User talk:Sreejithk2000/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Commons:Deletion requests/File:DeerPark-ooty-board.jpg

This seems fairly obvious, but I am reluctant to close it as a delete without reading the comments -- Google doesn't help. Could you please take a look? (Forgive me if I have the language wrong -- I think it's Malayalam, but that's only an educated guess.) .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I have blurred the copyrighted image in the picture. The text is de minimis. Not sure whether the image is {{Out of scope}}. Don't worry about the discussion on the DR page. Two users were checking with User:Kiran Gopi on how the image can be saved. --Sreejith K (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I wish to close this DR as a Keep. What do you think? Btw, the language is Malayalam, that's a good guess. --Sreejith K (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw your comments and Kiran Gopi's at the DR before I looked here. Take a look at my comment at the UnDR and then feel free to do whatever you think is best. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Pan-Slavic flag.svg vs. Yugoslavia flag

They have the same tricolor description, but they're really not the "same" as such. We wouldn't unify the flag of Romania with the flag of Chad on that basis, or the chartist flag with the flag of Hungary, or the 1935 flags of Haiti and Liechtenstein, and so also with the pan-Slavic flag vs. the flag of Yugoslavia. AnonMoos (talk) 03:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, thanks. I am not familiar with these flags and that's why I marked them as duplicates rather than deleting them. Wanted someone like you to have a look and revert if necessary. Some taggings were obviously stupid, but they happened when I tagged a lot of them at one shot. --Sreejith K (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Naval Ensign of the Kingdom of France.svg and File:Flag of the Kingdom of France (1814-1830).svg

If you merge them in that direction, then the filename won't be accurate (since it was not only used from 1814-1830). AnonMoos (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup. I am not sure which one should redirect to what. Or even whether one should be redirected to the other. Please correct the tag as appropriate. --Sreejith K (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Doubt 3

How do we request deletion of previous versions of file? Shouldn't there be some speedy criteria for that? Sample at hand is File:Sayana irani mohit sehgal colors indian telly awards.jpg. The user is new here and in experimenting they created some versions i guess. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This image File:N. R. Narayana Murthy.jpg should be moved. I don't know where and hence can't tag it. That is not N R Narayan Murthy. We can possibly also delete it. But there is no reason to do that. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

For the image File:Sayana irani mohit sehgal colors indian telly awards.jpg, I have suppressed the overwritten files. We generally do not suppress them unless they are copyright violations. Either revert the upload, or use {{Split}}. For the second file, I have renamed it to File:Unknown person during Russian president's India visit.jpg --Sreejith K (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I see!
This google cache thing...is it malfunctioning sometimes? I have now started checking for cache for all files that i don't find at BH's link. And i had done so for File:Esha Deol's engagement ceremony with Bharat Takhtani 03.jpg too. But i had received some error report instead. But now i can see the image in cached link you have provided. I also found two cache's of files you tagged. And i assume you checked that before tagging. Or maybe you missed those. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not check Google cache for the files which I added to Category:Bollywood Hungama images not found. Felt too lazy. I will check them before I delete. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Postage stamp images on commons

Hey. Are postage stamp images eligible for commons? Like this. Can you please confirm on this? Vivvt (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

See Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#India --Sreejith K (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. This image is not eligible then. Vivvt (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

While processing duplicates

Gday Sreejithk2000. While processing duplicates, there are a number of your proposals that I thought could have had better review from you prior to nomination. I am seeing examples of files that have had revisions that probably should be rejected as they have been later uploads of different/varied images, so the same image for comparison has been overwritten over a good image. An example is this nom which is an updated set of figures; and if you look at the "original" you will see the same updated set of figures over an older image that should be preserved as it matches. I have reverted to the original on that second listed image. There were other examples like that, so can I ask you to review the image history before nominating as duplicate. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, there were a number of flag duplicate requests, like File:Flag of Pensilvania Caldas.svg. Due to their histories, and especially to the different descriptions I am in the process of declining those duplicate requests, I don't feel that the policy is designed to differentiate solely on a simple image design, and yet have distinctly different descriptions. If you feel that they should be deleted, then please progress them through normal processes so there is an overt discussion, rather than the speedy request through duplicate. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I tagged them as duplicates because MediaWiki identifies them as duplicates. See [1]. But I agree to you that they have different identities and should be kept separately. Thanks for cleaning up my nominations. I nominated it because I was not able to make a decision myself. --Sreejith K (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Doubt 4

This File:Mugs Help.jpg looks so much like a copy-cut-paste job. But am unable to find it. Plus the user has uploaded her copyvio images before too. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion. --Sreejith K (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Happy Onam

Wishing you and your family a very happy Onam! — Cheers, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC).

PD-US

Hello,

Works also published in USA and in the public domain there are not deleted, even if the author is British. Yann (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not get the context. Did I delete any file wrongly? --Sreejith K (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So you are talking about files like File:Russell, Whitehead - Principia Mathematica, vol. II, 1912.djvu. Here is what has happened [2]. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Man sleeping on a sidewalk.jpg

You've created a redirect to File:Public drunkness.jpg from File:Man sleeping on a sidewalk.jpg. The former was a featured pic candidate but is currently undergoing deletion review and its FPC was withdrawn. The latter is an attempt by the uploader to find a more neutral name and is a current feature pic candidate. Several editors believe even the file with its new name has problems, though no-one has nominated it for delete. Please can you un-delete the File:Man sleeping on a sidewalk.jpg for now. If the first name for the file gets deleted, then that will be the only version existing.

Please watch out that although images may be identical, the filename, description, category and other details can all be important. I think in this case you should have contacted the uploader to ask which file they wished to keep, or if both versions should be kept while discussions on them remain ongoing. It would be good to check there are no discussions regarding the file (deletion, or featured, or quality, etc). And keeping the most-likely-to-be-problematic filename was also probably not the best. Colin (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This file is going though a DR because the content of the picture is under question. If the DR results in a deletion, we want both the images to be deleted and not just one. But if it is decided to be kept, we can have use the better file name. This is the reason why I did not delete the file which already had a DR. Lets give the DR some time to get closed. --Sreejith K (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I also object to your renaming. If a renaming was needed, it was the other way round, not what you did. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not rename the file. I deleted one as duplicate of the other. And I chose the one without a DR to avoid confusion. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I read the DR today and now I get the point. I think its time to delete File:Public drunkness.jpg. We do not need a redirect to File:Man sleeping on a sidewalk.jpg because some users are upset with the name. --Sreejith K (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Even the uploader now agrees that File:Public drunkness.jpg should be deleted. There absolutely should not be a redirect from that filename, because the redirect would itself be problematic per COM:PEOPLE. Colin (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Image redirect

