User talk:Mattbuck/Archive7

Archives October 2007 - June 2008 June 2008 - August 2008 August 2008 - December 2008 December 2008 - April 2010 April 2010 - September 2010 September 2010 - May 2011 May 2011 - December 2011 January 2012 - March 2012 April 2012 - July 2012 August 2012 - October 2012 November 2012 - January 2013 February 2013 - April 2013 May 2013 - July 2013 August 2013 - October 2013 November 2013 - December 2013 January 2014 - February 2014 March 2014 - April 2014 May 2014 - July 2014 August 2014 - September 2014 October 2014 - November 2014 December 2014 - February 2015 March 2014 - September 2015 October 2015 - December 2017 Current

Gigi Stone

Hey Matt, I'm new here, so please help me out. I work for Gigi Stone, and I undertand why the first photo was blocked, but the one I"m trying to load today is her personal photo shot by a friend that she owns and want to release into public domain. How can I get that approved and inserted asap for Gigi?

Cheers... --Kaysorin (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kaysorin. I'm sorry, but we're pretty paranoid about copyright here, and your photo looked very much as if it was a tv station promotional image, hence my deletion.

Now, at Commons we accept only freely licenced media which you create and release; which is public domain for some reason; or media which someone else releases with an explicit statement of licence - we cannot simply trust that "my friend said this was ok", we would need your friend to tell us themselves. In this case I would suggest you get your friend to send an email of permission to the Wikimedia OTRS team. Also please note that part of the reason I assumed this was a copyright violation was the low resolution and lack of metadata - people often just pull images from the internet and claim they're their own work when they simply aren't. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Matt... that's completely understandable.... I'm glad to learn you guys are being such sticklers about copyright protection. I'm a writer so I'm on your side. Okay.. so if I get Gigi to send you an email stating that it is her photo and she wants to release rights to the public domain, is that enough? Or does she need to get her friend who snapped the photo in her apartment to send you this note? Thanks again! --Kaysorin (talk) 18:2--Kaysorin (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)9, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Your friend certainly, as they would hold copyright over the photo. Probably also Gigi, as our position on identifiable people in photos is that if the photo is not taken in a public place, ie is taken somewhere where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, we need consent from whoever has been photographed. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent... I'll get Gigi to write it herself. Once she sends the email to the OTRS team address, I'll have her cc me and I'll paste it here to close this loop. Thanks for your help Matt. You guys do great work!--Kaysorin (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Matt! Gigi sent her photo release email this morning, and as promised here is the cc of that message. Please let me know what to do next. I'll be writing more articles soon, and hope to one day join your ranks as an editor/moderator, so I sincerely appreciate how this has helped my learning curve, albeit a bit stinging. ;-) Cheers! Wayne, aka --Kaysorin (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

From: Gigi Stone Date: May 20, 2011 8:31:06 AM EDT To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Subject: permission

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gigi_Stone_Personal_Headshot.png I agree to publish that work under the free license CC-BY, Creative Commons Attribution. I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

5-20-11, Gigi Stone --Kaysorin (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to join as an administrator, I suggest you start by getting some experience doing things like checking new files for copyright violations, adding opinions on deletion requests and some general scutwork such as finding a topic you know about and helping categorise things. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bristol MMB «B4 Severn Beach Line and CWS Flour Mills.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Saffron Blaze 15:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Redlinked cat

Matt, why have you not yet created the replacement category for one you deleted? See here. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Put simply, because it was redlinked when I got there, I just figured it should be of instead of in. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

But the deletion log for the old cat Category:Railway junction diagrams in the United Kingdom shows that you deleted it five weeks ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Humm, a useful category. In that case my apologies, that deletion was part of deleting several thousand superflous categories (including categorising the Grayrigg Derailment into "derailments in (village)", itself categorised in "rail accidents in (village)" followed by "rail accidents in (local area)" "rail accidents in (region of county)" "rail accidents in (county)" - none of which had any other content - and finally the useful category "rail accidents in England". I did go through the list looking for useful categories - this one I have to say wasn't especially useful as the supercats are 2 redlinks, one real cat and a redirect to that same cat. Unfortunately it's not possible to simply mass-undo all a user's edits, just mass-delete. I have recategorised RJD1914 into that cat, sorry for the problems. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

File:David_Archuleta_MPH.jpg

Hello Matt!

I am the author of the picture of David Archuleta that was just nominated for deletion. I personally took that picture when he arrived at his hotel in Manila, Philippines last November 16, 2010 for a promo tour. I was at the Manila Peninsula Hotel at that time, the same hotel where he checked in. I hope you consider lifting the deletion of the picture. Also, the picture File:David Archuleta Manila.jpg is a personal picture that I took as well, that happened during his performance at venue of his promo tour in SM North EDSA at Sky Dome in Quezon City, Philippines. While, the file File:David Archuleta AI.jpg, I don't own that and you can freely delete that. Thanks for keeping an eye and making this portal safe. I hope for you wise consideration. Thanks again.

Of your images, one had a clear copyright watermark, another showed larger versions of the same image elsewhere, indicating a copyright violation. I deleted the third on the basis that the others were copyright violations so that one probably was too. If you wish to contest the deletion, please open a request at COM:UDEL, and in future do not upload stuff which you did not personally create or is not explicitly licenced. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

please provide a link to the commons policy on the subject of removing images as suspected copyvios, based on other presumed copyvios by the same uploader? Lx 121 (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I consider it under COM:PRP. However, I accept that I may have been overzealous here. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Reporting

The user "Hold and wave", continues to remove unjustifiably other users' messages from its user talk. 79.36.143.69 17:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

deletions

hello;

it concerns me that you deleted this item (which i had previously worked on categorizing), after >3 days for discussion, & without any comments being posted.

it would be more appropriate & useful to work on the massive backlog of unclosed deletion debates, rather than "semi-speedy" deleting new listings.

your rationale for the deletion is also not based on commons policy, "replaceability", by itself, is not a legitimate rationale for deletion & having seen the image before it was removed, i know that the statements about "unusability" are inaccurate. image certainly wasn't "brilliant art", but it legitimately qualified in the multiple categories it was placed into Lx 121 (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

File:PRIVATE IDAHO mischa veteres plaedoyer für kaltbad.jpg

hi, look!, i have my entire category OTRS-approved, i am just about to load it and thereafter write my email. please do not intervene, especially since the photograph clearly expired from copyright!, thanks mvart4u

The proposed deletion was on grounds of scope, and besides, that does not appear to be a postcard. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Tom Willett

Matt,

New to Wikipedia. Why did you nominate my photo for removal? It is of me, taken by a co-worker, Warren Pettit, who has given me permission to use it. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkassrocker (talk • contribs)

Hello. As noted on the deletion request page, I nominated it because it was a good quality yet low resolution photo of someone notable which lacks metadata. Nine times out of ten this means someone found it somewhere via google and decided that because they found it and could view it, it would be ok for them to upload it here and claim it as their own work. We take a very firm stance on copyright here at Wikimedia Commons, and so there are only three types of work you can upload.

