User talk:MichaelMaggs/Archive/2008

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Osho International Meditation Resort.jpg

Hi, I wish you had checked with me first on my talk page and given me a couple of days to respond, rather than deleting the picture out of the blue! Will you be able to undo all the delinks and re-insert it in all the articles that use it?

As I said, I received a cc of the mail, on September 11 2007. It was addressed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (this is Ctrl-C Ctrl-V'ed from the mail header). Do you have a private e-mail I can forward this to, or a particular header I should use so the mail will not be lost again? -- Jayen466 10:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, that would have been a better approach - sorry. If you use "Osho International Meditation Resort.jpg" as the header of an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, I'll watch out for it, and restore ASAP assuming the permission is ok. Not sure what can be done about existing uses, I'm afraid, but I'll try to find out. --MichaelMaggs 10:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I have just forwarded the mail again to permissions-commons, and used Attn. MichaelMaggs as the e-mail title. Please let me know if it does not arrive for any reason, or if there is any other problem with the permission. Thanks for your help. -- Jayen466 10:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Email has arrived, thanks. It's now restored. --MichaelMaggs 11:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year/2007/Galleries

Happy New Year to you too. :) Would you please check the sanity of these categorisations? Much obliged --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

They look good to me. I actually thought 'The built environment' was a better title, but don't feel strongly. --MichaelMaggs 08:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Colouring pencils.jpg use

http://tumbl.us/post/22956008 . You may want to email the author and ask him to link to CC-BY-SA... cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I will, thanks.--MichaelMaggs 08:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:IronsideVan.jpg

Did you forget a step here? :-) Mr.Z-man 08:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes - sorry. --MichaelMaggs 08:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Butterfly

Dear Michael, i nominated a new version of my Butterfly on COM:FPC and withdrawn the old nomination. Maybe you want to drop an eye on it again ? :-) Thanks Richard --Richard Bartz 11:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Santa got your letter.jpg

It's very sad to see that a photo by a "respected contributor" is kept apparently just because of their aggresive comments against *the nomination itself*. Good lesson to learn here: shout "censorship!" and keep your photo. Regards. --Dodo 22:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to agree with Dodo's comments. I cannot understand the fact of supposedly being a "respected contributor" to keep a picture (of course that it can be arguable whether a picture goes or not against the scope of the project, but IMHO being by a "respected contributor" does not make it more within the scope). It seems to create a (bad) precedent. --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 00:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It illustrates parody nicely which in my view is within Scope. --MichaelMaggs 06:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BullDurhamMural CollinsvilleIL.jpg

Hello. I don't agree with your deletion of the photo of the old advertisment at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BullDurhamMural CollinsvilleIL.jpg. As you closed as a delete with no comment, I wanted to check with you to see if you wish to add any comment or reasons about this. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 04:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - I think you're right on the basis of its probable age. I've undeleted it. --MichaelMaggs 06:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:QWERTY keyboard.jpg

As you might have noticed, IP-user nominated Image:QWERTY keyboard.jpg for deletion, but did not give a valid reason. I've fixed the request so it can be closed etc. through the deletion requests page. You can find the deletion page here. Kind regards, -- Deadstar (msg) 15:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Not sure what that's about. --MichaelMaggs 15:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

£

Could you also delete Image:One pound sterling banknote macro.jpg ? I'll check, but I think it's the only other £ image I have uploaded. Arria Belli | parlami 21:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Done! No harm done I think.--MichaelMaggs 21:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have informed the two Flickr users with the link you provided. Thank you again for your help (and speed :-D ). Arria Belli | parlami 21:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I didn't know too. Vini175 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons Guide

Hello,

Could you please see this this and consider participating:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photography_Guide_Project_Alpha

--Thermos 16:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

Unfortunately the project page was deleted because of lack of media (I suppose). An undeletion request has been filed and I hope to have the page up on later day. In the meanwhile, sorry for inconvenience. I will notify you on the further developments. --Thermos 03:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Restored to commons: namespace --Tony Wills 23:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Eagle pic

How do you like this: Image:Bald Eagle, Kodiak, Alaska.jpg. A cousin of mine gave it to me to upload. She lives in Kodiak. I really like it. Do you think the fog adds or distracts from it? What's wrong for FP status? — Rlevse • Talk • 03:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the image, especially the atmosphere. You might find, though, that FP voters don't much care for the wires. Why not try it and see? --MichaelMaggs 22:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I think it'll get hit for "fuzzy background", but the foreground is awesome. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's nom'd now. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Flip flap

They was taken @ a kind of breeder. You can see more here. By the way they need a review ;-). Regards --Richard Bartz 23:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured Pictures

Hello.