Hello, I noticed that you have redirected an image I had uploaded (File:Bulgarian children from Macedonia.jpg) to an existing duplicate file. I can't find the version I uploaded in My uploads, and the duplicate file (currently File:Women in Smilevo, 1913.jpg) was from a source that is now dead and the current description does not match the one by the other source, lostbulgaria.com. Could you please revert the redirect ? Thanks. - Tourbillon 09:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Sreejith K (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Please return your editing. The name is inappropriate. Firstly they are not children, and second they are not Bulgarians. This image is of a Macedonian village Smilevo, where it is displayed Macedonian female costume. If you do not return your edit, at least change the name of the file. Thanks. P.S. The user Tourbillon is lying. This picture is not taken from the site that he cites, because that picture has water sign.--R ašo 15:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

How about File:Bulgarian Women in Smilevo, 1913.jpg --Sreejith K (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I told you before. File is with intention called Bulgarian. Smilevo is Macedonian village hundreds of miles away from Bulgaria. Pls change the name in Macedonian women, or Smilevo women as a neutral term. Thank you. --R ašo 19:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't match the source that way. Just saying. - Tourbillon 09:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is the Original. And source says Macedonie....Sorry--R ašo 11:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

A long time ago...

in 2007 you uploaded an image file and added a description "showing a poor indian Girl signing a 'nikahnama', the Muslim marriage certificate". Umm, no, not really... Shenme (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I just transferred the image from english Wikipedia to Commons. The description was the same it had in English Wikipedia. I know nothing about the image. But your arguments on Zainubrazvi's talk page makes sense. And thanks for talking to him to get this clarified. If you need any help from me, let me know. --Sreejith K (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Riya Sen at Lakme Fashion Week 2007.jpg

Hi Sreejithk2000, hope you're well. A user has asked for the deletion of File:Riya Sen at Lakme Fashion Week 2007.jpg at COM:UD. Thought you might be interested. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I closed the request now. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Rename

I thank you very much, I really really appreciate it. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. --Sreejith K (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I am assuming that we both are talking about this renaming --Sreejith K (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's the one. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you please also rename File:Narrow Bridge sign.svg back to File:MUTCD W5-2.svg? This is the second time Billinghurst has deliberately merged two signs under a textual descriptive name instead of the MUTCD designation like all the other files in the US Warning Signs category, he is doing it on purpose to annoy me and ignore file naming guideline #6. He doesn't like that I have marked several signs as duplicates, saying I should nominate them for deletion, even though several of my dupe tags have been accepted and done properly by other admins. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Sreejith K (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again, you've been very accommodating. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

Could you delete this file?:

• File:Edifício Solar das Laranjeiras nº. 401.jpg

Eduardo P (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Sreejith K (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Review

Could you please review this File:Sachin Kundalkar2.jpg image? Planning to use it in a DYK at en wiki. Unverified images can't go on main page. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 05:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Sreejith K (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

I have replied at my talk page. Do watch my talk page :) Thanks! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 13:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Another rename

I'm sorry, but Billinghurst has yet a third time deliberately merged two files under the wrong name, rather than the one I suggested. This time with File:Flag of Newfoundland.svg. It should be "Newfoundland Tricolour", as the other file was called, because it was never officially the flag of Newfoundland at any time, only the Union Jack until 1980 when they adopted the current flag. This was simply a popular flag, and the current title is inappropriate. Can you please fix his deliberate "mistake". Fry1989 ^eh? 00:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Sreejith K (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to edit my page

Hi Sreejithk2000. I noticed your accidental edits to my page. Its ok. By the way, I greeted you on Onam - wonder if that was also an accidental edit as it did not generate any response from you. Sorry if it hurted you in some way. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC).

I clicked the rollback link by accident while I was going through my watchlist. That's the biggest problem of rollback right; it does not ask for confirmation. Sorry for the confusion. Anyways, thanks for the note. Also, thanks for the Onam wishes. I was on vacation during the time and I missed thanking you. My bad. Apologies. Hope you are doing great. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Duplicates

Could you delete File:Pomare II, engraving by R. Hicks cropd.jpg, File:Liliuokalani by M. Dickson.jpg, and File:A Favourite Poodle Hatching Poultry!! or A present of Feather Breeches from the Sandwich Isles-2.jpg? Don't redirect them, just delete them.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Sreejith K (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you delete File:View of Houses at Kealakekua, William Ellis.jpg (there is no need for another version) and File:Villages on Hawaii, William Ellis.jpg? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Sreejith K (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please delete File:Wooden idols of Polynesia (1830)-2.jpg? Thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you please delete File:Thurstons (full).jpg‎? Thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you delete File:Naturels des Tubuai. Dessin de E. Ronjat, d'après un croquis de l'auteur et des photographies.jpg?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Merging file

I contact you because I have a problem with the files redirected. In practice, as soon as you have finished the procedure of duplicating files I can not see the image I had used before. To avoid this, could you activate the Commons Delinker to change the old name to the new name of the images?

File:1328101903 Arrow-Left.png
File:1328101894 Under-construction.png
File:1328101882 Symbol-Stop.png
File:1328101883 Symbol-Construction.png

Thank you Raoli ✉ (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

That's already done. Commons Delinker takes a few minutes or even hours for this task, but it is always done although late. Do you see any problem now?--Sreejith K (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Darling-Darling-300x300.jpg

Hi, I understood the reason behind deletion but I see that there are so many movie posters uploaded in commons, may be I did not tag it properly. Can you advice me on how to upload a movie poster in commons? --sarvajna (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Movie posters are copyrighted almost all the time. The copyright will be held by the producers of the movie. If they are willing to email OTRS saying that the poster is under a free license, we can keep the image here. Otherwise, it will have to be uploaded to English wikipedia or other language wikipedias under a {{Non-free fair use rationale}}. If you see any movie posters in Commons without an OTRS permission, feel free to nominate it for deletion. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I will upload it to wikipedia under Non-free fair use rationale. --sarvajna (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Please update this image

Please see this message in this regard: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Please_update_this_image . -Hemant wikikosh (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Sreejith K (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! You have done a historical task for our Sanskrit wikipedia, which was pending for more than a year. :) -Hemant wikikosh (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Armour of Turkey by period

Hi, Sreejithk2000. Why did you delete Category:Armour of Turkey by period so speedily ? Not only Category:Armour of the Ottoman Empire (armour of the en:Ottoamn Empire), but also Category:Armour of the Sultanate of Rum (armour of en:Sultanate of Rum), Category:Armour of Anatolian beliks (armou of en:Anatolian beyliks)etc. will be created as sub categories of Category:Armour of Turkey by period. At present I cannot create them because of Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Samuraiantiqueworld. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Undeleted it for the time being. But if the category remains empty, it will be deleted again by any other admin. That being said, you check user request of comparing a user with an IP might not be taken up. I will be watching that page. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added this category. Now I'm editing in other Wiki Project, because I don't want to enter "edit war" with that user(s). Takabeg (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Good work!

