User talk:Tryphon/Archive/2011

File source is not properly indicated: File:Sir_Richard_Williams_portrait.JPG

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Sir_Richard_Williams_portrait.JPG, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Sir_Richard_Williams_portrait.JPG]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

–Tryphon^☂ 14:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, User talk:Tryphon, IF you had cared to look, the source/licensing WAS correctly ascribed!Peter Ellis (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Mouse_islet_LM_SolimenaLab.jpg

File:Mouse_islet_LM_SolimenaLab.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!

JDavid (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Step by step instructions to replace pixel graphic images with svg derivatives that I have drawn

Hi- I enjoy drawing vector images and see that you have a suggestion for the 200 most used images that need to be vectorized. I am willing to start etching away at this mountain (I had earlier found a few dozen jpgs that i redrew but was unsure as to how EXACTLY I should go about replacing the jpg, png, etc with svg versions that I draw. How exact do we aim for [I'm now thinking of a logotype for Enigma (File:Enigma-logo.jpg)] Should I try to vector draw the rivets, as flower heads? Many Enigma machines had black enamel on brushed metal, how about a black and white svg in such a case? Gregors (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC) /Gregors

Nice to see people are working on this :) I don't think anyone expects the vectorized version to be an exact reproduction of the raster image, but of course the more detailed the better. It's mostly up to you: how much effort are you willing to put in a single image, the important thing being that it doesn't become a chore and that you continue enjoying doing it. The raster is normally not deleted anyway, so individual projects can decide if your SVG is superior or not and use it accordingly. –Tryphon^☂ 23:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Wappen Landkreis Lüchow-Dannenberg.svg

Hi Tryphon, I have created the File:Wappen Landkreis Lüchow-Dannenberg.svg and replaced the file File:Wappen Landkreis Luechow-Dannenberg.png wherever used globally (with the exception of this template, because it's blocked). Why am I telling you this? The file is part of your list User:Tryphon/Top 200 coat of arms images that should use vector graphics and maybe you want to change that list accordingly. rgds, --Hagar66 (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

By now, the same is true for file:Wappen Landkreis Cuxhaven.svg --Hagar66 (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

And also for file:Wappen Landkreis Nienburg Weser.svg --Hagar66 (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

+file:Wappen Landkreis Gifhorn.svg --Hagar66 (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

+file:Wappen Landkreis Lüneburg.svg --Hagar66 (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

+file:Wappen Landkreis Northeim.svg and that's all for some time :-) --Hagar66 (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to mention one: +file:Wappen Landkreis Stade.svg --Hagar66 (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and an even bigger thank you for all the hard work. I update that list from time to time with current usage data, so it's not necessary to inform me about individual images, but when you think the list needs updating, feel free to leave me a note here. –Tryphon^☂ 23:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Low-quality chemistry list

I've started cleaning up some of the chemical structure diagrams on commons and saw you have a nice gallery of some major ones. Should images be removed from your page when they get deleted or improved versions uploaded, or is that page primarily for your own works-in-progress? DMacks (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You can remove them from the list if you want, but I update it with current usage data from time to time, so even if you don't clean them up manually, they will be removed eventually. And if the low quality image gets deleted, CommonsDelinker will remove them. –Tryphon^☂ 23:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Itautec Computer

Hello, i specailize in documenting electronics, specifically of Latin American origin. I take most of my picture personally in stores or display. However, I found that image of the Itautec computer on the internet on a source which said that it was open in the public domain, however it did seem suspicious as the image looks like it could taken from an advertisment. As wikipedia's software has identified it as a copyrighted image, I guess that this is the case. As such I have no problem with you removing as soon as possible and will not contest such actions. Foxxygrandpa (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It was not "wikipedia's software" that identified it as copyrighted, but just me. I found it on a commercial website, and they very rarely release things in the public domain. I also think it's safer to remove it. –Tryphon^☂ 16:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

DR on me

Thanks for cleaning up.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'd hate to see you deleted :) –Tryphon^☂ 14:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

