User talk:EPO/Archive1

Archive: July 23rd, 2006 - January 8th, 2007 Archive: March 12th, 2007 - April 24th, 2007 Archive: December 7th, 2007 - September 16th, 2008

Archive: January 8th, 2007 - January 26th, 2007 Archive: April 29th, 2007 - July 12th, 2007

Archive: January 26th, 2007 - February 12th, 2007 Archive: July 16th, 2007 - November 6th, 2007

Image:Keira Knightley Pirates.jpg

Pay attention to copyright

Image:Keira Knightley Pirates.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image talk page.

Thuresson 13:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Jery Sandoval's photos

Hello EPO.

These photos should no be deleted because it belongs to a fan web page that I belong too (see main article Jery Sandoval in Wikipedia.

These photos were uploaded by other fans and they asked me to upload them in Wikipedia. The photos don't specify if got or not got copyright (because many of them are scanned or taken from other pages. I guess fans knew it) ; then I supposed that had copyright but they can be used freely.

If I made something wrong I apologise but I'd like you don't delete the photos. The Jery Sandoval's fans and me we're proud on her and an article of her in our Wikipedia (because I'm wikipedist too)will be a "present" (spanish: homenaje)for her.

Thanks for your precious time.

--S.V.B.E.E.V. 16:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you as fans would like to spread the knowledge to her and share different photographs for the same purpose. But unfortunately Commons (and Wikipedia) has very clear policies about images: Correct license must be added at upload. If source and/or license of the image is unsure it should not be uploaded in the first place. This to ensure that Commons (and Wikipedia) can feel 100 % safe from copyright lawsuits and that the contents (and these's licenses) can be trusted 100 %.

So basically if the status is unsure: Don't upload.

Due to the same reason images with unclear status must be considered as copyrighted and therefore not to be used or kept. Especially Commons has a very strict policy, which they use much effort to enforce. So if you can't guarentee correct free licenses you should expect that an administrator (I'm not administrator) will delete the images. --|EPO| 18:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

COAs by T. Gajl

I was talking with mr Gajl. I informed him, that his COAs are being redrawn to SVG and he said, that he agrees for that, but he asks not to load any new ones!

--WarX 13:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:صلاح نصر.jpg

I've just put the source for image صلاح نصر.jpg . Thanks --Tarawneh 06:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Messier object 007.jpg

Thank for correct me, i will update on fr:Bilou 11:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Rohtas Fort pics

the four images tags are plans for the various gates. i got them from a book which i quoted on the main page. These "plans" are freely available so they are public domain. Omar mukhtar 21:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "freely available"? Just because something freely available it doesn't mean it's in the public domain. Then just about anything should be public domain. --|EPO| 21:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And Do you have any proof that this image is not in Public Domain?

How I can force this guy Stan22 to tell me his real name? I can't it's obvious. That is why I have write down his nick name becouse its clear to me that it is his own work becouse he is one of participians of Reconstruction of Battle of Pultusk every year. He has establish photo gallery with clearly public domain conntent becouse he allows enybody to download this file without any condition. For me some things are clear for administrators it's allways trouble. I hope that my english is understandeable for you mate. Merry Christmas by the way and do me a faver and take this red sign from this image I allways try to suply the bigest amount of information about images that I'am uploading on commons server. CYA :)Azglahal 09:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure it's trouble. The page you state as source writes "All rights reserved". As you have not provided a permission together with the image you are the only one who can see it is public domain. Now if you wrote an e-mail to him telling him to e-mail you his conditions and posted both e-mails on e.g. the talk page everyone could see the permission.

See my point? And merry christmas to you too. --|EPO| 13:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Baha'i Media Bank

Hello! Those images that i´ve uploaded by media bank should be deleted? All licenses in commons must allow modifies in image? Thank you! :)

Flickr

Aw right. So CC from flickr is not enough (sigh). --Alien life form 18:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

|EPO|, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and Commons:Deletion requests), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other SYSOPS, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 20:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I thank you many times for the wonderful cake. It is looking very tasteful, though I find it a bit disappointing you did not bake it yourself. And would probably have preferred strawberry. But I will do just fine with apples.

