User talk:Tryphon/Archive/2009

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Parcs et jardins

Bonjour,

La différence entre parcs et jardins à Paris est assez mince (on laisse un peu plus la bride sur le cou à la Nature dans les parcs certes). Par ailleurs il faut disposer d'une catégorie fédératrice des espaces verts à la racine de la catégorie Paris rôle que joue actuellement Park and open spaces en Park. Pour répondre à votre demande on peut modifier cet intitulé en "Gardens, parks and open spaces" et ensuite placer la catégorie gardens in Paris individuellement au niveau de chaque jardin (gardens in Paris n'aurait qu'une catégorie mère gardens in Ile de France). Par contre je ne suis pas favorable à faire de gardens in Paris une sous-catégorie de "Gardens, parks and open spaces" parce que ce découpage entre parcs et jardins est pour tout autre qu'un parisien byzantin. Dans ce domaine on a déja les Public gardens in Paris (les squares). Je pense que ma proposition peut répondre à la fois à la demande d'un découpage accessible des espaces verts parisiens (du haut vers le bas) et à votre préoccupation de fédérer les jardins de France. (J'ai regardé ce qui se faisait dans les catégories des pays les plus impliqués dans Wikipédia. C'est le f...) Qu'en pensez vous ?--Pline (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Je ne suis pas tout à fait d'accord lorsque vous dites que Category:Gardens in Paris ne devrait pas être une sous-catégorie de Category:Parks and open spaces in Paris ; certes la différence est ténue (et je serais sans doute incapable de la faire moi-même), mais toujours est-il qu'un jardin est un sous-ensemble des parcs et espaces ouverts. D'ailleurs, je ne vois pas en quoi c'est un problème que la différence soit difficile à faire. En cas de doute, il suffit d'utiliser la catégorie Category:Parks and open spaces in Paris, et si quelqu'un pense qu'il peut affiner cette description, il peut déplacer le contenu dans la sous-catégorie Category:Gardens in Paris (et c'est pour cette raison qu'il est important que ce soit une sous-catégorie, sinon il est difficile de se rendre compte qu'il existe une catégorie plus précise). Il me semble vraiment que c'est le rôle même d'une sous-catégorie : affiner la définition, même si la distinction n'est pas toujours aisée (encore une fois, dans ce cas il suffit d'utiliser la catégorie supérieure).
Quant à renommer Category:Parks and open spaces in Paris, je ne pense pas que ce soit nécessaire, quelle que soit la solution finalement retenue.

Etes vous d'accord avec cette proposition "la création de catégories est destinée à faciliter le classement et la recherche des fichiers multimédia dans la base Commons" ? Cette recherche peut se faire à l'aide des moteurs de recherche disponibles (l'intérêt des catégories est alors de normaliser les mots clés et de créer un bon réflexe chez celui qui catalogue le fichier multimédia) ou par exploration des hiérarchies des catégories. Explorons ce deuxième besoin qui est au centre de notre discussion :

Si un fichier multimédia est caractérisé par n catégories fines on pourrait opter pour un découpage hiérarchique prenant en compte tous ces critères. Par exemple pour les monuments religieux en France : le hameau/arrondissement de Paris, le style (early gothic,..), la "taille" (chapelle, église, cathédrale), le siècle de construction, la confession religieuse (catholique, protestant luthérien), etc... seraient combinées pour créer la hiérarchie des catégorie des églises. Accéder à une église donnée via la hiérarchie des catégories demanderait de se poser toutes ces questions avant d'accéder au fichier recherché. Pour une personne qui recherche une église mais qui a une connaissance "normale" du sujet (99% des personnes qui effectueront cette recherche), parcourir cette hiérarchie serait un vrai ... chemin de croix. Cette approche n'apportera rien, non plus, au spécialiste de l'art religieux qui s'il recherche une église de style roman dans Paris devra déterminer d'abord dans quel arrondissement de Paris celle-ci se situe...

Donc généralement la création de la hiérarchie des catégories n'est pas bâtie de cette manière : on crée des hiérarchies distinctes chacune autour d'un thème de recherche en se mettant à la place, de manière implicite, de celui qui va effectuer la recherche. On tient également également compte souvent de manière implicite des axes de recherche les plus fréquents. Dans le cas de notre église on trouve ainsi actuellement des hiérarchies de catégories distinctes autour du thème localisation (Paris ==> Buildings ==> Religious buildings of Paris), du thème style (Early Gothic Style ==> Early Gothic Style of Paris ==> ), du découpage administratif (Paris ==> Arrondissement de Paris ==> ).

Dans le cas de notre discussion sur les parcs, jardins et espaces verts de Paris on se trouve dans une problématique identique mais plus simple. Soit notre utilisateur de Commons recherche des espaces verts dans Paris et la distinction parc/jardin est une information qui n'est pas pertinente dans son exploration. Dans le cas de Paris, je suis persuadé que ce sera la démarche de 90% des personnes utilisant Commons que ce soit pour alimenter Wikipedia ou pour des besoins personnels. L'information "parc ou jardin" figure dans tous les cas dans le fichier. Soit vous êtes un amateur de jardins et vous disposez d'un axe de recherche vie jardins d'ile de france, jardins de paris,.. Si on ne rassemble pas jardins et parcs dans un même ensemble, on demande à la personne qui effectue la recherche de se poser une question dont il n'a généralement pas la réponse. Inconvénient supplémentaire on contribue à créer un rateau de catégories sous Paris qui si cette approche (remonter des niveaux de détail sous la catégorie Paris) est généralisée contribue à rendre la recherche au niveau n-1 dans Paris complètement pénible pour la plupart des personnes effectuant cette recherche pour satisfaire un petit pourcentage de personnes alors qu'il existe d'autres solutions pour répondre aux besoins de ces derniers.--Pline (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(Désolé pour la réponse tardive, je n'ai plus de connexion internet en ce moment.) Je ne suis pas tout-à-fait d'accord, mais je pense que la solution que vous proposez permettra en tout cas d'accéder de manière logique au contenu, en dépit d'une légère perte de finesse dans la catégorisation.
De mon point de vue, soit l'utilisateur recherche un jardin de Paris en particulier, donc il effectuera une recherche par nom; soit il recherche une illustration générale pour les jardins parisiens, et dans ce cas il arrivera dans Category:Parks and open spaces in Paris et pourra affiner sa recherche en allant dans Category:Gardens in Paris (avec comme avantage que s'il n'était pas sûr que tel espace vert est vraiment un jardin, il peut trouver cette information grâce à la catégorisation).
Mais comme je l'ai dit plus haut, je me range à vos arguments, il me semble que c'est plus une question de goût, et qu'un choix n'est pas meilleur que l'autre. --Tryphon (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Exu Tiriri.JPG e Exu Mangueira. JPG

Comment ça va, Tryphon? J'ai reçu votre message sur les photos que j'ai mis dans le Commons. Je veux dire que les Files: Exu Tiriri.JPG e Exu Mangueira.JPG ne sont pas copyright violation. Je suis même a fais ces photos. Et Je les a donné pour le Wikipédia. Je pense que les images non doivent pas être eliminés, parce que n'il y a pas des problémes de violation. J'attend votre réponse. Mes imagens n'ont pas des problemes de copyright, parce que je fais les photos. Un grand salut du Brésil. Junius (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Je suis désolé, mais ces images ont déjà été supprimées, je ne peux donc plus rien y faire. Mais vous pouvez contacter l'admin qui a supprimé ces photos (Zirland) pour lui demander des précisions, ou bien demandé que les photos soient rétablies si vous avez la preuve que ce n'est pas une violation de copyright. --Tryphon (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Pas de problèmes, Tryphon. Je peux faire des photos et les remettre, sans problemes. Non seule les images sont miennes comme aussi les photos, que j'ai les fait. Probablement Zirland a fait confusion, parce que j'ai ecris que le travail est moi. Un grand salut du Brésil.

Junius (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Image:PortoMetro.png

Hi, it seems you've made the interior of the circle opaque in this image I've uploaded. However the official logo is simply the blue circle and blue M, without any white filling, as you can see on Image:Logo metro (Porto).JPG, so why change it? Edit: By the way I made an attempt at a svg version, but it ended up looking worse on articles on 150px, so dismiss that version. Thank you Asclepius76 (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just thought that for web rendering, it's better to have an opaque background inside the circle. Depending on the page background (dark uniform color or some image), transparency can be disturbing. But if you really think it's an important feature of this logo, feel free to revert my changes.
As a side note, I'm guessing you created the SVG version by vectorizing the PNG image; this is why quality is not so good. You might want to create it from scratch using inkscape for example. --Tryphon (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I guess it's ok like this then, doesn't make that much difference. Thanks for your contribution and help. Asclepius76 (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

image:Hamburg S10.svg

Merci pour aide moi. Danke für deine Hilfe.
hd 2009-01-27 01:44h (CET)

Regarding this image

Can you hold off your DR request for this image for 3 weeks: File:Trebula Mutuesca latin scription.jpg I did not upload the image but I have contacted the account holder to see if he will give permission...by changing the license. Dan (the photographer) says it is OK to use it here. (if you closely read the image information) I only sent my message 1 week ago and Dan hasn't uploaded any images to his flickr account since November 2008. So, I think he is away at present. I have contacted Dan...and I did get this 8 images licensed freely here by another flickr account owner...if you don't trust me. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I replaced {{No permission since}} with {{OTRS pending}}. I saw your message on the image page, but since it was uploaded in November 2008 I figured that the time was up; now I see that you contacted the author recently. I hope you will succeed. Best wishes. --Tryphon (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If Dan doesn't contact me within 3 weeks, then it will have to be deleted. Regrettable, but such is life. PS: I did get these 2 images approved after they also failed flickr review:
File:Praying mantis india.jpg
File:Tomb of St. John.jpg

Personally, I can't believe a featured picture failed flick review! Luckily I contacted the flickr owner...who agreed to change the license to 'cc by sa 2.0'. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Andromeda_CLP.jpg

Bonjour Tryphon,

Tout d'abord j'espère que j'applique bien la bonne procédure pour vous répondre, au sujet de ma demande de suppression de cette image.

Ce que je veux dire par 'poor quality', c'est que c'est une très mauvaise photo astro: on y voit à peine la galaxie qui en est le sujet; et si la résolution du fichier est élevée, en revanche la résolution optique est très mauvaise (les étoiles sont, au choix, des batonnets, des éventails, des taches). Il en existe beaucoup d'autres bien meilleures Category:Andromeda_Galaxy. (Je n'ai pas encore tout compris sur la façon d'insérer un lien! ;-)

Je tombe sur votre commentaire un peu par hasard: je voulais juste vérifier si les diverses modif que j'ai opérées hier soir (en visitant la catégorie des images sans description) ont bien été enregistrées. Je ne vais pas reprendre toutes les pages, mais j'ai vu votre avis sur plusieurs (merci!). Si vous souhaitez poursuivre la discussion, sur cette image ou une autre, et si l'étiquette le permet (!), voici mon adresse mail (que je supprimerai plus tard): <adresse@email>.

84.97.149.21 21:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction: honte sur moi, je viens de comprendre que le sujet de la photo n'est pas la galaxie, mais la constellation. Evidemment ça change un peu la donne... Reste que c'est quand même pas une bonne photo.

84.97.149.21 21:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Bonsoir, et merci pour votre réponse. Pour ce qui est de la "procédure", je pense que de manière générale, il vaut mieux poursuivre la discussion directement sur la page de la demande de suppression, pour que les autres personnes qui suivent la demande puissent participer (mais ça n'a pas vraiment d'importance pour cette fois, c'est juste une remarque générale).

Concernant les raisons de la demande, je ne sais pas si vous avez lu les deletion guidelines, mais la qualité (du point de vue "artistique") d'une photo ne fait pas partie des raisons qui conduisent à une suppression. C'est en effet quelque chose de très subjectif, et dépend beaucoup du contexte. Par exemple en astronomie, les images produites par la NASA sont certainement de meilleure qualité, mais pour un article consacré à l'astronomie amateur, cette image est une bonne illustration (les effets dus à l'atmosphère, à la durée de pose, etc. sont visibles).

J'en profite aussi pour vous signaler qu'il est préférable de toujours vérifier l'usage des images avant d'en demander la suppression (il y a un lien check usage en haut de chaque page) ; une image utilisée est toujours considérée comme utile sur Commons.

J'ai noté votre adresse email, et je l'ai supprimée de cette page. Toutefois, j'utilise principalement cette page pour communiquer, donc j'espère que vous reviendrez faire un tour par ici de temps en temps -- vous pouvez aussi utiliser le lien watch en haut de la page pour suivre les changements).

Meilleures salutations. --Tryphon (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Re;

J'apprends... par exemple, la différence entre 'usage' et 'what links here'. J'ai vu vos remarques sur d'autres images, merci pour les divers liens.

Je découvre aujourd'hui ce qu'est le SVG! Donc en effet il n'y a plus de raison de supprimer http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blocked_anonymous_per_country.svg, par exemple, d'autant plus que la description est apparue entre-temps. Néanmoins, ce format est bizarre et je ne comprends pas bien ce qu'on peut faire d'une telle image:

- impossible de zoomer dedans avec Firefox; (mais c'est possible dans IE 6: un comble!)

- impossible de l'ouvrir avec une visionneuse telle qu'ACDSee;

- ouvrable dans Illustrator mais dégradée (plus de camembert: dommage!)

- le texte est copiable dans Word mais pas l'image; etc.

D'après ce que j'en ai lu sur la page Wikipédia, il y a justement des problèmes divers de compatibilité, j'ai donc du mal à bien voir la pertinence de convertir tant d'images dans ce format. Mais je ne doute pas qu'il y ait une bonne raison...

Pour les GIF de la classification périodique des éléments, j'ai suivi votre suggestion d'indiquer l'existence d'un SVG équivalent, mais sur un seul (pour vérifier que j'ai bien compris!). Je suppose qu'il doit y avoir un moyen de les convertir tous par lot, mais je ne sais pas comment. Donc je m'abstiens! Et en effet, les GIF sont petits mais facilement utilisables! Je vais me contenter pour ce soir de continuer à rajouter des descriptions aux SVG.

84.97.149.21 23:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Tameko49

I am sorry Tryphon I did not understand what you meant by telling me if I had a free picture that could save lives? You don't find a story of a person who had given up and was a homeless person addicted to drugs then becoming a College Graduate and Recording Artist hope for others to hold on? (Someone who had lost everything even their pride) You do realize there have been several people who have killed not only themselves but their family as well because they just lost their jobs or money. I made it back from nothing. Most of the times I did not even have a pair of shoes. What is with you guys?? This is a chance for you guys to spread hope. What is the point of educating someone if they kill themselves because they don't have hope? Well it doesn't matter I am doing my part to help others. When it is all said and done what really matters in life? Tameko49 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What I meant is that Commons is a project collecting free media files, not stories. If you think your story can inspire people, I'm sure there are plenty of sites where you can post it (like myspace for example), with even greater visibility than Commons. I hope that you understand that it has nothing to do with you personally, but your story is simply out of scope. --Tryphon (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Image finally passed

The flickr owner finally checked his account and changed the license here:

File:Trebula Mutuesca latin scription.jpg It was a long long wait...but at least it was worth it. A quality picture of an ancient Roman inscription.

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for contacting the author, it was definitely worth it. And thanks for notifying me. Best wishes. --Tryphon (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Complicated flickr issues

Dear Sir or Madam? Sorry. Its not easy to have contact with someone in mainland Europe...because you are 9 hours ahead of me in Metro Vancouver, Canada. I would just like to say that the situation with flickr images can be very complicated. Many people on Flickr delete images for various reasons. Some people on Flickr find their images used on Wikipedia and they respond by deleting their images--before it is subject to a formal Flickr review. This is a FlickrLickr image so it was definitely free when first uploaded here:

File:Carlsbad Caverns2.jpg but on the flickr link source, it says the image doesn't exist.

This is one image that was licensed freely.

File:Byzantine temple in Idlib (Ruweiha) Syria.jpg I uploaded it myself. And what does the flickr owner do? He deletes his image and his flickr account. Without flickr review, there would be no proof the image was ever licensed freely and it could have faced deletion

I was checking this large category ('Flickr images not found') and some images have been rightly tagged for deletion like these 2 personal pictures:

But this image may have been on flickr once: File:RMS Queen Mary.jpg It is used extensively on Wikipedia and was only moved here by a bot. It was on Wikipedia long ago in June 2007. No one has filed a DR on it and the image is important. But wait...the image on the flickr source link has also been deleted! What a surprise. Finally, I wish someone had placed a DR on this image rather than just tagged it as 'no permission': File:Sarah Michelle Gellar.jpg I think it may be a flickrvio but the flickr owner who takes 'so so' quality pictures is Saudi and he could have been in Dubai in 2004. More importantly, he licenses his other images freely according to his flickr photostream (I don't know how to place a formal DR for the community to decide) I just wish to stress that some flickr images in the "Flickr images not found" category are not black or white issues. They are grey. If I hadn't uploaded the flickr image of the Byzantine temple properly...with a flickr review rather than moving it from Wikipedia, it too could be deleted.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(It's Sir, by the way). I know that the situation with flickr images is complicated, mainly because the license on flickr cannot always be trusted (flickrwashing). As of images getting deleted from flickr, reviews made by bots help a lot, but even that sometimes fails.
If you think that an image is suspicious, but not clearly enough to use {{Copyvio}}, you should definitely create a DR (use the link Nominate for deletion in the toolbox on the left). Then it can be discussed and the issue will hopefully be resolved. --Tryphon (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

It's my own photo. I took it on December 3rd, 1999. Yes, the date is wrong. :( Please remove the deletion request. Adriano Lombardo (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I will not remove the deletion request because I think it should be discussed first; the right place for this is this page. --Tryphon (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I am ready for this discuss. I hope it will be good for the project. Adriano Lombardo (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Adriano says he didn't use a digital camera before 2008 here I think its better to assume good faith at present. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen your comment on the DR. This is exactly why I didn't tag it for speedy deletion; it gives everyone a chance to discuss the issue. I think you're right, we can assume good faith from the uploader, especially considering the fact that he has plenty of those cathedral images. --Tryphon (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Tryphon. It is always better to assume good faith...unless something is very wrong. By the way, you are vey comfortable with the Commons software codes. I don't have Twinkle and regularly have to contact an Admin to get an image placed on DR or juts deleted for copy vio. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hola

Recibí el aviso de borrado. Pedí al autor del archivo el permiso, pero él se limitó a escribir una respuesta en flickr diciendo que no tenía inconveniente (se encuentra en la misma página donde la fotografía está publicada). No sé si esto era suficiente. De cualquier manera imagino que ya habrá sido borrado porque pasaron más de 7 días y hyo no había entrado a ver mis mensajes desde hacía tiempo. Te agradezco si me orientas un poco sobre esto. Gracias y hasta pronto--eliasjorge4 (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I am here again I already see the file and there is no problem in it. There was a flirck reviewer that accepted the file as good. Bye--eliasjorge4 (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Aaargh! Just great Elias. You uploaded an image with a 'Non-Commercial' restriction and I had to contact the flickr owner (Dan Diffendale) to get him to change the license. Please pay attention to image licenses next time!

Well anyway Tryphon, now that I have let off some steam, I made an edit to this DR. Please feel free to make a comment. I don't know if my post is right or wrong. There are genuine cases where the image uploader is the real author like this image by D. Shankbone: File:Yad Vashem Hall of Names by David Shankbone.jpg Admin Lupo also confirmed the uploader was Shankbone here But in this DR, I don't know the answer. Its the uploader's only image. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Son fotos mías

Hola. Esas consultas de borrado están hechas por un troll que ha sido escpulsado. Esas fotos son todas mías, o sea soy el autor, y se pueden comprobar los metadatos. Por favor le ruego que borre todas las consultas de borrado que se han quitado y no vuelva a ponerlas. Un saludo. Miguel Ángel "fotógrafo" (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Todas esas consultas de borrado fueron puestas por un troll que ha sido bloqueado [1]. Miguel Ángel "fotógrafo" (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. These consultations are made clear by a troll who has been escpulsado. Those photos are all mine, so I am the author, and you can check the metadata. Please ask him to delete all queries that have been cleared off and not put back. Un saludo.

All these queries were made clear by a troll that has been blocked. Miguel Ángel "fotógrafo" (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We have a troll who's been bothering us for a while. Once we've blocked his range in es: he came here to continue. That's why I deleted those requests. I hope now you have a better understanding of the situation. Mea culpa I didn't explain correctly why I deleted them. Alhen .::··¨ 17:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I see, and of course I didn't know that. I looked at the deletion log to find out the reason of the deletion, but didn't find anything about that. Nevertheless, I think you should have (speedily) closed the DRs (instead of deleting them), with a short explanation, so that everyone is aware of the situation, and can refer to the previous DRs if the situation happens again. --Tryphon (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You're completely right. I'll do that next time. Alhen .::··¨ 11:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello,

I want to thank you for your good work on COM:UNDELL. With your reactions I only have to close the request, and that makes my job easy.

best regards, Abigor talk 11:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome, it's not like I do much anyway. I could almost copy-paste the same message over and over again :-) --Tryphon (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Arthroscopic image up for deletion?

The image is mine. It was released to me by my Doctor - Dr. Gregory Engle, the surgeon who preformed my knee surgery - and I scanned it. It is not posted on any website, as I am the patient and sole copyright holder of it. I don't see the problem with me uploading it, as I am the author and I did give specific permission to license it under the GNU General Public License. Please explain exactly what I need to do or clarify because I am quite certain I am not in the wrong here. Thank you! FoodPuma (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I placed the {{No permission}} tag because the author of the pictures is Dr. Gregory Engle, not you, so I thought he (or the hospital) is the copyright holder. But since the image was done for your procedure (which you probably payed for), maybe it can be considered a work for hire... I'm not sure. I will try and find out more, and hopefully give you a more satisfying answer. --Tryphon (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I had talked to my Biology teacher (the one who assigned us this Wikipedia assignment in which I am using my images), and he suggested something to what you just described. I will attempt to describe to you the situation as it is, if it will help at all:

I had surgery on my right knee to treat a lesion of my femoral condyle at Overlake Surgery Center, Bellevue, WA on December 19, 2008. The surgery consisted of the drilling of an autologous osteochondral plug which was then used to repair my defect. This surgery was preformed by Dr. Gregory M Engle, an orthopaedic surgeon. The images in question were obtained during the surgery via an arthroscopic camera that is a part of the drill assembly used during surgery. I, Max Rose - the patient, was given the original films taken during surgery (once surgery was complete and the film developed); no copies exist.

It is my understanding that pictures and/or videos of the surgery preformed are commonly released to the patients and their families during post-surgery consultation and review of the surgery's success. That being said, should Dr. Engle be the copyright holder of the films in question, he has no right to release them as they contain images of a patient - myself - who has not consented to their release, and as such he would be violating HIPAA laws regarding patient privacy. In short, at the very least I, the patient, am the sole decider of who has the right to use this image. I may release the photo rights for the hospital's use on their website, or for a physicians use on his own website or journal, but until I do so it is my property.

