File:IanThorpe.jpg - Another one that should not have been deleted, passed flickrreview by an admin, deleted from flikcr but that means nothing. See User_talk:Bryan/archive/2007/04#Ian_Thorpe.
  • File:250771566 45d3b085a3.jpg, File:250771567 9098b80748.jpg, File:250774341_f01091920f.jpg - All three should not have been deleted, passed flickrreview by an admin, deleted from flickr but that means nothing.

BTW, where are you finding these images? --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Found the images here User:Para/Flickr/Identical licenses/Cc-by recently. --MGA73 (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I put a question about these three image deletions on the deleting admin's talk page here: User_talk:ChristianBier#File:250771566_45d3b085a3.jpg.2C_File:250771567_9098b80748.jpg.2C_File:250774341_f01091920f.jpg. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
There are hundreds (thousands?) of deleted FlickrLickr images. I checked a few and some of them failed Flickr review only few hours after upload. So I wonder if FlickrLickr refused to upload unfree images. --MGA73 (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Steelpan image

As I noted, the Steelpan image author lied to you. His image, which MGA restored, was free in 2006 as this other images show. I guess some people on flickr don't have good faith or intentions. Without Para's records though, the situation could not be rectified. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Lying might be a bit strong, he did say I believe and it was 3 years ago. --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This DR

That's OK. Could you close this DR I filed here as keep. I have to contact Para since he gave the actual flickr source. If he confirms the license was cc by sa, I will pass it. If not, I'll nominate it for deletion again. MGA suggested I contact Para to confirm his edit was a review....and I have now done this. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that it should stay open until you hear from Para. There is no valid reason for a keep close as the DR currently reads. Why did Odder remove the Flickrreview failed template without adding the pass template? --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Because Odder assumed good faith here. I thought he personally knew Asta but I was wrong when I contacted him and he made a reply on MGA73's page. Personally I think Asta knew the license was cc by sa. If not, I don't understand why Roe didn't complain about the image being on Commons when I showed it to him? I just ask for a little help here because I don't want the image deleted before Para can give a reply. He has not edited for 2 weeks here I think. But its your call. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Just curious why you DR'd this file since the Flickrreview failure had already been removed? I will make a comment about the edit from Odder implying that the license was ok. I have not been that active in closing DR's so I am hesitant doing anything not obvious. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Rusadeer.jpg

The above failed image file can be deleted and replaced by this one I uploaded here:

The only problem is the first image is so heavily used everywhere. Maybe you know what to do with this problem. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will replace its usage. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Replacement done [26]. Will DR later.--Captain-tucker (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Pachuco.jpg

I just noticed that the original uploader, Mahanga, is an Admin on Wikipedia. You might want to contact him on the image since his last edit was October 2 on the license. He may know what the license was or perhaps he uploaded freely licensed images only. If he doesn't remember, then delete is the only option in the DR. Just an idea. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, Question asked on Mahanga's talk page.. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

1 more Para list

Admin MGA mentioned that he just found one more list in this discussion here The list is called "CC-by always." It ends at the alphabet L but I don't know if there are more after L. Maybe you may wish to look through the images in your free time. A few are likely unfree or derivatives but others may indeed be restored. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You can see them all here User:Para/Flickr/Identical licenses. --MGA73 (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Flickr wash

Is this an example of flickwashing? The uploader removed my DR notice from the photo. If I add it back, he may remove it...again and I can't do anything about it. Any ideas? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I added the notice back in and closed the DR as deleted since it was clearly a copyvio. I also delete the original image File:Miss Russia, USA, Serbia.jpg. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Ravenna-gallaplacidia03.jpg

If you can please try to upload the original size image. I was blocked from doing it since the license is cc by sa 2.0. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, Why would CC-BY-SA not allow you to upload the higher resolution?
  • The computer asked me to upload with a license here and when I used the 'Upload to flickr with CC BY SA version 2.0', it said this method of uploading images has been blacklisted/banned. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Could you perform an edits to a protected page for me?

Hello, Captain-tucker. I have changed the image File:Austria-Hungary-flag-1869-1918-naval-1786-1869-war.svg to File:Austria-Hungary-flag-1869-1914-naval-1786-1869-merchant.svg on es:Plantilla:Geodatos Austria (diff). Best regards. HUB (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

File:IRAM 30m Sierra Nevada - sky.jpg

If you can, pls upload the maximum resolution image here as I have been stopped here--Commons askes for a license and then a source. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wendover-Will.jpg

Please reconsider your deletion of this image. It was in use on en:Wendover Will. As you can read the artwork was created in 1951. Artworks published in the US (and we certainly accept public display as publication in other instances), before 1978 without a copyright notice are simply in the public domain. You deleted the photograph because there is no FOP in the US: none is needed for photographs of artwork in the public domain. --Simonxag (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit conservative in my view of copyright and tend to lean toward deletion if there is any uncertainty and Doesn't seem to have a copyright notice in not definitive in my opinion. If you feel strongly about this particular DR I would recommend that you open up an Undeletion request as I am just one opinion and I could certainly be incorrect. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Consider these from the same uploader

You deleted File:RDSARENA.jpg today, so maybe you would please review these other uploads by the same editor File:LeinsterMagnersTrophyRDS.jpg and File:Leinster home coming.jpg I also nominated for deletion. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Voted delete on both DR's. Thanks for trying to keep Commons free of copyvio's. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This DR

I had to file a DR here. Personally, I marked all the uploader's other images with no problems but he just doesn't order {{Flickrreview}} for his images that he uploads from flickr. While I am sure he (Gun) is trustworthy, there is no proof the flickr owner licensed his images freely in this particular case when there is only 1 image here from his account. While I hope it is kept, it should go through a formal DR as MGA73 would say in this special case sadly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

File:ლიკანი, რომანოვების სახლი (a).jpg

Hello

You have delited picture that was based on picture that was taken from fliker. there is no need for fliker review because it was done on the first picter that uploaded fro fliker.

The origin:


Geagea (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for this mistake. I have undeleted the file and I changed the source to only include Image:ლიკანი, რომანოვების სახლი.jpg so this kind of mistake does not happen again by someone checking the flickr license since the flickr author re-licensed the original as CC-BY-NC-SA. I also added a {{Flickr-change-of-license}} tag to the original image. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Geagea (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Note

I notice the flickrowner you contacted has maybe 3 other images which she deleted:

She forgot to delete this one which I passed: File:Sting 2.jpg Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I also found two more:

I got an email back from his gmail account this morning so I just replied back asking about these 5 images. So I should have something to mail into OTRS soon. Cheers. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

All of the above images have been passed, the Flickr author un-hid them. The Eiffel tower one had the wrong Flickr link in the source but I found it from the upload log. Cheers.--Captain-tucker (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah! Good news. It is going the right way. Most categories are going down. Sadly there is still a lot in Category:Possibly unfree Flickr images but with a handfull of images or more fixed every day we can see an end to this old cleanup :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you save this image? File:London bridge homestead.jpg