Oh and thanks for the admin-status. --|EPO| 20:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Weg-jrp1.PNG

Please explain why this is a free image. Else you will be blocked for pretty long time. --|EPO| 15:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: It is also on Wikipedia-NL. Here is a link. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afbeelding:Weg-jrp1.png —the preceding unsigned comment is by Trojan (talk • contribs)

I see the link for the license is wrong. The correct link would be this one. Please make sure you got the correct link for all icons you have uploaded. --|EPO| 15:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Пръстен на цар Калоян.jpg

Hello, EPO. I'd like to explain the problem with this Image:Пръстен на цар Калоян.jpg. I was asked by a newbie in the bulgarian wikipedia to check the license of this image, which he had uploaded some time ago. Since the image is of a ring-seal belonging to our 12th century king en:Kaloyan of Bulgaria, as the image description states, i was pretty sure that the image falls in public domain, particularly under PD-art. It seems to have been my involuntary fault for not having explicitly stated the PD-art template, together with the PD Seals category. Would you accept if I add this license info? I feel awful about this mess, since I pretend to be one of the copyright watchdogs in bg.wiki and consider very seriously all matters related to copy rights. Thank you for understanding, and Happy new year! --Spiritia 01:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I talked to some of the other administrators here on Commons before marking it as a copyright violation: This image does not fall under PD-art as this is not a work of art. Artworks are (usually) only drawn in two dimensions (up/down and right/left). This one is a photograph of a three dimensional object.

As it is not known who took the photograph it would be difficult to claim he/she died more than 70 years ago. Therefore we must look at the copyright statements on the source noted. Although I do not understand a word of what is written on that page I do believe they have written something like "all rights reserved" somewhere.

So I am afraid this image will not be allowed.

And happy new year to you too. --|EPO| 10:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed explanation. I'll inform my colleague and remove the link from our article. He's a very cooperative person and I believe both of us won't allow any more mistakes of this kind. Take care, Spiritia 11:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dagens bild 7 februari

Varför tog du bort dagens bild för den 7 februari? Bilden är utvald, så den följer reglerna för dagens bild. Jag tycker du bör återställa bilden och de översättningar som fanns. Nu finns en kinesisk översättning som inte innehåller någon text kvar. /82.212.68.183 11:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeg var i gang med at rydde op efter en bruger med nogle særdeles tvivlsomme licenser. Så, at han havde oprettet en skabelon med et af hans egne billeder. Tænkte ikke nærmere over det og mente det måtte være noget han havde oprettet for at teste.

Template:Potd/2007-02-07 (pt) og Template:Potd/2007-02-07 er nu gendannede. --|EPO| 12:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Logo Club de foot

Bonjour,

Comment faire pour UPLODER l'image du club de foot ??

Sous quelle licence ??

Read: Commons:À propos des licences.

Images on most websites are protected by very strict copyright. They rarely allow both commercial use, modification and copying. :Unless it is clearly written on the site that they allow this - don't upload it to Commons. You may of course ask for permission. --|EPO| 14:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:SS West Lewark.jpg

Hi Epo, ich denke mal, das du ein wenig Deutsch verstehst. Kaum hatte ich das Bild hochgeladen setzt du dein nld-Tag dort rein. Bitte lasse den Uploadern doch etwas mehr Zeit um die Lizenz einzutragen. Von admin zu admin - Danke! --W.wolny 15:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry :) Was just bit too fast this time. But some users you just got to catch at the moment of upload. I'll recognise your nick and remember you're ok :) --|EPO| 15:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter ;) --W.wolny 15:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio?

How comes you deleted Image:1951electionsestonian.jpg? It clearly fell in the margins of sovietpd, right? --Soman 15:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Exacctly that is the reason for copyvio. That template redirects to the copyvio template. Can't remember where the exact discussion is. But after a longer debate it was decided not to accept images under this license. --|EPO| 15:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:GlassOfArak.jpg

I didn't fully get the copyright of the original image. So does that mean it can't be used for Wikipedia English uploaded one as well? Anyway, if it's against Wikipedia commons policy, please do dalete the image. Thank you.--Takoradee 16:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. That person who is credited on English Wikipedia owns the copyright. But there is no proof that this person accepts the image under one of the selected licenses. --|EPO| 16:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me out to find out the answer. So I guess I need to take a new photo on my own. Now I have a good reason to go out to a Lebanese restaurant and have a drink on this weekend :p--Takoradee 18:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Commercial

Hi EPO,

why did you delete this picture? The author is outraged and I assume he might be willing to change the licence, if necessary.

Thank you --Hei ber 18:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Short version: Non-commercial license.