Orrlingtalk 13:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why this is for, but I appreciate you putting a message here. Thanks. --Sreejith K (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Improper speedy of Photographs of specific people

It appears you have been led to delete a few categories because Pierpao (talk · contribs) tagged them with his own {{Empty page}} template. He emptied these categories himself rather than using CfD: see this set of contributions, even though the categories had specific reasons for existing. He seems to have emptied out Category:Photographs of specific people and all of its subcategories, without discussion, including 120+ files from Category:Photographs of Abraham Lincoln (for whom distinguishing photographs from paintings is relevant), and dozens from Category:Photographs of Franklin Delano Roosevelt standing while speaking (historically significant photos, because FDR had to hold onto the lectern without being seen to be held up by others) and Category:Photographs of Max Liebermann (a painter for which photographs of him should not be mixed in with improperly categorized paintings). I believe I created the Lincoln and FDR categories, with explanations in the edit summary, but they've been wiped out of course. (I can see why Category:Photographs of specific people should be Category:Photographs of people by name, but I don't think I created that one.) It seems to me that upmerging hundreds of files to categories where they inter-mix is not something to be done with a speedy delete rather than discussion. Can all this be undone by someone without a lot of manual labor? --Closeapple (talk) 07:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I dont think we can escape manual labor. But I am willing to work with you on this. Let me know which all categories should be undeleted. --Sreejith K (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Photographs of Abraham Lincoln and Category:Photographs of Max Liebermann are the two in particular. The old Category:Photographs of specific people should probably be Category:Photographs of people by name so that it's clear that it's not for photographs of people who don't have their own photograph category. Category:Franklin Delano Roosevelt standing after 1921 (which has recently been created) does not seem to be crowded enough to make finding speeches difficult, so I guess Category:Photographs of Franklin Delano Roosevelt standing while speaking is probably OK to leave deleted (particularly since a pre-1921 photo might conceivably show up, since FDR was definitely campaigning a lot in 1920). --Closeapple (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

File redirect problem

Can you please delete the redirect "MUTCD M1-5" from the file File:Alabama 21.svg, it's absolutely wrong, the real M1-5 has a circular white section as you can see in [3]. I'm trying to upload the right sign now, but can't as long as that redirect is there. Thanks. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done File:MUTCD M1-5.svg has been deleted. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Uploading duplicate files

Hello and thank you for uploading freely licensed photos from Flickr. Please be careful to see if we already have an image before you upload it. Also, if you do happen to upload a duplicate, the standard course of action would be to have your newly uploaded file deleted, not the already existing one, because the older one may be in use in various projects, where as yours (being new) will not. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 15:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I am aware of that. But I am not sure which image are you talking about since I have not uploaded any flickr images for long. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Macedonian Museums-101-Armenochori Florina-452.jpg

Hi, I think you removed this image unnecessarily. It has been made available under a Creative CommonsAttribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license --Vlas2000 (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Its not in a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license at http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/Museums/Folklore/Armenochori_Florina.html where it was published first. So we will require OTRS permissions to keep the file here. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Weird Tales March 1944

This is to inform you that I have removed the {{No permission since}} tag from File:Weird Tales March 1944.jpg. This file is covered by the licence {{PD-US-not renewed}}. The rights holders for Weird Tales failed to renew the copyright on the magazine. If they had renewed them it would have been recorded in 1971 or 1972 (both links lead to scans of the appropriate pages of the Catalog of Copyright Entries on the Internet Archive). Therefore, it entered the public domain in 1973, so there is no permission to be given. For more information, I have attempted to track all copyright renewals for this magazine, with some notes at Weird Tales on this project and more extensive notes on Wikisource. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for saving the image. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Petr Kocna

Please, why you delete my personal photo File:Petr_Kocna.jpg, as this file is my own free licenced image, declared by this way on the web [[4]] - This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Thanks for explanation. Kocna (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

At the source website, the image is in CC-BY-ND license. No-Derivative is a license which Commons does not accept. Can you change the license at source or send an OTRS permission? --Sreejith K (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I changed CC licence to - [[5]], it will be correct? Could you please re-new my file? Thanks. Kocna (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for fixing the license. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

File:It's alright.jpg

you just deleted a file that i had release by the owner/copyright holder. They sent the request on Commons:OTRS two days ago. Why was the file deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monorail11261 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 3 October 2012‎ (UTC)

It was deleted by Herbythyme, but don't worry. It will be undeleted by the OTRS team when the email permission is verified. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Then I guess i'll have to wait. Thanks for your reponse. Monorail11261 (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

History cleanup

History cleanup required at File:Monica bedi.jpg for deleting copyvio images. Is there some notice/template that can be added on such files to notify admins? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done I have cleaned the history. If the overwritten file is a copyright violation, you can raise a deletion request or you can put a {{Split}} template to split the page in two.--Sreejith K (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I am not sure if all admins would understand which of all those images is a copyvio and which isn't. Hence didn't tag it with anything.
Btw, are you aware of Commons talk:WikiProject India? You should take part in discussions over there. Would be useful for many of us. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of picture question

Hi there! I mentioned that you deleted a picture I uploaded today. Can you please specify the basis for false license claim? Why do you think the license was false and how did you determined that? The picture (which is passport picture) of the victim is being spread by his mother all over Bulgarian media. What license shall it has according to you then? Thank you in advance! --Stalik (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The file (File:Mihail-Stoyanov-victim-of-homophobic-murder.jpg) was uploaded here in Commons under {{PD-ineligible}} license. There was no proof that the image is in Public Domain. Just because the image was all over the media does not make the image in public domain. The copyright belongs to the photographer and we would want the photographer's email in OTRS system to keep the image in Commons. --Sreejith K (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Danny Venlet GoggleDesk

Dear,

could you please let me know why you took the picture of the GoggleDesk of Danny Venlet, designed for Babini away? I'm Danny's wife and business partner. We work with Babini since years now, and I have the right to use it all the way. The contemporist-mag or website, used OUR image. Not the other way around.

Please put it back.

Evi Lippens-Venlet — Preceding unsigned comment added by ELMTL (talk • contribs) 14:34, 4 October 2012‎ (UTC)

That's good to know. Can you please email OTRS team from an official id and ask them to restore File:Wikipedia DannyVenlet GoggleDesk.png? --Sreejith K (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism - too fast use to be copyvio actions

Hi. Please, stop deleting photos without discussion. At least inform me about your desire to delete something from Ukraine before doing. And restore please all photos you delete in Lviv - as you might know Lviv was polish before 1939 and all buildings built before this date are free according to Polish law. --A1 (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

Well - regarding the pictures which were assumed to be copyvio due to no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and showing buildings made by Polish architects before II World War - the case is not that obvious and IMHO should be carefully discussed - maybe even with help of professional lawyer.

I don't know anything about current Ukrainian law - but if we assume that

1. Lviv was Polish before II world war
2. the architect was Polish citizen

The applicable copyright law for architectural work is rather Polish than Ukrainian.

