Last modified on 13 August 2014, at 20:07

User talk:Geni

Return to "Geni" page.

/archive 1

interior images of Florence buildingsEdit

If images are not allowed to be taken inside various Florentine buildings and museums, then they should not have been taken in the first place and then uploaded onto the Commons on top of that. Gryffindor 11:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Tsiolkovskiy: Monument to the Conquerors of SpaceEdit

Thank you for taking the time to explain so clearly the reasons for your decision to delete the photos. I have been uploading my own photographs of statues/monuments in Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and possibly other CIS countries. Could you please provide more detailed and specific guidelines of what is allowed and what not in these countries according to Wikipedia policies? Thank you, --Zlerman (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but I am trying to understand the principles. All the laws in CIS countries (including the Russian law applied to Tsiolkovskiy images) allow use for non-commercial purposes. Don't WikiCommons and Wikipedia itself fall in the category of non-commercial uses? Is this only a matter of changing the permissions tag on each photo to something appropriate instead of {{GFDL}}, or is there a deeper problem that I don't see? Thank you, --Zlerman (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

QuestionEdit

I am wondering why File:OSS logo.jpg and File:OSS logo.jpg, they were owned by the US Government (I checked with the US Patent and Trademark Office) and even the OSS Society of McLean, Virginia said they didn't own them, they used them with permission. By deleting them, aren't we essentially saying "vandalize enough and you will get your way?" I'm confused. - NeutralHomerTalk 17:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Zündkerze verschlissen.jpgEdit

This image (and some other spark-plug-images) where taken by me. They are not scanned from any book! I made them with a mechanical camera and I have scanned these pictures to load it up to wikipedia (and to use them with PowerPoint). The pictures are more than 10 years old and I once used them in my garage to instruct apprentices about what spark-plugs are telling about an engines condition. They are looking used because they are, not because they where scanned out of an old book! Red Rooster (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

BP image inputEdit

Can you provide input here: User_talk:Rlevse#The_Story_of_B-P_picture_was_deleted.3F? Thanks. RlevseTalk 21:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Geni, an additional question for you, there. Thanks in advance if you can spare the time. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC).

Image:PhotoFly HangGliding.jpgEdit

Why does sticking your watermark on someone else's give you the copyright? John Reaves (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

When deleting something as copyvio ...Edit

... isn't at least customary to provide a link showing where the original was?

I really resent edit summaries like "stop it with the unfree images". That doesn't AGF. The first image had been up on Commons for a while; I had no inkling we couldn't trust it. I am currently taking steps on Flickr to have the uploader's account pulled and all his uploads deleted. Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...discussion is usual, in this case with the Operation Red Wing photo created (and labeled) as being created by a US Soldier in commission of his duties that you simply deleted. Sherurcij (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 3f46ae4255b12a219b598e5cde81c54cEdit

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Map RequestEdit

Hello there! I notice you have the area 182 OS Map from the 1940s, from which you have also added a clear section showing Horley, Surrey and that features on its page at Wikipedia. Might I ask if you still have such a map, would you be able to provide a similar extract for commons showing the area of Crawley a few miles to the south? This would make a great addition to the article on Wikipedia which talks at great length about the changes after the war, but has little image content to demonstrate the point. Your assistance would be much appreciated! Thanks Tafkam (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Close DeletionEdit

Hey Geni, could you possibly close this for me thanks! -Marcusmax (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

MadeofstarsEdit

User:Madeofstars is attempting to get File:Rosy Wilde.jpg deleted.[1] This was first uploaded by him at en.wiki at w:File:Rosy.jpeg and he has just had it speedy deleted there by user request. I posted to the deleting admin's talk page about this.[2] As I understand it, GFDL is not revocable just because the uploader changes their mind.

There is a previous OTRS ticket #2008121510018309 that relates to some of his image uploads, where there were paintings by w:Stella Vine in the photograph. As the communication via OTRS specified a release for the paintings which was "permission is valid for Wikipedia only", those particular photos were deleted. The ones without paintings in were kept, namely the two now on Commons at File:Rosy Wilde.jpg and File:Rosy Wilde Gallery.jpg.