Long version: Licensed for non-commercial use via talk page and image description:

copyright 2006 Team SchottlandPortal / Wolfgang Schlick (aka Islandhopper)
free under GNU for private and educational use

photographer: Islandhopper, shot taken in 1999

Due to the above it was tagged with {{noncommercial}} by User:LX two minutes before I deleted the image. --|EPO| 18:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. I will inform the user. --Hei ber 18:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry EPO, but that is only right in minor parts. Whatsoever was stated within the pic and/or the graph and / or the description: ALL pics deleted were defenitly licenced GNU/CC later to any date within the pic or the description (in parts due to interventions of other so called "admins" who accepted the added licensing! Sort it out, it is not my problem.)! But that's not the only reason why I will withdraw from any further coop with WikiCommons and de.wikipedia and why I will delete all my pics uploaded. It is simply some kind of new vandalism i) to delete pics and graphs within a few couple of hours without ii) giving the author/uploader any chance of reaction and iii) without having a look look at the text and the implications nor doing any kind of corrections to the text so that the whole thing might fix again and somehowe. It is simply a loss of quality, to see a text referring to pics that doesn't exist any longer. Please, be so kind to see this mass sorted out ... or forget any idea about quality controlling as far as wikipedia is concerned. cheerio Islandhopper 23:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You can take a look at the talk page. That hasn't been deleted yet. And you can take a look in the history and - surprise - no admin have altered your words. I will gladly restore your images so you can see that they have not been altered either - but then you will probably accuse me of have done it either way.

It is strictly forbidden for anyone else than the uploader to change licensing information. Therefore no administrator will change such text.

Images that does not comply with Commons' policies regarding copyrights may be deleted immediately.

It makes me happy knowing you will withdraw your cooperation with Wikipedia and Commons. With you out of sight we can use more time on serious working around here. --|EPO| 23:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

EPO, I'd like to encourage you to lower your tone a bit. The loss of Islandhopper and his valuable contributions should not make anyone glad if they have the project's best interests in mind. Whilst his reaction is unnecessarily rash (accusations of vandalism are not acceptable), I believe it is rooted in a misunderstanding of the GPL licence and Wikimedia Commons' licensing requirements. One doesn't need to sympathise with Islandhopper's view that the deletion was incorrect (because it wasn't) to empathise with him being upset at the removal of his contributions. I believe that if handled correctly and calmly, Islandhopper will settle down without the need to resort to biting. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks, cool down and would you, please, be so kind and read before taking any actions or answering. I have so far no-one personally blamed for vandalism, I just wanted to point out that reactions as carried out and described will lead to some kind of. But the problem is as followes: If EPO quotes from the talk page in order to find any reason for his action he should do so after he had checked the whole affair. What he was quoting from [1] was an explanation for another commons admin, who asked me to explain the situation and to add a correct licensing according to commons' rules. That was by the end of July 2006 and as you can see from the last line there I have added licences on the spot and at that time I added correct licensing to all pics uploaded so far - the things were cleared. Half a year later another commons admin takes another action. Admins should know what admins have done, and they should accept what other admins have accepted - or they should contact and discuss the affair with the authors and/or the admin who was in charge earlier. You simply deleted pics without correcting the text, but with the result that the whole information of text and pics now is corrupted. The text in question and the adding of the particular pics in question was a result of a long lasting discussion of three dozens of authors or so in order to stop a bloody nonesense discussion within the de.wikipedia and for quite a lot of pages. You should have controle over your actions or leave it - that's all. 91.64.3.32 19:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before I have no right to change or delete text concerning license information. The text and the selected license did not follow each other. Yes it had license templates as they should have. But the text narrowed the permission of the templates by stating non-commercial use under the GFDL.

If you agree to remove this text and fully license the images under GFDL/CC I will gladly restore the images I have deleted. --|EPO| 19:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. You had license templates as they should have. Perfectly right, you are. Added later than the pics and after a first deletion alert and its repair. You have the logs, you should have checked them. Stick to the rules: What counts? The propperly added licence templates, or any comments given on a discussion page or elsewhere. Do whatever you wish: Delete the pics, delete the comments, change the description, change the pics ... or whatsoever ... but see to the consequences for the pages which made use of the pics and correct them if neccessary or see to it that they are corrected in case of lack of language capacity. As for me, i) I herewith declare that I have no interest in the pics anymore, ii) I got rid of this kind of beauraucratic discussions and that is why I will quit any further cooperation. Formal note: In case you wish to restore them for the sake of the de.wikipedia, do it now or I will delete them as announced earlier in an unrevertable mannor. Islandhopper 22:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I will point this out for the third time: I have no right to change or delete text regarding licenses.

If both text and templates are used both counts. In this case the text limited the licenses.

This is due to the assumption that only uploader knows which permissions have been granted. Even though we wish we could - no administrator on Commons is able to read the minds of the users.

Personally I don't care about the images either.

