User talk:Okki/Archive 1

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

Cat out 04:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you uploaded a number of Pokemon cosplay pics. I was wondering if you could help me locate them. :) --Cat out 22:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  English  español  Esperanto  français  galego  italiano  lietuvių  magyar  Nederlands  norsk bokmål  português  polski  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  Tiếng Việt  Ελληνικά  македонски  русский  українська  հայերեն  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  فارسی  +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 15:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modif cat[edit]

Ravis de te retrouver ici Okki! Je voulais simplement savoir pourquoi tu as procédé à ces modifications de catégories? Je peux comprendre la suppression de "actors from..." (en fait c'est juste que "actresses from..." n'a pas l'air d'exister!) mais pourquoi supprimer "actress"? TwoWings --TwoWings (jraf) Wanna talk? ;-) 13:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merci pour ta réponse... et je suis tout à fait d'accord avec toi! En fait je pense que le problème de Commons c'est que tous les utilisateurs de toutes les langues viennent y poster des images donc ça rend la gestion et les discussions quasi impossible! De même pour les descriptions de photos d'ailleurs. Perso, j'essaie au moins de faire une description bilingue français/anglais mais finalement, si on colle au projet multilingue de WP, chaque photo devrait pouvoir inclure un description en chaque langue. Bref, c'est un peu le bordel sur Commons et je pense que c'est pas prêt de s'arranger! --TwoWings (jraf) Wanna talk? ;-) 12:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nommage des images[edit]

Merci pour ton message ! Je partage en fait ton point de vue à 100 %. Le problème est seulement qu'il ne s'agit pas de mes propres photos, mais de celles d'un nouveau contributeur fort inexpérimenté. Dans l'"urgence", je me suis dépêché d'en catégori(s)er quelques-unes, avant suppression possible. Bien entendu, dans un 2ème temps un commentaire et un renommage étaient envisagés ! Mais tout prend du temps et c'est bien vrai que le renommage sous Commons est fort rebutant : il faut recharger le fichier sous un autre nom puis siganler le "doublon" et demander à un administrateur la suppression du "mauvais original". Plus compliqué ... tu meurs ! Mais je découvre à l'instant que l'auteur en question (ayant pris connaissance du message de Macassar)vient de supprimer de la page pas mal de ses "productions". Bon, il va donc falloir, que je les récupère dans l'historique pour les catégori(s)er comme il convient sous Commons. - Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - Markus3 06:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Cernuschi Museum 20060812 021.jpg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you. Oxam Hartog 21:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salut,
Je comprends bien le problème, dans un cas comme celui-ci, à la limite, le mieux c'était de mettre ton nom.
Dans l'état, soit, ton frère fait un mail d'autorisation à Wikimédia (c'est la solution logique), soit la photo n'est pas nécessaire plus que cela et tu la laisses partir à la suppression, soit tu la ré-upload sous le même nom en créant un compte au nom de ton frère, soit tu vires le tag d'alerte et tout le monde va oublier. A titre perso je suis pour les solutions les plus en harmonie avec les règles (sinon on fini par tout laisser passer car il y aura toujours quelqu'un qui pour se défendre dira "mais regarder il y a des exemples ....").
A noter que légalement même si ton frère te laisse faire ce que tu veux de ses clichés, il en reste le seul détenteur des droits.
Amicalement Oxam Hartog 22:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hironobu Sakaguchi 20070706 Japan Expo 2.jpg[edit]

Merci Okki pour cette photo sur laquelle je viens de tomber :) ~ bayo or talk 16:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category[edit]

Thanks for fixing my images and adding the categories. Do you know if that information can be added with the summary somehow easily during upload? MarkMarek 17:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suppression[edit]

J'ai vu que vous avez demandé la suppression de plusieurs images, parce qu'ils avaient des noms qui ne sont pas corrects. Je suggère que vous utilisez {{Badname}} plutôt; c'est plus rapide (Pardonnez mon français) :-) --Boricuæddie 21:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr upload bot[edit]

It sounds like some premature connection abort to me... which is likely caused by instability in the connection. Not much I can do about, I'm afraid. Let me know though if it happens more often. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation[edit]

When you create a page/gallery/article about a subject, please do NOT remove the category information from ANY file. Gallery pages and categories are parallel but NOT equivalent sorting systems. An image should ALWAYS also have one or more categories. I know you did not do this with bad intentions - but intentional removal of category information is considered vandalism by many (including me). So feel free to create image galleries/pages, but keep the cat information. Thanks. Ingolfson 08:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

En votre langue (excuse mon francais!) - le categorisation es important aussi - on peut pas simplement effacer un categorisation seulement parce que le fichier es dans une article maintenant. Ingolfson 08:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merci, tu as l'œil. Je viens de leur faire un mail même si c'est pas très grave

Jamin 20:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have taken wonderful pictures of Chinese art from the Musée Cernuschi. However, they are pretty much useless in a wikipedia article if they have no description, like what century they were made and under which Chinese dynasty. Do you have information about these pictures from when you took them at the museum?--PericlesofAthens 09:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshi Matsuyama[edit]

Hello. Je t'ai répondu. ~ bayo or talk 14:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image deletion warning Image:Liege_20080223_Peinture_murale.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 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!