1. Your own work, which you release under a free licence.
2. Works which are public domain due to age, ineligibility, etc.
3. Works by someone else where we have a clear statement that they release the image under a free licence.

For the latter category, the statement must either be public at the source (eg a statement on the source website that it is freely released and under what licence) or an email sent to our OTRS team, from the copyright holder, saying they release the image. Please note that "I give permission for this to be used on Wikipedia" is not sufficient - all works on Commons must be available for use by anyone for any purpose, including making derivatives and commercial uses. If your coworker took the photo, we need permission from him that he releases the image. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello

File tagging File:Insigne régimentaire du 42e Régiment de Transmissions.jpg

Here's agreement Malmassari Colonel Chief Historian of Defence, Military Division of the symbolism.

Sincerely fantassin 72 Fantassin 72 (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I'm sorry to be suspicious about your upload, but we are very strict about copyright here. The copyright of this badge would, I assume, rest with the French military, so we would need permission via OTRS from the military that we are allowed to use it. That you want to use it only for encyclopaedic goals is nice, but not what we do at Commons - we provide media that can be used by anyone for any purpose, including commercial ones. I don't know offhand whether works by the French military are automatically public domain like the US military ones are, but unless they are then I'm afraid we would need confirmation from the source that it was freely usable. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Peut we disseminate public data freely licensed and open? By Thomas Saint-Aubin, Assistant Professor./ An interesting article on the licensing of public http://www.village-justice.com/articles/diffuser-donnees-publiques,7658.html. it will translate it into English. Fantassin 72 (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of free media licencing. I work on Commons, it's kind of what we do. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Mischa Vetere images

I have to agree with the impression that all the images in Category:Mischa Vetere are out of scope as self-created artwork without obvious educational use. No Wikipedia entry exists for Mischa Vetere. Take a look at the upload history here, for instance. The upload comments are about as nonsensical as the emails, with paranoia about hacking and censorship. – Adrignola talk 16:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably, yes. My original thought was that it was a postcard from 1870 which seemed unlikely given the colours, and thus a possible copyvio. I never did understand art. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a de.wp entry that's been there for almost 2 years: de:Mischa Vetere. That said, the artwork does in places seem to be copyvios, and frankly is... ok, I'll be blunt, if I went out today and got a girl pregnant, convinced her to keep the baby and as soon as it fell out of her stuck a crayon and a postcard in its hand, it would do better art. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The files are trash, created within a few minutes in ms-paint or so. The guy suffers from some very strange idea that his work is censored by the government of switzerland and that he must use all websites to spread his opinion. Regretably he found our project. He thinks, that "OTRS-approved" means, that his work is absolutely ok on Commons - he however not undertand that copyrights and educational use are two different things. The copyright(OTRS) issue is of course resolved long time ago, the scope issue is unadressed so far. I only hope his plan (aka threat) of "insgesamt 5'000 - 10'000 bilder" will not become true. Maybe his candidature for the WM board will show, that Wikimedia Commons is not a place for publishing private opinions in form of self-created, previously unpublished paintings. --Martin H. (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC) p.s. I however continue to remove the tag-like category spam, this works are so pure, so unimportant and so POV, I myself also refrain from writing my personal opinion in Category:Barack Obama or putting my opinion in a paint file and upload it - although I have a person opinion on Obama that the world is interested in.. not. --Martin H. (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

you stay off my category! it is OTRS approved for COPYRIGHT REASONS!! johnny depp personally has delivered photos to me, and the work is approved, my alteration.mvart4u ps: wännd din chrampf nöd uufgisch, länsch mi känne. seisch ja selber, verstaasch nüt vo kunst, dänn lan verdammt no mal mini arbeit in fridä - jedi arbeit isch OTRS approved; ziit vo de rufmörder fründ isch scho lang verbii. ich werd dich jetzt mälde.

Well that certainly sounds like bullshit. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

you are mistaken on many things, and martin h. again - well, the 'trash' was liked by the UN/Obama (shakespeare's cat), the founder of wiki. poor, indeed, and what a coincidence of the timing of the discussion of "mischa vetere images" as trash... - censorship is obvious and as a hint: my first exhibition of 'few minutes work' (not even the interest on how one works!) in berlin was twice prologed, on since march for another two month. [mvart4u]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kidderminster Town railway station MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments The isolation and quality of this image is very good. Not sure about the EV. --Saffron Blaze 08:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

re: a comment you made in the FAP convo

"It's been going on for the past few weeks, and has had several good quality photos deleted via admins/users arguing that lots of good quality photos of the same thing is a BAD thing. I've checked through the deleted ones and have send several to COM:UDEL. I don't disagree with all the proposed/happened deletions, but I don't like the way this is being done, by claiming that "bad quality" "uninteresting photography" "we have other photos" and "no porn please" are legitimate reasons for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)"

i would be very much interested in more info about instances of deletions/deletion noms using the rationale stated, which you mentioned.

