User talk:Stefan2/Archive 7

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Hi, I would like to get the Canadian Crown Copyright global PD declaration integrated into the proposed policy at Commons:Hosting of content released to the public domain globally. Could you have a look, and also add your thoughts to the talk page? I hope you will support it! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commented there. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New URL for OgreBot's old version filemover

Hello. I've identified you as a user who has previously used OgreBot's old version filemover. Please note the new URL: toollabs:magog/oldver.php. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me! It seems that fileinfo.php also has been moved to the new location. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Before the entry of the Chinese New Year, I bestow upon thee this Star of Hope. Cheers. Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egzemplarz służbowy przepisów porządkowych i taryfowych Kolei Dolnośląskich.jpg

Hello.

According to Your notification, I'd like to example something.

On the photo there is not a book.

It's only kind of file cabinet for polish law (acts and regulations) connected with rail transport in Koleje Dolnoslaskie, and according to polish law (Ustawa o Prawie Autorskim) is into Public Domain!

It's part of accessories of railway workers in polish rail company Koleje Dolnoslaskie. This thing don't have any barcodes, ISSN, etc.

Do You want any additional photos of it? Montiverdi (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hagerstens hembygdsforening Vinterviken.jpg

Hi Stefan4.

It will take some effort and time to get OTRS acceptance, and the photo is not worth it. Please delete it! Boberger (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Det enklaste är nog att helt enkelt vänta i en vecka tills filen raderas. Annars kanske du kan lägga in {{Speedy}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, då väntar vi bara tills det sker av sig självt. Boberger (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your conversion of {{Speedydelete}} to {{Delete}}

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to obstruct the file maintenance process, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.

For several years now admins have been quickly approving the speedy deletion requests that have been made by the editors who are curating the BSicon files. Except in the very rare instance of a file being incorrectly tagged, there has not been a problem until now. However, your insistence on changing {{Speedydelete}} to {{Delete}} is obstructing and considerably delaying the process. Useddenim (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that conversion of invalid {{Speedy}} tags to {{Delete}} is disruptive? COM:CSD doesn't list any situations under which redirects may be speedily deleted. What is disruptive is that some users add invalid {{Speedy}} tags to pages without first checking whether there is a valid speedy deletion criterion. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#General reasons numbers 2 “Unused … redirects” and 6 “uncontroversial maintenance … [for] permanent deletion” cover these requests. Useddenim (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That criterion requires that the redirect is both unused and implausible. It is not sufficient if the redirect only is unused, or if it only is implausible. I'm not sure in which way these redirects are implausible. However, I realise that I overlooked that point. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On implausibility: you can rely on us. Plausible BSredirects are collected at Category:Icons for railway descriptions/redirect. On unusedness: the majority of remaining usage are auto-filling tables, which should show a red link (or nothing) in those cases. The rest of usage are either user sandboxes (which I only rarely update; in ja.wp it is forbidden; but mostly they are long abandoned, so save me...), or project discussions, which should not be changed for history's sake. If you encounter anything in mainspace or templates – please notify us and remove the speedy tag! Unless it says that some other file should be moved there or something. YLSS (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) If you think that I have never read COM:CSD, you are gravely mistaken. The relevant criterion is G6: "Uncontroversial maintenance"; to get a more eloquent reasoning, please read Talk:BSicon/Renaming (with four archives and three subpages), Talk:BSicon/Colors (with one archive), possibly some other pages here, en:Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template (with eight archives and several subpages), and some discussion at de.wp (I can't provide links, unfortunately). Also, in [1], I guess by "lately" you mean last 12 months, and by "User:YLSS" you mean some dozen users dealing (now or in past) with BSicons? And really, consider creating umbrella nominations. YLSS (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Knowmad.jpg

estimada Stefan4: File:Knowmad.jpg is licensed under a Creative Commons. You can see in http://aprendizajeinvisible.com No manejo el inglés por lo que te escribo en español. tengo claro que solo pueden subirse imágenes con licencia libre en commons: la imagen que borraste está incluida en el libro publicado Aprendizaje Invisible by http://aprendizajeinvisible.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Spain License. Lo más importante es, justamente que el tema es la liberación del conocimiento por lo que el autor expresamente indica que toda su obra puede ser usada, modificada, remisada. Te sugiero que lo mires para comprender el espíritu del libro y mi idea de que se conozca esta obra tan acorde al espíritu de WP. Por lo tanto te pido que deshagas el borrado de la imagen

