Last modified on 31 July 2014, at 15:08

User talk:LGA

Return to "LGA" page.

English | Magyar | +/−

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, LGA!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

File:GAIL III 63.svgEdit

I have changed the source, it is a description in spanish about the coat. Design it is own. I hope it could be right. If it isn't correct no problem for me, recover the Discused source template but, in this case I would like the reason why this file should be deleted, please. Thanks --Heralder (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Dubai-Ski-Dubai-10.JPGEdit

I'm not the original uploader, I tried only to reduce blur with some GIMP plugin (without great success).--Carnby (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Autopatrol givenEdit

Commons Autopatrolled.svg

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. INeverCry 21:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

DeletionEdit

Why you only delete my files and not other like

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eurocup_Trophy.JPG


--Badefa (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Re User_talk:Jjron#Notification_about_possible_deletion and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Australian rules football jumpersEdit

Thanks for the warning after they've already been deleted. Great way to waste everybody's time and efforts in creating these and to disrupt the project. Good job. You really spend your time here well. --jjron (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Stade de FranceEdit

What happens if the pictures of the Stade de France are kept, like are they gonna sue us. 174.91.72.204 15:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. LGA talkedits 21:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

File:19 Action News 2013.pngEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:19 Action News 2013.png 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 | 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 | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Levdr1lp / talk 21:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

FOP in UkraineEdit

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%BD_%22%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8F%22.jpg

What is wrong with photo of this building? It was built somewhere 50 years ago and was built not in Ukraine, but in Soviet Union. Funding of design and construction was paid by government of that country. Who owns copyright image of this building?

How does it differ from photo of another building in Kiev, Ukraine ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2009_Mandarin.jpeg ) built less than 10 years ago using private capital and not removed from Wikimedia Commons based on "no FOP in Ukraine"?

Or does CC-SA versus Public domain makes a difference? If so, I would be happy to release photos I've made in Kiev under Public domain.

--Maxim75 (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No it won't make a difference, works of architecture are protected by copyright in the Ukraine, you need the consent of the architect for this picture. Copyright last for 70 years after the architect's death. LGA talkedits 20:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

File:LSU Tigers Shield.jpgEdit

So good to hear from you again, LGA. Glad you're still editing. The LSU shield is actually a photo from a stadium. Since it is acceptable to delete photos before an explanation, I want to point out other examples of similar photos that will have to be deleted since they're exactly the same. I don't want someone breaking wikirules. I found this photo of Michigan Stadium. File:BigHouseSign.JPG. It is obviously a picture of a copyrighted logo from a photo of a stadium. Please remove this from all wikimedia. Thanks for your due diligence. I will definitely let you know if I find other like violations so they can also quickly be deleted. If this is not a violation, please add photo back to wikimedia. spatms (User talk:spatms) 12:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Your UploadsEdit

I have some doubts that you are the copyright holder for each and everyone of your uploads, can you please confirm that you took each and every photograph and that none of them were work-for-hire. LGA talkedits 08:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not a professional photographer and haven't received payment for any photos I submitted. I assume this is what you meant by work-for-hire. My W-2 can definitely confirm I'm not a photographer. All photos were taken strictly to be added to wikimedia. I did take all photos you referenced with my smartphone. I took the photos, then downloaded them to my computer. I then added them to wikicommons from my computer. I hope this explanation answers your doubts. If I still need to individually answer for each photo as originally suggested, I would be glad to do that. spatms (User talk:spatms) 1:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Theatre photo'sEdit

I take it you plan on nominating every photo we have of theatres on commons at present. They all contain production photo's or logo's its impossible not to. Good luck finding many photos in this Cat that don't.Blethering Scot (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

LGA needs to re-tool his or her understanding of copyright law. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Henri Delauney cupEdit

As most of people who writes here, I have no idea how photography of a copyrighted object can be automatically copyrighted. Maybe I was not listening carefully at my copyright lecures but as I remember I cannot build and sell my own version of copyrighted object but I doesn't affect photos. They are other pieces of an artwork. I understand situation "graphic sign - photo", "photo - photo", "painting - photo". But nearly every single object of human's work is copyrighted. Every single building, every single equipment. If they are copyrighted I can't build a building using the same design I do not own, I can't produce furniture using this design, I can't reprint photos, I can't use piece of music. But it doesn't mean I can't use my photography of an object that exists in a very different dimension... ARvєδuι + 12:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You cant take a picture of a copyrighted item and then freely release that picture without the permission of the holder off the copyright in the item shown. LGA talkedits 21:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Files in Category:Busan Asiad Main StadiumEdit