"quantity-limit" deletion rationales are NOT supported in commons policy

Lx 121 (talk)

Just check FAP's contribs. I have personally nominated an image once for deletion on quality grounds, on the basis that we had an identical shot taken a few seconds later which wasn't blurry. That's the only time I really support quality deletion, when we have an identical image which isn't out of focus or blurred. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The Rail transport barnstar

		The Rail transport barnstar
		You have contributed some interesting pictures of trains and railway stations. I hereby award You The Rail transport barnstar. Nice work, well done photos! -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! -mattbuck (Talk) 12:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! CWS Flour Mills MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment This just needs a tilt adjust. Saffron Blaze 08:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC) The near edge of the building is vertical. Mattbuck 17:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)  Support --Archaeodontosaurus 13:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

COM:VP#June 1

Hi Mattbuck

LOL, BTW at Commons:Village_pump#Commons_lacks_images_of_sex_acts, you forgot to credit me for material made available per cc-3.0. --  Docu  at 11:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for trying to steal your topic ;) -mattbuck (Talk) 11:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a translated version of my post. Afterall, Commons is multi-language environment ;) --  Docu  at 17:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stogumber railway station MMB 02 9351.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Excellent. --Saffron Blaze 19:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Euston railway station MMB 19 390017.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good for QI. --Saffron Blaze 19:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Revert

The reason I reverted the closure was that we were waiting for a bureaucrat to close the procedure, not for Docu. Jcb (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, apologies. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

QI

Hi,

ich habe cropped the epitaph-picture at Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#May_20.2C_2011. Good now? greetings --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Radcliffe railway station MMB 11 156413.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 10:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Central Campus Logo.jpg

Actually, schools in the USA are run by municipalities or local school districts, so your conclusion is even more correct -- the Des Moines schools are two levels away from the Federal government.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Birmingham New Street railway station MMB 17 170515.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good photo -- George Chernilevsky 16:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tondu railway station MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. Harrison49 21:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Keynsham railway station MMB 02 159018.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. Harrison49 21:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cambridge railway station MMB 08 317342.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. Harrison49 21:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Newton Abbot railway station MMB 02 142064.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. Harrison49 21:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Maesteg railway station MMB 01 150208.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good--Lmbuga 20:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pwllheli MMB 02 Bay.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments And do you now at least the name of the beach, almost a year later ? ;)--Jebulon 16:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC) It could be Abererch Sands, in that there's a holiday camp there called Abererch Sands, but that's only a guess. Mattbuck 19:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Well, it is time to decide, and it is a good picture. QI. Alleluia. --Jebulon 16:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC).

Help!!

I really need help uploading images. After reading the policy I thought I was right by uploading those files. However, I was not. I have over 12,000 edits on English Wikipedia and meant no harm in uploading those files. Again would you like to help me when I need a file uploaded? For some reason I can never find pictures with the proper licensing. Thanks!!! Intoronto1125 (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You can only upload images to Commons which are freely licenced and for which we can say for certain are freely licenced. That means media you created, media whose source indicates a free licence, and works which are public domain through age or ineligibility. Please note that simply being able to find something on the internet (for free) does not mean that thing has a free licence. In your case, it was a lot of logos which are in general not free, and so are deleted on sight. You probably could upload those logos to en.wp under fair use rules, but they will not be allowed on Commons until they pass the age threshold for public domain in about 70 years. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you upload onto en.wp? I was under the assumption that you had to upload it here. Thanks! Intoronto1125 (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Upload - there's a link in the toolbox section of the sidebar. Then choose the "It is the logo of an organization, brand, product, public facility, or other item" link. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Topless women on the beach.jpg

Hello! I've got a question concerning this DR: what kind of email you got? Because we had OTRS-ticket concerning this image and it seemed not sufficient for deletion. rubin16 (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. If I remember correctly, it was another photo of one of the women in the topless photo. I'm usually one of the last to agree to such deletions, but given the subject's request, the drive-by nature of the upload and the lack of metadata, I considered that while they may not actually have a legal right, they have a moral one, and given that the uploader was unavailable to contact, it seemed best to just delete. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's clear. Thank you rubin16 (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"Prince Joel" images

Hello! Thanks for semi-protecting these pages. However, the editor in question seems to be back again, continuing the same behavior of repeatedly deleting the deletion request notices from the image pages. At the same time, the creation of spoof articles on enwiki using these images is still continuing: see en:Prince Joél I of Leogane. -- The Anome (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Fully protected now and slapped the user. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stratford International station MMB 11 395017.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Thunderflash 10:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Avonmouth railway station MMB 15 143620.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jovianeye 12:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Paddington railway station MMB 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice composition. --King of Hearts 10:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: DrBruno.jpg. This picture was taken by my wife on set. It belongs to me, not CNN. Thank you!

Re: DrBruno.jpg. This picture was taken by my wife on set. It belongs to me, not CNN. Thank you!

That has clearly been photoshopped, and such low res? Further, even if your wife did take it, that does not give YOU the right to release it. I stand by my deletion, if you wish to have it undeleted please file a request at COM:UDEL. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

RE File:Tim Leitch .jpg

Hi Matt, I received the following mail from the subject, releasing this picture:

Hey Pim, I may change my picture in the future but this on is fine for now. Thanks for everything. I hereby release the image file 'Tim Leitch.jpg' under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. I have read and understood the conditions of this license. Kind regards, Tim Leitch/Spit Stix

I cannot mail this in the standard mail form to the permissions mail address; however, I feel hesitant contacting the subject again after several earlier contacts and such a clear release statement. Is there some way we can tackle this in a pragmatic way? Please let me know and kind regards, PimRijkee (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you not just forward it? -mattbuck (Talk) 03:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

ShalomSimhon.jpg

Hi - the photo that you tagged for deletion has a deprecated license (from what I understand from a bot message). However, the original from he.wikipedia releases it for public use by the creator. Can you tell me how to set the proper license? thanks --Sreifa (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to have been sorted. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St Andrews Road railway station MMB 15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Rather stunning indeed. Very nice image. One of your best. I like it very much. -- MJJR 20:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Montpelier railway station MMB 14 143621.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Ximonic 09:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Class 91

ok I'll wait for you to finish. Something went wrong with the tools and it's put some in the GNER cat that shouldn't be - no idea why that happened.Imgaril (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

ok if those trains carrying nxec branding over gner livery are categorised as such, then they neatly fit into GNER livery, and nxec operator parent cats. That was my aim. I think I may have made a mistake - not sure what happened but the tool has been putting stuff in the wrong categories.Imgaril (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this edit right? http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AGNER-91116-panto-01.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=55654407&oldid=15686063 00:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand about NXEC - isn't this a separate nxec livery (see image right)

nxec ?