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

Mangostar (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cat additions[edit]

I see you're adding some cats to the images on Commons which were taken from the Flickr account of the Heart Truth organization. I hope for convenience's sakes you're working through the contents of Category:Heart Truth photos. <G> Tabercil (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Expo 2008[edit]

Hello Okki. Juste pour te signaler que la catégorie a été complétée par quelques images Category:Japan Expo 2008. ~ bayo or talk 09:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charente[edit]

Bonjour, et merci pour ces catégorisations Pour les villages, je n'avais pas fait de catégories quand il n'y avait que les photos de l'article Je pensais depuis un certain temps à la necessité de faire une catégorie pour les croix et une pour les bureaux de poste Je pense aussi qu'il serait intéressant de catégoriser les très vieilles maisons mais jusques là j'ai hésité old houses ? moyen âge ? Je me suis fait un programme et j'en suis à la moitié ouest du département, 140 communes environ En croisant mes promenades et les infos de la base Mérimée j'ai fait des découvertes passionnantes, les dolmens par exemple. Bonne journée --Rosier (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salut Okki,

Je viens de voir que tu m'as signalé un manque d'information sur la source de cette photo... Pourtant j'y est placé:

== Licensing ==

{{self|GFDL|cc-by-2.5}}

Je ne comprends donc pas ce qu'il manque. Cette photo est bien de moi, je l'ai réalisée lors des Eurolympiques 2005 aux Roches du Diable en Bretagne. Je suis moi même kayakiste (et slalomeur de surcroit) dans la région, et j'ai souvent l'occasion de me trouver sur ce genre de compétitions (comme le prouve cette galerie.)

Dans l'attente d'éclaircissements, cordialement. Creasy (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merci pour cette explication. J'ai régularisé ça en apposant le bandeau {{Information}} et vérifié que mes autres upload ne souffraient pas du même manque (heureusement non). Merci d'avoir pris le temps de m'avertir et répondu à mes interrogations. Creasy (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Festival du jeu vidéo[edit]

Et toi ? Tu t'y rends ? ~ bayo or talk 08:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alors, David Cage est en boite ? C'est quand même le président, on a bien du l'apercevoir ? ~ bayo or talk 07:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pas mal, pas mal du tout. C'est vrai que pas prendre de contenu protégé dans un salon comme ça, c'est pas gagné. Vraiment génial que tu te sois déplacé, je pensais pas que cela t'intéressait, car il devait pas y avoir beaucoup de manga. Heureusement que Lara était là, ça compense le manque de cosplay :D ~ bayo or talk 13:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Sur ce, j'arrête de t'embêter". Pas de problème, et bien au contraire. A+ ~ bayo or talk 16:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aoi (singer)[edit]

Hello, I hope no offence is taken, but I have changed the Aoi (singer)article into a disambiguation page and moved its content to the page Aoi, BOUNTY, this is because, as you are no doubt aware, there are other Japanese musicians known by the name Aoi.KTo288 (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kouta Hirano at Anime Expo 05.jpg[edit]

Hello Okki. Le robot catégorisateur a placé ça dans Japan Expo 2008. Ya certainement un problème. Pourrais-tu la placer dans un endroit approprié ? Merci. ~ bayo or talk 13:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo à Paris[edit]

Je dis ça, je dis rien... [1] si t'es dans le coin :-) En même temps si faut se tapper la queue pour une photo tu seras peut-être pas très motivé. A+ ~ bayo or talk 14:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jungle cat photo[edit]

I've sent my email again, u can see the permission granted by eyal bartov at the start of the message, where he allowed me to use his photos. i have already used several of his pics as u can see in the email. User:Bassem Bassem (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello, I saw one message about one problem with one upload, can you tell me one form for solve this/these problem/s ? Thanks --AchedDamiman (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

I have seen that you ask for the permission of a picture Albufera es grau.jpg that I have loaded in wikicomons. I have the permission of the author, Nicolas Mertens, to use his pictures for ilustrate the wikipedia articles, he is a friend of me. Sorry for my bad english, thank you! --Carles garcia-roca (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging[edit]

You have taken to putting multiple tags on my page claiming the licence isn't in order. I removed one and clarified the licence situation and you simply added it back. What are you doing? Please stop. Sarah777 (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the images you are threatening to delete are already tagged with {{PD-self}}

Please be more careful in future. Sarah777 (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie Okki. How do I add the source to an existing upload? (Excuse me but I'm very stoopid) Sarah777 (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is This You?[edit]

You took a photograph of Halcali at Japan Expo 2007, and it's still in use on their Wikipedia page. Just out of curiosity, are you the photographer I see in this video at 1:25? It just caught my attention because your Halcali photos are among my favorites and I noticed the arrangement of the photoshoot oddly resembled the one in your image.

