User talk:Lymantria/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

TUSC token ce7a1f14111393b3f5549207d1c756fd

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Hogere Res

Hoi Lymantria, bedankt voor de tip. Had de hogere resoluties niet gezien! Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graag gedaan. Lymantria (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ramaria aurea01.jpg

Are you sure it is Ramaria aurea? It looks alot more like Ramaria stricta to me --Ernie (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure. I followed the determination from the source-page. Lymantria (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[1] – they look alot like your specimen.
I've changed id into Ramaria sp. Thanks for the notice. Lymantria (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identification

[2] Good job, thx ! --Lilyu (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Lymantria (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lycaena phlaeas

Hello Lymantria I thank You for identification. --Hedwig Storch (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Lymantria (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lepidoptera eggs

Hi Lymantria, please categorize images of Lepidoptera eggs like this with Category:Lepidoptera eggs. Thanks! -- Ies (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will! Clin Lymantria (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Eupithecia_analoga.jpg

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Eupithecia_analoga.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Fæ (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Lymantria (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
A small Thank You for all of your hard work on Commons Captain-tucker (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks! Lymantria (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saxifraga - free nature images

Hoi Lymantria, ik heb even een vraagje over deze site: http://www.ecnc.org/publications/freenatureimages. Er staat: On this website low-resolution pictures of European animals, plants and landscapes are available for PowerPoint presentations and websites. Visitors are allowed to download these pictures free of charge, on condition that they mention the name of the photographer. Het lijkt me dat we deze plaatjes dus kunnen gebruiken op wikipedia? Als dat het geval is, welke licensie zou dit zijn denk je? Alvast bedankt en groet, Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ik vind dit een moeilijke. Het probleem is dat er alleen staat dat de foto's gebruikt kunnen worden voor websites en powerpointpresentaties, wat bijvoorbeeld drukwerk lijkt uit te sluiten. Daarom denk ik dat de foto's niet bruikbaar zullen zijn. Probeer eens een discussie op Commons talk:Licensing. Groet, Lymantria (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License reviews

You requested several images from http://mediateca.educa.madrid.org be reviewed. It's not clear which version of the Creative Commons license they use. For instance, http://mediateca.educa.madrid.org/imagen/ver.php?id_imagen=n979lbx6ibur1jko&id_grupo=165 indicates attribution and share-alike, but not whether it's 2.5 or the Spanish version. If you know of a page that can clarify this, it would help me to review those images. – Adrignola talk 03:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here you can see by the "internet archive" that the site earlier used the 2.5 version: http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20090118083016/http://mediateca.educa.madrid.org/imagen/ver.php?id_imagen=ehaozwmmbgyzcc1p. I have had a small discussion with Captain-tucker on this issue as well. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That will allow for accurate tagging of the images. – Adrignola talk 12:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Santa Maria de l'Estrada (Agullana).jpg

I don't see what may have happened with this file. I uploaded it with the Flickrtool, and the information states clearly that it is the image 5482587263 in Flickr; its licence is "some rights reserved", that should be correct. In the description of the file in Commons: "({{Information |Description=GR - 174 De Porrera a El Lloar |Source=[http://www.flickr.com/photos/122/5482587263/ GR - 174 De Porrera a El Lloar] |Date=2011-02-26 12:39 |Author=[http://www.flickr.com/photos/56153908@N00 joan ggk] |Permission= |other_versions= }} =={{int:license-header}}== {{cc-by-2.0}} {{flickrreview}} Category:Churches in Alt Empordà Category:Agullana)" So the source is http://www.flickr.com/photos/122/5482587263/. Who should remove the tag, or what should be done to clarify (more) the source? Yours Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 12:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the image that the source shows clearly is not the same as the one here. I think you have given the wrong link. I tried to find the correct one, but didn't succeed. If you have found the correct source, you can just add again {{FlickrReview}} and remove the tag I added. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check. I uploaded several images in a short while, so I could have (miss)taken one reference for the other. If that is the case (highly probable, as you point), I'll change the upload and will add the flickreview again. Thanks for your help, and for your good work. Yours, Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 12:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I copied the wrong number. I've changed it and it works. I've added the Flickrreview tag again. Yours Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 21:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Lymantria (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Veel foto's