If it would make it easier for you to prove that I am releasing the image to Wikipedia, I would be more than willing to write and sign the standard OTRS validation email so that, should someone "come after" Wikipedia for use of the image, you may reference my permission. In all honesty, I don't mean to sound angry but I am a bit perturbed at the "nit-pickiness" here. I am glad there are people like you who keep Wikipedia transparent in it's public copyright policy, but I am quite positive that in this case I am in the right. Thank you for your interest, and please respond with your thoughts when you get a chance. Cheers! FoodPuma (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see that you have sent permission to OTRS, so everything should be fine. In the meantime, I found this image, which is a featured picture on en.wp, and tends to confirm that patients are the copyright holders of this kind of images. Thank you for this contribution, and I'm sorry if you felt like was too picky. But providing precise and verifiable source information is important, and I'm glad that we could sort this out. --Tryphon (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A question to consider

Hi Tryphon,
did or would you ever consider becoming an admin on Commons? --Túrelio (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I did, but I wasn't sure that I would have consistently the time required for such a task, with my PhD starting and all. But as it turns out, I do have the time! And I also feel like I now have a good enough understanding of the workings of Commons (or at least I know where to go to find assistance :) and having admin tools would definitely be helpful for me dealing with DRs.
Anyway, your proposal comes to me as an encouragement, so... should I make an RfA myself or did you plan on doing it? --Tryphon (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Just back after half a day of travel. I'll propose you; so you'll just have to be prepared to say yes or no, and eventually to tolerate some counterfire that happens to come every now and then in an rfa. It will take me probably until sunday or so. Cheers.--Túrelio (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll prepare myself mentally for that, don't worry about me :-) --Tryphon (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

impatient with Túrelio... ;) You're doing a great job here, thank you! Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, I'm blushing! Not exactly the counterfire Túrelio was talking about :-) --Tryphon (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Abigor talk 22:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep some for the actual vote ;-) --Tryphon (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have enough left :P

Support,

Strong support,

Yes offcourse Abigor talk 09:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Btw please accept on Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes#Tryphon`Abigor talk

Thanks for the notice, and for your (real) vote there! --Tryphon (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling

The pictures i uploaded on here are my own pictures of my father when he used to wrestle i uploaded the pictures with my scanner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.200.204 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 2009 February 16 (UTC)

Are you referring to this deletion request? If that's the case, please comment on that page directly. But first note that it's not enough that you are in possession of the pictures: the photographer is the copyright holder. Second, it would help if you could provide a date for these photographs. And finally, this image looks like it's a shot of a framed picture (one can see a red dot reflected in the center); that's one of the things that made me think it was probably a copyright violation.
But I might be wrong, and I would be glad if you could provide just a little more information about these images, and some kind of proof that you are the copyright holder. --Tryphon (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear admin-to-be

Could you please check File:GRIDFLOPS.jpg, it has been requested for speedy deletion. If the reason is that it's superseeded by the file referred to that does not qualify for speedy, but I'm really not very good in French... Thanks in advance, Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your intuition was right, the reason given for speedy deletion is basically that it was superseded by File:GRIDFLOPS.png (so your french is not so bad after all :-) So it definitely shouldn't be speedy deleted. Let me know if you need anything else. --Tryphon (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Merci! (Which is almost the only French word I know) Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. And with six languages in your babel-box, only one word of french? What are the odds... :-) --Tryphon (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Koh Phangan BottleBeach 22.jpg

Hallo, ich habe bemerkt, dass du eine Warnung entfernt hast, die darauf aufmerksam macht, dass die Seite nicht genug Informationen über Quelle des Bildes und/oder nicht genug Informationen über die Lizenz beinhaltet. Es scheint, dass die Information immer noch fehlt und du dennoch die Warnung(en) entfernt hast. Du musst entweder die erforderte Information hinzufügen oder, wenn du denkst, dass die erforderte Information gegeben ist, für das Bild einen Löschantrag stellen, sodass es nicht automatisch gelöscht wird. Vielen Dank!

--Tryphon (Diskussion) 09:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Von „User_talk:Golfer70“

Hallo Tryphon, leider habe ich mich noch nicht ganz in der Wiki-Welt zurecht gefunden. Ich habe alle Bilder auf die gleiche Weise hochgeladen, anscheinend habe ich bei File:Koh Phangan BottleBeach 22.jpg einen Fehler gemacht, finde aber nicht die entsprechende Stelle, um die Lizenz-Thematik zu lösen. Grüße Golfer70

Hi, I'm sorry I have to answer in English, but although I understand German, I'm not really that good at writing it. The problem with this file is that we have no proof that the author, Christian Fernandez Gamio, agreed for it to be published under a free license. If he did agree to that, then he should send permission to OTRS (following these instructions). Thank you. --Tryphon (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tryphon, ok! I´m Christian Fernandez Gamio, you´ll find me on www.fernandez-gamio.de the pictures on Wiki will be there soon, too. is that enough? cheers Golfer70

Yes, it wasn't clear from the image page (I changed it now). If you put the image on your website, you can add a link to in the source field, but make sure that you mention the free license on your website (otherwise people may think that someone just took the image from there without permission). Thank you for your contribution, and for your efforts to clarify this situations. Best wishes. --Tryphon (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

SVG and fonts

Based on a comment you said at a deletion discussion, I was wondering if maybe you had some insight into my question Commons talk:Licensing#SVG and fonts. Thanks!-Andrew c (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

My comment on this DR was based on the content of {{PD-font}}. But I see that Carl Lindberg already gave you a thorough and well referenced answer; trust me, I certainly don't have more insight than he does when it comes to copyright laws :-) I think you're in good hands. --Tryphon (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Félicitations Tryphon/Archive! Tu es maintenant pourvu des droits d'administrateur sur le site. Avant de te lancer dans les effacements de page, protections de page, blocages de compte ou modifications de pages protégées, il n'est pas inutile de relire attentivement la page Commons:Administrateurs et de placer dans ta liste de suivi les pages s'y rapportant (notamment Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, Commons:Demandes de suppression). La plupart des actions d'administrateurs sont réversibles par les autres sysops, à l'exception des fusions d'historiques qui doivent donc être traitées avec précaution.

Il est possible de discuter directement avec d'autres admins sur IRC : #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. Il existe également un canal dédié aux admins de Commons, qui peut être utile pour les sujets sensibles ou la coordination entre administrateurs : #wikimedia-commons-admin.

Tu peux également rejoindre #wikimedia-admin, le canal de coordination inter-wiki pour les administrateurs Wikimedia. Demande à n'importe quel channel operator de t'accorder une dispense d'invitation (alternativement n'importe qui sur le canal peut t'y inviter temporairement). Tous les admins de tous les projets y sont bienvenus.

La lecture de Commons:Guide to adminship peut s'avérer enrichissante.

Merci de vérifier ou d'ajouter ton nom à la liste des administrateurs et les autres listes, par langue et par date, qui y sont mentionnées.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Félicitations & welcome, Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations; sadly I couldn't be the first one ;-) --Túrelio (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support! I will probably perform my first admin actions today, so if you see me doing something wrong, please tell me so. I will be careful, but I'm sure I can benefit from your experience. Thanks again, and I'm looking forward to working with both of you. --Tryphon (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I was away last week and missed the vote, but had I been here I would have supported. Congratulations. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate your support. --Tryphon (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"File:Shaheen-2.jpg"

Hi, I noticed that you deleted the "File:Shaheen-2.jpg" on 23rd Feb 2009, reason (Unused unfree copyrighted image. (WP:CSD#I5)). This file also got deleted from english wikipedia. Now, I know that commons copyright rules are rather strict and this file may or may not be legal here on commons but why did it get deleted from the local english wikipedia as well? I am the original uploader of this image and I uploaded this image on english wikipedia somewhere in 2007. Another user then recently uploaded this image on commons, probably without proper explanation, source info and tags. The image got deleted and it has got deleted from english wikipedia as well. Can you please explain how to prevent images from being uploaded to the commons and how to prevent their local copies from being deleted if/when they get deleted from the commons. This image has been on english wikipedia without raising any flags for 2 years and has had no copyright issues. Thanks. Raza0007 (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not an admin on en.wp, so I cannot say what happened there. However, it seems to me that it would not be acceptable on en.wp either, because the only difference regarding licenses is that they accept fair use and we don't; and I don't think this image would qualify as fair use either.
So in my opinion, this image is non-free and can neither be uploaded on Commons nor on en.wp. --Tryphon (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

adding "author and source" to picture files & categories for pictures

Hello Tryphon,

I'm trying to add the necessary info, but cannot figure out where and how to write the code for this -- can you help me? Thank you.

Westhollywood Westhollywood (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You should edit each image and add the relevant information inside the {{Information}} template (the author, source and date fields) with the name of the photographer, the origin of the photograph and the date when it was taken. For example:

{{Information
|Description={{en|1=Description of the image.}}
|Source=Origin of the picture
|Author=Name of the photographer (not just the uploader)
|Date=When the picture was taken (not uploaded)
|Permission=
|other_versions=
}}

Also note that if the author is still alive (or died less than 70 years ago), you need to get permission for the images. I hope this helps, don't hesitate to ask if you need more help (or if I didn't answer your question at all). --Tryphon (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- I think I got it right -- thanks for your help.Westhollywood (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's much better. But now, as I said above, we need proof that the author (Nathan Goller) released these images under a free license. If you have obtained permission from him, please send it to OTRS; otherwise, the images will have to be deleted, because they would not be free. --Tryphon (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello -- Nathan Goller is the owner of the company and he provided the photos for me to use. Should I email a letter of permission from him to OTRS?216.31.174.18 23:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes exactly. --Tryphon (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Another question: one of the photos appeared in 1978 in People magazine -- is that now public domain after 36 years? How do I write this in the information template? Thank you. 216.31.174.18 20:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late answer, I didn't see your message and received the notification email today. Anyway, the answer is no; in general, images fall into the public domain 70 years after the death of the author (there are some special rules depending on the country, but that's the rule that applies most of the time). --Tryphon (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sweden-lesser-coa.png

Thank you for your quick undeletion. Could you also undelete File:Sweden-lesser-coa.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well as I was saying on the undeletion page, it is quite possible that the raster image in the center is a copyvio (the whole point of the other undeletion is that the vectorization was done by the user, but here we don't know). But the SVG file is certainly OK, and is a perfect replacement, so I think we don't really lose anything. If you really want it undeleted, I think a separate request is in order. Thank you. --Tryphon (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about different things. I am asking for the undeletion of the png that was the subject of Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sweden-lesser-coa.png because it was "distortet". That complaint indicates that it was an origibal drawing. About the flag I do not know, because I cannot see it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about the same file as on the undeletion request page. I have undeleted this one, because the designated source which lead to deletion is clearly not identical. Looks like the same confusion (copyrighted drawing vs. free design) lead to the deletion of this one. Thank you for pointing it out. --Tryphon (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Dr House.png

How can a image which is an exact copy (minus the MD) of a trademarked image be in the public domain ? That is like saying the McDonalds golden arch is in the PD . EN-Wiki User:Gnevin

Trademark and copyright are two different things. Some designs are too simple to be eligible for copyright (in this case, imagine if you couldn't write the word house because it would violate the copyright of this logo). It doesn't mean that it is not protected at all (you cannot start a TV show called House and use this logo for example), but it's a matter of trademark, not copyright. --Tryphon (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

So i can create a yellow M like [2] and start plastering around wiki ? I don't think so 86.42.122.160 14:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can. --Tryphon (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting . Copyright law or in this case not coptrighr law is confusing as hell, sorry for speedy templates .

No problem, I know it's confusing at first. By the way, you might be interested at looking at some examples in Category:PD ineligible. You will see that File:24logo.jpg, File:Microsoft Windows Vista wordmark.svg, File:IBM logo.svg, ... are all ineligible for copyright. --Tryphon (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Copertine.jpg

Hi!

This is the first time I try to upload some immages on Commons. I upload 4 immages on two differents pages but two of them were deleted and I really don't understand why. Could you please explain me why they were deleted and what can I do to upload them again. The two immages you cancelled are the historic front page of the italian review, I took them from the newspaper's database, I scan them and I have the right to reproduce them. I would like to use them to make two wikipedia pages, that I create, more usefull. Thanks a lot for your help. --Claudio Riccardo Paolo (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you are not the copyright holder of theses images; the newspaper agency is. So unless you get written permission from them that you can use these images for any purpose (that is, if they choose a free license for these images), you cannot upload them on Commons. You should read COM:DW and COM:L for more details. I'll have to delete File:Copertine.jpg for the same reason. Sorry. --Tryphon (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:Pinball by kou07kou.png

Bonjour Tryphon

Je suis un peu surpris par le message sur la suppression de mon fichier Pinball by kou07kou.png. J'aimerais connaître les justifications de cette usurpation de droit sur le copyright, c'est une image très partielle d'un haut de flipper qui est ma propriété et de plus si je me suis bien renseigné l'entreprise qui le produisait dans les années 70 a fermé ses portes.

Merci pour tes lumières sur ce sujet

kou07kou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.239.60.132 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2009 March 1 (UTC)

La raison est que le graphisme représenté sur le flipper est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur, pendant 70 ans après la mort de l'auteur. Donc même si l'entreprise a fermé ses portes et si vous êtes le propriétaire du flipper, vous n'êtes pas le détenteur des droits. Un peu comme quand on achète un DVD: on a le droit de le regarder, mais on ne peut pas réutiliser les images tirées du film. Vous pouvez lire COM:DW pour plus de détails. --Tryphon (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Coat of Arms File:Escudolospalacios.png

Sorry for the trouble caused... I'm a novice in Commons using, and now I understand I was "flying blind and taking shots in the dark"... I swear I didn't want to cause problems. Thanks for your helping and comprehension... Tirithel (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC) P.S.: Sorry for my poor English.

Well, you've been on Commons longer than I have :-) But anyway, no trouble at all. Best wishes. --Tryphon (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

:D Well, I've been here but (usually) I didn't use it ;)... that is like not to be.... (to be but not to be... that's the situation... XDD ) Thanks for your good disposition and tolerance to my incompetence. Best wishes to you too! --Tirithel (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Canadalogo.svg

I'm sorry for striking out your vote earlier. It wasn't meant to offend you. I acted precipitously. --Phil13 (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's okay, and I see you have reverted it now, so no harm done! I appreciate you leaving me this note, thank you. --Tryphon (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

VOA

Please take a look at Category:PD VOA and {{PD-USGov-VOA}} From their terms of Use.

"All text, audio and video material produced exclusively by the Voice of America is public domain. However, some images and graphics are licensed for use and covered by all applicable copyright laws. See below for Specific Restrictions.

Associated Press: VOA has a license from Associated Press to use AP photos and graphics. All AP material is copyrighted and the property of Associated Press, and may not be copied, published or redistributed without the written permission of Associated Press. Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. AP will not be held liable in any way to the User or to any third party or to any other person who may receive information in the Service or to any other person whatsoever, for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing or occasioned thereby."

Seriously, you're an administrator.

It took me two minutes to look up this information. Why did you just nominate a random VOA file for deletion, without doing research, instead of looking at the PD info pages for the US government HERE ON Commons which would tell you this, or posting a question someplace public on commons where people are likely to read it, etc.? If I hadn't checked this, it is quite likely that this file -- which is used in at least one en.wikipedia article -- would be deleted, since only invovled parties tend to read deletion requests. Must someone who uploads free images police every image uploaded here so that they are not constantly removed out of ignorance?

This does not speak well to maintaining a free image library here at the commons, as the cumulative effect will be a constant removal of free images. Please try and be careful with things like this in the future. T L Miles (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you saved the day. After being crushed by your huge amount of knowledge, the little worm of ignorance that I am had to surrender and keep this image. So much for my evil plan of deleting every free image on Commons.
Come on, chill out. I was just asking for opinions on a DR, and trust me, there are plenty of very reasonable and knowledgeable people reading those. --Tryphon (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you're offended, but why exactly choose a deletion request as a forum for "just asking for opinions"? Were you not intending to delete the file? Frankly, I've seen enough well supported free images disappear here just like this, to be concerned when an Administrator puts an image up for deletion for no reason. I don't think it's too much to ask for people with administrative powers here to use tools appropriately (i.e. prod things only if you really think there's a reason to). I also don't think it's too much to ask you to look at the Commons guide to PD sources. There's that old thing about Reading the Manual. Again: you're an administrator. This doesn't seem unreasonable to expect you to do.

Note, I don't make any claim as to the "quality" of who reads deletion requests: just that it is not the appropriate place to ask a a general question. It's the appropriate place to delete something.

That I need to get my head bitten off for pointing that out to you concerns me even more. T L Miles (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not offended, I just think that a simple "Hi, I found out that VOA images actually are in the public domain, see {{PD-USGov-VOA}}" would have achieved the same result, but in a much nicer way. It's not like I had already deleted the picture or failed to notify the uploader; I just opened the DR, and now it's closed. Why is it such a big deal? You seem to think that DRs result in files getting deleted all the time: that's not the case. I can assure you that I don't delete images just like that, without a serious reason to do so.
I don't know what you want me to say. I don't think I did anything wrong. You keep repeating that I'm an admin, but that doesn't mean I should know everything; it just means that I have some extra tools, and that I should use them wisely. In this case, I did not even use them.
As a side note, if you notice free images disappearing, you can request undeletion at COM:UNDEL. --Tryphon (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

about File:Canadalogo.svg

This file is a copyright violation because Official symbols of the Government of Canada, including the "Canada" wordmark, Arms of Canada, and flag symbol, may not be reproduced, whether for commercial or non-commercial purposes, without written authorization. see http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/notices-avis-eng.htm --shizhao (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what we were discussing on the DR page, and I was arguing that this image is not even eligible for copyright (and anyone, including the canadian government, can claim copyright on something, that doesn't make it true). So again, I ask you to restore because I don't think we had enough time to reach consensus, it is not a clear-cut issue. Thank you. --Tryphon (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Updating old dated image in wikipedia

The newer high resolution image http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Central-african-republic_hi_res_ds.png should replace the older image of the central african republic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Central_African_Republic.png I have no idea how to do this, I don't have enough experience with editing in wikipedia. Can someone please help?Sangonet (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you have your answer already. --Tryphon (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Important and remarkable Albanians.jpg

Can you please show me exactly how can I add the source info in this image File:Important and remarkable Albanians.jpg. It is my work but it shows the "no source" icon in its page...

What you have to do is provide the source of the individual images that compose the whole image. I'm sure you created the image yourself, but I guess that you didn't take every picture yourself. The complete image can only be free if each image you used is also free; that's why you need to provide source information. --Tryphon (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

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

Hello, Tryphon/Archive!

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

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

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

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

BotMultichillT 06:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:Mickdeth.jpg is uncategorized since 9 February 2009. BotMultichillT 06:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Image:Logosysun.png is uncategorized since 18 February 2009. BotMultichillT 06:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Image:Penzanews.png is uncategorized since 5 March 2009. BotMultichillT 06:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Dutch soldier in Afghanistan 1.jpg

File:Dutch soldier in Afghanistan 1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

--Multichill (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

undelete

Hi, can you undelete File:Mark-shuttleworth-iss-thinkpad-big.jpg ? I'm sure I can find the proper source for that file in no time. TheDJ (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, thank you for offering to do the research; I had a quick look at the NASA website but didn't find it. I hope you are better at it than me! --Tryphon (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Dwór_w_Łososinie_Górnej.JPG

There is no licence violation with the Dwór_w_Łososinie_Górnej.JPG file It's me who is the owner of a copyright to this file. I bought the picture on the auction and therefore I have all right for copy or distribute this file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fascynat (talk • contribs) 22:45, 2009 March 6 (UTC)

It is a copyright violation because you are not the author of the picture. Even if you bought it, it doesn't give you the right to release it under a free license. Just like when you buy a CD, it doesn't give you the right to sell copies of it. --Tryphon (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Continuing discussion from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Firefox LiNsta.png...

You wrote: To answer your question anyway, only the official software distributed by Mozilla is entitled to the official logo; -- yes, the problem is that en:Mozilla Firefox still claims that Firefox is free (as in "freedom") software -- but that's another issue, I guess. OK, so I know that, and for this reason I'll change the logo.

even if you change a couple of lines in the source code, then you cannot use the firefox name and logo anymore. - in scenario outlined earlier I said that I want to change only few settings (preferences, or "prefs" in Mozilla slang), ie. the changes that are available to the user either through GUI or about:config page. Nothing more. So it is still original Firefox, but with just few settings changed. It is crazy, but Mozilla requires change of the logo/name (at least I heard so) even in such case.

Contributors don't do that, they send the changes upstream and they are either accepted or rejected from the official software. -- yes, I know that too. And this is exactly what I was thinking about -- let's say one/more of my patches had been accepted - but not all (let's say -- the most crucial ones are not accepted) and for this reason I want to repackage Firefox and distribute it. (So, technically, I am one of the contributor to the FF source code -- of course not because I want to distribute changed version, but because some of my patches had been accepted earlier to the main source tree.)

The questions remain: am I allowed to do so? Did I have to change the logo/name? If - yes: can I use File:Firefox LiNsta.png? If - not: why not? After all -- it would be the same browser, with just few settings changed. And a license description of File:Firefox LiNsta.png says that it is distributed under the terms of the free license - namely, GPLv2 or later. Why can't I use it freely then?

Anyway, feel free to ignore this message if you don't want to talk about this anymore. I wanted to put few matters straight, though... BartłomiejB (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Good, it's much better to talk about this here. You can distribute your modified version, but you cannot use the firefox name or logo, because your version, even if almost identical to the original one, has not been approved by the Mozilla Foundation; therefore, they do not want their name and trademark associated with it (they have no way of knowing what you did; there could be a serious bug or security issue). If you change the logo, you probably cannot use File:Firefox LiNsta.png, because it might confuse users (it represents a fire fox, yet your browser is called.. what, fox-on-fire?) It would be misleading. But this restriction has nothing to do with the license of File:Firefox LiNsta.png, it is about trademark (see {{Trademark}}).
To take another example, the Coca-Cola logo is in the public domain, which means you can use freely. But trademark restrictions still apply, and forbid you to sell soda using this logo. Same thing. --Tryphon (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I see. OK, so it seems that "free" doesn't mean "free" at all in some cases... Oh well.

(...) has not been approved by the Mozilla Foundation -- Firefox is a product of Mozilla Corporation. It is a normal company (well, with the notable exception that they rely heavily on an unpaid work by volunteers, tempted by slogans about "free software", "being good for the Web", "community", "non-profit Foundation", "transparency" etc....).

therefore, they do not want their name and trademark associated with it (they have no way of knowing what you did; there could be a serious bug or security issue) -- OK, let's say that I document meticulously all the changes. Does that change anything?

There could be also another reasons (actually, perhaps even more important than "security issues") -- for example, changing default homepage or search engine probably wouldn't be accepted, because Mozilla has some contracts with eg. Google (and now also Yandex...). I suppose that this is a real reason why they want to aggresively protect their trademark... BartłomiejB (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW -- if File:Firefox LiNsta.png survives, then I guess template {{Trademark}} should be added to it, right? BartłomiejB (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Another question, because some things are still not clear to me: Commons:Scope says:

==== Required licensing terms ====

To be considered freely licensed, the copyright owner has to release the file under an irrevocable licence which:

Permits free reuse for any purpose (including commercial)
Permits the creation of derivative works

Permits free reuse for any purpose (including commercial) - it doesn't say "... including commercial, but not if you want to use logo of Coca-Cola and sell beverages" or "... for any purpose, but not if you want to use logo similar to the logo of Firefox and distribute firefox-based browser" etc. So, I think that either rules of commons are unclear or they are used inconsistently. BartłomiejB (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There is always some kind of restriction (laws of your country, trademark, ...) but the important thing is that the copyright holder doesn't impose these restrictions himself. The flag of the United States is free, but if you burn it or wipe your ass with it, you'll get in trouble anyway (at least in the U.S. you will). --Tryphon (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, but you didn't answer my question: should template {{Trademark}} be added to File:Firefox LiNsta.png? BartłomiejB (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that template shouldn't be needed on this image, because this image doesn't represent any trademark (it is not related to Mozilla whatsoever). We could add a warning or a link to Mozilla's guidelines about logo usage, but even that shouldn't be necessary. The whole situation we were talking about is very hypothetical anyway. --Tryphon (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

DR

Hey,

Could you be as nice and take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Falco amurensis.jpg as well? It would clean up the pending-backlog. Thanks, Ciell (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks for notifying me. Feel free to leave me a note here if you find more of those OTRS-pending-since-forever files. There's not much to do about it but delete, so I don't think you need to go through a DR each time. --Tryphon (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

File:GardarThorCortes-KatherineJenkins-bw.jpg (and the derivative File:KatherineJenkins-bw.jpg) where on a different ticket (looking at the dates this was #2007080210000094) first, but tagged by the uploader together with the other ones, so have the same problem. Ciell (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. --Tryphon (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not sure this is the way we should go on and handle all those tickets: please see the reply on my talkpage for further explanation. Ciell (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Closing DR

Hai Tryphon,

I've got three old DR's that in my opinion can be closed. Could you look into

Thanks! Ciell (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I had some spare time and I did handle those three. I hope both of you don't mind. Abigor talk 12:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Thanks. --Tryphon (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No, sure, thanks! Got two more for you: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Acid Drinkers band 2.jpg andCommons:Deletion requests/File:Acid Drinkers band 3.jpg. Ciell (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, keep 'em coming :) --Tryphon (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I most probably will ;-). Ciell (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Dali image

You might like to comment here, as you previously commented on this issue. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I left a comment there, thanks for notifying me. --Tryphon (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Image

Would this be the kind of image that should be deleted...one that failed review within 2 months of upload: [3] (rather than say 6 or more months)? Its only used on 1 Commons image and the license says 'all rights reserved.' --Leoboudv (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, like any file that fails flickr review. I will still wait the usual week before closing the DR, just in case we get a reaction from the uploader. By the way, the usage of a file doesn't come into play when we're dealing with copyright issue; of course it's annoying having to delete a file that is in use, but we don't have a choice. Thanks for reporting all those forgotten files. –Tryphon ^☂ 10:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

File Tagging File:Dalai Lama and Bishop Tutu. Carey Linde.jpg

Dear Tryphon: if you will look down the page on this file you will see copies of correspondence I have had with Carey Linde who originally took this photo regarding its use. I have already emailed these messages through previously. Why is there a need to repeat this exercise again? Sincerely, John E. Hill (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that, but these emails should have been sent to OTRS, so that they create a ticket for this image and apply the {{OTRS}} template to it. When you say you already went through this, do you mean you already sent the emails to OTRS? If that's the case, I will ask someone to look into it; otherwise, you should send these mails now. Also, I don't see where Carey Linde chose a specific license, and it is unclear if he realized that it would allow commercial use (not just use on wikipedia). I hope this can be clarified. Thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 12:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! Yes, I am sure I sent these letters to OTRS already but, unfortunately, I have wiped my of old mail files from last year so I have no proof. I will resend the correspondences I have had from Carey of which I still have copies to OTRS now (as well as posting them here) and then maybe you can let me know if I still need to contact him again. I hate to keep bothering him as I know he is very busy with his legal practice and family. Anyway, will do so if necessary. Sincerely, John E. Hill (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are the relevant emails which I still have copies of (will now send them to OTRS as well (they are arrange in reverse time order - most recent first):

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Carey Linde 
To: John Hill 
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 9:37 AM
Subject: RE: 

Hi John,

I do authorize you to post my photos in Wikipedia. I like your first suggested
option.