- you deleted the category though ? eg http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:British_Rail_Class_91s_in_National_Express_East_Coast_livery&action=edit&redlink=1 Imgaril (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, that one is definitely an NX livery, I didn't realise there were any. It should be in Category:British Rail Class 91s in National Express livery, use {{subst:tbyl|91|National Express}} to create the category. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Clifton Down railway station MMB 14 143621 143620.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good--Lmbuga 17:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

If you look at Category:British Rail Class 91s in National Express livery there should be 6 photos - it's clear that the current 6 are from the same reel of film and taken same day, same time. Am I categorising these right - is there a way to say File:91111 at Kings Cross 1.jpg has 5 very similar images - ie bunch them all together? Imgaril (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine. Best way to bunch things together is to use similar names, or (preferably) use a sortkey, so instead of saying Category:X, you say Category:X|Key. For trains, use the unit number as the sort key. Using the {{Ukt}} template does this automatically. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

INSTI.jpg

You have nominated my file for deletion because of a possible Copyvio. I confirm that the file is mine, You've got my hands on the pictures. This is an original InDesign file. I can send you the original InDesign file.

Best regards

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Watford Junction railway station MMB 12 350125.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good and rare : rain in Britain !!--Jebulon 14:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment of the day

Thank you for making me smile with your now one-month-old comment from the noticeboards: I really have better things to do than try and ruin the career of an artist I'd never even heard of three days ago. We do get some odd ones, that's for sure.

BTW - noticed on the way here you're a maths PhD. I'm trying to get my undergrad in it at present. Orderinchaos (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad I made you smile. Good luck with the degree, may I suggest complex analysis is a very good field to study in. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Dbl

Hi, you created {{Dbl}} - which is a triple whammy of unused, uncategorised, and undocumented. Does it serve a purpose? If so, please help ensure the template actually serves it by categorising/documenting. Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Knew there was another. When I create templates I tend to subst them, so they do appear unused. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Think I've sorted them all now. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hampton Loade railway station MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Ikar.us 23:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Avonmouth railway station MMB 14 143620.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Ikar.us 23:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nottingham railway station MMB 28 158792.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Rama 07:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Flickr image review

Dear Mattbuck, on 27 May 2008 you reviewed the original Flickr source for this derivative photo: File:Lexus 2054 Minority Report concept1.jpg, and thank you for that. The original photo from which the derivative image was cropped was also reviewed by another trusted reviewer on the same date: File:Lexus_2054_Minority_Report_concept.jpg. However, the original Flickr page has since been deleted, as the user has switched to showing only rock concert photos. There is also now a claim of 'no source' on the latter photo. Given that the photo was posted (and verified) as licensed for CC-SA-2.0, is that not irrevocable? Or is any Flickr photo whose original posted page gets deleted thus subject to removal for verifiability reasons? Even when 2 trusted reviewers confirmed that the photo was available with said license on that date? I have resent a request to the original Flickr user asking for clarification, and contemplated posting at Commons talk:Flickr files but that hasn't been updated. Thanks for any guidance. Altair78 (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The image is fine, I've removed the nsd tag. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you sir. The message on Flickr hasn't been answered yet, hopefully this 'Iceman75' isn't the original author wanting to retract his formerly given permission (I still have the e-mail giving general permission for wiki use, and it was licensed CC-SA-2.0). Anyhow, the source was noted and logged, and correctly licensed at that time. Thanks again for your help. Altair78 (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you delete my photo? How can I fix it?

Hi Mattbuck,

I uploaded my first photo today. I’m not sure, but it looks to me like you deleted it. I’m sorry if I did something wrong. How can I fix it and get it restored? Here’s the URL

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Hands_Around_the_God-Box_1994.JPG&oldid=56106378

Thanks

KittKatt52240 (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)KittKatt52240

I edited it to remove a street address which I assumed was yours, then deleted it and undeleted again without the old revision that showed the address. That way people can't see it in the page history either. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that KittKatt52240 is storing a bookmark to an old page id. Please correct your bookmark. File:Hands Around the God-Box 1994.JPG is the wikilink and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hands_Around_the_God-Box_1994.JPG is the URL. --Martin H. (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Now I can see the photo and info at the direct URL. Yay! But I still can’t find it on its category pages, “Religion and LGBT,” “LGBT Rights” or “Christianity and homosexuality.”

Thank you, Mattbuck and Martin, for responding quickly and trying to help with this.  --KittKatt52240 (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)KittKatt52240

Railway - unknown device

Hi Mattbuck,

Recently, I uploaded File:Mercedes rail device2.jpg and File:Mercedes rail device.jpg but I have no idea what it is. Can you help here?

If you think it's not relevant or educative, feel free to delte.

Thanks. Sincerely -- RE rillke questions? 13:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It is an Unimog U1650, looks to hold some sort of liquid but can't tell is its fuel, lubricant, chemical or water but unsure what the rear cabinet holds but could be tools. Bidgee (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Bidgee -- RE rillke questions? 15:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Weedkiller, for keeping the ballast area clear. There are fold-down booms, just visible in the vertical position from the head-on image. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Elo Rovas - Living Rovas book 2.jpg

Please DO not delete the file, the image and parts of description in different language are generously provided to Wikimedia commons by the authors under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Please feel free to verify.Rovosaman (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I cannot upload again or edit the actual file: Elo Rovas - Living Rovas book 2.jpg

If you are the copyright holder, please send permission to COM:OTRS. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dawlish MMB 05 South Devon Main Line 220019.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jovianeye 12:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jimmy Walter.jpg‎

I had never thought about using redirects to create a short mass DR. Thanks both for doing it here and for the idea.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The redirects were just so I didn't need to copy/paste the various links to the DRs, you still have to remove the excess from the daily DR listing. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Understood -- I see you did that. From time to time find that I've nominated two or three related images and then it turns into ten or twenty -- this just saves going back to the first two or three and changing the link in the {{Delete}} -- but every little saving helps.