Puedes leer el artículo sobre el concepto a que refiere la imagen en el artículo https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowmad Gracias--Mevrob (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cc-by-nc-nd-3.0}} no es una licencia libre. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


book" Aprendizaje invisible" PG. 41: 

" el formato, soporte y licencia de la Collección Transmedia XXI (Laboratorio de Mitjans Interactius [LMI], Universitat   de Barcelona) 
están pensados de antemano para favorecer tanto como se pueda su multiplicación, diversificación y transformación en tantos medios 
y lenguajes como lo permita la imaginación. 
Esto también significa que invitamos al lector a copiar, pegar y remezclar (remix) las ideas de este texto con nuevas y creativas perspectivas. 
También se invita a los interesados a compartir su trabajo e inquietudes en el espacio de diálogo abierto que hemos creado en
 www.aprendizajeinvisible.com o cualquier otro canal que se estimemás adecuado."

Creo que es una autorización expresa de los autores para utilizar el contenido de su libro libremente. Por eso tomé la imagen. saludos--Mevrob (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garage Voices deletion

Hi! Sorry for violating Wikimedia Commons politics, it was not my intention. This album cover was created by a friend of mine (Fábio Costa), who unfortunately passed away before I could ask him to add this album cover himself. This was an important album for him, because it was the result of a lot of labour, and also for the independent music scene on Rio de Janeiro. All the bands involved are proud of their work an it should be represented in some way. What is the right way of including this artwork on Wikimedia Commons? Best, --Sigried (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Chambre Rouge n°2 (2) réduit.jpg

Dear Sir, This file was deleted before I could comment your decision. In the meantime, I had spoken to the author and copyright owner of the publication "La Chambre Rouge", Mr. Bruno Montpied, who sent today his authorization to Wikipedia, with a new photo of the same object (La Chambre Rouge n°2). I think the best thing to do now, instead of requesting an undeletion, is to send the same new document to Wikipedia ? Please tell me if I am right. Sincerely yours--Joiesoudaine (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the copyright holder to follow the instructions at COM:OTRS. Otherwise, it will just be deleted again. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Everything was done like you said. Best Regards.--Joiesoudaine (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asynchronous syntropy image

I am the copyright owner of the image, I would like to keep the smaller image for free use... I really do not understand CC license but would prefer that its used non-comercially and unaltered then and delete the larger one Can you help with this??

I uploaded the file to commons and its duplicated there and attribution license so how is it we delete the others ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joefac3 (talk • contribs) 2014-01-30T04:10:29 (UTC)

See COM:OTRS or the notice on your talk page to see how to prove authorship. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ayaka komatsu at busan

Duplicate of a discussion on my talk page on English Wikipedia. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if the image doesn't have the necessary paperwork or whatever it needs to use it and you understand what is needed can't you try and pursue what is needed rather than just see to it that the article gets the image taken away? seems destructive if you understand all the arcana not to try and resolve, and overcome, image problems rather than just look for a problem and then delete. if the CC- whatever doesn't mean we can use it , how do you get what it does need- and why don't you try and get what is needed? Sayerslle (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tashkent comment

Downtown TAshkent is my photo. I photographed this photo in 2011 year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidecity (talk • contribs) 2014-02-04T14:16:00 (UTC)

You didn't construct the building. You can't take photos of buildings constructed by other people, unless the architect has been dead for at least 50 years. See COM:FOP#Uzbekistan. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I don't understand. I added this photo several years ago. It photo was used on Uzbekistan and Tashkent section on wikipedia. Have you a problem? I really don't understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidecity (talk • contribs) 2014-02-04T17:51:46‎ (UTC)

You are not the architect of that building. You will need permission from the architect to upload photographs of buildings in Uzbekistan. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new photo of Tashkent Downtown. This is a information's photo. You wanted to say me that all photos of wikipedia were photographed with a permission from architect. This is a nonsence. If I want to shoot skylines of Tashkent, Will I need permission from "million" architectors? Because, All building will be in my photo!!!!!!

