Hello, and thank you for uploading your files to Wikimedia Commons. There seems to be some license information
missing regarding this particular file, however. Could you please fix this?
Thank you--Orgullomoore16:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, why did you use ragged right for this mockup ? For a two-column layout like this (with relatively wide columns), I'd have expected justified.
As an example image, I suggest a more conventional placement for the page number. Currently its placement is “too interesting” : its unusual placement makes me look at the number to see whether it belongs to the left column. When using just one image to depict/exemplify something, it's best for the image to be fairly typical of the thing being depicted.
If you created this image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Andrew c, do you still consider the upload log here to be “highly deceptive”? If not, perhaps you could mention that the upload log is now satisfactory, here where you previously said it was “highly deceptive.”
I assure you that I had absolutely no intention of being the least bit deceptive. I already thanked you here for your re-desaturation work, and I meant it.
Additionally, all Wikimedia images offer an option to "upload a new version." I see nothing wrong with the new version being in black and white and the old version being in color, especially when both the image donor and the original uploader approve that. The guideline here is discussing a situation where "you try to upload a different file type".
I have no objection to giving you as much attribution as possible, and no objection to giving the image files whatever new names you think would be appropriate.
If you created this image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
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:
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.
Hi Andrew c! I just posted a response and am writing here to see if you would prefer to talk on your talk page, or keep the discussion where it is. Just let me know what is easier for you. Thank you! De Bergerac (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the understanding that George Bergman had issued a general release for his photos in the Oberwolfach Photo Collection, because I have a minor ongoing project to upload pictures of mathematicians using this archive. If there's a general problem with permissions, I'd rather know sooner rather than later. RayAYang (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work ! The {WVoclicense} template is not yet finish, it will later be a convenient tool to encourage every one to upload under PD license. (The GNU license FORCE the teacher to take a 10 pages copy of the GNU license together with each pic he print O.o ) Confirm me that you publish your work under PD license, then I may manage myself the clean ups. :]
The WVoclicense template will likely be ready tomorrow evening.
Yeah, I read about how you want the project to be PD. But I read that too late. I used a GFDL image which I traced for the lightbulb. Other than that, I choose the PD option from the upload form for my other two illustrations. I don't mind using PD 100% in the future. I apologize that the image that the lightbulb was derived from isn't PD, so we should probably remove that image from WikiVoc. -Andrew c (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. Not really need. The SVG is a basic representation, of an OLD concept of lightbulb. I guess the copyright issue is really tiny there. I will make some edits, and that's will be fine : a 100% PD file. Yug(talk)05:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the license, try the link in the orange box on the right. Clic on the "?" to see how that work. That's still may be improve, but that's already working. bye Yug(talk)10:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Andrew,
I will not be active for several days, maybe a week. I have a Visa trouble here, and I will maybe have to return to France Tuesday 31th. I try to find a solution. That's complex. >.<" See you. Yug(talk)06:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...
Andrew c, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).
PS: I'm sorry your request got closed a day later than it should have, it seems that Sundays are bad days to have RfAs ending ;). Patríciamsg18:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I initially tagged this as no permission, so i still watch the page. I understand you recreation, but i dont understand the deletion an hour later, can you review this? Thanks, --Martin H. (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to produce SVG images. I have a better quality version of it as a GIF. I used OpenOffice and exported the graph as a PDF, then cut and pasted. Amateurish, eh? Fences and windows (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You have added OTRS to that image. Could you please tell me if permission relates to other images by chesspatzerblog blogger (he has a few more photos of chess players I could upload, but they are copyrighted and he didn't answer for my request to release them). Regards, pjahr@13:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not. It was just regarding that one image. I tried using both bots the other day to upload the image from flickr, and they both didn't work. Weird. Thanks for manually uploading the file.-Andrew c (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I got an email from wikipedia commons that the File Olaf1.JPG, that I´ve uploaded needs a premission. I don´t really know how that works... :( But I can assure, that I am the author of this file. I photographed it by myself in may 2008. So I, the author, give the premission to use it for wikipedia commons.