I am new user to commons and seeing that you are an admin I thought I could direct my question to you.

Going through the FP requirements, I noticed that photos be a minimum of 2mp. However, I noticed quite a few images including those for picture of year nomination being less than 2mp. What is to be done about this?

Regards Reflection of Perfection 14:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Reflection of Perfection, I just noticed this question. First of all, Wellcome to Commons. i hope you will like it here! Maybe I can answer. First of all the 2M resolution is a guideline, and e.g., 1600x1200 is considered close enough although that is slightly below 2M. Other photos may be even smaller if there are special mitigating reasons. This will normally have been raised during the nomination, which you can see in a link to in the image page. Finally, the 2 Mpixel guideline has not always been there. I know it was there in June 2007, when I started my activities here, but it may be possible that the guideline was less strict in early 2007, where some of the Featured Pictures (FP) are from?

Finally, if a user finds a current FP is not FP-wothy anymore (the bar goes up all the time), any Commons user can nominate a current FP for delisting at COM:FPC. However, delisting an FP requires a 2/3 delisting majority, and if it has been promoted recently, an FP is usually not delisted unless completely new aspects comes up such as copyright violations, etc. Hope that helps understanding it. -- Slaunger 14:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Lafayette Studio

Problematic since V&A claims copyright and may indeed have a publication right on most of the images shown at http://lafayette.150m.com/ Liane de Pougy and Sarah Bernhardt are most probably ok since published. Abe Bailey may be ok, doesn't seem to have been cleaned up a lot, but has no publication information. Queen Victoria and Wilhelm II have no publication info. I'd tend to request deletion for the last two. (See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Consuelo Vanderbilt;coronation- 9 augustus 1902.jpg.) What's your take? Lupo 10:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not straightforward. I'll need to look up some stuff. --MichaelMaggs 22:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, easier than I thought. I agree with you, and have deleted one and nom'd some others for deletion. We need a page with better info on Publication Right. --MichaelMaggs 17:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Royal printing prerogative

It appears the King James Bible is subject to the Royal printing prerogative. Does this affect Category:King James Bible? How to treat this prerogative? As a copyright? In that case, the KJB would not be PD in the UK, and we couldn't host these images, could we? Or as a non-copyright restriction particular to the UK, which we traditionally ignore? See also this old discussion, and Quadell's and my comments here. Sorry for throwing another tough question at you. ;-) I just don't know what to make of this prerogative. Lupo 20:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The law on this changed few years ago if I recall rightly. I'll have a look. May take a day or two. --MichaelMaggs 22:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW: In the old discussion, I had written "I think I remember having seen in my googling evidence that the UK has abandoned such perpetual prerogatives." Lupo 07:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This type of perpetual copyright allowed the King James Bible to be printed only by the Royal printer and by the printers of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. It was abolished by the Copyright, Designs and patents Act 1988. Nobody has missed it ;) --MichaelMaggs 21:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Relist

Now that this has been fixed, should I delist and start over or whatCommons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Bald_Eagle,_Kodiak,_Alaska.jpg. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)?

No you just leave it and see what people make of the new version. --MichaelMaggs 13:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

POTY Competition

Hi, I'm writing to let you know that an image of yours that become a Commons Featured Picture during 2007 is now part of the 2007 Picture of the Year competition. If you have > 200 edits you are welcome to vote too. Thanks for contributing your valuable work and good luck. Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Re : Lundy

Hi Michael.
The Lundy island is really small and looking at the digital terrain data available, even the coastal contour precision (31 m) is lower than the current map. I didn't find a map good enough through the Web to use and even Google Earth has a bad definition for this area, sorry. I might be able to add a scale to the existing one if you want. Greetings. Sting 21:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for looking into it. Even a scale would be good,though. --MichaelMaggs 22:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

At long last...