Hi Captain! Maybe you could ask user for a permission? http://www.flickr.com/groups/canberra_act/discuss/72157594524349010/#comment72157600416992432. Ok? Maybe we can get a permission for other images as well. --MGA73 (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC) (I'm trying to clean up Category:Unsourced Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR). --MGA73 (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hekerui allready asked User_talk:MGA73#File:London_bridge_homestead.jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
She changed the license :-D --MGA73 (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This DR

Has the flickr owner responded to your message on this DR I think you contacted him on October 16...but I see he has uploaded images until October 18. (so he would have seen your message and is ignoring you) If not, I will change my vote to keep here and withdraw the DR. I see no reason not to distrust the uploader. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Neftochim-vaya-dinev.jpg

Hi Captain! Can you do anything about this image? It has survived for long since original uploader keeps removing any tags on the image. --MGA73 (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Will see what I can do, I sent him a Flickrmail asing about it's license. He has a web site with a contact page so if I don't get an answer via Flickr I will try there. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
One more? Almost ok File:Mecca mall.jpg --MGA73 (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Mecca mall.jpg has been passed, the license on Flickr has been changed to CC-BY-SA. --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
You are a superstar :-) --MGA73 (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Hazlerrigg Front Lawn.JPG

I decided to send a flickrmail to the author here since he did not respond to your first message. I have received his reply that it was on a cc license previously before he changed it to ARR. Have forwarded his message (and my original message) to Matt's private address where Matt will either OTRS it or say the permission is not sufficient. I await Matt's decision.

As an aside, these 3 photos may be worth contacting the flickr owners if you are interested since the flickr accounts are still reasonably active:

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC}

I am glad you received a reply. I flickrmailed the three accounts for the images above. Will see what happens. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Here: User:Captain-tucker/Flickr-messages. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Sfrancisco trolley.jpg

This file is in an old DR. Would you like to leave user a note? Maybe we could find a better way to check all images in Category:Possibly unfree Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR? No need for us all to check the same things/images :-) I'm checking them all now to see if some of them is on one og Para's ok-lists. A few days ago I removed a handful that was own work. --MGA73 (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure I will try and contact the Flickr author. Flickr is having some technical problems right now so I will try later. As far as working on Category:Possibly unfree Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR how about creating a page with all of the current file names and then we can add a note if/when someone does something. Something like this User:Captain-tucker/Possibly unfree Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR. It will get out of date but I like having a way to keep track of everything since there are so many files. Perhaps we can get Leoboudv to help. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I made a note of images nominated for deletion - we should probably check these first. I also made this note "File:Low_brace_Youghiogheny_River_Ohiopyle,_PA.jpg (This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons)". Someone might think it strange if we delete a featured image ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment

There is 140+ images in the possibly unfree category today. It was 1,800+ when I started in January/February 2009 and had fallen to below 100 when mga's bot detected 50+ new ones. Anyway, I've saved many images here in the past like these 4 here but have slowed down now. Two were featured images...which happened to fail flickrreview originally. Unbelievable:

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I offended you, it was not my intention. I have not worked on this category very much and I know that you have done so much work on Flickr images that your assistance would be helpful in getting this category empty. I was trying to say that because of all of your work on Flickr images that your assistance would be invaluable. --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I have contacted many flickr owners in the past and I think I have done enough. I wish you the best in contacting some of the flickr owners. I usually contacted flickrowners earlier this year only if the picture was worth saving or of great importance to an article. (like the sole image on Commons for a subject) Good luck, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you :-) Recent failed images could also be saved that way if they are good. So if you take all the new we could look at the old ;-) Hehe --MGA73 (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Bears-def-huddle-2008.jpg

Hi. User got some permission for this image. Should we do somthing? If you look at my userpage you can see that I stole somthing from you ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I stole it from User:PatríciaR and added a few things. As far as File:Bears-def-huddle-2008.jpg is that something that could be forwarded (links to the two imageshack images) to OTRS and turned into an OTRS permission ticket? --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hehe ok. Sending links to OTRS is no better. If images are deleted the permission is broke. Maybe the files could be mailed to OTRS. Maybe we have a {{Flickrreviev|xxx|date|permission because xxx}} :-D --MGA73 (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
How about this: I created WebCite archive pages for the two images. [27], [28] These will not get deleted. We could send these to OTRS and create a permission ticket?
I sent in an OTRS request using the WebCite images. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Hoopoe 2.jpg and File:Before - Owl in Tree.jpg

Hi Captain. These are examples of adding own review or forgetting to add review. We can write Flickr users when we notice but the best would be to get bots check the files. I could make my bot check for images without review but problem is that 10,000 images is FlicrLickr images and they should be ok. So we either get a lot of work or we need to find a way of dealing with these seperately. --MGA73 (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Would not all of the FlickrLickr images have correct flickrreview tags? It would be good to be able to have a bot flag any images passed by a user not in Commons:Flickr images/reviewers/list.

Re:Wikinesia's user page

The user gave me a question about how to delete the page permanently. So, I put the tag for deletion. Thanks to you too.

Relly Komaruzaman (talk) 08:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Why interference Category:Gastronomy?

See also Why interference Category:Gastronomy? (Category:Gastronomy --> Category talk:Gastronomy)--Tom778 (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have had no interaction with anything relating to this subject so I am not sure why you left this message? --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Industria Novartis.jpg

I contacted the flickr owner for this nice image and he changed the license. I was tired of seeing this good image languish in the unfree column for...years. If the image is passed, it is better to upload the original size image too. I won't be contacting anymore flickrowners for the unfree category, as I had another quality photo here passed a few days ago. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent timing, that was the next image on the list I was going to look at. I do sometimes forget to check if there is a higher res image on Flick when passing images. Cheers. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. I was thinking abou this image when I mentioned the original size thing:

File:Neftochim-vaya-dinev.jpg

Maybe you could ask user about this one :-) --MGA73 (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Done (in both english and google translated Bulgarian) but not very hopeful, I sent him 4 Flickrmails at different times regarding File:Baba Vida Inside Dinev.jpg, File:Strandzha-dinev-2.jpg and File:Veleka-sinemorets-mouth-dinev.jpg, and never received a reply. Fortunately those files were save by Para's lists. This time I sent it directly to the contact email on his website: http://www.evgenidinev.com/. Perhaps this will work better. --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Human review

If you have some time, please mark some of the images in this this category. MGA's bot is finding new unmarked images. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm on it. I'll fix that if you send a lot of mails regarding the mails on "the list" :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The comment was for the Captain :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
No many responses from List so far. Will try and get to some more today. Did not have much editing time this weekend. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Eravikulam National Park.jpg

A special one. As mentioned on the Flickr page user might have given a permission. I asked PeterSymonds who said user never replyed on en-wiki. So permission is not the best. What do you thing? Should "we" ask the user again? --MGA73 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I sent him a flickmail this morning. Seems somewhat active on Flickr, last photo uploaded 2009-09-09 so should receive the flickrmail. He also lists a gmail account on his blog so I may copy an email there later. --Captain-tucker (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
This image is all set now, flickr author changed license to CC-BY-SA so I passed it. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Logan Cell Phone Waiting Lot.jpg