I don't real understand. This is a nonsence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidecity (talk • contribs) 2014-02-07T13:59:40‎ (UTC)

The architect holds the copyright to the bulding. You have to respect the copyright of the architect. That's the law. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't a received a answer on my question. If I want to shoot a photo of skylines, Will I need a copyright from a lot of architectors? Nonsense. You think about me as a criminal.

I specially saw a section of New-York (here) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NYC_Montage_2014_4_-_Jleon.jpg

Show me please copyrights from all architects which built all building in New-York? Photo made by User:Jleon. User Jlion took a copyrights from all architects of New York? You are joking

w:File:NYC Montage 2014 4 - Jleon.jpg shows buildings in the United States, so it is governed by the copyright law of the United States. Under the copyright law of the United States, there is no copyright to buildings completed before 1 December 1990 (see {{PD-US-architecture}}). Furthermore, the copyright law of the United States allows you to take photos of copyrighted buildings provided that the building "is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place." All of these buildings are ordinarily visible from a public place.
The situation in Uzbekistan is different, as explained at COM:FOP#Former Soviet Union. Under the copyright law of Uzbekistan, you can't use photographs of recent buildings commercially without permission from the architect, and the images are therefore not accepted on Commons without express permission from the architect. The situation is the same everywhere in the former Soviet Union with the exception of Armenia and Moldova, so it is presumably an old rule created by the Soviet Union.
In the event that you take a photo of a whole city (which contains lots of buildings), then the assumption is that permission from the architects isn't needed, unless the photograph specifically focuses on one of the buildings. However, you can't crop out individual buildings and upload those crops. I believe that this is based on a court ruling from France which said something like that. It is unknown whether the ruling is universally true in all countries of the world, but without any evidence of the contrary, Commons has assumed that this is the case. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I photographed these photos several years ago. I spent a time for that. I don't know that wikipedia live with a kommunistic laws. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidecity (talk • contribs) 2014-02-12T14:03:00 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The rule is that photos on Commons have to be free in both the United States and the source country, and in this case, the source country is Uzbekistan, where the photographs aren't free due to the architecture. Some copyright laws can be very annoying. For example, I recently found out about a court ruling in France where Getty Images was fined for hosting photographs of two different chairs in violation of the copyright of the chairs. Let's hope that we won't see as extreme examples in many other countries.
You may be able to host the images locally on some Wikipedia projects, at least if they are in use there. For example, English Wikipedia accepts photos like this if tagged with w:Template:FoP-USonly, and Russian Wikipedia sometimes also accepts images like this, although I don't know the exact rules for that. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Don't delete my photos. My photos are used a lot of section such as a Uzbekistan (on russian too), Tashkent, and a lot of section about hi-speed trains, stadiums and other. I didn't do something political.

User:Vila Velebita

Since you do quite a bit of deletion nominations, could I ask you to review the uploads of the above mentioned user? All seem to falsely claim his own authorship, and most of them seem to be outright copyright violations (Bukovac's painting is the only one that is certainly PD).

Your interpretation of copyright in Nokia 206 seems rather stringent to me, but I can't really fault it. GregorB (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the user's user page and most uploads for deletion due to copyright concerns. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from page User:Stefan4

Main gallery: w:File:1901, Samuel H. Bernstein Bloom, grayscale original.jpg.
See also: w:WP:NFCR#File:1901, Samuel H. Bernstein Bloom, grayscale original.jpg.

As the author of "Bloom Brothers Department Stores" entry I own the photograph entitled "1901, Samuel H. Bernstein Bloom, grayscale original.jpg" that you just tagged. I have reuploaded the file and added licensing information that liberates it from "non-free usage" label, which is and always was incorrect and unintended. I must have hit the wrong button when I uploaded the file and you are the first person to notice. This picture is freely releasted into the public domain as an historically accurate photograph of a deceased person that has never before been published. The studio and the person who snapped the photo are no longer in existence. Please email/message me (rbbloom@outlook.com) if you do not understand this message. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbbloom (talk • contribs) 2014-02-06T15:40:56 (UTC)

I have added a note about your comment to the discussion at w:WP:NFCR#File:1901, Samuel H. Bernstein Bloom, grayscale original.jpg. Maybe you could comment there. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Georgios Papanikolaou.jpg

