User talk:Dcoetzee/Archive 2012-07-27

Portrait of a lady

Can you please explain to me why it is that this file which has always been attributed to Domenico Veneziano in now uploaded as the work of the Pollaiuolo? Amandajm (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because Google Art Project does so. This may be an error on their part, or it may reflect new research on the part of the Gemaldegalerie. It may also be a copy by Pollaiuolo after Veneziano. Please double check and fix if incorrect. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the similar File:Piero Pollaiuolo 001.jpg which has been around for a while. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Luxo#RotateBot:_Can.27t_rotate_image

Hallo Dcoetzee, something is wrong again: User_talk:Luxo#RotateBot:_Can.27t_rotate_image. It tags all images fore manual rotation. Maybe we should switch it off? And switch your bot on? ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get someone else to block RotateBot I'll turn mine on. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just edit the entry in the config file - I guess (see the third line on User:Rotatebot). I cannot due to lack of rights. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. But make sure Luxo knows what's up. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you re-activate it. File:Libeňský most, lampa.jpg does seem to have a problem. -- Docu at 06:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have to make code modifications to go back and rotate the images RotateBot mistagged as corrupt. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, turns out those JPEGs weren't corrupt, as Saibo suspected RotateBot was just acting up. I accidentally replaced several of them with palm trees, but reverted and it's working now. :-P Dcoetzee (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be that File:Libeňský most, lampa.jpg blocked the entire series. -- Docu at 09:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

plam trees.. hmm.. nice bot. ;) I wrote user:Luxo an e-mail notification. I really do not know what's the root cause. Feel free to try again with Rotatebot if you think just one image screwed it up. But check the log then for errors. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't think it was that one file - unless RotateBot responds to an error by marking all files in its batch with the same error, which doesn't make sense. I think it has a systematic flaw affecting all files, so let's give Luxo time to fix it. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does load all files of a batch at once. As the problem seems to occur just once every 5 year, could you re-activate it? Luxo isn't that active these days. We know the bot could be improved on that point, but MediaWiki would need that too and we don't stop using it either. -- Docu at 05:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind my bot is running and working fine (edit: oops, it was crashed, but I can fix it if necessary). I'll give RotateBot another shot, but if it doesn't work I'm turning it back off. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that and even if it might work better than RotateBot, I was under the impression that you had to run it manually each time. RotateBot just does it every 6 hours and even if it has some problem a couple of times a year, it runs quite smoothly. -- Docu at 09:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no, it runs continuously, like Picasa Review Bot. I'd have to debug mine as well though for it to be a practical replacement. I left one image for RotateBot to try at its next iteration. We'll see what it does. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You could set it to run at alternate intervals with RotateBot, thus if one breaks down, the other would eventually rotate them. Rotatebot outputs a log at User:Rotatebot/Log. I check it once in a while. It mainly helps by displaying the images it just rotated. -- Docu at 09:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case that wouldn't have helped since RotateBot tagged them as invalid and so removed them from the bot category. But if it just crashed, it might be a good idea. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

object photo

Hi Dcoetzee, I have seen your last point on user talk:Martin H.. I must mention that actually {{Object photo}} is not a particularly accepted way. This is a template I have created in trying to solve the duplication of information problem. I mainly used it on photos taken for Project Phoebus (with the support of the partnership organizer). I have used it in a few other pages as well. But I must mention that as far as I know only two other users have used this template. I think using categories is a convenient, though the "onlyinclude" may be annoying. I must also mention that I had a fairly lengthy discussion with user:Fæ that was partly triggered by that template. But it was focused on the British Museum - and Fæ also objects with the use of {{Artwork}} for it - so I don't think it is related to your case.--Zolo (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realise now that it's relatively new and not widely accepted - but if at least 4 users are using it, it's a much easier case to make that it should be supported by tools and such than if only one were. :-P I find it a bit odd how the photograph information template complains about missing fields - this part should probably use a custom table instead. Otherwise it seems quite workable. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the complaint message is odd, it was not meant to be permanent. I thought that if the category definition: Object became widely used, we could get a Javascript that would prefill the template. Some similar things are already proposed when we create category.

I received positive feedback from several users (user:Archaeodontosaurus who organizes the partnerhip I mentioned said he would try to use it as much as possible). Among other things the namespace is certainly debatable. I had initially proposed an "artwork" namespace and user:Bibi Saint-Pol still advocates this solution on template talk:artwork.--Zolo (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to hear. Also I didn't mean the puppy (which I realise is temporary and a bot could help with) but the way that the second information template, for the photograph, complains about missing author (since it only contains source and permission fields). Dcoetzee (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an author field for the photographer. It does not seem that useful for PD-art, but we can't restrict the template to PD-art -be it only to allow for photos with frame. so I think we should have author = unknown rather than nothing when we have no photographer name

The second box is a standard information template. I had proposed to have an option to make the some fields optional {{Information}}. It received mostly support but was not implemented. Actually I think that only "description" should be made optional here.--Zolo (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I may see what you mean, I have used "photographer" as a synonym "author" because I thought it clearer, but it may be better to use "author" since it is the standard word for {{Information}}.--Zolo (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand how the template works now - all those fields end up in the photograph information template. That makes sense, I think I can do it right now. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention one limitation of the template. Artwork templates, notably the creator template are often very near the 40 transclusion depth limit. Adding {{Object photo}} adds two to the depth, which means that Category:Bedroom in Arles (Amsterdam) cannot be properly transcluded. The problem can happen even without this template (see Category:Antoine Watteau) so it would be great if we could fix it, but I don't see any way to do it without loss of functionality.--Zolo (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me, using the {{Category definition}} system could be very useful to create new tools. I would like very much to have a tool that would display detailed list of objects in Category:Muséum de Toulouse: Inventory/Prehistory (I mean a tool that would display the image, the description, the accession number etc of all objects. Or even better a tool that would allow to do that for category intersections (eg it would allow to list objects that are both in Category:Muséum de Toulouse: Inventory/Prehistory and Category:Stone hand axes. An obvious limitation is that it would require to use {{Category definition}} systematically, but I think it could be very useful. Do you know if it is difficult to do ?--Zolo (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Hello, Dcoetzee. You have new messages at Martin H.'s talk page. 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 ∙ +/−

Higher res image needed

Can you see if you can grab a higher-res image of this file File:Joseph Wright of Derby Interior of a Glass House No. 1 (c. 1770-1772).jpg from the indicated source? There is a Zoomify. Thanks. - PKM (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Zoomify images looks no bigger than 1024 pixels. Not worth the trouble, particularly since it's in the UK. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, forget it then. Thanks. - PKM (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jumping_Wikipe-tan.svg

It's used on several projects, but pretty much exclusively in Wikipedia:WP:Wikipe-tan and translations and derivative pages thereof. It's not used in articlespace on any project. Could you please either reopen the discussion or provide a better justification for closing? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition: files on Commons do not need to be in use - only about(!) 35 % of our files are in use in article namespace. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but why would that mean the deletion discussion is closed so quickly? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll re-open it, but I'm relatively certain the outcome will not be altered. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate that. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted images

I admit to uploading a number of images which I found online but which did not appear to carry any licensing or copyright warnings. I apologise for uploading these to Wikimedia and did not fully appreciate the gravity of doing so. However, some of the deleted images were genuinely mine:
File:Wnbr-completed-london.jpg I took this photo of friends in London last year.
File:Sanantonioexpressnews.JPG I took this photo of a newspaper which I bought in San Antonio, Texas, last November.
File:AuschwitzI.jpg This is genuinely a photo I took (it is a scan of a photograph developed in a shop, which I took when I visited Auschwitz in April 2005.
File:CityPolice Personnel Carrier.jpg I took this photo in London in 2009.
File:Met-carrier.jpg Again, a photo I took in London in 2009.
File:Tower42london.jpg I took this photo last summer.
File:Penisflaccidunc.jpg This is my photograph and which I took as I thought it would be useful for the pubic hair article on WP.
File:Bishopsgatecityoflondon.jpg and finally this is a photo I took in London.
I would be grateful if you would consider reinstating these images which I am the author of, and will not jeopardise my account by uploading any further images that are not mine. --Tbmurray (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message! I have re-uploaded most of my images. Unfortunately I can't find the old Auschwitz one on my hard drive but do still have the original print upstairs so will try to scan it back in at some point. Most of the uploads are the same resolution as previously, though. --Tbmurray (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles County Museum of Art

LACMA has launched an image library that includes both copyright images and images that LACMA is releasing to the public domain that would normally be assumed to be copyright (example here). Do we need some sort of verification process and a template to mark images like this one so editors know they are okay to use? The PD status is buried on the "about this image" link on individual items. It seems to me that something like our Flickr process is needed, and maybe a special PD-LACMA license, but I have no idea how these things get done. - PKM (talk) 07:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually pretty cool. I think a {{PD-LACMA}} tag would adequately address the matter, since it's a custom license statement and they're not likely to change their mind (which is what review is usually for). Dcoetzee (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone make the template, or is there a review and discussion process? - PKM (talk) 07:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, be bold. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done! {{PD-LACMA}} Thanks. - PKM (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! Dcoetzee (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972

Hallo. There are about 20 files which were nominatdes for deletion in this DR you didn't delete:

sугсго 05:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the gallery is almost empty now (only one text-image left) it would make sense to delete it as well. --Isderion (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also please don't forget the talk pages of the now deleted files (Special:WhatLinksHere/Commons:Deletion_requests/RAF_fahndungsplakat_±1972) --Isderion (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the gallery (see my first post on this page)? --Isderion (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx! (the talk page of the now deleted gallery is still there, btw) --Isderion (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picasa review

Looks like Picasareview script has stopped working. 19:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I rebooted the machine and forgot to restart the script. It'll be up within 8 hours. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be taking longer than eight hours. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot again. It's up now. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is doing reviews again. Snowmanradio (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dcoetzee, so it seems like my personal Wiki account is being attacked unjustly. I am WanderingScholars. My entire IP address was blocked and now I can not even contribute edits. Could you help me with this? ...I am the one you helped create the article entry for the musician George Ellias. Thank you.

Fair Use Bot

hi Dcoetzee, A few days ago you responded to my question at the help desk about moving images from commons to Wikipedia because of a problem i did not see before i uploaded them here. I was just wondering if you ever got the Fair Use bot up and running, or if I should start re-uploading them on Wikipedia by hand. Thanks for your help!--Found5dollar (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is ready but the images need to be tagged by an administrator (me). Please list the images that need to be moved. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

here are the images that need to be moved.

Thank you very much for doing this. If i need to add the fair use rationale to the pictures please let me know.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - you will need to fix the license tag and add the non-free rationales at En and remove the "Fair use candidate from Commons" tag. They are listed at en:Category:Fair_use_candidates_from_Commons. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommonsTicker

As far as I can tell this bot has been out of operation for some time (2008), with no response to any requests from the operator on his talk page. It would seem that the better solution would be to create a new bot (potentially using code from CommonsTicker if it's open-source). – Adrignola talk 12:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use uploads and resolution

In general, a bot can't tell if an image meets enwiki's criteria - not least because it depends on its use. However, there are some parts of the criteria that are objective, and the bot should be able to respect. For example, NFCC #3b says "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used".

As an example w:File:Davis Statues - from Commons.jpg blatantly fails 3b. A 9 megapixel image is hardly low resolution (yet that's been claimed in the rationales) :) It would be better if the bot uploads low resolution versions - no more than 200px on the short edge for instance - that will save en admin's having to delete high resolution old versions.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be hard to do, but determining what resolution is "low resolution" for each individual image is a rather subjective task; this is why en:Wikipedia:Fair use/Definition of "low resolution" failed to gain consensus. If I make it too small, there is no way for En admins to make it bigger again; if I make it too big they have to downscale it again anyway. I can't hope to get it exactly right in every situation. I could, however, tag high-resolution images appropriately with en:Template:Non-free reduce. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use to Wikibooks

I will be tagging a lot of tea bags that contain copyrighted designs that are in use at Wikibooks (but not Wikipedia). You'll need to have the bot visit for the account to be created so that I can give it the uploader flag for fair use uploading. – Adrignola talk 13:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adrignola, done. Please tag it. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Adrignola talk 13:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Batch upload request

Hi Dcoetzee, I requested a batch upload for the Africa Centre on the batch upload page. Unfortunately, no one has yet responded. If you have the time to take a look at it (and hopefully confirm) we are excited to get started on it. thanks! Riannedac (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews license

Just wanted to thank you once again for your help (*you 've been very helpful). Have a nice day.--Γλαύκος (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dcoetzee, could you add the admin-bit to your babel-box. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Libya.png

Hi, your way of 'reopening' the DR is incorrect and caused a non functional situation. In the future please always use 'nominate for deletion' from the left menu to re-open the DR, instead of just reverting the closure, which should never happen this way. For now, please at least fix the most important part of the error this nomination, by adding it to the today DR log. Jcb (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reopened it correctly. I reverted the closure, reverted removal of the deletion tag, and deleted the "kept" tag on the talk page. There's no reason to restart the entire discussion from scratch when the closure was invalid and occurred only 6 hours before. Of course if it had been closed for some time (days or weeks) I would have re-nominated it instead. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to understand the importance of using the normal procedure. We discussed this recently at the administrators noticeboard (about a case in which I was not involved) and the clear outcome was that we should never just revert the closure of a DR, but always reopen it by using the 'nominate for deletion' link from the menu. You still must add this DR to the today DR log (please follow this link, to see what I actually mean), because at the moment the DR is not listed at any active DR log. Jcb (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I didn't realise closure actually removed the entry from the DR log. It seems taken care of now. I'll stick to the normal re-nomination procedure in the future, it's easier anyway. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not listed, see here. Jcb (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see the problem. I thought since it was listed on Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/03/31 it was okay, but that's no longer listed as an active day, it seems to have been archived immediately after this deletion discussion was closed, I wasn't expecting that to occur so quickly. In any case I added it to today's listing. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Everything seems ok now. Jcb (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Madame_Tussauds_London_00801_Nevit.jpg

While I agree completely with your conclusion, I don't agree with your comment:

"Mme Tussaud's charges admission and you have to buy a ticket. FOP does not apply to places that the public cannot enter freely."

Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Kingdom quotes a respected text on copyright:

"The expression "open to the public" presumably extends the section to premises to which the public are admitted only on licence or on payment."

While I don't think Shrek is permanent, I would not want to see Queen Elizabeth or Winston Churchill deleted with this as a precedent.
Regards, Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I stand corrected. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dcoetzee, what's happening to the content of Category:Pending fair use deletes? I've added some speedy-candidates by myself. But it's my impression that the cat does steadily increase. --Túrelio (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm working on an improvement to the tool right now so that's why it's a little backlogged. Dcoetzee 21:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

François-Antoine Bossuet

Hi, Is it possible to work your image magic on http://www.dorotheum.com/en/popup/zoomify/lot/1091932-francois-antoine-bossuet.html?displayImg=0&cHash=b5fc07cb0cb65f636e653fd13f2ea32d if you have the time? It would be much appreciated! Androstachys 10:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need an advice

Hello, I need an advice. I upploaded some photos:

File:He100 2.jpg
Thouse are taken from journal (Война в воздухе, Heinkel He 100, № 140, 2005.), and they are made in 1938-1940
This photo taken in 1909
- an illistration phrom famous russian book of 19-th century about fishing.

So all of them are free (I hope) and suitable to commons.

If it enough original description from ruwiki, or i need add some more? If yes, show me on one example how, I'll do the the same to all of them. Thank you in advance. P.S. I appologise for my english. --Cemenarist 16:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cemanrist, see this edit for some suggestions on how to format your descriptions better. Your uploads are fine, we can clean them up for you if you can't figure it out. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! All is done =) --Cemenarist (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more advice please

I apologize for disturbing you again, but I have some difficulty. There is Category:Order of the Red Banner of Labour - there are some photos of labours. The labours by themselfs are free, but their photos, as photo of 3D object - no. Am i right or not? I haven't got a strict answer at ruwiki, i've got an advice to load them as not free photos localy, but there are recognized as free here - it's a bit puzzling --Cemenarist (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the objects were created long enough ago that they have fallen into the public domain as sculptures, then there is no issue. Otherwise, they are derivative works and must be deleted. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help with thumbnail?

Hi, I uploaded File:Allen Smith Jr. The Young Mechanic 1848 LACMA M81 179 1.png which is too large to generate a thumbnail. Is there a trick or tool for making a thumbnail without resizing the image and reuploading? - PKM (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I usually recommend uploading a JPEG version and crosslinking them. In this case it seems someone took the alternate method of downscaling it, but there's been no site-wide discussion of best practices in this case. Neither solution is ideal, since in either case a derivative work may accidentally be based on the reduced quality version. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Help Desk discussion

Hi. Can you or someone else please answer my question, or at least explain to me why it can't be answered? I've been trying to get someone to respond to my last post, but neither you nor anyone else will, and the thread was automatically archived. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Batch upload request

Hello Dcoetzee. Recently my colleague and I requested a batch upload for our organization Africa Centre. So far no one has responded at the batch upload page as well as Mutlichill on his talk page by myself and my colleague. Could you please take a look at it if you have the time or give us any direction on how to adjust our request. Thank you in advance! Riannedac (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict in DR

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kottarathil_sankunni.jpg -- Please look into this.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change of licence of images from Picasa Web Albums

Re; File:Cracticus torquatus -Braeside Park, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia -juvenile-8.jpg. The author of this image has changed the licence indicating that he is no longer distributing the image with its former licence. My impression is that this does not happen so often as on Flickr; nevertheless, I think that a Picasa Web Albums change of licence template is needed similar to Template:Flickr-change-of-license as shown on File:Platycercus caledonicus -captivity-6-3c.jpg and many more Flickr files. Snowmanradio (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. Done. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Would it be reasonable to add a category for Picasa files on commons which have had a Picasa change of license? (i.e. add a category to the template). Snowmanradio (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

		The Fight the Power Barnstar of Epic Proportions Barnstar Barnstar what the hell is a Barnstar anyway Barnstar
		Nominating a POTY image for deletion is truly epic. I wholeheartedly commend you for helping protect against copyfraud whilst also annoying people who care about POTY. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't take credit for discovering this problem - User:Twp noticed the issue and asked me on IRC to address it. I've seen this image before and overlooked it myself. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should change that to the "I got an undeserved barnstar barnstar" :p -mattbuck (Talk) 20:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images

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

Hello, Dcoetzee!

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

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

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

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

CategorizationBot (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Along the noted Bowery, New York, U.S.A, from Robert N. Dennis collection of stereoscopic views.jpg was uncategorized on 5 June 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Arizona (BB39). Starboard bow, underway with aircraft overhead retouched.jpg was uncategorized on 20 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C2RMF upload

Hi Dcoetzee,

I read about the C2RMF upload, and informed our French GLAM community. French chapter president User:Remi Mathis was wondering if you were aware of the 1978 law in France?

Roughly, this law states that public data should be made public and reusable ; but article 11 states that cultural (and research) agencies have the right to put their own conditions on the data they produce. Wikimedia-wise, it includes PD book scans from Gallica and painting digitizations such as the ones from the C2RMF.

Did you knew about this, but ignored it (like the {{Copyright claims}}) ? If so what were your rationale ?

(as I realise my message may sound a bit aggressive, please be sure that it is not the intent. We are just genuinely wondering :-)

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jean-Fred, thanks for letting me know about this. I was not aware of this particular French law, and I think the question of whether to observe it should be made by the community at large and not by myself alone. I invite you to post at Commons:Village pump about this. I will delay any further uploads from C2RMF until such time as consensus is clear on this matter. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. Rémi, who is more knowledgable on this, posted at the Village Pump. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Derrick, sorry for not getting back to you earlier. I noticed that you resumed the C2RMF upload. Just wanted to let you know that this was also my understanding of the Village Pump thread, and that within the French chapter we are discussing what should be our official stance regarding this law. Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for following up with me, and let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. I did want to let you know that the files have been very useful - two have been spontaneously nominated for FP by others, and they now have many thousands of uses across the projects, particularly File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello Derrick! Maybe you have the ability and desire to place a few portraits:

Portret van Cosmo di Medici Rubens, Peter Paul

Portret van Alfons, koning van Aragon en Napels Rubens, Peter Paul

Portret van Paus Leo X Rubens, Peter Paul

Portret van Lorenzo di Medici Rubens, Peter Paul

http://www.collectieantwerpen.be/component/option,com_memorix/Itemid,2/lang,nl/

Thank you in advance and all the best. Sincerely, Igor

Sorry, not right now. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Of course, when you have time for it and desire. Igor

Replacing images with supersized versions

Hi Derrick, I noticed you are universally replacing images with supersized versions. I think this is not very user friendly for readers of Wikipedia. If they want to see an image in more detail, and click on it, they fall into a trap in which their PC is in an apparent idle state for several minutes, to even possibly find out in the end that their browser cannot display what they just downloaded. Not everyone has a super high-speed connection. Most of our readers do not have more than 4 Mbps download speed, and above all consider the readers in third-world countries, who are connected whith even less. I think it is better to make these super-sized image available as an alternative, secondary, option. A link to the super sized image could be prominently available on the standard sized image that is linked to from the Wikipedia article, if you know what I mean. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The images are already labelled with "{{LargeImage}}" warnings indicating this issue. The "Download" button above the image provides the option to download at lower resolutions, which are of acceptable filesize for low-bandwidth users. And of course they only see the thumbnail unless they try to download the full resolution version. There are usability issues in discovering these features, but the features are available. We want the highest-resolution possible (see Commons:Why we need high resolution media). Dcoetzee (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Largeimage template is hiding just beneath the bottom of the browser window in most cases, and I'm sorry, but I don't see a Download button. I agree with collecting high resolution media, but I don't think we should use them to annoy the average reader. Contrary to the meaning of the word, most readers don't read the warnings, they just click on the image. It's more user friendly to replace the image in the article with a regular sized image, with a link to the supersized image for the few who need to look at crackling level at the painting. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think clicking on the picture should download a reduced-resolution version by default, with the full version available by some other method, file a bug at Mediawiki Bugzilla for a UI change. Uploading the same image with two different sizes is against policy (the smaller one would be speedy deleted) and would cause a number of problems, including the Books extension, which generates PDFs using a print resolution version of embedded images in articles, and divergence in the two versions when someone edits the smaller one by mistake (e.g. for retouching). Dcoetzee (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I created a Village pump thread about this and opened Mediawiki bug 29967 suggesting a solution. Feel free to comment there. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kamilche mason county.jpg

Wasn't your close a little quick? I think it's probably a DW, so do you. But doesn't Commons process require a week's discussion before we blow it away? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was deleting all this uploader's works, so I had to close the associated DRs. In this case, without any reliable information concerning the source of the map (since the uploader can't be trusted), we have no basis for even evaluating whether or not it is a derivative work. Additionally, the work is low quality and easily replaced by a free work. I admit though that I probably should have voted instead of closing, I act a bit quickly when it comes to deceptive users. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

I think Jcb didnt notice that you restored that. :) Reh man 12:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah probably. I'm just frustrated that this incorrect deletion of images replaced by CommonsDelinker has happened like 20 times now... Dcoetzee (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, actually the whole system is somewhat confusing. I'm currently working on finalizing on clearing out COM:CSD, and then the dropdown, and then further out to other areas. It's about time we polish on these areas... The way we handle the Delinker end-result (Category:Universally replaced by CommonsDelinker) should also be changed; the category is under the main Cat:CSD, which confuses most admins as being a "contents-to-be-deleted" category, when clearly that is not always the case. The note atop the category also goes a bit unnoticed most of the time... Reh man

File:Leonardo da Vinci 020.jpg

Hi, I didn't intend to have a wheel war, the page had been loaded already for some minutes to replace remaining usage (like here) manually. I didn't notice the file had been deleted and restored in the meantime. Jcb (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it seems it was just bad timing. But please do avoid speedying images that are not exact scaled-down duplicates (I prefer to use the {{Superseded}} tag). I'll try to indicate in the message in the future "(Do not delete)" or something. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Derrick, can you take a look at Template:NARA-image-full (documented on the talk page) and let me know how it looks. I am trying to include all of the relevant information from the catalog records, but I am not intimately familiar with Commons' conventions (or a template guru), so an insider's perspective would be appreciated. :-) For reference, I used the new template here.Dominic (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request open

Thank you. --151.75.45.110 05:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion request notification

Hi, you participated in a deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/Wikipe-tan lolicon (2007-01-04). The same files are now being considered for undeletion at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:LoliWikipetan.jpg. If you're still around we'd appreciate your opinion and feedback. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I wasn't able to respond on time as I was busy with finals that week. Oh and I am always around. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 20:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, hope your studies are going well :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mispelingz

Hey Derrick, sorry about misspelling your name -- it's funny, I had a feeling I had it wrong, but double-checked your last name instead of your first. Whoops! -Pete F (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :-) Common error. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Bridget photos

Hi Dcoetzee, as you may have seen already, I have put some of the likely-to-be-deleted images of Bridget TS into your "fair-use-delete"-cat. I've done that with 1 each image of those player of whom we have no other image on Commons. If you think fair-use would still be problematic for her, feel free to to remove the cat. --Túrelio (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NARA catalog dataset

Hey Derrick, here's the link to that data for the for the NARA catalog that I mentioned: [1]. Dominic (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Theresa portrait

Hi, Dcoetzee! I found this portrait at the MFA Boston website and added the link and other data to the file page: File:Retrato_de_la_infanta_María_Teresa_(4),_by_Diego_Velázquez.jpg. A higher-res image is available at the MFA site. (I can't add it since my Commons account is too young-- I didn't realize I could log in to Commons with my WP ID and created a new Commons account.)

Similarly, I updated the info at File:Anne Hyde, Duchess of York by Sir Peter Lely.jpg to use the Artwork template and include some additional info and link from/to the NPG site. I'm aware of the NPG controversy but I was wondering if you have any plans to use a bot to update older uploads of yours to use the Artwork template and extract further data?

I'd love to hear an update on the legal issues but I understand that you cannot post anything publicly.