COM:FOP#Japan

Even if you could doubt the validity of recent DRs, it's clear that currently there is no consensus about the example I deleted, because in all recent DRs I saw, most or all votes say the contrary. If you want people to work strictly with COM:FOP, you must not reinsert an unsourced and hardly supported opinion in it. (Or please quote a Japanese law, using this very example to state this very thing.) Jcb (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You're referring to this DR. It doesn't matter how many keep "votes" there are, DRs are not polls; only the relevance of the arguments should be taken into account. And they are not court decisions, they do not create jurisprudence (otherwise, what about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tower of the sun back.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tower of the SUN Front.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Taiyo no Tou.JPG). So on one hand you have that DR, where some people invoke fair use, and others only express their personal opinion, and on the other hand, you have this very relevant discussion linking to the opinion of a Japanese lawyer. And yet you decide to remove any reference to that discussion and go by some sort of popularity contest (again, DRs are no polls). Besides that, you did not say one word about separability (it's explained shortly here) or about COM:PRP in your closing argument; why do you think they're not relevant? You can't simply close a DR based on an older one when there is contradicting information (on COM:FOP and in other DRs); someone could have quoted that DR and closed as delete just as easily.
And I'm going to undo your change on COM:FOP#Japan again. First of all, when there's a dispute, the page should stay in its initial state until it's resolved. And second of all, you've blatantly misused your rollback tool, as if I was just a vandal, because I can only assume you're aware of COM:RBK: "The rollback tool is an anti-vandal tool". –Tryphon^☂ 08:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

From now on I will not be able to take you seriously if you say something about how to follow COM:FOP. If you make the page useless for a strict following, then it's your own fault that people can't. Jcb (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

How is providing guidance from a Japanese lawyer about Japanese FOP "making the page useless"? And if by "strict following" you mean close a DR according to your view, then edit COM:FOP to match this view, then I'm afraid I can't take you seriously. The proper course of action would be to bring your concerns to Commons talk:Freedom of panorama, convince people that COM:FOP#Japan needs to be changed (by providing reliable sources backing up your position), and then proceed with the change and close DRs accordingly. If you want to take shortcuts and do things your way, don't be surprised if you get some opposition. You've still not addressed the core of the issue in that DR: why is the view of that Japanese lawyer irrelevant, why can't this building be viewed as artwork too, when clearly you can separate its aspect from its function, and why in such a borderline case do you choose to ignore COM:PRP? –Tryphon^☂ 13:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

FoP is not a protection, but an exception. There is an exception for buildings. The object is a building, so the exception applies. It's that simple. Jcb (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well again, that's your interpretation, and I don't think it's any better than that of a Japanese lawyer. And as I said, you're free to defend your view, but you should do it in a discussion on Commons talk:Freedom of panorama.
I would have appreciated an answer to my three questions above, but let me extend on what you just said. It's a building, therefore FOP applies. Well, in case you didn't bother to read it, here's what COM:DW has to say about separability: "The test of separability and independence from "the utilitarian aspects of the article" does not depend upon the nature of the design—that is, even if the appearance of an article is determined by aesthetic (as opposed to functional) considerations, only elements, if any, which can be identified separately from the useful article as such are copyrightable." That's about utilitarian objects, but we're in a very similar situation. As you said, FOP is a copyright exception, just like utilitarian objects benefit from special provisions. Using the separability test, you can show that a lamp (a useful article) can have copyrightable artistic features (see this article for details). So it shows there are mixed cases, you cannot stop your reasoning at "it's a building", it can be a little bit of both. That's what the discussion linked to from COM:FOP#Japan was trying to explain, and I still don't understand why you're so willing to ignore it. –Tryphon^☂ 18:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Slow down

I had just transferred the picture to Commons, and I was still checking it (the syntax was preventing the source from being displayed). Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Brandt Markenzwieback Portionspackung.JPG

Danke fürs Aufpassen! Gruß, --4028mdk09 (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

escrimeur Gaudin

Bonjour et merci de votre aide pour l'importation de l'image de cet escrimeur ; j'avais du mal à terminer.Robert Valette (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Pas de problème, c'est toujours un plaisir de donner un coup de main. Bonne continuation. –Tryphon^☂ 10:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Images Ksenia Milicevic par Ativi

