User talk:Yann/archives 36

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Wikidia

Yann, pour le gros travail que j'ai entrepris sur John Holker et son fils John Holker, Jr., j'aurais besoin de montrer la navette volante de John Kay, et les gravures d'époque sont peu claires. Par contre, un schéma de wikidia l'est. Mais pour les raisons que vous savez, maintenant je me méfie. Si wikidia est une filiale de wikipedia, ce serait sans problème. Pouvez-vous me le confirmer ? Merci --Anglo-norman (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Anglo-norman,
Il faut que le dessinateur autorise la publication sous une licence libre. Voyez COM:OTRS pour les instructions. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content Violation

Yann, you have accused me of violating copyright yet I am on the Board of Directors for the page that I am editing and therefore know that the logos are free use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck-2013 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ck-2013: Hi,
Until proven otherwise, you are anonymous here. So please send a permission for a free license via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your unfounded threats

I have just got this message from you that I find shocking and inappropriate: "It has come to our attention that you have uploaded several files that are copyright violations. You have done so despite requests from editors not to do so, and despite their instructions. See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter useful. This is your last warning. Continuing to upload copyright violations will result in your account being blocked."

That is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. I upload only the files that:

1. I have created myself in my capacity of a graphic artist. 2. Are from my personal archives. 3. I have permission to upload.

Last time I uploaded the photo of Canadian politician Chris Alexander from whom I have personal permission (see below email):

Sincerely, Chris Alexander.

Subject: Ticket:2017050910001996 Confirmation of receipt (Re: License / permission [...])

Any more questions or warnings? Actually, apology would not hurt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baltvilks (talk • contribs) 20:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Baltvilks: Hi,
First, please stay mellow. We delete around 2,000 images a day, mostly for copyright violations.
Second, as for any content previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission is needed.
Third, the message on your talk page is just a warning. Everything will be OK if you don't upload images without a proper permission.
Fourth, the files may be undeleted when the permission is processed. As there is always a backlog, it may take some time. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Please check my answer at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Baltvilks ...................................... First: I am staying mellow. Second: Do I need written permission given from myself to myself? :)))) Are you kidding me? Third: This warning by itself is NOT OK. Fourth: I do not care too much about the files. More about this harassment that you seem to enjoy. Fifth: It looks that I am having no other choice but to request the deletion of your account as you seem to use it exclusively for harassing and insulting other Wiki members. ...................................... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baltvilks (talk • contribs) 02:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A copy of my comment is below:

I am deeply insulted by the phrase that the above images are "unlikely to be own works". Why is that "unlikely"? If the author of this statement is unable to create such artworks it does not mean that some other people are not. Please be advised that ALL the above files have been CREATED BY MYSELF in my capacity of an amateur graphic artist. What kind of proof do you need? I can email yo you ORIGINAL COREL DRAW FILES if you wish to provide me with your email addresses. Alternatively you are welcome to visit me at my office in Victoria (BC), Canada and check my computer before making such slanderous statements.

The FILES THAT ARE MY OWN AND EXCLUSIVE WORK are:

As for the file File:Andreas (Andrew) Andersen.jpg, it is MY OWN selfie.

Regarding the files

The permission has already been sent to you in my previous message.

In any case, here is my contact information: Dr. Andrew Andersen

And I actually expect apology for the unfounded allegations.

Angrily yours, Dr. Andrew Andersen (user Balltvilks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baltvilks (talk • contribs) 20:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Baltvilks:
The permission at ticket:2017050910001996 mentioned above isn't for the above files.
Now you are claiming a different story at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Baltvilks, that's why there is a suspicion about the licensing of these files. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hamilton (rugby Union) image

Hi Yann,

I'm not sure what has caused this recent flurry of banning threats and editing wars but it would be great to get to the bottom of what's causing it so we can all move on with our lives. I have uploaded an image of the rugby player Jim Hamilton I own and is 100% mine to do with however I please. I'm not sure what proof you desire other than the Creative Commons listing nor can I begin to understand what the other user Stemoc was trying to accomplish or communicate with the odd religious insinuations which passed for his "editing".

A steer on how you'd like to resolve this tiresome non-issue would be appreciated as we seem to have arrived at an entente. I remain unconvinced that threatening bans and the seemingly arbitrary deletion of images is likely to help Wikipedia matters much so finding the solution to enable the photo of Jim Hamilton to be used on his Wikipedia entry should be the objective for all interested parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subclassic (talk • contribs) 21:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Subclassic: Hi,
You uploaded 3 files, and 2 of them are obvious copyright violations. That's why there is quite a suspicion about File:Jim Hamilton professional rugby player.jpg. Could you please upload the original image with EXIF data, or send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann:
Your use of the word "obvious" is galling, particularly when I have uploaded the original file - three times - with the associated copyright info. You and the other user who's taken an unnatural interest in this are ostensibly calling into question my integrity, something I resent almost as much as the time which is being wasted on this. It remains unclear to me how either of you is qualified to opine on this matter so I've raised a ticket with Permission - Wikipedia Commons. It's ticket:2017051610023208 should you wish to update your records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subclassic (talk • contribs) 07:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Subclassic: Hi,
I restored the image, and added a reference to your ticket. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann:

Thank you however please can you explain why the following message is now associated with the image?

"....the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published. For an update on the issue, please contact the user (Yann) who added this template to the page, or someone else with an OTRS account, or the OTRS noticeboard. If a valid permission is not provided within 30 days of the first response by an OTRS volunteer, this file will be deleted. Please do not file an additional deletion nomination for permission reasons."

How is the email message, "....not sufficient to confirm permission" given that the email gives outright permission for the image to be used by the copyright holder himself?

How is the following passage relevant if permission from the copyright holder has been granted, "...the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published." How can an email address be associated with a Wikipedia page? The image doesn't appear ANYWHERE else on the internet and is for the exclusive use on Jim Hamilton's Wikipedia page.

What now qualifies as a "valid permission" given that permission has been granted by the copyright holder? "If a valid permission is not provided within 30 days of the first response by an OTRS volunteer, this file will be deleted."

Some help on resolving this issue would be greatly appreciated rather than continued opaque references to more and insufficient permissions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subclassic (talk • contribs) 09:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't validate the permission. That will be done later. Please note that there is a huge backlog, so it will take some time. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A FPC result from April

Hi Yann. How are you going? I stumbled upon this FPC candidacy [1] with 6 support & 0 oppose but result not featured. This may have been a mistake. Could you review it again if you have time? Cheers! seb26 (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi seb26,
You need 7 supports to be featured. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh woops, thanks for the heads up seb26 (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Hi Yann,

Sorry about the copyright violations. Didn't see any of the messages. Won't happen again. But however there is one image to which I own rights to, that was removed. I sent a request, hope it gets sorted out soon. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 111.223.143.123 (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arakane_Satomi.jpg

At Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Arakane_Satomi.jpg_This_is_the_picture_I_took_in_my_Selfportrait_picture.21: you've closed this so I figured I shouldn't further comment there, but it would seem to me that an alternative to COM:OTRS would be that the same Twitter account that posted the picture in the first place could tweet confirming identity with the uploader, or indicating a license. - Jmabel ! talk 16:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jmabel,
IMO Tweeter is not a reliable source for images. Anyone can create an account there with any name, and post any picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Account blocked

Good morning,

It seems like you have blocked my account. I would like to know why and what happens when someone is blocked.