66.189.155.221 09:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am the man dressed in black in this video :) It makes me happy that you enjoy my photos. Okki (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship?[edit]

Hi Okki. I'd be delighted to nominate you for adminship on Commons. What do you think? --Kanonkas(talk) 13:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination statement is done. I wish you best of luck. You can see the request here. If you want help transcluding it, please tell me. --Kanonkas(talk) 17:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh[edit]

Hello there. I noticed you removed the three individuals from Category:People of Pittsburgh and added Category:People from Pittsburgh. I think the original category works better because "from Pittsburgh" sounds like the person was born there while "of Pittsburgh" covers those who were born there, resided there at some point, etc. Look at Category:People of Philadelphia as an example. Cheers. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah pic.jpg[edit]

Hi
Concerning File:Sarah pic.jpg, the uploader claimed on en-wiki to be the sister-in-law of the topic, and I believe her. I also think that she uploaded the first picture in good faith, and the current one certainly looks like a private picture that she might have taken.
You tagged it with "lacking permission"; I'm not sure that is so, but I'm not familiar with the intricacies here at commons. She claimed it to be "own work by uploader", and stated in the license "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain." In my eyes, that should be enough. What is missing?
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof she is really the sister-in-law of the subject. But if it's true, she can send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). Okki (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, there isn't. There's also no proof that this image is lacking permission, in my eyes, which is what you tagged it with. Also, how could an e-mail possibly give proof that she is, and why would that be necessary? I don't assume you want her to send her marriage certificate?
The last image she uploaded was correctly deleted, I agree that it would have needed an explicit permission since it could be found on http://www.sarahsiskind.com/media.cfm and somewhere else, with credit to the photographer. It might belong to the singer, the uploader might have had permission, but that would need have needed confirmation.
The current picture is quite obviously a private picture. From a cursory search, I do not find it published previously on the internet. It should not be deleted on a hunch when the uploader appears to be acting in good faith only (see also her comments at en:User talk:Piano non troppo#Sarah Siskind page where she's trying to figure out what she needs to do to get one of the professional pictures accepted).
This picture is no different from thousands of other PD images here where the uploader claims he took it. What proof of permission do you request, and by which guideline/policy?
Sorry if I'm a pain, I'm not very active here on commons and don't know that much, usually the only thing I do here is to tag images for deletion. I realize that you are getting a boatload of copyright violations which need deletion. In this case however, I don't think it's warranted.
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any feedback you can give me on this? As it is, I do not think that the {{no permission}} tag applies to that image, and I would tend to remove it. Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Amalthea, I take the liberty to jump into the discussion after Okki asked me for advice.
First, thank you for your interest and your contributions.
On the specific matter, File:Sarah pic.jpg will raise alarms amongst our experienced users because it is a photograph of good quality (colours, composition, lightening, ...) whose resolution is rather low by today's standards. This evokes the case of images taken on a website. The absence of meta-data (EXIF and the like) furthers this suspicion.
Please understand that nobody doubts your good faith: many people do not know what they can do and what they cannot. Uploading images taken on a website on Commons is often a honnest mistake. It would be easy to alleviate any doubt by uploading a full-resolution version of your image, preferably with the EXIF. If you did take this photograph yourself, congratulations, it turns out really well!
The fact that you are Sarah's sister-in-law is not relevant to the copyright status of the image. Of course, it is always very useful that people who have access to VIPs contribute to Commons, since we can hope for privileged points of view; but in itself, it does not have an effect on copyright.
I am at your service for any further information. Thank you again and cheers! Rama (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back. I'll be answering here, to keep the discussion in one place.
The image wasn't uploaded by me, and I know neither subject nor uploader, I only happened to pick up the discussion at en:User talk:Piano non troppo#Sarah Siskind page.
In my opinion, composition and colors of the image in question (File:Sarah pic.jpg) are quite lacking. Are you sure that you weren't looking at the deleted image, File:SarahSiskind.jpg, instead? The piano is too dark, the lighting from the side (window?) leaves too bright highlights on guitar, face, and décolleté, half of the image is a black mess, and the subject is at side and looking away. To me, there is every indication that it is a private picture, to which a sister-in-law would have access.
I can, of course, go now and actively bug the uploader (who I'm sure isn't watching her talk page here) to upload a version with higher resolution or do something else to try and prove that she really has access to the original, but I do not understand why this should be necessary here. I understand and support that images are being deleted if there is a strong suspicion of a copyright violation, even if there is no proof. With this image, I don't see it, in particular when taking her comments on en-wiki into account.
Lastly, and quite independent of the above, I (who know almost no process here except how to tag a clear copyvio and how to start a deletion discussion) think that tagging this image with {{no permission}} is very much incorrect. Permission is given in the description, and has been from the start. The only thing that is in question is if we believe her, and that's not something that should be hidden by tagging it with something else.
I am very open to being corrected here, but thus far none of my arguments seem to have gotten a direct response.
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for mistake about authorship.
File:Sarah pic.jpg is the image, yes. I am not sure about the colours, I find the dynamic range of the image rather convincing. What I would regard as a flaw is mostly the reflection of the guitar, but the white skin underline the eyes; it could have been achieved by manipulating levels. The composition brings attention to the face, so it does work, even though the arm is cut on the left; the head of the guitar is cut just as to leave the brand; the gaze gives a dreamy atmosphere, and the point of view is rather flattering -- much more than on the other image. I certainly would not take the photograph like this, but it is not like I am any good. I would say that it could be a naive shot, or maybe not quite so.
There was another image uploaded by the same user, File:Sarah web square.jpg, that is clearly a professional (or so...) photograph taken from a website, and with a similar emphasis on the blue eyes. It is of course entirely possible that yellowrose22 did make these images herself, but, without questioning her good faith in any way, we have so many cases of images taken from websites improperly that we cannot really simply assume that it is a rare case where everything is in order. We could be much more at ease if yellowrose could either provide high-definitions of the image(s), or write a mail to the OTRS ( permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ) confirming that she is indeed the author of the images.
About the template, I think that what was meant was {{No license}}; it is ill-named since it addresses more than lack of licence, and this might explain the confusion.
Cheers! Rama (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← Not to worry. And yes, File:Sarah web square.jpg was the one I was actually thinking about, that one was not taken by herself, and she said so.
I've had a look now at deletion policy after all since none of you could point me to why deletion of this image without discussion is warranted, even though I've asked. The following two cases possibly apply:

  • Speedy deletion: If you are absolutely certain that the deletion of a page or file falls in the speedy deletion criteria such as an upload error of yours, a clear copyvio, "fair use", non-commercial and such (more outlined in detail below) the file is a candidate for speedy deletion.

I don't see that either of you is "absolutely certain", and it wasn't tagged as a clear copyright violation.

  • Missing legal information: If there is some licensing information missing, then the file gets tagged as missing information and the uploader is informed and given 7 days time to correct the problem. After this period the file can be deleted by an admin on sight without further debate.

This point (and the explanation below) quite explicitly says that it's only about missing source information or missing licensing information. The picture has source information ("own work by uploader"), and it has licensing information ("public domain"), so it cannot be applied here. Furthermore, it also isn't tagged with {{nsd}} or {{nld}}. It is tagged with {{npd}}, which isn't even mentioned in any policy page I can find here.
The way I'm reading all your answers above is that you assume that it is a copyright violation, and that such an image can rightly be tagged with {{no license}} or {{no permission}} and unilaterally deleted after seven days, even if it's not a clear copyvio and if the information provided by the author is technically in order.
You're both admins, or almost at least, so I have to assume that this is the way things are done here. From all I can tell however, summarily deleting an image due to percieved (as in this case) or actual (if the source is stated to be a third party) lack of permission without discussion is against policy.
Again, and I'm starting to feel stupid for saying that, I'm neither trying to be difficult nor pointy nor a policy wonk here. I want to avoid biting a newbie who, as I believe, is only acting in good faith and has done everything to the best of her understanding, and as I believe has done everything correctly with the image in question.
If you don't believe her, start a deletion discussion, or please show me the policy page that warrants tagging and deleting it. Thank you. --Amalthea (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one other thing: I'd still be highly interested how an email possibly sent from a free email provider stating that "yes, I indeed took this picture myself" would affect the copyright status of this image in the least bit. --Amalthea (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On Commons, we do "Assume Good Faith", but we do not necessarily assume good understanding of copyright laws. In this case, File:Sarah web square.jpg is a proof that at this time, the user would have uploaded images that clearly are professionally produced illustrations of web sites.
Commons contrasts with the European legal framework or with Wikipedia in that the burden of the proof is reversed: one has to give us reasons not to think that his uploads are copyvios. This is necessary because if we failed to do this, we would be allowing people to place themselves in dangerous situations with respect to "real" laws -- those of Don't Download This Song; it is also necessary to protect Commons as a project from such predicament.
Naturally we do not raise suspicion to the level where we question all and every upload. This would be gratuitous paranoia. We will satisfy ourselves with statements like "own work" if it does not appear too improbable that the statement be correct; but we also use our experience to evaluate how plausible the claim is. If we find the claim to be unconvincing, we often mean that the user has misunderstood the meaning of "own work", not that he is of bad faith.
We satisfy ourselves with anonymous mail to the OTRS because of the text they contain and the exchanges of mail that come with them: if one still claims to have produced an image himself while it is untrue, at this point, it means that he is lying to us. If it comes to this, we (Commons) are not liable anymore, and we are not in the situation where we try to protect the user from himself anymore. Rama (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems sensible to me. If you could have also pointed me now to any policy page to support the tag or that process I could have accepted it. You didn't, though, despite me explicitly asking several times above, so I can only conclude that there is no such policy. I'm going to seek wider input now, at COM:AN#Deletion of a declared "own work" image on grounds of "no permission". Thank you, Amalthea (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not mean to sound evasive about the template. The snag is that we do not have templates covering exactly all possible cases, so one might end up using "no permission" to mean that some sort of confirmation is required. There are common cases which might be covered if we created new templates (for instance I would advocate a template specially for "identity of author undocumented, unknown or in doubt"), but we would be covered with templates if we tried to be really precise.
Cheers! Rama (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But there is a difference between tagging an image for categorization, and tagging it for deletion, isn't there? Is the example you mentioned, "identity of author undocumented, unknown or in doubt", a reason for deletion without discussion? Not per your policy.
Seeing that I just asked Okki to delete a bunch of pictures which I am sure are clear copyright violations but have no proof of it, I can agree that all those things are judgement calls. With the picture from above the point is moot now, but I remain unconvinced. This is probably because the speedy deletion criteria (read: situations where an admin may delete by himself, without wider community input) at en-wiki are far more precise, and I'm not quite comfortable with the way I'm seeing that handled here.
Oh well. I hope you consider starting a deletion discussion with similar cases in the future, but as I said, it's often a judgement call, and you have far more experience here so I trust you know what you're doing.
Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA[edit]