Bonjour Tryphon, je joins l'autorisation pour les images des peintures de Ksenia Milicevic. Cordialement--Ativi (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Je confirme par la présente être l'auteur et le titulaire unique et exclusif des droits d'auteur (peintre) attachés au texte

                         1. Azur attendri d'octobre pâle et pur.
                         2. La mémoire inassouvie 2
                         3. Suzanne et les vieillards 2
                         4. Le voyage d'hiver 2
                         5. Les amours domestiques 2
                         6. Indéniable 2
                         7. Celui qui viens après
reproduit à l'adresse http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ksenia_Milicevic 

Je donne mon autorisation pour publier cette œuvre sous la licence Creative Commons Paternité-Partage des Conditions Initiales à l'Identique 3.0 Unported [1] Je comprends qu'en faisant cela je permets à quiconque d'utiliser mon œuvre, y compris dans un but commercial, et de la modifier dans la mesure des exigences imposées par la licence. Je suis conscient de toujours jouir des droits extra-patrimoniaux sur mon œuvre, et garder le droit d'être cité pour celle-ci selon les termes de la licence retenue. Les modifications que d'autres pourront faire ne me seront pas attribuées. Je suis conscient qu'une licence libre concerne seulement les droits patrimoniaux de l'auteur, et je garde la capacité d'agir envers quiconque n'emploierait pas ce travail d'une manière autorisée, ou dans la violation des droits de la personne, des restrictions de marque déposée, etc. Je comprends que je ne peux pas retirer cette licence, et que le texte est susceptible d'être conservé de manière permanente par n'importe quel projet de la fondation Wikimedia. 8-03-2011, Ksenia Milicevic, 13 pl. Emile Goudeau, 75018 Paris, 0142590166

Vous devriez envoyer cette permission à permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org (voir les instructions ici). Merci. –Tryphon^☂ 14:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Richard Williams

I'm trying to understand whether you read and/or understood my reply to you, and the information that was quite obviously there with the image. See more here.Peter Ellis (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Jim has explained the situation quite well. Or do you still disagree with the reason of deletion? –Tryphon^☂ 14:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Flor2.jpg

Sorry, but the file is not a copy. It is not a copyright violation at all. The image without the logo is not copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.81.113.130 (talk) 16:09, 2011 March 11 (UTC)

Please see COM:CB#Internet images. Unless you obtained explicit permission from the author, you cannot use this image. Just because it's available on the internet doesn't mean it isn't copyrighted. –Tryphon^☂ 17:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

and File:625273guido de patito feo.jpg reported, taken from a copyrighted image because it has not been removed?

board games

Hello,

All the photos that I uploaded are board games pre world war II, so at least 65 years old, some of them even more. The photos are recent but the games are old and there is no copyright problem. Please remove the speedy deletion mark.

--Yoavd (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author, so 65 years old is certainly not old enough. In any case, we need to know who's the author of the work. –Tryphon^☂ 14:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

According to Israeli copyright law this is different. Any way I am asking out expert lawyer (user:Deror avi) to check in this issue. Please wait before deleting the photos. --Yoavd (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, Israeli copyright law was only different for photographs. Everything else is copyrighted for 70 years pma. I'm not an admin, so I'm not going to delete anything, and they can be restored if it turns out they were allowed. –Tryphon^☂ 14:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Tryphon is correct (another exception is Government Copyright which is also 50 years - but this is not the case here). Deror avi (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the fixes on creator template and on license. Sometimes when I've found a decent image, I get ahead of myself. So thank you. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome :) –Tryphon^☂ 23:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Tryphon/Archive!