Super! Ik zag al dat je een paar foto's had toegevoegd op de Engelse wiki. Ik heb nog een lijstje met foto's van Daniel Hobern die ik laatst had ge-upload (als het goed is heb ik nu 1 of meerdere foto's van elke soort waar hij foto's van heeft gemaakt op commons gezet). Ik ga me eerst concentreren op het maken van artikelen voor die foto's, maar ik zal zeker op zoek gaan naar foto's op boldsystems..! Bedankt voor de tip! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

template:ldfkeralam

Hi, I created a template for the images taken from ldfkerala.org website 1. But there is a problem, outside links to source is replacing by {{{1}}} whenever I click localization links (ie, English | മലയാളം | +/−) in File namespace. eg: File:TV Rajesh.jpg. Please advise (or fix ;-))--Praveen:talk 09:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I don't see what goes wrong here. My apologies. You might try the help desk. With this template, it seems that {{LicenseReview}} is not needed anymore for images taken from ldfkeralam.org. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay :) I put this problem here. Thank you--Praveen:talk 10:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Acronicta.aceris.jpg

Sorry, my fault-Mys 721tx (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:TGRT.jpg

Hey, can you have a look at this file? File:TGRT.jpg. Somebody uploaded a new image on existing file. This effects the wiki where it is used. Is it possible to revert this?--Stambouliote (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted is. I don't think it was replaced with bad intentions. But still, it shouldn't be replaced this way. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops sorry for the Remplace @Lymantria is for the more testcards & the TGRT testcard is moved of the same name Thanks att:Ughhhg.

MerestiLandscape.jpg

The photo is available on Picasa under the license All Rights Reserved, but I got the written agreement of the uploader (see photo comments) (Iaaasi (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Please contact OTRS to get this verified. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Priest photo

I've just contacted the image owner by commenting on the Flickr page where the image appears:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithwj/130596174/in/set-72057594114254076

If it must be deleted before he responds, I will re-upload it later if and when he explicitly changes the license to be compatible with Wikipedia's legal policies. Sorry for misunderstanding the varities of Creative Commons licences. 15:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

comment at User talk:Dpkpm007

Hello:

I don't like to contradict fellow Admins (or about-to-be fellow Admins) in public, hence my comment here. Also, of course, I may be missing something.

You talk about filmitadka as though it were an acceptable source:

"However, filmitadka.in does not release images under different licenses, but all under cc-by-sa-3.0 (except screenshots, wallpapers and promotional posters)."

I see both an explicit (c) and "all rights reserved" on each page and the following on its T&C page:

"6. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
All text, graphics, audio, design and other works on the Site are the copyrighted works of FilmiTadka unless otherwise indicated. Content on the Site is for personal use only. Any alteration of the material or use of the material contained in the Site for any commercial purpose is a violation of the copyright of FilmiTadka and/or its affiliates or associates or of its third-party information providers. The Content available on the Site shall not be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted or distributed in any way without obtaining the prior permission from FilmiTadka. All responsibility and liability for any damages caused by downloading of any data is disclaimed."

That seems to me to be a pretty stiff standard copyright notice -- nothing about CC-SA there. Am I missing something?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are missing this statement on the filmitadka.in site. I hope that explains enough. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have three problems with this:
"All photographs used www.filmitadka.inm from Filmi Tadka http://www.filmitadka.in/page3-parties.html with the exception of screenshots, wallpapers or promotional posters are exclusively created by our own photographers. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify these images, providing the site is attributed and a direct link running to the source on site is provided."
First, it isn't at all clear what it means -- the two web sites mentioned in it are not all of filmitadka, so what part of the site does it cover? I would say only the section Home > Gallery > Page3Parties, because that is the only section it mentions.
Second, it does not explicitly repudiate the more general statement I quoted above from the whole site's T&Cs. If they had wanted to make an exception to the more general rule, I would have expected language such as
"Notwithstanding anything contained in our Terms and Conditions at http://www.filmitadka.in/static/terms-a-conditions.html, all photographs used...."
Without such a repudiation, the rules of construction would require us to assume the worst.
And, third, it requires "a direct link running to the source on site is provided." We have debated the meaning of such requirements in the past and decided that they do not meet our requirements, as they do not allow use in a non-web environment -- that is, that such requirements do not allow use in books, magazines, and other printed media.
So, I think the best you can say is that a limited number of images from FilmiTadka may be licensed under CC-SA, but have an additional restriction on attribution that makes them unacceptable to us.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, I am starting to share your worries. I have not found any link made from a filmitadka-image to the http://www.filmitadka.in/static/filmitadka-creative-commons-attribution-share-alike-license.html on the Filmi Tadka site itself. It seems to me that Filmi Tadka has changed policy, as I seem to remember that the site did link to this statement in the past. I can't find much evidence though (for instance not internet archive wayback machine, however http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&client=firefox-a&hs=Hb3&rls=org.mozilla%3Anl%3Aofficial&q=site%3Afilmitadka.in+%22creative+commons%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= seems to indicate they did). This might mean that, in stead of all images in Category:Images from FilmiTadka being acceptable, they might well be unacceptable, and a mass deletion request would be the way to deal. Is that what you intend to?
You wrote: "And, third, it requires "a direct link running to the source on site is provided." We have debated the meaning of such requirements in the past and decided that they do not meet our requirements, as they do not allow use in a non-web environment -- that is, that such requirements do not allow use in books, magazines, and other printed media." I wasn't aware of that outcome of debate. It seems then, that the {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}}-marked images share this problem. If I strictly interpretate your third problem, you propagate removal of all these images as well?
Kind regards, and thanks so far for the teaching. Lymantria (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not positive about the resolution of the direct link issue -- I would think we would need a new DR or two on the issue and then make a note of it for future reference. My memory is not always reliable -- that's why I link things when possible.
As for doing Mass DR nominations on Filmi Tadka, as you begin your activities as an Admin on Monday, I think you'll find that there is so much work doing Admin things, that you will tend to do fewer DR nominations. I certainly tend to go through open DRs first, {{Speedy}}s second, and then might work on some DR nominations if I have time, which is rare.
BTW, a small thing -- I think you'll find that almost everybody on Commons -- certainly all the Admins -- expect to find replies where they put comments, so that {{Talkback}} is not necessary. Everything that I edit goes on my watch list automatically. I then remove pages from it only if they show up enough so that they become a nuisance.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Oh yes, I know that there are always many other things to do. That will be not different here from nl-wiki. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I started a "test" DR here. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tumbleweed gif deletion