Best top Jo.

Ciao,

Carey
Law Offices of Carey Linde 
605 - 1080 Howe Street 
Vancouver Canada 
V6Z 2T1 
Tel: 604 - 684 -7794 
Fax:604 - 682-1243 
http://www.divorce-for-men.com 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Hill [mailto:wynhill@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 6:43 PM
To: Carey Linde
Subject: Re: 

Hi Carey:

Thanks so much for that. 

Sorry to bother you - but I will have to ask you for an email authorising me to
post your photos. I suggest using the "Attribution ShareAlike 3.0" licensing
option which means I can insist that, if the image is copied, it is still
attributed to you (and I think it would be good to keep your name with the
images).

Have a look at the various licensing options at:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing and let me know what you
think. If you are happy with one of these options please write me a brief note
authorising me to use your images under that form of license.

And, yes, as soon as I can find time I will replace the image of H.H. and
Bishop Tutu with the better one.

I deep into reformatting my book which I have decided to publish myself
(through BookSurge - a big company owned by Amazon.com) as I got fed up with
delays from the publishers for Binghampton University and I decided anyway I
want more control over my own work. It is a big job - but I hope to have the
opus in print early next year (if the company doesn't collapse in the
meantime).

Hope you and yours are well and happy. 

All my very best wishes all of you,

John
.........................................
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Carey Linde 
To: John Hill 
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 8:07 AM
Subject: RE: 

Please, be my guest. The shot of HHDL and Tutu you put up on the Wikipedia site
I think is the poor shot.l The one om site is better. Check to see if you can
see the arm og the chair – right – that Tutu is sitting in.

Thanks so much John.

Enjoy,

Carey
Law Offices of Carey Linde 
605 - 1080 Howe Street 
Vancouver Canada 
V6Z 2T1 
Tel: 604 - 684 -7794 
Fax:604 - 682-1243 
http://www.divorce-for-men.com 
............................................

Hope this will do - but, if not, please let me know, John E. Hill (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've asked someone from the OTRS team to look into it. I will keep you posted here. Thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 12:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This image

This image File:Sumer statues.jpg is copyrighted. It says so in the image itself. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 06:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank You from Vancouver, Canada --Leoboudv (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Image:Georges_Dufrénoy_Vue_de_Lyon.jpg

Bonjour, c'est avec surprise que j'ai vu que vous aviez retiré l'image cité en référence. Pouvez-vous m'en donner les raisons je suis en effet, le détenteur du droit moral de cet artiste en tant que descendant en ligne direct. Merci pour vos explications à venir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonerfud (talk • contribs) 16:30, 2009 March 13 (UTC)

Vous n'avez donné aucune indication dans ce sens sur la page de l'image, j'ai donc supprimé l'image parce qu'elle est protégée pendant 70 ans après la mort de l'auteur. Si vous êtes l'héritier des droits, vous devriez envoyer un mail à l'OTRS pour donner l'autorisation d'utiliser l'image. Merci d'avance. –Tryphon ^☂ 17:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

File:MarsLander.JPG

Kept? For what purpose? The original uploader admitted uploading the wrong resolution and the new file that supersedes it is is exactly the same except for the original uploader changing the orientation of the image. Can you give me a situation where this duplicate file would be useful? I can't think of one. Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is not the most useful image, but we usually don't delete images just because of bad quality. The {{Superseded}} tag informs potential re-users that a better version is available, so it shouldn't be a problem. So without strong support for deletion (and especially not the uploader's support) I decided to keep it. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, good to know. Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Noteworthy image

File:Medevac mission, Balad Air Base, Iraq.jpg

This is another of those flickr images which have now been deleted. What a surprise! (I had uploaded a few too by this flickr account, J. Gordon, before he deleted his account) Its a rare and important image that you don't often see on Commons but the image description is incredibly long. This must set a new record. In my opinion, most of the flickr images where the image has been deleted were licensed freely at one time. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, this one has been reviewed before it got deleted from flickr. Regarding the description... you're right, it's impressive. If I get the time, I will try and shorten it quite a bit. No one will read the whole thing anyway. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The author seemed to be more concerned with the C-17 program than the actual medevac operation. You know, this is the kind of photos Pres. Bush would have banned if he had his way--casualties from Iraq. I did nominate a single image from the images not found category for deletion...over copyright issues. The rest of the images here (296) really have had the images deleted. I have examined them many times and some are from the same author. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Dali

The image in question got the okay from the WMF GC. It should be restored and the discussion should stay on the page until someone finally recognizes that the image actually is DM per that opinion. Evrik (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Mike Godwin's opinion doesn't overrule our policy (but you know that, it has been said in the undeletion request already). Your attitude is unacceptable. Re-opening an undeletion request multiple times when you have been told not to do so is simply disruptive and borders to vandalism. You are the only person who thinks this image is okay, there is a clear consensus to the contrary, and your current attitude does not serve your purpose at all. It will only earn you a block. –Tryphon ^☂ 18:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The policy is not in question. The policy is fine. I am not the only person who thought the image was okay, saying so distorts the truth. In fact, the image is okay. Why is it that so many of the admins dislike admitting when that the way the policies have been applied may be wrong? I have asked for someone not already involved in this discussion to comment, I posted that here: Set of neutral eyes. Evrik (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Did I handle it right

Dear Tryphon, I have discovered that these 2 images below were actually taken by Sgt Scott Reed of the USAF from the attached metadata below:

J. Gordon seems to have 'moved' his flickr account to a new account here: http://www.flickr.com/people/31910792@N05/ ; he is a US Army Corps of Engineers. So, the 2 photos above were taken by Scott Reed in his capacity as a USAF officer. Did what I do by attaching a PD-USGov-Military-Air Force tag seem right to you or can a Commons photo have only 1 license tag. (ie. no 'cc by 2.0' license) I'm a bit confused here. Since Gordon and Reed are members of the US military, I assume they worked together which would explain why Reed's 2 important images were derived from Gordon's flickr account. Reed's images are certainly from his capacity as a USAF officer given the context of the photos.

BTW, if the images can be kept as I assume, the narrative must one day be edited. Its almost 'cruel and unusual punishment' to read it. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I think you did the right thing. Keeping the cc-by license doesn't make much sense, because PD is more permissive on every point (unlike having to chose between GFDL and cc-by-sa) but it doesn't hurt either. That way, people get a hint that although the image is PD, its author would like to get attribution. So it's fine, thanks for taking the time to do this. As of the description, you're absolutely right, but editing it means reading it first, and I didn't have the guts to inflict this cruel and unusual punishment on myself yet :-) –Tryphon ^☂ 11:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

OK Thanks. I have left the cc by 2.0 license in the photos though since I am uncertain how I would handle it. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Urban's images from 2005/2006

I was "wading through" the piles of images which failed flickr review and I notice some of them (perhaps 20) were uploaded by Urban. I believe this user's images from 2005 and early 2006 here--before flickr review existed--cannot be used on Commons. I had this eight images (ALL uploaded by Urban) from Ms Harrsch's flickr account passed on an acceptable flickr license here I then asked the flickr owner (Ms Harrsch) if she ever licensed her images without a Non-Commercial restriction and she told me, she did not! Her automatic flickr settings were 'Non-Commercial ShareAlike Creative Commons.' She only relicensed these images for use freely on Commons because they are lower resolution images of her originals and she knows me. I had asked her before for a few photos by her like this File:Emperor Traianus Decius (Mary Harrsch).jpg and File:Bust of Constantius II (Mary Harrsch).jpg .

So, the problem is Urban likely uploaded some images in 2005/early 2006 which had unfree (Non-Commercial or No-Derivatives) Creative-Commons licenses without the flickr owner's permission and they sit used on Wikimedia Commons because the formal flickr review was only carried out maybe 4-6 months or more than a year later after the date of upload. Do you have any proposals to solve this problem...or should I let sleeping dogs lie and ignore it? I don't dare contact the flickr owners because they will be mad if they saw their photos used without their permission. (it was different with Harrsch because she knows me) What should I do? Should I give you a list of Urban's images from 2005/2006 which failed flickr review and place it on your talkpage and let you tag them as 'no permission since'? Personally, I think they should be deleted but many of them are heavily used on wiki today...which is still no excuse. Personally, I think Urban was just confused by the cc license issue in 2005 because I notice most of his images to Commons are of the highest quality and have the correct license. Anyway, its a small list--maybe only 15 to 20 but it is still a problem. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Georges Dufrénoy Vue de Lyon.jpg

Désolé d'avoir annulé votre modification sur cette image, je n'avais pas réalisé que vous étiez membre de l'équipe OTRS. J'étais de toute façon sur le point de supprimer cette image, parce que l'uploader avait fait une demande de restauration, et au lieu d'attendre que la situation soit résolue, il a ré-uploadé le fichier sans rien dire à personne. Donc à supprimer sans hésitation dans une semaine. –Tryphon ^☂ 17:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Pas de problème : c'était pas très compliqué de reprendre le modèle No permission qui est ici plus approprié ;)

En règle générale, c'est pas nécessaire de remettre le bandeau {{OTRS pending}} (à part si l'uploader indique clairement avoir envoyé un courriel) : au pire, un membre de l'équipe OTRS restaurera l'image si une permission valide est envoyée.

Bonne continuation.--Bapti ✉ 17:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, merci. J'en tiendrai compte la prochaine fois. –Tryphon ^☂ 18:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Fennec1.jpg

Please, inform yourself before removing images. The Mozilla Fennec logo is under GPL, LGPL and MPL licenses, since not present on this page. Frór (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the logo is not a registered trademark doesn't mean it is not copyrighted. Please have a look at the links given in the DR, which all imply that the logo is not free. Also note that you shouldn't edit closed DRs; if you want to request undeletion, you can do so on this page. –Tryphon ^☂ 16:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Shopping logo

Well, I don't think so. The emblem of the bag and the tick IMHO it isn't PD text logo, and it can be copyrighted. Isn't it? Redards Rastrojo _(D•ES) 22:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Logo Assistance

Hi, Tryphon. Could you instruct on me on the appropriate tags for uploading a logo for a company/organization/website that's fair use. I have had difficulty thus far. Take for example, en:TMZ.com or en:Kayak.com or en:The Superficial. I was modeling my tags/info after the logo on en:Techcrunch. Thanks SOOO much. Tried reading through the Wikimedia notes, but not having much luck. BigBrightStars (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use is not allowed on Commons, so most logos cannot be uploaded here (you can, however, upload them locally on en.wp). The only logos we accept are those which are ineligible for copyright because they consist only of text and simple geometric shapes (in which case you would use {{PD-textlogo}} as a license). In my opinion, all the logos you mentioned meet this criteria, so you can upload them on Commons using {{PD-textlogo}} instead of {{Fair use}}. I hope that helps. –Tryphon ^☂ 18:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Rename request

Can you place a rename request for this image from File:Cherries on branch.jpg to Crabapples on branch.jpg ? It is not in use anywhere on Wikipedia. Thank You,

PS: it is strange that a Deletion page for March 19 has not yet been created.

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. BTW, are you talking about Commons:Deletion requests/2009/03/19? Or am I missing something? –Tryphon ^☂ 10:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my browser did not show this web page. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Pd Urban

Can you fix the licene for this image? I have tried with the 'show preview' method and failed.

File:Olympicparkloc.jpg

It should be pd-Urban since Urban created it but I don't know how to do it. The image is heavily used on Wikipedia. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, I'm not sure about that, it's not clear if the uploader is also the author or if he just transfered the file from wikipedia. If the uploader is the author, then you should use {{PD-self}} or {{PD-user}}. If the author is someone on en.wp, then the correct template is {{PD-user-en}}. But if you don't know, you shouldn't change anything. –Tryphon ^☂ 07:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Template:Cc-by-sa-all

You may can/want to add some additional response.
--D-Kuru (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a comment there, thanks for the notice. I missed your answer there and completely forgot to check for any follow up. –Tryphon ^☂ 07:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Defamatory political cartoons

It's been ten days, has attracted numerous comments, and is essentially unanimous. Even the category creator says he doesn't mind. Want to close it? --GRuban (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 21:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Adriano Lombardo

Hi Tryphon, I've proceeded to block this user since he's a sockpuppet of another already blocked user Rembrandt Van Rijn, which was the reincarnation of another blocked user, Duque de uceda, which.... To sum up, this is yet another sockpuppet of a disruptive troll of the Spanish wikipedia. According to the data we gathered, the user is a minor and does not live in Zaragoza. Furthermore, he's a compulsive liar. Considering that some of their uploads are clearly copyvios (see File:Frescos del Pilar.jpg or File:Plano de las capillas y frescos del Pilar.jpg), as many others, I cannot see any reason to think the pictures he uploads are scans of their own pictures (something unbelievable since he was just a child when he allegedly requested an official permission to take pictures inside the cathedral) and therefore I'll proceed to delete all of them. It's a pity, but this user has proven to be a pain in the neck not only in the Spanish wikipedia but also here. Best regards --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 10:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I thought that some of his contributions were fishy, I just couldn't put my finger on it. But in light of this compelling evidence, there is of course no doubt anymore. Regards. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This DR

Have you noticed this DR by me on this old 1940 image: [4] ? I gave many reasons why it shouldn't be used on Commons. The most important reason is it is clearly a derivative (a scan or picture of the photo), and we have no idea when the original photographer of the photo died. So-pd old doesn't apply here. Since its flickr status can't be verified either, will you consider my statements here. It seems to fail Commons policies on many grounds. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Closed it, thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 20:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That image is quite different from the other DRs I filed. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As an Aside, Tryphon what do you with these 2 cases where the image was not found on the flickr link within only hours of upload? See this DR and this DR

Do you wait another week to ten days? It seems to me they are most likely copyvios. When its only a few hours after upload and the picture is already gone, how can one establish if that image was truly on that link? --Leoboudv (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Usually, DRs are not closed earlier than a week unless there is clear evidence that the image is a copyvio (like a link to a non-free source); in the case of deleted flickr images, I wouldn't call it evidence, but just a clue. The uploader could be able to clarify the situation (in some cases, he/she is the same person as the flickr user), or maybe the link was just wrong, etc. But if nothing new comes up after a week, I would delete without hesitation (the first one you mentioned was already closed, and I just closed the second one). Thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying Common's policies here. I thought there was a DR backlog because there are very few Admins here compared to Wikipedia...where many people want to be an Admin. There seems to be a backlog for everything including uncategorised pictures...but of course you don't need an Admin to do that. I have done a bit of that work. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, we have backlogs in many areas. I'm currently trying to reduce the DR backlog, but it's a tedious task; we lack admins but also users who can comment on DRs and provide useful information that make the closing easier. As for the uncategorized images, too many people fail to select categories when they upload a file (I'm guessing they're in a hurry to put an image on their article and don't think about people who might want to use their image too). Anyway, I know you're working hard to reduce those backlogs, so thank you for that. –Tryphon ^☂ 12:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wcing yews.gif

then there are many fair use used on commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sistemx (talk • contribs) 15:33, 2009 March 26 (UTC)

Well there shouldn't be (see COM:L), and if you find some, you should nominate them for deletion. Thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 17:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

US FOP

Is there FOP for this statue: File:Ronald Reagan statue.jpg

I thought US FOP only applies to buildings...but the uploader is an Admin on wikipedia. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, there is no FOP for statues in the US, so this image is a copyvio. Admins don't know everything, and make mistakes... –Tryphon ^☂ 12:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. It would be nice if there was FOP in the US for sculptures and statues. A pity. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Still better than France, where there is no FOP for nothing... –Tryphon ^☂ 20:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A probable copy vio

Tryphon, Did I handle this case correctly ?

I tagged it as 'no permission since' but now I see there is good evidence it is a copy vio. Perhaps I should file a formal DR here but my note on the second message on the uploader's talk page tells me it is 99% a copy vio. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it is a copyvio, as you can see on the BBC news website; this image is attributed to Associated Press. Do you know about Tineye? That's how I found the link, and there is a gadget in your preferences that adds a link to your tabs and allows you to easily search for images. Very useful to track copyvios.
So given the information you had, I'd say you handled it correctly; I almost never use {{Copyvio}} unless I was able to find the source. Once again, thanks for your hard work. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tryphon. It was a very suspicious image. Someone found a way to place a copy vio this way. I'll try to place tineye on my preferences. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible copy vio

Is the first image a copy vio here:

File:ZONA SUR LA PAZ.jpg

The uploader's name and the author's name don't match. The source is a web site apparently.

In contrast in this second image, the uploader and author's name matches: File:Torres soffer.jpg What do you think? --Leoboudv (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Abigor. That was a clear copy vio.

Sorry, I apparently skipped this message for some reason. Regarding the second image, I think it's fine, because there is EXIF metadata and it seems plausible that it is own work (doesn't look like a professional picture and anyone could have access to the subject). –Tryphon ^☂ 00:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I was thinking about awarding you Exeptional newcomer barnstar, but in the short time you've been admin. at Commons you've gone way beyond newcomer, You are already one of the admins who's opinion I value most and 1K+ good administrative actions says a lot. So thanks for joining the team, you're by far the best addition we've had in a while. Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That is so nice, I'm really flattered. Coming from you, it really means a lot to me. I guess I had some good role models around to take example on, so you should probably take a piece of this barnstar for yourself! I will keep the rest preciously and value it as a gift from an admin for whom I have the utmost respect. –Tryphon ^☂ 00:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Is there a backlog of DRs on Commons? I notice my DR on this somewhat problematic image is still here. Its 2 weeks old.

File:Main gauche.jpg You can keep or delete it though I lean toward the second solution as you know. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Palawan15.jpg

Seems to me as if you missed to delete Palawan15.jpg. Youst to remind you ;-) --D-Kuru (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, got it this time :) Thanks for watching my back! –Tryphon ^☂ 10:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Josh and seb.jpg

In regards to your decision to keep File:Josh and seb.jpg, you referred to the image's use at WP. User:Joshmey2 since December 22, 2008, has only created a user page that seems to be a self-promotion. Joshmey2 has made no other edits outside his userpage or the image in question, hence I do not believe the image should be kept. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is something that should be dealt with at en.wp first, in my opinion. If the user page is out of scope there, and eventually gets deleted, then we can remove the image; but not the other way around. However, if you insist, I can reopen the DR and wait for more people to comment, but our policy is pretty clear about in-use images. –Tryphon ^☂ 12:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry, but thanks anyway. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi! You just deleted File:AmaiaM.jpg because of this, I wonder if File:AmaiaM (cuadrado - square).jpg is a version of the same image (due the similar name). Regards, Gons (¿Digame?) 15:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC).

Yes, it was. Thank you. –Tryphon ^☂ 16:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Réponse en attente

Coucou à toi ! Non à cette heure, je n'ai toujours pas de réponse de Claudine. Si d'ici demain mercredi vers 20 heures, je n'ai (et vous n'avez) rien de sa part, je la relancerai pour savoir le ... "pourquoi du comment". Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Madonna images by !Eddo0!

Pourquoi avez vous supprimé les photos de madonna ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.0.32.233 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 2009 April 1 (UTC)

Je les ai supprimées à la suite de cette demande de suppression. Les photos ne contenaient pas de méta-données (qui sont habituellement générées par l'appareil photo) et leur résolution correspond à ce qu'on peu typiquement trouver sur le web. Si vous avez réellement pris ces photos lors d'un concert, il serait utile de transférer les originaux (taille d'origine et méta-données EXIF encore présentes). Merci d'avance. –Tryphon ^☂ 12:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Scarface-tigershark2.jpg

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Scarface-tigershark2.jpg is (I think) the same file as File:Scarface-tigershark.jpg which has dual copyright, one for flicker and on for wikipedia, it is uploaded by a trusted user which is the photographer and is confirmed on en to be the same owner as of the flicker account. Suggest to undelete, but not sure how to do that on commons. Stefan (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not the same file (the deleted file is this one), but if you say that the uploader is the same person as the flickr user, then he should send permission to OTRS, or (even better) change the license on flickr directly. –Tryphon ^☂ 07:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Gorgoroth pictures

Bonjour, je comprends les raisons de laisser les catégories, mais le musicien lui-même m'a demandé expressément de supprimer son nom, donc je pense que je dois le faire - d'ailleurs le nom de chaque interprète ne figure pas forcément sur une photo de concert. Avec mes meilleurs sentiments, Vassil (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

C'est une étrange requête de la part d'un personnage public, et je ne pense pas que quoi que ce soit ne nous oblige à honorer cette demande. De même qu'il n'y a aucune raison de supprimer cette photo juste parce qu'elle a le malheur de lui déplaire. –Tryphon ^☂ 07:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Je viens de relire "Commons:Photos de personnes identifiables". Les trois photos de Teloch ne sont pas en effet automatiquement supprimables, mais l'avis de la personne me semble tout de même important, s'il n'était pas sur scène, cela entrerait dans le droit à l'image reconnu à chacun. J'ignore le motif exact de sa demande, qui était très laconique: "effacer ce que j'avais fait sur lui sur Wikipedia (sic) ou au moins effacer son nom". Vassil (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Techniquement, l'image (et sa description) se trouvent sur Commons et non Wikipedia, donc sa demande ne s'applique pas ici :-) Plus sérieusement, si l'article se contente de rapporter des faits sur un personnage public (avec sources, références, bref, encyclopédique), je pense que ce genre de demande est totalement illégitime. Le rôle de Wikipedia n'est pas de faire la promotion d'un artiste, l'important c'est d'être objectif; et ce n'est certainement pas la personne concernée par l'article qui pourra être objective sur le sujet. Donc pour résumer, si on peut légalement garder ces images (et c'est le cas) on devrait le faire quoi qu'en pense ce monsieur (pour ne pas le nommer!). –Tryphon ^☂ 12:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Mark-shuttleworth-iss-thinkpad-big.jpg

Finally followed this up; it was from Mark Shuttleworth's own collection (rather than NASA or RKA). Have bounced the relevant PGP-signed reply to OTRS: Subject: Re: Mark Shuttleworth/ISS "Just hanging around" picture and confirming availability under CC-BY-SA. —Sladen (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I'm not a member of OTRS, so I've left a note on COM:ON. Should be restored soon. –Tryphon ^☂ 19:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

French speaking adming needed...