Tip: Add categories to your files

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

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

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

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

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Image:Logo cafeplusco.jpg was uncategorized on 1 March 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Love Actually (2003) Interconnections.svg was uncategorized on 15 March 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

International Gay and Lesbian Film Festival «Side by Side» 2008

License acknowledgement will arrive in OTRS in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Side2 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 2011 March 17 (UTC)

You should tag those images with {{OTRS pending}} then. Also note that for the images showing frames of a movie, the author of the movie needs to give his/her permission too. –Tryphon^☂ 11:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

image:SEAT Auto emoción.jpg

Hello, I disagree with your licence in this image. This file was created by croping official logo of SEAT. It's part of the trademark.--Slfi (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Trademark is not a concern for us, we only care about copyright. You can tag it with {{Trademark}} if you want. –Tryphon^☂ 01:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Laraine Day Photos

Hi, Tryphon, when you can would you mind going down to Laraine Day's page on the commons and looking into some of the screenshots from "The Locket" and "Mr. Lucky" for me? I ask because I uploaded some and the site is tagged alot of them with delete requests. I was hoping maybe you could go through and fix the license and information for me as they feel my input wasn't up to snuff. If you could that would be most appreciated and you can help us keep those pictures up for future reference when Laraine Day's Wikipedia page needs a facelift. Just something to consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennie2011 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2011 March 21 (UTC)

There's nothing to be fixed. These movies are copyrighted, and there's no way we can keep the screenshots. The copyright of the locket has been renewed in 1974, for instance. Please do not upload screenshot from these movies anymore, or any other movies where you haven't preformed thorough research to find out if the copyright was renewed. Thanks. –Tryphon^☂ 22:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

vandal tag?

Where did you find the vandalism warning tag you used at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:152.26.35.194 ? I have been looking for the appropriate tag like that! Thanks, --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I visit a user talk page, I get a bunch of links in the toolbox on the left (I'm using Monobook, maybe they're not located there in Vector) that give me the possibility to leave a template message easily. There's a bunch of them for various degrees of vandalism (Sandboxing, Vandalism, Vandalism 2, Vandalism 3). But of course, you can also add these templates directly ({{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}). –Tryphon^☂ 13:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Nl-Prince-article.ogg

Hi Tryphon, if we make a new audio recording for a NL.wiki article, it's OK to overwrite the old recording, because only the new version will be used. I'm fine with the new recording for Prince, he proposed it by e-mail in advance and I responded to him it would be fine. Jcb (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, different files have different authorship information, and possibly different licenses. So they should always be uploaded separately, even if the earlier version is unlikely to ever being used. Now that I've uploaded the new version at File:Nl-Prince-article-bis.ogg, there's really no reason to have the same file at File:Nl-Prince-article.ogg, so I'm going to revert to your version again. –Tryphon^☂ 09:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the authorship information. The change you made has undesired consequences at NL.wiki. Jcb (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"Please stay away from the NL spoken Wikipedia project if you don't understand the consequences of your change." What the hell!!?? So I'm supposed to sit idly by while you undo what I did in an attempt to keep both versions of the files, is that so? As far as I can tell, everything was fine until you decided to revert the file (someone tried to put it back, but you insist on having it your way and even used you admin powers to delete the file I had just uploaded). There's no reason for not keeping both files (you even advocate for keeping your version in that DR, which was closed as kept, if I may remind you), and so I ask you to undelete File:Nl-Prince-article-bis.ogg, fix the link on nl.wp, and restore File:Nl-Prince-article.ogg to its original version. I really don't see why you couldn't just let it be, and the only undesired consequences come from your actions. Please think before you act! –Tryphon^☂ 10:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, "version cleaning" is not a valid reason for deletion either. Now the file history doesn't make any sense to anyone who is not an admin. Please undelete those revisions too. –Tryphon^☂ 11:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

VR-Land sent me an email message to request technical help for this. The reason "someone tried to put it back" was that you reverted the file to an old version. I'm the original uploader and I'm fine with the new version. So what's the problem? Please don't revision war about nothing. We always replace the file if we update the spoken version, so that one can easily see if there were previous versions of the file. Jcb (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well in the meantime, VR-Land figured it out. Why can't you? And don't accuse me of "revision waring", I'm clearly not; you used your admin powers twice to undo something I did, with no reason whatsoever (deleting the file I uploaded, and deleting my two revisions of the file). Please read COM:OVERWRITE, and revert your actions. I don't see how the fact that you're the original uploader is relevant, nor do I understand why you don't want to keep both versions of the file under different names; if you want one of them removed, open a DR, don't overwrite, and don't use your admin tools to have your way.
Can you for once try to understand someone else's point of view, and even if you don't completely agree, make an effort and be conciliatory? –Tryphon^☂ 17:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Lightning safety

hatte ich vergeblich gesucht. Danke! Gruß, --4028mdk09 (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Bitte bitte :) –Tryphon^☂ 16:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

free speech flag

thank you for your work on Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg Decora (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Image:2012 Mazda3 Skyactiv explanation.jpg