Thanks, Pedrocoiso1 (talk)

Pedrocoiso1, your account was blocked for a week because you continue to upload non-free images after warning. You won't be able to upload media files here. Note that this is not a punitive action but to prevent you from further uploading unfree images to Common. Hope you are good, Yann? Regards. Wikicology (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, nominated the rest of the coats of arms: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pedrocoiso1. @Pedrocoiso1: Please take this time to read all Commons policies about copyright: COM:L, COM:DW, etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what happens after that week? Pedrocoiso1 (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FacultiesIntact

Hey Yann, sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your message. I've been working with my clients, educating both them and myself on the finer points of Commons' policies. I wanted to make sure my clients and myself understood the situation as best as we could before taking further actions. Jeff G. has been incredibly generous with his time and patience in helping me unravel this whole fiasco. I told him that by pure oversight we'd used incorrect language in the release statement for our clients, and we've since fixed that, in addition to recommending the usage of the release generator to avoid any of these incidents in the future. At the end of it all, I deeply regret that things escalated into this situation. While I was initially frustrated that what seemed to me to be one incident became my "last warning," ultimately I'm glad that it was brought to my attention at this point rather than later down the line. I want to assure you that I take these violations seriously, and I'm doing everything that I can to prevent a situation like this from happening again.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FacultiesIntact,
You must disclose that you work as a paid editor on your user page. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook images

Two authors who supplied photos from facebook have supplied OTRS confirmation, but the third said that he did not understand CC-by-SA well enough, despite my explanations, to make the correct decision. Consequently I would appreciate if you could delete all the photos in Category:Photographs by Per Holmen at the first convenience, and would appreciate confirmation. I learned a lesson here, and will take extra care in future. JMK (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JMK,
Could you please create a deletion request? Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is here: Deletion requests/Per Holmen photos. The authors who did supply OTRS confirmation are Leonie Kellermann and Birding Weto Tours. If there are any others you noticed, I can follow up on them. JMK (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JMK, Thanks for creating the request. This is not a simple request, and the images are widely used, so I'd like to have opinions from several admins. Is there an OTRS ticket about this? Where did Per Holmen say that he didn't agree about a free license? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No there was no OTRS permission from Mr Per Holmen. I arranged with him that I'll hold temporary copyright on 1 file, and then release that 1 file immediately under CC-by-SA-04. I asked him: "Are you sure what CC-by-SA involves?", and I then did some explaining, noting that it can be used by anyone for free. I requested only 1 file from him, but then he offered more and larger images as he was pleased with the upload, and I uploaded another 8 files (quick count), though I declined his offer of high resolution files. The other 97 files were uploaded by User:Silltruten completely independent of me, after he saw my uploads and contacted and arranged with Mr Per Holmen independently. Mr Holmen revealed on a private facebook message that he is not happy with the CC-by-SA when I contacted him about OTRS, after you wrote to me. Then he repeated his wish for copyright in an e-mail to User:Silltruten and me. I assume he got our e-mails via wikimedia. I can forward all these communications. JMK (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JMK, These will probably be deleted in a few days. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That will be very good for public relations. Mr Holmen affirmed that the release of the first file, Mirafra africana subsp nyikae, Kitulo NP, Per Holmen, a .jpg, under CC-by-SA-04 is ok, but not the rest. So I'll remove that single file from the list once he sent OTRS permission for it. JMK (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consul General

Sorry for the mistakes committed. I will try to fix it. I have asked all copy right owners for permission which I received in German or Englisch but apparently not forwarded and published this permission in the adequate form expected by Wikipedia to proof the received permission. I ask you to extend the delay since I got aware of the "mess" only now! I hope copy right owners are able to give me the permission again in the correct form. I try my best. Consul General — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consul General (talk • contribs) 09:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Consul General: Hi,
Please send a permission for a free license via COM:OTRS for any content of which you are not the sole and direct author. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BeckMega

Hello! You text me several times that I upload files that are copyright violations. Why you thing that these files are copyrighted? I am close friend with that person who are these photos and the last year i make him a Wikipedia page because he is the biggest Twitch streamer in Bulgaria. But the people in the Bulgarian Wikipedia thought that this page was not meaningful enough so they delete it. Now I wrote to the person to whom the pictures are and he will send me permission to use them, which I had before, but it will be written now. Then what should i do? Should I send it to you or something else? --BeckMega (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BeckMega,
Please send a permission for a free license via COM:OTRS for any content of which you are not the sole and direct author. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AN

Your recent remarks have been raised for attention at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Yann: "I am a victim of homophobic people". --Fæ (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yann, apologies for the inadvertent violations to copyright laws. I hadn't been checking all of these messages, but I do hope my account isn't blocked as a result. Also, to avoid any further misunderstandings, can you clarify what the copyright violation was? I think I see that perhaps taking a photo of a campaign poster might be the reason? Anyway, the violations were not intentional, I was in Paris during elections and interested in contributing newsworthy images leading up to voting. Additionally, I had seen some similar sorts of photos in newspapers to document the election so my intention was to do the same but through the wikimedia commons community.

So, for example, for a news article from 2007 https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/High_turnout_observed_in_French_presidential_election why is this image permitted?: File:French_presidential_elections_2007_Paris_Place_dItalie_12_candidates.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lashaull (talk • contribs) 16:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat on the newer side of contributing, and while I really like having the ability to offer my images so they can be made use of by others, It's not always clear what is and is not something that will be in violation. Getting a terse message that I might be blocked without additional guidance and clarification sends a message, however, I would think it would be more helpful to most users get a message along with some guidance and explanation so that we will have a better idea for potential future contributions to know what is and is not a permitted.

Again, thanks for letting me know and any additional guidance on contributing photos would be extremely helpful and appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lashaull (talk • contribs) 16:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lashaull (talk • contribs) 16:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This is probably an oversight. We certainly have at least 100,000 undiscovered copyright violations on Commons among our nearly 40 million files. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re alleged copyrighted pictures

Im writing again to condemn your accusation of my using the Dublin Celts photos, where is your proof that Iv violated the copyright? Im still very annoyed at your last message. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.71.141.170 (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please log in first. Then send a permission for a free license via COM:OTRS for any content of which you are not the sole and direct author. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gauvain Sers.jpg

Bonjour Yann,

je m'adresse à vous car vous semblez être un pilier de Commons :-).

Je viens d'importer cette photo venant de Flickr, après avoir demandé à l'auteur, s'il accepterait de changer la licence en CC BY 2.0 (voir ici). Très gentiment, il a changé la licence mais en « Domaine public ».