Actually the buildings are on Ukrainian soil - but the copyright is not about physical objects but about the creative work of architect, so in fact it doesn't matter where the physical object is actually located to decide which law is applicable.

Regarding Polish copyright law - copyright expires after 70 years after the death of the author - but except the case where it was a work for hire with transfer of copyright to the employer. In case of transfer of copyright of work for hire the copyright expires after 70 years of first publication of the work. In case of architectural works - the publication means to built a building as it can be seen by general public from the road. Architects are usually working for hire and they usually transfer copyright to the owner of the building. Overall - I think it is not very probable that the architectural works of Polish architects made before II World War are actually still copyrightable, and even if they are - as Polish law has a freedom of panorama and applicable law is rather Polish than Ukrainian - there is still no reason to delete the pictures... I would suggest to undelete the pictures and discuss the issue as it is not so obvious copyvio. Polimerek (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like only a few of the Lviv images were deleted. So rather than undeleting the deleted ones, I have raised a new DR for the existing ones. Depending on the decision, we will take further action. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Aeou --Sreejith K (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear A1 and Sreejithk2000, sorry that I caused confusion. I personally nominated these files to deletion, because found information about the authors. Personally, I do not want to "slow deletion" and discussion. These things are under discussion for years and the practice shows that currently winning position for removal. I do not want to raise this issue again in the pages of discussions. I have long been engaged in finding authors of Lviv houses and I can say that they are known for sure in a third of cases. Where the author is known - often unknown the year of his death. Only in some rare cases comes to removal. This is such a case. Sorry, I know English too bad, so used autotranslator. Again, very apologize for the misunderstanding.--Сергій (обг.) 05:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Age old images

Hi there!
I have recently uploaded File:Salunke in Lanka Dahan (1917 film).JPG and File:Raja Harischandra (1913 film).JPG. The source i have provided is a blog. Is that alright? I couldn't find any better source. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons is asking for a source to verify the copyright claim. Since this is a screenshot of a movie in public domain, it is obvious that the image is in public domain and the source should not really matter. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

File:SVR-GWR poster 01.jpg

Hi, I'd appreciate it if you'd restore this image and send it to DR. The image is of a poster from the GWR days, a company which ceased to exist in ~1950. It could well be PD by now. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Why not? --Sreejith K (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

your assistance please

You recently deleted File:Mommy, what is waterboarding....jpg

As you can see from the note the nominator left, they seem to be a newbie.

I`d like to see for myself in what way this image was a copyvio. What do you suggest? Geo Swan (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a definite copyright violation. But still, I have restored it for now and has put a regular DR since you expressed interest in knowing how it is a copyright violation. --Sreejith K (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Matchboxes

Hi there!
While i was school-going i have collected many matchbox covers. (I wasn't smoking, that was a hobby. They say that its called en:Phillumeny.) Can i take photographs of them and upload on Commons? I see that many of the images in Category:Matchboxes are sourced as "Own Work" and released under free licenses. Is that right? Don't the matchbox company owners own the copyrights? Some drawings on them are quite complex to not fall under simple geometry. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If the covers are having simple designs, we can host it here. Otherwise, it is a copyright violation. I have nominated a few of the matchbox images from that category for deletion. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Matchboxes. So why don't you wait till the DR closes? --Sreejith K (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sreejith.

If a photo shows only the (2D) matchbox label then, in some cases, it might be copyright violation - but if a matchbox is shown in some other way (e.g. "as a three-dimensional utilitarian object"), is it? I understand there is normally no copyright in "a 3D utilitarian object", or "photographs of typical household objects". Surely a box of matches qualifies both as a utilitarian object and as a typical household object? I can hardly think of anything more utilitarian or common (typical) than a box of safety matches - and, unless you show only the back of the box, without a label, it is hard to avoid including the label. We find photos like Soupjf.JPG including a Campbell's Soup can on Commons and there are numerous photos of Coca Cola bottles (see: Category:Coca-Cola_bottles), etc. I see little difference here. Perhaps, the {{trademark}} template should be included to cover any label shown in the photo. Your own user page shows a picture of a Nikon camera with their Trademark logo and red flash clearly showing - another three dimensional depiction of a utilitarian object?

Sincerely, Chris Fynn (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Louvre question

Hello Sreejithk2000, You have marked my 2 photos as copyright violation: Louvre geometry and Louvre piramide. My userlink is Yadanrabrag. I don't understand why? Because it's not allowed to make photos of monument if the architect is alive or maybe you have seen the photos wich are alike like mine?

Could you please answer me. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.2.193.253 (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2012‎ (UTC)

File:Louvre geometry.JPG and File:Piramide of Louvre.JPG are still in Commons, they are not deleted. The problem with these photos are that as per French law, only architects of the buildings in France are allowed to publish image under a free license. See COM:FOP#France details. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

PirdamideLouvre.JPG and LaVilletteGeode.JPG avoid deletion please

Good evening,

i have been informed that LaVilletteGeode.JPG qnd PirdamideLouvre.JPG are to be deleted because of copyright issues which i still don't understand. The only thing i can argue is that they are of my own.

Please aknowledge reception of this email, regards Ines Urdaneta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ines Urdaneta (talk • contribs) 20:55, 11 October 2012‎ (UTC)

See my comment above. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

File:North Tower burning-9-11 attacks.JPG

Hello,
This deletion may have been a mistake. Please, see Commons:Village_pump#Freedom_of_Information_Act_image_releases. --El Caro (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Restored --Sreejith K (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --El Caro (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

File:പല്ലിമുട്ടകൾ.JPG

File:പല്ലിമുട്ടകൾ.JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Autoreply sent to the uploader at Commons. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Palais du Louvre Nocturno.JPG

I strongly deny any copyright infringement as I took the photo myself in a public space, on 8 september 2012. That's why I find its deletion unfair and I ask Wikipedia to restore it, as I am, as the photo taker and editor, the only person with rights on the publication of this photo

--Adrian10diez (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Temporarily restored it so that you can understand why it was deleted and if possible save it. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Its not deleted it, it only has a deletion request so far. You can watch the discussions there to understand why it was nominated for deletion. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

cover page deleted

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Flirting_With_Fate.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashant Gandhi (talk • contribs) 21:04, 12 October 2012‎ (UTC)

This is a cover of a book and we can only keep it in Commons if we get a permission letter from the publisher. You can contact the publisher to email OTRS releasing the rights in a free license of their choice. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Please undelete File:Becuna 84.JPG

While you may be right it should be deleted, potential copyright issues are not a criteria for speedy (Commons:Deletion_policy#General:_speedy_deletion is quite clear on that). You are of course welcome to nominate it for deletion upon restoration, and I may even agree with that - once I get a chance to review the case. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done This one does not stand a chance of surviving a DR, but since you asked for it, I have restored the image and put a DR on it. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I was wrong. The file survived the DR. Thanks for helping me correct the mistake. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Both the Nabataean re-traced text and the new Arabic reading based on it are copyrighted by myself