Is this enough? What else do I have to do?. please help me.
Hi Andrew, please, if you merge tickets, take care that still to be answered tickets are not merged into an already closed ticket. If you forget to reopen the ticket, it is no longer to be found in the queue and thereby lost. Fortunately, I saw your reference to this ticket on the noticeboard. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm pretty sure that is the first time I've done that, and I didn't know the software would behave like that. I figured since I was merging a ticket where the latest state was unlock and unanswered, that that would take precedent over the closed ticket. Now I know, and I'll watch for that in the future. Normally, I would have merged and then responded, but due to language barrier for this ticket, I was unable to do my usual. Anyway, thanks for the heads up.-Andrew c (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Back in January you gave me some hints as to how to delete a file with a bad name. I appreciate that! Used the {{Bad name}} template on the below pictures, however they were never speedy deleted. Now it could be that I haven't waited long enough, or I did something wrong in the process. If you care to reply, could you leave me a note on my Talk Page under the section "Deletion requests."
Hi, you allready checked OTRS about the File:Stephen G. Haines.jpg yesterday. Now I allready emailed Stephen G. Haines a week ago, and I didn't hear from him again. I guess he just changed his mind, or has better things to do.
One way or an other, I would like this file removed. Could we use the speedy delete procedure to do so. I allready spend a week checking, and I don't want to spend an other month (or more) monitoring the deletion procedure.
I guess I will not upload an other image before I get the conformation. Last time I sended forward the email I received to OTRS, and this time I asked the Haines to do it himself. I thought this was an easier way, but I guess I was wrong.
Hi, I noticed that you deleted File:Lightning Bolt.jpg, with the explanation of "Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission". I'm messaging you now to clarify exactly what the problem was, since the image was being used based on GFDL permission from the author, which has been logged with the OTRS system. It's been a while since I uploaded the file, so I'm unaware of any problems it might have, and the vague explanation given in the edit summary doesn't provide much answers. Additionally, I'm curious why it was deleted so quickly and without discussion. Any information you could provide would be much appreciated. Drewcifer3000 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply! All of that makes sense. I think somewhere along the line everything got confusing since it was transferred from the English Wiki (where I uploaded it, with OTRS ticket and all, I believe) to Commons (where I can only assume someone else just did a shoddy job of transferring the OTRS tag). Based on the email I received back from the OTRS system back in 2007, the ticket number for the image should be #2007073110021116. If you could check on that, I'd appreciate it. Alternatively, I'm not sure what your level of clearance is, so to speak, but is there any way you can check the original English wiki page for the image (en:File:Lightning Bolt.jpg) to see if all the info was there in a correct fashion before the transfer? Either way would probably work, so whatever works best. Please let me know if either of these options are something you can do. Thanks! Drewcifer3000 (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks for the assistance! As a related note, I've uploaded quite a few images directly to the English Wiki (before I got this Commons account), and I've noticed alot of the images that were eventually transferred over have had similar problems with information not being transferred correctly. I couldn't give you any clear examples, since I've been a little MIA around here lately, but I've noticed stuff like this before. I'm not very active here on Commons, so this is a little bit out of my realm of expertise, but I figured it would be good to bring it up to you, at least. There might be a problem with a bot (as you mentioned), or maybe just a procedural thing needs to be worked out. Not really sure how it can be fixed or what to do, but I just wanted to let you know that this seems to be a reoccurring problem. Thanks for the help regardless. Drewcifer3000 (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I was more than civil in that situation, and I think it is a terrible precedent to allow users to "bump" their OTRS by posting to the message board. I would urge you not to handle someones ticket just because they posted on the message board. There were say 40 tickets sent in in front of the one mentioned on the noticeboard. Those 40 are less important because they didn't whine about having to wait 3 days when there was a backlog?? Sorry if I am getting defensive. I mean this in the most constructive manner. No hard feelings. -Andrew c (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to the commons, and registered after literally stumnling in when looking for an image in a public domain on the internet. Obviously, I was very impressed with what I found here, and registered right away to browse all the information on here, and to contribute as well.