You deleted File:Stella Vine MAO 5.jpg as "OTRS 2009020810011301 derivative of the painting on the wall". The original file for this File:Stella Vine MAO.jpg uploaded by Madeofstars was also previously deleted as derivative. However, I have made crops of this image such as File:Stella_Vine_MAO_6.jpg, which have only a small part of the painting remaining. I do not believe this is sufficient to count as a derivative work, but would like your evaluation of this. If is necessary, the background can be removed as per File:Stella Vine MAO 3.jpg, but it is preferable not to have to "doctor" the image.

Regardless of the deletion of the original upload, I believe I am correct in saying that the crops are legitimate to keep because the photo was uploaded under GFDL.

Related to this issue, I would like to ask your advice about File:2001 First Stuckist Show in Paris.jpg, which I uploaded. There is GFDL clearance for the photo itself and the two paintings on the right, but not for the one in the centre and the one on the left. Do these therefore count as a copyvio, or is the extent of them too small to infringe? If it is an infringement, would an even smaller size upload prevent that?

Ty 15:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Per your reply to the above, I've uploaded File:20011019ParisCrop.jpg, a cropped version of File:2001 First Stuckist Show in Paris.jpg, which you might want to delete: a duplicate cropped version is there, but the full one still shows up in the history, so I uploaded the crop again with the different name. Ty 03:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Terms of Madeofstars' photosEdit

I noticed you posted at w:User_talk:Madeofstars#Photos_of_stella_vine_and_her_gallery: "under what terms did you take these photos?"

The images File:Rosy Wilde.jpg and File:Rosy Wilde Gallery.jpg are both shots from the public highway of the exterior of the building, so presumably do not require consent from Stella Vine.

Regarding the photo File:Stella Vine installs her painting Diana branches in Oxford.jpg, with crops extant such as File:Stella Vine MAO 1.jpg, Madeofstars has said that his images of this nature (others also deleted on en.wiki as derivative) were "video stills which I filmed at Oxford in 2007",[3] and also:

"Usually when someone is filmed, when its not for personal use only, the person filming has to get the person being filmed to sign a consent form to say they are happy for those videos, or video stills, to be used, screened or shown in public. I know I got a consent form when I filmed Vine." (15 December 2008)[4]

I have now had a request for all the Madeofstars images to be deleted. See w:User_talk:Tyrenius#Stella_Vine_and_Rosy_Wilde_photos. I am opposed to this.

Ty 08:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The above request was made in response to Ticket:2008121510018309. I hoped {{db-g7}} tags would allow it to quickly be dealt with, but if Tyrenius wants the crops to stay the mentioned ticket has new information as rational for deletion. Geni, do you want to merge the 3 tickets and handle it? -- Jeandré, 2009-02-09t09:19z
If the declarations made by Madeofstars, as shown above and per his using the file upload form, are correct, then I can't see a basis for deletion. If they are not correct, then I think the information about what's going on here should be made available, so other users can evaluate Madeofstars' actions properly, now and in the future. Ty 09:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Photographs of identifiable people againEdit

I have made some changes to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people/Proposal in response to a variety of helpful suggestions that users have made on the talk page. You have already commented there; could I ask you to have a look again, and to consider whether you would like to express an opinion in the Poll towards the bottom of the page? Many thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


Lazare PonticelliEdit

I am the photografer (Fréderic Coune) of the article you referd to after deleting the picture of Lazare Ponticelli. As you might have noticed I have no copyright claims on the article either, making it no reason to delete the picture on commons. --Koongo940 (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Opt-out discussionEdit

Hello Geni, I am trying to develop a larger consensus around the opt-out issue. Consistent with that, I have started a new section on the talk page and plan to advertise it widely. Your previous comments are linked from that page, but I am mentioning it here in case you want to address the issue directly in the new thread. Apologies, for the duplication of effort, but I think restarting this is more likely to gain participation rather than trying to draw new voices into an thread that had already grown stale. Dragons flight (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