Dear Sreejith2000

The image in this picture includes new tracings and new Arabic readings of Namara which appeared for the first time in a book titled "DeArabizing Arabia" by the author Saad D. Abulhab (myself) (ISBN-13: 978-0984984305) published in Nov. 2011. I am the author and I own the full copyrights to the image and its contents. The altered Nabataean text in this picture, which is based on the re-tracings of the actual inscription in the stone, can be seen in several lines and is significantly different from the original tracing by Dussaud in 1905. Namely: I have drawn new tracings for word#5 on line#2, word#1 & word#3 on line#3, word#3 on line#4, word#9 on line#5. These changes incorporated part of Belamy re-tracing in 1985 and myself in 2009. The new tracing makes the reading understandable in Classical Arabic for the first time, unlike Dussaud's tracing and reading.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabulhab (talk • contribs) 20:38, 15 October 2012‎ (UTC)

I have copied this comment to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Namara abulhab common.jpg --Sreejith K (talk) 04:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

delete logo

Hello,

I just saw that you have deleted the logo from the article St Estève XIII Catalan. I'm just new here, i'm working for this organization and i just wanted to make an update of a few things. I asked the guy who is in charge of me by wiki, but he couldn't explain me the reason why you have deleted the logo.

I can send you a prove that I’m working officially for St Estève XIII Catalan, if it's necessary. I can understand that you aware of the copyright policies. But I can ensure you that this logo is our property.

Thanks

Louis-Pierre — Preceding unsigned comment added by St Estève XIII Catalan (talk • contribs) 18:18, 17 October 2012‎ (UTC)

I had to delete the logo because it was not evident that the logo was released under a free license by the copyright holder. To restore the image here, all we need is an email from the copyright holder confirming the copyright. See OTRS for details and sample email. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Newspapers

Can we simply scan any newspaper article and upload it here? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of those newspaper snaps.
Are public notices given by Government offices and printed in newspapers considered to be in public domain? For a random newspaper article, the layout, the contents written by their writer and editors are considered to be copyrighted. But in such notices, is there any originality factor that needs to be copyrighted? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Everything is copyrighted, unless stated otherwise. This one is a copyright violation too. --Sreejith K (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I see!
Btw, in case you are involved in policy writings and copyrights clarifications, do know why there are no direct hits here for terms like COM:STAMPS, COM:NEWSPAPERS, etc.? En Wiki is much friendly about such stuff. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

We have COM:Stamps. COM:Newspapers seems irrelevant here since the en wiki page talks about articles and not newspaper scans. --Sreejith K (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I see. So there is no redirect just for CAPS.
By COM:Newspapers i was expecting a redirect to something where print media's copyright status is discussed. There would be many people out there, like me, who would think that newspapers are not copyrighted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

One day, we will have that page. We need a volunteer who can spend his/her time to pen it down. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

bot reviews

Hello Sreejithk2000, please see my reply at User talk:Kaldari#Your bot reviews. Kaldari (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The toolserver tool that was previously using the bot account has been deactivated. Would it be possible to get the bot unblocked now? Kaldari (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked. Next time, can you please update the bot talk page if that account is going to be used for anything task for which you do not have bot approval? --Sreejith K (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Und ewig singen die Wälder

Hi, I see that you recently deleted the poster from the film "Und ewig singen die Wälder". As I understand the uploader user:Holger.Ellgaard is the son of the creator and has uploaded many other posters from the same era. If the poster from the 1960 sequel "Das Erbe von Björndal" is allowed I would presume that the now deleted file also should be so. I ask you therefore to check again if it is not possible that the licence can be fixed. The picture has been used many times and new images has been cropped from it.

Kind regards --Bygdeknøl (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I will restore the image and will put that for a discussion. Do you mind letting me know the image name? I could not find it from the uploader's talk page. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If you are talking about File:Und ewig singen die Wälder (filmposter).jpg, I have restored it and has put a deletion request on it. Please put your comments on the deletion request page. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The mess called WLM 2012 India

Whats going on in it? Is every building eligible? What's this w:en:List of Monuments of National Importance in Aurangabad circle? Who decided these monuments? Are only these monuments eligible? What about the monuments not listed in it? What are those numbers N-MH-A1 and so on? Are they just random numbers or do they have any relation with Archaeological Survey of India? What is that reviewed-unreviewed-nominated thing? Why was this CST image totally removed from the consideration? Are all these answers already somewhere but i am not able to find them because my capslock is either on or off? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

All national monuments were eligible for WLM 2012. Remember, its monuments, not buildings. But a lot of wrongly categorized images were also uploaded, we cannot help that. The list must be taken from some government website. I can bet with all the money I have that the list will be incomplete. The numbers, I am not sure. For questions on WLM, there is an email group where you can ask questions. Feel free to get in touch with User:Naveenpf who is mostly leading the efforts. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Sq3d-Feuille lenticulaire.jpg

Hi. I gather you deleted File:Sq3d-Feuille lenticulaire.jpg. Commons delinker bot reports "Removing 'Sq3d-Feuille_lenticulaire.jpg', it has been deleted from Commons by Sreejithk2000 because: Copyright violation: http://blog.daum.net/tjswhddl/165." Did you consider the possibility that the blog you cite got the image from Wikipedia? Please consider restoring the image.--Srleffler (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is the problem. The blog entry is from 2011.07.22 while the file was uploaded in Commons on 12 December 2011. Since the file was published elsewhere before being uploaded here, we will require OTRS permissions to restore the image. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The image was on the English Wikipedia earlier than that. I added it to the Lenticular lens article on July 19, 2009. The image was deleted from English Wikipedia on January 26, 2012, because it was by that time available on Commons.--Srleffler (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. I have undeleted the file. Thanks for the clarifications. --Sreejith K (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Undelete request

Could you please undelete File:VitrazaCerkevSvNikolaj-MurskaSobota1.jpg. As I explained on talk page the copyright infringement in this case is debatable and therefore the file should not be deleted without voting. --Miha (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done You asked for it and you get it. --Sreejith K (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Undelete request

Could you please undelete File:Old cadastral map of Praha-Josefov and surround areas.jpg. The map is from 1845, thus it is already public domain and copyright claim by institution, who just scanned the map, is not valid. If you are unsure, feel free to pass it through deletion request; but i think that it is not speedy deletion case. --Jklamo (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Sreejith K (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

IP address blocked for infinity?