Hello LGA. I can't understand that Why You request delete "Busanasiasutadium.jpg" and some image files.
I think this files are not against Wikipedia rules.
Pleas tell me why you have to delete that's file. --Waka77 (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

FOP vs. TOOEdit

Hi LGA, when filing DRs for potential FOP-problems, one needs always take into account whether the depicted object is at least copyrightable. That's not an easy task as the underlying threshold of originality varies largely from country to country (for example: low in the U.K, high in Germany). Regrettably, our page COM:TOO provides very little information about that. The COM:FOP page might sometimes be a better source. Only after some years on Commons, I became aware (was told) that in the U.S. bridges are not coyprightable. I am writing you this as a background for my edits in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Impuls Arena. --Túrelio (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I, and others don't hold that there is much of a TOO for buildings, in the case of sports stadium, none of them are "off the shelf", they are not mass produced, they are custom designed quite specifically for each need. LGA talkedits 12:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

File tagging File:Carlos Ghosn at the 2013 earnings press conference Yokohama.jpgEdit

Hi, LGA!

All files mentioned in you message are my own work and were uploaded as such. (Yes, I have been prolific.) Do I need to re-tag? Most, at least the newer ones, even have my name and (c) Bertel Schmitt in the Exif data. What other proof of copyright do I need? BsBsBs (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The requested email has been sent to ORTS. While I fully understand the need for a clear copyright situation, I find it a bit harsh to ask wholesale for that information when the pictures have lived in peace on commons for a long time, some for more than two years, when my name is (usually) stated in the EXIF data and the description, and when there is little doubt that BsBsBs is Bertel Schmitt, and when the upload dialog left me believe that all is ok. BsBsBs (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

He is right. Your action was not needed at all. A simpel question would be enough. You gave me a lot of work and I am not very happy with your action. If you still doubted that he is the rightful copyrightowner, which he is, you could have just asked him to send an email to OTRS but even that whas not needed if you ask me. It was quite clear that he is Bertel Schmitt. An apologie tot BsBsBs would be the right thing to do. Really, it took me about half an hour to correct this action so I'm not quite happy right now. Natuur12 (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, given the mixture of hardware used to create the images, the fact some, but not others were credited to Bertel Schmitt, the fact that anyone could create an account in the name BsBsBs, plenty of reason to ask for OTRS confirmation on the users uploads. LGA talkedits 07:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
You could have asked before tagging them all? It's not like he recently uploaded them. The older pictures aren't credited to Bertel Schmitt in the exif, the newer ones are. The cameramodel is the samen, namely a Canon EOS 500D. Well, he start using the Canon EOS 60D later on. Same brand of camera's. So not unlikely that he bought a new one. See for example one of his oldest pictures: File:Akio Toyoda .jpg. He used his real name. Al photographs have the same theme and the exif data indicates that all pictures are made by the same person. That there are two different camera's is quite simpel. He bought a newer model of the same brand. The style and theme of the pictures remained the same. No reason to doubt that the pictures where made by the same person. If you look at the time period of when the pictures where taken you can see that the chanhe of camera happend suddenly and he never used diffrent camera's at the same period. If you googled him you could easely see that it is not unlikely that he is in fact the copyrightholder. I would discribe your action as overkill. A simpel question would have been enough. If you still doubted him you could just have asked him to send confirmation instead of tagging all his pictures. Would have saved me a lot of time imho. If i use my real name to credit my pictures, am I suspicious than? Those pictures uploaded by Bertel are great but it is clear that they are not made in a fancy photostudio er something like that. Natuur12 (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Italian stadiaEdit

Please stop and discuss. Proposing mass deletions is not the best (let alone the right) way to deal with images that in your personal view are to be deleted because a so-called no-FOP. Most of these can simply be cropped, others are not dealing with relevant architecture elements worth of protection. Reading the rest of your talk page I notice I am not the only one to have questioned your way to deal with such kind of files, thus that should mean something to you. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the right place to discuss on the DR ? Most editors don't understand the FoP issues when they take a picture they assume they have total rights to it. If I just go about cropping images (without a DR to discuss the issue) then won't that case more issues ? As for some of the ones you kept at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stadio Olimpico (Rome) such as File:Vasco08olimpico.jpg as per Com:CB#Concert photography the set is also copyright. LGA talkedits 20:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
And File:San Siro wide.jpg should clearly be deleted and so should File:Scudo2009.jpg. LGA talkedits 21:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Also File:1908 commedia.jpg the sign is also copyright and should be deleted. LGA talkedits 21:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Spruce in Estonia

Thank you for cropping Juventus stadium photos and a happy new year!