I have created a few pages, some linked to wikipedia as well, but I am finding the syntax a little difficult. I can and will muddle my way through it on my own, but before I go messing up a large number of referenced pages that I create, then having to go back tracking to repair anything, I am looking for some advice from an experienced member who can check over what I have done so far, and let me know if I am doing things correctly.
I have a few questions regarding copyright [for intance, if I modify a PD image for the commons, I should then upload it under the same PD license right?], but have no idea where to direct them, and I really would like to know what the OTRS Account thing is all about, and how to see replies from people I have talked to [for instance, I will have no idea how to find your reply to this once I submit it]
A while ago you helped me out with File:Lightning Bolt.jpg, in that during it's migration from Wikipedia to Commons, the information and description stuff got lost in the process, and so it was deleted since it was missing all that stuff. I also mentioned that it wasn't an isolated instance, but I couldn't think of any examples then and there. Well here's one: File:AIR flier.jpg. Like I said above, this seems to be a reoccurring problem. Beyond my just showing you this, I was hoping you could work some magic and recover the data that was lost during the migration, since I'd have a hard time recreating it this long after I uploaded it. Thanks either way! Drewcifer3000 (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bug you again, but I found another one where the info has been lost mid-migration: File:Melissa Auf der Maur.jpg. Do you think you could recover the info for me? Perhaps you could tell me where I can raise these questions in the future, instead of bugging you about it? My main question I guess would be where could I raise the issue of badly migrated images? This is a reoccurring problem I'd like to see fixed, so where do you think I could raise such concerns? Thanks again! Drewcifer3000 (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, and I have been asked that before. However, I believe that we're more likely to be able to get images if the author has to do as little work as possible. I've asked authors in the past to change the license, and although some do, they usually found it confusing or took too much effort. Today I had a lot of single images, so that's why I probably have so many OTRS requests open. Usually though, I tend to get entire Flickr sets or photostreams available for use under free licenses, and it would definitely be a pain for the author to change each one. Maybe down the line I'll work to become a trusted OTRS reviewer so that I can help with the backlogs. I know I probably haven't made too many friends with the OTRS volunteers but hopefully the number of images released under free licenses helps. Anyway, thanks again for letting me know. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are a trusted user... but generally speaking (and I usually am a kind, accepting person) I just ignore all requests from Flickr via OTRS. We have a Flickrreview process set up for that, and Flickrmail is not compatible with OTRS. Meaning, I cannot CC or e-mail directly a flickr user for verification through the OTRS system. If I had it my way, I'd make a rule that all Flickr mail would be denied from OTRS, and redirect the users to Flickr reivew. Sorry if that makes me a bad guy :[ Anyway, please be patient for these last tickets as we are quite backlogged at the moment.-Andrew c (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point. I do use Flickrreview on occasion if the image is already available under a compatible license. I'll probably keep up with this method as I believe it ensures the most success in getting celebrity images. Feel free to ignore my submissions (I'm in no big rush and understand the burden I place on the system), I'd rather everybody else's be taken care of first. I've had requests to become an OTRS reviewer, and once I finish a few long-term projects on Wikipedia, I'll probably sign up and help with the backlogs. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I signed up to volunteer at OTRS (I must not be feeling well...). I'll try to help out with permissions occasionally (at least to offset as many permissions I nominate). Enjoy your vacation. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Andrew c. The file linked to in the above header has been marked with {{OTRS received}}, but there has been no complete confirmation of it's permission status in the last 30 days. From what I'm able to tell, you were the person who added this template. Would you mind taking a look at this again? If confirmation cannot be found, this file should probably be marked for deletion. This should be the only notification you will receive regarding this image, so long as the comment I added to the image description page is not altered. Thanks! HersfoldOTRSBot(talk/opt out)23:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not an OTRS volunteer or did not add the "received" template to this file, it's possible I made a mistake identifying the correct user. I look for the most recent diff where the template was added, so if you reverted an edit where this template was removed, I can't tell the difference. If this is the case, please let my operator know at w:en:User talk:Hersfold. Sorry for the inconvenience!