You could even leave them in the log -- it wouldn't hurt, although I agree that it would be a minor nuisance for our colleagues.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Restoration

Hey. I just restored that file because I received a message from a person related with the woman's website (diff @ es.wp). The file is released for the use at Wikipedia at the website (link). The Flickr file confusion was just a mistake that I made while using tineye. Regards :-) Rastrojo _(D•ES) 21:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That image says "photo authorised for wikipedia.org". First off, Commons is not wikipedia.org, and secondly "Wikipedia-only" licences are not considered acceptable for biographies of living people, at least not on en.wp, as they are not free. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Note

If you ever lower yourself to posting obscenities on my talk page again, I will seek revocation of your adminship. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A Judgment call on File:André Ayew 2011.jpg

This problematic image below needs "adult--as in Admin--supervision." I too had flickrpassed the image (if you check the image history) until I took a closer look at the camera metadata below. It says the photographer is the flickr account owner: 'MUSTAPHA-ENNAIMI' but the copyright owner is PHOTO_SOLEIL. What is PHOTO_SOLEIL? Is it a magazine or paper? If it is, does this mean the photographer doesn't own the rights over the photo. If so, can he license it copyright free?

Anyway, please feel free to make a decision. You are in the UK and 8 hours ahead of me in Canada. By the time you read my message, I'll be likely in bed as I'm in the Pacific Time zone 8 hours behind you. If you think this image has too many problems and want to file a speedy or a DR, feel free to file one. I did this to another of the uploader's images but I don't know whether I'm in the right...or wrong. (just using the precautionary principle) I'm not experienced enough to handle the complicated legalities entailed with this photo. I hope you are as an experienced Admin here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Same issue here: File:Mathieu Debuchy & Jérémy Morel.jpg Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've sent the guy a flickrmail, we'll see what happens. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment: OK. Lets see what happens then. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

  Got the following reply:

  BONJOUUR,TOUS LES PHOTOS DU MATCH TROPHÉE DES CHAMPIONS OM/LOSC LE 27 JUILLET 2011 A TANGER COPYRIGHT PHOTO SOLEIL -----MUSTAPHA ENNAIMI GSM

  Translation:

  HELLO ALL THE PICTURES OF THE GAME OF CHAMPIONS TROPHY OM / LOSC July 27, 2011 THE COPYRIGHT IN TANGIER SUN PHOTO ----- MUSTAPHA ENNAIMI GSM

  I think this means copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment: Yes, that's bad news indeed. I'll have to file a DR. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

  Probably better also add to the flickr blacklist. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I received an email from the photographer who says he is the author of the picture and allow wikipedia to use them.

• "JE SUIS L'AUTEUR,JE VOUS AUTORISE A PUBLIER MES PHOTOS SUR WIKIPEDIA,MUSTAPHA ENNAIMI"

@mattbuck : comme tu parles un peu français, comment je peux prouver que j'ai bien reçu ce mail ? Capture d'écran (Screenshot) ? Trafalguar (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Nous aurions besoin de la permission du détenteur du copyright via OTRS. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Merci pour ta réponse, je vais tout faire pour l'obtenir.

Mais je serai un peu déçu si les images étaient supprimées, car ce photographe à l'air d'être honnête, il a déjà une centaine de photos de lui sur Commons. Si il y avait eu des problèmes de Copyvio, elles auraient été supprimées depuis longtemps.

Par contre je ne sais pas ce que c'est "PHOTO_SOLEIL", ça ne doit pas être un site internet car je n'ai rien trouvé sur Google.

Je vais lui renvoyer un mail au photographe, pour obtenir des explications sur cette mention (j'espère que je ne vais pas trop l'embêter).

Je te recontacte quand j'en sais plus. Cordialement. Trafalguar (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Shadwell.jpg

Hi Mattbuck

To answer your question: No, I'm not A. Brady. The photo was originally uploaded to the English wikipedia more than eight years ago when we didn't have any of those elaborate file infoboxes. Almost six years ago I transferred it to Commons, and this meagre information was all I had back then. --Voyager (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Question at QIC

Hi Mattbuck,

can you answer my question here? Thank you. Greetings --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Natuzzi mandus

Why did you delete images by this user and block them after I marked many of them as OTRS confirmed? We got a full license release from Unilever! Now another one for the rest. – Adrignola talk 15:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Did they? Crap. I saw a probable copyvio, no otrs, checked contribs and saw a load of others and so just nuked. Sorry :/ -mattbuck (Talk) 17:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Weeping Frenchman

Thanks for stepping in to resolve the Weeping Frenchman war. You may be interested in Rama's latest antics as well. Kaldari (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not. As I stated at AN/U, I will take no further part in this little war. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Taxiarchos block

Hi Matt, please take a look at the statement that AFBorchert got out of Taxiarchos, whether you find that sufficient, and if yes, eventually consider unblocking or give our colleague AFBorchert a sign to do so. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Gay_flag.svg

How am I supposed to do that when he's banned me from his user talk page? But there is some discussion at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Gay-flag-thumbnails-magnified-hairline-cracks.gif and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems... AnonMoos (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You know, I've laid it out so simply for him so many times (on my talk page, on the AN board), but he refuses to acknowledge it as a solution. Just a simple apology would fix everything. Apologize for calling my work sub-optimal and shoddy, apologize for the way he addresses me, apologize for claiming he can read my mind and knows it better than I do, apologize for accusing me of malicious motives for my own personal pleasure. If only Anonmoos would do that, it would be so simple. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the version of Gay_flag.svg that you're uploading has objective factual problems, and I'm not going to pretend that it doesn't have problems out of mere indiscriminate compliance towards a person like you (who has been causing problems consistently for years by your wrong-headedness and refusal to acknowledge basic simple facts). AnonMoos (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

See Mattbuck? he attitude towards be is absolute unacceptable. That is why I will not allow him on my talk page anymore. He has abused me for too long, and I've had enough, and if I really wanted to, I could easily make a report on him listing his systematic abuse of me for over a year. But then, I'm not that petty. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You are both being petty. And this time, you're on my talk page. So here are my rules: you will discuss the file objectively. You will not insult each other, you will not claim past wrongs, you will not threaten each other. I will not accept excuses of why you can't work with each other, because we all know that is complete bullshit. Talk, sort this out, and do it politely. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Females vs Women