Thanks for all your hard work!Laura1822 (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laura. I appreciate you updating these file descriptions with more information and uploading higher resolution versions of images. I deliberately avoided filling out a complete Artwork template on these images in order to avoid infringing upon the NPG's database rights, but others are free to assume that risk. As for the legal threat, there are no new updates that aren't already available publicly. Thanks again. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I'm unable to update any images because I don't yet have that privilege. Is there any chance you'll use a bot to update older non-NPG uploads to use the Artwork template instead of the Information template? Not just for your own uploads, but for general site-wide cleanup? Laura1822 (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I just found a bot that seems to be converting Files to use the Artwork template, as well as standardizing the template's usage. Special:Contributions/JarektBot Laura1822 (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Question concernant des images de sculpture en margarine

Bonjour! en réponse (tardive) à votre question au sujet des sculptures en margarine suivantes

Je les ai sculptées moi même,(sauf les fleurs entourant la femme nue faites par des apprentis) mais j'ai également créé celle-ci

you can see videos about it here http://www.youtube.com/user/vorzinek?feature=mhee

Thank you for your interest !

user:vorzinek gallery : [2]

Merci, nous pouvons les retenir en ce cas. Have a good day. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

more

There is again a bunch of to-be-deleted Ice hockey player image in Category:Pending fair use deletes. --Túrelio (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Túrelio, I looked at these and they look like bad taggings to me. Unless I'm missing something, they were Flickr-reviewed as having a valid license in the past, and CC licenses are non-revocable. I would remove the tags from these files. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steve Montador.jpg for the background. There was clear consensus to remove all images (far more than those nominated in the the first mass DR) of this user from Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay. In the future please include the reason as a parameter to the fair use delete tag so that everybody knows what's going on. I should have remembered this one since I participated in the DR. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi

Hello, i have some questions regarding this template : you said it can only be used by admins, but

it's not even stated on the template and its description page to warn users
nothing prevent anyone, even IP to add this template to any page of commons (even user page)
nothing prevent anyone, even IP to add Category:Images in the public domain in the United States but not the source country to any page
files tagged are transfered based on an automated process without reviewing by any human at any moment between tagging and transfert. Are they seriously reviewed before deletion ?

Maybe there could be other solutions with better security, like a small script like quickdelete.js 's links in toolbox that would tag the image and add a line on a page only admins can modify, your bot could than read this page rather than a category and do the transfert ?--Lilyu (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lilyu, the bot checks that it's added to a file page by an admin, and that the tag is present, otherwise the page is skipped. Any admin could do the same thing manually. The admin is responsible for tagging pages carefully, just like they're responsible for deleting files carefully (I wouldn't normally expect them to do this until after a deletion request). Finally, the bot user is not an admin user and does not perform the final delete (it tags it for speedy deletion following the transfer). Dcoetzee (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good job ! Thank you for the informations, i was wondering where was the control of the tagging

Can i develop a little the documentation of the template with the informations you provided ? Maybe adding a small line warning it's a "tag for admins" inside the template ?--Lilyu (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd appreciate that :-) Your custom emoticons are adorable btw :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you !

Done Please can you take a quick look at it to check if the description and my english are correct ? --Lilyu (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, thank you! Dcoetzee (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore file

Hello Dcoetzee, please restore File:Реверс монеты Казахстана 50 тенге 2009 год Басенов.jpg deleted by you - it is not a Polish but Kazakhstani money - it is in PD {{PD-KZ-exempt}}. BR, --Ds02006 (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to write the same not only about this file but about all deleted files connected with Kazakhstani coins.--Mheidegger (talk) 05:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct about this and I apologize for my error. However, the other reasons for deletion still apply. I found countless examples of files uploaded by this uploader from the web, claiming they were their own work, and this image also appears to be taken from the web (it is low resolution and high quality, typical of web copyvios). This uploader cannot be trusted when they claim photos are their "own work." If you want images of Kazakhstani coins, you must scan or photograph those coins yourself, or find someone who will provide photos of them under a free license. Scans of bills from the web would be okay, since these are flat, but the coins have relief. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, I will upload images of these coins taken from an official site of National Bank of Kazakhstan. --Mheidegger (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please don't - as far as I know the images on the official site of National Bank of Kazakhstan may be copyrighted. I'll ask about this at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BadJPEG template

Could you please answer my question in the Village pump/BadJPEG discussion? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Greece

Template:PD-Greece 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 template, 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.

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） ∙ +/−

SV1XV (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hi White Cat, I just wanted to say hi and see how you've been... I haven't seen you around in a long time. I hope you're doing well. Take care. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doing good. Dealing with issues one at a time. Recently cleaned up my backlog of *GASP* 2 years. How about you? :) -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm good :-) Been doing the admin thing here and on En, was involved in the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, working with the new Global Education Program to get more Wikipedia in the classroom. Doing research for my CS PhD at UC Berkeley, just finishing up my 2nd year. And of course playing/spectating a lot of Starcraft 2 :-) Two years is a hell of a backlog! Let me know if I can do anything to help you get started back up with contributing here. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I too am working on academia though I am only at a masters degree level at the moment. I am working on preparing a paper for a workshop involving Machine Learning and Wikipedia Vandalism Detection also looking forward to my internship on CyberDefense. I am travelling as always :p.

I am unsure how much I am "missed" on commons. My memory is hazy but when I left for my self imposed wikivacation of 2-2.5 years, I vividly remember it was not with the best of terms. It is not like I had a fight with anyone though. I am hesitant to contribute as a result. I doubt people are still upset but I really do not want to deal with wikidrama. Of course it could be that I may be misinterpreting people. However, if there is something I can do here on commons, I'd be more than happy to do so.

Right now I am working on a pet project on En.wikipedia that you may help if you like. I am trying to create more templates like en:Template:Membership/France (documentation (sort of)). Idea is adding membership dates of countries to allow lists like this mock example. There is a lot of work to be done. :)

A problem I have to this end is not having images for some international organizations. Evidently logos of some of these organizations are only available under fair use... This is the debate I am having at the previous section on my talk page.

That dispute looks iffy. I hate it when people do not want to share knowledge in a free manner. Fortunately that dispute had a happy ending more or less. Though I do feel a bit sad that those guys probably spent a lot of money to restore images and they would not be able to restore more such images without the income...

It is very pleasant to hear from you! :-)

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 11:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realise you left under bad terms, I'm sorry to hear that, but I'm glad you're back and I can assure you we're glad to have you. :-) If you take any photos or anything in your travels they'd be welcome. I'll also help with your degree program if I can - you offered to send me the draft of your paper tonight but I didn't receive it for some reason (e-mail should be dc@moonflare.com). I'm vaguely familiar with the organization logo issue... I haven't looked at the details but I'm willing to believe that this is one of those cases where something really feels like it should be public domain but it's not (generally because somebody decided to use copyright instead of trademarks for brand control). Which is unfortunate because I'm not sure if NFC on En will cover your use... Dcoetzee (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know it felt bad, not sure if it was hence my hesitation. I emailed you the report(s) for your info. I welcome feedback of any kind. Fair use is inadequate for my use since I am slapping the image (24 pixels) very liberally.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated convo

Hello Derrick!

I apologize for your persistence. Maybe now you have the time and opportunity to place a few high-resolution images. I'm working on: History of the Medici dynasty, and I am sorely lacking illustrative material. I recall that use images only as a textbook for their students. I am sure that these images will be of interest to many history buffs.

Sincerely, Igor

http://www.collectieantwerpen.be/component/option,com_memorix/Itemid,2/lang,nl/

Portret van Cosmo di Medici Rubens, Peter Paul Museum Plantin-Moretus / Prentenkabinet

Portret van Alfons, koning van Aragon en Napels Rubens, Peter Paul Museum Plantin-Moretus / Prentenkabinet

Portret van Paus Leo X Rubens, Peter Paul Museum Plantin-Moretus / Prentenkabinet

Portret van Lorenzo di Medici Rubens, Peter Paul Museum Plantin-Moretus / Prentenkabinet

Francesco I de Medici Allori, Alessandro Bronzino Museum Mayer Van den Bergh

US National Archives series:

Please don't remove the hiddencats from Category:US National Archives series. --Foroa (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I just looked at your contribution history and realised that wasn't what you were talking about. I made a mistake in coding my bot, it totally ignored and blew away whatever was already there. Sorry! I also didn't realise before that the series cats were supposed to be hidden. I went back and added hidden cat to them all, and now I'm looking for any other accidental changes... Dcoetzee (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I think I've fixed all the category pages I accidentally removed cats from. Please fix any remaining ones you find. Sorry for the trouble! Dcoetzee (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice

Hello, Derrick! I need some guidance please. I just uploaded an image of a portrait from the Yale Center for British Art (which has approximately 2000 expressly PD images of paintings). It is an approximately 10mb tif file. Based on what I've seen in your logs, I assumed that the largest tif available would be preferable for storage on Commons; however, I'm unsure whether (a) 10mb qualifies as a "large" file that should have a smaller version for actual use, or (b) a similar usage problem exists because it's a tif file, and so a jpg version should accompany it for actual use. I can't find any guidelines addressing this point. Should I upload a jpg version and use that file for Wikipedia?

On a related note, YCBA offers a version of their images with a border that includes a color swatch for color calibration. I uploaded the file without it. Which is preferred?

Also, I posted some questions on the talk page for PD-scan. They probably should have gone on the PD-Art talk page but I started out thinking they belonged at PD-scan. If you could answer any of those questions, I'd be grateful. Thank you! Laura1822 (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laura, I've usually uploaded versions without the color swatch, since the images have (as far as I know) already been color calibrated. The source link should provide access to it if anyone is interested. 10 MB if not a very large file at all (limit is 100 MB) and I recommend uploading both the TIFF and a JPEG version. Currently we have {{PNG with JPEG version}} and {{JPEG version of PNG}} but no similar tags for TIFFs. I think such tags would be useful in this case for linking the two versions together (archival TIFF and JPEG used in articles). Let me know what you think. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you! I do think similar tags to the PNG/JPEG tags would be very useful; that's what I was looking for and couldn't find them! Can you just create them or is there a process? I will upload a jpg version. The tif file is File:Granville Leveson Gower by Lawrence.tif. Maybe sometime if you're bored you can batch upload all those YCBA files. :-) Laura1822 (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should the tif file have all the same categories as the jpg, or just certain ones? Laura1822 (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I gave the wrong page above. My questions about PD-scan are at Commons talk:When to use the PD-scan tag (not sure how to link it). Laura1822 (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on this, FYI someone has created a {{JPEG version of TIF}} tag but not a corresponding "TIF with JPEG version". And my questions about PD-scan vs. PD-art are at Commons talk:When to use the PD-scan tag. Laura1822 (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Rabbids

With Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/07#Revisiting the costume issue come and gone, can we revisit this issue as well? :) --141.84.69.20 18:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to renominate. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picasa Review Bot

Seems to be having some trouble. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now. All I did was restart it (and fix an unrelated bug involving downloading images from the wiki). Not sure what happened. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you were able to fix it. :) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project/Bot

If you're looking for a new project, or know someone who is, there are several thousand zoomified art images in the imagebase of the FAMSF. Laura1822 (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Those look like good 10 megapixel images. Definitely worth collecting. Not sure if I'll have time in the near future - you may consider also visiting Commons:Batch uploads. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

[3] Since you know quite a bit about copyright problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picasa Review Bot

Is there a reason why the picasa review bot stopped marking images after September 19 thus leading to a nearly 40 image backup? Is there a malfunction which you can fix? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The computer it was running on was turned off. I accidentally unplugged it at some point. That's all. If I port it to Python and run on Toolserver this would of course fix this sort of issue. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. I'm sorry I was unable to reply earlier. I was busy. I was just curious. Have you considered creating a final review bot for Panoramio pictures in this Category Is this possible or would it be complicated? Not as many people use panoramio compared to flickr but few Admins or trusted users seem to mark images from panoramio here, I notice. I try to mark some but sometimes I'm busy and the backlog can grow. Its just a suggestion, nothing more. If you can create a panoramio review bot, it would be great....but if not, that's OK too. Its up to you to decide if its worth your time, of course. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright speedies

The images all used here are clearly of a copyrighted design and logo of Game Genie and we do not have the right to release them for commercial use. There could be a fair use argument made for one of those images, but not for the rest. Could you process the speedy deletion? You can see from the competitor image here that other uploaders were capable of respecting the copyright of works but this one could not. This is really concerning. It is really frustrating that people try to manipulate the text of the Ets Hokins argument to justify the misrepresenting of copyright Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think VP already showed these could be controversial, so nom for deletion, not speedy. Particularly for the Game Genie logo, which is almost all text except for the one silhouette of a man... I'd probably !vote delete but I think there's room for disagreement.Dcoetzee (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The words themselves may be textual, but they are surrounded and emphasized by non text. Also, copyright is not determined by popularity, and the individual at the village pump is stating things that are not pertinent. Commons by default must side on the cautious and must delete all images if there is any suspicion. That is part of the core tenants. If there is any doubt we must remove. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A conversation like this one about the details of why they should be deleted should go in a DR. End of story. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All images on commons must be usable for modification and sale. Can I crop out the rest of the image besides the silhouetted man and have it be free to sell? If you answer no, then the image cannot be used. A DR cannot change that as popular opinion cannot override copyright. That is why copyright is speedy and not put up to a vote. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you're well aware, most DRs are for copyright issues, not scope/COM:PEOPLE whatever. I am absolutely never going to speedy delete these images. It's actually in your interest to launch a DR because a delete decision would set a clear precedent for similar works. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EXIF orientation reset bot

Hallo Dcoetzee, it seems (Commons:Village_pump#Autorotation_using_EXIF_tag_with_MW_1.18) that we could need a EXIF tag orientation reset bot. Can you help again and and build a new bot? A tag {{Reset EXIF orientation}} could be created like {{Rotate}}. And we should put a warning inside of {{Rotate}} that the physical orientation of the image should be checked first (by opening the full size view in any browser - currently). What do think? Just an idea from me to mitigate in case of masses of misrotated images due to wrong EXIF tags. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Licensed-PD-Art bug ?