Hello, Andrew c. The file linked to in the above header has been marked with {{OTRS received}}, but there has been no complete confirmation of it's permission status in the last 30 days. From what I'm able to tell, you were the person who added this template. Would you mind taking a look at this again? If confirmation cannot be found, this file should probably be marked for deletion. This should be the only notification you will receive regarding this image, so long as the comment I added to the image description page is not altered. Thanks! HersfoldOTRSBot(talk/opt out)23:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not an OTRS volunteer or did not add the "received" template to this file, it's possible I made a mistake identifying the correct user. I look for the most recent diff where the template was added, so if you reverted an edit where this template was removed, I can't tell the difference. If this is the case, please let my operator know at w:en:User talk:Hersfold. Sorry for the inconvenience!
Could you have a look at this ticket? Not totally sure what's the best way to proceed. Is it reasonable in your opinion?--DieBuche (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to fiddle with the Martin portrait. It looks much better. I did have one small question that I left at the project page. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I noticed that you mention on your user page about SVG images. Might you be able to produce a signature from this image? [1] Again, many thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the above link is my first image I have uploaded on the commons, I have the tag OTRSpending on and sent the email I got to say I was allowed to use the image to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Could you please confirm it. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been checking OTRS that much lately, and you can't get priority treatment by asking nicely on an OTRS agent's talk page ;) E-mails are handled in the order they are received. So please be patient, and I'm sure someone will be with you in do time! -Andrew c (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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!
Noticed you uploaded Duke athletic logos. I have been working on several logos from several universities that have similar geometric templates. Also noticed you have had problems with a rather abusive editor, that other editor's attempts to reach out to has been futile, who seems to enjoy vandalizing other school's logos. Any suggestions you may have about creating logos, and about abusive users, would be welcomed. Thanks. Truthangel01 (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour, Andrew. Depuis un moment, je cherche à comprendre pourquoi les images que j'avais publiées sur Commons ont été supprimées. Il semble que ce soit à votre initiative. Afin que je puisse remédier au problème, et publier définitivement ces images (dont je détiens incontestablement les droits), pouvez-vous répondre avec précision et clarté, dans des termes que je puisse comprendre, à la question suivante : " En quoi les images en question ne pouvaient-elles être admises sur Commons " ? En passant par ici et par là, vous pouvez reparcourir le chemin qui m'a conduit jusqu'à vous. D'avance, merci de votre réponse.
Bad translation:
Hellow, Andrew. I am trying to understand why the images which I had published on Commons have been removed. I have been told it was with your initiative. So that I can fix the problem and definitely publish these images (of which I hold the rights incontestably), would you please answer the following question with precision, clearness, in terms I can understand: "What makes the images in question couldn't be allowed on Commons?" Via here and via there, you can go again the way which led me to you. In advance, thank you for your answer.
Bonjour, Andrew, and thank you for your kind and complete answer. I just had a seek into my mail archives, and now it seems to me that I can tell where is the problem. After a first request, which you refused for it was under a restrictive licence, I sent another, by the same way: mail to Permissions-Commons, on 16th of June 2010 (00:48), this time "under the free license Creative Commons". Later, I saw that my images kept on WP and nobody told anything more to me. I have kept the copy of this second request, which I can send you if you don't find it again in your own archives. Très cordialement. --Thierry (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have the second e-mail as well, but "Creative Commons" is not a license. It is an organization. You need to specify a specific license. I've linked to examples of acceptable licenses in both my posts, and I believe my e-mail to you last July addressed both e-mails. The e-mail is otherwise fine, you just need to resend it, with you stating a specific license that we accept. "Creative Commons" is not ok, and "CC-BY-ND-NC" is not ok. I know it can be confusing. The best thing to do is to check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses, read carefully through your licensing options, and choose the one you want to use (if there are any you want to use). Then resend your e-mail, but add the name of the specific license you choose. You can message me once you do this, and I'll be glad to process the permission and undelete your files, if everything is in order. Sorry for any inconvenience. -Andrew c (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you told me, I just resent the said e-mail, giving cc-by licence (without nd nor nc). If it is correct now, and if you can unerase my images, I have to apologize for my dullness and to thank you for helping me so kindly and efficiently as you did. In the contrary case, I have to do so, and as much. Très cordialement. --Thierry (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you could assist in the matter of confirming the identity of User:Jbw, who is Jean-Baptiste Waldner in real life.