So, the licence at the bottom of the page indicates that it cannot be at wikimedia anyway? I just want to know. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 14:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does, the license at the bottom of the page indicates a "non-commercial" license. Some pictures from the uncyclopedia have explicitly been released under a free license, however. Not this one. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aashish Chaudhary

Hello Lymantria,

Though I have been through such discussions before, and in the past too other admins (i.e. after discussion) allowed me to continue uploading images, however after going through the conversation on your talk page, I have told people at FilmiTadka to alter their T&C. I encourage you to go through FilmiTadka Terms & Conditions and FilmiTadka Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license again. Kindly keep me in the loop. Fanofbollywood (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides as far as direct link is concerned, I can point you thousands of images on commons itself which have this exact same requirement, for starters go through this - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abhay_Deol.jpg
Thanks for going after improvement of the T&C at FilmiTadka! I am aware of the numerous times the requirement of a direct link is given. That it is requested many times doesn't make it acceptable in itself. I think a good discussion on a Deletion Request is the way to resolve the question whether this be acceptable or not. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, add your reaction on the Deletion Request page, so that everyone can see the discussion. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not acceptable then remove it from everywhere. See I am not arguing, you are a very senior member and I respect your contributions, but I am genuinely confused. In order to contribute on wiki I won't read thousands of policies around, a simple way (as it seems to me) is to learn from what others are doing and is "accepted" by the community. Anyway I have raised my concerns on the project talk page as well, I hope the issue is resolved. Fanofbollywood (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not acceptable, then indeed we will have to remove it from everywhere. But first we should, via this deletion request, have a discussion on this issue. It seems not chrystal clear yet. If the outcome for this image would be "removed", then there is a load of images to removed afterwards. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lymantria, the changes were made to this statement as well, please go through that. Also when one says "direct link" that means URL of the said work, however in order to make it more crisp and specific the changes have been made to that license statement. I hope you can now remove the deletion tag.Fanofbollywood (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! This didn't show up when I last visited it. Probably I got a cached version. My apologies. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator

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

Een cadeau voor onze nieuwe adminstrator van je collega's

Lymantria, gefeliciteerd! Je hebt nu administratorrechten op Commons. Neem een moment om Commons:Administrators te lezen en plaats gerelateerde pagina's op je volglijst (vooral Commons:Administrators' noticeboard en Commons:Deletion requests), voor je in verwijderen, beveiligen, blokkeren of wijzigen in beveiligde pagina's duikt. De meerderheid van de acties van administratoren kunnen ongedaan worden gemaakt door andere administratoren, behalve het samenvoegen van bewerkingsgeschiedenissen, die dus met bijzondere zorg behandeld moeten worden.

Neem eens een kijkje op het IRC-kanaal: #wikimedia-commons op irc.freenode.net.