This spruce grows in Estonia. I have seen it from train window with my own eyes. Taivo (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Georgian quartet performing Georgian folk song at the Boryspil International Airport, Ukraine.webmEdit

Excuse me, what's your problem with this file? Have you checked its license? It is published under CC BY 3.0, see "Show more" section. Please note that groundless reverting the edit does not correspond with the Edit war policy. So please revert your re-nomination for deletion, or I'd have to appeal to admins. --Niklem (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

But where is the proof it is licensed in that way ? the youtube link has a clear copyright statement so it needs an OTRS to show that it has indeed be licensed by both the person who took the video and the persons performing in it. LGA talkedits 21:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
No, it does not need neither OTRS ticket, nor proof, since the copyright holder is the same person who has uploaded the video. As it is stated by at least 4 online sources: 1, 2, 3, 4 ("Мельник" stands for the last name Melnik written in cyrillic). And due to the article 307.2 of the Ukraine Civil Code, any individual who is filmed in any public place is presumed to be agreed upon being filmed, until the filming does not interfere with the person's private life. As far as the video clearly doesn't, there are no problems with it, and I once again ask you to remove the deletion tag as inappropriate. --Niklem (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I have started a DR. LGA talkedits 00:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake. It is a video. Anyway it's licenced on CC for free reuse, thus doesn't matter what kind of media it is. Unless you want to question the licence of release on Youtube, of course. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It was clearly a free exhibition in front of an amateur camera. IMHO questioning about this is an exercise of tetrapyloctomy, as we Italians use to say :-) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sherlock HolmesEdit

Ok, done. But you should have posted that link during the first RFD. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Statues in the UKEdit

It's simple and also self-evident, I guess. Prohibition to photograph 3D temporary installation art in public places has the meaning of avoiding exploitment of works normally kept in private areas (houses, museums, art galleries and so on). On this basis if the statue had been normally kept at someone's private house I would have deleted the picture with no problems. This is not the case instead as the statue is available anyway in a freely accessible place. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Question about recent request to delete files on German Armed Forces Badge for Military ProficiencyEdit

You have listed the following files for nomination for deletion. All of these are made and used by their respective governments to award their military personal for certain actions. So who made the design should not play a factor since it is going to be used by the State. Here is a example of such.Articseahorse (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

There is still a copyright in them, unlike the US Government, most governments around the world claim copyright in their work. LGA talkedits 02:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
But for this exact case, can you cite who created this award and when it was made? Because I am sure Germany has a similar award process for the creation of each one. In cases like this that involve awards there is no restriction on thier use. I am going to email the German Army directly to see what they say about this.Articseahorse (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
No need to cite anything, they are in copyright unless someone can show that they are not (see COM:EVID). If the German Army is happy to release them via OTRS then all the better. LGA talkedits 06:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I have not forgotten about this and I have not heard anything back. I did find this website that talks about copyright in different countries. I will see what it says about Germany's. Also I apologies if I was harsh on the last few messages. Because I have one of the German awards in the photos that you nominated for deletion. I worked hard for that award and I take pride in the privilege to be able to wear it. It is frustrating to have the award and being told that you cannot take a photo of it because the copyright is in question. I understand what you are saying and I know that it is the right answer, but I wish there was a way to keep all these photos up.Articseahorse (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Outstanding answersEdit

Wherever you provided me evidence that there were right pendings (i.e. Sherlock Holmes's stylised head) I reopened the DR, thus I am not biased nor have prejudices. I even deleted the vast majority of the files subject of the mass delection request (mass deletion that I deprecate anyway because files should be evaluated case-by-case and DR should have a single file as subject, but that's a different matter). For the rest of the cases I don't see a clear evidence we are in front of a violation of no-fop (a photo that focuses on coloured stands, not on the architecture, and a mockery of AC Milan supporters towards their cousins of Inter FC, a barely intelligible concert structure with no relevant architectural interest, a statue that now has a permanent location and an extemporary exhibition of a folk group in a public place with no commercial purpose and filmed by an amateur). If you want to reopen these DRs fine, though I frankly think it's a waste of time. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

¿Dónde estás?Edit

¿LGA, dónde estás? ¿No borras estas? ¿Solo borras las mías? ¿Me odias a mí, o al Real Madrid?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Barselona_FK_Barselona15.JPG

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Barselona_FK_Barselona17.JPG

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2009_FIFA_Club_World_Cup_Trophy_at_FC_Barcelona_Museum.jpg

--Badefa (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Question about this photo.Edit

The user that posted it stated that he got it from facebook and I think that we do not allow this without the person who is in the photo releasing permission to do so.