...[5]. See also here. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah thanks, I've just seen that. He also sent me an email about that. Apparently, he doesn't want these images in his gallery, but doesn't mind if someone else uploads them back on Commons; could be the simplest solution, but I'm worried about the subsequent workload if users start asking for "clean galleries" and want us to do the deleting/re-uploading routine on many images. Well, we'll see... –Tryphon ^☂ 11:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Pffffft.gif

What was the rationale for restoring this image? It had cleared Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pffffft.gif (more or less). I don't oppose its restoration; I'm just curious. Rklawton (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As I noted in the log, there was an undeletion request for this file, where it was pointed out that the file was in scope since it was in use by the time of deletion. There might be other issues (and if that's the case, feel free to open a DR), but the closing of the previous DR was inaccurate. –Tryphon ^☂ 17:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I missed the log note. And I have no objection to the deletion - or the undeletion. I was just curious - wanting to learn more about the norms at Commons. Not that it really matters, but your rationale seems reasonable to me. And I do appreciate your taking the time to explain it to me. Rklawton (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Anytime. I think it's important to have clear deletion (or undeletion) rationales, so I really don't mind explaining it. –Tryphon ^☂ 21:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Coa-Mexico

Please take another look at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Coa-Mexico. You guys are totally misinterpreting the law and that template is allowing visitors to include dozens of files that shouldn't be here. - Esteban Zissou (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Rest assured that I had a look at it before closing, I don't need to read it again. Besides, you shouldn't edit closed DR, so I've reverted your latest addition.
I will still try and explain a bit more the situation. I think it all comes down to {{Insignia}}; the moral rights (article 155) are on the CoA design, not every representation of it. And except for official (ie. with authorization) realizations (article 14), there is no copyright protection (ie. it is in the public domain). So maybe the template could be rephrased and clarified, but it should certainly not be deleted. –Tryphon ^☂ 20:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Gorgoroth pictures (suite)

Bonjour, je viens de recevoir un nouveau message de Teloch: en fait, ce qu'il voulait, c'est que son nom d'état civil ne soit plus mentionné dans la page qui lui est consacrée dans la version norvégienne de Wikipédia. Pouvez-vous me dire s'il peut avoir gain de cause, et le cas échéant, à qui il doit s'adresser? Merci d'avance. Vassil (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:West.png

You completely ignored my comment of this image being totaly unsourced. It has no encyclopedic value and cannot be used in Wikimedia projects. Netrat (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Then, what do you mean "The file is in use?" The only pages that link to this file on WP are File talk:West.png and Talk:Anti-Christian sentiment/Archive 1! It is not used in any article. Netrat (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Please reply at my en-wiki page, I'm not common at commons. Netrat (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an account on en.wp, so I'll answer here and notify you by email; but I shouldn't have to do this, if you ask someone a question, the least you can do is check his talk page after a day or so, even if you're not active on the project.
I did not ignore your comment, I confronted it to our COM:NPOV policy (which you apparently still didn't read despite the fact that I mentioned it in the closing argument). And the file is in use on more than just en.wp: West.png is used on 8 pages in 6 projects. Which, according to COM:SCOPE#File in use in another Wikimedia project, makes it automatically educational. –Tryphon ^☂ 09:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have read COM:NPOV. It does not say unsourced or misleading files are OK. Where can I see the list of the pages that link to this file from other WM projects? I was only able to find links on Commons and en-wiki, and none of them are acual articles (so at least on Commons and en-wiki this image is not educational, do you agree?). Netrat (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Usage is shown by the CheckUsage tool (there is a tab on the image page, you can use this link too). I don't know what you mean by not educational on en.wp and Commons; either a file is in scope or it's not, and COM:SCOPE says it's in scope if it is in use on any project. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In en.wp, it is only in use on its own talk page and one pretty outdated project talk page. It is not used in any article. Netrat (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Thank you for your message. I've replied over there. --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 21:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

FOP unfortunately

Dear Tryphon, Does US FOP allow the interior of buildings such as this image here or here to be placed on Commons? Or are they ineligible because they contain artistic features?

Secondly, does FOP cover or Not cover plaques or signs or can they be placed on Commons as long as they are in the open...in a public place? I thought initially that FOP in France did not allow this image because the bridge sign was new: File:Pont Charles-de-Gaulle.jpg But Admin Yann thought otherwise....which caused me to cancel my nomination So, I am a bit confused here.

As an aside, I notice that users on Wikipedia users are urged to upload their images here on Commons. But many people don't know that FOP is not allowed for modern buildings, sculptures, bridges, etc in France, Italy and all the former Soviet states. Some users may place a picture here and suddenly see it deleted because they had never heard of FOP. I, too, see many modern sculptures on Commons in the US which people place here in good faith. But they do not know that unlike Canada, US FOP does not cover sculptures. I wonder if you have a response? Thank You. I have to go now as its 2:26 AM here in Vancouver, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, let me apologize for the delayed answer; I had very limited time these past few days.
About FOP in the US, COM:FOP#United States explicitly says that FOP "includes such interior public spaces as lobbies, auditoriums, etc.", so those two pictures are okay. Moreover, FOP is only about work of architecture that are still protected, so very old buildings or purely functional design can be freely photographed, regardless of FOP.
This brings us to plaques. If FOP applies to all artworks located in public spaces, then there is no problem. Otherwise, we have to determine if the plaque is ineligible (a few lines of text, like a street plaque or a commemorative plaque) or PD-old.
Lack of FOP is really annoying, because no one will even suspect they're breaking the law when taking a picture outside; whereas the law considers it's the same thing as scanning a book. So I'm sure every picture of modern sculptures or buildings were uploaded in good faith, but we have unfortunately no other choice than deleting them. It can have dramatic consequences for the most restrictive countries (like France), where entire categories get wiped out, but unless politics realize how ridiculous this over-protection is, there is nothing we can do. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for your kind reply. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_Viaduc_de_Millau#Further_comments

You writes: Some images were agued to be de minimis, but I think it doesn't apply because the viaduc forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, and the photograph was taken deliberately to include the viaduc.

I know you think very wrong! the pictures that you deleted is of the entire vally. See this example from COM:DM:

When you delete you should know, not think! Hogne (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let me rephrase it: I know that according to COM:DM, these images cannot be kept by arguing that the viaduc is de minimis. The situation you mention is quite different from the pictures in this DR. First of all, the pyramid is part of an architectural ensemble, and the (public domain) buildings cannot be captured without including the copyrighted artwork; and that's what was retained to argue de minimis: the works [...] blended into the architectural ensemble of the Terreaux plaza, of which it was a mere element, the appeals court correctly deduced that this presentation of the litigious work was accessory to the topic depicted, which was the representation of the plaza.
In the case of the viaduc, if you remove it from the composition, there is no point to the picture anymore, and the framing (as well as the title and description) made it very clear that the intent was not to show the valley. The viaduc was not incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph and the existence of the [viaduc] was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, [so] copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area.
More over, I honestly think (or should I say, I know) that the DR discussion reflects this conclusion and that the arguments to keep the images were ignoring our policies (namely, COM:FOP#France) or French law altogether.
I hope these precisions make it clear that my closing decision was in no way meant to reflect a personal opinion, but rather taking into account the discussion and our policies. –Tryphon ^☂ 19:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, well rephrased! You say "In the case of the viaduc, if you remove it from the composition, there is no point to the picture anymore,", in this I disagree. It's hardly possible to make any view of the vally anymore without the viaduc. The en:Millau is dominated by this viduc! Therefore the images where the viaduc is a minor part of the hole picture should be kept! I'm sure you agree! Where we really disagree is in what is minor part. I say 50 %. You say … ??? Hogne (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The picture above is a very good example; if you remove the viaduc from this composition, the panorama itself is not significantly affected (not just because it only occupies a small portion of the image, but because it is absolutely not the main focus; well, some could argue that the filename and description tells otherwise, let's ignore that aspect for the sake of argument). Take the poster example from COM:DM#An example, this passage is of particular relevance to this situation:
In determining whether the copying was sufficiently trivial, the court will consider all the circumstances. So, for example, if the poster forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defense to say that the poster was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the poster was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area. (emphasis is mine)
So it really has nothing to do with the proportion of the picture taken up by the copyrighted work, but rather with the intention of the photographer. This is picture is not a copyright violation, not because the viaduc is only a small part of it, but because the intention was to show the panorama from this view point. The deleted images were all focused on the viaduc, and did not just happen to include the copyrighted work of art. –Tryphon ^☂ 22:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The key word you use is 'significantly affected'. The panorama in this picture will still be of value without the viaduc, I might argue. Somewhere in between them you place a line. How do you argue that this picture is allowed:File:Grande Arche de La Défense et fontaine.jpg

You should also take a look into Millau#Le_viaduc_et_autoroute_A75, Category:Viaduc_de_Millau and all the other bridges and builings in France. Hogne (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I think the keyword would be main focus; in this picture, it is clear that the viaduc is the main focus, and even if the image could still be of some value without it, the reason why it was taken in the first place (and the the reason for this particular framing) is the presence of the viaduc.
Regarding File:Grande Arche de La Défense et fontaine.jpg, there was a DR about it already, and the reason it was kept is that the main subject is the fountain, not the arch (however, I find this is really a borderline case, and I'm not convinced de minimis would hold in court).
As for the other images, there are probably more that should get deleted, because honestly, I don't think anyone thinks about FOP when taking a picture in France. But even though it may seem that Commons admins are enforcing a silly rule, keep in mind that the silliness is in French law, not admins' brains. –Tryphon ^☂ 07:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, let me ask you one last time. Below I've put a blind field over the viaduct and I think this is pictures of the valley like the picture above is of the fountain. The percentage of the pictures that are taken by the copyrighted panorama is less that the Grande Arch above on all pictures, and the remains is like a landscape picture that there are thounds of on this site.

Do you then agree that all these pictures could be kept even though the viaduct was visible? If not, why? And if you agree, then please take another look into the pictures you deleted. -- Hogne (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

File 1
File 2
File 3
File 4

Hi, have you seen my last qustion? Hogne (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't, thanks for the reminder. Let me say again that it's not a question of percentage or number of pixels occupied by the copyrighted material. It's a question of focus and how important the copyrighted material is to the overall composition. Of the four pictures above, I would say the first two are okay, but the last two are not. I admit it's sometimes hard to draw the line, but the company owning the rights to the viaduct seems particularly aggressive in enforcing their rights, so better be safe than sorry. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, you have drawn the line. Thanks! There are of course some other pictures that then have to be deleted. But I'm sure you are on to it! BR Hogne (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A final comment on FOP

Dear Tryphon,

I was looking at Commons FOP here and I notice it excludes some critical Islamic countries such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates where Dubai is located. Your Admins should consider placing FOP entries for these important countries here on whether FOP is allowed or not. The exclusion of Indonesia (237 million people) and Jordan is very puzzling since these states are quite popular with tourists who may place photos here someday. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved this picture from Wikipedia to Commons but I don't know whether it is allowed because of the buildings: File:Aqababeach.jpg. Your present FOP list has nothing on Jordan. I was born and raised in Malaysia--which is next to Indonesia--and I'm surprised you don't have any thing on FOP in Indonesia which is a massive country either. Something on the UAE might also help. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame we don't know the FOP status of those countries, but I don't think it has anything to do with how important people think these countries are. But if no one took the time to search through their copyright laws, or couldn't understand the language, or didn't feel confident enough to interpret the law, ...
Regarding the picture you mentioned, I think it's fine. It's not the main focus and the design is purely functional, so there shouldn't be any problem, regardless of FOP. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank You for the answer. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

File:1956 Hungarian Stalin head.jpg

Whilst the original reason for nominating File:1956 Hungarian Stalin head.jpg for deletion (incorrect claim by original Flickr user) is probably correct and it ought to be deleted, the two images you cited to support a claim of copyvio don't support it. The bookcover may be copyrighted (as a book cover design), but that doesn't mean that the book cover's copyright holder also holds any copyright on the original photo (we already know this is an old 1956 photo). Secondly, and most obviously, the 2nd photo is obviously the original extent used for the cover, not a crop from the cover. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I just meant to show that it's very unlikely the picture comes from the user's private collection. The first image is the exact same file as the flickr picture (pixel by pixel, even the filename matches), which shows it was easy to get it from the internet (but there's still a chance that it went the other way around, that the file was on flickr first). That's why I also linked to the book cover. The fact that it was used in a book shows it's a notorious picture, not just some private family collection, and the flickr user didn't mention this publication.
So yes, all of this is very circumstantial, but we're not in court and I think it's more than enough to consider this image a copyvio. Of course, if the uploader has proof he's the copyright holder, he can forward it to OTRS and the file will be restored. But since you seem to agree with the deletion, I'm not sure what you want from me. –Tryphon ^☂ 05:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletions of talk and votes

Seeing that you closed two cases, I wonder whether you find theses fours edits [6] [7] [8] [9] acceptable? --Matthead (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Re-opening and reverting right now. Thanks for notifying me. –Tryphon ^☂ 14:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW: [10]

About deletion request.

Hello. It seems to have been deleted image which I photographed, but I feel this disappointing.As for deletion, I wanted you to do after it had waited a little more. Because to permit it, some of deleted images had put out E-mail to person who owned copyright. --Corpse Reviver (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

All these images showed signs with writings and drawings, so we would need authorization from the author of the signs (which seems quite hard to obtain). However, if you get written permission, you can forward it to OTRS and request undeletion at COM:UNDEL. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

These 2 cases

Dear Tryphon,

Can you act to delete this image file DR which is more than 1 week old. Also can you close this DR as a keep. The evidence is compelling in the second case and I withdraw my nomination.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I closed the second DR, but I'd rather let someone with en.wp adminship handle the first one. Judging by the uploader's name on en.wp, the GFDL license and the 2 year gap between the upload on en.wp and the flickr review, it seems quite possible that it is freely licensed; a en.wp admin can check the file's history there to make sure. –Tryphon ^☂ 21:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK Tryphon. Thanks for letting me know. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Category::Penis self-pictures

The DR wasn't for the images in the category, but the category itself.--141.84.69.20 12:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I see, it doesn't really change the result though. Why would you remove a non-empty category? And more importantly, what does it have to do with scope? A category is either useful or not useful (in making content more easily accessible), it has nothing to do with it being educational or not. –Tryphon ^☂ 12:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I did link Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories, where, among other things, it is stated: "The purpose of pages, galleries and categories is to support Commons' aims." I don't see such a thing with a "my dick" distinction.--141.84.69.20 12:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I reopened it because it is not as clear-cut as if it were about the content. Nevertheless, I think you're mistaken. The goal of these categories is not to inform the world that it's the uploader's penis, but we have a huge amount of users who, for some reason, upload pictures of their own genitals. Usually, these are low quality pictures (low-res phone, bad light and framing, etc.) and better pictures would tend to get lost in this. So you should really think of these categories as a way to subdivide Category:Penis rather than a attempt to communicate on whose penis it is. –Tryphon ^☂ 12:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Candas moulin 2.jpg

Bonjour à toi ! Dans le courant de la semaine dernière, je pensais justement à la chose ! A cette heure, je n'ai pas de nouvelle de Claudine ! Si vous les administrateurs n'avez rien reçu de votre côté non plus, cela m'étonne ! Pour ce qui est de mon message de "rappel" à sa destination, j'en suis à me demander s'il ne s'est pas volatilisé dans le cyber-espace. Il n'est pas rare que des messages ne parviennent pas ! Je vais donc recontacter Claudine par messagerie. Et pour plus de sécurité pour savoir si elle donne son accord ou non, ou a laissé simplement tomber en ne répondant pas vu la perplexité qu'elle m'a déjà exprimée quant à la "lourdeur de la procédure", je vais laisser un mot sur son blog ! S'il n'y avait que 4 ou 5 photos, ce ne serait rien ! Le malheur pour "ma pomme" est qu'il y en a plusieurs dizaines, et que si elles doivent être supprimées, j'aurais bêtement perdu tout mon temps pour rien ! Quel gâchis, 2 ans après ! Si on m'avait prévenu tout de suite au bout de quelques dépôts que la procédure exigeait davantage de contraintes formelles, je serais moins ... écoeuré ! Bon, je te communiquerai le lien vers mon message sur son blog dès que je l'y aurai déposé. Une fois de plus, patience ! Je pense qu'après plus de 2 ans de calme plat et de silence parfait, "on" n'est plus à quelques jours près ! Soyons sérieux et logiques, même si comme tu dis, le problème reste en suspens depuis 3 semaines ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Je viens donc de recontacter Claudine (d'abord par mail) en lui réexpliquant "tout", en particulier de me dire aussi si c'est oui, non ou seulement pour les photos récupérées entre janvier et avril 2007 ! Je lui ai bien entendu refait un transfert du fameux formulaire standard. J'attends jusque demain soir pour lui laisser une bafouille sur son blog ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Contact rétabli avec ma correspondante du Vimeu ! Echange de mails en cours ! Il n'est donc pas nécessaire que j'encombre son blog avec "notre" demande insistante sur ce problème de licences à silhouette de ... serpent de mer ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Je viens d'alerter Claudine à cause de ce que je viens de découvrir, ça : File:Viaduc de Touffreville-sur-Eu.jpg, dont l'import pourrait ne pas avoir été aussi légitime et autorisé que les miens. Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This DR

I think this DR can now be closed. The problem has been solved after the flickr owner agreed to license it as "cc by sa 2.0" The nominator agrees to...and he is a trusted user. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks for contacting the author. By the way, I remember someone suggesting that you should become a trusted user, as you regularly work on flickr images and are obviously knowledgeable enough for the job. I'd like to encourage you to apply too, and would definitely support your request. Here's the page where you can apply, if you're interested: Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers. –Tryphon ^☂ 09:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll think about it but I have a somewhat busy job in real life. Thank for the link though. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- I understand, but I was not thinking of it as a commitment to do regular or systematic flickr reviews. I just thought that since you often work with flickr images, if you happen to find one which need human attention, it would be convenient for you to be able to tag it right away instead of asking someone else. I was not suggesting that you should increase your workload, which is already substantial (and greatly appreciated). Anyway, I don't want to force your hand or anything, it's entirely up to you. –Tryphon ^☂ 18:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nationalities in Second Polish Republic ca. 1931.png

Please undelete, the map has been released under a free license by the heir to the creator, User:Julo (per File:HistPol-narodowosci1931.png). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, sorry about that, I didn't see the source down there in the other versions field. I changed it to make it more obvious (for guys like me who need glasses). –Tryphon ^☂ 05:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Np, I was actually wondering about it myself till I saw the comment by Julo, and I guess I forgot to make it clear on that new version. Is there any way to easily revert Commons Delinker? PS. All that said, this old delete debate does need to be closed :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

About CommonsDelinker, I don't know. But if you happen to find a way, please let me know; it's the most annoying thing about delete/undelete, it removes all usage within a few minutes. I'm going to close the DR soon, as it seems the map was in use, we must definitely keep it. –Tryphon ^☂ 06:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:File:Education expenses of Japan in FY2005.png

Hi there, i just noticed that the file was gone due to its unacceptable licence issue. i've read and know that there was something wrong with the restrictions, just wondering that you could help me restore that file and grant a suitable licence for it as i'm afraid i have lacking of knowledge about those kinds of things. any suggests would be welcomed and appreciated. thanks (i'm having dynamic ip so please reply here).118.69.162.30 02:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, only the original uploader can do something about it, if he/she's willing to remove his/her non-commercial restriction. Otherwise, someone could re-create the graphic based on the raw data. –Tryphon ^☂ 05:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Precession

Hi! I forgot also to have loaded that svg (I remember only a png version, and may be on it.wikipedia). I hope it was orphanized before deleting. :-) Bye! --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 19:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This image

Is this image a FlickrLickr image or not in your opinion? (ie. can it be saved)

File:San Francisco Ferry at night.jpg

If its yes, then maybe someone could type in the FlickrLickr pass since its used on wikipedia. If not, it should be deleted. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: As an aside, can you tell me if this is art (in which case US FOP applies) or is it just a barrier: File:Galveston_Beach_Texas.jpg I had placed it in a DR but the discussion is not proceeding in a clear direction. I just wish someone could tell me if it was art or just a barrier; I have no strong views here. It is a FlickrLickr image so it was licensed freely at upload. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your first question, I'm not sure, but I guess it's okay. The first version of the page (written by FlickrLickr) contains the license and a link to the correct image; so perhaps it has been tricked somehow, but it seems unlikely.
About the DR, I would say it is too simple for copyright protection, so it should be okay to keep. I'm going to place my vote there. –Tryphon ^☂ 18:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I've now decided to ask for the image to be kept. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Dear Tryphon,

Can this DR be closed as keep and this DR be deleted. I gave clear reasons why the second image should be deleted. Its a personality rights thing...so he (the flickr owner and former Commons uploader) won't change the license. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you act above Tryphon? These are 2 clear obvious cases. I'm mentally tired after uploading 40-44 high quality images onto Commons from a University museum in Canada in the past 2 days. I ask for a little help here on these 2 DRs. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Because it is not all that obvious to me, and I wanted to take some time and think about it. In the first case, it's not that clear if the uploader was a trusted user 3 years ago; maybe he's a 'crat now, but we must all learn and make mistake, so I'm not sure it changes anything regarding these images.
  For the second one on the other hand, it seems clear from the uploader's user page that he's the same person as the flickr user and used to upload some of his images on Commons with a different license (now we would require OTRS permission, but I think things were different back in 2005).
  So right now, I should probably get some sleep, but tomorrow I will comment on those DRs or close them if I can make up my mind by then. Good night. –Tryphon ^☂ 01:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

OK on the first DR. But please look at this on the second DR. The uploader, MC Masterchef (Colin) was a former Admin on English Wikipedia in late 2005/early 2006. He left wikipedia long ago and the only way I could contact him is by flickrmail. Here is his May 3, 2009 message to me on the image in the second DR after I asked him about licensing it freely:

"Very sorry for not responding earlier -- I have been travelling for the past few weeks and have not had a chance to respond to your message. I would be happy to relicense the Hamatam sunrise picture as you've requested; unfortunately, I think I would prefer to keep the existing licensing for the other picture, given that there's a person involved. Thank you again for your interest in my photos and best of luck with your work on continuing to improve the encyclopedia.