Good call - I forgot to pull that image out of the upload pile. The images I'm uploading of the Toronto Auto Show will also go up on my Flickr account, and this particular image can be safely hosted there. Tabercil (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured it was just an image lost in the bunch. I'm sure you would have noticed and removed it sooner of later, but since I happened to see it first, I thought I might just go ahead and tag it right away. Congrats on the rest of your Toronto Auto Show pictures by the way, looks good! –Tryphon^☂ 01:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Email

I've sent you an email. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I got it. I'm not an OTRS volunteer though, so I cannot do much about it. –Tryphon^☂ 12:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne on Walmart Soundcheck2.jpg

Hi Tryphon, the file Avril Lavigne on Walmart Soundcheck2.jpg is not a Copyright violation, because de author is the same of this file. Thanks. --Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 23:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That file is a copyright violation too. I'm sure you've noticed the watermark. –Tryphon^☂ 12:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Permiso en el archivo:José Encarnación Prats Medina.jpg

Hola Tryphon!! En esta imagen que subí, colocaste una plantilla solicitando un permiso del autor para no borrar el archivo. Te comento que tal y como lo indica la platilla que coloqué, esa imagen me fue proporcionada por el ARCHIVO HISTÓRICO DEL PODER EJECUTIVO DEL ESTADO DE TABASCO de acuerdo al Art, 36 Fracc. III, V y IX de la Ley de Archivos Públicos del estado de Tabasco. Indicaca por el oficio Num. 407 con fecha 16 de febrero de 2011, de la Dirección General de Asuntos Jurídicos del Gobierno del Estado de Tabasco y firmada por el Director de Asuntos Jurídicos Lic. Carlos Trujillo Peregrino. Así como por el oficio SEGOB/AHPEET/047/2011 con fecha 24 de marzo del 2011, del Archivo Histórico del Poder Ejecutivo del estado de Tabasco, firmado por el Director del Archivo Histórico del Poder Ejecutivo del Estado, el Lic. Ricardo de la Peña Marshall. En donde me informaban que de conformidad al artículo antes citado, me proporcionaban la imágen solicitada.

El artículo 36 Fracc IX de la Ley de Archivos Públicos del Estado de Tabasco a la letra dice: "Permitir a los particulares la reproducción del acervo histórico, siempre y cuando se realicen con las técnicas que garantícen su preservación e impidan su deterioro"

En el apartado de "Permisos" detallo la autorización correspondiente y menciono el citado artículo y sus fracciones, así como a ley a la que pertenece. Saludos. Alfonsobouchot (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In english

Hi Tryphon! Sorry, but, I'm dont speak english very well, This file is no copyright violations, because Tabasco's Goverment gave me this picture, considering article 36 fracc. III, V y IX of the "File Publics of the Tabasco State Law" says: "Allow individuals, the reproduction of historical ducumetos, when making whit techniques to ensure their conservation". I mention this in the template permits, I put in that image. Thanks Alfonsobouchot (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to follow the instructions given on your talk page (or at Commons:OTRS/es). –Tryphon^☂ 12:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Callista Gingrich

Hello Tryphon, I've left an explanation and a question about this image on the Talk page for the image, which you notified me about being up for deletion. It's not my image originally, but I found another version of the same photo, and replaced it. As I explain there, the original uploader was definitely someone who had the rights to release it under Creative Commons and called it that when uploading. Anyhow, your advice would be appreciated. Stargat (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to have been resolved now, with a properly licensed version from flickr. –Tryphon^☂ 13:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Too 200 Images Sweep

Hi Tryphon,

The talk page for Top 200 Images that should be SVG says that you have a bot that could update the page. Could you please make the bot come to life regularly (weekly)? It would make the page, which is currently linked to the top of Graphics ab requests, far more useful.