Hi Sreejithk2000. I saw you blocked 212.227.119.20 (talk · contribs) for infinity? Why was that if I may ask? Because we never blocked IP addresses that long without a very strong reason... I see that it's a long-term vandal, but this user uses several different IPs and accounts IIRC. I'm looking forward to your answer. :) Kind regards, Trijnstel_talk 16:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

All the contributions by this IP here was vandal, so I went for a indef block. But may be I should have given the IP a second chance. I have reduced the block to 1 week. --Sreejith K (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I just found out that this IP is an open proxy, abused by Wikinger - I globally blocked it for 1 year (not for infinity, no). Thanks! Trijnstel_talk 18:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! The Main Caves.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Selbymay 09:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Way to "Pathala Ganga".jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK. --Mattbuck 14:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Whitney HS Rocklin CA.jpg

FYI, I've undone your removal of the speedy template on that page, because I still believe it is vandalism - it has a pedobear image (possibly copyrighted as well), an image of a person who it is probably defaming, and a third unsourced image blended into the background. I hope you understand why I've done this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted it this time. There was only a link as the speedy deletion reason, so I wanted to make sure that it is not deleted by mistake. If I had noticed that it was nominated by a trusted user like you, perhaps I would have deleted it. --Sreejith K (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Albert Hall (Museum).JPG

I applied a perspective correction to your image as requested by another user for QI promotion. If you don't like the change, revert to the original. Best wishes -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for the help. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Stemma provincia Monza e Brianza

Hello, you deleted me the coat of arms inserted in the province of Monza and Brianza. Why? Can I post then what is on the site Araldica Civica http://www.araldicacivica.it/stemmi/province/provincia/stemma/?id=109 Thank you --Simonemb (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2012 (CEST)

For File:Stemma Provincia di Monza e della Brianza.png, we need to know whether it is under a free license. If it is not, you will have to host it in English Wikipedia (or other language Wikipedias) with a detailed fair use rationale. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, there isn't a license for this immage File:Stemma Provincia di Monza e della Brianza.png, but I'm a new User Wikicommons and I was not an expert. Deleted my image. Please you can ALSO delete it to wikipedia english from the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Provincia_di_Monza_e_della_Brianza-Stemma.png Sorry and thank you very much! --Simonemb (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2012 (CEST)

Ok I have delete this coat of arms in Wikipedia Englisn (because I haven't got a license). Can you delete it in Wikimedia Commons? Thank you very much for all, and I'm sorry, but I thought it had the license! --Simonemb (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2012 (CEST)

I opened the deletion request, so it will be better if someone else closes it. Please give it a few more days and it will be deleted. Thanks for your patience. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, when can you deleted this stemma File:Stemma Provincia di Monza e della Brianza.png? I have to write something to clear it? Or is automatically deleted? Thank you. --Simonemb (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2012 (CEST)

 Done --Sreejith K (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bedse Caves.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. --JLPC 19:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Permissions

I'm new editor and I used my own photos on my editions. I have forgotten that my site http://www.varizinforma.com/ is protected by copyright... sorry. I sent today an email giving permission and the prove that is my site with 2 documents of Register.com - Basic Hosting Safe Renewal and Private Domain Safe Renewal

Sorry for my error, Best regards Maria de Lurdes Cerol Nini00 (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. OTRS team will get back to you on your email. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Photo

You deleted my uploaded image File:Che Items.jpg without any discussion or even giving me a chance to address your concerns (i.e. "Derivative"). It is my own image of items with a non-copyrighted image on them (his face). How can "derivative" be a basis, when the image derived from is not copyrighted?  Redthoreau Redthoreau (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

My concern was mainly with the little statue/figurine of Che. INeverCry 04:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I see, and thank you for the clarification. So if I upload it with that removed you won't delete it?  Redthoreau Redthoreau (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

My other concerns would be whether or not you took the image yourself, as it looks somewhat like a website advertisement, and whether the image is within COM:SCOPE and has any educational value. I'm done for the night, so if you have anything further, I'll let the owner of this talkpage answer. ;) INeverCry 05:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

INC, I took the photos, but yes I have used photoshop to give them the look you are talking about, because at one time I used the images elsewhere for advertising purposes. I can go with a less altered image (that is more clear it was just a photo) if you think that would be better. I'll look and see which ones I have. As for relevance, I wanted to use it to display the commercial use of the image itself. Redthoreau (talk) 05:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:431 BC in Romania

Hi. I noticed you removed the Category:431 BC in Romania as unsustainable and I am wondering why did you do that? I am working on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia/Drafts/Timeline of Ancient Romania and among other things I am trying to group all events in Romanian history by year. I followed the model Category:599 BC in India. I would have appreciated if you would have dropped a line to discuss prior to deleting. Thanks... --Codrin.B (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Although I deleted the category, I was suggested for deletion by User:Orrling. He/She said it is an Unsustainable subcategory. The category was empty at that time. If you think there are images which we can add to this category, I will undelete the category. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As a word of caution, I noticed that User:Orrling seems to have been involved in a variety of conflicts and controversial re-categorizations. So I would take his requests with a grain of salt. I will try to gather more content for that year. Best! --Codrin.B (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

please undelete NHSLOGO.jpg

Hello Mr. Sreejithk2000!

You have deleted the uploaded logo File:NHSLOGO.jpg of my party, this is the logo that I had made it, the logo is free for everybody, please undelete it.

Thanks!

MeiFengNorway — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeiFengNorway (talk • contribs) 20:26, 31 October 2012‎ (UTC)

This photo is also available at https://www.facebook.com/NationalHealthSystem. Since the photo was also published outside before uploading in Commons, we will require OTRS permission to keep the image here. Please send the permission email as specified at OTRS --Sreejith K (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Permissions on group photos

Came across this pic File:Monastic HSEB,Janakpur Class of 2065.jpg, a group photo of a class. Does the uploader need to bring permission from all members of the photo? He also has two more such uploads. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

For photos taken at a public place, we do not sort for permissions from everyone included in the picture. Imagine doing that for photos of film stars. For this picture, I think the copyright is owned by the school and we might need OTRS permission unless the uploader is the copyright holder. Also, I am not so sure whether or not the photo is {{Out of scope}} --Sreejith K (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Uploader is the student in that group. So he won't own the copyrights.
I have previously come across such pic, a small group of people. It was tagged for missing permission and then an OTRS link was provided and the image was kept. It was also out of scope. But I cant find it now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Video upload to commons

Hi. Can we upload videos released in 1938 from Indian movies to commons? I wanted to uploaded this video but it also has a channel logo. Please confirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivvt (talk • contribs) 23:03, 2 November 2012‎ (UTC)

Only works prior to 1936 from India are in Public Domain. See {{PD-India-URAA}}. --Sreejith K (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

OTRS permissions

Hello, Sreejithk2000. You have new messages at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adams County Ohio Courthouse.jpg's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops, that didn't work; sorry. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adams County Ohio Courthouse.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Kannada

The little Kannada you know can be used on the file File:P1010260.jpg. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Modified the image description. Thank you for bringing this up. --Sreejith K (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Intiger addition and subtraction.png