Je voulais savoir, si cela posait un problème ? Et si elle allait être validée comme telle ?

Je n'ai pas osé l'insérer sur la page fr:wikipedia de Gauvain Sers, car j'ai doute si oui ou non, elle va être acceptée.

Cordialement. Jackrs 16:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour,
C'est bon, j'ai validé la licence. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merci beaucoup Yann.
Cordialement. Jackrs 16:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cupidvogel

I did not upload messages inspite of editor's instructions. I uploaded them, then discussed the details with them, and was trying to to gather the required permissions from the correct places as other editors instructed me to do so. I understand that you are a moderator and have privileges, but make sure to wield them wisely and when required, and not just because you have the license to do so. I am as sincere and dedicated a Wikipedia contributor as anybody else, and don't make the mistake of thinking that you are the only person who cares for Wikipedia. Most of the repeated images ARE in fact authorized by respective sources for me to upload in public domain, I was just trying to find a way of making that information public. And couldn't get to it in time because I have lot of work to do. It is okay if the content has to be deleted because it exceeds the stipulated time, but do not use a warning as an excuse to delete a faithful user's account. And secondly, as far as I remember, no editor actually instructed me. It was I who posted questions in some pages as to how to post images with proper license information. If you are planning to show off your moderator privileges, at least do some proper homework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cupidvogel (talk • contribs) 23:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cupidvogel: Hi,
First calm down and stay mellow. Second all images you uploaded are not made by you, so they are copyright violations unless otherwise proven. The copyright owner has to send a formal written for a free license via COM:OTRS, and it is very unlikely that Amazon will agree to do so. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I got explicit mail from the Amazon PR that I am at liberty to use them in Wikipedia. I discussed it at length on a Wikipedia talk page for image copyrights, and was advised to go a bit further and obtain the license in a proper format suitable for Wikipedia, so I was doing that. I just require some more time, you could have given me a fair warning at least, before going forward and deleting all images in one fell swoop and warning me that any such further "misbehavior" will lead to me getting banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cupidvogel (talk • contribs) 23:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
1. You don't need to ping me on my talk page. 2. "use them in Wikipedia" is not a sufficient permission. We need a permission for a free license. 3. The permission must be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. See COM:OTRS for the instructions. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
1. You also don't need to do many things, like giving users last warning out of nowhere. Just because you have the power doesn't mean that you should periodically exercise them "for the greater good". In case you don't know, last warning is ideally preceded by a number of warnings, including a first, to begin with. 2. I now know it is not sufficient permission. That is why I was trying to obtain the license in correct format. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cupidvogel (talk • contribs) 23:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cupidvogel (talk • contribs) 11:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cupidvogel: You are supposed to read all instructions before uploading anything. Start from here: COM:L. We know that there are long and complex, that's why you are not blocked yet. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gravitation.jpg

Hi Yann,

Thank your hard work on protecting the copyright. However there must have been a mistake with the "last warning" and deletions on images. I sent all the permits by email strictly according to the Wikimedia regulations. Happy to send them to you again or please advise how to comply. If everything is in order please kindly restore the justice. This is with regard to all the images that got deleted this week.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by North4future (talk • contribs) 14:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @North4future: Did you send a permission for a free license via COM:OTRS for any content of which you are not the sole and direct author? If so, what ticket number(s) did you receive? If not, where and when did you send them? From the filenames, you seem to be uploading film posters and trailers for American films / movies / motion pictures. All of them I have seen were copyrighted by the film production companies, either directly or as work for hire or some other contractual arrangement. Your derivative works are also so copyrighted, so we cannot host them unless we have permissions from the relevant film production companies, which have proven to be very aggressive and litigious in protecting their copyrights, both individually and via their organization Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Also, you were advised that "Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content" over four years ago per your user talk page, and we have no record of a File:Gravitation.jpg. In addition, since you mentioned Wikipedia, there are projects where you can upload fair use non-free content, like English Wikipedia.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Thanks for the tip about the signature. Images in question are for the independent films (not MPAA interest, that focuses on big Hollywood productions). I am happy to provide any form of permits - just tell me what else is neccessary. Here are the ticket numbers of I got from Permissions - Wikimedia Commons on May 23, 2017:

What can we do to stop flagging this content and bring back the deleted files? Thank you very much. –North4future (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@North4future: Above all, when you upload an image & send permission per OTRS, you should tag the image by adding {{OTRS pending}}. Also, if you don't want to have to go through the OTRS process repeatedly, and you are uploading many images over time for the same copyright holder who trusts you, it's a lot simpler if they send a blanket permission saying you will be uploading on their behalf, rather than permission for each individual photo. (I suspect Yann et. al. will have more to say beyond what I said; Yann, I hope you don't mind my intruding here, I happened to be looking at your talk page.) - Jmabel ! talk 04:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@North4future: I processed all the above tickets. Some were duplicate, so I merged them with the earlier ones. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Peace and Salutations, Yann. This is a response to your claimed allegations of "copyright infringement" stated, surrounding (eye believe) two images uploaded to wiki-commons.

Humbly, and with all respect due, this train of thought, logic and pure reason is being entered... for the purpose of hopefully conveying a note to the tune of my character -- along with a peaceful attempt at engaging constructive communication leading up arrive at fair, just, righteous results ...

According to popular belief, the mission of this platform is one driven by the 'unified effort' towards complete global documentation. Having considered that, we can certainly acknowledge the implication of such would imply that we share a common responsibility to service; we share a common Time: specifically, generation X, Y, Z ... and, we share in being common contributors/holders of a page of this book ... for the good word of mankind.

With regard to the said accusation ... Although, all intent and purposes claimed to be aimed at upholding universal "intellectual property" rights is an idea most appreciated, can we not all agree the said "wiki-rules" -- which one would hope to be holistically communal in nature -- present not only a 'fine line', but a very fine, blurred line'... at best?

(although I am not legal expert, I'm not sure how candid camera shots would fall under the umbrella of IP ... especially when the image at question has been tailored and therefore "sampled" like music if you will ....) ...

I kindly request that if such an accusation is made, please offer your reasoning and/or suggest ideas pertaining to solutions

May I also add the following: There's no way one could know for sure the intent of others, but I stand true to my pure intent: to do good ... to be just ... to choose the right (and we all know what's right and what's wrong, or at least I'd like to hope so) ...

Respectfully, Real2Reel (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Real2Reel,
The files you uploaded where not made by you, so there are a copyright violation unless otherwise proven. If you have a permission to publish them under a free license, please see COM:OTRS for the instructions. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File Deleting

can you explain why you want to block my account? just because i uploaded some images which 100% belong to authors and they sent me by email and also did you ever check your mailbox? (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) ,you deleted their images without responding their emails, please be in touch with other admins before you do any action ,No more uploading any way. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khoshhat (talk • contribs) 16:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Khoshhat: Hi,
As you are not the author of these pictures, they are copyright violations until proven otherwise. The author has to send a permission for a free license via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Hi Yann, First off I apologise for edit warring - Wasn't really the smartest move I could've made,

Right am I right in thinking you now have an issue with me speedying recent images that I've uploaded from Flickr (not my images) ?, If yes then how would we go about resolving it ?,

I've done it this way for the best part of 1 1⁄2 - 2 years and no admins have ever had an issue,

I realise on a technicality I'm not the author of the images but I mean it in the sense that I transferred them from Flickr - As I said at DR many editors have been blocked for uploading crap here hence my standards,

Since joining this site I've always held the belief that we should host good quality, useful and educationally helpful images to everyone world wide and so it would be very hypercritical of me to upload useless images whilst I believe the complete oppose of what I'm doing ?