Hi. This difference might not be useful everytime, to be honest. But "females" includes "women", "girls" and "adolescent girls". See for instance Category:Nude females. Regards. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Painted_Girls2.jpg

File:Painted_Girls2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Missvain (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see

AN/U User:AnonMoos. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Borys Malkin picture permission

Hello, it is second time I am trying to upload picture of polish scientist Borys Malkin. I have obtained a written permission from his wife and author of this picture, a few months ago. Where can I send a file with it ? Best regards Marcin Batory

As the message on your talk page tells you, please email permission to COM:OTRS. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Undeletion

Please undelete File:Solar eclipse Lunar eclipse. Great Dark Power (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

If you do not stop to troll around you will be blocked. -- RE rillke questions? 14:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Why? You uploaded it and said you wanted it deleted, so I deleted it. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

User blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Best, --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 20:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Watford Junction railway station MMB 13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments very nice! --Ralf Roletschek 10:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Note

[1] I'll support the close if someone challenges it. Just an fyi. Ping me if that happens. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Good to know. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Euston railway station MMB 40 390004 350107.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI but i think, its better in square without the white walls? --Ralf Roletschek 12:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Euston railway station MMB 40 390004 350107.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI but i think, its better in square without the white walls? --Ralf Roletschek 12:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

I hope you don´t waste your time with commentating all my nominations. It´s not beacuse I don´t like these pictures. I try to make commons better and usefuller. Also i like your commentating, good reasons for keeping some pictures, i must admit. greetings... -- Gegensystem (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I do other things when I get bored. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

Hi

I'm Viggoeh and you have flagged a picture I uploaded for deletion because of permissions. I'm not sure what to say for permissions. I'm updating a page on Cem Köksal and using pictures from his official website, facebook, and myspace pages. Everything I put up is from these sources and the only thing I've done is change a few words in his biography to make it flow better in english. His english is very good, but his wording is a little off. There is a link to his official webpage at the bottom of his Wikipedia page if you want to see the original biography.

What do I say for permissions for his pictures? Cem Köksal has not responded to my email about his Wikipedia page. I have added links to reviewa and to youtube videos as I've been able to find them.

Please advise how I can expand his webpage with information he has published on the internet himself.

Thanks

Phoebe

You are not allowed to upload things to Commons unless you have explicit permission from the copyright holder that it can be published under a free licence. Unless there is either

• An email from the artist's webmaster to OTRS confirming that they are the copyright holder of the images in question, and that they release them under a free licence
• An explicit statement of licence on the webpage

then you may assume you should not upload it here. Further, copying his biography is also a copyright violation - using it as a source is fine, but make sure you rewrite it in a neutral tone and using your own words. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

A rose for you

- Sometimes we need to look at something different every once in a while. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

RFA

Just so you know, I would happily support you in a new RFA. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for the vote of confidence. :) -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Danilo Croce

Danilo Croce is the guy who got into trouble for marketing scat films in the US that were produced by the same guy that produced 2 Girls 1 Cup.Geni (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get that Bayes' Rule Neon Sign?

Matt,

Where did you get that sweet sign? I really want that!

~Mike

It is hanging up in the Cambridge offices of Autonomy, I snapped it when I went there for a job interview. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dawlish MMB 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments To me it's dark and a little noisy--Lmbuga 18:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Fixed. Mattbuck 11:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC) good to me--Lmbuga 06:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Swimming pool in Dordogne

Bonjour Mattbuck,

According to your comment, I've rotated a bit my swimming pool, nominated in QIC page. I've corrected the perspective too.

You were right.

Could you please have another look ?

Anyway, thanks for review !

Salut, --Jebulon (talk) 08:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Watford Junction railway station MMB 18 321415.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good --Ximonic 12:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Euston railway station MMB 05 57306.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 09:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Montpelier railway station MMB 14 143621.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 15:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Euston railway station MMB 42 221117 390043.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 15:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Radcliffe railway station MMB 04 158854.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice mood.--Jebulon 15:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Caldicot railway station MMB 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments The way a train station should be done --Daniel Case 03:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sky

Hello Mattbuck,

Glad you are here, my friend...

Sometimes I feel a bit alone against the dictatorship of blue sky in QIC !--Jebulon (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Erm, what? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No matter...--Jebulon (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Steeple Ashton.jpg

Please un-revert my upload. I've been uploading a better version of my own earlier photo. See the file history for yourself, if you couldn't do so before the revert. --My another account (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not the same photo, the clouds are completely different. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not the same photo, so what? Both are mine, so the licensing issues are irrelevant. Both show same object from same angle, so the "editorialization" issues are irrelevant. Noone touched it for over 4 years, before you decided that I may not improve my images just because. Your own account wasn't even registered back then. --My another account (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It's contemptible that even after admitting a mistake on your part, you couldn't bother to fix it yourself. Saving your energy for guarding your watchlist? --My another account (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally, it is a good idea for an administrator whose work has been challenged to avoid further actions. Instead s/he should allow others to decide what should be done and to implement that decision.[2] Broadening the discussion adds experience, viewpoints and skills. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I would have reverted it, except I saw you did and someone else reverted it back again. I have no wish to get involved in a wheel war, so I just left a comment at the AN/U topic. Now please stop these attempts to insult me. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

File:MMB_trackmap_geo.svg

File:MMB_trackmap_geo.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

My another account (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

File:MMB_Trackmap_digraph.svg

File:MMB_Trackmap_digraph.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

My another account (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Nudity_and_sexuality-related_deletion_requests/deleted

Nudity and sexuality-related deletion requests/deleted has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Yikrazuul (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:AABT.jpg

Hi, I completed your closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:AABT.jpg. The file was still there, but there was a general problem with file deletion at the moment of your closure, most admins were unable to delete files. Jcb (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Yeah, there did seem to be a few issues that day. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

extra delh/delf

I note your adding two sets of {{Delh}}/{{Delf}} at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Construction in July 2011.jpg‎. It's been my habit to remove the sets in the middle of a related set of DRs -- on the grounds that it makes them slightly easier to read and slightly shorter on the page, thus cutting down the scrolling necessary to get through a long DR log. I don't feel strongly about it, though, and am curious why you go the other way? Regards,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought it keeps the DRs nicely separate, rather than looking like someone reopened it 5mins later because they disagreed with the closing argument. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Skrillex

The IP vandals are at it again. Might want to consider extending protection. Cheers, Ohnoitsjamie (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully by the time of the expiring they'll have found alternative forms of entertainment. Ohnoitsjamie (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

File:MMB_Trackmap_digraph.svg

File:MMB_Trackmap_digraph.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

My another account (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The Red Solstice

I am confused as to why my pictures were deleted. I represent The Red Solstice and I have permission to use these images. Can you please clarify the situation.