Hi there. I voted in support of your RfA here and I wish you luck! I hope it passes! Cheers, Razorflame (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I correctly list the 3 images that I completed the deletion requests for in the Category:Incomplete deletion requests on the Deletion requests page? Thanks, Razorflame (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marina - orkut 08.jpg deletion[edit]

File: Marina - orkut 08.jpg deletion:

Sorry, but all images I've uploaded were taken by myself and I have the copyrights.

I am Marina Ruy Barbosa's father, and I also the responsable for her blog [2] and her website [3].

I just want to put one photo on Marina wikipedia site http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Ruy_Barbosa

Please email pauloruy@gmx.net if you have further questions.

Thank you.

Paulo --Pauloruy (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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  +/−


Offert au nouvel administrateur par ses confrères...

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

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

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

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

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

EugeneZelenko (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Ask if you need anything! --Kanonkas(talk) 18:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Félicitations ! Elfixtalkdiscuter 19:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats&welcome. Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo pour cette brillante élection ! Pymouss Tchatcher - 23:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swuccs[edit]

Hi
Since we recently talked: Can you have a look at Special:Contributions/Swuccs please? I am convinced that the uploader doesn't own copyright of any of the images he uploaded. They are used at en:Southwestern University (Philippines) and have been taken between 1958 and 2007, the maps have both the college logo and a compass rose which can be found at the college website, without an indication of public domain. Since you are online currently and I don't want to tag them all, could you have a look at them and take care of it please?
Thanks, Amalthea (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, they all have been deleted by Diti already. --Amalthea (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image Approval: HRH and Elaine.JPG[edit]

Bonjour Otti

You have tagged a photo that I loaded:

File Tagging Image:HRH and Elaine.JPG

Català | Dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | Suomi | Français | עברית | Italiano | 日本語 | Lietuvių | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Polski | Português | Русский | +/- Warning sign This media may be deleted. Thanks for uploading Image:HRH and Elaine.JPG. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you.

This is the first image I have loaded and it is for the first article I have written (an article on Elaine Ingham, who is one of the two people in the photo). I am unsure what I need to do to have an appropriate "permission" in place. I have immediately checked with Elaine Ingham regarding the photo - for her response see email below.

Hello Peter -

Ok, you have brought up something I do not understand.

The picture was taken by an official photographer of the Prince. I bought the pictures from him. I assume, but am bot sure, that I bought the copyright along with the pictures.

I do not understand how or if that allows me to use the pictures on Wikipedia like this. I would imagine so, but I don't really understand how I find out what is correct.

Can you give me some clues?

Elaine R. Ingham President, Soil Foodweb Inc.

Elaine has purchased the photo and it has been used in a newsletter sent out to clients throughout the world, so I would think that it is now in the public domain? I would be grateful for any advice you can give me so that I can get the appropriate permissions in place.