While importing this file, the license tag was not changed to a Commons-compatible one. But it looks like {{PD-ineligible}}. Best -- Rillke^(q?) 20:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not know that the template was missing here. Created it now. Thanks for pointing it out. --Sreejith K (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:User de-admin

Hello Sreejithk2000,

you deleted this template with the rationale "there is Template:User Wikipedia admin, that is also internationalized". I used the deleted template inside a Babel box on my user page, which now has a red link. To replace the deleted template, I would need to use Template:User Wikipedia admin with an additional parameter (de). I can't find a way to do this in the Babel box, and I suspect there is none. Do you have any suggestions how to solve this? Regards --Rosenzweig τ 14:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not see an easy way. You can either use {{Userbox}} template like I have done at User:Sreejithk2000/Userboxes or I can restore the current template. Which one do you prefer? --Sreejith K (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer restoration. Thank you. --Rosenzweig τ 08:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Sreejith K (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Rupert-boneham.jpg

Hi Sreejithk2000,

You posted an OTRS request template on my talkpage, which I've read. However I've removed it from there because I can't help you. I moved the file from English Wikipedia (as written on the page) where it was under {{PD-user-en}}. And, unless something has changed (which, btw, I think should change), we never require OTRS for own uploads. –Krinkle^talk 15:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

PS: I see now in the upload log the English Wikipedia says that it isn't his own work, but got permission from someone to post it. In that case it should have OTRS instead, but please ask him, not me. I have no more information about him than you do. –Krinkle^talk 15:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is his own work (as he claimed with the license and author name, and did again so at w:File:Rupert -head.jpg), but he means that he has permission from CBS and the depicted actor to take the photo? Anyhow, the user hasn't been active since 2007. I've updated the file page to reflect what you suspect (Unknown source, since Wikipedia is not the source, and CBS as author), if you think it is own work indeed, please undo and remove the missing-permission template. –Krinkle^talk 15:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There are chances that it is his own work, but we can only assume that. The file cannot be kept here with weak assumptions on copyright. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Jawaharlal Nehru's samadhi Shanti Van..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The scope is essential. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Sreejith, you may use Jawaharlal Nehru, Samadhi in my opinion. -- JKadavoor Jee 16:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

 Support All criteria met (See the modifications of the scope) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Issue on Template:PD-US-architecture/it

These two sentences are in conflict: "United States copyright law does not protect architectural works before 1 dicembre 1990." "A building that was substantially constructed or for which the plans were otherwise published before 1 dicembre 1990, is in the public domain in the United States." Is the first that's wrong? Thanks :) Raoli ✉ (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Whats the conflict? Both the sentences say that architectural works before 1st Dec 1990 does not have any copyrights on them and hence is in public domain. --Sreejith K (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's true. The word "protect" in Italian is confusing. Ok. thanks --Raoli ✉ (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

OTRS doubt

Isn't there any way i can simply read OTRS emails; only read? I couldn't find anywhere if this is possible. I could apply for being a volunteer. But there are so so so many warning placed everywhere before applying. Sounds risky. Hence didn't apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmadhyaksha (talk • contribs) 17:30, 30 November 2012‎ (UTC)

Only OTRS volunteers have access to OTRS emails. Others can't view them. If you would like to be a volunteer, feel free to apply. I am an OTRS volunteer myself and you don't need to worry about anything to be an OTRS volunteer. --Sreejith K (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply. Didnt get time to read all those disclaimers. Have applied now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

WWIII

Hi, just a reminder that Commons Delinker ignores requests to universally replace non-SVG files with SVG versions. This is to prevent WWIII. --Pitke (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thats perfectly fine. I am not sure which replacement I requested, but it can be ignored I guess. Thanks for the note. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

PD-India-photo-1958

Thanks for translating {{PD-India-photo-1958}}. I see your translation mentions {{PD-1996}} - I just want to point out the note I just put on the documentation page, in case you want to use that to clarify your translation. Thanks, Rd232 (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I initially marked it as Ex: {{PD-1996}}. Now I have made it the exact translation of what you gave in the English template. Thanks for helping with the template. Most of the Wikipedian's in India are unaware of the public domain rules in our country. --Sreejith K (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have the impression that Indian Wikipedians have a particular problem with copyright (not that that's really saying much - most people struggle with it, especially at first). Better guidance and documentation would help, and I think making PD tags easier to use and understand is part of that. Ultimately I'd like to split {{PD-India}} into different parts. Another part would be {{PD-IndiaGov}}, for Indian government reports and laws (which immediately raises questions about scope, eg does it cover Indian states? Going by Commons:CRT#India, yes). Rd232 (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Further: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India. Feel free to improve it! Rd232 (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

{{PD-IndiaGov}} is practically useless. None of the works by the Government of India is in a free license. They have not been very helpful on this matter yet. For that matter, {{PD-India}} is also useless because it is misleading. It should be deprecated and the use of {{PD-1996}} should be encouraged. I will spread a word about the page Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India and see whether we can get help from law experts. --Sreejith K (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, like many countries, there isn't much government work that is PD beyond legislation, but there is some: Copyright Act 52(q)(iii) (52 is "Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright"; q "the reproduction or publication of"): the report of any committee, commission, council, board or other like body appointed by the Government if such report has been laid on the Table of the Legislature, unless the reproduction or publication of such report is prohibited by the Government; [6]. This isn't much use for Commons, which I suppose is why {{PD-IndiaGov}} currently redirects to {{Copyvio}}; but for example for Wikisource there may be some use hosting such documents. Rd232 (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Men and youths at the riverside (Louvre museum).jpg

I strongly protest this rename, which was made contrary to the rules. Please explain how the filename was misleading. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 05:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I admit that I did not review the request properly before I made the name change, but can you help me understand what Men river Louvre MAO690 means? Is it a good file name in your opinion? --Sreejith K (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. It contains some key description words, the name of the museum, and the accession number. This information is explained in the description, viz. 'current location: Louvre Museum' and 'accession number: MAO 690'. The new name breaks the prevailing naming pattern of Louvre artefacts (see for instance Category:Islamic art in the Louvre). It's also imprecise as several artworks in the Louvre represent men and youths at the riverside. Finally, 'it could look prettier' isn't a valid criterion for renaming. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the clarification. I have restored the original file name. I apologize for not being careful enough.--Sreejith K (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I now try to use longer and clearer filenames in front of the 'museum name + accession number' part, but this last part is really important in that it's the only way to identify a work precisely. Scholars who use my pics often say they found them through the accession number. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Re:Welcome, Dear Filemover!

Thanks! :) --Jaqen (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Doubts again...