Do you understand "the permission"? --MGA73 (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand enough to know that it does not meet our licensing requirements. I will try and contact the flickr author and see if he will release as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA but I have my doubts since the image is used on his blog that is CC-BY-NC-SA but you never know. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Flickrmail sent. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Here is the response I received from the Flickr author, but he did change the license on Flickr to CC-BY-SA so I will pass the image.:
The person who was emailing me told me to put that note on there. 
They need to have the rules explained to them so they don't waste any more people's time by not understanding the rules. 
I'll email them.
--Captain-tucker (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

File:US_Bank_Center.jpg

Maybe you could contact the Flickr user of this nice image. Maybe it can be saved. --MGA73 (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, hopefully they will reply, their last Flickr upload was three months ago. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Super.. But maybe it is the wrong user... Have a look at this one http://www.flickr.com/photos/retinalfetish/390685409/ :-/ --MGA73 (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Sent another flickrmail to http://www.flickr.com/photos/retinalfetish/, will see what s(he) says. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

An odd edit

What was the point of this edit? Both before and after your edit it appears everything was linked correctly.--Rockfang (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That page File:Blason de la Roosevelt Academy.JPG was in Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing subpage, I was trying to figure out why since it did have a correct DR subpage. When I removed the subpage entry from the {{Delete}} template it was no longer in that missing subpage maintenance category and everything still worked. I think there may be a bug in the {{Delete}} logic. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. As a side note, your talk page is displaying as abnormally wide. I've viewed it with IE, FF, Safari and Opera. They all display roughly the same. My desktop resolution is set to 1280x1024 if that matters.--Rockfang (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I did notice that yesterday, apparently this edit resolved the problem. Thanks again.--Captain-tucker (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

re:Ciliata

Thank you :) Ark (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Escenario cierre Teletón 2006.jpg

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No its the captain!!!!

This image File:Escenario cierre Teletón 2006.jpg has some sort of permission. But probably unly for Wikipedia. Is that a job for you? --MGA73 (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, will see what happens...--Captain-tucker (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What about this one? It is nominated for deletion File:Glossop War Memorial.jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, Flickrmail sent. --Captain-tucker (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Flickr uploader refuses to release without NC license, I closed this DR as delete. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Alexandrine parakeet.JPG

If you ask the flickr owner (Mr. Shankar) to license this flickr image specifically as "Attribution ShareAlike Creative Commons" I think he will do so....especially since he uploaded it originally. He did change the license for some featured images on Commons after I contacted him from my flickr account for this photo below:

Just a suggestion. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I did contact him yesterday, hopefully he will respond.--Captain-tucker (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Files keep comming - do we need a new plan?

Hey captain! It seems we can keep finding images for you. Like File:Robinwithfly.jpg that some other user found source to. I lost track of which files that is on the "long list" and which is "just" here on your talk page. There is still a lot on the "to do list" so I thougt there is no rush in updating the "long list" with missing images. So maybe I should just fail the images and let them be in the "possible unfree" category unless they are really special (or nominated for deletion?). Oh and if you finde some "bad" files on the list there is no need to ask Flickr user. Just start a DR. --MGA73 (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are just too many image and too much to do. I wish there was a way to combine Cat Scan and Check usage and get a list of all of the images in a category along with the number of usage pages. Then it would be easier to prioritize which images to work on first. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you use this http://toolserver.org/~magnus/bad_old_ones.php?category=Possibly_unfree_Flickr_images to see usage?
Or this to see it by uploader http://toolserver.org/~azatoth/latest_files/?maxsize=-1&maxresx=-1&maxresy=-1&mime[]=jpeg&mime[]=png&mime[]=tiff&mime[]=svg%2Bxml&mime[]=gif&mime[]=vnd.djvu&mime[]=x-xcf&minsize=-1&minresx=-1&minresy=-1&count=500&domain=commons.wikimedia.org&cats=Possibly+unfree+Flickr+images ? --MGA73 (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah... It shows that File:FinancialNorth.jpg is one of the most used images :-) --MGA73 (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok. There is really a lot of unused... I suggest we start nominating for deletion if it is unused, not really special and if uploader is not a well known user on Commons. Why spend a lot of time saveing somthing useless. --MGA73 (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I will. Or maybe I will send a mail to the Flickr user saying "Hi! Picture xxx is currently on Commons as yyyy. However the license on your page on Flickr is not free so we probably have to delete it. If you would allow us to keep the image please change license to cc-by-2.0 og cc-by-sa.2.0. Thank you." or if the Captain has somthing better. But I would prefer that they do not have to mail back or send permission to OTRS. Then I could wait a week or two and check images again. If they are free the can be passed or if not I could make a mass DR (or 50? single nominations). That depends on how many there is and how good/bad the images are. --MGA73 (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree, I think we should focus on the used images and as you suggested send one mail to the Flickr user and if no response in a week DR the photos. For images that are used I would wait 2 weeks. We could probably DR everything in User:Captain-tucker/Possibly_unfree_Flickr_images_reviewed_by_FlickreviewR that says Flickrmail sent. BTW, my stock flickr messages can be seen here: User:Captain-tucker/Flickr-messages. Should we DR these individually or in batches? I would think some people probably stay away from large mass DR's because there are so many files to review, but with the large amount of images in Category:Possibly unfree Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR that is going to be a lot of DR's. The more I think about it perhaps the mass DR is the better option, perhaps we could do it by their current license on Flickr. So DR all of the ARR images together, etc... Should we do the used images as separate DR's? I am open to suggestions. I have been busy with real life lately and have not had as much time as usual to devote to Commons. --Captain-tucker (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Whatever you do, please don't DR these 20 images I contacted the flickrowner yesterday and he sent me a message saying he does license these 20 images on a cc by 2.0 license. I have sent the permission to MBisanz's E-mail address to OTRS them...rather than to permissions where it might be tagged as spam and deleted...as the captain well knows. I am just waiting for Matt to act. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment 21 images now with this or nearly 10% of the unfree total. That is enough for me, thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I send a mail to that user a few weeks ago but got no response... Great that it finally worked. :-)
As for the DR's. Hm.... There is no rush. Lets close the ones allready made and then start with the "old ones" from your list that is unused. We can make them as single DR's. If we get differend results we should make all as seperate DR's. If comments are all the same we could make a mass DR. Could you perhaps comment the open DR's with. "Delete. I got no answer." ? --MGA73 (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The list

Dear Captain,

If you have some time, please try contacting 1 or 2 flickrowners here a day: [29] In some cases, there are maybe 2 images from the same author. I have saved 21 images from deletion through OTRS and a license change recently. But I am busy in my life. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This image

 Comment: Dear Captain, You should just pass this image here as an Admin:

Why? It is from oneras' flickr account and oneras says in his second image here that he is quitting flickr due to internal politics at the site. In Oneras' flickr profile, the copyright owner says he believes in freedom of speech and licensed all his images as "cc by sa" here So, this is clear proof that it was originally licensed this way as his many other pictures here prove. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, life is much busier lately. Can not find the time to edit here much. --Captain-tucker (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Normal colonic mucosa.jpg