Sure (oh, and please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~ - that way people know who you are). I deleted them because, to me, they looked like screenshots from a computer game, which it's generally safe to assume are copyrighted and all rights reserved. If you are in fact a developer or otherwise authorised to upload the photos, please email our OTRS team from an email account associated with the game (preferably one visible on its website). However, I would caution that even if the images are ok copyright-wise, I'm not sure they would be within out project scope due to not being realistically useful for educational purposes. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Please delete

Hi, hope your well, please see here thanks. :) --Onewhohelps (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Things will be deleted without me eventually :p

Oh, and barnstar if you find reason to delete an en.wp mainpage/featured picture. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Skjermdump-artikkelmerker.png

Please check you script, it dumps messages that isn't very meaningful. Update: I guess your script didn't found the source page at no.wp in time as the source pages are deleted when the files are uploaded. I only uploaded files I made myself. Jeblad (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

When I tagged as lacking permission, I thought it was some organisation's logo or flag, I guess I missed the "made up from these images" bit. My apologies. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Nah, uploadbot deleted them. Jeblad (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

File:EMT Ernst Marcus Thomas.jpg

Dear Matt

Check this website of photographer Marije Weterings she shot the picture of Ernst Marcus Thomas and has the right to publish this on any website she or Ernst Marcus Thomas wants http://www.marijeweterings.nl/ernst-marcus-thomas-was-shot-in-new-york

Please notify me.

I see. You are correct, Ms Weterings does have the right to publish this, but I'm afraid that

1. She didn't post a licence there, so unless you are Ms Weterings you don't have the right to publish
2. Even if you are Ms Weterings, we would need confirmation of this via OTRS - an email from an address mentioned on that website should do.

I'm sorry this is a lot of jumping through hoops, but we take copyright very seriously here, and just because you have a username which might be associated with someone doesn't mean you are that person - I could sign up as Paul McCartney, but that doesn't mean I have the rights to publish his back catalog. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Matt,

I just sended out a OTRS MAIL Can you tell me when it's going to be released or are we going to receive e-mail about this.

I'm afraid I don't have OTRS access myself, but it will be reviewed within a day or two I expect. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Matt

I can see that the OTRS is okay now but i still see a warning in my media portal. Why's that?

Talk page messages don't get removed once an issue is resolved, in fact it's encouraged that they stay there until you next archive your talk page. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Lloyd Winnecke.jpg

You deleted this photo but it is in the public domain. I was a top campaign advisor to the candidate that this depicts and oversaw its commissioning. It was published for universal use by the public and is NOT a violation of copyright.

Titan Production History & OMS Usage

Matt I dont care, do what you want, Wiki people are sad and pathetic, you prove the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leebrandoncremer (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry you feel that way, however given your contribution history I find it strange that you would suddenly start uploading copyright violations. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Category:Apertural_views

Hi Mattbuck,

Just to clarify: does your closure mean you didn't undelete it as there were currently no images in it, but it can be recreated if it's being populated? --  Docu  at 06:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see anything inherently wrong with the categorisation, though it should probably be "apertural views of insects" and subcatted etc, but I don't see any point undeleting when it's an empty cat. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I stopped populating it when the discussion was started and the deleting admin must remove the some 150 entries it had at that point. To avoid ambiguity, can I copy this discussion to the undeletion request? --  Docu  at 04:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. -mattbuck (Talk) 04:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

your DR decision File:Naked in bed.jpg

Hello Mattbuck, I ask you to take a look at the discussion page [3] in relation to your decision. I doubt that the (probably) kambodian model gave consent to be published in this way with her face recognisable. In this case I would have closed with delete. Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to nominate it again on personality rights grounds, please feel free. I stand by my original closure on the grounds that the reasons given were spurious. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St Pancras railway station MMB 31 406-585 373010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Some noise but a good compostion.--ArildV 08:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Big Bang Lollipop 2 cover.png

Hi, I commented at the talk page (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Big Bang Lollipop 2 cover.png). --Puramyun31 (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the advice. I've posted my problem at this link. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mattbuck , I am sure I've placed my complaint in the right discussion forum. I request you to please help me in getting justice from a person is bent on terming my contributions as "junk" despite proving the utility of uploads, myself as somebody "not understanding the scope of Commons" and "sitting on a high-horse", etc. Regards,Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

British trains

Hi Matt, you suggested I use {{Ukt}} for categorising train images, but it doesn't seem to want to cooperate when I don't know the line that the train is on—not using the parameter results in garbled code, but using it and leaving it blank categorises it as Category:British Rail Class 156s on the, neither of which is very helpful! Any help you can offer? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I hadn't considered that when I wrote it, I assumed people would just look up the location and find it out. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Excess categories

Hi,

The discussion at User talk:Skinsmoke#Overcategorisation may be of interest to you, given your previous involvement with this user (in April), I tried to find some discusison back then, but no such luck. I think there is going to be a need to get rid of hundreds of irrelevant categories, but I'd like to stop them being created first.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh right, the Rail accidents in (tiny village population 15) guy... just use Special:Nuke, it's the only way to deal with it. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Nuking isn't right approach - as there are enough useful categories in there to prevent its application. Disentangling the wheat from the chaff is hard. I'm thinking a bulk CFD is probably way forward.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That second one is circular :) -mattbuck (Talk) 15:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Montpelier railway station MMB 16 143621.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. I would probably have gone for f/8 instead of f/5.6 to get a slightly better DOF, but acceptable. --Slaunger 21:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Um