Jon C (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. In the meantime, you can also use glamorous. –Tryphon^☂ 13:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

File:M10livro.png

Hallo Tryphon, i have undid your copyvio tagging of File:M10livro.png. It was uploaded by the author him/herself. I tagged it nopermission instead. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, that's fine too. –Tryphon^☂ 08:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

File:FredM Large.jpg

This image still doesn’t have the required information. Can you supply a source? Right now the tag claims a publication prior to 1923, but no where dose the information supplied where this image was published. Eventually it is going to be deleted if it stays as is.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 15:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I know, and I sincerely hope you can convince Jcb to revise his position on this. But just in case it ends up being kept, I wanted to make sure the higher resolution version would be used. –Tryphon^☂ 15:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm the one who tagged it for deletion. I would love for it to be Kept, but there is no information on it being published or authorship, so the image has to be older the 120 years. If you have that info please fix the image.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 14:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course I don't have the information... I was agreeing with you above. –Tryphon^☂ 15:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:FredM Large.jpg

File:FredM Large.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!

--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 14:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Modification sur Com:VP

Bonjour!

Je voudrai bien apprendre, qu'est-ce que tu comprends alors sous un double vote, si ce n'est pas un cas ici. Si je comprends bien ta logique, ce serait alors admissible par exemple dans un RfA de voter plusieurs fois pour ou contre le candidat, en utilisant chaque fois un nouveau argument ou un nouveau aspect... Cela me semble bien bizarre, à moins que la discussion sur VP n'est pas tellement un vote, mais plutôt une simple collection d'avis. Mais si ceci est le cas, pourquoi Rehman a fait la demande "Please vote below" dans l'ouverture du thème? Salutations, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Il me semble simplement que Docu a voulu exprimer son opposition à deux aspects différents de la question (en nuançant l'une de ses oppositions), et que retirer cette deuxième partie de son commentaire en changeait complètement le sens. Bien sûr, si on en vient à compter les votes un à un, il conviendra de tenir compte qu'il s'agit de l'avis d'une seule personne, mais j'ai l'impression qu'il s'agit plutôt d'un "vote à main levée", afin d'estimer s'il y a oui ou non un intéret pour cette fonctionalité. Plutôt que de retirer entièrement ce commentaire, peut-être qu'il serait judicieux de transformer le template {{Oppose}} en un simple texte, afin de rendre un éventuel décompte plus aisé (ou mieux encore, demander à Docu s'il veut bien reformatter son commentaire)? –Tryphon^☂ 12:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Rehman lui-même a pris le vote en charge, je pense qu'il a fait à peu près la chose que tu disais "judicieux". :-) Salutations, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Oui, j'ai vu. Tout est bien qui finit bien, donc :) –Tryphon^☂ 16:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Measha Brueggergosman.jpg

I noticed you removed the watermark using "resynthesizer". Can you pass along to me any details on what that software is - there's a few other pics I've love to try and remove watermarks from... Tabercil (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, with pleasure! It's this Gimp plugin. If you're running Debian or Ubuntu, there's a package called gimp-resynthesizer. Have fun! –Tryphon^☂ 22:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Gimp... huh. Guess I'll have to pull down and figure out how to use it - Photoshop user myself. Tabercil (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems Photoshop has a similar feature since CS5, called Content-Aware Fill. There's a youtube video demonstrating the feature. –Tryphon^☂ 12:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tried it on some images - doesn't work that well on watermarks, well at least the upper watermark on File:David Henrie 2010.jpg. That's why I was curious about resynthesizer. Tabercil (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah okay. That's a tough one indeed, resynthesizer usually doesn't perform well in these situations either. I just tried quickly on that image, and the results were really terrible. –Tryphon^☂ 12:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh... took a fresh wack at the pic in Photoshop and managed somehow to get something that didn't totally suck - uploaded as File:David Henrie 2010 alt.jpg. Your thoughts? Tabercil (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Indentation