Please inform me if I have to point something out for you a fourth time. --|EPO| 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello EPO, hello Islandhopper, I think the whole issue was risen by some misunderstandings. By the way, EPO, just acted after markings from User:LX. I am sorry that my "intervention" caused some angry words on boths sides but I think we all should try to keep the focus on what's best for the project. Of course it is important that copyright issues are handled accordingly but on the other hand we should also foster and support our authors and contributors.

If I unserstand correctly, the pictures have the correct license template, but the remark " free under GNU for private and educational use" should removed. Each picture should only have one valid license, as {{cc-by-2.0-de}} or {{GFDL}}?

May I suggest the following: EPO, you undo the deletions and give Islandhopper 7 days for considering the license he is willing to apply to the pictures. I will support Islandhopper, if he wishes. After 7 days, all pictures that are not lícensed correctly either with GNU-FDL or Creative Commonse license will be erased. Best regards --Hei ber 23:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

(quote)I have no right to change or delete text regarding licenses(end of quote)
Sorry to say so, but that's pure beuaraucratism without any respect to the consequences of what you are doing. I can't do what you want, simply due to the fact that YOU, EPO, have blocked the pics! You caused the situation but you are now hiding behind, what you have provoked. I have no access to the files to follow up Hei_Ber's ideas or any other productive idea. @Hei_Ber: As to user LX: he is out of the business. He did what he tought he should have doe do but he was not acting (that he did not answer to any attempts to contact him is just another prob). It is defenitely NOT your problem. The only remaing problem is, that EPO obviously is not willing to accept what other CommonsAdmins had already accepted half a year before. So EPO, do what you want. I will follow up Hei_Ber's suggestions. In case there is no reaction until today 1800 hrs I will delete all my contributions. Islandhopper 23:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) edit: (quote)no administrator on Commons is able to read the minds of the users.end of quote) No one has asked you, "to read the minds" ... but I ask you simply to read, what I have stated. Islandhopper 23:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry EPO for asking you agian: (quote)In this case the text limited the licenses.(end of quote) Which regulation are you questioning when stating "In this case the text limited the licenses" in the meaning of the discussion here: Where is there any comment that any statement on a discussion page (you have quoted) or given anywhre else does overule a statement given by an licence template??? Islandhopper 00:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

EPO has offered to restore the images so that you can address the issue. You've indicated that you're not willing to do that. You then complain that you can't address the issue because the images are deleted, yet the only reason you can't is because you have indicated that you won't. As for the text limiting the licences, it was not just on the talk page, but directly adjacent to the licence and written directly onto the images themselves. I don't see what good is meant to come out of threatening the removal of your other contributions, and I would urge administrators not to act on such deletion requests (their licences are irrevocable).

Just to clear up a couple of things: Above, you say that you have not blamed anyone for vandalism, yet earlier you said "It is simply some kind of new vandalism i) to delete pics and graphs within a few couple of hours" (emphasis yours). I don't know how that could be interpreted any other way. You also say that I did not respond to attempts to contact me. That is clearly not true. I'm right here. Lastly, to address the matter of dual licensing in Hei ber's suggestion, dual licensing under free licences is fine. That was never the issue here.

—LX (talk, contribs) 03:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hej and Guten Morgen to all! Please consider that nobody here seems to be English native speaker - so there are many possibilities for misunderstandings. I'm glad that dual licensing by changing the licence to GFDL or CC will solve the problems. Islandhopper told me that the license text on the pictures itself stems from another project of the author and was not necessarily intended as sole licence for wikipedia.

Islandhopper has offered to to re-check the licensing of his pictures - here and on his talk page de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Islander. So I would kindly ask EPO to restore the deleted images to give him an opportunity to do so. I think the problem is on the way of solving. Thanks to all!

Hei ber--07:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The following images have now been restored:

• Image:MapNeolithicHeart.gif
• Image:PicMOR Formen ex.jpg
• Image:MapOrcaciaNeolithica.gif
• Image:GraphCoastalStructuresScotland.gif
• Image:MapOrkney.gif

If it is not 100 % clear in 7 days that these images are under free licenses they will be deleted again. --|EPO| 10:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello @all, now that the pics are online again everyone can see that
i) all pics had a propper description of the uploaded pic giving the neccessary information about the uploaded pics answering the questions like
What is the title?
Who is the author (photographer/drawer)?
Where was it published before?
From what resource was it taken?
Who holds the copyright of the uploaded pic? etc.
... thus all the information neccessary to check whether or not the upload is legal and according to rules
ii) all pics but Image:GraphCoastalStructuresScotland.gif & Image:MapOrcaciaNeolithica.gif were licensed in a propper way. This licensing is completely seperate from the description. It is therefore obvious that EPO could not produce any wikipedia rule stating that a description or or further more: additional information on a talk site will overule any kind of a licensing provided.
iii) the remaining problem is that it was some old stuff used before in different contexts and thus having some information on the pic which might cause some problems to the unexperienced because it might be missunderstood as limitting the granted licenses somehow. Sorry to say so, but for other CommonsAdmins that caused absolutely no prob. It definitely can't produce any prob to someone who is familiar with wikipedia rules and their legal implications. The only stablility I can see within the commons is the basical approach that license is license.