Unfortunately some I upload aren't good nor useful at all but that being said if anyone wants to reupload the images I would never stop them nor would I start sending them to DR because at the end of the day we all judge things differently,

The flickr2commons tool only allows previews for about 50-100 images and after that no previews are shown at all so you can see why it's easier to upload them all (especially when there's 50-600 in one album), sort through them and delete those that aren't IMHO useful,

Again as I said I realise on a technicality I'm not the author however I mean it in the sense that I transferred them,

I'm not sure of the best way to resolve this other than to simply not upload which in all honestly would be damaging to this place as I'm probably the only editor who actually mass-uploads London images as well as transport images,

Apologies for the extremely long post but I'd rather explain everything that's all,

Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davey2010,
These files are not so bad, and are under a free license, so I don't see why they should deleted, except for the 2 for which I created a DR, as derivative works. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yann, But too me they are useless - Images like [2][3][4] could be used however it's extremely unlikely they would be, then we have images like these [5] (blurry and clearer image already present by photographer) and this [6] (Better and fuller images of the train),
As I said above we all judge things differently I completely understand that but simply put I only like to upload images that I know will be helpful to someone and will be used but as I said editors are more than welcome to reupload them I would never stop that from happening,
Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010Talk 17:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Sorry to get on your nerves but I do want to resolve this asap, Would it be better if I used "Uploader request" instead of Author ?, That's the only logical solution I can see ?, I don't want us to have continued arguments but if you have any better solutions I'd be more than happy to discuss, Thanks again, –Davey2010Talk 21:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would not delete these images, but if another admin grants you deletion, then fine. The requests will be closed after a week. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okie dokie well I'll carry on but will request deletions after 12 midnight or so so that way you're not deleting them, Thanks for your help in resolving this, Have a great day. –Davey2010Talk 17:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how I have violated copyright. The owner of the copyright for the images have given permission for their use. Kindly enlighten me more about this. Best regards Bujojohn (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have been sick and out of circulation for some time. Kindly bear with me and give me help on who I can resolve copyright issues. Best Regards Bujojohn (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bujojohn,
You copied this file from the Internet, so it is a copyright violation until proven otherwise. The copyright owner must send a permission via COM:OTRS or the files will be deleted. This is necessary for any content for which you are not the author. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove information

My filenames are neither amibiguous nor meaningless. If you remove anything with numbers the resulting filename describes at least all the 149 image from the match. --Ailura (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This is a useless filename. Do not rename it back, or I ask your filemover bit to be removed. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The filename tells the date, the time and the event and it contains my suffix - which is completely allowed. No, this picture is not the only one showing "20150328 Wiener Neustadt, European Under-19 Championships 2015 Elite Round, Austria vs. Croatia". There are 148 other pictures having exactly this subject. This is what ambiguous means. If you want to make the filename unique, add information (i.e. the player's name). --Ailura (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

疑問

帳戶被封禁是封禁多久? 另外還有，要求停止是甚麼時候的事情? 本人是完全沒印象的— Preceding unsigned comment added by C96025698 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Google translated: Doubt
How long is the closure of the account, and what time is it necessary to stop the account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by C96025698 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@C96025698: The time is now to stop uploading copyrighted work of other people, or you may be blocked. Block lengths for the same infraction are multiplied by previous block lengths, for instance a day, a week, a month, a year...   — Jeff G. ツ 00:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@C96025698: 现在是停止上传其他人的受版权保护的作品，否则您可能会被封锁。 相同违规的块长度乘以以前的块长度，例如一天，一周，一个月，一年...   — Jeff G. ツ 00:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:License review/requests

Hello,

In the future, it would be great if you could close the requests only after the minimum delay of two full days, as discussed several times and on several occasions on the talk page, the recent case with Pokéfan, ...
Also, there are some templates that are commonly used to show that the request is closed :-)

Best regards

--AntonierCH (d) 11:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got your thank you for the templates, but I did not get a "ok" / "not ok" regarding my strong suggestion/invitation to respect the minimal time defined in the procedure. --AntonierCH (d) 20:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, OK. Yann (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Klaevi spordiplats 1930 kaardil.png

Could you please at least try to explain this time in what way is the given reason invalid for deletion? Reason which I recently provided and which was pointed out by Carl in village pump is also invalid?

It's starting to look like I'm being bullied about this matter. May I ask you to assume at least some good faith instead of excercising prejudice that I know nothing about copyright or about Commons licensing policy, if that's the case. 62.65.58.38 15:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You're not being bullied, but you simply didn't present any arguments other than those that you brought forth in the very first deletion discussion. The first discussion was closed as "keep" and there is consensus at Commons that no new deletion requests will be considered without new arguments. I would advise you to the drop the stick unless you can come up with new and convincing evidence why the file should be deleted. Anything else would just be disruptive. De728631 (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the DR? The reason given in the last request was in fact new.
I'm trying to be patient with this issue, and I hope that whatever the final resolution will be it's based on some meaningful argument other than my words being simply "invalid". 62.65.58.38 15:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did read the DR, and also the "post-mortem discussion" of the first instance where you already presented this exact argument. De728631 (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this "post-mortem" discussion we presumed that copyright expires 70 after publication. The recent DR points out instead copyright expires 70 years after the author's death. These are about different law clauses, I don't think it's the same argument at all.
Besides, though this "post-mortem" exchange of words is no longer relevant in light what we missed earlier, I also showed that Ruthven's judgement is most likely invalid, and no-one has tried to argument otherwise. 62.65.58.38 16:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've read Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/05#A work created in execution of duties of employment again and @Clindberg: is in fact very knowledgeable about copyright law. If he thinks that a 70 pma term should be applied instead of 70 years past first publication, I'm inclined to believe it. We need the lifetime dates of K. Zeibich though. With a 1930 work, 70 pma is quite a close call, and given our recent discussions about safe pma assumption where the life of the author is unknown, this file would very likely drop out. I'd like to see what Yann thinks about this. De728631 (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like that too. Yann? 62.65.58.38 17:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any serious issue here. For such old content, we don't need to be so strict as for recent works. So OK, until proven otherwise to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd an likely against COM:EVID. Anyways, if the actual reason why you kept this file for now was that you believe that 70 years since author's death has passed, then please also indicate that at the DR page and correct the license information. 62.65.58.38 10:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can always find a reason for deletion, if you look hard enough. But that's useless argument doesn't make the project better. Please read COM:PRP. We need a significant doubt that there is a copyright issue. END for me. Yann (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images/Warnings

Hey Yann!