File:HMS Warrior (1860)2009.jpgEdit

Hi, great picture ! lovely colours. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletions of my uploadsEdit

Hi happened to notice you deleted two of my uploads. Why didn't you file a deletion request? Why didn't you notify me? Multichill (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Because they were clear derivatives of 2D works that were under copyright.Geni (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
First, please don't hop talk pages. I have a watchlist and i use it.
You didn't answer my second question. Judging from your deletion log you seem to have developed a bad habbit of not notifying uploaders, could you please *always* notify the uploader? Multichill (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing imagesEdit

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | 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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Geni!

Tip: Add categories to your images

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:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

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"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

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 06:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

File:LRO apollo14 landing sight 1st pic .jpgEdit

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 21:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Migration automatic?Edit

Hi, I am trying to follow all the license migration discussions (fairly impossible task), but your statement "The switich is automatic we don't technicaly need to document it on the image file pages before the deadline.Geni (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)" - has me asking why? Are you saying that the WMF acceptance of the migration automatically over rides anything on individual image pages? Does this also mean that the opt-out has no meaning too? --Tony Wills (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Pyrocumulus over Los Angeles.jpgEdit

Sorry about this image I've uploaded from English Wikipedia and you had to delete. I thought that since it had details about the camera settings in the English Wikipedia, that it was legitimate. I will try to find more proof before uploading in the future. Pierre cb (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Good pointers you gave me. Thanks. Pierre cb (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token f4858f6d7aa397b4108bd4c0b97a3b43Edit

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

A word of adviceEdit

Don't go making accusatory comments on other peoples talk pages. I'm referring to this comment that you left on my talk page:

This is not allowed under commons policy. How many of the other images you have uploaded did you not take yourself?

Please Keep your condescending remarks to yourself and refrain from accusing people of things and you'll be fine. Scanbus (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Telegraph used your photoEdit

This article of the Telegraph uses one of your pictures. TheDJ (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

File:6 inch gun from HMS Calypso.jpgEdit

Hi there, I'm trying to identify the model of gun in your photo at Fort Nelson. If it was a"Mk III" QF built as new by Elswick in 1893, it would be a 40-calibres (20 feet long internally) QF gun weighing 6.6 tons. Its cartridge was a brass case. But so far as I know, HMS Calyso had the much lighter and shorter (36 calibres) 5-ton BL gun (silk bag cartridge) of 1881-1883, and I doubt it would have been able to carry the QF 40-calibres gun. The gun looks too short for the long 40-calibres QF model, but difficult to judgege end-on. A view of the breech would allow definite identification. I'm wondering whether this was one of the early 1880s BL Mk III 26-calibre guns which were later converted to QF in about 1893 ? Do you have any more information about this ? thanks. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Rowfant station imageEdit

To the best of my recollections, the author of the image was unknown; many images prior to 1910 generally do not have the author indicated unless issued by one of the large publishers. May I ask where you found the author? Ravenseft (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Because there are free images and there unfree images and free images must be encouraged. Even in the face of Armageddon I will not compromise in this.Edit

Don't you mean "Because there are free images and there are unfree images and free images must be encouraged. Even in the face of Armageddon I will not compromise in this."

Normally I'd just change it as a typo, but personal pages are different. Also, there may be some obscure deeply profound grammatical construction that I don't pick up on. Also nobody loves a smart bleep. I think I just failed the test on that last one.