In 2007 and 2008 he has uploaded multiple of his images which have been published before.
In 2009 multiple of these images have been deleted, while he has tried to confirm his identity see for example here
Now a new series of his works have been requested for (speedy) deletion, which I have been questioning in the past three days, see also User talk:Cepheiden#File:Codasyl.jpg
I have also contacted Jean-Baptiste Waldner in real life. He has responded today that he is willing to provide the prove that is required.
Now my question is what exact prove has to be provide by Jean-Baptiste Waldner? It seems to me he should write an email to OTRS stating:
He is Jean-Baptiste Waldner, who has been active on wikicommons as user:Jbw
He is the author of the following images, released to Wikicommons in 2007 and 2008:
He also confirms he has released these images under the given "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" licence.
Could you confirm this is the right thing to do? Can he send this one email for all those 21 images or does he have to send 21 emails? -- Mdd (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no circumstance that I can think of where we would require someone to send in 21 different e-mails. In fact, for me, if the person is an active Wikipedian, and has been uploading for awhile, it is implied that they understand the terms of the licenses, so the full text of COM:EMAIL wouldn't be required. All I would need to see is a single e-mail stating "I am Wikimedia Commons User:X. I am writing to confirm that in real life I am Y. I am the rightful copyright holder of all the content that I have uploaded, and I agree to upload it under the terms of the various free licenses I have already chosen on the Commons". Assuming there are multiple licenses, if there is just one license, then that single license can be stated instead, like CC-BY-SA-3.0 or whatever. If the user wants to send in the full COM:EMAIL form, that wouldn't hurt by any means. Listing the file names can also be a real help. Finally, the most important aspect, the e-mail needs to be sent from some sort of officially verifiable e-mail address. Like if this person has an official webpage, it needs to be from the contact address listed there, or somehow we need to independently verify that the person sending the e-mail is actually the claimed individual. Hope this helps. -Andrew c (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Andrew, I have emailed Jean-Baptiste Waldner and asked him to give a direct response here. -- Mdd (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andrew. I have just been notified by Jean-Baptiste Waldner that he send an email this morning to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from his jb@waldner-consulting.com address with the subject "Conformation of the identity of User:Jbw is Jean-Baptise Waldner". Could you check the OTRS, and tell me how to proceed? I guess:
this OTRS conformation should be made clear on his userpage or usertalkpage? Should I add any OTRS pending?
with the conformation there is no ground for the recent deletion requests of six of his images? Could these deletion requests be closed?
could the three in 2009 removed images be restored? See also here?
I apologize for being rather busy. I don't believe I have time to handle this one personally. All e-mails are handled by our qualified volunteers in the order they are received. If you feel that there is a pressing need to jump the queue, then perhaps bring your concerns to the OTRS message board. You can add OTRS pending to all image pages if you want, and note at the deletion request that the OTRS is pending (though until it is confirmed, I don't think we should close those discussions ourselves). If the admin who handles the permission e-mail doesn't undelete those 3 files, you can take that to undelete requests after OTRS has been approved. I hope this helps, and I'm sorry I can't handle things personally. I hope you understand. _Andrew c (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andrew. I have just received an email that OTRS ticket 2011051210004131 confirmes that User:Jbw is Jean-Baptiste Waldner. I guess the deletion requests will be regularly closed by the end of the week, and I will see to those undelete requests myself. I want to thank you again for you time and advice. -- Mdd (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just want to let you know I made notifcations about the OTRS ticket on all about 20 files involved. Maybe even more important, I have removed the source information from most of those images, because I guess this has been the main reason of the misunderstanding around those images. Again, thank you both. -- Mdd (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Andrew c,
I need some help with my uploaded file...