Merci 220.233.227.172 21:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Estizakheim2.jpg[edit]

Mrs. Zakheim sent this image to the OTRS quite a long time ago, and asked to upload it to Wikipedia. We told her that we accept only free-licensed images, and sent her a link to the GFDL license with a short explanation in Hebrew. In response she wrote: "I accept". I put the OTRS confirmation tag on this image with a link to the exchange of messages. These messages are written in Hebrew, but Hebrew is my native tongue, so I can assure you that she indeed expressed her consent. Drork (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles photog needed Sunday evening[edit]

"I've got access to an Oscar party red carpet, anyone know anyone that could photograph at it?"

hello,

Finally, we were able to make photos for this event? They are already on Commons? Okki (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Okki, yes, photos were taken. The best ones are already online, but I'll be adding more later. Category:2009_Children_Uniting_Nations_Academy_Awards_viewing_party -- Nick Moreau (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why?[edit]

Why are those pictures so stricktly copyright protected? Whith wikipedia were promoting these artists! People look at wiki first before they go diggin in these artists and with pcitures it looks a lot more attractive! I really don't get you people..

Megami no Hikari

File: Tom Wilkinson & Sissy Spacek in Todd Field's In the Bedroom.jpg & File: Patrick Wilson in Todd Field's LITTLE CHILDREN.JPG[edit]

Hello Okki,

You have deleted two jpg files created by me and completely "permission free." They are:

File: Tom Wilkinson & Sissy Spacek in Todd Field's In the Bedroom.jpg File: Patrick Wilson in Todd Field's LITTLE CHILDREN.JPG

There is no Copyright violation with either of these images. I should know, as I am the photographer. I have granted "permission free" status for both. Is there something more to do?

Fichier à supprimer[edit]

Salut,

J'ai une petite requête pour toi. Peux-tu supprimer le fichier File:Chateau Viersel.jpg ? Il s'agit probablement d'un copyvio, l'auteur n'est pas indiqué et la source est comme travail personnel. Ceci fait suite au courriel reçu via OTRS (ticket 2009051510045452). Merci bien. (Je l'ai retiré du seul endroit où il semblait être lié sur fr.wp.) Elfixtalkdiscuter 19:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your identity from your uploaded images[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you have named yourself as Georges Seguin (this and this images). However, in earlier photos at the Cernuschi Museum, you have named yourself as Guillaume Jacquet (this and this). Might we know the explanation? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changement de dénomination[edit]

Bonjour,

Peux tu changer la Category:Ancien palais de justice de Grenoble en Category:Ancien parlement du Dauphiné. Le palais de justice a déménagé en 2002 mais le bâtiment historique du XVIe siècle reste. Il y a une quinzaine de photos attachées à la première catégorie. Merci

Milky (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2010[edit]

Pourrais-tu monter cette image dans Commons ? http: // www.thq-games.com/uk/game/conceptart/5523/1

Bourget 2009[edit]

Coucou ! J'ai pris aussi des photos au Bourget, le dimanche 21, uniquement d'appareils en vol. Un bon paquet de mes photos sont potables mais sans plus, donc je voulais savoir si tu étais aussi présent ce jour-là. Si c'est le cas, j'attendrai que tu publies toutes tes photos et je ne mettrai les miennes que si elles soutiennent la comparaison. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change the category names of architercture în architecture[edit]

Can you help me by changing the category name of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Orthodox_architercture_in_Romania in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Orthodox_architecture_in_Romania and subcategories associated. Thanks. --Cezarika1 (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done--Coyau (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Streamy Awards[edit]

Thanks for the notice. I'll take a look at it next week to see if any are missing and if any alternate images should be added. I'm currently juggling some other image permissions right now, some Wikipedia work, and family events, so it will be sometime next week before I can take a look at it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The license is where is it should be, http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/zGoBr8M06A8chzD8NbZb-A right hand side, "Photo reuse Some rights reserved" linking to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ . --GRuban (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, you're the second administrator who couldn't find the license on a PicasaWeb photo (the first was User:Tabercil). I'm going to make the same request of you that I made of him. He ignored it, I hope you don't. I would appreciate it if you would go down the following list of PicasaWeb images I've recently uploaded, check that they are, in fact, licensed the way I say they are, and stamp them with the official Template:LicenseReview, so the third Flickr-experienced-but-PicasaWeb-unknowing admin doesn't tag them the way you both did. The link to the Creative Commons license is on the right hand side, under "Photo reuse", with the text reading "some rights reserved" and much the same Creative Commons icons as Flickr uses.
Thank you --GRuban (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very, very much! And even improved categorization... very well done, I'm impressed! You carry your mop well. --GRuban (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. What part of "All Rights Mother Goose Parade / Popular Press Media Group (PPMG) - media@ppmg.info" is not clear? That's right in the Information template that the uploader provided! The photo at the source link also says "All rights reserved". Why is this not a blatant and openly admitted copyvio? -- Zsero (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mystery solved. A representative of the copyright holder has informed me that they did release these images under CC-SA, and then changed their minds. Which of course they can't do. I suggest that a note to this effect be put on all the images, so future editors know about the situation. -- Zsero (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archives category[edit]