Zie de Moderatorenhandleiding (Engels). En check of voeg je zelf toe aan List of administrators en de gerelateerde lijsten op taal en datum.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dankjewel. Groet, Lymantria (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gefeliciteerd Lymantria! :-) Trijnstel (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, I think. (There are days when I think we should all have our heads examined, but there are only a few of those).
You may find this useful -- as you will see, it is brand new, so comments will be welcome.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Trijnstel and Jim! And thank you for the link! Lymantria (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Detmold illustration

You recently deleted an image by this artist from WikiCommons, seemingly ignoring my explanation here. The picture is stated to have a Creative Commons license 2.0 at this site and in the internet archive site here the book is said to be out of copyright. I must therefore ask you for an explanation of what appears an arbitrary action. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book is not out of copyright. Copyright ends as the author is died 70 years ago. Edward J. Detmold died in 1957. The work was published in London, outside the USA. At least that is what I find from the book itself (here, different from what your link states). So although published in 1909, {{PD-US}} IMHO does not apply. When you still think I misinterpret this case, you may choose to appeal the decision at the page with undeletion requests. But I think you need a firm proof that the book was indeed published in the USA and UK simultaniously in 1909. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were 2 editions: one published in London, New York and Toronto and another of 750 copies on special paper, signed by the artist and published only in London. It is the latter edition (now archived online) that you and I have been looking at. Both editions are mentioned here and in other places. However, I have resolved the issue by another avenue and there is now no need to reverse your action. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, but you made your point clear to me now. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flickr - nicogenin - 66ème Festival de Venise (Mostra) (92).jpg

I know you are a new Admin. So maybe you forgot to check an image's file history before you place an npd tag or a DR on a photo but please be careful...and check the image file history just to be safe.

This image may have been flickrpassed by Zil in December 2009. I just left a message on Zil's talkpage asking if he can backdate a pass for this picture. I won't since I didn't mark it in December 2009. Only Zil can. I also had a long discussion with Admin MGA73 here on this photo. Its a mess but this photo shouldn't be deleted if there is some doubt, I think. Anyway, Zil will decide. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flickr - nicogenin - 66ème Festival de Venise (Mostra) (92).jpg

You mark the picture as nsd]. It was uploaded by my bot using flickrripper. It was at this address with this license. - Zil (d) 20:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see the problems that can happen if you don't check an image file's original history. I hope this doesn't happen again with another picture. When I see an old 2009, 2008 or 2007 image with no flickrpass, I check to see if someone removed the original flickrpass just to be safe....before I file a speedy delete or a DR if the license is not acceptable today. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Leoboudv, I did check the file history, and didn´t notice any "Zil" in its history - the name mentioned in the template. Now I see that Boing-boing is in fact his bot. My apologies, I didn´t realize that. If I had, I wouldn't have marked the picture as nsd. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's OK. For a second there, I thought the uploader was typing in a fake flickrpass. I too had no idea that Boing-boing was Zil's ownbot. Admin MGA73 has his own bot too but at least he calls it mga73bot. Best wishes from Metro Vancouver, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Ooo, thanks, Lymantria, regarding File:Spomenik na Grmeču.jpg, i really forgot FoP for this file! Bravo for the good job! :) --WhiteWriter speaks 11:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The FoP-question is easily forgotten, especially when there is FoP "at home". Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Gacela dorcas1.jpg

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Gacela dorcas1.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Kiran Gopi (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thank you. Lymantria (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

Hi! I would like to thank you for brining to my attention that one of the several recent pics I uploaded here was no good because it had a noncommercial tag. I am very very new to Wiki commons (although I am a frequent editor on the regular Wiki site) and I only just started uploading images tonight and, in good faith, I uploaded images from flickr by simply doing an advanced search of "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content" pics and uploading pics once I saw the 'attribute' logo. I had no idea that most of what I was doing was erroneous and would like to thank you for alerting me of this before I wasted even more time uploading images that would just get speedy deleted lol. Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. In advanced search at Flickr, you could refine the search to allow "Find content to use commercially" & "Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon". The results then are always uploadable. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human flickr review

If you have some free time, please try to mark a few of these images here that require a person to mark. I have marked many but it seems that very few other Admins or trusted users have been marking images...that the flickr bot has placed in this category. I marked the .ogv file you uploaded of the tadpoles. Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly will, and I regularly pick some images from the category to review. On some occasions however connections to Flickr are really slow... and that doesn't work. Kind regards from the Netherlands, Lymantria (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Oléria

Just to be sure, I know the Flickr licencing to this image is All rights reserved, but I had sent the email to permissions-commons-pt@wikimedia.org already with the owner's permission to put this image on wikipedia. Thanks! ZackTheJack (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was aware of that. That's why the file is not speedy deleted, and filed in the Category "possibly unfree flickr images" (and thus possibly not). Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hi, Lymantria!