Dear captain,

If you contact the flickrowner here, I think he might license this image as "Attribution ShareAlike Creative Commons" or 'cc by sa' if you read the link on the image. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Flickrmail sent. --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Congratulations on having the image above licensed as "cc by sa". As for this photo: File:Alexandrine parakeet.JPG I contacted the flickrowner (Shankar) yesterday and he seems to have had a change of mind now. He ignored my message since I see he uploaded a new image to his flickr account. Shivanayak is the flickrowner (and the original uploader at wikipedia) but since he won't license his photos freely anymore I wonder if it can be kept or deleted since there is this acceptable replacement from his account which passed review at a time when Shankar was more open to licensing his photos as cc by sa: File:Alexandrine parakeet 3.jpg Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
If shivanayak will not respond to your request, I am thinking that File:Alexandrine parakeet.JPG should be DR'd. The replacement is a much better image. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Mosquée Ethem Bey.jpg

If you contact the flickr owner, he may change the license to either cc by or cc by sa. I remember he changed the license for 1 image you asked. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Flickrmail sent. Yes, he changed the license for File:Hôtel de ville de Vlora.jpg, you are good! --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

4 images

Most of the images in the unfree category seem to come from orphaned flickr accounts. These 4 come from 3 separate flickr accounts which have been active recently and it may be profitable to contact them. Just let them know that if they wish to see the images deleted from WikiCommons--ie. without a license change--please kindly send a reply to you. It really boosts people's reply rates. If they reject commercial use, just file a DR. As an aside, net_efekt changed the license to cc by sa:

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I will look into these images. It took a couple tries for net_efekt, first he removed the SA and left the NC, after a second flickrmail he set it right.--Captain-tucker (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That's fine. When I contact people, I give them an option of changing the license and letting the photo stay here or asking for its deletion. (so people will in most cases make a reply) I see the 3 flickrowners above understand English so communication shouldn't be a difficulty. I have sent 2 final flickr messages on these 2 photos: File:Colourful green market.jpg & File:Tifariti.jpg (and to no one else). The second resulted in a DR...while I am still waiting for a reply on the first picture as the flickrowner is away. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Flickrmail sent to the three authors. Hopefully I will get some responses. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It looks like we should start nominating the old "flickr mail sent". Should we say 1 month old? Funny thing anyway. I asked Flickr user but got no result then Leoboudv asked and got a response. Maybe we should ask all three of us :-D --MGA73 (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good, no problem with 1 month. I got responses from 2 of the 3 flickr authors so far, passed 3 of the 4 images. --Captain-tucker (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

3 photos

I decided to contact the photographer here and luckily he was open to changing the license:

It made sense to contact one person for 3 photos though I'm sure they were unfree when Masen uploaded them in 2006. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could leave a note on the Captains list when you contact the Flickr users? So we do not risk to contact them twice. I noticed that we have done that a few times. --MGA73 (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
You do not have to remove the. Maybe just add "I send a mail to the user" :-) --MGA73 (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Will do, have had no time for editing in a while. Should be able to do some over the next few days. Thanks for the file idea. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Note

The number of unfree images is now below 140. I notice that the photo of Rumi museum is now NC and ND...still not quite free enough sadly. As an aside, I would recommend you consider contacting this flickrowner on this 2 photos since he also licenses his work today as cc by sa:

That image of the sports car was passed. Congratulations, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

 Comment: Since you are away, I reluctantly sent a flickr message to the copyright owner of this image: File:Rumi museum.jpg I have not--and will not--contact the flickr owner of the 2 Wintermelon soup images I mentioned above. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

File:The Convent, Changing of the Guard.jpg

Hi Captain, I've seen that you marked this image as a copyvio and notified to the uploader. However, I've reviewed the source and seems to be OK (CC-BY 2.0). Have I missed anything? Best regards --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 20:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I just added the copyvionote to the uploader's talk page while reviewing files in Category:Other speedy deletions. I didn't notice that it was the uploader who placed the speedy tag there. I seem to recall looking at the flickr image when reviewing this file and seeing an NC license but as you said the Flickr image is correctly licensed now so all is well, perhaps I am thinking of another image. Good job. Cheers. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment

There are no guarantees but if you contact the flickr owner of these 2 photos here and here , he may change the license to something more acceptable.

I notice he allowed this photo to remain on a cc by sa license. BUT ask him too if he wants the 2 images to be deleted from WikiCommons too if he will not change the license...just to clarify the situation and avoid this disaster. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Flickrmail sent...--Captain-tucker (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Should we do some small categories?

Is it just me or is this going to take forever? You and Leoboudv (I know he looks here so only write it here) really did a great job but there is still a lot of images left.

I got an idea that it would be nice to empty some categories so perhaps we should temporary work on some of the small categories?

Like:

There is a few other small categories but new images keep showing up so they are hard to empty. --MGA73 (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not had as much editing time available lately but I will do what I can. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
No we all have the same problem. That is why I got the idea to work on some smaller projects :-) --MGA73 (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I started working on Category:Flickr images not found-old, status can be found here., User:Captain-tucker/Flickr images not found-old-status
Cool. Lets hope it will soon be empty. But that the image was not found does not mean that the image was been unfree. So I do not think that no reply does not mean we have to keep. --MGA73 (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
One Down! - File:IIMKolkata.jpg, OTRS permission email sent. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Fixed :-) --MGA73 (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This image

The flickr owner changed the license from ARR to CC BY NC ND SA here I remember he did the change some weeks ago but then I forgot about it. Must be the Christmas season. Sorry. You could tell him that cc by or cc by sa licenses is only acceptable on Wikimedia Commons. Ask if he would consider changing the license to 1 of these 2 options...or not. If no, then it should face a DR. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I sent him a Flickrmail asking for a license change, he emailed back saying that he changed the image from ARR to CC-BY-SA but actually changed it to CC-BY-NC-SA. I have just sent my second Flickrmail asking him to remove the NC. Hopefully he will fix it. --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Note on 2 images

Thanks for getting that image above passed. But as for these 2 photos below, I'm afraid a formal DR should be done as the flickr owner has uploaded images into January 17, 2010 but refused to change the license:

Its unfortunate but that's the way it is. The photos are not much used on wikipedia and are easily replacable. This image was passed while this may have been uploaded with flickr owner's permission but I cannot be sure. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Buratovich.jpg

Hi! Could you ask this user for a better permission? User said ok for Wikipedia (http://www.flickr.com/photos/18166667@N00/2686238849). --MGA73 (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What timing, I Flickrmailed him yesterday and he just emailed me back saying that he changed the license to CC-BY-SA, I just changed the file here and asked for a new Flickrreview so we are all set. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Damn you work fast :-) --MGA73 (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

File:StJoseph Statue.jpg

Maybe it is wise to contact the flickrowner to see if he really gave permission for this photo to be used....and if he might be open to changing the license or sending an OTRS permission. If not, this should be deleted. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Flickrmail sent, he uploaded pictures to Flickr a couple days ago so we should get some kind of response. --Captain-tucker (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Done. Hopefully we will get a response, she has uploaded a photo for Flickr 18 days ago so she will at least see the email.--Captain-tucker (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This DR

It looks like the uploader uploaded the image to Commons here as someone notes. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Goolwa.jpg

Flickr owner changed the license from 'ARR' after you flickrmailed him but its still not free enough. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I sent her a second Flcikrmail back on 2010-01-10 asking to remove the NC. I just sent her another one. Hopefully she will make the change.--Captain-tucker (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
She changed the license to CC-BY-SA, so the image no passes. And I remembered to upload the higher resolution! --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Congratulations for getting the license change. There are no other free images of the downtown area of this Australian town on flickr or Commons sadly. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you make an edit for me?