My greatest apologies for not realising the pictures I uploaded were within the wikimedia commons boundaries. I do own the copyright for all images, being blocked on Wiki is an obvious worry, I do enjoy using this place a lot (although there's a lot of learning to do!) - please do inform on how to become a better Wiki user and also how to prevent further action being taken. Again, sincere apologies JermainRobson (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @JermainRobson: You claim you took photo File:Laurie Buchanan circa 2016.png, which is only 243 × 242 pixels, in 2016. Why is it in such low resolution? What camera did you use? What did you use to crop it? Why can't you remember what day you got close enough to take it? Why is it not in color? It looks to me like a web-resolution crop of a professional photographer's copyrighted work taken onstage with most EXIF metadata removed and converted to black and white. It is small enough that it could have been a screencap from one of the subject's YouTube videos, which are also copyrighted.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can the full res but was having issues getting it to work on the page as it was putting the profile box out of wack. Camera was a Nikon 3300 - colour is not something the artist(s) in question regularly publish. ALL photo's uploaded are copyright of VIKTOR of which I am a direct affiliate. JermainRobson (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JermainRobson,
Please ask the copyright owner to send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New message

Hi Yann,

I uploaded an image and I named it -by mistake- File:الملك سنوسرت الثاني.jpg, but that image for the third sunusert not second sunusert, so I request renaming it to File:الملك سنوسرت الثالث.jpg. أحمد ناجي (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Yann (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About user Κουτί

Dear Yann hi! Most of the files that user Κουτί uploaded, and deleted by now, in Commons were uploaded and deleted in Greek Wikipedia as well, by a user named "ΥΕΝΕΔ"; e.g. Xάρτης για την Ελλάδα.png = File:Ελλάδα.png, Χάρτης της Κύπρου.png = File:Κύπρος.png etc.. It is highly suspected that user "ΥΕΝΕΔ" (obviously user "Κουτί" οf Commons) is the globally banned user of Greek Wikipedia Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου, originaly named Γιουγκοσλαβια], also knowned as ΓΙΑΝΗΣ and many more ... Thank you for your time. ——Chalk19 (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chalk19,
Thanks for your message. Maybe a request for checkuser would be useful. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kollataj i orientacja pruska.pdf

Could you please explain what evidence did you require except this one on the book source page? Almost all freely licensed books in this service were freely licensed by their copyright owners many years after a copyrighted edition was issued. Ankry (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any mention of a free license, that's why I created this DR. But I see it now, so I restored the file. I think more information is needed in such a case, or a license review. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any hint, how to mark such books to avoid future problems? Number of CC-licensed Polish books is growing last years. While uploading hundreds or thousands of them I may be not able to response every single DR. Maybe create a license template like this one? Ankry (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A OTRS permission is great, but it is not always possible or necessary. I think that a free license should be ascertained either with a mention in the document, or with a license review, to avoid relying to an external source which may disappear. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting File:Vom_tapferen_Schmied_Filmplakat.jpg is an error

Dear Yann,

You've just deleted this file, which is an error: The User Freienstein has already stated that she is the copyright owner, being the daughter of the artist, who died in 2012. She has submitted this to OTRS, she has repeated this to Quedel (who posted the original warning) on her talk page. Now, being inexperienced, she might have done something wrong with the submission, I don't know. But then instead of posting the totally non-specific "Commons:Licensing" comment, help her achieve verification by pointing out what (if anything!) is still missing in her OTRS-submission. If you require a copy of her birth certificate, then ask for it. But don't just delete a wonderful poster, of which she has a lot more ready for submission, as I could view on the German Wikipedia, where she uploaded them first, before I suggested she place them in Commons instead. This sort of mindless deleting is only going to discourage people that are new to Wikipedia/Wikimedia; instead you should encourage her to submit what is still needed for verification. She has put in an effort, now you put in one too! --Sprachraum (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sprachraum,
Do you know the ticket number? Regards, Yann (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Yann,
no I don't, because I didn't send it myself; i'm just trying to help her. But I interpret your question to imply that you can't find her OTRS-submission. Perhaps there wasn't a ticket number anyway, because none was yet sent to her? Wouldn't then the best path be to send her a new OTRS-request onto her talk page that already contains a ticket number? And while we are at it: Is it enough for her to send a statement affirming her copyright and inheritance from an email address which contains her maiden name (i.e the name of her father, the artist)? Or does she have to do more, like submit a birth certificate? With kind regards from --Sprachraum (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I found it. I restored the file, and added the ticket. I didn't validate the ticket, as I don't speak German. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much Yann. I will try and get a German speaking admin to attend to it, as I've tried with Quedel for three days now... All the best from --Sprachraum (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sinan Alimanović.jpg

Dear I already sent e mail permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with affirmation that I'm creator or owner of the exclusive copy right of File:Sinan Alimanović.jpg. and File:Bosnian Blue .jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lej La La La (talk • contribs) 13:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
OK, thanks; The file will be restored when the permission is validated. There is always a backlog, so it can take some time. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demande de suppression de redirection

Bonjour Yann, pourrais-je te demander de supprimer les 3 redirections suivantes :

Il s'agit d'une grossière erreur de ma part, les 3 redirections ne sont utilisées nulle part. Merci et désolé pour le dérangement :-\ Reptilien.19831209BE1 (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Fait Yann (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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） ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Yann (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using photos from PDF / bhararah

Dear Yann

Thank you for your feedback. I want to mention that I am writing a Wikipedia Draft that summarizing many researches regarding Artificial Cultural Markets and as a part of this summary I needed to put some diagrams from the research pdf files. That is why I used Wikimedia and I referred to these diagrams when uploaded that they are from the pdf files I used. I do not see how I violated copyrights. Can you please tell me how should I do this?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhararah (talk • contribs) 12:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhararah: Hi,
You have 1. to specify a license when you import the files, 2. to ask the copyright owner(s) to send a permission for a free license. Please do not import more files until you have correct the ones you have already imported. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Them

The hostile warning wasn't warranted since I haven't uploaded anything since I was notified over the weekend. In fact, You stumbled upon the oldest upload; the one on Jean Byron hadn't even been brought up yet. I understand now. I won't be uploading in the future. I would have deleted what I uploaded, but there doesn't seem to be any way for me to do so. Clarawolfe (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clarawolfe,
The files do not seem to be your own works. So please send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ask about upload photos

I received warning message about upload photos that missing information about where it comes from or who created it. Almost photos is my own property, I thought I uploaded it correctly by fill information that mark to be fill. But It seems that I still make mistake.