Articseahorse (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

File:19 Action News 2013.pngEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:19 Action News 2013.png 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 | 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 | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

188.104.117.202 23:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Fictional flag issueEdit

Being one of the users involved in my DsR on fictional flags, please have a look at User:Antemister/Fictional flag issue for a general discussion on that topic.--Antemister (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hauinger Buurefasnacht 2014Edit

Hi LGA, I recently closed this DR, but User:Taxiarchos228 (aka Wladyslaw), whose files were deleted, has contested the deletion on my talk page. When you have a moment, could you please comment there? Thanks, FASTILY 08:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

PS, for your reference, copies of a few of the deleted images:
-FASTILY 08:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

PhotoEdit

While the other ones are blatant copyvio, the one I left it's presumably older than 25 years thus in PD according to Argentine law. Though I do prefer having a confirm thus i left a note on the uploader's talk page. Of course if I don't get one in reasonable time, I'll have to delete that one too. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, LGA. You have new messages at Nuitejour's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

CommentEdit

I left a comment about the woodblock graffiti image I uploaded, it's not a dw!Victorgrigas (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Beni1.jpgEdit

Hi, Please check my reply to your post at my User talk. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: File:Bus ticket of Rome - Special Edition 04.jpgEdit

Hello! I have one thing to ask! A few days ago I uploaded some pictures of something of tickets for public transport that they advertise the canonization of the two Popes, which took place a few days ago. Unfortunately, these files have been deleted, and I was accused of having taken those pictures on the internet and have them later on the Commons, but it is not so! Those tickets I bought and scanned, but I have not taken from the internet! Now I do not know if those tickets out there is or is not copyright, but I can guarantee you that it went as I told you! I salute you! Nicholas ;-) --Nicholas Gemini (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand! Thank you for the explanation! ;-) --Nicholas Gemini (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: File:Alberto Salcedo Ramos 2013.jpgEdit

I have the corresponding email with the authorization for the use of this photo. Julieta Solincée already sent it to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Also, I can show the capture of that email.

I am Withdrawing my requestEdit

Thanks for your response Just I am withdrawing my request and will upload again my work with notability articles in the future thanks Shakeh

You may be blocked soonEdit

বাংলা | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | English | español | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | 日本語 | македонски | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | português | русский | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


float   This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Commons.

Yann (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Yann: Please do not threaten people with whom you are engaged in a highly emotional dispute with blocks; it is a blatant abuse of your role as an administrator, and any block would be subject to a speedy overturn, if only for the reason of your involvement with the user in question. Thank you! odder (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually Yann is right with this as LGA keeps nominating images for pure URAA reasons despite instructions to stop it. He even tried forum shopping at Jimbos talk page but didn't get the support he was expecting. --Denniss (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
@Denniss: & @Odder: I wish to make it very clear I have not nominated images for "for pure URAA reasons", I have nominated them when there is nothing to suggest that the images have ever been PD in the US and therefore needed the URAA to retain a copyright they never lost. I also strenuously reject any claim that I have been engaging in forum shopping, and I had no preconceived expectations as to what Jimbos response would be, that's why I asked him.LGA talkedits 21:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
@Denniss: Yann might or might not be right, but given his ongoing dispute with LGA over URAA files, I seriously question his ability to resolve this case in an unbiased manner. The best way forward with this issue would be to leave it to an uninvolved administrator to handle, and I hope Yann will do so rather than continue posting threats on LGA's talk page. odder (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
@odder: Your support for the trolling behaviour of LGA is not a good standing for a bureaucrat. Yann (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
@Yann: I find it interesting that you are interpreting my kind request not to threaten people with whom you are in a dispute as my support for anything they might or might not have done. I do not know what was the cause for your leaving this threatening message above, but I do know that you are engaged in a dispute with LGA. I would also suggest that you do not jump to any conclusions about my position on this issue, especially in the context of my role as a bureaucrat on this project. Thank you! odder (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
@odder: Your interpretation is puzzling! As a bureaucrat, you should help to reach a consensus, not take side with extremists and trolls. You are completely failing your role here. That's very sad. Several admins support my point of view on the URAA issue, and on the behaviour of LGA, and you know it. If you can't discern a difference between a trolling behaviour and a genuine dispute, you should resign as bureaucat, at the very least. Yann (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
@Yann: I do not interpret anything. It is a fact that you are in a dispute with LGA, and it is a long-standing Wikimedia principle that admins should not act in cases where they are personally involved. Your message threatening LGA with a block contradicts this principle.