To avoid any further problems I will change the pics and graphs and rework them so that they cannot be mixed up with the originals published elsewhere, reload them under the same names to commons, and thus give you a chance to repair the pages of the de.wikipedia destroyed by your actions. That will definitely be my last contribution to wikipedia. Islandhopper 18:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

For your attention
(quote)Good file descriptions
A good file description provides complete information about the file, including legally required information such as its copyright status and source, ...(end of quote)
quoted from : [2].
highlights by Islandhopper
Nothing else had been in my former descriptions, which you did refer to as counterproductive but I do hope that the now uploaded versions will suite your private attitudes of constructing a new WikiCommon legislation by mixing up completly different levels and sources of information a bit more. Next time you should read WikiCommons' recommendations for wiki users a bit more precisely before starting useless but beuraucratic actionism. Therefore I will hand over the whole affair for final clearing into someone's other hands. That is what I would really like to call a new quality of vandalism ... vandalism by admin Islandhopper 03:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

why delete my picture

Why? if my picture is my propierty. please no delete. --Jules80 19:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it extremely hard to believe that the logo is free. Please read the rules and you hopefully understand why. --|EPO| 19:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Romuva photos

• I've already sent an email to the Romuva Church saying that they must allow the publication of the photos sending an email. It would have to be received. --Nyo 21:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. Have you received an e-mail from them with permission - or are you still waiting for it? --|EPO| 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've already received the permission, but I've deleted it. Now I've sent another email in which I ask them to send the permission directly to permissions@wikimedia.org. --Nyo 21:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good. But they will require the e-mail you have send to the church. Because then OTRS can see what kind of permission you have asked for and thereby also the terms the church accepts. --|EPO| 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• No problem. I've asked them also to possibly add to the email the permission to use the CC 2.0 license. If they'll understand my email, probably they'll send also this detail with the permission. --Nyo 22:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Txonta

Hi EPO: please Delay a little. I am working in it. Regards --Txo (discusión) Mi discusión en castellano 14:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Podcast1.jpg

Hello! Thanks for the warning. Is it ok now when I have placed the address? --Riva72 14:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The source is perfect. But the text "This photo is public" means the image may be viewed by anyone. The license for the image is right under "Additional Information": © All rights reserved.

So I am afraid you have misunderstood the Flickr page. --|EPO| 14:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand. I am going to write the wikipedia article on the castle. That is why I have placed these photos. What am I to do now? Maybe we can place the pink stub like with the Image:Pidhirtsi Castle 2.jpg and then I will stop uploading 'the flickr.com' files.. I am sorry for problems with editing your discussion page. :) --Riva72 14:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that template is for images, which have been on Commons for a very long time. New images with licenses that does not comply with Commons should be deleted.

You could ask the Flickr user if he would accept a free license such as cc-by, cc-by-sa or public domain. Read more about that on Commons:OTRS (remember also to send them your first e-mail with your questions).

Otherwise the images should be marked with {{copyvio|"All rights reserved" on Flickr}}. --|EPO| 14:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to mark these images with {{copyvio|"All rights reserved" on Flickr}} and my adventure with uploading 'flickr' images is over. ;) Can you do this, please? Greetings from Poland! --Riva72 14:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bose SoundDock.jpg

Hello ! Could you help me understand why you deleted this picture ? I thought we were allowed to upload pictures of commercial products for non commercial use if the license was correct, and in this case the license is Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0. I wanted to add this image under the french article that I'm making right now about Bose Corporation

Thanks for your help ! Ninho2007 14:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Images for non-commercial use is not allowed. Images not allowing derivative works are not allowed. Read Commons:À propos des licences. --|EPO| 14:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:JeffreyAlanHoffman.jpg

Image:JeffreyAlanHoffman.jpg is very clearly marked as a NASA image. Gpetrov 16:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It sure is. But as you have not provided the image with a source you are the only one who knows the photo is from NASA. In other words we are not able to verify the selected license. --|EPO| 16:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

PNG

Usually, although not always, I crop or resize an image on MSPaint before uploading so the subject is more prominent. If I were to save the MSPaint as a JPG or Gif, the quality detoriates whereas with PNG it doesn't change.--CyberGhostface 21:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)