Hi,
I was about to suggest to another user the use of Template:Licensed-PD-Art, but first I decided to test the template in preview, and it seems to have two problems. The major problem is that, for some reason, the second parameter seems blocked on the default value (cc-by-sa). Whatever other tag I inserted as the second parameter, the template still always displayed the default tag. I suppose that is probably easy to fix, and I would do it if I knew how, but I don't know how to fix templates, other than the most simple ones.
The other thing is more a question about why you chose cc-by-sa, which is actually Cc-by-sa-1.0, for the default of that parameter. One big difference between version 1.0 and later versions is that with version 1.0 the licensor warrants that the copyright is clear. That would seem in particular a strange choice of licensing for copies of reproductions of artworks. Unless you made that choice exactly for that reason. But I suspect that perhaps you actually wanted to make Cc-by-sa-3.0 the default, not version 1.0. Anyways, a default license that the uploader, much less the author, may not be actively and consciously inserting is perhaps not a good idea. Especially when the uploader will not pay enough attention to the original license from the author of the reproduction, or when he will not be careful to insert it in the template (and we know that this will happen often), the default parameter would then have the effect of creating a false declaration and thus a copyright violation. However, I don't know what would be the solution. Well, I guess I just wanted to share that thought with you, in case you can think of a solution.
-- Asclepias (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed second parameter. I agree that having a default license here may be problematic, so I made the default "Invalid parameter" instead. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De minimis

This paper makes the argument that de minimis is no longer held as true or as powerful as it once was in the United States, and is trying to justify the reinstatement of the idea which never happened. As such, why do we still make it seem like de minimis is that powerful, or that it can be applied by normal people and not only by judges that need to determine if something is truly a violation or not? Commons does not have judicial ability, so why should we allow users to make claims about what judges would determine, especially when this paper shows that judges have not been accepting it? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally: "Where sales occur or where the defendant receives royalties for an allegedly infringing product, courts are less likely to employ the technical violation application of the de minimis defense" - since we license things as CC-BY-SA, i.e. sellable, that would mean that de minimis would not necessarily apply. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you telling me this? Nobody is arguing that the use is de minimis in this context, and I argued against it vociferously in the DR. You're in the wrong place, Ottava. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that de minimis should be used for other images. I merely posted per a general philosophical point. The article is also attached to the de minimis policy, so the policy page should probably be expanded to include the material in this paper. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like something to discuss at Commons talk:De minimis. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Choga - Seitaka-doji, attendant to the Buddhist Deity, Fudo Myo-o (1) - Google Art Project.jpg

Hi Dcoetzee, I had removed the '1' in File:Choga - Seitaka-doji, attendant to the Buddhist Deity, Fudo Myo-o (1) - Google Art Project.jpg, because actually both paintings should not have the same title one is "Kongara-doji" and the other "Seitaka doji" (according to Freer website). I have crosslinked the paintings in their description. Since the paintings do not have the same title "1" and "2" look a bit odd and I think they can be removed.--Zolo (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, please feel free to remove them. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indafoto Review bot?

Dear Admin Dcoetzee,

Perhaps it is time that you seriously consider creating a review bot for images from indafoto....as you did for picasa. Why? I doubt that the 1,700+ images in this category Here will fall below 1,000 images without a bot. They seem to be all from Indafoto and many images seem to be uploaded by a bot too like this from Tgrbot. There is no way any reviewers here can bring the backlog down in a significant way. This is a suggestion, nothing more, if you can help.

I, too, have my own real life work and could barely mark a few photos here this week sadly mostly from flickr and panoramio. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two D or not two D ?

Hi, I am wondering: paintings like File:Charles Le Brun - Le Roi gouverne par lui-même, 1661 - Google Art Project.jpg are on curved ceilings. Do they fall within the scope of PD Art ?--Zolo (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked that question myself before. (see Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_32#Painting_on_a_curved_wall). However those exact circumstances do not apply here, as this painting has not been "deskewed." I believe they may be problematic and would consider asking at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Paintings_on_curved_surfaces. I am afraid that File:Antoine Benoist - Louis XIV (1638 - 1715) - Google Art Project.jpg since this one is really 2D (though one-sided, see video on the Google Art Project page).--Zolo (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BrooklynMuseum bot uploads without license tags

Hi Dcoetzee, as you are the "art guy", you may be in contact with User:BrooklynMuseum. The problem is that User:BrooklynMuseumBot uploads scores of nice images, but all without license tags (see User talk:BrooklynMuseumBot). I stumbled over this problem when I wanted to work on about 100 dupe-speedies that would all end in these no-license-images. --Túrelio (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My best guess is that they consider {{Brooklyn Museum-no known restrictions}} to be a sufficient license tag all by itself (PD by virtue of curation by a trusted organization). I think this is probably okay but that they need to be checked over (I found some copyvios in 2010, see User talk:BrooklynMuseum). It appears User:Romaine has taken the liberty of adding some PD-Art tags. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dumps (discussed on Meta/Terms of use)

Hi. I'd believe that the best solution of the commons dumps problem is a bot.

Most Commons files are compressed, there is almost nothing to gain from archiving them. On the other hand, almost everybody who wants dumps will need only a small part of all contents, in most cases thumbs being enough. Eg. the full volume of even all versions of all images used in :bg is under 100G - probably < 0.01% of the Commons volume. I'd think that such a traffic will not weigh too much on WMF, unless everybody and their aunt decide to get dumps, and this is not going to happen.

And there is nothing to match both the selectivity and the recency of what a bot can provide. The allimages and images API lists do almost everything needed; some small enhancements can do the work even easier, but are not strictly necessary.

Another way to relieve WMF of extra traffic would be to create mirrors here and there, and to redirect most dumps requests to them. (They can bear even the brunt of most normal use files serving, thus relieving WMF from a lot of traffic currently used, and decreasing its operating costs.) I'm sure there will be people who can contribute the resources needed, and would be happy to do it. Syncing the mirrors should not be hard: a simple recentchanges-parsing bot and an rsync should do, unless I'm missing something. -- Григор Гачев (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I partly agree. I think thumbnail dumps should still be created and stored as single large files. The main reason is that for small images, the overhead of retrieving each image from the server is overwhelming, and would make the download take at least 3 times as long, probably more like 10 times. For dumps of full-size images, this overhead is comparatively much smaller, making fetching them from the source (or a mirror network) a better idea. This could be mitigated if the thumbnails were made available over rsync, but due to how Mediawiki works I don't think this is easily possible. Another reason for building thumbnail dumps is that a single large file is easy to download using existing tools like BitTorrent that share bandwidth effectively, and seedboxes provide ample cheap bandwidth and disk space for their distribution (but don't usually support custom software). For both thumbs and full size images the set of images in the subset is needed, which I'm building scripts to help generate.

Yet another reason for thumbnail dumps is that it facilitates the creation of "reduced quality" thumbnail dumps that trade off dump size for JPEG quality and/or resolution.

Setting up mirrors is a very good idea, although it would take quite a lot of time. I can't move on this myself because I don't myself have access to a server with both enough disk space and enough bandwidth, and we would have to find someone who does. If I ever get a colo set up then I would be able to. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What percent of the Commons content use the different projects? I'd guess that even :en uses <10%. However, due to the big number of projects their dumps may take a lot of disk space and CPU to generate. Generating diffs will alleviate this, but will probably still gobble resources enough to make the dumps uselessly old. Rsync is what I'd propose:

the retrieving overhead is very small, regardless of the file size
generating a project-specific rsync filelist is easy and takes next to no resources and disk space; can even be dynamic, and thus 100% actual
always transfers only diffs: a project file aspect (full files, or thumbs, or...) needs only one filelist

In short, dumps/diffs will provide at best weeks old info, which is useless. I'm afraid BitTorrent cannot change this. Rsync can provide syncing every 10 mins while still transferring less bytes. It will be a boon to the WMF traffic and expenses, and is easy to set up. By now, I can't find a plausible argument against it.

As for the mirrors, mirroring only what is needed for one project (maybe except a handful of largest ones) will probably be within the resources even of a solitary hobbyist. And having a mirror of the entire Commons will probably be very useful for many organizations that can easily provide the resources needed. Setting some conditions on these (eg. to not limit the ability of the others to mirror them by rsync or MW bot; to get the current Commons on media at their expense, and only use rsync later; etc.) A call from WMF will probably find plenty of willing to mirror the Commons. Some will probably even agree to webserve thumbs for Wikipedia etc. projects browsing, thus relieving financially WMF (most of the article browsing traffic is the files in it).

In short, WMF benefit a lot from allowing (even calling for) Commons mirrors, and probably from other mirrors, too. It will also benefit a lot from allowing rsync access.

As for making your own Commons mirror, even if you have the disk and the line, you will not be able to without access to the servers, because of the so-called "image filter" (you can't bot the Commons images out). Of course, you can still get them via nasty page scrapping, but this is both technically disgusting and unethical. -- Григор Гачев (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that setting up rsync would be very helpful, it eliminates the overhead issue and would make subsetting and updating to the latest versions pretty easy. And I was mistaken, it would be possible to make it work with thumbnails, provided you're only interested in retrieving thumbnails at sizes that are already in use (and so already in the thumbnail cache). You're mistaken about not being able to retrieve Commons images under the current scheme however; there is no "image filter" and Commons allows hotlinking of both full size and thumbnail size images (and direct download of any full size file through the API). I already have scripts that do this, they're just really slow. I also agree that we ought to be able to persuade someone to mirror the content or subsets of the content - even someone with limited resources like me would be able to mirror a thumbnail dump and keep it up to date via rsync. I still disagree that outdated image info is not useful - it's very useful if you want to have the matching image dump for a text dump. But there's no reason we can't use filesystem snapshots or something to provide access to snapshots of the image database as it appeared at specific past times. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rsync is the only solution I'm aware of better than a bot for file collections, but not sure if they will set it up. Several months ago I tried getting a dozen of images via bot: thumbs came OK but fullsizes didn't, and a friend told me there is an image filter in place. Mirroring should best be an official initiative, this will both provide more stable mirrors and decrease the bureaucracy overhead. The outdated image info will be useful, but mostly if dated to a natural cusp in a project development, and most WMF projects don't have cusps. I think rsync will be able to provide image DB snapshots to specific (even custom-selected) moments via custom filelists or symlink collections, without eating the diskspace / CPU resources to create the dumps, or loading filesystem snapshots. -- Григор Гачев (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free_graffiti

Template:Non-free_graffiti 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 template, 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.

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） ∙ +/−

Léna (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indafoto bot review?

There is currently 2,900+ images waiting for review here almost all from the Indafoto web site. Maybe its really time to create a bot to mark Indafoto images. The backlog never fell below 1,000 images as I thought sadly. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BBC "Your Paintings" Project

Hey there, wondered if you were aware of this new and potentially exciting project from the BBC to upload an image of every publicly held oil painting in a British Gallery (over 200,000 are planned, 79,000 at present). The quality of the images available is only at a screen resolution of course, and many of these paintings will still be in copyright - but i suspect many more will be the first good images of an old but valuable work available. If you are tempted to start hunting for another batch upload project, it might be a good one? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/) Ajbpearce (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ajbpearce, I'm reclutant to take on batch uploads of low resolution images, since any user who wishes to use an item from their collection can readily upload them without any special expertise. However you can raise this at Commons talk:Batch uploading to see if anyone is interested. If we're going to have many images from there we should at least have a standardized template and import tool. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do, thanks Ajbpearce (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded without descriptions

Images uploaded by yourself such as are of very limited use as they are not identified adequately. "Throckmorton Monument" is not an adequate description, this is a huge family: Which church is it in? What is the full name and date of death of the person commemorated? What page in Hollar is it? I am editing Throckmorton articles on Wikipedia - but cannot use your images because you haven't said what they are! You appear to be wasting your time uploading all these images when someone who really wants to use them, i.e. myself, finds them of no use whatsoever. Very frustrating, please fully identify your uploads in future. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I have expanded the description of the file you linked based on careful examination of the image and my Pennington reference. I originally used a bot to upload these and gave only the information supplied by the source website at University of Toronto, including the plate number and a link to the source. I do have a book by Pennington indexing these works that I planned to use to expand the descriptions, but doing so is an arduous task because there are many thousands of them and they use a different indexing system from the University of Toronto. If you have interest in a particular image like this one I can look it up, just let me know. You should also view the image at full size in case the inscriptions contain useful information to you. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your notes are much appreciated. They still leave a fair bit of work to do to identify the monuments with certainty. We still don't know which church they are in. I am interested to know your thought process involved in "dumping" (if that is not too harsh a word) thousands (?) of unattributed/undescribed images here. For whose use? I try not to upload any image until I can state fully what it is to my own satisfaction. That may involve some extra research. It may take time, but the result is surely of much value. I'm sure your work is done in good faith for the best objectives and I'm really sorry to critise, but it's no use going on like that. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The logic is simple - it's a wiki, and myself or others can come along later and add more information to the images. This is similar to the reason that Wikipedia accepts very short one-sentence articles (stubs), and the reason Wikipedia contains many automatically generated articles on towns based solely on demographic data. For example, there are many cases where e.g. a photographer not trained in biology uploaded an image of an unidentified plant or animal, and a user with biology expertise later pinned down the exact species and used it profitably. Additionally, many of the images, such as portraits, are immediately useful because the subject is already clearly identified, or because the topic of interest is clearly visible in the picture (e.g. many portraits are used to illustrate fashion of a period). (I regret that both Hollar and Pennington failed to identify the church, but perhaps another source will prove helpful.) Dcoetzee (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antoine_Benoist_-_Louis_XIV_(1638_-_1715)_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

File:Antoine_Benoist_-_Louis_XIV_(1638_-_1715)_-_Google_Art_Project.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） ∙ +/−

Zolo (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nude image categorization

Hey Derrick, what do you think of my alternative proposal here? Kaldari (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Replied at the talk page. Kaldari (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A question of too many templates

Somewhat inspired by your recent license tags: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Licensing templates - derivatives - redesign?