Sorry for my mistake. I have asked the owner of the Flickr account to reconsider its license. Thank you for your help. Best regards, Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 08:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. If the image becomes available under a free licence, then it can be uploaded or undeleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malvika Subba montage photo.jpg

Hi, About this file , you have placed deletion request . However, in the Flickr it was me to post. So i am the original copyright holder and I wanted to publish this in Wikipedia too. So isn't it valid ? Ashishlohorung (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the file was uploaded to Flickr almost a year before it was uploaded here, and as the licence on Flickr is unfree, I think that you should provide evidence to OTRS that the Flickr account belongs to you. Alternatively, you could change the licence on Flickr into something which is free. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have set the licence to free. Thanks Ashishlohorung (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's Photo

Thanks for heads up on the different categories of the Commons licenses. I simply saw the 2.0, and did not realize there were different versions of that (generic vs. non-commercial). Will allow for that in the future. If you don't mind, is there a way I can delete photos I've added? Also, I uploaded another photo today (of the Chase Building). If you could verify that that one is okay, I'll know that I'm on the right track. I'll also use the tool you sent me for uploading from Flicker from now on. Again, thanks. Onel5969 (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The unfree files seem to have been deleted, apart from one photograph where you failed to specify where the photograph comes from. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at Ww2censor'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 ∙ +/−

Ww2censor (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another reply. Ww2censor (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The license version of Tistory Creative Commons images

I talked about your concern with user:Hym411 already at this page. Hym411 rejected my claim, However, I found several other tistory blogs that clearly mention about the license version of their works (2.0 kr). for example, http://elcy.tistory.com/125, http://dearjs.tistory.com/592, http://skyblues.tistory.com/69, http://iustudio.tistory.com/1155, http://eyeyou.tistory.com/487. Not all of tistory blogs say about their license version(s), I guess tistory apparantly does not correctly operate their license setting system. another blog hosting services such as Naver, uses 2.0 kr licenses also and clearly mentions their license version. for example: http://blog.naver.com/nanacu?Redirect=Log&logNo=100194028769 (You can click the license icon at the bottom and check the license version of the work). --Puramyun31 (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, some person from Korean Wikipedia asked Daum (Operator of Tistory) to clarify the license version. —레비Revi 02:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that this is sorted out. It is very clear that the image is licensed under CC-BY, but I'm not sure how to review a file if I can't identify the version number, so I merely switched the {{Flickrreview}} template into a plain {{Licensereview}} template for someone else to review. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adler Arena, Sochi.jpg

If you think that Commons can keep this image, please pass it. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Up for deletion. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

zfigueroa

The photos you looked had permission from the authors as long as they had attribution given to them. It is labeled all rights reserved on their pages but I messaged them for approval. --Zfigueroa (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which photos are you talking about? --Stefan4 (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zfigueroa#File:Medical_Mile_Panoramic_View.png --Zfigueroa (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion in limbo

Hello. I just wanted to point out a deletion discussion you started on 28 Jan. Since we both agree the files need deleting and nobody else has chimed in, I think it is high time to close the discussion and delete them. Green Giant (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It will be closed eventually, don't worry. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coral reef near Marsa Alam.jpg

Do you still hope that the bot will do something? --MGA73 (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is taking the bot so long? I hoped that it would upload the full-size copy (which you later did), but the bot refused to do anything for several days and later told that it couldn't tell whether the image was the same. Oh well, let's give up on that. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Foto di Daniele Radini Tedeschi

Hi Stefan4. I found the image in internet at the address I wrote in the description and I received from Daniele Radini Tedeschi ( the man in the photo) the permission (by email) to use it. What can I do ? Thanks--Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan4. I send permission archive the mail ( in Italian language)that Daniele Radini Tedeschi sent me to give me the permission to release his image and all photos of coverbooks he published under the license Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0.--Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then we will have to wait until the OTRS users process this e-mail. I have removed the deletion tag for now. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Stefan, Je suis un débutant en Wikipédia et j'ai essayé d'ajouter la copie d'un article comme preuve de ce que j'affirmais mais j'ai reçu le message suivant : File:LE TELEGRAMME 16 11 12.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 find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Je comprends qu'il y a un problème de copyright. Que dois-je faire ? Me contenter de donner la référence de l'article ? Essayer de trouver le lien sur le web ? Que me conseillez-vous ? Merci pour votre aide (I understand english, I'm even able to write you in english if you prefer but I'm more confortable in french, thanks), --82.66.49.124 16:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Yves Sobel[reply]