Hi!!! Coming after a long time. I recently received the file mover rights. Havent worked many file moves yet. But i recently came across some. Hence the doubt. What do we do with the common names from where the file is moved? When it is moved, a redirect is created. But some names are way to common and hence redirects are not needed, example File:Closeup (2).jpg, File:Growing 02.JPG, File:DIWAN-I-KHAS.jpg. Should these redirects be deleted? If yes, isnt there is any speedy deletion criteria for these? Even if there is, why aren't speedy deletion criterion present in the left side toolbox? (Or are they? Maybe i have to run some script somewhere. Why don't these scripts just come by default?) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I am asking for deletion of redirects when i have used the "Move file and replace all usage" tab; not just manually moved but not replaced. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If there is no pressing need for the deletion of a redirect left behind (i.e. the file name was not offensive and did not disclose personal data or similar), redirects should be kept. -- Rillke^(q?) 14:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User:Rillke but if the file name is completely useless and redundant, you can modify the redirect page to point to File:Name.jpg (Make sure to give the correct file extension) so that the file name will not be re-used.--Sreejith K (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Venezuelan schoolchildren.jpg

Thanks for fixing the name of this file back in february. HOWEVER... i seem to have really messed up in my request for a name change. I seem to have mixed up Venezuela with Uruguay. this image seems to actually be from Uruguay, as the name of the country is in fact The Oriental Republic of Uruguay. maybe i thought uruguay had a branch of its schools in venezuela, maybe i assumed only venezuela would admire che. in any case, i dont think im right (though i was right that its NOT cuba). any chance you can change the name to Uruguayan schoolchildren.jpg?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Sreejith K (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Important Duplicate

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Koch_Ritterburgen_in_Wuerttemberg_VI_123.jpg&diff=0&oldid=22347175 Did you ever used your brain by doing this? --Historiograf (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, no. I was testing an api to find duplicates and it tagged all the duplicate files which mediawiki reported. I have stopped testing the script until I can find a better way of doing it. Thanks for notifying. --Sreejith K (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Category talk:Aboriginal

Hello. While the deletion of Category talk:Aboriginal may be justifiable as per our norms, I am surprised to see that you've deleted it while a discussion about it was still underway. Happy new year any way. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC).

I did not notice the discussion. But if there is a consensus to restore the image, we can do that. Generally, orphan talk pages are not kept in Commons. --Sreejith K (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Paris Synagogue RuePavée759.JPG

Sure, sorry for the lack of restoration comment :) Hector Guimard, the architect, died in 1942. He's French so his work enter in the public domain 70 years after his death, meaning today :) The picture of his building used to be a copyvio until yesterday but is now perfectly legal. Léna (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Then the license needs to be corrected for the image and a reasoning has to be provided either in the {{Information}} template or on the talk page. Else, anyone could re-nominate the image for deletion. --Sreejith K (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. All information needed is provided (cc-by-sa for the photography, description of the building; the category even gives the link to the French heritage buildings database entry about the building. Nothing more is needed ? Léna (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

How about this edit?. I hope this helps. --Sreejith K (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Madame Tussauds

Hi! One image was deleted after the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sandhya Mridul's vacation at Hong Kong 01.jpg. But i now see many images of wax statues in the Category:Madame Tussauds. Should the image be undeleted or should others be nominated as well? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Derivative works of wax statues can be nominated for deletion. --Sreejith K (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay! Have opened the nominations at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Madame Tussauds. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Nicely arranged DR. I like it. Good work. --Sreejith K (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Autopatrol given

Thanks --Vinayaraj (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

PD-old-X-1923/ml

Hi there, could you please fix up the Malayalam language at {{PD-old-X-1923/ml}} for me, based on {{PD-old-X-1923/en}}? (I think it's clear what needs doing, but if not, just ask.) Thanks! Rd232 (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A small heads up will be helpful. I don't see any considerable differences between these two versions. --Sreejith K (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's supposed to say [...where the copyright term is] the author's life plus {{{2}}} years or less. I don't know what exactly it says now - all other language versions had an identifiable number I could simply replace with the parameter {{{2}}}, eg the author's life plus 80 years or less. Rd232 (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have modified both en version and ml version to display the second parameter or 100 (if parameter is missing). Can you verify? --Sreejith K (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That looks fine, but I've made it default to "X", not "100". No X parameter (for number of years pma) is definitely an error condition, so it shouldn't give valid output. Thanks! Rd232 (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Bsr

Template was internationalized. See Template talk:Bsr. --Kaganer (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for helping. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you internationalize Template:Bsr-user as well? --Sreejith K (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I will try. There is some problem with internationalisation of templates used with substitution. --Kaganer (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Please test and improve, if needed. --Kaganer (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Bapu and Baa.jpg

File:Bapu and Baa.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!

Dcoetzee (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

OTRS Question

Hi. Happy New Year 2013 to you! I recently had contacted one of the media personalities thru their official email address found on the site. I had requested for some of the information related to the subject and also asked for the photographs which can be uploaded to commons. I got reply from the official email id and then they also provided personal email id for further contact. I contacted on personal id and received some information about the person along with personal photographs. I wanted to ask/clarify whether can this email-chain be used for commons or OTRS to upload the pics or information on Wikipedia as a reliable source? Vivvt (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If the person has explicitly mentioned the license, you can forward that to OTRS. But if has said something vaguely like "it can be used it Wikipedia", that is not considered as a valid license declaration. --Sreejith K (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The person hasn't mentioned anything. The reply says "sending you my biodata and photos". I believe this wouldn't be sufficient. Would it be appropriate in case I ask the person under which license the photos should be uploaded? Also, what are the valid license tags for the personal photographs to be uploaded? Vivvt (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't have a choice. In order for commons to host the image, the license declaration needs to be explicit. If we ask a license politely, I believe the personality will not be offended. He would be more than happy to host his publicity image in Wikipedia. For license recommendations, see Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses. If you want a sample email, see Template:Email templates/Consent/en --Sreejith K (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I will check with the personality about it. Vivvt (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I checked with the personality and he has agreed to release the photos under any of the Creative licenses (Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0, Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5, Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, Creative Commons Attribution 2.5, Creative Commons CC0 Waiver). Though he has not sent any separate mail for that, the confirmation is part of the mail chain and personality has mentioned that "i dont have any problem in releasing them as per your requirement. please consider this as my consent and go ahead." Let me know the next step. Vivvt (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Upload the images in commons and mark them as {{OTRS Pending}}. Forward the email to permissions-commonswikimedia.org and wait for an OTRS agent to approve the email. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Which license shall I select? The personality is ok with any of them. He says he does not understand all the licences and legality involved. Vivvt (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Any inputs on this? Vivvt (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't really comment on that, but you can have a read at Commons:Licensing. I personally would recommend {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} if the user wants attribution for every use, or ask him to release the rights so that the image will go to public domain ({{PD-user}}).--Sreejith K (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I will update it to SA 3.0, like File:Sonali 19 t.jpg. Vivvt (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are the files File:Paresh Mokashi 1.JPG and File:Paresh Mokashi 2.JPG. The email has also been sent to OTRS. Vivvt (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)