Happy day. Charles01 (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Censorship of my artEdit

Thank you for your attempt to restore my artwork. Apparently User:Fran Rogers was so offended by it, that she had it suppressed, after you restored it, falsely claiming that it was a photo of me, and was child pornography. I would upload the full size image, if i didn't think that Fran would further abuse her administrative privileges to block me. I uploaded it to rapidshare., and I would appreciate if you would retrieve it and verify that it is artwork, and not photography. And if you would be willing, please upload it to commons with the description :" Closeup of Female Masturbation 2009 Pastel and drybrush on textured paper ". Because you are also an administator, I don't think she will have the same ability to censor your uploads, as she does mine. Misty Willows (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not restore it deliberately that was a test of the oversight system. Commons has adiquate amounts of pics of Vulvas and female masterbation. I see no reason to add another at this time.Geni (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Boise, Idaho panoramaEdit

Hi, Geni, I was wondering why my Boise_Panorama.jpg was removed from the Boise, Idaho article:

11:47, 17 October 2009 CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs) m (50,796 bytes) (Removing "Boise_Panorama.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Geni because: Copyright violation: http://erality.deviantart.com/art/Downtown-Boise-in-Fall-106837847 2009101710006258.

It’s an image I’d previously proved was my own after it was originally posted by someone else under their name. I talked to Wiki admin Paul Davis about it, and he reprimanded the person who posted it and deleted it so that I could repost it under my name. Did I violate the copyright by also posting the image on my DeviantArt account? Is there a better copyright license I should give the photo or should I only have it posted in one place? Thanks for your time. User:Erality

File:Hampton-on-Sea 005.jpgEdit

Yes please delete this.Storye book (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of imagesEdit

I think your interpretation while deleting two of my last images is in error. The photos you deleted are reproductions of "signs" that was placed at a public place outdoors, and now in a national museum. They can hardly be interpreted as artworks. I am unhappy with deletion power wikipedia has given to some persons, and using of that power without starting any discussion. Please start a discussion so that community can decide, whenever in doubt, or even when you are very sure of yourself as in this case. There are tens of thousands of signs that should be deleted if your interpretation is true. You can start directly from category signs, and good luck for you. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Cockcroft-Walton Voltage MultiplierEdit

I apologize for my lame question, but I'm almost 60 and it's taken me three days to figure out how to ask a question.

I'm a collage artist and this is the first time I've used an image I didn't take myself. I'm not understanding how to give you photo credit for the Voltage Multiplier. It appears in the back of a small collage celebrating particle science.

I've read all the legal stuff about giving credit and its over my head. Do I just give it's name, your name as the source for the image and the initials of usage?

Thank you for your time.

You need to mention that the photo was taken by "Geni" and that the photo is under the "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license". There is no need to mention the name of the image.Geni (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

undelete requestEdit

sorry!I didn't make backup for these picture
can you undelete these
File:MCAS Word test report.jpg
File:MCAS Excel test report.jpg

I promise this is the last time to doing with these picture
--Onlymyself65536 (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

attribution questionEdit

How do I attribute your photos? I do not know your name and we must use real names. This is for use in an AP Art History course for the Florida Virtual School. Thank you so much!

My pseudonym is geni. Since it is an established pseudonym it should be enough but you will have to discuss that with your tutors.Geni (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Mapping RequestEdit

Thanks for collecting OS maps.

LMK if you find any pre 1922 OS Maps, these will be earlier Popular Edition sheets or Fourth Edition?

The reason is so that I can find out 'pre-grouping' company names, and likely routes without relying on the Junction Diagrams, which you aware are currently subject to a longer disscussion.

I'd also like to be able to find 'clean' sources for company names, station names/locations, given that at present quite a lot of the articles seem to refer to specfic Ian Allen publications, In the US this may be OK (fact is fact) but the UK has database right, meaning much as I would like to use Wikipedia as a reference for OSM, I fell inhibited from doing so. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Thanks for the Feather Helmet picture - I have an articl, but no picture from the BM. See me on en if you would like to help edit it Victuallers (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Monument-primelin.jpgEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Monument-primelin.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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipe-tanEdit

I love your great Wikipe-tan! Do you take requests?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Benjamin Britten 1945.jpgEdit

The photograph is tagged as PD on Gallica but only the publisher (Boosey & Hawkes) is mentioned. Perhaps there is a more appropriate Commons license but I don't know which one. – Mu (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Johannes_Heesters.jpgEdit