The image used in the article Il y a de nombreux lacs de méthane sur Titan, File:Lakes on Titan.jpg has a higher resolution duplicate File:Liquid lakes on titan.jpg, a Commons bot has replaced all occurrences of File:Lakes on Titan.jpg with File:Liquid lakes on titan.jpg with the exception of three Wikinews articles. Could you replace File:Lakes on Titan.jpg with File:Liquid lakes on titan.jpg in the edit protected article Il y a de nombreux lacs de méthane sur Titan for me. thanks. --Captain-tucker 2 février 2010 à 02:17 (UTC)

Done. Thanks a lot. Zetud (talk) 18:51, 2 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) 16:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

New list

MGA73's bot has found a few more possibly unfree images. But I'm contacting you now on therse 2 photos below:

Could you flickrmail the copyright owner to see if he would consider a license change or to send an OTRS message...as you have succesfully done for many other flickr images? That would be appreciated as these are rare images of Eritrea. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do, not a problem. --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it seems there will always be work to do. But this time I suggest we just send one mail and if there is no reply we nuke them. I also noticed this File:Yellow_FJ_Cruiser.jpg that has been reviewed by a human, so it ended up in an other category. I also transfered more than 1,000 images from enwiki with a free license on Flickr. I hoped it will reduce the number of "bad" files from enwiki. --MGA73 (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes :-) If we let the bot check it will probably upload larger version :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The flickr review bot has now passed them and uploaded the original size photos. Thanks for your kind help, captain tucker. I saw the flickrowner was very active on his account and thought he may change the license plus I trust the original wiki uploader, Blofeld. But I was busy with my work. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Hdos-sm.jpg

Do you want to check and see if there could be a license change here, captain tucker? Just an idea.

PS: Congrats on getting the Bulgarian waterfall image licensed freely. I thought the flickr account was orphaned and the image, a goner. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and I contacted Fire Monkey Fish, very recent activity on Flickr so hopefully we will get a response.--Captain-tucker (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • All the best here. PS: Thanks for getting this image passed: File:GU022.jpg

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Amr Waked.jpg

Do you want to mark this photo. I have marked many of this uploader's legit photos but feel I should leave a few for other to check. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure.--Captain-tucker (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Note

I'm not so optimistic now that these 2 photos can be saved since I see the flickr owners have been active on Feb. 17 and Feb. 16 but did not change the ARR license. You had contacted them around Feb 13:

If the flickrowner does not change the license soon, a formal DR may be appropriate. As an aside I added 7 images to your list. That's about it. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I sent them another Flickrmail this morning. Hopefully if I continue to annoy them they will at least respond in one fashion or another. Will see about the other images that you added to the list. Thanks.--Captain-tucker (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

File:MMA.png

Leoboudv and I think we could trust the uploader. But it would look better if Flickr user changed license so we could get a "real" review. Care to look at it? --MGA73 (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a few more in same category (Category:Flickr images not found):

Want them here or perhaps on User:Captain-tucker/Flickr images not found-old-status? --MGA73 (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is fine, will see what I can do with them. --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
OTRS email sent in for File:MMA.png. --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
OTRS email sent in for File:Quirinale2.jpg. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Cool. Fixed :-) --MGA73 (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


Hello, Captain-tucker. You have new messages at Commons:Deletion requests/File:B-25 Mitchell - Panchito.jpg.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

File:Doorbell button on brick with label.jpg

Did you notice that this photo was relicensed as 'cc by 2.0' I would have missed it I had not checked.

  • As an aside, I think this photo: File:BocchediCattaro.jpg can be deleted since its only used on 1 wiki page. The npd is about 10 days old too.

PS: Only 1 more day of Olympics in Vancouver! With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That is cool - one less to work with :-) I sometimes check all images to see if license has been changed. I guess users do not always tell when they change license. --MGA73 (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I have been without power/internet at our house since last Thursday night so will not be very active. I got a generator yesterday but it will not run the water pump for the well. Hopefully I will be back online later in the week.--Captain-tucker (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Tristan da Cunha3.jpg & File:Tristan da Cunha5.jpg

I see these 2 possibly unfree images were also uploaded by Blofeld. Perhaps the flickrowner would also consider relicensing them or sending an OTRS message on their license if you contact them? What do you think? Some kind of permission is implied in the second photo and I see the flickr owners here also active on their account. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  • This, however, is a strange one since this other image has an OTRS ticket! Maybe MGA73 can see if the permission applies too all images from this account. I'll ask him first and ask that he replies here. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This is not the best permission I have seen. I would say that it is ok for all or for none. I will ask someone else about it to get a second opinion. --MGA73 (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I flickrmailed the original author to see if they would change the license on flickr to clear up the permission. The permission provided on both of the files is really not specific enough IMHO since its really only a release to use the images on Wikipedia. We will see if Chris&Steve respond. They are active Flickr users so hopefully I will get a response soon. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I finally received a response from Chris&Steve the author of these photos, not good:
Dear Captain Tucker,
Unfortunately I am unwilling to give free commercial license for my images. This is particularly so with Tristan as an anniversary of the volcano
eruption & subsequent evacuation will occur this year.
I have sold some of my better quality images at full price through Getty Images and would prefer commercial operations to have to approach me
individually. My experience is that there are major profitable companies looking for free images from people who don't realise the commercial
value of their images. I do find this fairly reprehensible behaviour from commercial buyers who should have more respect for photographers.
I'm sorry if you will have to remove them from Wikipedia as there are so few pictures around of Tristan and many people have enjoyed having
access to them.
I will look around to see if I can find some free replacements but a search on Flickr found nothing. Will try Picasa, Panoramio as these images have many uses, any other ideas and then will DR all of these since the permission is specific for wikipedia only. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Too bad... I'm not sure if it mean that we should delete all or "only" the Tristan-images. Perhaps a DR would be the best solution. --MGA73 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Major State Highway 10 (Mahrashtra).png and File:State Highway 151 (Maharashra).png

Hi,

Thank you for the help! Appreciate it!