Best, Colin"

In other words, he won't change the license. So...it shouldn't be kept. Besides, there must be hundreds of freely licensed images of Habitat for Humanity workers to replace it on flickr. Remember when he uploaded his images in 2005, there was no such thing as flickr review to tell him that images with non-Commercial restrictions were not permitted. I have got several images by him licensed freely here but not this one. So, it should not rest in limbo. I am currently contacting him on another of his Commons images but have accepted his decision here on the Habitat worker. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

About Livonian flag

Tēriņtš, Tryphon! I'm sure, you are bigger expert in Commons than me and can make all kind of file types, but your suggestion isn't right. I made this category [[11]] , there is also my .png file. It has the right colours of flag (look here [12], the official site of Livonian Union). Your suggested .svg file, but it has totally wrong colours! Hope to have a clarity! Roalds (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm only pointing users to the SVG file because it's usually the preferred format for flags, but if the colors are wrong, people will either not use it, or, even better, correct the SVG file so that it has the correct colors. If you feel uncomfortable with this tag, you can replace it with {{SVG}}, but then someone might create yet another SVG instead of correcting the existing one. –Tryphon ^☂ 14:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal artwork

Tryphon: I can appreciate your role as administrator, but you have restricted my own personal artwork as being a copywrite infringement and this is wrong. Perhaps I did not satisfy the requirements on the original form. Whatever the reason for the delay, please correct this immediately. Thank You

These are my OWN images, that I drew, with my OWN HANDS!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedla detsmlo (talk • contribs) 15:50, 2009 May 11 (UTC)

For this kind of material, we need you to send a permission email to OTRS (see the templates), in order to avoid unauthorized persons to upload publicly available content as if it were theirs. I will restore the files as soon as permission has been granted. –Tryphon ^☂ 22:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi Tryphon! Thanks for the revision. Cordially, Fred Xavier (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Anytime. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, can you see this. Thanks. Fred Xavier (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This annoying Portugese Wikipedia block issue

I have no idea what we should do at this point. I've already been fair and suspended the block on the problem at hand. I have this urge to reprimand Fred Xavier because its apparently more of his fault (according to others). This will go nowhere fast and I have a feeling its going to get worse :|. Please help me intervene.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 15:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tryphon. If you have any questions about my behavior I will say to you. No problem. I respect your opinion and the opinion of Mitchazenia. Thanks! Fred Xavier (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, there is nothing that really calls for a block here on Commons. You took the appropriate decision by unblocking MachoCarioca, and although it is unfortunate that a pt.wp conflict spilled on Commons, I don't think a block on Fred Xavier is in order (but you should know I'm rather lenient when it comes to blocking, so other admins might tell you otherwise). If he continues insisting on the issue, then a short block might be necessary, because it would become really disruptive. @Fred Xavier: You need to understand that we don't care about what happens at pt.wp, so we don't have "questions about your behavior" there; only what happens here on Commons is relevant. So please, just drop the issue, or bring it to the pt.wp admins. –Tryphon ^☂ 17:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Shutting discussion down now.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 17:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, Tryphon. But the personal attacks of MachoCarioca are still here in Commons. See the user talk. Cornelius, the sysop of Commons that do the block, speak portuguese. He saw the offense. Other users in the future, may use the Commons to attack because were not punished now. Thats my fear. MachoCarioca has many friends and I was a sysop very active against fighting vandals and trolls. So defenders appeared. I confess that I am scared with the hate of the user. Drini speak portuguese too. See this edition. Thanks for everything. Fred Xavier (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

File:BBC.svg

I'm not trying to compete with the image it is just that SkyBon (talk · contribs)'s image had cut of sides of the image. --AxG (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you're trying to do the right thing, but the fact is you have been uploading slightly different images, each with its own advantages/defaults. All I'm saying is, talk to each other, and you might just find a better way to collaborate. –Tryphon ^☂ 22:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

File:DJ Aligator.jpg

Hi I am Hamidss8000,uploader of the image,DJ_Aligator.jpg I found out that you have removed my image. Why did you do that? I'm 99% sure that this file is freely distributed.There are lots of lots of picture in this site from celebrities and places and even cover of albums an more.This one was something like those!! That image was a FREE picture of DJ Alijator Has anyone told you that this belongs to him/her?! What kind of evidence should I give to show this sh... is FREE you as.....?!? What a .....! SH.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.101.128.66 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 2009 May 15 (UTC)

I deleted this image after a deletion request has been filed. The problem is that you say the image has a free license, but you don't say which one (the {{PD-self}} tag you used is obviously wrong), and you don't provide any proof.
And please, if you have something to say, speak plainly and sign you messages. –Tryphon ^☂ 12:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

File:CeBIT 2006 Philips 3D Display 42 3D6W01 WOW Richardson Electronics KUKFilm 1298 by HDTVTotalDOTcom.jpg

Hi Tryphon, I have just restored this image which you had deleted when you closed this DR. The image was deleted because it was a derived work of a screen shot without the proof of a permission. We have meanwhile received a permission from the copyright holder of the depicted image in our OTRS system and hence I took the freedom to restore this image. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks for letting me know. –Tryphon ^☂ 12:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The user WMFESP asks you How I can show you that my images are not violating any copyright

Hello, I would like to know how I can show you that my images are not violating any copyright because the images are property from WMF and we are WMF. please, answer me writing to Info@wmf.es Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmfesp (talk • contribs) 06:58, 2009 May 21 (UTC)

You should really make a habit of checking the wiki from time to time for answers. What you're asking has already been answered in the undeletion request you filed a while ago. Please send the required email to OTRS and keep us posted there. I will also send you an email about this, but I usually consider that people posting on this page will watch it at least for a few days. –Tryphon ^☂ 07:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Unpassed foto

Senhor Tryphon,

This picture did not survive flickr review: File:Puerto de Arica.jpg

Can it possibly be replaced everywhere on Wikipedia with this foto that I uploaded:

File:Arica port (Jan. 2008).jpg Then the first foto can be deleted, senhor.

They are both of the puerto (port) de Arica, Chile...but my uploaded image should pass flickr review, I believe. --Korman (talk) 06:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finding a replacement. I've asked CommonsDelinker to universally replace the unfree image with the one you uploaded. It might take some time though. –Tryphon ^☂ 07:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. –Tryphon ^☂ 03:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This image

This second DR should be closed ASAP. The image passed flickrreview...but I did not notice this first until mattbuck told me the situation. This is a bad faith nomination by The Honorable surely. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

File:AffiliateWindow.gif

Sorry for this late reply. In my memory this logo (http://www.affiliatewindow.com/) was made with a text of simplified lettering but also with a combination of colored patterns.

I stay on my position. If you consider your position better than mine, you can restore this file yourself, no problem for me.

Friendly Oxam Hartog 22:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Is there a good reason to keep this DR open since it is not used on wikipedia and failed flickrreview? What do you think? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, are US war memorials like the famous Iwo Jima monument (erected in the 1950's) or the Korean war monument (ex: File:Korean War Memorial 82490561.jpg) exempt from US FOP because they are the property of the US government or built on land owned by the US government? I'm confused here about veteran's monuments. I hope you can help give an answer. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you kindly give me a heads up on war monuments? Do you know anything? Thank You. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think there is any special treatment for war memorials. If it's the work of an employee of the federal government, then it's {{PD-USGov}}; but if it's been built by an artist mandated by the federal government, then the copyright holder is still the artist (unless there is a specific contract stating otherwise, but it could be difficult to find out).
  I'm no specialist though, so might want to ask on COM:VP. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind reply. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: As an aside, please look at this DR. I think the image is replacable. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 19:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for acting. There were many replacements. It was not a particularly rare photo. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Graves & plaques

Just curious,

Are modern grave markers like this [13] and plaques like this [14] acceptable for Commons? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

For the first one, I think it's not okay: no FOP, and no reason why the grave marker would be PD. The second one might be okay if we consider the small decoration de minimis, because the main feature of the image is the text. But again, it's only my opinion, and it should not be speedy deleted in any case, because it's not obvious; a DR is probably the best option here. –Tryphon ^☂ 09:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-commercial use image

How can this image be used on Commons given that it bans commercial use:

File:Porta San Pancraziana.jpg

I have transferred a higher resolution image here: File:Porta San Pancrazio.jpg Maybe you can swap images and delete the first photo.

Finally, why can Commons only use images without a non-Commercial use or no-Derivatives restriction? Lots of flickr images could have been uploaded to Commons this way if only for this restriction. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker seems to be stuck at the moment, but the non-free image should be replaced soon by the one you suggested.
The reason for accepting only media which can be used commercially and reused in derivative works comes, in my opinion, form the distinction between free as in freedom and free as in free beer. The idea is that people using media from Commons should have the essential freedom to use it for any purpose, modify it and distribute it. Just like the essential freedoms defined by the FSF for free software. Anything less than that would be considered an attempt to restrict users' freedom. –Tryphon ^☂ 21:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the situation. I could understand the non-Commercial use restriction, but the no-Derivative use was a bit strange. I got this image licensed as 'cc by sa' yesterday: File:Santa Cesarea Terme dal mare.jpg (it was in the possibly unfree category) but the flickr owner licenses his other images as cc by nd. A pity Commons cannot just use more of his images. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion

What do you think of my suggestion here: [15]

AF Borchert has not answered yet but I think Commons would want the high resolution photo. Its so much clearer. The uploader forgot to save the high res. image when he uploaded it to Commons. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Secondly, can the uses of this other low resolution Commons image on wikipedia: File:PRESLAV 04 12.jpg be replaced by this higher resolution image which I legally transferred:

File:PRESLAV 04 12a.jpg

I don't know why people don't know how to get a TUSC account and forget to transfer the high resolution image here! Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I marked both files as duplicates, and instructed CommonsDelinker to replace them. Thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 06:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent work Tryphon...and your kind help. Regards from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Bermuda_Somerset.png

It was my own work. I do it myself. I don't know what to do. --41.202.198.75 22:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC) (aka PoM)

First of all, you should add an {{Information}} template on the image page and fill it in (in particular, the Source= and Author= fields are mandatory). Then, you should give some information about where the data used to create the map comes from. Thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 05:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Done --41.202.209.17 16:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, much better now. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Handelslehranstalt.jpg

The picture was taken from our school annals and a copy of it is also filed in the the Giessen city media archive. The head of this institution released this picture for public use. I corrected the entry. I wasn't sure what "source" refers to, this is why I initially stated "unknown". The author of the picture is probably dead as it was taken in 1936 and as it is filed in the communal archive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.222.212.159 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 2009 June 25 (UTC)

The problem is, the copyright runs for 70 years after the author's death, so if the picture was taken in 1936, it is very likely that the author didn't die before 1939. So this image is probably still copyrighted and should be deleted from Commons, unless you can provide more detailed information about the author. –Tryphon ^☂ 17:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone who doubts the picture has been released for public use, please address Dr. Ludwig Brake http://wiki-de.genealogy.net/Stadtarchiv_Gießen. The author's rights were transferred to the Stadtarchiv (city of Giessen media archive). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.161.184 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 2009 June 26 (UTC)

If the rights were transferred, then it proves that the image is still copyrighted (otherwise there would be nothing to transfer). In this case, the copyright holder should send an email to OTRS, giving permission to use the image under a license of their choice. Thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 21:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

An e-mail was sent to ORTS, I updated the information as follows and hope there will be no more problems.

Description 	Handelslehranstalt.jpg;
Deutsch: Handelslehranstalt, Gießen, Nordanlage 11;
Date: 1933;
Source:Postkarte, Schulchronik;
Author: unbekannt;
Permission:archiviert im Stadtarchiv Gießen (Signatur 81/1401), freigegeben durch Dr. Ludwig Brake, Leiter des Stadtarchivs Gießen, Schreiben des Stadtarchivs an OTRS liegt vor

--81.210.202.26 07:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Good, an OTRS volunteer will take care of it from there. If you don't see anything happening soon, you can inquire at the OTRS noticeboard. Thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Note

Can this low resolution image (transferred by me) be deleted: File:Santiam9.JPG after all its uses are replaced by this original sized higher resolution image:

File:Santiam Pass.jpg

The copyright owner is formally recognised as the photographer in both photos. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks for finding a better replacement. –Tryphon ^☂ 13:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. As an aside, can you just fix this problem:
File:Messina03.jpg The bot keeps tagging it as a suspect image but it is not. Its an old 2006 image which was initially marked on the wrong cc by 2.5 license and with the low resolution. I uploaded the high resolution image and subjected it to a new review on the right (2.0) license. Please look at the image file history. Now I know why Nilsfanion once told me that bots, unlike humans, are not intelligent sadly. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, for some reason the bot doesn't check the history to see if it has already tagged the image once. Instead of removing the tag, you need to replace {{Similarimages}} with {{Similarimages|checked}} (at least I think anyone can do it, the template is not documented so it's just a guess). I already did it for this file. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I thought only an Admin could fix the problem. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion Request

Dear Admin Tryphon,

Can you please check these images which I had deleted to see if they are now licensed as cc by sa by Rinux on flickr. If they are cc by sa, please restore them and pass them. I contacted him today and I know he licensed at least 3 of the images (still not deleted) here as "cc by sa" including this: File:Rinux2.jpg No flickr source is given for most the deleted images. Here they are below:

Please help. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. 6 out of 8 isn't bad at all. Its better than nothing. I guess...I should have contacted the flickr owner before nominating them for deletion. I also had this excellent picture here passed by him earlier today.
File:Rinux4.jpg The resolution is amazing....as is the stupa. Its a pity many Commons images don't enjoy such high resolution here. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah not bad, thanks for getting the author to change the license of so many images; good job! I left File:Rinux3.jpg and File:RinuxA.jpg out because COM:FOP#Korea (South) covers buildings only. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment I suppose then that the final 2 images were not relicensed by rinux, is that about right? Just curious. I am saddened that I was the guy who nominated them for deletion. I should have not prejudged the situation. Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. Well thanks for your kind help...and for uploading the highest resolution images. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please reopen

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Niechorze_-_mapa_02.JPG, the image was taken outdoors, its next to a major public road in the town (it would be nice if somebody would drop me a line on my talk that my reply was urgently needed; since there was no replies for a month I stopped watching the page...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you also reopen Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Gen_Con_Indy_2008_-_robots.JPG in light of this reply from WF general councel? Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, feel free to reopen them yourself. You're not supposed to do it if there is nothing new, but in both cases, you have new information about the copyright issue, so go ahead. –Tryphon ^☂ 07:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Swapping images?

I had made this request a few days ago to AFBorchert here but he seems to be away. What do you think of my suggestion of replacing the failed image with the image I uploaded and got OTRS'ed? Then the failed image could be deleted. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's on the Delinker's list of commands, but it seems stalled at the moment. I will delete the non-free image as soon as all its usages are replaced. Thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 07:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Tryphon. Goodnight from Canada where its 12:33 AM in Vancouver. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Good morning from Germany; 9:38 am here :) –Tryphon ^☂ 07:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
If you have the time, please see if Delinker works to replace all uses of the failed image above. Normally I would consider contacting the flickr owner but I know the uploader (Urban) and in 2005/2006, he uploaded some images with unfree 'Non-Commercial' restrictions....when there was no flickrreview system in place. I have been told this by some flickr owners themselves who automatically licensed their images with a NC restriction. Most times, people ask for them to be deleted here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, is there anything wrong with the license in this image which has a notice:

File:Seokgatap bulguksa.jpg

It says the tag should not be used...whatever that means. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, there was nothing wrong, it has to do with the GFDL standardization on en.wp. I replaced the template with {{GFDL-user-en-with-disclaimers}} to make the warning disappear. –Tryphon ^☂ 12:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I knew the picture was legitimate. It is an important picture for an ancient treasure of Korea. But I couldn't clear up the license issue. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

re: your question

responded @ my talkpage.

wish somebody would write/implement a tool like facebook wall-to-wall for these things...

Lx 121 (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Image

Is this a derivative or copyrightable image?

File:Lubavitch Mitzvah Tank.jpg

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, can this failed but heavily used image: File:Yale USA.jpg be replaced by this high resolution photo with secure copyright:

File:Sterling Memorial Library 2, September 1, 2008.jpg

Then the failed image can be deleted. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: What do you think of my suggestion? Is it reasonable? --Leoboudv (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the first image as derivative work, you were right. For the two other files, I think you found a very good replacement. However, CommonsDelinker is still down (see the backlog), so it will take some time. –Tryphon ^☂ 19:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I replaced all the 15 uses but 1 of this photo: File:Yale USA.jpg I can't change it on Farsi wiki....for some reason. But I think that maybe the photo can be deleted now. Do you agree? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! I took care of the last usage on fa.wp and deleted the file. –Tryphon ^☂ 20:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. It was quite challenging for this photo. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

About File:ZooKeys logo.JPG

Check your email and reply back. And they want the credits of the logo to be attributed to ZooKeys, not the individual person who created the logo. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 19:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't send the mail to me, but to OTRS, so that the permission can be checked and archived. Please make sure that the permission is specific enough (see COM:ET for an email template; it must explicitly allow derivatives and commercial use). Thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 19:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Potentially massive copyvio

Have you seen the images uploaded by this person? Many have different author's names. Sometimes he says they are from different flickr owners! I can't do a mass DR but you may want to weigh it considering the situation. I think this user's name is Salvador Barrera and only those photos can be kept...although this is just a guess. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look when I get the time, but you're right, some of these look fishy. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, can this DR by me be closed as a keep. It was uploaded by a trusted user but I did not know this at the time. I have withdrawn my nomination after Grevanitar typed in the flickrpass. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Done. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
OK Thanks. Unfortunately, the uploader has now abandoned WikiCommons. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Amsterdams Historisch Museum

Salut Tryphon, I added a categoryredirect to Category:Amsterdam Historical Museum in the hope that an Administrator would pick on it and would move all the files in this category in one go to Category:Amsterdam Historical Museum. Apparently this didn't work. Do you have any idea how to handle this? Are you perhaps an administrator or do you know where I can find one? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The proper way to do this is to add {{Move}} on Category:Amsterdam Historical Museum, so that people have a chance to support or oppose the change. I'm not sure it's really necessary; one way or the other, both names exist so people can find it easily. It doesn't seem so important which one is a redirect. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

ok, thank you for your quick response. I'll have a go at it. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Touched by His Noodly Appendage.jpg

Exactly why was this file deleted? The creator has explicitly stated that it is free to use. I tried to find a deletion log, but could not find anything. The deletion of this file has caused literally hundreds of broken links on en.wikipedia and related projects. LK (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the deletion log for this file (you can also see it by clicking on the above red link). The file was deleted because the author's permission was for Wikipedia only, and we only accept files that are free for anyone (see COM:L). I know that someone has contacted the author and asked him if he would agree to release his image under a free license, but OTRS has not received anything yet. –Tryphon ^☂ 09:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no deletion discussion? In Wikipedia, whenever something is deleted there is usually some debate somewhere. LK (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No there was no discussion; our deletion policy allows administrators to speedy delete images in some obvious cases. For this image, we only had this page as permission (which is already a problem, permission emails should be submitted to OTRS); and you can see that the permission was not specific enough (it doesn't state a license) and for Wikipedia only. All these reasons led to the file being speedy deleted. –Tryphon ^☂ 17:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This image

Dear Tryphon,

If these 2 images are not marked by flickrreview, please please mark them. I have waited 8+ hours for the first photo to be marked already:

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. –Tryphon ^☂ 06:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The flickr review bot has not marked images for 2 straight intervals already. I don't know what the problem is. Now I can tell the flickr owner of the first image where it is used after I rescued it from the possibly not free category. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment: It looks like the flickr bot is stuck, it has not marked photos for more than 1 day now --Leoboudv (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I don't know why... Might be related to all the server problems we had recently, but that's just a wild guess. You could try asking on the bot's talk page if you want an educated answer. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarychev Volcano Video

Dear Tryphon,

You have uploaded a video called "File:NASA ISS June 12 2009 Sarychev Volcano.ogv". I would like to know how you converted the file into .ogv. I have tried to do the same with other videos but have had problems. I have tried using MediaCoder as suggested on Help:Converting video but I cannot get it to work. What software do you use to convert video files to upload to the commons? Do you have any tips or suggestions? Also is .ogv the only format the commons will accept for video files? Thanks Originalwana (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The easiest solution in my opinion is ffmpeg2theora. It's a command-line utility, it works with almost any video format and it is very straightforward to use (I run it on Linux, but there seems to be Windows and Mac OS X binaries too). I use the following options:
$ ffmpeg2theora -v7 -S0 --optimize filename.ext
and get an OGG video file named filename.ogv. Have a look at the output of
$ ffmpeg2theora -h
for a complete list of options. Don't hesitate to ask me if you need more information. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh and yes, OGV (OGG/Theora) is the only video file format accepted on Commons. See COM:FT for details. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tryphon, while looking into ffmpeg2theora I found a great program called Super. I found this easier to use than ffmpeg2theora and MediaCoder and it works. What do you think about suggesting this program on Help:Converting video for Windows users? The only problem I have found with Super so far is there is no option for changing the frame rate of a video. Originalwana (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, you're welcome to add it to that page. I'm glad you could find something that works for you. –Tryphon ^☂ 09:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This image

I flickrmailed the flickr owner on this DR yesterday and I see he changed the license to cc by 2.0 without telling me. Can you mark it...just to be sure? If you can confirm it, the DR can be closed, too. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Good job, thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 09:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope Bryan fixes the flickrbot soon too. Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw my DR here and assume good faith. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- I deleted it, as I think your initial nomination was correct. We need a formal permission anytime the author and the uploader are a different person, and this is not a question of good or bad faith, but is just due to the fact that only the copyright holder is allowed to license his/her work. –Tryphon ^☂ 13:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
That's OK...and Pedro said the image resolution was very inferior anyway. As an aside, I wonder can a flickpass be done by you or any Admin to images uploaded by former (surely trusted) Admins like Jkelly. I'm talking of this situation Please...think about my proposal here carefully. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think it should always be treated on a case to case basis (typically in a DR). Being an admin at some point doesn't mean that every single one of your uploads was okay. I think it's very different when you actively review a file (by applying the {{Flickrreview}} template) or when you just upload it, possibly without being so much careful about the license. But in the case you mention, it seems okay to assume the uploader knew what he/she was doing at the time. –Tryphon ^☂ 06:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Rajon ki Baoli tomb and mosque.jpg, File:Tungnath temple1.jpg

Thanks for uploading the original resolutions for these Flickr images. I found sources for them this morning, added info templates but did not have time to upload the higher res files before I had to go to work. Thanks --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. BTW, congratulations on your recent adminship; if I was paying more attention to those nominations and had spotted yours in time, I would have definitely supported you. Glad to have you on the team. –Tryphon ^☂ 06:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This DR

Is there any reason to keep open this DR I wonder. Its about 10 days old and there's no clear evidence it was free. Just curious, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This strange image

What does one do with this strange image here. I have seen it many times in the possibly unfree category:

File:Kristleifur og hondin.jpg

Its the uploader's only photo here and the uploader claims it cannot be used for Commercial purposes. Its bit hard to assume good faith based on 1 single photo from this account but if I submit it for a DR...I may be in the wrong. I think it is used on 1 wikipedia page. Please use your experience as an Admin to decide what is the right move to do. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This image is clearly tagged as non-commercial on flickr, so you can mark it as failing flickr review (someone already tagged it as a copyvio). Alternatively, since the uploader claims he has permission for the file, you can tag it with {{Npd}} in the hope that he can send a valid permission to OTRS; failing that, the file would be deleted in a week. –Tryphon ^☂ 09:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, how does one mark an image which is certainly copyright free since it is the work of the US government: File:Leonid Gozman.jpg

Another interesting case. Sorry I ask you these 2 'hard' questions but an experienced Admin like yourself might know what to do. Thanks, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

For this one, just tag it as passing flickr review; the current license tag is okay. It is marked as work of the US government on flickr, and comes from the official White House stream. –Tryphon ^☂ 09:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. I will do this. It is strange that US government images need to be flickr reviewed but this be the better way since an Admin/trusted user would have looked at the given source and confirmed that the image came from this link. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Derivative image or not?

This image has been in the 'needing human review' category for a few days now. It was never uploaded properly and the bot seems to have broken:

File:2010ChevroletCamaro-05.jpg

Does the image source, however, suggest it is a derivative photo or the uploader's own photos? Its hard for me to say. If its a derivative, it should be deleted. Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like four pictures taken by the uploader at the dealership, and put together in this montage. No problem in my opinion. –Tryphon ^☂ 09:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Giorgi Latsabidze at the Dickens Dinner.jpg

Hello Tryphon, would you please check out my file: File:Giorgi_Latsabidze_at_the_Dickens_Dinner.jpg Would you please let me know if everything looks ok there? I don't wanna get this file removed. Please feel free to give me advise. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awarelike (talk • contribs) 07:45, 2009 July 27 (UTC)

Since you're not the author of this picture, we need to make sure that the copyright holder agrees to release it under a free license. So you should ask him to send an email (see this template for example) to OTRS, thereby giving permission for anyone to use this image for any purpose, under the terms of the free license of his choice. –Tryphon ^☂ 09:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you note Tryphon! I need to add some categories to this photo for a many resons: Giorgi Latsabidze is an Georgian-American Concert Pianist. Also he is a Composer. He is a musician and I think he has to be categorizes under musicians:pianists..ect..Maybe you can name me some other sub categories I can add it! Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

Rename request

Can you please place a rename request for this photo? Its in Chicago, not New York...and the flickr owner who just changed the license several hours ago...confirmed this to me too.