NVO (talk)

Hieronymus bosch - Garden..

Hi, how you rip this image from google? I tried it with zoom 9, but my computer is slow for it. Could you rip this zoom? Thanks :)

I can't discuss that here, but I do have the fully zoomed image data for this image, which is too large to upload to Commons (and in fact, is too large to encode as a single JPEG image file). It's many gigapixels in size. I can upload full resolution versions of regions of the image though. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, could you send me that images (full zoom) to email@dominikmatus.cz ? Thanks :) Dominikmatus (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way I could possibly e-mail a file that large. Moreover, the image is stored as a large collection of small tile images, and I don't think you have the tools to process an image stored in such a format. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, it doesn't matter. But Thanks :)Dominikmatus (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PD-100

Re: File:Final scene of Act1 of 'The Pearl Fishers' by Bizet - Gallica.jpg

When I uploaded this file with this upload form, {{PD-old-100}} was automatically added to the file because I selected "Author died more than 100 years ago". Another user is insisting that the three templates {{PD-Art-two|PD-old|PD-1923}} should be added instead. This doesn't seem quite right to me, since the image is public domain in pretty much all countries, even those that do not recognize the Rule of shorter term. I feel {{PD-old-100}} (or perhaps {{PD-art|PD-old-100}}) would be sufficient and give better guidance to the reader. (Aren't these templates intended to let the reader know whether or not the image is public domain in his/her location?) Thanks for help. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you scanned the 1886 book Il Teatro illustrato yourself, this is {{PD-old-100}}. If not, this is {{PD-Scan|PD-old-100}}. PD-Art only applies to photographs taken from a distance. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the Gallica website (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84056636/f2.item) and is most likely a photo from a distance. Update: The Gallica annotation says it is an "image fixe", which may translate as "contact print", so that implies a negative, ie, a photo (maybe?). They don't give the size of the original, that I can find. It's not clear how it was digitized. Update2: One online dictionary translates "image fixe" as "still image". Still seems like a photo. --Robert.Allen (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it's {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}}. You could do {{PD-Art-two|PD-old-100|PD-1923}}, but that's usually redundant because if the work was published during the author's life, PD-old-100 implies PD-1923 at the present time, so I tend to omit it. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maybe it is better to add PD-1923, since Commons:Copyright tags#Non-U.S. works seems to say it should always be added. If you have the time, could you please take a look at this: User talk:Robert.Allen#Re: PD-100 template. (The other half of the conversation is at User talk:Jappalang#PD-100 template.) I'm not sure I agree with User:Jappalang, that PD-old-100 should only be used for works created in a country with a 100-year term (that is, if I'm understanding his argument correctly). --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried your suggestion, but it only seemed to display the PD-1923 tag when I used {{PD-art|PD-old-100}}{{PD-1923}}. (Maybe I did something wrong?) --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have to use {{PD-Art-two}}. Integrating this functionality into the original {{PD-Art}} template has not yet been done. The idea that PD-old-100 should only be used for works from nations with a 100 year term is completely incorrect. A work does not have to be first published in Mexico for the Mexican copyright term to apply to it (inside Mexico) as an international work, since Mexico does not apply the rule of the shorter term, and this is why {{PD-old-100}} is useful for all works to which it applies. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies! Obviously, I did not read carefully enough and likely should have done a copy/paste. In any case, I wish I could convince Jappalang of what we both seem to agree on about PD-old-100. Thanks for all your patience, time, and help! --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picasa review bot

The picasa review bot has stopped marking images since December 16, 2011. I don't know what is the difficulty. Just to let you know. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm far from home and won't be able to fix it until Jan 9th. It's too expensive to run here. Anyone else can download and run it under their own account meanwhile from [4]. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked someone who has his own bot on Commons to see if he can run your picasa review bot program but there are no guarantees. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I just checked and the bot never stopped running, so it must have had some other issue. I'll investigate later. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Something must have gummed up its works. Hopefully, the problem can be fixed. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yesterday I saw it failing because one of the images was protected, but it should still be operational. I'm going to wait for some new uploads and see what it does. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Is this page an instance of copyfraud? I am leaning towards yes as it appears to be in the public domain based on my interpretation of the events, but I am interested to know what you think of all of this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation: they might still be in copyright, being taken later than 1922 and since they were taken with a private camera not in the course of his official military duties. However, he would have had to register copyright, and it's unlikely he did so, so it is probably public domain, but I'd want to see a search of the registration records to establish that. It clearly does not belong to this David Foster dude - most likely if there is still copyright in it, it was not transferred formally and still belongs to the photographer or his heirs. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

I'm glad to inform you that I have nominated one of your finest images you have uploaded onto the Wikimedia Commons interface for Picture of the Day on Wikipedia! Well done to you, sir! Very well done. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and thank the NPG for producing this high-quality digitalisation. I hope it passes. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So do I. Are you going to vote for the image then? TrebleSeven (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you're the one who uploaded it, and you said yourself that you hope it passes. TrebleSeven (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel like I'm qualified to evaluate the quality of works like this. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apart from me, no-one has voted for it yet. TrebleSeven 08:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am now going to nominate it on Commons. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping for...

not just hat and necklace, but something with real bling, boots with high heels, gold belt, shirt with frills open to waist. Imagine the disappointment! — billinghurst sDrewth 09:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh sorry to disappoint, maybe next profile pic ;-) Dcoetzee (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I'd pay to see. sonia 12:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

URAA deletions

Thank you for your offer to upload the deleted images elsewhere. One suggestion, which I did not know where to post (the DR will bury anything put there):

Could the image descriptions be saved on the discussion pages? That would make it immensely easier to locate possibly wrongly categorized (and thus deleted) images, as well as to find images usable as "fair use" or possible to undelete later. I suppose Wikilivres or whatever place the images themselves will be uploaded to will not be as easy to use for those accustomed to Commons.

--LPfi (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preserving the image description pages without the images would be problematic, because then "imageless" files would be included and visible in category galleries, etc, disrupting the browsing of existing media. Also, such files are usually deleted on sight. However, I can replicate any affiliated Commons categories on Wikilivres - it uses the same Mediawiki software and should not be that different. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. That will probably solve the problem. --LPfi (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this File:PD-US table.svg needs to be updated after the supreme court ruling? --Túrelio (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Works first published in the US are not affected by the URAA. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i am starting to have a problem with you

hi;

that was a really "cute" trick you pulled there:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Deletion_requests/All_files_copyrighted_in_the_US_under_the_URAA&oldid=65679776

you know perfectly well that saibo was talking about the notes @ the bottom, & NOT the entire proposal.

i don't have a problem with it, if you disagree with my positions & suggestions.

HOWEVER

i do have a very serious problem with it, if you try to "obliquely deprecate" ANYONE'S contributions to a discussion, that you disagree with.

please stop doing that; it is bad form for any editor, & completely unacceptable in an admin+

Lx 121 (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion for restructuring the discussion had no support from anyone else, after being up for many hours, and took up a lot of room on the page, making the rest of the discussion more difficult to read. It was not a proposal for the problem at hand (like the other proposals) but a proposal of an entirely different nature, for restructuring the discussion. That was why I moved it. I did not deprecate it - anyone is welcome to contribute their thoughts regarding your idea on the talk page. And for the record, I'm pretty sure Saibo was talking about the entire proposal. If you really want it on the main page, create a new and separate section for it, and collapse it so it doesn't take up so much space. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"take up so much space"!? yes, i can see what you mean. why don't we collapse ALL the sections that are "taking up so much space" then? i can see several sections & sub-sections that are MUCH larger, within this OPEN DISCUSSION. Lx 121 (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

by-the-way; do we have a working standard for "many hours"? & if something has "no support from anyone else" in an open discussion after 24 hours or so, is it ok to "deprecate" it away to someplace where it's not so noticeable? i do not recall reading that anywhere in the policy & guidelines... Lx 121 (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PD-old-90-1923

I'm a bit confused about your bot replacing all instances of {{PD-old-90}} with that new template while you state in the edit summary that "not yet needed but will be in 1 year, best to get started tagging these now". What about images where the author has been dead for 90 years but that were possibly only published past 1923? De728631 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, these replacements are incorrect in this case. I assumed such cases are rare, because most works are first published during the lifetime of the author, but I guess they require manual review so I'll stop doing that now. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's not so rare that forgotten works of deceased authors surface from time to time or that previously privately owned works were sold to museums after 1923. So thank you for deactivating the bot.

In a somewhat related issue, are you familiar with template coding? I just tried to combine {{PD-art}} and {{PD-old-auto}} but the latter can't be nested and causes a problem with some automatic categorisation. De728631 (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't combine templates like PD-old-auto which require parameters with PD-Art, unless PD-Art were modified to facilitate this, or a new template were created for this purpose to use in place of PD-Art. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. De728631 (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you review such edits? Which facts are there, that it was published in 1923 or before? Won't be the best to revert this edit or making facts visible for publication? --Quedel (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will revert all these edits. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your attempts to break Commons

Just for note http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:PD-old-100&diff=65757763&oldid=65748068 Also do not do more mass taggings with your bot without clear consensus. The mass tagging at the start of the DR was wrong, too. --Saibo (Δ) 22:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion was on Village pump at Commons:Village_pump#Proposed_changes_to_PD_tags. Please do not revert this change - these images need to be reviewed, I was just putting them in a hidden cleanup category. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it. That simple. Wait until that issue is discussed and then act - not before and in the meantime. --Saibo (Δ) 22:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am acting to enforce policy. But if it really makes you happy, I will stop the bot for now so you can voice in the Village Pump thread your disagreements with this particular tactic. When the discussion is over, I'll resume it. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said stop - that doesn't mean that you should revert me. You are pushing your agenda as hard as possible, understood. --Saibo (Δ) 22:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already stopped the bot. I reverted your change because it broke the cleanup category, and I am deeply concerned that you repeated this change and broke it again, although I addressed your concerns. I don't understand what disagreement you have with it. My "agenda" is to enforce the licensing policy. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody breaks anything then you are the one. --Saibo (Δ) 22:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info: Your bot is blocked. --Saibo (Δ) 22:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. Bot was not running. You asked me to stop it, above, so I did, and I told you I did. I would appreciate you not abusing the block tool in this manner. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not abusing. You are abusing - your bot flag which hides your bot's edits. Don't make bot edits again!. --Saibo (Δ) 23:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#DcoetzeeBot --Saibo (Δ) 23:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Files_requiring_U.S._copyright_review

Category:Files_requiring_U.S._copyright_review has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Saibo (Δ) 22:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

revert your bot's vandalism

You should not change the original upload log which is a citation! That is one example - I am sure this happened in more cases. Deal with it. In that course: just revert your bot's edits fully. Yes, by hand - your bot is blocked. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for identifying these erroneous changes. I apologise for that error. I will repair them. I will use my bot to repair them - there is no need to be unreasonable or punitive. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here also: [5] You can revert all your bot changes - the file pages are awful now. Way too much tags. Do it by hand - your bot is blocked. --Saibo (Δ) 23:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same diff you already linked above. I have now reverted all changes that affected upload logs, there were only two of them. I'm now going to revert all edits that introduced -1923 tags. I will use my bot to do so. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, seems I have mixed up the URLs. However, this was a programming error - good that it were only two (whyever). And again: do not run your bot, it is blocked (if you hadn't unblocked yourself). --Saibo (Δ) 00:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block is running only for self-revert, and I'll reblock it when it's done. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Commons:Bots/Requests/User:DcoetzeeBot (de-flag) --Saibo (Δ) 00:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both jobs should now be reverted in their entirety and bot is reblocked. Please let me know if you come across anything I missed. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons_talk:Deletion_requests/All_files_copyrighted_in_the_US_under_the_URAA#Photo of Sabre F-86 - this was you. Are there a lot more where that came from? The DR consensus seems clear that individual review is needed, so DR nominations pointing to the mass DR should be removed. Rd232 (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged all files affected by the DR when I opened it, as required by deletion procedure, which was all files tagged with the Not-PD-US-URAA tag (notice the date on that edit - only 1 hour and 38 minutes after opening the DR). I wanted everyone who might be affected by it to be aware of the DR. I'll untag them when the DR is closed, which is also procedure. I'm not sure what the problem is? I could remove them sooner since the DR is an obvious keep, but I wouldn't want people who watchlist those files and haven't been online recently to be unaware of the discussion. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's helpful at this point for average users to wander into that DR (and there will presumably be future mass DRs for subsets of affected files). The DR needs to be converted into an RFC on what to do, once the WMF gives feedback. But, fine, leave it as it is now. Rd232 (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I also would need to request an unblock on my bot to remove the tags, so please give me a little extra time after the close for that. The RfC process is very new so I was unaware of its existence, or else I would definitely have used it in the first place. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK all 3k files are tagged, right Dcoetzee? That is one reason why your DR was wrong (including the mass tag by, again, your flagged(=stealth!) bot). Again: Please have previous discussion. --Saibo (Δ) 05:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I was following standard deletion procedure - I tagged all files that were affected by the deletion. Another user even offered to use their bot to tag them if I wasn't able to. It is a bunch of edits, true, but they're trivial to reverse. I don't understand why this is contentious at all. I'm sure if I had not tagged them, someone would be accusing me of trying to "hide" the DR from uploaders of affected files. Considering the entire point of the DR was to discuss the issue of the URAA (as was already explained to you by User:Túrelio), I don't see a point in having a discussion about the discussion before starting the discussion. That's just bureaucracy. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you did not notice the uploaders on their talk pages (at least I hope so) they probably have not seen it despite your tagging, as I had explained above. We discussion policies not in DRs, do we? So why do you insist that this DR was right? --Saibo (Δ) 05:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we put DR notifications on file pages is so that people see it on their watchlist - that was the objective here as well. We discuss policy in DRs all the time - a particularly long and drawn out one was Commons:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan, which effectively established our original policy on costumes. I think it's an effective forum and mobilizes participation - moreover, I think the DR I started achieved its original goal of establishing an initial consensus on a path forward for URAA media. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... but not usually of so many images. Yes, what you call "mobilizes participation" is fear that the next day the public domain images are deleted. Okay, you don't understand it. Hope you will be not successful with your agenda. --Saibo (Δ) 06:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picasa bot