Koolkrazy (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Monte_de_São_Félix.jpg

We have 500 images from this user. It seems that there was not send a mail to user? Care to look at it? --MGA73 (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Email sent to Flickr author.--Captain-tucker (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Delete As I said, Vitor now refuses to allow his images to be licensed freely because he was angry at how other people used his images on Commons...without attributing them to him. (that is what he told me) That is why it must be deleted since it was not uploaded from his Vitor107 Commons account but by a third party. As an aside, the 2 Tristan images should be DR'ed now. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Well if he will not change license we have to find out if we trust uploader and/or if we should delete because author requested. --MGA73 (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

DR created for File:Tristan da Cunha3.jpg and File:Tristan da Cunha5.jpg--Captain-tucker (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

RE:deletion of Rsnewarea files

You are welcome to delete these, I was going to make a wikipedia article with them in it, but decided against it. I believe the author or uploader requesting that their own files be deleted is grounds for a deletion with out discussion. So go ahead and delete them, I don't need then anymore.
Mod mmg (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done Thank you. --Captain-tucker (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Viajes de colon eu.svg

Hi. I asked for deletion of this file (Viajes de colon eu.svg) because I uploaded it, but I didn't manage to do it correctly. So, indeed, there was no real image (I couldn't see it). That's why I replaced it by the deletion request. Since then, someone has deleted it. But anyway, thak you for your information. --Josugoni (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, let me know if you have any other questions. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Chávez es reelegido presidente de Venezuela hasta 2013

This is done, thanks Shooke (Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 01:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

RE:File:Balboas, sculpture in Cambados.jpg

Thank you for you helping, I didn´t know what to do. Bye. --Iago Conversation 22:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Picasa images

Hello. Yes, I am aware of the problem with the images. The original images must have been deleted from Picasa. Several days ago I sent an e-mail to the author asking for permission, but have not received any reply yet. --Blacklake (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I sent him a message as well. Didn't notice that he also has a Flickr account. Let me know if you get a reply, are you familiar with the process for declaring a license via the COM:OTRS process? If he will freely license the images via an email he/you can forward that to the COM:OTRS team and they will document the permission. Let me know if you have any questions. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I'm a member of the OTRS team myself :) --Blacklake (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Boy, I feel stupid. I think we can assume that you are a trusted user who knows what you are doing and that the correct licenses were there when you uploaded the images. Sorry I was going through all of the images in Category:Picasa Web Albums files needing human review - not found and should have checked better on who was the unloader. I will remove the nsd and fix the picasareview. Thanks. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, you were a big help to me. Is it possible to fix File:Petrushevskaya.JPG and File:Valeriya Gai Germanika by Anton Nossik Cropped.jpg as well? Both images were uploaded from the same album, so I can assure you that they were licensed correctly. --Blacklake (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done All set. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
A few minutes after I completed those I got an email from Anton Nossik pointing me to the correct location for the above mentioned files. I have updated the sources to their correct location and all images were licensed as CC-BY. Thanks again. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
That's great. Maybe I used the wrong email, then. --Blacklake (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Manifestación

¿It´s ok now? [30] --Roberto Fiadone (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Roberto, when I click on the source link I get the following:
Oops... there's nothing to see here. Either you do not have access to these photos, or they don't exist at this web address. 
Please contact the owner directly to gain access.
-

-Captain-tucker (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that now the problem have been solved. --Roberto Fiadone (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for correcting the source. I have removed the nsd from the image and cleaned it up. Thanks again. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

We need your help at the Wikiproject medicine

Hello, Sorry for spaming your talk page, but this is very important. On the behalf of the Wikiproject medicine at the en.wikipedia, I am inviting you to be a part of the discussion going on the project's talk page about Patient images, The discussion started after I obtained a permission to more than 23000 dermatology related images, and about 1500 radiology images. As some editors of the Wikiproject medicine have some concerns regarding the policy of using patient images on wikipedia, and regarding patient consents. Also they believe that common's policy is not so clear regarding the issue. And since you are the experts please join us at this very important discussion -- MaenK.A.Talk 14:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Faiyum.jpg

You never commented here so I guess you could close it :-) --MGA73 (talk) 10:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I put a question to the original uploader on it-wiki (he is en-2) asking if he would comment at the DR. Lets wait a few days and if no response. He appears to be a consistent editor on it-wiki so I think we should get some kind of response. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice :-) --MGA73 (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
No response from the original uploader on it-wiki and he has made about80 edits since my message so I don't think we will get a response so I closed as delete. Only 2 left in Category:Flickr images not found-old. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Hummingbird (Tobago-2009).jpg

Please see if you can mark this if you have the time. The license should be OK. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

File:3 entitet 2.GIF, File:B 2005.GIF & File:B change 1991 2005.GIF

Ok. Thanks.Tonka (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Unexpected pictures deletion

Hello Captain-tucker, on my talk page you warned me that there was a deletion process for three images I uploaded last year. I did one of the things recommended, namely sending an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org), using one of the prescribed forms, and I did this for every individual picture. Also, I noted that I had done so, in the data field of the images themselves. Yet, they were deleted. Can you tell me what went wrong here? Regards, Apdency (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

These 3 images are published on Picasa as All rights reserved and were tagged with the warning {{Npd}} template you mentioned so another administrator deleted them as per our policy. Just so you know deleted images are really just hidden and can be undeleted with a few clicks by any admin if policy permits. You say that you sent a permission email to COM:OTRS, one of the important things to do as described on COM:OTRS is that after you send the email you are supposed to add the {{OTRS-pending}} tag to the image so that admins know that you sent in a permission email. There is a backlog at OTRS several weeks long but you uploaded these image in May of 2009, did you send in the OTRS permission email back then or recently? I would recommend in any case sending in the permission email again explaining that the images in question were deleted and if the permission is accepted the images can be undeleted and the OTRS permission tag added. I have had several OTRS permission emails get move to their SPAM queue and lost so it can happen. The other option would be to post a message at the OTRS Noticeboard explaining the situation. Let me know if you have any more questions. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I sent the permission email recently. I'm sorry to discover too late that I didn't take all the necessary steps in a situation like this. But as you advised, I resent my request. Thanks again, Apdency (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem, if you have any other questions let me know. There is a backlog of at least 500 images in the OTRS Commons permission queue so you may have to be patient, but if you get no response in 3 weeks I would recommend posting a note on the OTRS Noticeboard. Also see their FAQ. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
All is right now. :) Apdency (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Good, I just recently became an OTRS agent so if you have any future problems in that area let me know.--Captain-tucker (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Image kept

According to this, the Ripon photo has been kept. So, you can choose to remove it from your image not found cat if you want. I agree with the decision to keep...as I see absolutely no reason not to trust the uploader who today orders flickr reviews for flickr images which he uploads today. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. Flickr images not found-old is finally empty. Thanks --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A handfull of deleted images

Hi! This user User_talk:Symac#File Tagging File:F-33-Clocher_Saint-Michel.jpg uploaded a handfull of images. They were deleted on Flickr before they was reviewed. Perhaps yo could ask Flickr user (all from same Flickr user)? --MGA73 (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Flickrmail sent. --Captain-tucker (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Great! As you can see here User_talk:MGA73#no_license Google cache has one of the images with a free license. --MGA73 (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I also had sent a flickrmail. I told him that I had reused one of his pics on commons and it seems he made all of his pictures private just after, not sure he'll answer you ... Symac (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Iya enigma2000 and Ian Rhel Datu, etc.