Sorry for being late to respond to your notification about the intended deletion of the image I've downloaded recently:

  • File:BorzenkoSemyonBorisovichInterview.jpg

I considered it having been already licensed by the rules of the site (social network). Anyway, the picture itself wasn't too good :) it was rather a placeholder for the better illustration which I hope to find in future. Sorry and thank you again, Cherurbino (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cherurbino. I am sorry, but the rules of the site were not visible. When I clicked the link i just found the image itself. But indeed, it was a low quality photograph as well. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Voser.jpg

Hi Lymantria, you earlier today marked the Flickr image Peter Voser.jpg as non-compliant due to having the wrong creative commons settings. My mistake - thanks for checking. The settings for that image on Flickr have now been changed. Would you be in a position to bring back the image? Mbot1975nl (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old USAF Chaplain Corps Seal1.jpg

Yesterday I posted this file, plus Old USAF Chaplain Corps Seal2.jpg, and I just saw your warning that the file might be deleted. I have contacted the Pentagon and asked that the office of public affairs (which, working with the office of the senior chaplain of the USAF) emailed me the files, to send an email to wikimedia-permissions@wikimedia.org. Is it possible for you to mark these files OTRS pending to give a few extra days? It wasn't easy to find these, but I am confident that my contacts in the Pentagon that found the images for me will follow up with the emails. Thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly be excellent. I'll mark the images as OTRS-pending. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very, very much! The Pentagon is slow...but usually, (eventually) sure! I hope the msg will be sent within a week. This image is important historically, so I'm glad it can be added as a wikimedia resource. Thanks again! NearTheZoo (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Email from Pentagon sent, affirming both files are public domain. Thanks again! NearTheZoo (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Sadly I am not in the position to process (or even read) messages sent to OTRS. But I am certain that the confirmations by the Pentagon will find their ways. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged items

Hello Lymantria:

You flagged several legal documents from a federal court case I submitted to Wikimedia Commons. I'm new to Commons.

Could you explain how to resolve the issues you noted? All of the documents are publicly available.

Please advise.

Thank you.

There are two issues:
  1. Not all documents were from a federal court, some were from state courts. Although they may be publicly available, that does not mean that they are in "public domain", i.e. that they are free to be republished and free of copyrights. You tagged the files {{PD-USGov}} and that only applies for federal government. Perhaps you can clear this up, by pointing to state regulations where it is published that these state court documents are "public domain". If there are no such laws, I don't think these state court documents can be published here.
  2. In my opinion these documents don't belong here. Commons has core business at images, and these documents are merely texts. When you use them as a source, it is not necessary to have them uploaded here. This may be subject to debate.
Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jean-Paul Chifflet directeur général de Crédit Agricole S.A. .jpg

This uploader uploaded 2 images only to Commons. One has no source but mentions Agricole. This also mentions Agricole but the uploader says it is someone else's work and there is no mention of flickr which is quite convenient. But...can Commons really keep it without OTRS permission? Can anyone trust an uploader with only two images? Please think about this. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I marked the image as "no source" as well. Now we cannot verify if it is indeed a photograph by the person that the uploader mentions. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Sadly the uploader learned the wrong 'lesson' after you tagged his first image with a npd tag. He thought he could upload images without any problem merely by Not mentioning flickr. But his actions could get Commons in some future problems. Thank you for acting. Regards from Canada --Leoboudv (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this

Hello Lymantria

Today you have nominated for deletion some maps uploaded by me because of the statement on source page. But the statement on source page is now changed. You can check it on: http://solargis.info/doc/index.php?select=71

Could you please retire your nomination for deletion? Thank you in advance. 26/05/2011

I see, thank you. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation - free solar maps from solragis.info under CC license, now

Hello. We confirm that Free solar maps at http://solargis.info/free-solar-maps has been released for public use under CC license. Sincerely Juraj Betak, GeoModel Solar

Thank you. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Photozou licenses

Hi there. Please check the lower right section. Under thumbnails, license information is written by Japanese language with cc-by icon, like this: クリエイティブ・コモンズ（表示）に基づいて公開されています

I'm weak in English, so my explanation may be difficult to understand for you, sorry. --UCinternational (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing :) --UCinternational (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. :) Lymantria (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the fixes on those three North Carolina image files. I can't for the life of me figure out why the upload marked them as Flickr. I figure it must be some sort of glitch in the system. Anyways, thanks. They are, as you noticed, Library of Congress Historic American Engineering Record files. Cheers, MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed this seems to be caused by a flaw in the Upload Wizard. You're welcome. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Another weird Flickr mixup. Best regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Protexarnis squalida.jpg

The source given for this file is a dead link. MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t know what happened. The copyright status can be checked at Google chache. Thanks for all the reviewing! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing

Hi I am really trying to understand the issue of licensing and rights. Was my understanding of the Flickr import policy incorrect for File:Belarus 3881 - I forgot my library card...jpg? I used the tool to find free images, found that one, imported it, and it was verified, but proposed for deletion. I guess I assume wikimedia is indemnified by the fact it was published under a compatible license on Flickr prior to being here. Are we erring on the side of caution? - Please know I am not questioning your decision, just am seeking a better understanding of the underlying issue. Is the Flickr import tool allowing improper images to be ported? I spent a good amount of time dealing with the import interface, trying very hard to make it correct, and to find it was for naught, is kind of disheartening. K3vin (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that the author of this picture doesn't want to release his picture under a free license, but that the picture shows a modern building. That building has a copyright as well. In a lot of countries these can be photographed without any problem assured by law, this is called freedom of panorama. But in Belarus and a lot of other countries, this freedom of panorama is not granted or not under conditions that are free enough for commons. That means that a photograph, as a derivative work of the building, violates copyrights on the building, unless there is specific permission. That is the problem behind this issue. And it is clear that photographs on Flickr are not checked for this kind of possible copyright violation. I am sorry. Dura lex sed lex ("law is hard, but it is the law"). Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 images

Could you mark these last 2 images below?

The flickr review bot has ignored these images which were uploaded on May 11 with the {{Flickrreview}} tag. I just marked 5 separate images with this POL title...but I'd prefer if someone else marks the last two. The license is always 'cc by sa generic' I find. This is a rare situation as I noted here. Thank You in advance, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I noted two issues:
  1. The photographs where uploaded as .png files at Flickr. Perhaps this triggered a flaw in the bot?
  2. The files were not uploaded in full resolution.
Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Thank You for your help marking the 2 pictures. One person should never mark all these unmarked photos. I don't knew how one could change a file format from .png to .jpg though. It seems strange to me. Most people including me give up when they see the orginal picture is in .png format. Anyway, best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uploading as .png is allowed, so giving up is not necessary! I use a small free file-editing program - Irfanview - to convert .png into .jpg. Simply open as .png and save as .jpg. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank You for the reference, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Barack Obama and Essam Sharaf G8 France 2011.jpg

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Barack Obama and Essam Sharaf G8 France 2011.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Lymantria (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This media comes from the White House web site. I've just add the link where I exactly found it. The licence (PD-USGov) is OK, isn't it? Ascaron (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With a source link, indeed. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deep Bottom Pontoon Bridge 05-0528a.jpg

Hallo Lymantria, ich habe gesehen, dass du deutsch verstehst. Wenn das nicht ausreicht, versuche ich das auch nochmal auf Englisch. In dem obigen Bild hast du einen Verweis auf Flickr gelöscht, was völlig richtig war. Hätte ich das auch gedurft oder ist das nur Admins erlaubt? Nebenbei - ich weiß nicht, wie das überhaupt in die Kategorien reinkam - ich habe die Kategorie nicht erstellt. Oder wird jetzt immer automatisch überprüft, ob das hochgeladene Bild aus Flickr kopiert ist? Schon mal danke für deine Antwort. Gruß --Edmund Ferman (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Edmund, Ich versuche mal auf Deutsch zu antworten. Mein passives Deutsch reicht um diene Frage zu verstehen, ich hoffe das es auch reicht zum Antworten. Ich habe gesehen, das es ziemlich viel {{Flickrreview}}-Beifügungen gibt bei Bilder die auch mit {{PD-USGov}} markiert sind. Ich denke das das automatisch von UploadWizard gemacht wird. Ich habe hier eine Frage darüber gestellt, leider noch ohne Antwort. Ja, Sie dürfen die merkwürdige Flickrverweisen auch selbst entfernen. Gruß, Lymantria (talk) 07:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Danke, habe ich verstanden - Thank you, I understood - Leider beherrsche ich die niederländische Schriftsprache nicht. -) Gruß --Edmund Ferman (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moviesplanet-mini-logo.png

Could you please delete the above file. It has incorrect licensing information. MauchoEagle (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the image is uploaded already some time ago, I chose to tag the image as "missing permission". Indeed it seems just copyrighted. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sylvie Guillem & Russell Maliphan.jpg

Please see here. I don't understand your action. Nicourse (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note the sign. For this image only non-commercial reuse is allowed. That is not free enough for commons, see also Commons:Flickr files. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rights have been changed. Please cancel your deletion. Nicourse (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Lymantria (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why Wikimedia need a commercial licence ?!? I don't understand because non commercial licences are refused. Thanks Nicourse (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kee Bird flying in formation.png