The picasa review bot works again. Congratulations. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is the picasa review bot stuck again. It stopped marking on January 27 here . Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Blame AT&T. They fucked up and cancelled my Internet service without my authorization, and it's taking days (and lots of shuttling me around) to get the issue resolved. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comm}}: I'm sorry to hear about this issue Derek. I hope that you would either resolve your ISP issue with them or get a new ISP provider who is hopefully better at customer service. I apologise to disturb you at a difficult time. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All better for now. :-) Fingers crossed it remains so. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note

...that I find your contributions to discussions about copyright almost universally "on the money" (in my humble opinion only, of course) and your general level-headedness commendable. I have long had my own concerns about the dual-licensing system (source country + US) and whether or not it was really being complied with. Anyway, thanks I guess for your hard work on this complex matter :) It is appreciated, by me at least. Jarry1250 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it! It is a complex matter and I hope we can all agree on something consistent. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Klee

Hi Dcoetzee; you may find this interesting, I think. Basically, I believe that we can consider many works by Paul Klee first published in Switzerland after 1933 to be free in the U.S., too, thus examples like File:Death and Fire.JPG would currently be incorrectly tagged as Not-PD-US-URAA, as they were in the public domain in Switzerland on the URAA date. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

	Hello, Dcoetzee. You have new messages at Bidgee's talk page. 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 ∙ +/−

Bidgee (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Java virtual machine architecture.svg

I really like this diagram, but I think one part might be misleading. The large brackets to the right of each JRE do not encompass "Intel x86 JVM" and "ARM JVM". According to the caption on Java Virtual Machine, the JRE includes the JVM. Espertus (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's just bad labelling :-) The yellow parts are the JVM and the labels above them are labels for them. The JRE encompasses the JVM and the APIs in the diagrams. I'm struggling to figure out how to express this more clearly. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot

Hi there. Is your bot available again? If so I might have two simple cleanup tasks. De728631 (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is, what's up? Dcoetzee (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beeswaxcandle has uploaded a lot of scanned book pages that are out of copyright in the US and mostly in the EU too. But since they used the Upload Wizard there's only a PD-US license on all those pages and they've told me they won't have time to fix all those licenses any time soon.

Category:Yule Logs (plus subcat) is apparently finished and the licenses on most images in there should be changed to {{PD-scan|PD-old-70-1923}}. These are scans that have been taken from Archive.org with the original authors being British citizens most of whom died no later than 1941. The biographical data for James A. Symington are unknown but there is a reference that he was only active until 1905. The only exception in there are the files "Yule Logs Page 311.jpg" to "Yule Logs Page 336.jpg" by one Rowland Weelwright (1877-1955) which can't be changed to PD-old. Maybe you could also have your bot check the creator templates on the pages and switch to the appropriate licenses from there.

And now for the really easy stuff: the other set of images is in Category:The Enchanted Castle and is entirely by Harold R. Millar (died 1940, published 1907). So you can put a {{PD-scan|PD-old-70-1923}} on all of those. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did the easy task first, because it's easy. It's not hard to look at creator templates and add the appropriate template, and works from Archive.org should always be PD in the US. Works without creator templates should probably be handled manually (or have creator templates added). We shouldn't expect to fix all of these overnight, which is why I think a PD review process is important. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the effort. I have already looked into Category:Yule Logs Images and there are no pages without a creator template. That book was published in 1898 so it's definitely PD-US. The only task here is to assign the correct PD-old template if, any, and I've explained that above. De728631 (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your photos in the WMF annual report

Hi Derrick,

as you may have noticed, two of your photos have been used in the recently published annual report of the Wikimedia Foundation. Printed copies of the report have since become available, and in case you haven't already picked up one at the office, we would be happy to send you one as a thank-you for your work - let me know your postal address by email if you would like us to do so.

Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

possible child porn

I'll have that put through an FBI lab, too. I see we have mini-Macaws and UCB in common.Doug youvan (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tire of your hyperbole. No lab, "FBI" or otherwise, is going to reliably identify a person based on such a minimal photographic impression. Just let the deletion request run. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me another DR placed on behalf of another person. Also, did you vote? I, too, want to keep all of my First Amendment Rights. There is no "hyperbole" here. But there is an analogy: If you were working in a bar, would you not ask for an ID when the age is questionable? So, why should we at Commons rely on the Uploader to be truthful or even concerned about age? How do you know whether the image was "planted" or not? Also, how do you know what a professional / criminal lab could do with this image? They have databases that are unavailable to us common folk. Calm down. I am fairly certain that if our conversations were by voice, we could find ourselves to have much in common and to be friends. Doug youvan (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The person who nominates an image does not, by convention, vote in the discussion - you are welcome to if you wish to. There are countless other examples of DRs placed on behalf of others; a recent one is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Horses, Little Clovers Farm - geograph.org.uk - 1289544.jpg. I think you place too much faith in the forensic Magical Database - the FBI doesn't keep random photos of every person in the country, nor do face recognition algorithms work on an image like this one. As for hyperbole, I'm referring mainly to the fact that you almost certainly do not know anyone at an FBI lab or have the clout to persuade the FBI to invest their precious resources in a matter such as this. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He'll see you in a court of law in Trenton, NJ! Killiondude (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P v NP

t_NP = t_P (1 – (v_NP²/ c²))^O.5

Would you like to help me do a Minkowski diagram for this that is more understandable? Doug youvan (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in acceleration of computation by time dilation. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Birth of Venus

Hello,

I noticed the very high resolution of this painting you uploaded, but it is very dark. See the other version which is FP: File:La nascita di Venere (Botticelli).jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that as well. I believe that if someone retouched the version I uploaded and uploaded under a new filename, it would be superior to the current best image. I never got around to this. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Art Project Images

Hello there. Can you please tell me how you could save images from the Google Art Project? I appreciate it very much. Yours sincerely, Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a custom tool which does this. However, I have made all images on the Google Art Project available here at Wikimedia Commons at Category:Google Art Project, and full resolution tile sets for the gigapixel images at Commons:Very_high-resolution_file_downloads, so nobody else should need to download them. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How I can use this tool for downloading images? --Sasha Krotov (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use upload bot

How often is this bot supposed to run? There are some files that have been waiting for weeks. Train2104 (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's in development so it runs manually on request. I'll run it now. I'm still waiting on a fix to CommonsDelinker that I asked for months ago that effectively makes my bot useless, because it delinks the images even after they are reuploaded locally. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the bot is now set to run hourly. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add et.wikipedia to bot targets. --WikedKentaur (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to but I require assistance from an etwiki user. I need someone to make the template which will be applied to fair use candidates from Commons. Something like en:Template:Fair_use_candidate_from_Commons. I also need to know which etwiki tags should be applied to uploads from Commons. On En I apply {{di-no fair use rationale}} and, on large images, {{Non-free reduce}}. I also need to make sure there's consensus for these uploads at etwiki, so my bot doesn't get blocked. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template is at: http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mall:Mittevaba_pildi_kandidaat_Commonsist

Add only this template to tranferred images. Would prefer the uploads being made by normal account. (without a bot flag) So that these uploads are visible to all. --WikedKentaur (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great, thanks for your help! My bot account does not have a bot flag on etwiki so that should be fine. I also could use help with the talk page notice, which the bot leaves on the talk page of any articles using the image. Could you translate en:Template:Fair use candidate from Commons notice appropriately for me? Thanks again! Dcoetzee (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template is at http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mall:Kasutusel_mittevaba_pildi_kandidaat --WikedKentaur (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've got the code all ready to go, but User:Commons fair use upload bot does not have permission to upload on etwiki. Probably restricted to autopatrolled users or something. Can you please fix this? It'd also be great if you could translate these short messages for edit summaries and section headers:

Bot creating image redirect to local re-upload of image being deleted at Commons
Bot notice: Fair use candidate from Commons: (filename)
Wikimedia Commons file description page history
Wikimedia Commons upload log

Thanks again! Dcoetzee (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:LAS-Map.GIF

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

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

Saibo (Δ) 01:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting 2 images to be moved to wikipedia

Hi, can you move the 2 images on the Catacomb Snatch article from the Commons to Wikipedia? A lot of uploaders upload files to the commons, but unfortunately the commons does not allow fair-use. So I hope your bot can move the pages while preserving original data or something, instead of having us reupload manually. Thanks in advance! - M0rphzone (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed them, they'll be moved by the bot soon, thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Art question

Hi Derrick, would en:File:ElizWilbraham by PeterLely.jpg qualify as PD-Art? --ELEKHH^T 07:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. As would any faithful reproduction of a work by Sir Peter Lely first published before 1923. A higher-resolution version would be better. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Given that this would be under US law, is there a forum/page where such uploads can be requested? I have the impression that the uploader in this case was uneasy about using PD-Art, maybe because residing in the UK and the copyright claim being from a UK institution, hence must have opted for fair-use. --ELEKHH^T 06:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the original user really does not want to be associated with the upload, I think the best way to go is to just ask a random US user (like me) to reupload the image to Commons (like I did here). I replaced the image and now the fair use one on En will be deleted as orphaned fair use. Note that a much higher-resolution version is available from the Bridgeman Art Library, but somebody would have to license it to legally access the file. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks again! --ELEKHH^T 23:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK Election Maps

Hello, do you know if anyone is undertaking to re-create these maps as per Commons:Deletion requests/UK Election Maps by Mwhite148, and how long it is likely to take?--86.176.38.137 04:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I politely bring this to your attention

link VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 09:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Hello Dcoetzee! The site Wikimedia appeared several high-resolution images. Source images site: http://english.habsburger.net/ or, more likely flash version of this site: http://www.habsburger.net/ # / en/1250-1926/portrait

Maybe you are interested in the possibility of obtaining high-resolution images of these sources. Maybe you explain how to obtain these pictures. I want to remind you that I am a professor of history and images used in scientific purposes. I am very interested in the following images: König Albrecht II., 16.

Herzog Albrecht III., 16.