File:NBC, NewYork.jpg

Perhaps, it sould be renamed to File:NBC Tower, Chicago.jpg

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 20:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The next time I would probably do this myself....as I now know how to do it. By the way, did you see my note here to Kanonkas. It is shocking that we lost Shankbone...over a New York Times article. His photos were of the highest resolution and yet no one at the Wikimedia Foundation mentioned his work in the NYT article...which criticised Common's pictures. Now he's gone forever. Unbelievable! Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Valentino-profil.jpg

Bonjour, j'ai vu que tu avais supprimé la photo Valentino-profil.jpg. Je n'ai pas compris pourquoi j'ai eu le bandeau alors que le fichier est déjà supprimé ? Je ne me rappelle même pas de quelle photo il s'agit et je ne vois pas comment je peux le savoir (maintenant qu'il n'y a plus le fichier). Difficile dans ce cas-là de savoir en quoi je viole le droit d'auteur. Y a-t-il moyen d'éclairer ma lanterne (et d'au moins me dire de quelle photo il s'agissait) ? Cordialement, --Abujoy (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

J'ai rétabli l'image pour que tu puisses la voir, et je l'ai marquée comme permission manquante. Le problème, c'est que la source est un site internet, et il n'y a aucune preuve que l'auteur de la photo ait donné son accord pour qu'elle soit publiée sous une licence libre. Si tu as obtenu la permission de publier cette image de la part du détenteur des droits, tu devrais envoyer une email à notre système OTRS. –Tryphon ^☂ 09:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok ! En fait, c'est une image dont j'ai modifié les couleurs. Ce n'est donc pas moi qui suis au courant du problème de license. Merci d'avoir restauré la photo pour que je puisse comprendre. --Abujoy (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah oui, désolé, j'aurais dû vérifier avant. Mais je suis content que la situation soit clarifiée. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This image

Is this image copyrighted or not by the company named in it? The flickr source link says it comes from an old brochure. there is also a good discussion on the flickr source about the copyright:

File:FairPark 1941.jpg

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would tag it as missing source information, because flickr is not the primary source, and without it we cannot check whether the image is PD or not. The current license is wrong in any case. –Tryphon ^☂ 09:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tryphon. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Sander-jan-klerk.jpg

Hello Tryphon,

Thanks for keeping an eye out and trying to help with this picture issue. I am the owner of this picture and I want this removed. Someone else has put it on and gave away the rights, but that is none of my business, is it? That person didn't have the right.

Can you please undo the putting it back? Thanks in advance.

Have a good day.

09:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

But there is an OTRS ticket for it. You should probably take it to COM:ON, as I don't have OTRS access. –Tryphon ^☂ 18:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I think that the copyright issue is just an excuse. It is clear that this person wants his picture to be deleted. Please read again Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Removal at the_request of the_subject, photographer or uploader. I think we should be "sympathetic to removal requests" as mentioned in the policy when personality rights is involved. The last thing we want is fighting against people who ask their picture to be removed. And because we have a (B&W) copy, we can allow the deletion of this one. Yann (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You take the whole thing all upside-down. Instead of fighting against Sander to keep the (poor quality) image he wants to get rid of, why don't you write him and ask for a beautiful portrait? Yann (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

We are not supposed to satisfy every whim of the people portrayed in the pictures we host. Even if they provide a better picture, it doesn't mean that the other portraits should be trashed; it's still someone's work, it might be more authentic, etc. And in this case, the image was in use before it first got deleted on July 18. And talking about upside-down, it seems to me that deleting the file even before we obtained a better one is just a bad bargaining strategy.
But once again, this is all your interpretation of the situation. The file was up for deletion because of copyright concerns, and you deleted it for a personality rights issue. There is no justification for that, and it's certainly not within our policy to do so. Please restore it; then you can nominate it for whatever reason you see fit, but at least we can have a debate on a clear basis. –Tryphon ^☂ 13:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For fixing my mess at File:Pv jensen-klint 05 grundtvig memorial church 1913-1940.jpg. Regards --Mcginnly (talk) 09:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It wasn't too messy :-) –Tryphon ^☂ 12:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Croix de l'Ordre du Saint-Esprit.jpg

Hi Tryphon, thanks for adding the speedy-reason to File:Croix de l'Ordre du Saint-Esprit.jpg. However, as the discussion is all in french, I would ask you to decide about and perform the speedy deletion. I can hardly believe that taking a photo of a surely out-of-copyright structure can be illegal. But as the image seems to be un-used we should probably grant the request. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 10:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Already deleted while I was writing the above message. --Túrelio (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was speedy... Anyway, although I prefer regular DRs for this kind of requests, I think deletion was the right choice in the end. I'm sure the owner had no right to ask for the removal of the picture, but if the uploader is not willing to defend it, we should do our best to avoid an unpleasant situation (had the image been in use, it would be a completely different matter, but here there is basically no loss for us). –Tryphon ^☂ 12:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Soviet-svastica.jpg

Hello, can you remove or rename this? This is not "soviet-swastika" but so called "Kerensky money" issued in April 1917, not by Bolsheviks in October About these bills 213.238.93.203 14:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the info. –Tryphon ^☂ 14:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

Is my interpretation in this DR I filed correct? Perhaps other Admins may want to look at it too? I am just asking for confirmation if my DR is correct as I don't wish to be accused of bad faith. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right, and I commented on the DR accordingly. –Tryphon ^☂ 07:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. 1 of my images here on Commons was deleted last year and that was because it was a derivative. I did not know what a derivative was at the time. I assume the uploader has the same impression and that this is all just an innocent mistake on his part. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment: As an aside, this photo has been waiting for someone to review it for more than 1 week. Its copyright is unclear and the author is anonymous. No one dares mark it. What would you do here based on your experience as an Admin? I apologise for asking you to look at this hard case but it should either be passed or failed. I don't have any views either way...but its unfortunate that the source is so vague. The flickr account is this
File:Arthur Gould print.jpeg

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would open a DR for it if I were you. The postcard is pretty old, and definitely okay if the author is anonymous, but without a view of the reverse side, it is hard to establish. –Tryphon ^☂ 12:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. It looks like a DR is appropriate since no one still wants to mark it. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Three Kingdoms of Korea Map-zh-classical.png & File:Three Kingdoms of Korea Map-zh.png

thank you for protecting these two images, i will try to contact other guys related to this topic. Gzhao (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Banners & 1 web site

Dear Admin Tryphon,

Are banners like this acceptable for Commons or are they copyrighted works:

File:Damon Allen banner.jpg

This is in Canada, not the US. Our laws in Canada are more open than the US with public domain at 50 yrs after the author's death. But I am not sure if banners are considered simple designs and thus not copyrightable. It is hung in a stadium in Toronto. Any thoughts? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say that the text is ineligible for copyright, and the background image in the frame would pass as de minimis. Might be worth opening a DR to see what other think. But generally speaking, pictures of banners are derivative works, and so not okay on commons. –Tryphon ^☂ 12:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I passed this image. It apparently comes from a web site which the flickr owner places on his flickr account. Does one assume it is his web site?

File:Gianluca Nijholt.jpg

The license is right (cc by 2.0) but I don't know if the photographer runs the web page. If he only sources images from there but does not own it...then it would be a copy vio of course. But if he is the owner, then he is free to license them however he wants. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

We require explicit permission for such cases, to avoid flickr washing. I'll tag it as missing permission. –Tryphon ^☂ 12:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at the link to this flickr image (compare image ID) from www.utregfanatic.nl (site from watermark) -- there (3rd column, 5th row). Is this enough to prove that it isn't flickr washing? Trycatch (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what you mean; the website is actually using flickr as its image repository, instead of storing files locally. I guess it's okay then; I'll remove the {{No permission}} tag. Thanks for the info. –Tryphon ^☂ 16:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. These pictures are headaches sometimes. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment The uploader has made a comment in the DR here. His arguments seem not unreasonable--at first glance--but I wonder what do you think? Please feel free to make a comment in the DR. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I left a comment there (basically what I already said here). I'm still not convinced either way, and hope that more people will comment on this. –Tryphon ^☂ 13:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This guy's images

Dear Tryphon,

Have you seen these 2 images uploaded by this guy with no clear source:

He falsely claims the first image is a FlickrLickr one while the second is obviously some form of flickrwashing since its the only photo from in the flickr account. The uploader certainly knows all Commons codes here. What would you do here? The picture looks like its PD but with no clear source...everything is uncertain. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Peter Wallack

TRYPHON

You silly guy you. I could have rescanned my http://birdsofsanibel.free.fr/ or I could have already had them on my hard drive for fine art prints or with the latest version of Photoshop you can take a 72 dpi and explode the size and the dpi to 300!!! BUT NO---you did not think to write me and ask. Well email me directly at pwallack007@comcast.net or call me at 505-986-0322 but do not assume you know when you don't. I take it seriously being called a theif.

Why not just write in the name of the book and find you can get it from Amazon. Then call National Geographic to verify where Peter Wallack is now.

God Bless idiots :)

Dr. Peter L. Wallack, Ed. D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Wallack (talk • contribs) 15:23, 2009 August 9 (UTC)

All I'm doing is protecting Peter Wallack's interests (so if it's really you, you should be thankful). On [16], it is stated that the images are free for educational purposes only, and high resolution version are for sale. So if you are the copyright holder, and decided to publish these images under a free license here, you should confirm it by sending an email to OTRS (as I already told you on COM:VP#Request for assistance before opening the deletion request).
And since you've worked with publishers, you should know that increasing the resolution in Photoshop is by no means equivalent to having the original high resolution image; you just increase the pixel size, but the details are irreversibly lost.
God bless you. –Tryphon ^☂ 17:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The user and the person are one and the same (confirmed on OTRS) - I suggest you withdraw the deletion request. I can fully understand why you felt suspicious here, I would have been too. However, can I suggest when a similar situation arise in future that you follow the premise "innocent until proven guilty". In other words, don't accuse the user of being an imposter until you know that they are.

In this case, when you first got suspicious, your first step should have been to contact Peter via his website yourself - not insist that he makes the first step. In this case he would have replied confirming the authenticity of his account. If the account was an imposter, you'd have confirmation of that and then you could have speedily deleted and blocked the account. However, your approach could have generated ill feelings on his part and so turned him off from Commons altogether - losing a contributor is always a bad thing. In this case, why did he need to "prove" himself: After all he knows who he is and he had registered his email with that account. Yes, we can't see that but to someone who doesn't fully understand the ins and outs here, its perfectly reasonable to assume that if you say your email is foo@bar.com then "Commons" knows that that is your email.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

[[::File:Sikh.man.at.the.Golden.Temple.jpg]] & another image

Dear Tryphon,

I had advised you not to delete the above image...but you did so even though there were other images licensed 'cc by 2.0' from the flickr owner's account. Now Admin MGA73 has now pointed out this incredibly useful site created by Admin Para to check for actual flickr license changes: licensing changes

Anyway, please click on this December 18-25, 2006 link here for Table 2006-12-18 – 2006-12-25. Then scroll down through that page. It shows that the above photo (also called flickr id#: 57196233 if not Sikh man at the golden temple) was reviewed and found to be indeed licensed as 'cc by 2.0' on 2006-12-18. This means it was licensed freely at upload. The license was only changed to ARR by 2006-12-25, a week later. So, the above image should be restored...and hopefully flickr passed with a change of license tag attached if possible since it was uploaded freely. There must be many other images which were deleted beacuse Admins did not know of this site. I wonder how many other images could be restored? This would be my top image to be restored: File:Bjorkman and Woodbridge winners Wimbledon 2004.jpg since it appears as "cc by 2.0" on 2006-10-16 under Table 2006-10-16 – 2006-10-30. Its license was changed later but Para's review shows it was also licensed freely before the license was changed. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Did you see my message above about restoring images when there is clear evidecnce the license was 'cc by 2.0'? The 2 images were deleted because many Admins didn't know about Para's flickr change of license evidence. Anyway, it was Admin MGA73 who mentioned it to me. He has been in communication with Para here about this list which is very useful. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I won't be able to help on this one. I broke my arm a week ago, and it's still very hard for me to type on a keyboard. My participation to Commons will mostly be limited to a few mouse-clicks every now and then. But if you have proof that the file was free by the time it was uploaded, it should definitely be restored. Ask any admin, or post on COM:UNDEL. Thanks for (once again) saving a useful file from deletion. –Tryphon ^☂ 16:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about your situation. I'll contact another Admin here to hopefully restore them. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hope your arm will be ok soon. I undeleted the images. --MGA73 (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:1943 Life magazine Sinkiang photo1.jpg

Hi. Given your closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:1943 Life magazine Sinkiang photo1.jpg, would you please also direct your attention to Commons:Deletion requests/1943 Life magazine photos uploaded by Arilang1234? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff G. (talk • contribs) 03:50, 2009 September 2 (UTC)

Done, thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 20:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Soyuz TMA-11 Patch.gif

Hi Tryphon, I'm writing in regards to File:Soyuz TMA-11 Patch.gif. I noticed that you recently had deleted that file because it contained no media. In fact, I have a pending undeletion request for that file as somehow, the file itself had been mistakenly undeleted (at the time the description page itself was available and clearly showed that the file was in the public domain). I had begun the undeletion request upon Lupo's suggestion but the request has been sitting there for over a month. Any help would be greatly appreciated. If the file itself needs to be uploaded again, I can do that but I would need the links from the aforementioned description page that was deleted. Thank you for any help you can provide. --Stux (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize there was an undeletion request pending when I deleted the page, sorry. But I'm not sure I would support undeletion. I agree that the deletion summary is misleading; the problem is not that there is no license, but the source is not an official government website. Tineye finds these two images, so it seems quite possible that this is just some personal artwork, and not an official symbol, don't you think? –Tryphon ^☂ 20:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Rename

Hi Tryphon. LIke it was suggested, please rename this file to Algarve Beach, Portimão, Portugal.

Thank you.

Paulo Juntas (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've already added {{Rename}} to the image page. Now we have to wait until a bot performs the actual move. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you again. Paulo Juntas (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Note

Some guy (Iconoclast) with this anon IP [17] has been nominating a slew of images of art, buildings, etc in Greece for deletion. He has been warned by 2 separate Admins for his uncivil actions here Just to let you know as the issue is under discussion in this DR and you did delete 1 image he placed under DR. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. So I'll make sure to restore it if our policy about Greek FOP changes, but I seriously doubt it will. The law seems pretty clear to me: only mass media organizations are allowed to communicate or reproduce images of works permanently located in a public place. That rules out private use for any purpose, and pretty much any commercial use. el.wp would most likely fall under the "mass media" category, so they could make it their policy to accept this kind of images and have them transfered over from Commons. The Greek law is certainly more permissive than the French law in this area. –Tryphon ^☂ 20:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Sorry I missed your reply. It doesn't matter to me if the images are kept or deleted....but at least a proper discussion should have occured. This DR by him was closed as a keep although I have voted in 1 case by Iconoclast to delete since De Minimis cannot apply there. As an aside, am I wrong in thinking that this DR of a station in Italy can perhaps be kept...or totally wrong? Again it does not matter to me what the end result is but I wish there was more discussion on the photo. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we need some consistency in closing those Greek FOP DRs, but this is made difficult by the countless individual DRs (instead of one mass deletion request, after proper discussion).
Regarding the other image you mention, I'm really not sure. Because by that rationale, all buildings would be "useful objects". I think it would only apply to very plain, undistinctive buildings, such as hangars for example. –Tryphon ^☂ 20:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I'll change my vote to delete here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tombstones on Commons

I had asked Kanonkas but he did not answer. Maybe he is busy. Are tomb stones considered works of art? If I move a picture here of the grave marker for someone who died in 1950 and is buried in the US, is it a copyright violation? What is the threshold? Is it 70 years from the burial--ie. 1938. I know tombstones are 3D objects but I don't know if they are considered art or sculptors. Do you have any idea? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, FOP rules apply, since a tombstone is always permanently located in a public space. So for countries with FOP, there is no problem. When there is no FOP (or FOP for buildings only, like in the U.S.), tombstones should be treated like sculptures.
But... If it's a simple tombstone (standard shape) engraved with text only (or with a few de minimis ornaments), then it is ineligible for copyright and pictures of it can be freely licensed regardless of FOP. Now determining whether a design is simple (not original) enough to be ineligible is always tricky, and in case of doubt, it should be settled in a DR.
If the tombstone is eligible for copyright, the copyright holder is usually the author (sculptor). It could be the family, if it's a work-for-hire, but that would require a written contract with the author, which seems unlikely in this case. Either way, the copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author (or if the author is anonymous —which is likely, I don't think tombstones are signed— a certain amount of years after "publication", depending on the country of origin). I hope it answers your question. –Tryphon ^☂ 12:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reaction, but...

Hello, I would like to address some of the comments you made here please. I'm sorry for my late reaction, but I really needed some time to get better, and the issue is way too important for me to simply let it go.

.You said: "Mbz1 is still blocked, so trying to find out if two+two=4 is a sockpuppet was legitimate, and the adequate response would be to block the account for block evasion." May I please remind you that you said it after I myself admitted that I was Mbz1. Please try to look at CU policy and 2+2=4 contributions only (without knowing the end result). IMO performing CU in that particular situation was absolutely illegitimate. If you still insist it would have been legitimate could you please name the reason you would have used according to CU policy.
You said: "it depends entirely on the user's will, who doesn't seem to know what she wants". I knew exactly what I wanted. When I asked to get blocked I was trying to run away from harassment, harassment that was noticed not only by me, but by the other users as well. When I started using my husband's account I hoped I will not be harassed anymore and will be allowed to upload my high resolution free images to Commons, and take a part in FPC.
. You said " they can change their password to some random sequence " I'm afraid you've missed on that part of my experience on Commons. I did change my password to random numbers at one point. Guess what. Few days later I found a developer, who kindly reset it for me.

I could definitely agree with one of your points. I should not have ever asked to be blocked. It was as putting my own problems to other's people shoulders, and I'm sorry for doing that. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'm happy to clarify what I said.

By trying to find out I didn't mean CU; I meant that Slaunger's questions were justified (and I was talking in past tense, I knew that you already revealed your "identity", I was just recapping the situation). If your other account had not been blocked, it would have been a completely different story (you would have had the right to start over), but with a block in place, it was a case of block evasion.
You don't need to have your account blocked to run away (from whatever). You don't need to use someone else's account either (and you shouldn't). All you need is put {{Retired}} on your user page, create your own new account, and try to avoid the situations that made you leave in the first place.
You're hopeless then. You could try contacting your ISP and ask them to redirect Commons' DNS to flickr or something :-)

I wish you good luck with your future contributions on Commons, and if you ever want/need a fresh start, try to learn from this experience: a fresh start requires more than a fresh account; repeating the same patterns under a new name will not fool anyone, and you can't force them to not notice it. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It was kind of you to respond my questions! I considered my situation to be unique because the block was self-requested. (I do not think a policy has been written for my situation just yet. Maybe I need to come up with one

). Anyway even, if slaunger had the right to ask his question, I believe I had the right to ignore them. Still as I said earlier I sure understand where you're coming from. If your second option "2.Enforce Mbz1's block, as a courtesy, by blocking her sockpuppets and refusing to unblock her account on simple request. It's the only way for this block to be anything else than a useless user-controlled switch" would have been adopted,I would have probabably considered it to be fair enoug :) Best wishes. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

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

Hello, Tryphon/Archive!

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

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

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

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

BotMultichillT 04:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Image:Csizmadiagergely.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

Deletion of an image if the licence is free

Is there any way to remove the image? What if the licence is changed? I suggested to remove this one : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Laiferova.jpg

Jasooon (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You cannot change the license (well, you could, but only to something more permissive), you've released the file under a free license and you can't take it back. Sorry. –Tryphon ^☂ 19:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And, what if I delete my account? Is the image going to be kept on Commons and I am going to be mentioned as the author of it? Jasooon (talk)

Yes, and there is no such thing as deleting an account (you can leave, but the account will still exist). If your concern is that your real name appears on the image page, you could easily re-upload the file to a new location with your nickname instead, and then ask me to delete the old file; this way, your name would not be publicly visible anymore. –Tryphon ^☂ 18:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Monika Seles York Toronto.JPG

Can you plese revert to originaly uploaded file File:Monika Seles York Toronto.JPG, which was my own work and it was acceptable with license, before User:Ten-is-10 changeed and made as it is now. Now is for speedy deletion???!!!----László (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the edits made by Ten-is-10, the file was actually never acceptable (it just went unnoticed for some time). You cannot take a picture of a poster and release your image under a free license (see COM:DW). –Tryphon ^☂ 05:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Cybershot r1.jpg

Hi, just replaced a deleted file with my original photo. Funny thing is that the thumbnails on pages still show the previous, banned photo. look for instance, here: .

Mohylek (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think we can do anything about it but wait (I guess the servers will re-generate the thumbnails at some point). One workaround is to slightly change the size of the thumbnail, to something that didn't exist before (i.e. never was generated). For example, on the page you mention, you could try chaning 300px to 301px. –Tryphon ^☂ 19:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have changed 300px to 299 and everything is allright now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohylek (talk • contribs) 20:42, 2009 September 9 (UTC)

It seems the server cache has been refreshed now. It works fine again at 300px, as well as 120px in the image history. –Tryphon ^☂ 13:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Conformity marks

I am pleasantly surprised that you kept all of them, I had my doubs about two of them, especially "IRAM". I added them to a new category Category:Conformity marks along with the CE graphic. Also I added the {{Trademark}} template to all four. Sv1xv (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the letters were a bit unusually shaped, but basically it's just another plain font (no texture or gradients, no graphical part which would not be dictated by the shape of the letters, etc.) So I'm pretty confident it is PD, even in countries with a rather low threshold of originality.
And thanks for tagging them with {{Trademark}}. –Tryphon ^☂ 13:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your block is a violation

You have some nerve blocking this user and calling her my sock without proof, this constitutes some civility policy violation I am sure. And you are pretty quick to lie about her edits, a straight vote is not a disruption. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I know Lulu989, and she is on the phone with me right now to get this bullshit block of yours settled. reply here.GabrielVelasquez (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Tell her that she should take the time to look at the DRs before voting on them. And she can request to be unblocked on her talk page, you don't need to rescue her. –Tryphon ^☂ 21:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at that page, I think you are deliberately interpreting that as disruptive, there was no vandalism. I know from my phone conversation that if she could edit here herself she would tell you off. As for your sock accusation, I consider it a CIVILITY violation, the timing is on her talkpage, and if she could edit from her IP address we would also have timed the logged out edits. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
You should retract the block or deal with the unblock request yourself as redress, ~~A$$H@%E<s\>. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)~~

When somebody is requesting unblock that should be dealt with by somebody else than the blocking administrator, I'm sure someone will have a look at this shortly. GabrielVelasquez: Whether you write SSHOL or $$H@% - using that kind of language is a personal attack that I would concider a blocking reason. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
But he's trying to teach me a lesson about CIVILITY (or should I say ℂ!V!%!†Y?). –Tryphon ^☂ 23:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
LOL (or should I say |0|... ) Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
~~This DR~~
Dear Tryphon,
Sorry if I'm contacting you at bad time from the post above. If you have 2 minutes, please make a response about whether this DR of a bridge in France is copyrightable or not. The nominator isn't sure and while I think it is just functional, I am not 100% certain too. Its another intractable FOP issue sadly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
~~I left a comment over there, thanks for the note. –Tryphon ^☂ 17:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Thanks for your comment. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FMystic_Treatises~~
Hi,
Your wish is my command. ;)
Huib talk 17:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
~~Whoa! I might wish for things more often then :-) –Tryphon ^☂ 17:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Deletion of a Logo~~
Dear Typhon
Ulusal_Ajans_logo.png has been deleted because of Logo of this agency. Wrong licence information. It can be used only with "Fair use" · fcn × talk · 13:26 · 7 September 2009 13:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Since it is deleted will I have to upload it or is there a way to correct "Fair use" problem.
Well, fair use is not accepted on Commons in any form, so you cannot upload it here. If you wish to use this logo on the English Wikipedia only, you can upload it there if you provide a fair use rationale. –Tryphon ^☂ 09:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
~~File:200px-Adidas Logo.png~~
Hello,
I am not in accordance with you about this file. I sent it to Deletion requests for vote.
Friendly Oxam Hartog 21:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
~~Thanks, I saw it and already commented there. You forgot to warn the uploader though... –Tryphon ^☂ 21:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Thanks~~
~~For a number of your thoughtful balanced postings recently. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)~~
Coming from you, that means a lot to me. Thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 09:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Et encore, merci beaucoup :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Mais de rien, de rien... Merci à toi! –Tryphon ^☂ 14:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
My French fails me for this (as does my understanding!) but how can democracy/enfranchisement be improved by making sure not too many people find out....!? Maybe it explains the world we live in :)