Il paraît que File:LE TELEGRAMME 16 11 12.jpg était une image d'un journal. Les journals sont protégés par droit d'auteur et il n'est pas possible importer des images des journals avant que les journalistes sont morts depuis au moins 70 ans. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour,

Vous m'avez supprimé mon logo "logo:vignobles bardet". Je voudrai savoir comment l'ajouter à nouveau sur wikipédia common car je travaille dans cette entreprise et elle est d'accord à mettre le logo sur wikipédia (l'entreprise à d'ailleur envoyé un mail à wikipédiapour accepter)

Merci de votre réponse, cordialement,

--Vignobles (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Les logos sont protégés par droit d'auteur et ne peuvent pas être importés ici sans permission du déssinateur. Il est parfois possible les importer sur Wikipédia sous fr:Modèle:Marque déposée. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sabiha Gökçen picture

What is your opinion on that one ([2])KazekageTR (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AN

I have raised concerns about your ability to nominate images for deletion. You may reply in the link. Fry1989 eh? 02:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jae profile pic01.jpg

I nominated this for deletion yesterday (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jae profile pic01.jpg) but I've since noticed that {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} was added by you not the uploader. Have I misunderstood something on this? January (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-record

Hello, since you were a participant in the above Deletion discussion I wanted to make sure you were informed of the new Wikilegal report at meta:Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Sound Recordings Fixed Prior to February 15 1972 related to this issue. Wikilegal left a notice on Template talk:PD-US-record saying "Wikilegal is a place for the community to engage in a discourse on legal issues the projects face. Although made by Foundation legal staff or interns, these posts are not intended as legal advice, but they are an opportunity for inquiry and discussion. See meta:Wikilegal for more." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

license of my photos

hi Stefan, I've uploaded some photos on Commons and you've listed them as bad license photos, I'm not so mush skillful in this item and I want you to help me in choosing correct licenses for them.

yours truely. Paraw (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NGruev

This is a note to let you know that I've reopened a deletion discussion that you previously participated: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:NGruev. Cheers, -- TLSuda (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

I hope that you're in good health. I hope that you don't feel alone in your struggles and hardships. Wikis can be harsh sometimes, especially when people make it their mission to ban or topic ban you. Cheer up, and don't feel scared or alone. Things will get better.

P.S. Ignore the timestamp. This message isn't a joke. Sincerely,

Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to drop in and thank you for your nuanced and well-informed comments on licensing discussions. I appreciate your precision and attention to detail. --SJ+ 05:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The arguing ended, and the thread has been archived. Please come back. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photo supprimée

Bonsoir pourquoi avez+vous fait supprimer ma photo de carte d'indentité française en disant que ça n'était pas un travail personnel https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:France_-_Carte_nationale_d%27identit%C3%A9_s%C3%A9curis%C3%A9e.jpg ? Ce qui est faux ! Merci d'avance pour votre réponse. --Calahan59 (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your status here and Japanese help

Hello, Stefan. I'm sorry to see you aren't around as much anymore. I know you kind of got chased away, which is a shame. I understand your pain; I've considered packing up and going before, but I've had people talk me down from the ledge.

Rather than viewing Commons with all its blemishes that will not get fixed, maybe you could view it as a way to spend your time that is fun. I view it that way, and it's the only way to stay sane around here. But it's totally worth it.

Your contributions here would be highly valuable, so please consider a return.

Regardless, if you come back some time soon, I'd love your input here.

Regards. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

complaint

Hello how are you? I have a complaint relating to the user:Ich Pilot and his Sock puppetry (user:B88, user:Khny ,user:Zwanzig 20) he mad many of new uploads, which are not based on sources or in which the selection of sources, I asked him (user:Ich Pilot) to debate before doing any change, and I brought a variety of sources in order to debate, but he refuses to debate and even attack me. here is example for one of his personal attacks: by user:B88 attack my personal page and puting pictures calling me fascists and anther picture as: If jesus came kill him again!. Thank you and have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stefan2/Archive_7&oldid=176658105"