Thank you for all the great work you do! Appreciate it if you do not remove "Category: Southerly Clubs Image Archives" (our source category) from any images or subcategories (Camilla Henemark today). Thanks again! EmilEikS (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-self}} is pretty straightforward about a source. I have reverted your tagging of File:Split, gymnastics.jpg. Thanks, BanyanTree 11:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Okki. I saw your post at Bistro just now. I do not understand what the problem is. If a user uploads something with PD-self, it is, in my mind, explicitly clear that uploader declares himself to be author (and source). If you have no reason to doubt this, why tag? I think BanyanTree above and Jastrow in le Bistro summed up things the way I see it, but as I was mentioned in passing ("et constate qu'au début du mois, un deuxième administrateur avait fait de même"), I wanted to respond myself. Regards, NielsF ? (en, nl, fr, it) 00:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
En réponse a ta message: en général je suis complètement d'accord avec ce que tu dites là: plus d'information et tous les champs remplis c'est qu'on veut, mais il faut se rendre compte que quand les images un peu plus anciennes (2005/2006) ont été chargés le modèle {{Information}} n'était pas le standard. Il faut donc un peu qu'on "assume good faith". Quant a w:en:File:Joanwithboots.jpg et l'autre, vois w:en:Special:Contributions/Enewshound, ça me semble d'être d'accord? NielsF ? (en, nl, fr, it) 23:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(People) of (place)[edit]

Hello. In changing categories, I think "(People) of (place)" can ok. You don't need to change them all to "(People) from (place)". Sometimes "of (place)" is more accurate, because people may be associated with a place, but not from (originating) there. Thanks. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mise en ligne sur Commons des images de type "fan art" en hommage à Miyazaki[edit]

Salut,

En fait, c'est moi qui ai discuté avec l'auteur du livre ainsi que des illustrations (SebaDu), et persuadé de libérer ses images pour améliorer les articles concernés. Je me rend compte que ça va être compliqué. Déjà, pour lui faire créer un compte...

Est-ce que j'ai raté quelque chose (une licence avec laquelle ce serais plus facile ?) ou bien est-ce que le pb est que nous sommes dans le cas d'une œuvre dérivée ? Est-ce que le fan art n'est pas admis justement ?

Autre chose, le fait que ces illustrations aient été publié dans un livre ne nous permet-il pas de passer outre ce pb ?

J'ai demandé à l'auteur et la permission via OTRS ne semble être qu'une formalité, mais si le pb d'œuvre dérivée reste n'est-ce pas inutiles ? (je fais ça dans le sens ou les personnes concernées sont pas mal occupées et j'espère régler ça en un minimum de démarche).

Merci pour votre intervention ^^ X-Javier (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

category for File:Keiko Ichiguchi 20070706 Japan Expo.jpg[edit]

Hello, I need your help to push this image into a category. Thanks--SuperManu SuperMessage 14:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

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, Okki!
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.

BotMultichillT 22:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Festival du jeu vidéo[edit]

Hello. Juste comme ça en passant... tu n'aurais pas fait un tour par là bas des fois ? histoire d'y croiser Philippe Ulrich, Eric Viennot, la presse jeu vidéo... et j'en passe :) A+ ~ bayo or talk 21:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arg. J'étais resté plus d'un an chez ma mère après mes études, ce n'était pas super au top pour le moral. Mais au moins tu dois bien manger :-)
Le FJV est un truc plutôt franco français, alors c'est certainement pour cela qe nous n'avons pas eu de photo libres, du coup on s'est fait owned par le Category:Tokyo Game Show 2009. ~ bayo or talk 18:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demande d'autorisation et d'effectuation de changement de nom d'un fichier[edit]

Bonjour.

Je sollicite une autorisation de changement de nom du fichier File:Jean-Claude Fourneau Autoportrait au Max Ernst.jpg. Je m'engage à ne pas vous déranger par la suite (sauf bien sûr erreur qui, elle, ne serait pas de mon fait). Il se trouve que, débutant, un peu casse-cou et prétentieux, je n'avais pas pris le temps de comprendre que la quasi-totalité des informations (nom de l'image, etc.) que j'avais à donner pour télécharger mon fichier paraîtraient dans son affichage sur mes pages Wiki France. J'ai donc, et misérablement, un peu "bâclé" leur formulation (ce n'est évidemment pas le cas pour les droits qui sont rigoureusement exacts : je les ai tous, sans contestation possible, sur la photo en question).