In response to your enquiry about the source of the file, it is given on the file page by the link: http://www.amazon.com/NOVA-B-29-Frozen-Darryl-Greenamyer/dp/B000HEWGYW/ref=pd_sim_v_2 This link, after you click it, goes to the video of the documentary "B-29 Frozen in Time" which was created by NOVA sometime after 1997. The picture was shown in the documentary and is the work of the United States Airforce and it was made prior to the loss of the Keebird in 1947, i.e. fifty years before the rescue attempt or the NOVA documentary, so it cannot be the work of NOVA. So I hope this clarifies the issue. Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see, it is in the video, not in the website.... I will think about this. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and yes, the picture appears in the video as an example of how Keebird looked in a mission prior to its loss and forced landing in Greenland in 1947. Dr.K. (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for the clarification. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Best regards. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spigelian Hernia.jpg

What is unclear about the source or the author? It's a CT scan. It doesn't have an author. Although I may not have perfectly annotated each and every little aspect of it, I have clearly identified the source, which is public domain. What must I do to not have copyright zealots such as yourself not delete my clearly public domain media? Thank you.Huckfinne (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be verified that this CT scan is made as you suggested? As presented here, it may be from any hospital. Perhaps an employee from the National Naval Medical Center can confirm it by mail to COM:OTRS? When we cannot verify the status of this image, we cannot keep it. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am an employee of said institution. Would you like me to send an email from my @med.navy.mil email address? Will that enable to you feel comfortable that I am not violating some mysterious holder of intellectual monopoly on this image? Although I could take this course of action it doesn't seem appropriate given that no copyright exists on this image. Your excessive concern for copyright seems to be based on the faulty notion that a copyright exists unless a creator releases his or her "rights." This image has never had a copyright and never will.Huckfinne (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but that is not the case for any CT-scan from any hospital. Therefore it still is necessary for us to be able to verify that indeed this scan has its origin at National Naval Medical Center. I don´t understand where you've got the idea from that I ask you to release any rights. A copyright does exist in other hospitals, so please confirm that this image is PD by showing it is from the National Naval Medical Center as indicated. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I object to your default assumption that rights exist. This leads to me having to "prove" that they don't exist. Will an email from my @med.navy.mil email to OTRS enable to to feel comfortable that no "rights" have been violated? It's very frustrating that I spend my time putting images up that are useful and then have to do extra work to "prove" that they are what I say they are. The law does not require this level of proof. Even the horrible DMCA doesn't require this type of "proof." If a copyrighted image is used without permission, it can merely be taken down upon notice by the copyright holder.Huckfinne (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The aim is to have licenses verifiable here at commons. We try the best we can to indeed guarantee that. I am sorry, but while living accross the Ocean, I don't know what the DMCA is. Supposedly a very bureaucratic organization. Supposedly you want me to feel bad about asking you to make the source of the image verifiable. But be being angry at me, you have spent more time than you would have sending a one line mail to OTRS. Your image is helpful, very much indeed. Please, I just ask you te cooperate, I don't demand anything. If you would put your OTRS-mail in general terms, that you are an employee of the named institution, and the images you contribute originate from there and are thus PD by definition, refering to the OTRS-ticket can be repeated any time. It would be a shame if images are removed, if it were not necessary. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:David Choi.jpg

Would you consider marking this photo? It was uploaded on June 4 but its now June 6 already and yet the flickr bot avoids it. And yet the highest resolution vedrsion is in jpeg. Strange. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: Its OK. I figured out the problem. The uploader messed up the flickrreview tag and inserted some extraneous text into it and I fixed the problem. So, the flickr bot marked the file now after almost 2 days and put it into hman review where I marked it. But I could not find any cats for him although his english wiki article has many cats. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank You. Born in 1986 huh. Wow! I was born in 1973 and my favourite music are still 1980's and early 1990's songs by MJ, Lionel Ritchie, Wilson Philips, Cyndi Lauper, Roxette, Madonna, etc but that's all passe today sadly. It all hip hop nowadays. Music tastes have changed so much. Oh well. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How should I proceed?

The JPG's are the only format I could find for the Senate report. It is in the public domain but they didn't put it in HTML verson. Please advise me on what else is needed to make good as the pages are in use. Alos I notice they are already deleted can you undelete them so I can see what is ommitted? " File:SenatorMarkeystaffreportp18 PubicDomaijn.png Geofferybard (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed is a link to the source, so we can verify that the images are indeed (likely) created by a Federal empolyee in office. That link may be to a JPG, that is not a problem. Perhaps someone will consider it out of project scope because this merely is text, but I will not dive into that. I'll release the images and give them another week to be sourced. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leninogorsk MN.jpg

This recent upload has no source and should be failed or tagged with nsd. But since its a really new source, it could be failed. I leave the decision up to a respected Admin like you. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the file with nsd. Even if this would have been sourced, it shouldn't stay here, as Russia doesn't have COM:FOP#Russia. But I don't see a reason for speedy deletion. Thank you for the kind words, and the work you do for Flickr review. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jet blast deflector image

Hi Lymantria!