Do you have some suggest or instruction page to teach opload in the correct way , so, when I upload new photos in future I will not mistake again.

thank you very much, Lek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lektn (talk • contribs) 08:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lektn: Hi,
The files depict works of art, so a formal written permission from the artist is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the instructions how to send it. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket:2017051010020491

Bonsoir Yann,
J’ai importé une photo il y a quelques mois d’un Renault Master électrique du Stac avec l’accord du photographe (Mr Bruno Canivet), mais il y avait eu des probèmes suite au changement de mail des autorisations. Après un échange avec un vérificateur OTRS, il a été convenu que je demande au photographe de renvoyer l’autorisation en indiquant le numéro de ticket ci-dessus dans l’objet. Il m’a confirmé l’avoir fait le 15 mai dernier, mais la photo n’a visiblement pas été restaurée. Pourriez-vous y jeter un oeil?
Merci par avance.
Bonne soirée. --Lev. Anthony (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Lev. Anthony,
J'ai restauré le fichier File:Renault Master électrique - Stac (Chambéry).jpg, et ajouté l'autorisation. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merci beaucoup
Bonne soirée. --Lev. Anthony (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

notices dépouillées

Yann, un wikimédien a supprimé tout ce qui était en suspens, qu'il s'agisse de mes "own work" ou des permissions en cours d'instruction ! Que faire ? Pouvez-vous lui expliquer qu'il y a une procédure en cours ? Les illustrations avaient été mises en regard du texte et commentées dedans. Sans elles, tout est déséquilibré.

Et au moins pouvez-vous valider mes own work de la fin, dont j'avais corrigé les notices ? Merci--Anglo-norman (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC). Il y aurait trois fichiers à valider : Louis Champy, député en 1820 (remis en place), Pierre Champy, et Tabatière et étui-cachet, tous trois parfaitement identifiables comme own work puisque photos prises par mon petit Pentax. Vous avez déjà validé trois autres de ces own work. Par ailleurs, j'ai remis Amish mennonites, que j'ai trouvé enregistré par un autre sur Wikimedia sous le titre anabaptistes alsaciens. Cordialement --Anglo-norman (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sur un autre groupe, celui des miniatures venant de la British Library, on a juste besoin de préciser la source comme je l'ai fait en légende. Or vous avez validé un sur trois des fichiers, Chemin de Vaillance, mais pas Dame de Courcy, ni Richard II et Isabelle...Cordialement--Anglo-norman (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're Correct

Yann, The files are not mine, and can be deleted as far as I am concerned, if they are in violation. I do not know how to obtain permission so I won't be submitting a request but thank you for the suggestion. I clearly got in over my head. I don't have the time or patience or knowledge to scour the internet looking for free domain photos. I will bow out and let the professionals (you) handle images. I'm still trying to learn the strange calculator language. Thanks Again Clarawolfe (talk) 10:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gandhi South-Africa.jpg

File:Gandhi South-Africa.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） ∙ +/−

czar 04:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

authorized pictures

Hi Yann, thank you for your messages and sorry to be late for reply. Christian Lu sent a permission concerning the following 9 pictures to COM:OTRS a few days ago, and Arthur Crombez has enabled them apparently.

I'll ask Christian Lu to send you a permission for all remaining pictures asap. However, the authorized pictures has already deleted from the page https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%99%86%E6%B0%B8%E5%AE%89. Could you please restore the version before the deletion ? Many thanks for your help. Best regards, --HSUN (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images from Real2Reel

Hello Yann, Regarding images ... if i may ask .... please advise us with your experience and/or know how of the reported benevolence presented by "wiki commons" communal-intended files and/or what info that I'm missing? I am most grateful for any guidance you may offer so I may be of better service by and for We The People in our collective level of diligence dedicated to this global documentation mission. I am hoping, in Good Faith that no hierarchies are in existence here for we are working as one, or so one would intrinsically be hopeful of such. With that said ... i kindly inquire into the 'wiki commons' item referencing Flickr and YouTube as falling under the umbrella of being content which -- for all intent and purposes -- available to social communities. One would logically reason that the same would also apply to content sourced from social media platform like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and the like. On a personal note tuned directly from more than a decade of first hand experience in news delivery with the majors, combined with my evolving journalistic foundation, I can confirm that network news outlets like CNN, MSNBC ... and local 'big three' stations within the top ten news markets like KTLA5 and KABC7 regularly broadcast and post images derived from let's say Facebook, for instance paying special improtance to citing the source. Additionally, I can confirm that if The New York Times were covering a story elsewhere in the country, and required an image to published along with the written content, that would be viewed as a "photographers dream" so to speak. That's because that photog knows that they would receive credit in such a respected publication which would lead to that photog gaining heavyweight credibility having such a credit being added to their resume. All in all, everyone at the table is pleased. That stated, for the record, not only did I credit the photo who snapped the photo but I also included the test of the license for pub purposes only. My thoughts are that wiki articles would fall under ... but I could be wrong, I don't know. Please advise as I simply do not know and am quite confused at this point. In any case, I look forward to continuing my efforts in honing my wiki skills so to speak ... i hope to the point where I can possilby assist another in passing the baton one day ... for we all started somewhere. You patience is most definitely appreciated ... as is your time, effort and feedback. THANK U SO VERY MUCH! PEACE, LOVE AND FAITH - 1 Real2Reel (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Real2Reel,
For any content not created by you, a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright owner is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the instructions. Do not upload anything again without a permission, or you will be blocked. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content deletion complaint

I do not appreciate your self righteous attitude concerning what you may or may not think is "my work" or subject matter. Who are you and why do you think you can assume you know who I am?

I have an Official Saint Title, a Kumari Title, Royal Titles, Goddess, Titles, Deity Titles, God Titles (Under Equal Rights), and other various titles. I have the Right to have a Wiki page about myself. I am the ONLY HEIRESS to my Great-Mother whom was notorious for being the owner of the most land and real-estate than any other women to have ever lived. My last name "Day" translates to "GOD" and my surname literally gave me a male GOD Title at birth. I also am the Heiress to almost every Royal to have ever lived except for the ones whom spent their money before I was born. People are curious as to how I am using all of that money. This page is important for me and everyone on the internet seems to have photos of me EXCEPT ME! Why?! I have so much money that I can not have physical access to it because the government is afraid someone will steal my banking information. I fund government programs and charities! I am rebuilding Africa at the moment with an old charity USA for Africa which by the way I let the money collect interest for over 30 years so I could rebuild Africa with the help of the military bases all over the World. I will not give all details and compromise my goals, but I expect some respect from Wikipedia especially considering I invested in Wikipedia over 25 years ago 1 million dollars! I expect you to compile a flattering comprehensive Wiki page about me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle Jane Day (talk • contribs) 19:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Michelle Jane Day: Hi,
Sorry, but I am not interesting by your claims. We are nearly all anonymous here, and for all we know, you may be a little green person from another galaxy. Beside, you should read COM:SCOPE before uploading anything here. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DR