Voici le changement dont je sollicite l'autorisation :

Ancien nom du fichier : Jean-Claude Fourneau Autoportrait au Max Ernst.jpg ;

NOUVEAU NOM : Jean-Claude Fourneau Autoportrait.jpg. (Suppression de "au Max Ernst")

En vous assurant de ma reconnaissance, je vous salue bien cordialement. --Thierry (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Festival du jeu video 20080926 004.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 has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

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

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

--Jappalang (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Festival du jeu video 20080926 005.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 has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

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

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

--Jappalang (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richardfabi /Andreas Witzel[edit]

Hi Okki. I'm not Andreas Witzel, but Andreas Witzel gave me the permission to release the pictures into public domain for him.

LG Rik

Hello!

This category is unnecessary. --Starscream (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My paintings - portraits[edit]

Hello, thanks for your post. Yes, my real name is Ines Zgonc, I am graphic designer and art historian from Slovenia. I'll take care about my pictures and add my real name this evening if it'll be possible. Have a nice day.--Inki (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Ginsberg picture[edit]

I know you mean well, that you're trying to do your best to volunteer to help Wikimedia, and you're following the rules, but placing a tag on the "Benjamin Ginsberg" picture is a nuisance for all kinds of people. Consider this: do you really think there's any economic value to a picture of a political science professor? Is this something some tabloid will pay any money for? Would you pay any money for it? Please realize that the uploading of pictures is fraught with complexity. Dr. Ginsberg tried, and struggled with cumbersome screens and difficult permissions and confusing issues, to upload a picture of himself. He couldn't do it. So he E-MAILED his picture to me -- could I please upload it for him? So that's what I did. He wanted Wikipedia to have the picture so it was done. Your effort to re-open this is just a nuisance for everyone involved, since I'm not creating new articles, but rather I'm fussing with you in a mindless, nuisance errand. Why not write to him at his email address: bgin@jhu.edu if you have questions. Don't believe that's his real email address? Search the web. He's a professor at Johns Hopkins.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree[edit]

Okki,

Why have you, after nearly three years, found it necessary to request that File:Peterstraub.png be deleted? Why do you doubt that the copyright holder licensed the image as I said? I can very well understand wanting to request proof where an uploader's claim is patently false or there may be a reasonable suspicion that it may be incorrect, but why me? Why this imge? Why have you chosen to ignore common sense and forgo assumption of my good faith? If I had wanted to upload an image that doesn't qualify for inclusion on Commons because of license issues, I would have claimed authorship. Even now, I could create an e-mail account and falsely claim to be the copyright holder granting consent. I don't. I do, however, object to the deletion of the image and rebuke your insistence for this unnecessary proof.

Sincerely,

WODUP (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Helen Ganzarolli.jpg[edit]

Foi enviada a permissão para as imagens desalete moraes <saleteg.moraes@gmail.com> parapermissions-commons-pt@wikimedia.com, jurema_oliveira@gmail.com

data25 de dezembro de 2009 15:54 assuntoFwd: permissions GFDL enviado porgmail.com

ocultar detalhes 15:54 (3 minutos atrás)


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/S._Moraes



Forwarded message ----------

From: salete moraes <saleteg.moraes@gmail.com> Date: 2009/12/25 Subject: permissions GFDL To: permissions-commons-pt@wikimedia.org


Eu reconheço que concedo para qualquer um o direito de usar a obra em um produto comercial e de modificá-lo de acordo com suas necessidades. Estou ciente que sempre detenho os direitos autorais de minha obra assim como o direito de ser reconhecido como o autor segundo os termos da licença escolhida. As modificações que outros fizerem à obra não serão atribuídas a mim. Estou ciente que a licença livre apenas concede direitos autorais e me reservo a opção de entrar com ação contra qualquer um que use esta obra em violação à outra lei como restrições a marcas registradas, difamação, ou restrições geograficamente específicas. Eu reconheço que não posso retirar este consentimento e que a imagem pode ou não ser mantida permanentemente em um projeto Wikimedia. DATA, NOME DO DETENTOR DO DIREITO AUTORAL. Salete Moraes Favor verificar a chegada do email obrigado Jurema Oliveira (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alphonse_Elric_Japan_Expo_20060707_01.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!

blurpeace (talk) 10:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I rollbacked this and this. Please read Commons:Galleries. Good work.--B3t (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: People by alphabet[edit]

Hi, I believed that this is a large (useless) category. I wrong, sorry.--B3t (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged these photos with "lacking permission". These photos are actually seen on the book The Legendary Estates of Beverly Hills which I authored. I believe that the sources that I provided came from the book's official website - as follows:

Bel-Air Contemporary Masterpiece.jpg
Holmby Hills Carolwood Drive.jpg
Bel-Air Contemporary Masterpiece.jpg

As the author of the said book, I believe I am a copyright holder and stating Randolph Harrison as the author is to merely credit him for the work which Wiki or Commons advises the uploaders to do so if the photo's not their original work. I am requesting to have those photos back. Thank you. Jhbh9 (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]