If you think I've missed anything you are welcome to let me know - rather busy at present. Amicalement --80.189.127.57 15:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)--Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
~~Favour~~
Hi Tryphon, may I ask you a favour. Could you make a list of the 200 most often used images in the Category:Chemical images that should use vector graphics. That would be really great. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Here you go: Top 200 chemical images that should use vector graphics by usage. I'm currently testing the code to generate those galleries, and I'm planing on running a bot to update them regularly (I didn't find the time to make a request yet). In the meantime, just let me now if you need a new or updated gallery. –Tryphon ^☂ 22:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Would it be difficult to combine to catgories in one list (chemistry and chemical)? The other thing is, that most of the files on the main list wouldn't be there if the files were moved into the appropriate subcatgories. But I'm not sure if this is a good thing to do.
Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 05:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, here it goes (if I understood correctly what you meant): User:Tryphon/Top 200 chemical and chemistry images that should use vector graphics‎. As for moving files to subcategories, it would surely be a good thing, but I wouldn't say it is a priority. I think it's more productive to work on reducing these categories by creating or finding SVG replacement, and trying to only add new files to the appropriate subcategories. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
~~Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pidhoretsky_Hrad-Park.jpg~~
Would you like to either vote or make a decision (to either temporarily keep or delete) on this very problematic DR of 3 images? Its 4 months old. You are the most experienced person I know of here. I thought it can be kept but now perhaps deletion may be safer instead? I don't know the uploader and an Admin on Wikipedia is not always the same as one on Commons. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I closed this DR as deleted, since there is absolutely no proof that the images were ever free (to the contrary, Para's list suggest they were indeed not free). Thanks bringing this up. –Tryphon ^☂ 07:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is 99.9% clear that the images were not free enough for Commons. That was what I suspected but I was not sure until MGA73 came along. Many great images were saved or undeleted thanks to Para's volumnious list from October 2006-March 2007. And yes...that also includes a few I had nominated for deletion. Its just a pity only Para seems to have kept a list of such license changes. Para and MGA73 are specialists when it comes to writing software programs for this task while I'm almost computer illiterate here. Cheers from Vancouver Canada--the site of the 2010 Olympic Winter games. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
~~Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kit body inter0910h.png‎~~
Hi!,
I noticed to late that I was reopening a deletion request so thank you for closing it, I am pretty sure when I first opened it and closed it right away some people would start complaining :(
Best regards, Huib talk 12:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I figured you just didn't notice the previous DR. And since it was for the exact same reason as before, with no other argument whatsoever, it seemed there was simply no point in leaving it open (so I guess you could have closed it yourself without raising any eyebrows, but this way is fine too). –Tryphon ^☂ 12:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
~~This DR~~
What do you think of this 1 month old DR? Is it safer to delete or can it be passed on the assumption that Rbutcher is a trusted user? I know he has ordered many flickr reviews on images he uploaded in the past after this DR since I had to pass a few. You don't have to make a decision if you don't want to (its completely your call) but I imagine this would stay in the DR backlog for quite some time sadly if a decision is not made. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
~~NPOV~~
~~I'm not sure why you voted to keep File:Forged Pound Coins.jpg what has NPOV got to do with this site giving out disinformation?Ajuk (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Did you even read COM:NPOV? The file is in use, thus in scope, thus kept. –Tryphon ^☂ 12:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Limite de téléversement à 105 Mo~~
Cette limite n'incite pas celui qui ne connait pas les recommandations de la communauté à envoyer des vidéos de qualité. J'ai laissé un message d'environ 10 lignes sur le bistro. Vi..Cult... (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
~~Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rongorongo B-v Aruku-Kurenga.jpg~~
Hello Tryphon,
Don't you think that as a book translator, the "Easter Island Foundation" probably does not own copyright on the pictures ? Usually a translator receives only a limited license to translate the book into his language and to diffuse the book and the picture in his country (and possibly all countries speaking that language). But this is not a worldwide license.
All available evidence shows that original copyright holder is French, not English or American.
So the only person who has authority to issue an OTRS ticket is the French copyright holder, not the English translator.
Teofilo (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
~~Hmm, I see what you mean, and I guess I missed your point in the DR. I will re-open the DR and re-list it. Sorry for the confusion. –Tryphon ^☂ 09:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)~~
~~What have to do?~~
Dear User photographer authorized the use of appropriate picture on the anniversary of Santana. I wonder what are the criteria for elimination, because I have documented the messages that the photographer sent me.
I did not put the photos without the permission of the author! It's not how I am horrified at such a demonstration of vandalism. If you knew how long it took to get permission for such photos.--Pedu0303 (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the license on flickr is All rights reserved, which means that the image is not free and cannot be uploaded here. If you have permission from the author, you should ask him to send it to OTRS (using this email template is the best way to ensure that all the required information is included). Let me know if you need help with the procedure. –Tryphon ^☂ 20:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
~~This was correct?~~
But because the same day I put the pictures you deleted without leaving any explanation. That was correct? You did not leave any time for the deletion.
"If permission is given, the image may be deleted by deletion log seven days after this template was added and the notice to the User who uploaded the file: (29 September 2009)."
You better review your values and ways of drastically alter files.--Pedu0303 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I only deleted that file because you re-uploaded it after it had been deleted. You should never re-upload a file that has been deleted (especially when, like in this case, you don't fix the initial problem); if you disagree with the deletion, you can ask for it to be restored at COM:UNDEL. If the original deleter didn't warn you, it was a mistake, but don't blame me. –Tryphon ^☂ 22:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Stop it's harassment!--Pedu0303 (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You do not know how hard I had to get these pictures. You should work with the Wiki article and not destroy. I'm sure you are looking for all the photos I posted today in Wikipedia to erase them.--Pedu0303 (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
No I'm not. But I will go through all your contributions eventually, to check if the copyright status is acceptable. Did you do what I told you to do (have the author send a mail to OTRS? –Tryphon ^☂ 05:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
~~Commons:Deletion requests/Meteo and navigation charts~~
"Maybe, but these particular representations remain copyrighted": Did I disagree with you? No, I did not. On the contrary I recommended a possible solution by recreating copyright free replacement charts. So why do you take this negative attitude against my comment? Sv1xv (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, your comment could be read both ways (we should delete those files and redraw them or it would be so trivial to create these maps from public domain data that they can't even be copyrighted). I'm sorry if you took my comment as a negative remark; I was just trying to clarify my understanding of the situation, not pointing out if you were right or wrong. –Tryphon ^☂ 12:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, no problem. Sv1xv (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
~~Upload of original image~~
Did you realise that this edit replaced a cleaned up and retouched image with the original which has many flaws? I spent many hours working on this image to improve it, removing all the scratches, spots and holes. If we are going to keep tiff format images, in case we can use them in the future, would it not have been better to upload the original as a different file though it is likely an original will remain available from the LOC? Ww2censor (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I assumed your retouched version was already available as a JPEG (which is much more likely to be used), and that having the original as a TIFF file (that most people won't even open and see) was a good way to keep it for reference. Your corrected version is still available in the history, but if you really think it's necessary, you can revert to the older revision (that way the original is still available, just a bit more hidden). Just make it clear in the revert summary that your version is heavily retouched. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not really a problem, but I will add some detail to the page to let users know that the first file is heavily retouched. That should do it rather than a revert. All other versions are retouched too. Ww2censor (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
~~File:World_operators_of_HAL_Dhruv_by_2009.PNG~~
~~Thank you for kind reminder -Chitresh verma~~
Well, you're welcome. But you can't just add an OTRS ticket yourself. What you need to do is indicate the source of the original map. If you found it on Commons, just link to it, you shouldn't need anything from OTRS. –Tryphon ^☂ 22:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And please don't remove the {{Delete}} or {{No source since}} tags from the images; once the problems are solved, an admin will take care of it. Thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 23:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
~~File:World_operators_of_HAL_Dhruv_by_2009.PNG~~
Can you read English I think you cannot understand Description.so here it is
Description of
English: World operators of HAL Dhruv by 2009
Date 27 August 2009
Source Own work
Author Chitresh verma
Which means i "Chitresh verma" is the maker of image.
I own the work.
If you cannot understand English then please use Google translator.
please visit http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bf109F-4_Gelbe14_Ma_JG27_kl96.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_operators_of_HAL_Dhruv_by_2009.PNG
Found something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chitresh verma (talk • contribs) 01:01, 2009 October 4 (UTC)
I understand English just fine, thank you. But apparently, you don't get it when I ask you not to remove {{No source since}}.
I saw that you are the author of the image, but I guess that just means you put the colors on the map; as I told you above, we need to know where the original map comes from. It shouldn't be to hard to add that information, would it? And please don't forget to sign your messages with ~~~~. –Tryphon ^☂ 10:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
~~Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BSicon tKRZo.svg~~
Hi Tryphon,
as you might remember, there was a "3:2" decision to keep this icon, although it displays a physically impossible situation. The only usage in article namespace was a very poor designed BSbox I just redid completely. As you can see, this icon will only be used if someone's not knowing what he's doing, so it definetely needs to be deleted. How can we get a new decision on it?
You know, there are many combinations of lines and points, e.g. a on a , which had the meaning of a station in use on a track off use, but not everything what's possible to create is a reasonable BSicon! axp_de ^Hello! 16:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
~~You can simply nominate it again. As the conditions have changed since the last DR, it's perfectly justified to do so. –Tryphon ^☂ 21:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Great headway in old DR's~~
You have brought the number of open DR's in Category:Deletion requests April 2009 to 84 now. That is great progress from the several hundreds that were there until you started!
Thank you for your note of support in the matter of Commons:Deletion requests/File:BallonKathedrale01.JPG. I had decided to contact you before taking further steps, but this is better. I will renominate the images today. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I was actually quite impressed on how many of those DRs you had already commented. This has been of great help, and I really appreciate your efforts. My only regret is that you don't have the tools yourself, that category would be empty by now!
I'll keep an eye on Commons:Deletion requests/File:BallonKathedrale01.JPG and will leave a comment once re-opened. Best wishes, –Tryphon ^☂ 16:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I am just passing by and want to say that you both do AMAZING good work here on Commons, keep it up! :D Huib talk 17:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, you're not too bad yourself! :-) –Tryphon ^☂ 19:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
~~HAL Dhruv cockpit image~~
The correct link to the Blog confirming the image is taken by Shiv Aroor has been provided. I think that sorts the issue with http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:HAL_Dhruv_Avionics.JPG image. Anyway I had asked his permission as well.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Shiv Aroor says: you're most welcome to use them on Wikipedia, which means the use of this image is restricted to Wikipedia only. This is not good enough, as you can see at COM:L#Acceptable licenses. Please have the author send an authorization such as this one to OTRS. Thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 21:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry. I have forwarded the authorization format and he may be replying within a week, He is on a tour right now.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
~~Copyright violations~~
I had decided to contact you before taking further steps, but this is better. As you told me incorrectly that you have given any instructions regarding copyright violations.
You have first time told me that not to upload files that are copyright violations.
But you have said:= " Hello Chitresh verma,
You have uploaded several files that are copyright violations and you have done so despite our requests not to do so, and despite our instructions. If you do not stop uploading pictures that are not free, your account will be blocked. See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons. You may also find Commons:Image casebook useful. Please leave me a message if you have further questions."
Please correct your statement and please write correct statement before posting a comment.It might be better.And thank you for requests
-Chitresh verma
You've had plenty of warnings on your talk page, and yet didn't seem to care judging by your most recent uploads. If you need help, you're welcome to ask, but don't act like it's the first time you've been warned about copyright issues. Also, please sign your messages using ~~~~. –Tryphon ^☂ 19:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
~~Fotothek and Bundesarchiv~~
Hi! You decided to delete Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fotothek df rp-a 0010022 Hochkirch-Rodewitz. Windmühle und Gehöft, Aquarell, 1945-46, Malerin aus Lettlan.jpg. I have no great problem with that decision in itself, except that commons seems to treat the files submitted by Bundesarchiv with much more respect, see for example Commons:Bundesarchiv/Questionable licensing#File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1971-041-10, Paris, der Kollaboration beschuldigte Französinnen.jpg. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
~~Oh, I see... I didn't know we had so much faith in the Fotothek. I'll have another look at it tonight, thanks for the heads up. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)~~
~~File:Bairro de Santana.jpg~~
The autor of the photo Bairro de Santana.jpg will send an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org I want to know if I can put the picture again before you delete. Around two days or less the author said he would send the e-mail. Thanks Peter Louiz.--Pedu0303 (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
~~You don't need to re-upload it; it will be restored once an OTRS volunteer has processed the permission email. –Tryphon ^☂ 17:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Sorry~~
~~I forgot, and I re-upload.--Pedu0303 (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)~~
~~SOHO copyrighted images~~
~~Hi Tryphon, Unfortunately, the images from the SOHO are copyrighted, as you can see in the Template:PD-USGov-NASA. The RedBurn (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)~~
Please don't tag them for speedy deletion, it's more complicated than that. Make a deletion request instead. –Tryphon ^☂ 20:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but the files were already deleted, so I can't find them. I'll do it for the Category:SOHO data though. The RedBurn (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I already ask the deleting admin to restore them so that they can be included in the DR. –Tryphon ^☂ 20:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
~~Top 200 Images auto-updates~~
~~Commons:Top 200 Images that should use vector graphics by usage could really need some auto-updating. Are you up to it or should I do it? --Beao (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)~~
I will update it with the last data I have, but CheckUsage is currently down, and will be for the next few days/weeks, so don't expect any further updates for a while. –Tryphon ^☂ 07:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. --Beao 13:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
~~Thanks~~
~~Merci beaucoup pour votre aide ici. Elvire (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Y a vraiment pas de quoi, c'est le moins que je puisse faire. –Tryphon ^☂ 07:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)~~
~~File:Exposition 6 milliards d'Autres.jpg~~
~~Is this image allowable on Commons? If not, please file a DR and let the uploader know. I don't think this: File:Site Tolbiac, BNF.jpg can be kept either due to absence of French FOP.~~
I don't know if this: File:Tour Eiffel 6.jpg is a modern French sculpture. If it is, it can be deleted too. I just pass it on the license. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Centre des nouvelles industries et technologies.jpg This looks like a new French building, too. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I just deleted File:Exposition 6 milliards d'Autres.jpg, as it is clearly a derivative work, with no FOP exception whatsoever. But I think File:Site Tolbiac, BNF.jpg is okay; it doesn't show much of the architecture of that building, but it might be worth opening a DR to see what other people think. For File:Tour Eiffel 6.jpg I have no idea; I don't live in Paris and I've never seen this sculpture before. Finally, I think you're right about File:Centre des nouvelles industries et technologies.jpg, and I'll leave a comment on the DR. –Tryphon ^☂ 07:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
~~File:INS_Vikramaditya.jpg~~
Sir Tryphon ^☂ Basic layout of a ship remains same because if you change it that will make your impression of the image wrong . I can provide you another link at bharat rakshak -
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Images/Gorshkov4.jpg to your globalsecurity image =
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/images/vikramaditya-line.gif
What about this image -
http://amphibiousnecessity.blogspot.com/2009/03/carriers-fully-loaded-vikradmaditya.html
These images are also similar and hence they are also subject copyright. As my impression of a Vikramaditya so it is not necessary that it should not look like other image .If you have more problem then plz try using photo-shop and superimpose them and you will find the differences. -User:chitresh verma 6:48PM 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I see you've uploaded a new version; it's much better now. Remember to always credit the source of all the works you use to create your image, even if it's in the public domain. I will delete this version however, because it has a .jpg extension despite being a PNG image. –Tryphon ^☂ 07:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
~~Talk page speedy deletion~~
Thanks for taking action. I've been active here for a long time, but I'm far more familiar with deletion procedures at en:wp and tend to get confused about procedure here. As long as we're on this subject — would you look at File:William Walker, Jr. House, Upper Sandusky.jpg? I've requested its deletion, but I'm not sure if what I've said is sufficient for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I've turned it into a regular deletion request, as I don't think it fits the criteria for speedy deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:William Walker, Jr. House, Upper Sandusky.jpg. You can nominate files for deletion using the Nominate for deletion link in the toolbox on the left of the page, or by manually applying the {{Delete}} template on the image page, and following the instructions outlined on that template. –Tryphon ^☂ 20:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
~~File:Eunice Kennedy Shriver - The Extra Mile.jpg~~
Thanks for your comments above. As an aside are plaques or commemorative items like this above OK or not in the US? If US FOP doesn't cover it, then please feel free to file a DR. If not, please pass it. I have no idea about plaques though I imagine they are 3D items. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
~~Deleted. FOP only applies to buildings in the U.S. Thanks for the note. –Tryphon ^☂ 05:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Thanks for your comments. It is good that one doesn't have to be a lawyer here on such issues. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:BritneyS~~
~~I have meanwhile updated the file descriptions as welll as the DR page.~~
File:1 LitleParis poster.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