Hi Yann, Not having a go but could you kindly explain how my reasons listed here aren't valid ?,
IMHO they are valid and I even reached a compromise however Taivo didn't bother replying .... so why should be my fault ?,
As I said on the DR the image is being used however I explained step by step and proceeded to reach to a compromise .... All 2 articles weouldn't be losing out because I would've replaced them with a still image,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
Commons policy is that an image in use is automatically in scope. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yann, But that's just stupid because I can easily go to those articles, Wipe the gif and then send to DR ?, Do you honestly believe that image you've just kept is honestly of any beneficial use to the outside world or projects here?, Most wikiprojects aren't even "moderated" like they are at EN so the whole "it's being used" policy is flawed isn't it ?,
As I said I'm not having a go at you but when you see a crap image, nominate it and come up with a sensible compromise .... just to have it all slammed in your face you can see why I'm a tad annoyed with it all
Both images are the same - Just one is still and the other moves to the right .... so as I said no article would be losing out would they?,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but that is Commons policy. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest you can't win because I bet had you deleted it with the !keep still there someone would of probably got pissed, You're damned if you and you're damned if you don't!, Ah well thanks for your help and understanding and apologies for essentially ranting here,
Anywya I'll leave you in peace lol, Thanks again & Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 18:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletions

Hi Yann,

you have deleted several images like File:Margalla Hills Trail 5 Islamabad 2.jpg this or File:Chasing the Storm.jpg this one. All were marked by User:Stas1995 with „FB copyvios“. The pictures I could not find on the Internet, or only on newer sides. (The pictures were uploaded to commons in 2015.) I could not find a violation of copyrights. Best regards Hystrix (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hystrix,
EXIF data shows that these files were copied from Facebook. Stas1995 was right to tag them for copyvios. I nominated hundreds of such files myself. The uploaders can send a permission via OTRS, or upload the original files if they are the photographers. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, that is nice of Facebook to EXIF tag images they accept and publish through their servers. Would it make sense for the WMF to do that?   — Jeff G. ツ 17:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. It would be quite controversial anyway. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it would be controversial? What does Facebook's tag say?   — Jeff G. ツ 17:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't modify the files, so changing the EXIF data would be controversial. I am quite sure a number of people would oppose it. Facebook adds something like FBMD01000a9e0d0000cd3800008e790000b38300001a8c000050c90000a6260100383001000b410100624f01000efb0100 and qbZb92ycOtqilSjCMr6A in the EXIF data (e.g. File:!bn Battuta .jpg). See User:Basvb/FBMD and User:Gunnex/Per FBMD grabbed from Facebook (01.01.2016–27.08.2016) (part I) for lists of Facebook files which need to be checked. Please request a deletion if there is no evidence of a free license. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. For many pictures, the Exif data are displayed. But not with these two pictures. And also with many others as well. Is there an extra gadget for such images to read also the exif data there? Hystrix (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) No. The rest of the EXIF data was removed either by the author, or by Facebook. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why Delete

Kedah district picture already said that the author got PD and I not violate any copyright.Can you please recover it.*angys* (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi *angys*,
Where the background map comes from (File:Daerah di Kedah.jpg)? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A User from Malay Wikipidia , I already put on the info.ms:Fail:Daerah di Kedah.jpegPlease recover it. *angys* (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi *angys*,
I'd like to have opinions from more people, so I made a request here. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Մանոն

Dear Yann, I noticed that you warned me about deleting my account because of uploading not licensed photos. In fact, those where my personal photos. Anyway, I'm gonna be mor careful uploading new photos. Thanks for warning. I hope there will not be any problems any more.--Մանոն (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Մանոն,
For the files listed here, we need the permission from the artist. These images are derivative works. Idem for File:Albert Papoyan-Cucahandes.jpg. Please see COM:OTRS for the instructions how to send a permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yann, thank you for your support on the Laundry Lady as well as other images I've submitted to Wikipedia.Steven C. Price (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alters

Hello. I've already sent the licence for the e-mail: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org at 12th June 2017 16:34. I am attaching the copy, All the best,

Robertpludra licence - permission — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertpludra (talk • contribs) 21:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertpludra: Hi,
Do you have the ticket number? Please wait for the volunteers to process the permission. There is always a backlog, so it can take some time. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning Yann. I don't comprehend about copyright violations because those are our photos of our center. So The photos have our copyright. Anyway, I See that another Wikipedia user "Vegetable" cancelled our center's Pages and center directors' pages, saying that they were "spot". I wrote that our goings are scientific, but I had no answers. So, our Pages couldn't exist in Wikipedia. Ok, but They were scientific and academic, not "bad spot". To solve the problem, Please, erase all the photos that I put in Commons. So there will be no more problems. Farewell. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 95.249.23.223 (talk) 08:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
Could you log in and indicate which images you are talking about? Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

copiryght Funicolare Catanzaro

Ciao Yann ho visto il tuo messaggio sulla mia pagina, io ho trovato la foto su un blog, pensando che era publica per tutti l'ho caricata su Commons. Quando l'ho caricata, l'ho fatto specificando che l'ho trovata su internet e che non era opera mia, quindi mi sembra un pò strano che violi il copiryght, però non intendo discutere su questo. Volevo sapere: se vado su google maps e ritaglio la parte che mi interessa, e in seguito gli traccio il percorso con un'altro programma violo anche il copiryght ?? l'ho letta la pagina che mi hai segnalato ma siccome non sono sicuro che si possa fare te lo chiedo prima di fare un'ulteriore violazione. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefano.1991 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefano.1991: Hi,
Sorry, I don't speak Italian. Do you speak French?
Using Google Maps makes the file derivative works, so it is not allowed without a permission from Google. Idem, you need a formal written permission for a free license for uploading any content of which you are not the unique author. Please see COM:OTRS for the instructions if you have a permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Je suis désolé, mais malheureusement, je ne parle que l'italien, je peux venir contre l'utilisation du traducteur Google. Merci pour la clarification, pratiquement le seul moyen de télécharger une photo de la piste serait de l'avoir fait par un drone, puis chemin ridegnare. Une autre curiosité, si je trouve ad'esempio une photo imprimée de la route et le photographe pour le charger serait également une violation du droit copiryght? --Stefano.1991 (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Stefano.1991,
Vous pouvez écrire en italien, Google peut traduire. Il faut que le photographe envoie une autorisation pour une licence libre. Voyez COM:OTRS pour les instructions. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jindřich Krejčík foto

Nerozumím, kde je problém. Fotografii Jindřicha Krejčíka tuto jsem naskenoval já osobně. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolar.petr (talk • contribs) 14:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tolar.petr: Hi,
Please answer in the DR, not on my talk page: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jindřich Krejčík.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests

Hi Yann. You nominated several images I uploaded to Commons. I am writing you because you need to undo your actions. Those images I uploaded are screenshots of YouTube videos that have been licensed under the Creative Creative Commons Attribution license. I don't understand the reason why you decided to nominate those images. Are you going to tell me that the YouTube channels that uploaded those videos are not authorized to do so? If this is what you're claiming, then you need to provide proof to validate what you're saying. Simply saying, "Small images without EXIF data, unlikely to be own works" isn't enough to validate deletion. Versace1608 (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Versace1608,
Ok, my mistake. In such a case, you should ask for a {{Licensereview}} with this template. That also assures the videos will be kept if the license changes at the source. I did it this time. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Pettibone image