Hello, about this, that's a common procedure indenting with a star and as many commas ( : ) as the discussion progresses; I fixed the paragraph just to make it more readable, since - as you can see - there are people who indent with bullets and those who indent with bullets and commas. Nothing wrong in this. Since you reverted is fine for me, would be silly by me to engage revert war because of this, but now the text is confused and the thread is not as viewable than before. -- Blackcat (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It is just as common to indent using a bullet list, and I don't understand what you mean by I fixed the paragraph; it was not broken, the indentation was consistent (one more indentation level for each thread level). As a general rule, I think people should stick with whatever convention was used in a particular thread, no matter what their personal preference is. So "fixing" an existing thread, in which you did not even participate, seemed a bit strange to me. As you say, it's not a big deal and certainly not worth fighting over, but I still fail to understand why you think that the text is confused and the thread is not as viewable than before. I would agree if the indentation level was wrong, but it isn't; there's a "*" for each ":" you would have used, so the indentation is exactly the same. –Tryphon^☂ 19:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Lucky screenshots

Hello, I recently added some screenshots from the film "Mr. Lucky" and I just wanted to specify that the current licenses on them were just misunderstood and placed in error. I didn't know until now that the copyright of the film was renewed. Is there a way that the new license can be added so that they can be kept? If so, what if you fixed the license for one of them and let me know which and then I can take that license, go back into the other ones uploaded, and correct them with the proper license.Captnyo 17:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The copyright of the movie was renewed, so all these screenshots are actually still under copyright. There is nothing we can do to keep these images. Please do not upload more of these screenshots, and only use {{PD-US-not renewed}} after you've thoroughly checked that the copyright wasn't renewed. Thanks. –Tryphon^☂ 17:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry that you won't be able to keep them. I won't upload any more here on the commons. I'll have to check more througouly next time.Captnyo 18:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong categories

Please do not categorize into wrong categories, and with wrong sort order. -- sarang사랑 22:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour Tryphon, I hab been short, but in the meantime I tried to explain it better at the talk page. If you want to add your comments to that, you are invited.

About categorizing into SVG Simplified a similar principle is intended, it is explained detailed enough (at least I hope so) in the category itself.

I am doing a lot to diversificate too crowded categories, IMHO it is not the best thing to stuff anything into huge categories blowing them up. Cdlt -- sarang사랑 08:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Admin

I know I'm not the only one who would like to see you take back the Admin bit. We're happy to clean up after you find problems (Karl Jester Windridge and Indiaunity), but wouldn't it be easier all around if you just did it yourself?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Human_penis_erect.jpg

File:Human_penis_erect.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!

Yikrazuul (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Tryphon/Archive!

Tip: Add categories to your files

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

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

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

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

CategorizationBot (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Image:Ban Ki-moon, Mrs Ban, Peter Krämer and Jaka Bizilj.TIF was uncategorized on 5 June 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Fig-1 lombaert et al.tif was uncategorized on 5 June 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Japanese_speech_balloon.svg

File:Japanese_speech_balloon.svg 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!

106.134.197.9 13:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for updates

Hi Tryphon. I would be great if you could update the following pages sometime or other:

• User:Tryphon/Top 200 images which should use TeX
• User:Tryphon/Top 200 low quality chemical diagrams
• Top 200 chemical images that should use vector graphics by usage

--Leyo 14:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Tryphon/Archive!

Tip: Add categories to your files

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

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

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

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

CategorizationBot (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Image:"Top Women" at U.S. Steel's Gary, Indiana, Works, 1940-1945.jpg was uncategorized on 20 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Victoria Justice cropped.jpg was uncategorized on 18 September 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File tagging File:Ernst Boris Chain.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Ernst Boris Chain.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Polarlys (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

File:"Stop_strip_mining"_sign_in_Southeastern_Ohio.jpg

File:"Stop_strip_mining"_sign_in_Southeastern_Ohio.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!

 — billinghurst sDrewth 07:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)