Please take a look at my note at User talk:Túrelio#User:Iya enigma2000 and Ian Rhel Datu, etc. Thanks. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like another admin has protected Ian Rhel Datu until 2010-04-22 and most of his uploads are on their way to being deleted. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.--Captain-tucker (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Phi Kappa Psi Ohio Alpha Chapter at Ohio Wesleyan University.jpg

Do you want to send a flickrmail to see if the copyright owner would license this nice image freely? I did not upload it but note that there is 1 other image from this account which passed flickr review. So, I'm guessing the flickr owner may be open to licensing it freely. If not, it is no great loss.

As an aside, I see the uploader is very new to Commons and doesn't know its licensing rules. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Flickrmail sent, hopefully we will receive a positive response. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

File tagging File:Pont La Roche Bernard.jpg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Pont La Roche Bernard.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Pont La Roche Bernard.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Captain-tucker (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Grand Bravo pour votre zèle. Avec des gars comme vous sur ce site, on préjuge négativement des contributions des autres, sans en avoir la moindre preuve...Exellent!! Continuez comme ça...--Toubabmaster (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
If you had looked at the file history before this image was deleted you would have seen that I had no direct action on the image itself. The file was marked as having failed Picasareview by ZooFari (talk · contribs). It was later deleted by Killiondude (talk · contribs) as can be seen here. I left the missing permission tag on your talk page to let you know that the image that you uploaded had been marked as not having the correct permission. In looking at the Picasaweb page the author does not specify a free license in the exchange shown with the Picasaweb user http://picasaweb.google.com/marccaudal. Without a specific free license the image was rightly deleted, permission for use on Wikipedia is not allowed on Commons. This image could be easily restored if you would contact the Picasaweb author and have him specify a free license such as CC-BY/CC-BY-SA on the Picasaweb image page and then send in a email using the procedure at COM:OTRS.
⇒ (S'il vous plaît excuser mon mauvais français, c'est automatique traduit)
Si vous aviez regardé l'historique du dossier devant cette image a été supprimé, vous auriez vu que je n'avais aucune action directe sur l'image elle-même. Le dossier a été marqué comme ayant échoué Picasareview par ZooFari (talk · contribs). Il a ensuite été supprimé par Killiondude (talk · contribs) comme on peut le voir ici. J'ai quitté le tag permission manquant sur votre page de discussion pour vous faire savoir que l'image que vous avez téléchargé a été marquée comme n'ayant pas l'autorisation appropriée. En regardant la page Picasaweb l'auteur ne précise pas une licence libre dans l'échange montré avec le http://picasaweb.google.com/marccaudal utilisateur Picasaweb. Sans une licence spécifique sans l'image a été à juste titre, supprimé, l'autorisation d'utiliser sur Wikipedia n'est pas autorisée sur Commons. Cette image peut être facilement restauré si vous souhaitez contacter l'auteur Picasaweb et je l'ai préciser une licence libre comme CC-BY/CC-BY-SA sur la page de l'image Picasaweb, puis envoyer un email en utilisant la procédure à COM:OTRS.
--Captain-tucker (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Bon visiblement si vous saviez lire le français, vous n'auriez pas contribué à cette suppression. En guise de permission j'ai recopié l'autorisation de l'auteur lui-même. J'avais déjà contacté l'auteur, et je me refuse à le contacter de nouveaux. Vous pourrez par ailleurs vérifier que je n'ai introduit aucun document de picasaweb en dehors de celui-ci. "l'image que vous avez téléchargé a été marquée comme n'ayant pas l'autorisation appropriée" Ça c'est vous qui le dites, et si vous vouliez réellement améliorer cette banque d'image vous auriez peut-être chercher à corriger le problème. Non c'est plus facile de jouer la police et d'accuser sans preuve les contributeurs d'import frauduleux. --Toubabmaster (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Ps: Vu que les suppressions ont l'air de vous plaire, n'oubliez pas de supprimer l'ensemble de mes imports qui ne disposent plus de licences. Je vais contribuer ailleurs.

This DR

Please make a response in this DR if possible and confirm if what I say here is true...that the image is copyrighted or not. That is all I ask. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment made. Let me know if I can help from the OTRS side. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Page Width

A minor heads-up: Your talk page does not set correctly in Firefox 3.5.8 and IE6. On a 1280x1024 screen it requires using the horizontal scroll bar to see the right-hand quarter of the page. It doesn't begin setting without the scrollbar until it's about 1400px wide. I have nothing special in my page setup and am using the default skin.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was the talk page header that I was using. I have removed it for now. Thanks for letting me know. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

otrs:2010032210033336

Is this OTRS ticket also valid for

No, there were no deleted images on the ticket, those 2 images were not mentioned.--Captain-tucker (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The permission came in a separate mail, the mistake has been solved by Permissions - Wikimedia Commons [Ticket#2010032210033336]. 62.20.63.20 07:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Images on Jainism

Your help is required with reference to [Ticket#2010033010047441] and other images that I have uploaded. I have uploaded some images scanned from a book after receiving permission from the publisher. The permission is in the form of mail. Originally the publisher had given me permission verbally but I required it in writing as this is the policy of Wikimedia. Now this guy is not computer and email saavy and I had to do a lot of follow up and dozens of phone calls to get permission from him by mail. Although he has got a website designed, he is not at all system friendly and does not open his mails. Just to give permission by email I and my friend who is also a user in Wikipedia had to call him up dozens of times. He is aware that his images will be uploaded in Wikipedia and will be in public domain. That he states in his mail. Then why again a confirmation is required from him by mail. It took me 3-4 months to get permission from him. Now again, I have my doubts whether he will be inclined to reply the mail sent by Permission-commons directly to him. I had again called him and told him to send his assent by reply to that mail. But knowing him, he will simply not open his mail box form weeks together. His stand is that he has already given me verbal permission and by mail. Hence, I request to consider his original mail where he has given his assent. Or else I will not be having any images for Jainism related articles. -Anish (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As these images are scans of pages in a book that the company in question in actively selling I believe it is reasonable to require an email directly from the copyright holder to ensure that they understand the rights that they are releasing. To understand that others may utilize these images in commercial applications. This is why I attempted to contact him directly. These images can remain on Commons for a period of time for this permission request to be completed. I will ensure that all of the images have the {{OTRS received}} tag while we await a response from the copyright holder. I would request that you attempt to contact him again and request that he reply to my email. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I understand your concern. I have already called him up and asked him to reply to that mail. I had already explained him what public domain means and as his mail indicates he was willing to release them. Unfortunately I do not know when he will have the motivation to open his computer and then log in to his mail and then reply. Believe me, in India people still do well in business without use of internet or emails.--Anish (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Petroglyphs near Chilas - Pakistan05 007.jpg