I am not clear why you deleted this image. As noted on the talk page, the Flickr account belonged to Pettibone as confirmed on her verified Twitter and she released the image on a free license. Was the problem due to the inconsistency between the initial public domain claim and the modified claim? Either way it was released on a free license. According to the original uploader who contacted her, the image is a selfie, meaning there is no other person who has rights to the image.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Devil's Advocate,
✓ Done Please add categories. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is a bit of an issue as the person who uploaded it originally to Wikipedia before I uploaded here, also uploaded here after I did. I don't know if he has any issue with which is favored as he was the one who arranged to have the photo uploaded on a free license.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Ok, I deleted that one as duplicate. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Born to Win.ogv

File:Born to Win.ogv 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） ∙ +/−

Green Cardamom (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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） ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Discasto talk 21:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hélène Charlotte de Berquely-Richards (1908-2004).jpg

Bonjour. Je ne comprends pas la raison de cette demande en suppression par DrKay, puisque l'auteur Philip Alexius de Laszlo est mort depuis plus de 70 ans, en 1937, et entre donc dans le domaine public. Cordialement, LIONEL76 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I do not understand the reason for this request for DrKay, since the author Philip Alexius de Laszlo died for more than 70 years, in 1937, and thus enters the public domain. cordially, LIONEL76 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LIONEL76,
This is probably because of COM:URAA. I think we should keep these files, but some other people disagree. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merci Yann pour votre réponse. Je viens de modifier la licence sur le fichier par {{PD-old-70}} et {{PD-URAA-Simul}}. Je pensais également rajouté {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Qu'en pensez-vous ? Est-ce suffisant pour annuler la requête de DrKay ? Bien cordialement, LIONEL76 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply Yann. I just modified the license on the file by {{PD-old-70}} and {{PD-URAA-Simul}}. I thought also added {{PD-US-not renewed}}. What do you think ? Is that sufficient to annul the request of DrKay ? Regards, LIONEL76 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LIONEL76,
The URAA cases are very complex, and it is often impossible to determine if the files are under a copyright in the USA or not. That's why I don't support these deletions. The relevant tag is probably {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. If you want the whole story, please read Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. @Jcb: What do you think? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour Yann,
Je viens de modifier à nouveau la licence suivant vos recommandations. Merci encore. Bien cordialement, LIONEL76 (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yann,
I just changed the license again according to your recommendations. Thanks again, Regards, LIONEL76 (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy closed. Even for URAA deletionists there is no indication at all that the US copyright rules would change a thing for this particular case. It seems unlikely that Hungarian heirs of a Hungarian artist would have renewed the copyright in accordance with the US rules. This is not practically thinkable. Jcb (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning,
My thanks to Yann and Jcb. Best regards, LIONEL76 (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour,
Tous mes remerciements à Yann et Jcb. Bien cordialement, LIONEL76 (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He was British. His heirs are British. They operate through http://www.delaszlocatalogueraisonne.com/, which is the source of this image. There is a copyright notice at that webpage. DrKay (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infraction aux droits d'auteur

Bonjour Yann, ne m'étant pas connecté à Wikipedia et Wikimedia Commons depuis un certain temps je n'avais pas vu les différentes recommandations avant hier. J'ai alors envoyé un email à OTRS (permissions-fr@wikimedia.org), et attendait donc les permissions pour chaque fichier déjà uploadé (je n'en ai pas rajouté). Qu'en est-il de celui qui n'a pas été supprimé (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jacques_Sourth.jpg) ? La demande a été faite à OTRS également. Faut-il procéder de cette façon ? Dans tous les cas il s'agit de photos de portrait, tableaux ou affiches réalisées par l'ayant droit lui-même. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJGM (talk • contribs) 16:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PJGM: Bonjour,
J'ai trouvé le ticket et restauré les images. Dans ce cas, il faut ajouter {{OTRS pending}} pour que les images ne soient pas supprimées en attendant l'autorisation (un mois de délai). Il manque l'autorisation pour File:Isis (1983).jpg, File:Blue Christ.jpg et File:Peter Pan (1986).jpg. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Bonjour,
Merci pour votre aide rapide. J'ai envoyé un email à OTRS concernant les trois fichiers manquants. Cordialement, PJGM (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Hi, why did you delete my old selfie? Kinda odd. --Lingveno (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lingveno,
This file is copied from Facebook. Please upload the original file, or send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The files in question were given to us by the client, the girl in the photos. I will check and delete any that are in violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhrith (talk • contribs) 05:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adhrith: Hi,
The copyright owner has to send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

éléphant rose

Salut Yann. J'ai pas suivi et je me demandais pourquoi le fichier File:Eléphant Rose.png avait été supprimé ? Je trouve pas tout seul.--Classiccardinal (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Classiccardinal Bonjour,
Tout document qui a été publié ailleurs auparavant nécessite une autorisation écrite formelle de la part de l'auteur. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Désolé de t'avoir embêté, j'avais pas vu que c'était une reprise. Merci.--Classiccardinal (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odd situation

José de Martín Simón is uploading a lot of artwork dated across several decades. The name is that of a notable artist, es:Martín Simón. But as we can see at File:Desde la cueva.jpg, that person is not the creator of all of these works. The user may need to be blocked for impersonation, and the images probably need to go too. Could you take a look at this? Guanaco (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going ahead and putting this at AN. Guanaco (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translation notification: Commons:Wiki Loves Public Space 2017 in Belgium

Hello Yann,

You are receiving this notification because you signed up as a translator to French on Wikimedia Commons. The page Commons:Wiki Loves Public Space 2017 in Belgium is available for translation. You can translate it here:

The priority of this page is high. The deadline for translating this page is 2017-06-30.

Coming Saturday the photo contest Wiki Loves Public Space starts in Belgium to celebrate the implementation of Freedom of Panorama in Belgium. Participants are asked to upload photos of modern buildings, public artworks, historic monuments and memorials to enrich Wikipedia.Please help

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Public_Space_2017_in_Belgium

Thanks!

Romaine

Your help is greatly appreciated. Translators like you help Wikimedia Commons to function as a truly multilingual community.

You can change your notification preferences.

Thank you!

Wikimedia Commons translation coordinators‎, 20:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Coat of arms images and others from May 2017

Hi Yann. How is it going. I was reviewing tickets and started on this one: 2017051610025206. The files it concerns are mentioned within, and went to a DR started by you. So, I wanted to ask your opinion on what kind of verification or what form the evidence should take, given the different media types (coats of arms, photographs of the subject, and family archive photos). I am a little disadvantaged on this case because all the files obviously have been deleted. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Sebastian. seb26 (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi seb26,
Seeing the accusation by this user, I won't do anything here. Anyway I don't see any evidence of permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Yann, fair enough, I opened this up to the noticeboard. seb26 (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yann/archives_36&oldid=251673160"