Herzog Friedrich IV. von Tirol "mit der leeren Tasche", 16. Jahrhundert

Kaiser Friedrich III, Ende 15. / 1. Drittel 16. Jahrhundert

Johann Bocksberger der Ältere: Kaiser Ferdinand I., Mitte 16. Jahrhundert

Kaiser Ferdinand II. im Harnisch, um 1614

Frans Luycx: Kaiser Ferdinand III., Ölgemälde, um 1637/1638

Joseph Dorffmeister: Großherzog Ferdinand III. in seiner Bibliothek sitzend, 1797

Nicolas Neufchâtel: Kaiser Maximilian II. als etwa Vierzigjähriger, um 1566

Johann Gottfried Auerbach: Kaiser Karl VI., Ölgemälde, um 1735

Monogrammist LP: Erzherzog Karl II. mit Blick auf Graz, 1569

Lucas I. van Valckenborch: Kaiser Matthias als Erzherzog, um 1583

Joseph Heintz der Ältere: Kaiser Rudolf II., um 1592

Herzog Rudolf IV., 1360/65

Francesco Terzio: Emperor Charles V aged fifty, c. 1550

Giuseppe Arcimboldo (zugeschrieben): Familie Kaiser Maximilians II., um 1563

Benjamin von Block: Kaiser Leopold I. im Harnisch, um 1672

Johann Zoffany: Kaiser Franz Stephan I. in seinen naturhistorischen Sammlungen, Ölgemälde, 1776/77

Hans Maler: Erzherzog Ferdinand, 1521, Lindenholz

Kaiser Joseph I. als römisch-deutscher Kaiser im Krönungsornat, gekrönt mit der Reichskrone, die ungarische Stephanskrone ist am Tisch zu sehen

Kaiser Karl VI., um 1720/30

Nicolas Neufchatel (attr.): Emperor Maximilian II (1527-1576) at the age of around forty, oil painting, after 1566

Master of the Magdalen Legend: Queen Joanna 'the Mad', after 1495/96 Master of the Magdalen Legend: King Philip the Fair, c. 1500

Joachim von Sandrart: Duke Maximilian I, Prince-Elector of Bavaria, c. 1643

Anthony van Dyck, Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia, portrait as a widow, painting, 1627

Emperor Frederick III, 16th century

These images are low-resolution and not of interest to me. Anyone can easily extract them with right-click, Save As. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in low-resolution images. On Wikimedia appeared several high-resolution images. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Archduke_Ferdinand_II_of_Further_Austria.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anonymous_-_Ladislaus_the_Postumous.jpg Source of this site, or rather flash version. For example, a portrait of Ferdinand I of the increase can be found at: http://www.habsburger.net/ # / en/1250-1926/portrait/ferdinand-i.-habsburg-oesterreichische-linie If you will be able to figure out how to extract the images, I hope you think of my request. Several high-resolution images have appeared on Wikimedia. With reference to the source: Habsburger. So it is possible. Just do not understand how. The person who posted these pictures, I promised to lay out the rest of the portraits of the Habsburgs. Unfortunately, he failed to comply with our agreement, and set me in a quandary. You are well-known expert, hopefully will be able to help me and enrich Wikimedia on this topic. Thank you for your participation and all the best. Regards, Igor

I don't know how User:Alexcoldcasefan got those high-resolution images. Even the Flash based images you showed me are not nearly that large. I advise following up with them. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:WikiProject Public Domain

Hi, I've closed Commons:Requests for comment/PD review and set up Commons:WikiProject Public Domain. I've started Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review, and I think based on your proposal in the RFC, and feedback there, maybe you could kick off Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/PD review. BTW I'm aware there is a lot of overlap between these issues, but I think each one is so large it will be best to try and separate them, and I think it can be done. Rd232 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPG tool availability

Hi. Is the tool used to obtain File:William Edward Forster by Henry Tanworth Wells.jpg still available? I've read the NPG legal threat but presume that because the file is still present here that the threat amounted to nothing (sorry, I've not yet looked at the media coverage). The reason I ask is because there's another image of Forster there - not to mention countless others, of course. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the wake of the dispute, NPG removed the Zoomify applets from their website. It is no longer possible to get access to any high-resolution images without purchasing a license (or scanning from one of their books, or getting a copy from someone who purchased a license, etc.). Dcoetzee (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! How about grabbing the lo-res ones though? -- Trevj (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can do that. Right-click, Save As. Let me know if you need help setting up the artwork template or anything. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: Public libraries over here may hold licenses. Anyway, I'll let you know if I need any guidance when I find time to look into this. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just be wary, it is possible a UK court may one day find NPG has copyright in these digitizations, and if you live in the UK you could be in big trouble for distributing them. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In that case, I'd better steer clear! Shame - but perhaps I can take this up on my deathbed one day. -- Trevj (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Torch-carrying

I understand your point of view - indeed, I argued it - but as expressed here [6] and in the "My Statement" section Beta M started, I was forced to change my mind. It is indeed unfortunate, because in many ways this was a good contributor and a much-welcome fellow inclusionist, but there are a few things that overshadow even the great inclusion-deletion war. Wnt (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, Wnt. I understand your argument, and recruiting child users is definitely a red flag because it could be a first step in a child abuse scheme, but in the absence of evidence that abuse or advocacy is occurring at Students Wikia, I'm not quite willing to shift my position yet. I reviewed his edit history there and it seemed like mostly anarchy stuff and stuff related to his school, nothing out of the ordinary, unless I overlooked something. Moreover, as a Wikia project, I believe wiki owners do not have access to personal data of all users (if it were a wiki on his own server, that would be a larger concern). We should however keep an eye on Students Wikia. Spamming can be an issue in itself, but a comparatively minor one. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't claim any special wisdom; there's something about this case that takes a person back to the days of childhood when it was hard to know the difference between a creeping monster and a pile of dirty clothes. I've tried to draw the most logical boundary that I can think of, and if that means that I have to side with the usual villains, well, that could be better than unusual ones. Be careful not to win a Pyrrhic victory here. Wnt (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I won't hesitate to drop my support for Beta M if new evidence arrives that persuades me that he is a danger to child users. As it stands, some of my allies I've had violent disagreements with in the past, so I'm not particularly enamoured with my faction. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portrait de Jeanne d'Aragon, by Raffaello Sanzio, from C2RMF retouched.jpg

With "retouched" do you mean "restored"? thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 20:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I actually meant only that levels were adjusted from File:Portrait de Jeanne d'Aragon, by Raffaello Sanzio, from C2RMF.jpg for clearer visibility. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the trolls

Hi Dcoetzee, in reference to your posting on a particular page in relation to a particular comment, I would urge you to ignore the trolls. Hopefully you realise who they are; don't give them the oxygen (your responses) that they need to breathe, thereby allowing them to continue. If you ignore them, they will go away. russavia (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty vague, but I have some idea of what you're referring to and I agree. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick heads up

Just a quick heads up that I have suggested an amendment to the editing restriction on FtO, and have made a note of it here. I am advising you as you have provided an opinion in that thread, and may wish to take this into account if any concerns you may have raised are addressed with it. russavia (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of arms of Kazakhstan.svg

Stopping short of my initial request for a 3 day block, could you please protect the file at my latest revision. I have made the file match his source completely, down to the last stroke and colour, but he continues to revert as if the file belongs to him and it's his purview. This way he will be forced to either discuss it on the file talk page, or let it go. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I protected it it would be for edit warring and at the current version - which you wouldn't like. I don't think this is the best solution. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't noticed, he has again personally attacked me. "Contacting with your psychiatrist, obviously you have some mental problems". I have been straightforward and polite in this issue, I don't deserve this. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am calling a vote on the file talk page. If you would like to weigh in, it's here. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dcoetzee/Commons:Coping with lossy compression

Can we move User:Dcoetzee/Commons:Coping with lossy compression out of userspace? I wanted to add it to Category:Commons image resources, but I thought I'd ask first. (I was also trying to come up with a better title, but I couldn't think of one.) Rd232 (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free! I forgot I'd written this. I revised it to take out some stuff that doesn't quite make sense to me (and to be clearer that converting to lossless is not generally recommended). Dcoetzee (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've moved it to Commons:Lossy and lossless compression. The name is better, I think, and it opens up some avenues for future expansion and improvement. It's good to have a page on these issues. Rd232 (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request of the day

How do you know it was lack of interest? I watchlisted the request of the day and commented on two of them. I did not comment on all of them since in many cases I just do not have an appropriate expertise. In any case, thanks for the initiative, it was nice.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought everyone had unwatchlisted it already since nobody commented for several days. It just takes up a lot of time and I'd need to get more participation, or other people helping to choose the DRs, if I were to continue it. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May be you could ask again the general opinion on the Village Pump also moving mine over there.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This IP address is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference: 10:54, 4 April 2012 Dcoetzee (talk | contribs) blocked 92.47.72.63 (talk) with an expiry time of 1 week (anonymous users only, account creation blocked) (Blocked user persisting in personal attacks)

ha ha ha

Upload request

Derrick, this set was recently brought to my attention. I thought it may be a good candidate to be uploaded by bot. Thoughts? Jujutacular (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. High educational value and very high resolution (7012 x 9600 on the first one I examined). That does look like an excellent set to import. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vision of Britain

Hi, there's a lot of maps at http://visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/index.jsp , all PD, from c. 1800 to 1960 - mostly of the UK, but there's coverage of Europe as a whole too. A couple examples: Normandy in 1944 and Norfolk in 1832. Some are high resolution (the Normandy map is about 10000px wide), but there's the usual issues with tiling. I also can't seem to find a flat list of the map.

I think this would be a valuable set to get, any thoughts?--Nilfanion (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That also looks like a good set, thanks for the heads up. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jan van Eyck

Hello Dcoetzee,

After the incredible job you have done on the Google Art Project, maybe you could do the same with this one : Closer to Van Eyck: Rediscovering the Ghent Altarpiece :) Okki (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's very cool - although there is little precedent on the applicability of {{PD-Art}} to things like x-radiography, which I think are the most exciting part of the site. I should ask the community if they'd allow them. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Art Project

[7]

Seems theres now about 30,000 artworks on the site now, according to that blog... If you haven't noticed. ;-) (letting you know since you did the mass upload last time). — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 10:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I've heard, very exciting! Just a bit busy recently but I do have some tools for this and I can get started soon. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your help is needed

Hi, Dcoetzee, sorry to bother you, but I really need your help. Could you take a look at this ("Disruptive editor" section)? Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about CommonsArchive.org

Hello, you have recently added some information about commonsarchive.org. Do you know who the owner of this website is? With best regards, Torsch (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Torsch, I am the owner of the website. I operate it myself and can answer any questions you have about it. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, nice to know. I was just wondering whether this site is maintained by a single person or by some organization because sites maintained by a single person tend to loose this maintenance some day. But as commonsarchive is a very young project this is surely no immediate issue.Torsch (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Torsch, I understand your concern. Right now the project is maintained only by myself, but the files are stored on highly reliable Amazon EBS storage, and I will ensure they remain available indefinitely - I have another MediaWiki site, LiteratePrograms, which has been online more or less continuously for the last 7 years. I hope that if there is significant interest, that WMF or another organization will take up an interest in maintaining Commons Archive. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Art Project request

Hi Derrick! You want to deal with images of Google Art Project. I have a huge request, please turn your attention to these images. These are the portraits of the rulers of Europe. Thanks in advance. I will wait with hope. I wish you success in all your affairs. Sincerely, Igor Sokolov.

Château De Chantilly Jean Clouet Portrait de François Ier (1494-1547), roi de France 1515

Château De Chantilly François Gérard Napoléon Bonaparte Premier Consul 1803

Château De Chantilly François Clouet Elisabeth d'Autriche reine de France 1571

Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya José Fraugier Portrait of King Joseph I 1809

Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya Jan Gossaert Henry III of Nassau-Breda 1530-32

The Royal Armoury, Sweden Lorens Pasch Gustav III King of Sweden

The Royal Armoury, Sweden David Beck Chancellor of the Realm, Count Axel Oxenstierna

The Royal Armoury, Sweden David Beck Christina Queen of Sweden 1650

The Royal Armoury, Sweden David Klöcker Ehrenstrahl Hedvig Eleonora 1661

The Royal Armoury, Sweden Erik (Wahlberg) Wahlbergson Oscar I King of Sweden

The Royal Armoury, Sweden Georg Engelhard Schröder Fredrik I

The Royal Armoury, Sweden Erik Utterhielm Miniature portrait of King Charles XI of Sweden 1690

The Royal Armoury, Sweden Alexander Cooper Miniature portrait of King Charles X of Sweden

Art Gallery of New South Wales Agnolo Bronzino Cosimo I de 'Medici in armour 1545

Dulwich Picture Gallery Rigaud, Hyacinthe Louis XIV

Dulwich Picture Gallery van Dyck, Sir Anthony Emmanuel Philibert of Savoy 1624

The J. Paul Getty Museum Jan Gossaert Portrait of Francisco de los Cobos 1530-1532

The J. Paul Getty Museum Titian Portrait of Alfonso d'Avalos 1533

The J. Paul Getty Museum Sebastiano del Piombo Pope Clement VII 1531

The J. Paul Getty Museum Guercino (Giovanni Francesco Barbieri) Pope Gregory XV 1622-23

Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna Albrecht Dürer Portrait of Maximilian I 1519

Musei Capitolini Pietro da Cortona Portrait of Urban VIII 1624-26

Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest Barend van Orley Portrait of Charles V 1519

National Galleries of Scotland Attributed to Corneille de Lyon Mary of Guise 1537

National Galleries of Scotland Attributed to Adrian Vanson James VI and I 1595

National Galleries of Scotland Attributed to François Boucher Madame de Pompadour 1758

National Galleries of Scotland Attributed to Arnold Bronckorst James Douglas, 4th Earl of Morton 1580

Pera Museum Joseph Warnia-Zarzecki Sultan Selim III

Pera Museum Athanasios Karantz(ou)las Sultan Mahmud II

Pera Museum Unknown Sultan Abdülmecid 1850-59

Philadelphia Museum of Art Joos van Cleve Portrait of Francis I 1532-33

Pinacoteca do Estado de São Paulo Simplício Rodrigues de Sá Portrait of Dom João VI 1820

Rüstkammer and Türckische Cammer - Armoury and Turkish Chamber Cyriacus Reder Prince Elector August of Saxony 1586

Rüstkammer and Türckische Cammer - Armoury and Turkish Chamber Zacharias Wehme Prince Elector August of Saxony 1586

Rüstkammer and Türckische Cammer - Armoury and Turkish Chamber Lucas Cranach the Younger Prince Elector Moritz of Saxony

Rüstkammer and Türckische Cammer - Armoury and Turkish Chamber Zacharias Wehme Prince Elector Christian II of Saxony

Skokloster Castle Hans von Aachen, his studio Rudolf II 1600

Skokloster Castle Anonymоus Frederick III of Denmark 1643

Statens Museum for Kunst Michel Sittow Portrait of the Danish King Christian II 1514 Statens Museum for Kunst Carl Gustaf Pilo Portrait of Frederick V 1750

Statens Museum for Kunst Vigilius Eriksen The Queen Dowager Juliana Maria 1776

The Wilanów Palace Museum Louis de Silvestre Portrait of Augustus III of Poland 1733

The Wilanów Palace Museum Jan Tricius Portrait of John III Sobieski 1680

The Wilanów Palace Museum Louis de Silvestre Portrait of Maria Josepha of Austria 1737

The Wilanów Palace Museum Unknown artist Portrait of John III Sobieski

1680

The Wilanów Palace Museum Louis de Silvestre Portrait of Maria Josepha of Austria 1737

The Wilanów Palace Museum Unknown artist Portrait of John III Sobieski:I intend to import all images from the Google Art Project when I have time. Please be patient and remind me if I don't get around to it. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait patiently. I hope that these images will be placed in the first place. I wish you all the best. Igor

Dear Dcoetzee! I beg you to continue placing reproductions Google art project. Recently, it appeared the new image. I beg you not to ignore my request, without you we can not do it.