Last year I´ve uploaded a foto on the Czech director Ivan Fila (own work). Today, I wanted to replace the file by a totally new picture (also own work) but I´ve made a mistake. Apparently I didn´t replace the file, but just overwrote the old one.
Could you help me to correctly replace the old file by the new one?
Thank´s a lot! --Socc82 (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, my English ist not too good.
Hope u understood my request anyway :)[reply]
PS: If you go to the current version, you can see the new file. But if u click it, the old one appeares. Shame on me! ;) --Socc82 (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have been inactive lately. Do you still need assistance? Can you tell me the difference between replacing the file and overwriting the file? What do you want to accomplish, and what wasn't accomplish when you simply overwrote the file that you still want to happen? Thanks. -Andrew c (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andrew c,
It´s me again ;) I´ve uploded the File Ivan_Fila.jpg last year. Meanwhile I´replaced it with a new one, so the File Ivan_Fila.jpg can be removed now, because it´s no longer needed. I just don´t know how to do. Can u help me? Thanks! --Socc82 (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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!
This was poor editing on your and the deleting admin's part. There were 2 acceptable, clearly PD-text versions of the logo in the file history. Just because one editor uploaded over those files with one that contained a graphic element, does not mean those prior versions also needed to be deleted. For shame... Just try to be more careful in the future.-Andrew c (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Andrew c. I am writing to you to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.
If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.
Hi, Andrew. I am having a problem uploading a file in connection with OTRS. I have the email permission from the photographer and have sent it on to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Now I am trying to upload the photo in Commons. I click that it is someone else's work and get hung up in the "Release Rights" step. I don't understand how to input the OTRS information. The wizard isn't making it clear to me. I re-read the directions under "OTRS" which tell me I am supposed to upload the photo then "tag the file [double-parenthesis]subst: OP[double-parenthesis]" but I don't understand what to tag or how to do this with the wizard. Do you mind explaining this to me? It would help with the massive frustration which has been building for the last hour as I have tried to unsuccessfully to upload the file. I am sure the wizard is great, but in the old days I used to be able to handle this OTRS business with no problem, grumble, grumble. Thank you. Hisland7
Hi, until I get a file-moving permission for my account, would you please be so kind to take care of 4 files I lately requested renameing for, that rendered kind-of-a-mess misnamed (by someone apparently with disregard of the requested names as posted by me earlier today). The original move tasks as I requested them are as following, kindly re-rename thusly:
Dear Andrew c. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.
If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.
Hi Andrew,
it is with a regret that I inform you that, following our de-adminship policy, you had your administrator rights on Wikimedia Commons removed today by a Wikimedia steward.
I would like to use this opportunity to thank you for your efforts and contributions in making Wikimedia Commons what it is today (no big words intended!). If you'll feel like doing so at some point, please feel free to re-apply for adminship at COM:RFA. Again, thanks for all the help you gave us, and (hopefully) see you back soon! odder (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Prolifevan.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!
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!
Andrew, I would like to use this map, but my use is so small that the type for cities is about 3 points. I know you aren't a fan of releasing an svg file, but I'm wondering if you can send me the original Illustrator file. I need to make the city names larger so they are readable. I will happily use Adobe Caslon 224 :)
I'm a graphic designer also, lots of illustrator/InDesign/Photoshop experience. I'll do your map justice, and you are free to see it before use. Please let me know!
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!
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!
.jpg)
.svg){kind=link}
13:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Signature_of_Nathan_Hale.jpg){kind=link}