Hallo Geni, why have you uploaded a crop at File:Johannes_Heesters.jpg? Images should not be changed that much with uploading new versions. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The change from the decemeber 2008 version which is the one that actualy been in use for the most part was not that significant.Geni (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you tell me what this "Reverted to version as of 05:18, 19 May 2008 per OTRS request" means? Shouldn't the reworked version - which is better - be used? Who asked for?
Okay - yes - the ratio difference since Dec. 2008 is not that much. Please just answer here. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
aparently we were getting a complaint about the changes to the image over otrs so I went with version with lower saturation on the colours.Geni (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


Hi Geni,
as you are an admin, would you mind to add the admin-bit to your babel-box, so that others can recognize you as an admin. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 7983dc46da854089e7d827b1be9b8826Edit

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Scat filesEdit

Hi, I saw you deleted a load of images with the reason per the Danilo Croce probably obscene. Also uploader has no prolonged upload history so no certainly on copyright - I understand the second part, but what's the Danilo bit about? -mattbuck (Talk) 09:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Should not you nominate for deletion?Edit

According your edit summary? User:Lar seems to have resigned his power hats, so you should be safe. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

File:De Havilland DH106 Comet 4 G-APDB Cockpit .JPGEdit

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 04:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


File:ERNIE1 2012.JPGEdit

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 01:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Permission to use Sutton HooEdit

Hi,

I'm writing to ask permission to use your lovely image of the Sutton Hoo mask for a book of knitting patterns based on historical images.

I intend to credit / source it as follows:

This Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons image is from the user geni, and is freely available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sutton_hoo_helmet_room_1_no_flashbrightness_ajusted.JPG under the creative commons cc-by-sa 3.0 license.

Would that be okay?

Thank you, Annie Modesitt

yes that would be fine.Geni (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Memento mori ring Norwich.JPGEdit

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 20:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Delinker commandsEdit

Please attend question about category naming at COM:AN (last thread). Orrlingtalk 12:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpgEdit

Hi, you deleted this file for the following reason: "Copyright violation: enough post processing was done on the image that there is a reasonable chance that it qualifies for copyright see OTRS:2012120510006092" As the original uploader, I don't agree with this assertion. Rather, I consider that any routine digital processing such as cropping, filtering etc. isn't enough of a creative act to make a copyright subsist in the image. Otherwise we'd need to delete many of the photographs of old artworks we keep under COM:ART, because many of them have also been digitally processed by the photographer. I'd like to ask you to undelete the file and, if you disagree with my assessment, make the file subject to a regular deletion discussion so that the community can decide. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem with your line of argument is that it ignores the fact the issue that COM:ART stuff is created with the intent of reproducing the original image. In this case the there was no intent to recreate the original RAW file in particular there is an argument to be made that there was enough creativity involved in the rotation and the cropping to qualify for copyright.Geni (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
(Copying the above reply from my talk page) Well, in this case there was intent to capture the picture the monkey shot, I assume. Rotating and (presumably minor) cropping is hardly a creative process. In any case, that is an argument for a normal deletion dicussion. Could you please start one? Sandstein (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The monkey's shot an unprocessed RAW file. It would have been in a different aspect ratio to the final image (634*894 isn't consistent with any standard digital camera ratio I'm aware of). So ja creativity. The photographer also claims to have done some cloning but I have no idea of what.Geni (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
(Copying the above reply from my talk page) Well, I disagree that the simple cropping of a part of the image is sufficiently creative to establish copyright protection. That is something that needs to be discussed, rather than decided by fiat by one administrator. Since you haven't responded to my request to undelete the image and start a deletion discussion, I'm going to do so myself. Sandstein (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 openEdit

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

  1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
  2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
  3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee


Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 09:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

Using Portchester Castle imageEdit

Hello there, I would like to use your image of Portchester Castle in an up=and-coming guide book on Anne Boleyn. Sadly, when OI went there, the whole place was enshrouded with mist! Not great for photos. Love your photos and wondered if I could use it and under what, if any conditions? MAny thanks. You can contact me on sarah.morris@letempsviendra.co.uk

Hi GeniEdit

That's not the process for de-adminship, damn I wish it was, but it's not. You need to follow the procedure. Penyulap 22:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Moai liverpoolEdit

Hi Geni. OK. Thanks for the information. Solved. Best regards, JMCC1 (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


العربية | Català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Eesti | English | Español | Français | Galego | Magyar | Italiano | Nederlands | Polski | Română | Svenska | ไทย | Українська | +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey.