Transferring image pages with "copyvio" tag to en-wiki

If Commons fair use upload bot (talk · contribs) transfers a file to en-wp when it currently has a Commons template {{Copyvio}} on its description page, this template conflicts with another local one, en:Template:Copyvio. That template is not for image deletions but for articles. What's worse, an un-subst'ed "copyvio" template on en-wp will trigger another bot, en:User:AnomieBOT, to attempt to subst it, which will obliterate the whole page [8]. This leads to extremely confusing description pages. See en:File:PortugueseIbex-Cabrera1914.jpg for an example.

Would it be possible to somehow de-templatize the "copyvio" code before tranfer, e.g. by removing double braces with simple ones? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can put nowiki tags around copyvio templates - I'll take a look soon. People are really supposed to not use the fair use delete and copyvio tags together, but I know they will anyway so I should plan for it. Thanks for the heads up. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it. In the present case, the transfer was actually appropriate, because the file was PD-US-1923 but not PD-old-70, so I guess the combination of the "copyvio" and transfer tags somehow did make sense from the perspective of the person who tagged it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duchess of Cambridge

Hello, how you are? I think this picture File:Augusta Wilhelmina Louisa, by Camille Silvy.jpg might actually be her daughter http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Princess_Mary_Adelaide,_Duchess_of_Teck1.jpg Cladeal832 (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea based on the available info - however if you find evidence to this effect, please feel free to update the file description page. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Mfi-13.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） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Mfi-13.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:Mfi-13.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Well, and where is the link to this permissiona? Yours sincerely, Kobac (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upload solution?

This seems like a similar situation to the Google Art downloads/uploads. Any ideas? If you have a Python script or something you're using, I may simply be able to run it myself if you can share your source. Steven Walling • talk 00:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons fair use upload bot

Saw this note on Commons fair use upload bot's talk page. I am willing to help for my language. Do you have a guideline on what should I start with?

I need help with translation and local policy to bring Commons fair use upload bot to more wikis. Please contact me if you can help.

--Sreejith K (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sreejith, I appreciate the offer, but it appears the Malayalam and Hindi Wikipedias do not accept non-free content, or even local uploads as far as I know, so Commons fair use upload bot should not be uploading to them. It is possible meta:Non-free content is out of date, if so could you update it? Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your message late, sorry. I have added ml to the meta page. Ml wiki accepts local uploads and fair-use images. I will send a message across other idic wikipedia members so that they can update the page too. --Sreejith K (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liberating Brahe engraving from digital library

Hi, a while ago you contacted me because I had extracted an image from the Prado in Google Earth, saying that you had software that could automate this work. Would you be able to extract a high resolution version of the engraving on the left side of this page? If so, there are several other very cool engravings in that same book. Thanks, AxelBoldt (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright on MIDI files

Hi, you said that there has never been a case law on MIDI copyrights. I am wondering if they fall under compositions and/or arrangements of US copyright law. I spent hours reading through them from the .gov site but found no actual reference to MIDI. A lawyer may argue that since the sheet music for each instrument is contained digitally in the file then they are derivitive creative works under the 'spirit' of the law. I think I may email one of the big three music copyright sites and see if they have any info. Any thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that if the original work is non-free then the MIDI is a non-free derivative work. What is not clear is if the original work is in the public domain (both the piece and the particular arrangement), whether the MIDI adds enough creative value to be copyrightable. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed ASCAP yesterday with the song I am interested in uploading to commons. It has its own page on en:WP. If you google Wabash Cannonball MIDI there are many versions of it. No one can seem to contact the creator of one of the better ones, R.G.(Gary) Allen. He doesn't seem to have a website and phone books would be impossible. I may email the other three alphabet boys to see if they have an opinion as well as the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I wouldn't want to upload any to commons and then run into legal issues with them later. I used a public domain version of the song for a machinima I made. I uploaded it to en:wp because I lost the url to the site I found the song on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CGI_Machinima_sample_film.ogg --Canoe1967 (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

images from the Met

Hi Dcoetzee. Do you have a programmatic setup for retrieving the high-res images from the Met? There's a Wikipedia article at FAC that would benefit from [9]. Like you I've done some snooping on how these sites organize their image presentation, and done some experimenting with retrieval, but not nearly to the same extent. Thanks, Riggr Mortis (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do, but their collection is so enormous that a batch upload was impractical, and my stuff may be out of date (rendered obsolete by changes to the website). Are there particular images you have in mind? Dcoetzee (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Belgium

Template:PD-Belgium 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 template, 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.

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） ∙ +/−

Liliana-60 (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your integer multiplicataion by FFT demo

I'm working on GIMPs and this helps explain quite alot of what is going on thanks!

Glad to help! Dcoetzee (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2 suggested that you might be able to advise about these pictures

The Dover Patrol

Thank you for your advice but I don't know enough about computers to follow it. I put the photos here https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:MyGallery&withJS=MediaWiki:JSONListUploads.js&gUser=Keith-264 Keith-264 (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do I need to do to put this {{PD-US-1923-abroad|2018}} on? Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-US-1923-abroad|2018}} is only allowed on Wikipedia and not on Commons since Commons requires that files are free in the source country. If the Commons files you listed were created by some British person who died in 1947, I suppose that they should be deleted from Commons and moved here instead. For {{PD-US-1923-abroad|2023}} to be valid, you need to prove that the work was published (as opposed to just created) before 1923. If a work was created before 1923 but not published before 1923, then it may still be copyrighted in the United States, and this is particularly the case if the work is a British work which is still copyrighted in the United Kingdom. The Commons file information pages indicate that the photos were published in "The Dover Patrol" from 1915-1917, which looks sufficient to me. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing: there is also Commons:User:Commons fair use upload bot which might be able to help you moving the images automatically. However, I'm not sure how to do that. Try asking at Commons:User talk:Dcoetzee. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be clear which images you need to move and I can mark them for moving. Also it's confusing when you copy entire threads with no indication that you are quoting another thread. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the links should go to en:User:Stefan2 (and not to the local User:Stefan2) since the users are different due to an SUL conflict. Original discussion: en:User talk:Stefan2#The Dover Patrol. In fact, all edits seem to be relative to English Wikipedia. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about his discussion?

Dcoetzee, if there someone here knows what is right and wrong here that person is you. Could you take a look at this discussion and share your thoughts about it? --Lecen (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lecen, I appreciate the vote of confidence but unfortunately I didn't get around to looking at this before the thread was closed at 14:55, 24 June 2012, 39 minutes after you left your post. Feel free to rope me in for future stuff though. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sheep goat chimera.jpg

It makes sense to warn of a DR to a Bot? Amitie 10g (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French script

There's a a script on this french blog which allows you to download GAP content. Maybe you could use it to update the collection.

http://www.louafi.fr/blog/2012/05/telecharger-les-images-de-google-art-project/

I already have my own scripts and they're still functional. I just haven't had time to get around to it. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you share this scripts ?

Photo usage

Hi, I've been working on a small game built around animal quizzes and I wanted to let you know I've used one of your pictures.

I found your picture here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bilby_at_Sydney_Wildlife_World.jpg

And I attributed the picture like this: Dcoetzee with this link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dcoetzee and also added a link to the license: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:public_domain

I hope you're happy with it, please let me know if this is not the case. You can find the game here: http://apps.facebook.com/animalalbum Or through here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/AnimalAlbum/156339584490672

Kind regards, Garfunkel Jansen (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks for taking the picture and making it available.

Thanks, I'm glad you found it useful! Dcoetzee (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

belated barnstar in the Texas Instruments signing key controversy

The Fight the Power
Barnstar of Liberty

for your defense of free information, by your DMCA counter-claim [10] in the w:Texas Instruments signing key controversy Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 18:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

seriously, i'll bail you out of jail anytime. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 18:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly appreciate it. :-) I hope that won't become necessary! Dcoetzee (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lahore_zoo_bactrian_camel.JPG

This picture is my own creation. Undo the deletion. Farjad0322 (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found a copy of this image at [11], uploaded in March prior to your upload, and would require some evidence that you are the same person as the uploader there. You've claimed that all your pictures are your own creation, and obviously many of them were not, so without further evidence I can't take such a claim at face value. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archive error

"Login error Your IP address is listed as an open proxy in the DNSBL used by Commons Archive. You cannot create an account" It won't let me create an account to upload?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Canoe, this is an antispam measure (necessary due to the low number of users on the wiki). I can create an account for you, just let me know what username and e-mail address you'd like to use (e-mail me this info if you don't want it public). Dcoetzee (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please file a Mass DR on Most archaeowiki images

Dear Admin Dcoetzee,

There is a big problem with archaeowiki based Images being on Commons. There is currently 18 images from this now defunct website but I used Internet wayback to find that images from this site were newer free as I said in this image DR I have filed 5 DRs on them but really an Admin should file a single mass DR on most of them. (it is not fair to file 16 or 17 DRs on the uploader Tedmek [not Hanay--he uploaded only two] who accidentally uploaded images based on a misreading of the confusing license) The only image which can be certainly saved is this one here which you correctly noted is PD-art & PD-old-100. I have stated that it dates to around 1550 BC.

File:Rhind Mathematical Papyrus.jpg

This image here: File:Sobekneferu cylinder seal (BM EA 16581).jpg is a direct copyright violation from this British Museum webpage here with the exact 600 X 600 pixel resolution.

Similiarly this image here: File:King List, Temple of Ramesses II, Abydos (extract).jpg was taken from this British Museum webpage here and its 3D art since its a temple relief.

As for the black and white pictures in the archaeowiki images, I don't know who took them or if the original photographer died 70 years ago...meaning they can be kept. But I imagine most of images of the archaeowiki images especially the Dendera Zodiac, Amenmesse Statue, Userkaf Head, Aapehty Stela and this has to be deleted as modern colour images whose rights are owned by a Museum somewhere. Oh I just found out: The AaPehty stela comes from here Copyright violation #3, I'm afraid! Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You can click here and then scroll down a little and click on the 'http: //www.archaeowiki.org in the past' link next to the Wayback machine to see Archaeowiki in the past. Once you click to see the 2008 or 2011 versions of Archaeowiki and are in the actual website, just scroll down to the bottom of the page...where you will see the archaeowiki license was always "cc by nc sa 2.5". So, images from archaeowiki were never free--with the exception of the Rhind papyrus which dates to 1550 BC since its 2D art. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is problematic indeed. I'll review these and file a mass DR when I have a bit more time. With the site unavailable, even the valid images will be difficult to exonerate. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This link--if it doesn't time out--might allow you to access some of archaeowiki's contents in the past. If you manage to access it, just scroll to the bottom of the page to see the license. I checked for its license in various times during 2008 and 2011 and the license is always the same: CC BY NC SA 2.5. I think most of the archaeowiki images have to be deleted. The three I named as clear copy vios can be deleted right away since you have the original source. The rest is a headache--especially the black and white photos. Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just confirming that http://web.archive.org/web/20110624060019/http://www.archaeowiki.org/Main_Page says "Content is available under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike". Sounds like these should, indeed, be mass-deleted unless they are licensed from elsewhere. - Jmabel ! talk 00:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polarizer

I do believe in quality. I just assumed they were all similar. Is it just a difference in image degradation on cheaper ones or do they pass less light? I am interested in yours if we can agree on a price. Snail mail to Edmonton with minimum or no insurance type thing. Do you have paypal? I have an old Canon FTb with a 135mm 2.8 and the stock 50mm. I can't give those away and I am not even sure if they are worth shipping anywhere.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to get my own. I wouldn't want to deprive the new owner of one when I can easily afford a new one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered donating it to WMF? Just a thought. They could give it away in some kind of contest for best graphics lab person, file fixer, type thing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a thought, but right now the WMF as far as I know has no resources dedicated to equipment scholarships. If they did I'd be happy to take advantage of it! I'm terrible at marketing so struggling a bit to find somebody to take it - just creating awareness of it is hard. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have a few that want it now. I would hate to be in your shoes to decide the most worthy for it. That is why a contest may work. You could have your own within a project. The fastest to sort Category:License plates of Alberta into sub-cats type thing. Another may be barnstar count on their talk pages, etc, etc. You may be best of having it like an admin nomination or just throw a dart at a board.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contests are fun but I honestly think the best way to decide it is based on the person's existing history of photo contributions. No matter how crappy their camera is, if they have artistic talent that will show through, and I have artist friends who can help with that. And of course I wouldn't want to give it to someone who never uploaded a photo before the camera became available, since that doesn't show the same intrinsic drive to contribute. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]