File:Little-parisdvd.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
~~have not received a permission and can be deleted. Regards Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Thanks! –Tryphon ^☂ 18:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)~~
~~RRQ~~
Hi, I send you a message because you deleted the RRQ logo. There is no real copyright for this logo and if you want to delete it, show me the copyright. I am a Member of the RRQ and I work for the Productions du Québécois. I asked Patrick Bourgeois if I could put the logo on wiki and he said that there was no problem. I work on this logo so I write personnal work, same with the FLQ picture. Those are real pictures I scan on my computer. I believe that if you want to delete my picture you need to find the copyright and not delete them simply because they have no copyright.--User:Patriote17 (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Every work is copyrighted by default, so it works the other way around: if you want to avoid these images being deleted, you have to prove they've been published under a free license. –Tryphon ^☂ 21:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but how can I prove that, the logo is public.
http://www.resistancequebecoise.org/ http://lequebecois.org/default.aspx?page=55I I worked on this logo.--User:Patriote17 (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
~~Plan du château de Tarascon~~
Bonjour, J'ai importé un plan du château de Tarascon que j'ai réalisé avec inkscape; c'est ici. Une fois de plus j'ai des problèmes : cette fois il y a un bandeau noir sur le titre et de plus la pointe de la fléche indiquant l'entrée du château est tordue à angle droit. Pouvez me dire ce qu'il faut faire ? Vous m'avez déjà dépanner pour l'abbaye du Thoronet. Merci d'avance. Robert Valette (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Bon, pour le titre c'est réglé; il y avait des éléments flowed text qui ne contenaient aucun caractère, mais se trouvaient superposé au titre, créant ces rectangles noirs.
Pour la flèche par contre, j'en n'ai aucune idée. –Tryphon ^☂ 09:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
~~Yoshi.png~~
So Flickr washing is forbidden but "patent washing" is OK. Funny. :D
Regards. --Dodo (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
~~File:AKAI S2000.jpg~~
Should this image be passed? No one wants to mark it...for a few days now and i don't know the answer. It looks like the uploader 'recreated' a small part of the bottom right portion of the picture. If you think the answer is yes, please mark it. This is another one that everyone avoids since it has some copyrighted logos:
~~File:Photocall wall exemple.jpg~~
~~Regards from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)~~
Sorry for the late answer. I don't have an internet connexion at home anymore, so I'm much less active these days. The first file seems okay to me, and for the second one, I commented on the DR. –Tryphon ^☂ 12:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
~~File:Spiderman Hayabusa - Front.jpg~~
Dear Tryphon,
Please check this image. If the copyrighted image of spiderman is the predominant feature rather than the bike in your opinion, feel free to file a DR or a speedy. If not, please pass it. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
~~I'm not sure either, I think a DR might be appropriate. I'll do it when I get the time. –Tryphon ^☂ 14:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)~~
By the way, I filed a DR here and would appreciate your input. Maybe you know if the image is acceptable or not? With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I've left a comment there... –Tryphon ^☂ 14:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
~~Comment~~
~~This DR should have been closed as delete months ago. Commons cannot keep it. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)~~
Done, thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 13:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. If obvious DR cases are not dealt with, the backlog of all DRs here will rise unfortunately. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not sure if this image can be kept here: File:Eiffel Tower at night.png Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
You were right, sorry I missed your message. –Tryphon ^☂ 10:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
~~File:Eastwood western statue.jpg~~
~~If you think this artwork is a copy vio for Commons, please delete it or file a standard DR. I'm not comfortable marking it. Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)~~
Done, thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 10:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
~~Please do not speak like that, "Please do not upload copyright violations". Do you think I did it deliberately? Himalayan Explorer (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)~~
No, I'm very sorry; this is just a template message. I know this is a tricky part of copyright laws, and most people don't even suspect there might be a problem. The message was not well fit to your case, and was just meant to inform you that the image was deleted for copyright reasons (so you don't wonder why it disappeared), not to blame you for anything. –Tryphon ^☂ 12:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
~~Thanks for making a decision. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Top 200 chemical images that should use vector graphics by usage~~
~~Hi Tryphon. How did you create this list? Is there a way to do it in only one step? --Leyo 08:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)~~
You can have a look at the code I'm using at http://gitorious.org/bots/mwcheckusage; not completely up-to-date (I'll commit more code when I get the time), but it gets the job done. –Tryphon ^☂ 13:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I was asking because I think a usage statistics of images in Category:Low quality chemical diagrams (incl. subcategory) would be useful. However, it seems to be too complicated to me. --Leyo 14:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this what you mean (category and subcategory mixed in the same page)? Note that this is only for the 20 biggest wikipedias; I can extend the usage search if needed, just let me know. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I think it is OK not to stress the toolserver too much. :-) --Leyo 16:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Just one wish: exclude all unused images the next time you update the list. --Leyo 12:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
~~User:Pelagos~~
Hi, this user 2 days after you have deleted all his copyright violations and warned about possible ban started again with low resolution, zero EXIF data files, Some are clear copyvios as File:Vologod.shosse.jpg [18] or File:Most2.jpg (with copyright mark). I am not 100% sure but looks like Pelagos again is taking random pics from Internet and mark it as his own work --Justass (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
~~Blocked for 1 month, and nuked all uploads; thanks for notifying me. –Tryphon ^☂ 13:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)~~
~~This DR~~
This is truly a bad faith DR. Can you revert the nominator's actions or not if the images were in use? They should not be conveniently removed from articles just before his second DR. Any ideas? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
~~Unfortunately, I don't know of an easy way to revert these changes across projects. But I agree it should be done. –Tryphon ^☂ 16:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Note~~
Perhaps the time has come for this more than 1 week old DR to be closed as delete. Its an obvious flickrwash. I...just wonder how many more flickrwashes populate Commons sadly? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Done, thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 16:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
~~Images abkhazes~~
Toutes les images abkhazes que je téléverse sont libres de droits, à partir du moment où le lien avec le site d'origine, celui de la Présidence de la République abkhaze, est indiqué (c'est pourtant clairement indiqué dans la notice d'information de l'image). Veuillez cesser vos destructions aveugles et rétablir les fichiers supprimés.
Budelberger (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC).
Où est-il écrit, sur le site en question, que toutes les images sont libres? Tout ce que j'ai vu, c'est un copyright en bas de chaque page: © Administration of the President of the Republic of Abkhazia. S'il existe une page spécifiant les conditions d'utilisation, il faut en indiquer le lien sur chaque image dans le champ Permission. –Tryphon ^☂ 16:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Je sens que j'en tiens un beau, là. Il y a des dizaines d'images, depuis des années, utilisées par toutes les Wikipédias traitant de l'Abkhazie, provenant du site de la Présidence abkhaze et versées sur « Commons » – utilisant toutes la même description ; que depuis des années, hein, autrement dit… –, quand soudain, le 13 novembre 2009, « Tryphon », à peine nobélisé — il faut au moins ça – et ivre de la puissance que lui donne son statut de coopté, entreprend ; il entreprend, car, forcément, il sait tout mieux que tout le monde, ses indignes prédécesseurs, qui eux, ne savaient pas lire ; ceci, par exemple : « О сайте », § 6 ИСПОЛЬЗОВАНИЕ ИНФОРМАЦИИ. --Budelberger (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC).
Charmant. Du haut de ma toute puissance, je ne parviens malheureusement pas à apercevoir où il est dit que les travaux dérivés et l'usage commercial sont autorisés (deux conditions nécessaires pour qu'une image soit considérée libre). Sans compter que l'autorisation est limitée à certaines sections du site (dont l'une des images supprimées ne faisait pas partie). Donc si vous pouviez clarifier ces points, je me ferais un plaisir de rétablir les fichiers supprimés (mais laissez tomber le ton arrogant, je préférerais qu'on puisse discuter calmement). –Tryphon ^☂ 18:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
« je préférerais qu'on puisse discuter calmement », comme : « supprimer d'abord – faut bien rentabiliser sa cööptatiön –, et pas plus comprendre ensuite » ? m'enfin, on ne se sent plus, hein ? --Budelberger (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC). (« dont l'une des images supprimées ne faisait pas partie » : il faudra mettre à jour votre döctörat de russe, pour le prochain Nöbel, je suggère modestement. Quant à mon ton, il est à la hauteur d'où vous évoluez.)
Vous ne répondez à aucune des questions que j'ai posées. –Tryphon ^☂ 13:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
~~File:Vyrus Alto Performance.jpg~~
Dear Tryphon,
Do you know how to tell this uploader to forward his permission to OTRS. I don't speak French. I had flickr failed it but reverted my actions to give the user a chance to pass his permission to OTRS. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
~~Done. I've tagged the image with {{No permission}} and left a note in French to the uploader. –Tryphon ^☂ 13:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Thanks for your kind help. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)~~
~~File:Parlement Genève 2009.svg~~
Hey, thanks very muche for your help, I'm getting crasy !
Just for me to know, how did you get ride of this black box that I don't see in Inkscape and only when uploading in Commons ? Thanks in advance, Manoillon (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome, I know it's a problem many people encounter (a bug in the Mediawiki software actually). I've noticed that it's usually related to the use of flowed text. It's hard to get, because you cannot simply select those elements in inkscape; you can can either use the tab key to cycle through all elements and delete every flowed text object (you'll see it appear in the bottom status bar), or hack the SVG file with a text editor directly. I hope this helps. –Tryphon ^☂ 10:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
~~Hult International Business School~~
Hi Tryphon,
I tried to upload photos (Efcenter.jpg, San francisco4.jpg, Dubai1.jpg) for the page Hult International Business School but you have cited them as copyright violations. I am new to Wikipedia and was not quite sure how to license/categorize them - perhaps you can help me? I am part of Hult International Business School and we were the ones who have taken the photos (hence we have the copyright) how do I upload the pictures under this category/license etc?
Thanks for your help, HultIBS
The problem is that these images have a low resolution, no EXIF metadata, and the source given was a website. This all points to someone taking them from that website and uploading them here without owning the rights. If you are the author, you should consider uploading the originals (directly from the camera), and put own work as the source and your name (or pseudonym) as the author; if someone else from the school took the pictures but gave you permission to upload them here, you should get that person to send an email to OTRS sating under which license they want to release the images. Let me know if you have more questions or if you encounter any problems. –Tryphon ^☂ 07:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, have sent them an email now to prove I am the copyright holder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HultIBS (talk • contribs) 10:08, 2009 November 18 (UTC)
~~Template:BSD~~
Hello, I noted that you deleted the image of this template. As the CommonsDelinker seemed to be down at this timepoint, the template now leaves a red image link. I was just wondering if you're able to find a new image, because I think it would look a bit "empty" without an image. Thank you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
What about using File:BSD wordmark.svg, which I just uploaded. I thought about using the FreeBSD logo (which is free), but using it on a template related to BSD in general would most likely constitute a trademark infringement. This image is surely not the best, but that's all I can think of for now. Hopefully someone more inspired will find something more suitable. –Tryphon ^☂ 19:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
~~Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests~~
Pense tu avoir le temps de regarder cette requête de "restauration" : Undeletion_request:Cigarette_card. J'apprécierais vraiment que ça avance et pour le moment il n'y a pas de développements depuis plus d'un mois. Merci. Cordialement Pro bug catcher (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
~~C'est fait. Merci d'avoir pris le temps de contacter la compagnie qui produisait ces cartes. Peu de gens sont prêts à faire ce genre de démarches. –Tryphon ^☂ 07:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)~~
~~WRT your recent comment...~~
WRT your recent comment, no. I realize I recreated a deleted category. I don't make a habit of ignoring administrators' actions and rulings. If there was a good reason why the category was deleted in the first place, over and above that it was empty, and that hypothetical good reason still applied, then I should have placed File:Castle overlooking the Danube.jpg somewhere else.
If the commons was a database, it would have a database manager. And he or she would be responsible for designing a schema -- and policing it. We have no database manager, so it is important we act very cooperatively, and talk to one another about why we empty categories, and why we create new ones.
If you old enough to have used an old-style rolodex this parable will make more sense. Several decades ago I was a member of a small food coop. We kept track of our inventory on little 3x5 rolodex cards -- date purchased, amount, price per kilo. Each item we carried had a card. Each item's card was filed behind a card with a tab for the category, categories like flours, cheeses, oils, legumes, and cereals. When I first started dealing with our inventory the category "cereals" only contained items like oats, "pearl barley", etc -- true cereals. Fast forward a couple of years, and we started to carry, in bulk, a couple of pre-made Crunchy Granola mixes. Another volunteer had shoehorned them under cereals. Following that example, a couple of years later, when we started to carry premium, organic versions of corn-flakes-like pre-packaged breakfast foods, they too were shoehorned under cereals. I took a break from that volunteer gig, and was very surprised when I returned to find that all the true cereals, the oats, barley, etc had been moved to a new category "grains and seeds", leaving "cereals" usurped by breakfast foods.
The point of my story is that we, here, face potential chaos, a category system that is in constant flux, time-wasting flux, if we don't make the effort to explain why we make decisions, and don't make the effort to understand why our collaborators made their decisions. I am doing my part by asking Bapti why they decided to delete the category.
I am not trying to be difficult. Rather the management of categories, to prevent the wasted effort of volunteers undoing the work of other volunteers, is an innately difficult task. Some of our volunteers think it is a trivial task, because it should be obvious to those with experience which categories an image belongs in. In my experience nothing should be dismissed as "obvious". Our decisions on categorization contain idiosyncratic and arbitrary elements. We don't have one perfect categorization scheme that would be obvious to our most experienced categorizers. Rather we have a large variety of possible categorization schemes to choose among, any one of which would be acceptable -- provided it was used consistently.
Earlier today I uploaded an image that illustrated the use of agricultural terraces. I looked under Category:Agriculture. I didn't see an appropriate sub-category. So, should I have created a new category named Category:Terraced agriculture, or Category:Agricultural terraces? Should I have included the new category in Category:Agricultural techiques or Category:Types of agriculture? So far as I know either choice would have been acceptable -- provided it were to be continued to be followed consistently.
The wikimedia commons schema evolves, on an instant by instant basis, through the individual choices made by individual contributors. Consistency is important. And explaining one's choices is important.
What I think would have been a better choice on Bapti's part would have been to have left a longer note like:
deleted after being emptied, following the consensus reached in [this discussion]

deleted after I noticed this category was currently empty.
If Bapti deleted it simply because it was empty then I shouldn't hesitate one second before recreating it.
If Bapti deleted the category after it had been emptied following a discussion where substantive reasons for its emptying and deletion were offered then it would be important to review those substantive reasons -- to see if they still applied.
I have been contributing to the wikipedia for over five years, and to the wikimedia commons for about four years. I have over fifty thousands edits on the wikipedia, and I have uploaded about four thousand images here. In my interactions with the two projects' administrators I have come across some administrators who aren't really open to suggestions that they make a greater effort to document their work. Some, I am very sorry to tell you, become actively hostile to any questions about their decisions, no matter how tactfully they are phrased.
I don't believe I misread the log. I believe my comments to Bapti were civil. I believe my comments to you, here, are also civil. But it is my honest opinion, after long consideration, that the larger our projects become, the more contributors they attract, the larger the pool of administrators becomes, the more important it becomes for everyone, but particularly our administrators, to "show their work", and otherwise carry out their activities in an open, transparent, accountable, responsible manner. Geo Swan (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see Category:Agricultural terraces -- yet it existed. I moved the new image there. The point of this example remains valid however, in spite of my lapse. The decisions we make as to how to categorize images and articles contains idiosyncratic and arbitrary elements. So consistency is important. Geo Swan (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I see your point. I was just surprised that you brought up a one year old edit and ask for an explanation about it. I thought you misread the log into somehow thinking the category had just been deleted.
As for administrators better documenting their actions, I couldn't agree more; although in this case, I would interpret empty as the category was empty, so I deleted it, because if there was a discussion, of course the admin would have linked to it (and if they didn't and you re-created it, the blame would be on that admin; how could you know it had been discussed before?).
Anyway, thanks for clarifying your point. And I'll make sure to be as precise as I can be next time I delete an empty category :) –Tryphon ^☂ 08:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Sorry to intrude. I agree with GeoSwan that it can be hard to find all the right categories for images here. Its almost chaotic sometimes. So, if I see a picture of a beach in England, I may say 1. Cat:X (as in current area/location of photo) and 2. Cat:Beaches of England. At least its better than no cat at all. As an aside, if you could make a comment in this DR, it would be appreciated. The original source deleted his account but the uplaoder has a good record with photos. I think it may be kept in this instance. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
No need to apologize; everyone is welcome to comment and react to discussions on my talk page.
But it looks like I'm too late to comment on that DR... –Tryphon ^☂ 08:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
~~Valhalla picture you just deleted~~
~~What about this one....http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Vallhalla_12.jpg???~~
~~It should be deleted too. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)~~
~~please help~~
I reverted your revert here. The comment has nothing to do with the image and becides it is absolutely wrong. If you aren't sure how to use a file talk page, please take a look here. As you could see "The File talk namespace is used to discuss images in the File namespace", and not an image's creator. Besides category "water waves" does not follow from the category "Surfing in California" at least I could not find an easy connection. So, please do delete the discussion page of the image all together as irrelevant. I would also ask you to learn your subject before making comment as you did on AN/U. What mr. kuiper did to me had nothing to do with cleaning up the categories. It had neither anything to do with edit warring. mr. kuiper with your help and with the silence by other admins tries to retaliate to me personally anywhere and any time he could. Otherwise maybe you could explain why neither you nor he cleaned up other images in category surfers, and why in the world we need that category at all, if I am not allowed to add an image of a surfer to category "surfers"? If you cannot explain that, or, if the only explanation you have is that silly one of yours ,may I please ask you to add category "surfers" to the image? Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Again with the persecution theory. No one is out to get you, talk pages are there to discuss anything related to the image (like categories, and if you thought it was the wrong place, you could have moved the discussion elsewhere instead of just deleting it and go on with your edit war), and I could block you for resuming an edit war after being blocked for that very reason. I don't expect you to listen to me, or even to try and understand why people may have different opinions than yours, because I'm probably part of the international conspiracy directed against you. I'm adding Category:Surfers from America, hoping we can then move on to something that doesn't revolve around you. Good luck. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course mr. kuiper is out there to get me in any place he could, and I could easily prove it. I know you could block me for reverting your edit, and I know that block will be fair (I knew it was wrong what I did). So, if you do feel like blocking me, please do. I will not contest it. Thank you for not getting angry with me for the barnstar. I made it just for fun, and I am going to take it off your talk page now (not for not getting blocked by you, but because you do not deserve it anymore :), and besides mr. kuiper just nominated it to get deleted :) )--Mbz1 (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
~~BibliotecaAH~~
Dear Tryphon,
We're BibliotecaAH. Please don't delete our images. We're Alfaro Hofmann Colecction Owners and all the images we upload are ours. You can visit our Web Page http://www.alfarohofmann.com/#/home/es.
Thanks,
BibliotecaAH — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.155.14.169 (talk) 10:39, 2009 November 24 (UTC)
In that case, you should follow these instructions and send an email to OTRS confirming that you are the copyright holder of those images and that you release them under a free license (please specify which one explicitly). You have to understand that by doing so, anyone can use these images for any purpose, including derivative works and commercial use. Thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 12:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
~~I am sorry~~
When I made the barnstar, I thought it was just funny, but few users believe it was an attack file. So, I guess I own you an apology. Please believe me it was not my intention to attack you with that file. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm really surprised you didn't mean it as an attack (or didn't realize it could be understood as such). Publicly giving someone an award for being unfair, if it's humor, it's usually at that person's expense. Anyway, if you didn't mean it that way, good. And even otherwise, I usually let this kind of things slide; I don't think it's worth getting all worked up about it. –Tryphon ^☂ 13:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I assure you I did not mean it is as an attack, but I have to admit that I thought it might upset you just a little bit. If I were an administrator, and somebody would have given it me, I would have laughed at it, and maybe got just a little bit upset, but not so much. I even would have kept it on my talk page for the fun. If you considered it to be an attack, it is even more surprising you did not block me because you had two good reason to do it: edit warring and attack on you personally. Please once again do acept my apology. In no way I wanted to hurt you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
You did not hurt nor upset me. As I said, I don't really care. Consider your apology accepted. –Tryphon ^☂ 16:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. It is kind of you! May I please ask you to delete the file here? Even, if somebody wants to have it for other purposes, it should be uploaded with a different name. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I prefer letting DRs run to their full extent, someone will close it in a week. –Tryphon ^☂ 16:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I sent you an email.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
~~File:DovesPressBible.jpg~~
Dear Tryphon,
Is this work PD-Old? The 2 authors seem to have been dead for 70+ years? If you agree, then the flickr review license fail template is irrelevant and should be replaced. I have made no edits to this image. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems so. And even if it wasn't for some reason (like a third author who died later than 1939), it's {{PD-US}}, as you can see on the en.wp page. I'll tag it accordingly. Thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention. I am not an expert in copyright or FOP--something which MBisanz and I just dislike--so I thought it was better to get an expert's opinion here. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
~~Undeletion request regarding User:Quahadi~~
~~FYI: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Selected images of User:Quahadi. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 03:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)~~
~~FYI~~
~~here. Once again I'd like to tell you I am sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)~~
I'm glad you did that, thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 10:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
It is me, who should thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
~~Re: File:2003_Ohio_License_Plate.jpg~~
Thanks! I've re-uploaded it as 2003 OH passenter plate.jpg – and requested a file renaming there, since I made a typo. I've updated all uses of the original image, so you can delete it again. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
~~...and it's gone. Thanks for letting me know. –Tryphon ^☂ 10:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)~~
~~File:Kim_eng_holdings_logo.jpg~~
This is regarding [File:Kim_eng_holdings_logo.jpg ]
The logo was submitted to be included in the Infobox of Wiki page on kim eng holdings.
245×71 (6 KB) is the right size for this prupose. Kindly revert it back to this size
Thanks :)
You can use wiki-markup to get the size you want, independently of the original image size. In your case, you would use [[File:Kim_eng_holdings_logo.jpg|245px]] and get:

So I'm going to revert to the original size again. –Tryphon ^☂ 07:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
~~Don Cossack Choir Serge Jaroff~~
Why you took the photographs away? We are a studygroup of the University about the music and history of the Don Cossack Choir and they gave us specal these photographs fot Wikipedia! These photographs are free 94.215.61.61 16:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I assume you're talking about File:Don-Cossack-Choir-oud-003 1.jpg, File:Don-Cossack-Choir-oud-0032 2.jpg and File:Sergejaroff.jpg.

You didn't specify a proper source that would allow us to know if/why these images are in the public domain. If you have permission from the copyright holder to publish those images under a free license (not only for Wikipedia, but for anyone to use for any purpose, such as derivative works and commercial use), please forward it to OTRS (have a look at COM:ET to see what's required). Thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 17:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
~~Removing my "watermark"~~
Hello Tryphon, I understand that for some reason which I do not understand some people on wikimedia have decided that putting a name on a map should be qualified as "watermark". I strongly disagree with this policy of wikimedia because I think by putting my name and the wikipedia as source on map I automatically garantee that the source is quoted the right way and that the licence is fully documented. I also understand that the licence I agreed to publish my material with grants the right to anybody to change my work in any way as they see fit. What I do not understand, is that users put their time in altering already good material by such a useless way instead of producing new useful material. I think it would be a waste of time to redo all the pictures I created just to streamline them acording to the watermark-policy, so probably I should have to thank you, because you "improved" my work by your contribution...No hard feelings, sidonius (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Tryphon, I checked on the policies for removing "Autorenverweise". It says that the person removing the so called "watermark" should add the necessary information into the meta-data of the picture (exif) as well as into the description. The second I did myself, but when I checked in the picture, I could not find any information in the file-properties or exif-data. Unfortunately, I have no possibility to add such information myself, otherwise I would do that. Could you please add my name as original author and wikipedia as source to the exif data of the picture? Thanks sidonius (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's a standard way of doing this for PNGs, and in any case it wouldn't be displayed on the image page. I think that section has been written with JPEGs in mind, and isn't really technically realistic for PNGs. –Tryphon ^☂ 07:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
~~File:Bushbaby_image.jpg~~
Hey Tryphon...
Thanks for catching that and taking care of it. I was wondering, though...I don't recall that particular image and was wondering if there was a copy of it available somewhere...that way I can see what watermark you're talking about. Also, I was wondering if you could tell me when I uploaded that image...I'd hate to think I uploaded a copyrighted image during late 2008 or during 2009, since I became more familiar with copyright law during the summer of 2008.
Thanks, respond on my talk page, please! Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
This image is available on http://www.genome.gov/15014493 (it's the first one), and you uploaded it in May 2008. I know that most people think images on .gov websites are all in the public domain, but a lot of them come from external sources and are not necessarily PD. It's a common and completely understandable mistake. –Tryphon ^☂ 07:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I do recall that one now. And you're right, that was what went through my mind. I have since come to the realization that the government obtains permission to publish copyrighted material just like anyone else would. Thanks for being on the lookout for stuff like that! Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
~~You put an all-rights-reserved photo of mine on Wikimedia Commons~~
Please remove the 420×1,000 pixel version of wormandwaterbear.jpg that you placed at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wormandwaterbear.jpg leaving only the original lower resolution photo that I had given a Creative Commons license for. The high resolution one that you downloaded from Flickr is not licensed similarly. It is marked "copyright all rights reserved" at the Flickr page you took it from. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.162.133.135 (talk) 01:23, 2009 December 13 (UTC)
Done I'm sorry that your original instructions and permission had not been heeded. —Sladen (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpgch (talk • contribs) 02:57, 2009 December 14 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that. I don't have OTRS access, and thought the ticket was for any resolution available on flickr. Sorry for the misunderstanding. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
~~Don Cossack Choir Serge Jaroff (2)~~
The photograph you took away is "free" (promotion material of a company) No rights. It would be nice, to but it back. Thank you. We are studygroup of the university and this is our project, so we know, what we are doing. 94.215.61.61 14:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
~~I already gave you an explanation above. –Tryphon ^☂ 14:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Re:File:Ellis_Island-Nueva_York6802.JPG~~
~~Ups, sorry, you are right, I didn't think about it, will be more careful in the future, Poco a poco (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)~~
~~No problem, mistakes happen. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Thanks~~
Hey, thanks for adding proper source for image File:Rammasun 11 may 2008 0155Z.jpg. I guess I'll have to edit the source information of my uploads from that website and it'll take a while. --Irfanfaiz (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
No rush, they won't be deleted without you being notified first; so you could fix them as they get reported, but if you progressively add sources to your past uploads, it's even better! Thanks for your contributions. –Tryphon ^☂ 10:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
~~Seasonal greetings~~

~~Fresh off the camera - with thanks for your support in 2009 and regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Thanks, happy holidays to you too! And very nice picture; sadly I'm not as gifted as you are for photography... –Tryphon ^☂ 14:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Pourquoi plus qu'une autre ?~~
Tu as mis cette image en copyvio : File:SG1.svg. Alors que d'habitude ce genre d'image passe sans problème (il y a plein d'exemples) et que c'est tout de même assez loin de l'original. Promethee33127 (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Le fait qu'il y a d'autres copyvios sur Commons n'est pas vraiment un argument; bien sûr on ne peut pas tous les marquer, mais si on en voit un il est normal de le supprimer. Ensuite, de deux choses l'une: soit c'est un dessin original (donc pas un copyvio) et il ne répond pas aux critères d'inclusion, soit il est basé sur l'original et c'est un copyvio. Dans un cas comme dans l'autre, le résultat est la suppression du fichier. –Tryphon ^☂ 14:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
~~An idea~~
~~Maybe this DR can be closed as delete? I have withdrawn my nomination. The suggestion of a license change tag is optional. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)~~
~~So you mean kept, right? I'll have a look. –Tryphon ^☂ 14:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Sorry. I meant keep. You're right. Can it be kept? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Comment~~
I hope you can close that DR above by me as keep. As an aside, do you think this is a genuine photo or a copy vio of Decius's bust: [19] I honestly don't know but am a bit suspicious. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
~~Copyright Violation~~
20:59, 23 December 2009 Tryphon (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Map to Bandar Bukit Tinggi, Klang.gif" ‎ (Copyright violation: http://bluecube.forumwise.com/bluecube-thread16.html)
I asked my friend to create the file from scratch. If someone copied the file and put it to somewhere else, how could you say that it is a copyright violation???
Are you saying that my friend is a copy cat? That is so unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.93.69 (talk • contribs)
First of all, if your friend created the map, why did you claim you were the author on the file description page? If you're not the author, you shouldn't claim it's your own work; you should send written permission from the author to OTRS releasing the file under a free license. Secondly, it has been uploaded on imageshack in April, and on Commons in July, so it seems it was taken from imageshack and not the other way around. But feel free to do what Sv1xv suggested and post a request on COM:UNDEL. –Tryphon ^☂ 10:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
~~Re:File:MultiMorphing Demo MedalComposer.ogg~~
Hi, indeed strange situation. Realcomposer has non commercial restriction, but for audio demo's links to French wikipedia article with ogg files hosted on Commons. Want to ask, maybe you could explain User:JCAILLAT about OTRS and so on, as he seems to be native French speaker --Justass (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
~~MultiMorphing musical~~
Bonjour, Merci d'avoir réintégrer sur Commons le fichier audio suivant : . Ces musiques (une même mélodie déclinée dans plusieurs styles musicaux) a été créées par un logiciel utilisant un système de composition musicale automatique (procédé de René-Louis Baron). Ce logiciel produit des musiques sans interventions humaines. Elles ont été téléchargées sur le site de l'invention où est clairement indiqué (en français) qu'elles sont libres de droits d'auteur sans aucune restriction affichée. Cordialement. --JCAILLAT (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
~~Undeletion request~~
~~FYI: COM:UNDEL#File:Snow White and the Three Stooges-Promo1.JPG is for one you kept. Wknight94 ^talk 17:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Regarding The Images That I have uploaded~~
Dear sir/Madam the images that i have uploaded into the wikimedia commons are mine, i have scanned them and released them into the public domains. Some of the images were scaned from some acadamic books and, since there is no proper copy right law about the historical images of the kings and rulers in Afghanistan so it is obvious that every one can have access to the historical images, to publish them or use them in their works of research. I would also like you to know that you can find these images everywhere in other afghan websites. Actually afghans get happy to see the images of their past kings published anywhere in the internet.

~~In regard to one image with the name~~

~~File:Qyamudeen-Khadem.jpg~~

I would like to say that if you could delete this i would be thankful to you. because i am going to publish the original image of this person, this one was modified by the computer graphic software and there is no red tie in the original picture.

Kind Regards
--احمد-نجيب-بياباني-ابراهيمخېل (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
~~Dont get your mad?~~
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Georgy_malenkov.jpg Really, people on wikiepdia dost use to thinking head... With this progress your can delete half files on commons... OMFG.
~~Black box in File "Red de Cercania Barcelona.svg" =~~
Hallo Tryphon, thank you for deleting the black box in the file "Red de Cercania Barcelona.svg". Cause of a mistage i hat to upload the file again. Please delete the black box again. Thank You and a New Good Year de:Wela49 (talk)wela49