If you have sent several messages mails to the flickr account owner about this picture (I think you have done this) and he refused to make a response, I woul say that its now time for you to consider DR'ing this photo. MGA73 has voted in a DR to delete in the only other photo from blu sky's account here...which also failed flickr review. I don't see any evidence that it was freely licensed at upload personally. But its your decision. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would have to agree. I am going on vacation tomorrow so will DR this when I return to editing in May. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

OTRS

Clearly from your comment you meant to add OTRS here and here, but didn't. Since I don't know the number of the ticket, could you look into this? - Jmabel ! talk 05:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that copy/paste error. There were 15 images on that OTRS ticket. I have now started using AWB for those kind of edits so that mistake should not happen again. I have closed the DR as keep. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This image

Can you send a flickrmail to the flickrmail for this photo under this discussion by me and MGA73 here and see if he will either change the license or send OTRS permission for the airplace? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Chan Chaya royal pavilion (Phnom Penh).jpg

By the way, if you can please mark this image uploaded by me if possible. The DSLR camera resolutions are incredible:

Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done, no problem. Nice photo. yes, DSLR's take amazing pictures. I was lucky enough to get a 15 mega-pixel Canon 500D for a big birthday at the end of last year. I am still learning how to use it. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

 Comment: Thank you. These DSLR mega pixel cameras are really costly. My sister and her groom hired a profesional photographer who took c.700-800 wedding photos with this high end camera in mid-April 2010 for their 'big day.' I asked the photographer later about it...and he told me most people really don't need them except for priceless events or treasures. He used a Nikon model which he said was great for parties and outdoor photos. I had just bought a Canon A590 Powershot IS in early 2009 and then (suddenly) Canon comes out with these high end DSLRs. But what the camera guy said was quite right. My Powershot also takes very high resolution photos, just not as high as a DSLR. But, it came with a 170 page manual that I am still reading (and reading). The DSLRs must have 200 or 300+ pictures. I'm just glad I'm not a professional photographer. Here is the church where my only sister just got married. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done Flickrmail sent. OTRS has tightened their requirements for Flickr files so the ticket in its current state is not good enough. Hopefully the Flickr author will respond. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This image is all set, see: [31]. --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Thanks for saving the image of that plane. Normally, I would not care much here but the circumstance behind this special photo was different and it was worth trying to at least save it via OTRS. As for placing my images under the Powershot IS category, I prefer allowing people to just view my pictures on my userpage since they are quite diverse--native art, European ceramic art, landscape scenes, high schools. Since I don't take many pictures, the ones which I upload here has to be of high resolution to make it worth everyone's while. With best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for everything that you did on Commons and the support that you gave me! --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Tropical Cyclone Sean 2010-04-23.jpg

File:Tropical Cyclone Sean 2010-04-23.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
Hello, I am nominating this for deletion because there is a higher quality version available.
--Anhamirak (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Tsilhqot'in baby cradle (UBC2010).jpg

Dear Captain tucker,

Can you please delete this image above? I have uploaded this better image below without the shiny distracting glass shimmering light at the bottom of the glass case in the photo here:

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

OTRS

Dear Captain,

Can you contact the person who left a message here and see if you can OTRS the images in this message he gave me here ? What do you think? I think that is what he is saying--an OTRS permission. You can say, you are a friend of mine. Please help.

I am still *slowly* tackling through this large pile . If you wish to help, go right ahead. The Russian images with Cyrillic titles at the bottom are almost all licensed freely.

  • This message from Admin Lupo about marking pre-2009 panoramio/picasa images is very important too but this image didn't have any discussion on the link or implied consent--and it was a 2009 photo--which was why I failed it. Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I will contact him and see if we can get an OTRS ticket setup for the image. I will take a look at Category:Panoramio_review_needed. I added it to my category tracker. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I left a message for pl:User:Delta 51 on Polish Wikipedia regarding File:Magic Roundabout, Swindon.jpg.--Captain-tucker (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Hopefully, you will be able to save it. MGA73 told mer of an instance where he saved a photo that was taken by an uploader's friend, too. You can speak to him about that case if you want. Best regrads, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

License reviewer

You are receiving this message because you have importScript('User:ZooFari/licensereviewer.js') in your monobook.js or vector.js. The License cv tab has a new function, please see the documentation for configuration or report errors in a new section on that page. Thank you, ZooFari 22:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


File source is not properly indicated: File:1stcircleamman2.jpeg

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:1stcircleamman2.jpeg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or 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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

High Contrast (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Teg2 luces.jpg

Perhaps you can save this image? --MGA73 (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Flickrmail sent. Will see what happens.... --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Picasa images

Feel free to mark these picasa images if you have the time. I have to log off now for my work. Its about 4-5 pictures only. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I added that category to my Category Tracker. --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rosa 'Capistrano' 2.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments good --Ianare 09:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Picasa

Dera Captain,

Feel free to mark the birds here if you have the time. I have marked several panoramio images today. I believe you love birds and nature. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done, No problem. Some good images.--Captain-tucker (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your kind help. They were quite good pictures too, I thought. I just lacked the time sadly to mark both picasa and panoramio. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Images on Jainism

Hi Capt. Please refer to our previous discussion here. This is in continuation to it. I had talked to concerned person and he promised me that he will reply by mail but he has not yet done it apparently. So now how do we go about it? --Anish (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Without a c--Anish (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)onfirmed free license eventually we have to delete the images. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Well his original email is clear that he has given permission. If he had any objections, he would have replied back. But he has not objected. Do you send double confirmation everytime someone uploads image. You think everyone has free time for that. That fellow is doing us a favour and we scare him off by asking continious confirmation. This is too much. Unfortunately, I have wasted too much time on this ultimately to see the images get deleted just because some one wants double confirmations. I would like to get an independent opinion on the original mail that I had sent. I feel that it is good enough as per wikipedia policies.--Anish (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I apologise for sounding rude. Only thing....its a bit frustrating. Is there any other ay to save these images?--Anish (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I have asked another OTRS agent for a second opinion. Let's see what he says. --Captain-tucker (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
As you should have seen I have added the {{PermissionOTRS}} tag to the images. I received a 'grey area' second opnion from another OTRS agent so I am going to AGF. I may try and contact the copyright holder via offline means. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help.--Anish (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
One more assistance—One of the publisher has agreed to donate some images and book covers. He wants to use it in Wikipedia but not lose Copyright. Which is the best licence tag? Will this tag suffice: {{Cc-by-2.5-in}}? Will it be acceptable for usage in Featured articles?--Anish (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, {{Cc-by-2.5-in}} is an acceptable license for Commons and Wikipedia. Make sure that the copyright holder understands that under this license anyone can use their image for any purpose including commercial as long as the copyright holder is attributed. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Now, I will draft mails to OTRS in a better way to avoid ambuigity. --Anish (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
If at all possible have the copyright holder send the email to OTRS. Craft the entire email for him/her and ask to forward to OTRS. Then there is no ambiguity. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I will do that. It seems to be a better option. Thanks again.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Captain-tucker/Archive_1&oldid=41439894"