Dear Geni,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time.

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Wiki Loves Monuments logo



العربية | Català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Eesti | Français | Magyar | Nederlands | Polski | Svenska | ไทย | +/−

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey!

Dear Geni,

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests!

In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days.

And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy!

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 AnnouncementEdit

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!Edit

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2012 Picture of the Year contest.

Calshot CastleEdit

Have you thought about nominating this picture as a Valued Image or Quality Image or something? Nev1 (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nev1 (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 AnnouncementEdit

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!Edit

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results AnnouncementEdit

Picture of the Year 2013 ResultsEdit

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Geni,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

On publishing of non-commercial licensed (CC-BY-NC) materialEdit

Hello. Instead of deleting an important post and comment on a page that might not suit it 100%, I have copy-pasted it here on your personal talk page. If you know of any other place that is more suitable, I welcome you to say so. Deletion is not constructive. Here is the post you deleted on the page of Atomium:

The FOP rules of Belgium does not seem to be the problem here (or anywhere). The problem is, that Wiki Commons does not allow (and prohibit) uploads licensed for non-commercial use only. I suggest you change your explanations accordingly to reflect this deep problem. Here and on Wiki Commons in general.
If Wiki Commons decides to allow for uploads and publishing under the CC-BY-NC license (NC = no commercial use), all problems will vanish and no FOPs of any country, will hinder uploads of this kind in the future. It is vey clear, that the problem lies within the policies of Wiki Commons, and you will need to expose these problems in all honesty.
RhinoMind (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You did however, engage in an attempt at explaining why this problem persists and have not been solved, and I much appreciate your engagement. Below is your comment copied from my talk page followed by my response. I expect that the discussion of this important issue can continued here:

There is no non commercial use clause in Belgian copyright law so CC-BY-NC would make no difference.Geni (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If this is really true, it would make it easier to allow for one, if Wiki Commons allowed for non-commercial licenses in the first place. By the way, the possible Belgian prohibition of non-commercial publishing, has nothing to do with the FOPs of that country. RhinoMind (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Valued imagesEdit

Could I persuade you to nominate this picture as a valued image since I reckon it is the best photo of the MOSI Air and Space Hall on Commons? Nev1 (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

That OTRS deletionEdit

Now that I've looked up what Daguerreotypes are, I'm even more confused. I can see how, if the guy was uploading images that date from the 19th Century as 'own work', you would think something was up and want more info. But you originally mentioned 60s/70s film stock. I took that to mean cinema reel (while still not really understanding your point about how that can be automatically assumed to be a violation), but now I'm thinking you were just referring to photos from the 60s/70s. Given the ones I remember were photos from the 70s/80s, I am extremely concerned that all that has happened here is that someone has uploaded their old photos to geograph as own work, and when they couldn't be contacted, someone assumed the worst. Now, surely that wasn't the case, surely there is something more to this, but without more info, I still really don't know. So again, without compromising anyone's personal data, is it possible to enlighten me further? My major concern here is if something has changed either in Commons policy or over at Geograph, and now people simply uploading their old scans as self-declared own work is not considered sufficient proof of authorship any more. If that's the case, it's going to be a serious issue - as recently as yesterday I've been working on geoggraph images dating from the 70s, and I've personally seen several hundred more in my time here.Ultra7 (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Replied. Ultra7 (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

De-adminship warningEdit

This talk page in other languages:

Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 한국어 | മലയാളം | português | português do Brasil | +/−

Dear Geni, I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2014 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you, odder (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)