I have no objections to being deleted. But, before you react at only deleting, there's an oddity associated with this figure. As I mentioned when uploading the figure, the caption indicates it is already in Commons, but take a look at this Wikipedia article, url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_blast_deflector. There is a very dark image at the beginning that appears to be the exact same figure, only enlarged. The image quality is well below what Commons should be accepting. This is . When I enter "AC 150/5300-13, page 85" into Google image search, the image you wish to delete comes up, not the image in Commons.

Before you Delete without compassion, may I ask that you investigate the second image also.

I was initially trying to find a better image for the Wikipedia article. As you can see here, the image is fine, but on the Wikipedia page the image is very dark. Marshallsumter (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the no source-tag. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upload Wizard

I filed a bug that is maybe of your interest: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29346

Sincerely -- RE rillke questions? 09:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Gibson by Dan Huse (2010).jpg

If you have the time, please consider marking this image. Sadly, I don't have any software to remove the watermark. I am not an image specialist. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I. But I have marked it. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glitch

Hi again. Thanks for the fix on those couple of images that the new Upload Bot seems to flag as Flickr. For some reason, everything I'm uploading from the Library of Congress is getting tagged as Flickr. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems that all images tagged {{PD-USGov}} using UploadWizard are sent to flickr reviewing. It is brought under attention of "Bugzilla". I hope it gets fixed soon. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that is a hassle then – lots of images! I hope they can get it ironed out for the sake of all the good folks who are having to field the fixes. Anyways, thanks again. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images

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

Hello, Lymantria!
Tip: Add categories to your files
Tip: Add categories to your files

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

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

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

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

CategorizationBot (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Empires and Allies Photo

I am aware that the use of the photo was a violation of copyright (although I had shown developers the wiki page and they had no complaints,) I do ask for a way to get a photo on there. For example: How did you get the Farmville photo? Also, are screenshots of said game also considered copyrighted? --173.76.24.77 23:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[user: EvilConker][reply]

Hi EvilConker, There is a difference in policy between Wikimedia Commons and the English language wikipedia. This concerns fair use, which is allowed on en-wiki (and a couple other wikis) and not on Commons. The Empires and Allies logo and some screenshots might be used on en-wiki. Perhaps you should try a local upload on that wiki. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwal

Maybe it will be better Not to mark any images by Wikiwal at Panoramio as you did below:

Why? Admin Jcb has added some OTRS tickets to some of his uploads like this one below:

It could be own work and I have sent a message to Jcb's talkpage on the situation. Wikiwal also makes a reference to the OTRS ticket number here Let Jcb deal with the issue. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. Thank you. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted image file "American Airlines Center in Victory Park, Downtown Dallas, 06-05-11"

Greetings,

I am a little confused by the recent deletion of the above referenced image that I originally obtained from flickr.

When you click on the flickr link to access the file:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cliffbaise/5806832528/in/faves-52949402@N03/

And then if you click on the "Some Rights Reserved" under the "License" heading you get the following:

....................................................................................

Creative Commons Creative Commons License Deed Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) Disclaimer

You are free:

to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work to Remix — to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. ....................................................................................

The flickr image clearly states an individual is "free to share and to remix" under the following conditions of "providing attribution", "no commercial usage" and "share alike".

So given the explicit approval of the original image owner to use the photo in the manner that I used it in wikipedia, could you please explain how or why you arrived at the conclusion it was not available for use?

Thank you!

Hi,
I understand that this is confusing. On wikimedia commons use of images that is restricted to "non commercial" use is not allowed. Not for the reason that commons or wikipedia itself are commercial, but because these sites want to grant all possible re-use. So we want that images published here licensed such that commercial reuse by others is possible. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heliothis proruptus.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:Heliothis proruptus.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

fr33kman 02:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwal is Dennis Wubs

Dear Admin Lymantria,

The OTRS ticket I mentioned is legitimate. This long discussion between Admins Jcb and Adrignola finally resolved the issue. The images were deleted on Friday and restored on Saturday. Perhaps someone like you can add the correct OTRS ticket to Wikiwal's images in future. I cannot as I am not an Admin. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will, when I see these nice church organs come up again! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lymantria/Archive_1&oldid=703002380"