Just an FYI - [4] If you read the original review, [5], you will see that it was pointed out as a duplicate image. The undeletes were claiming there wasn't a legitimate reason, but saying there is a duplicate (the other image actually shows the "three lesbians") is a legitimate reason. I think you got had by people putting up mass posts without any consideration of what was said. Like Beta M's said there was a clear problem but there was consensus to delete and month passed before it was closed. Hard to argue that. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a duplicate, as the other version was different. And just as there was consensus for deletion, there was consensus for undeletion. Feel free to file a new DR about it. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't care about the image, I just thought the justifications ignored the original reason used to be deleted. After all, it isn't a new DR but a review of if the right consensus was determined from the previous. No one really said "they were wrong for saying it was duplicate", and even a "crop" duplicates an image. I think the title is misleading with the crop, however. "2 1/2 lesbians with a veggie" perhaps. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

File:NETINHO-65.jpg

Hello,

you have requested to delete the file File:NETINHO-65.jpg. I'm new to Wikipedia and I wasn't sure what to write under the licence field. I would like to receive some assistance from you if possible: This image belong to the artists (Netinho) private collection, I requested a picture from him to publish here and he sent me this one. I don't believe it was published anywhere, but if it was it was before 1978, which seems to be the deadline for public domain. I have edited the license field at the image page, but I'm still not sure if I'm using the correct terms, if I filled properly. Could you please help?

thank you very much.

I have copied this to Commons:Deletion requests/File:NETINHO-65.jpg and replied there. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Katia Elizarova Image conversation

Hi There,

You closed the conversation on the undeletion request for an image a little too quick for me to respond to I wanted to let you know here that I have found the link you requested - A copy of the conversation with th eappended link is below. Can you now make the image available once more in Commons?

Thanks for your help.

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

[edit] File:Katia Elizarova opens Swarovski Runway Rocks in London.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Katia_Elizarova_opens_Swarovski_Runway_Rocks_in_London.jpg

Image is shared for public use by the model on her owned Facebook page and has been distributed for rights free promo use in 2009 following the event itself.

--Carpefemme (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the Facebook page where permission for this photo is recorded, so we can verify that. Powers (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 

---

Not done -mattbuck (Talk) 05:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's the link to where the image is on Facebook - Image use is not restricted and available for download also: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.127047367362550.22906.126994697367817&type=3#!/photo.php?fbid=205279846205968&set=a.127047367362550.22906.126994697367817&type=3&theater

--Carpefemme (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I did give it over a week... As for the page you linked, simply being available is not evidence of permission. I can put up a picture on my website without necessarily releasing it under a Commons-compatible licence. No licence is listed at the page you linked, therefore we do not have permission. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

So if there were a note on that image that explicitly said it could be considered License free, or permissible for upload to commons that would satisfy? --Carpefemme (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. An explicit statement of licence would work. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

* Frohe Weihnacht und einen guten Start ins neue Jahr
* Prettige Kerstdagen en een gelukkig nieuw jaar
* Merry Christmas and a happy New Year
from --Neozoon (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Merry Christmas to you too. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Weston-super-Mare MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 20:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look

Those favoring deletion assert these images are not in use. Please take a look at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Geo_Swan

Have you made any contributions to wikiversity or wikibooks? A brochure, or booklet, using these images, would eliminate the argument that they weren't in use. I am unclear how much effort should be put into this booklet or brochure.

WRT to images related to human sexuality and images of trees -- have you seen me paraphrase Ronald Reagan's comments about redwood trees? Reagan said "If you have seen one Redwood you have seen them all." I have joked that those who favour deletion seem to have taken the position "If you have seen one woodie you have seen them all."

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I did make a similar comparison the other day, after Ryulong said something along the lines of "an anus is an anus is an anus". I have never contributed to Wikiversity of Wikibooks, and I'm afraid that my doing so would just seem as "oh they're not really in use, it's just a trick".

I admit, I really would like to see the anal* images deleted, as they are horrific quality, just I haven't had a chance to get better ones myself yet. Thanks for your support. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look.

If I worked on a brochure I would not draw attention to it in a discussion unless it was likely that good faith contributors would recognize it as a genuine effort.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Casey Jones

I have attempted to identify the source for the File:Casey Jones.jpg as the Water Valley museum. The German language article at de:Casey Jones (Lokomotivführer) also has other photos from Jack Gurner's Water Valley Casey Jones Railroad Museum website at http://www.watervalley.net/users/caseyjones/casey.htm — who in turn credits J. E. France as the original photographer. The image appears to be cropped from a larger photo, an example of which may be seen at http://taco.com/roots/images/casey638.gif, which was apparently published in newspapers many years ago as for example here. The photo also appears at find a grave at http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=10214&PIpi=967911. The photo depicts a living American who died on 30 April 1900 and should be in the public domain in both the United States and in its country of origin (which is also the United States), irrespective of the name of the photographer. Nevertheless, the name (J. E. Fance) attributed by Jack Gurner is now on the File:Casey Jones.jpg page. Is that sufficient source information to establish the verifiabilty of the copyright status of that image? 69.115.42.244 12:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh

I just had to call in some favors from some librarian friends to track down (on Christmas Eve) a better copy of a 115 year old magazine to deal with Pieter's DR on one of my uploads. He claimed that it was not an unknown author. It was pointed out there was a signature. I pointed out that the index lists all artists/illustrators/photographers but doesn't list one making it most likely in-house for the magazine. They didn't believe me. I pointed out that many images had two signatures with only one credited. Turns out that once the signature was readable, it was merely the signature of the engraver, Joseph Swain (1820-1909), who did the engraving for the magazine and was not the original photographer of the image. Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Hi Mattbuck ,

Hope that so day somewhere on earth we shall meet in the same friendly manner in which we have interacted online for Wiki Projects. I am very pleased with your friendly and welcoming attitude.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC).

Your use of rollback

Re [6]: Can I remind you that rollback should only be used for clear-cut vandalism only. If you have any problems with the categorisation of my images, or my user template, please discuss it with me on my user talk page first.—An  optimist on the run! 21:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)