I understand that you do not agree with LGA, but I kindly ask you to refrain from calling them extremist and troll. This is quite unacceptable behaviour for an administrator; the Commons community expects more from people who are in this position. As the most experienced administrator we have on this project, you should know that this path leads nowhere.

I also understand that you are, for some reason, upset about my message above, so you'll excuse me if I take your call for my resignation with a grain of salt. odder (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@odder: I regard many LGA's actions as bordering vandalism, and I will deal with that appropriately. Sorry for you that you can't see the reality. Yann (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

LamboEdit

hi this image from me , why u add it in delete list ? Jojok09 (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

im really dont understand what should i do ?!Jojok09 (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

photo deletionEdit

you cited a photo i uploaded for deletion because it appeared elsewhere on the internet. nanci y don, that photo is from the website of nanci which i am asst webmaster. i have a better version. and have noticed people stealing it. thanks anyways

Which photo are we talking about ? LGA talkedits 01:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Photo DeletionEdit

Buenas! He visto que nominaste tres publicaciones hechas por mí para que sean consideradas para ser borradas. Tengo entendido que tales publicaciones cumplen con las condiciones de haber sido publicadas en Argentina hace más de 25 años, por lo que quedan exentas de copyright y su uso pasa a ser libre. Respecto a las fuentes de publicación, estan detallados los sitios web donde encontré las imágenes, a no ser que se pretenda que empiece a buscar en todo el país donde se encuentra la revista en la que fue publicada, lo que resulta ser una locura. Pero en fin, las condiciones la cumplen. Todas las fotos tienen bien marcado, el sitio web del que fueron tomadas, las fechas de sus publicaciones (únicamente los años en algunos casos, porque ni modo que voy a saber específicamente en que día se publicaron y menos en que revista) y todas esas fechas superan los 25 años en los que, por ley, caducan todos los derechos de autor en Argentina. Espero sirva esta información que ofrezco para que se estudie más a fondo el caso. Saludos! --Diego HC (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: File:Acrylic embedment carbon fiber-gear by Midton Acrylics.jpgEdit

You are right. It does not. Reverted. Ankry (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Change of source countryEdit

In Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Steel Logo.svg, you wrote "I am not aware of any mechanism by which the source country of a work can change, it is set at the point of creation/publication". This is not entirely accurate. You identify the source country for published works using this method:

  1. Identify the date of first publication.
  2. Make a list of all countries in which the work was published within 30 days from the date of first publication.
  3. From the list, remove any countries which are not signatories to the Berne Convention. If this makes the list empty, use the method for unpublished works instead.
  4. From the remaining countries, identify the country with the shortest term of protection. This is the source country.

Unpublished works and works, such as works of architecture, which are attached to the ground follow different rules. The source country may change in at least the following cases:

  • If a country joins or leaves the Berne Convention.
  • If a previously anonymous author becomes identified. Alternatively, one could say that the country of origin isn't known until such time that the work enters the public domain in at least one country.
  • If a country changes its term of protection. Alternatively, one could say that the country of origin isn't known until such time that the work enters the public domain in at least one country.
  • If a previously unpublished work becomes published.

Furthermore, test 4) above often requires you to determine which is shorter of, say, life+70 years and publication+95 years. It is not known which of them is shorter until such time that the author dies or at least 25 years have passed since the publication of the work (whichever is earlier), so the "country of origin" isn't set until that time. The country of origin is therefore not necessarily set at the point of creation.

The Berne Convention only demands you to answer two questions:

  • Has the copyright expired in the source country?
  • Is the source country a signatory to the Berne Convention?

These questions can always be answered with "yes" or "no" even if the source country can't be identified. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


Notification about possible deletionEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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 | 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 | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Geagea (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:LGAEdit

See this discussion which is about you. Jee 04:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Canadian Army Flag.svgEdit

I'm just letting everyone who voted in the above DR discussion that nearly the same thing has resurfaced here. Please feel free to info anyone I may have missed (although I think there was only three votes). trackratte (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Midway DC-9 at DCAEdit

LGA You are wasting my time and your own. You will find many other examples where I have submitted my own images to other web sites. There's nothing wrong or suspicious in that. Please leave me alone to continue to add value to Wikipedia. And add true value yourself - not just dead pan 'auditing' work. RuthAS (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

LGA, RuthAS uploads are all good. Whilst I can understand why you may have OTRS required the photos, let's leave Ruth to upload her imagery, and if really required, we can get an affirmation that our Ruth is the same as a.net's Ruth by way contacting the a.net Ruth. We can then use that a blanket OTRS instead of tagging individual images. russavia (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)