...the horse learned to sing. See Ping?. (That's about the old discussions linked here, in which you participated, and about these questions for the Board.) Will be interesting to see what the response will be. BTW, thanks for looking at Lafayette and the printing prerogatives. Lupo 15:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What a coincidence: I was just about to ask you if that had gone anywhere! It's good to get some guidance, at least, though I'm not sure it will be welcome in some quarters.

I have a follow-up question, though, relating to FOP. The fact that US FOP rules are more restricted than those of some other countries does not, to my mind, necessarily mean that we have to throw away all of the Commons:Freedom of panorama page and delete all photos of public sculptures/works of artistic craftsmanship that would be copyright violations were the photographs to have been taken in the US (which they weren't). If a US court were to be asked to decide by the UK copyright holder (the estate of Henry Moore, died 1986) whether our copy of Image:Henry Moore - Two Piece Reclining Figure 5 - Kenwood.jpg was validly held on the WMF server, would it not at least arguably apply UK law to determine that the image is free in the UK and reject any contention that US citizens should have less rights than those given by the foreign state to make free use of the work? I don't know much about how the US courts typically handle these conflict of laws issues, but I'm sure that Mike will. --MichaelMaggs 18:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh... give me some time to collect and review all the old stuff from the archives about conflict of laws. Off-hand, I don't think so, but I'll have to check. Also, I would be surprised if we got an answer at that level of detail.

About Commons:Problematic sources: that's an excellent idea. Should also cover fan sites such as [1] (from this) or [2] (from that). Lupo 19:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Problematic sources

I've hacked together a quick start. Please help improve it. Lupo 09:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That's marvellous work! I have flagged it on the VP. --MichaelMaggs 17:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So is your Image casebook! Lupo 19:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:a lot was actually about Special:Contributions/Ellengauthier, not about an image named "a lot". Now that it's used as an example, maybe just replace the title by one of the images she uploaded, to avoid this confusion? Lupo 22:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. --MichaelMaggs 22:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

FPC close

No one has closed this: Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/January_2008, I guess it just takes awhile? The crop did OK, it may or may not make it. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Bye

Dear MichaelMaggs,

Just a note to thank you for the attention that you gave me during my stay in Commons, and I know that it probably was not easy to so sometimes!!! I read your opinions and your efforts of mediation, which were, in my opinion, detached from emotions and objective. I have been involved in a discussion with some admins and I can truly not belong here. Regards. --Tomascastelazo 19:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Tomas, I was sad to hear of your decision, and hope you will reconsider. It will be a significant loss to Commons if we no longer have the benefit of your always well-argued critiques on FPC. Your images, too, have opened people's eyes to a new way of looking at how FPCs should be judged, with more of an emphasis on original photographic work and less on technically perfect 'record' photography. I have said on the Admin noticeboard [3] that the blocking admin would have achieved a better result by being mellow, and here I hope that I may ask you to do the same - even in spite of the block. In the overall scheme of things this was really just a small disagreement with a couple of people, and it's not worth your leaving over it. One disagreement doesn't mean the whole community here is against you: far from it. Regards. --MichaelMaggs 17:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year/2007/Finalists

Hi, as you may be aware, an image of yours has made it to the 2007 POTY final. Congratulations and good luck. Don't forget, you are eligible to vote too (if you haven't already done so :)). cheers pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

An answer

from Mike, via Anthère. I hope that puts an end to people questioning these basics, and allows us to make some progress in identifying the media concerned and then in figuring out what to do with them. For new uploads, we now maybe can finally enforce the "PD in U.S. and in source country" rule... Lupo 23:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Good news (of a sort). --MichaelMaggs 07:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's started: Commons talk:Licensing#Now we have to tag all post-1922 content of creators who died after 1925 (not by me). Lupo 10:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Grande Arche de La Défense et fontaine.jpg

File:Grande Arche de La Défense et fontaine.jpg

Hello, you have supported to the promotion of the image Image:Grande Arche de La Défense et fontaine.jpg to the Featured Picture status, and I thank you for that. Currently this image has been proposed to deletion by another user under the pretext that there is no FOP in France.

I believe that the image is not a copyright infringement; the main subject is the water from the fountain, the Grand Arche is unavoidable in the background. In what the lightning of the fountain is concerned, as user Arad mentioned in the original nomination, they are very simple and they do not have a special plan, so they cannot be copyrighted.

If you wish you can express your opinion on this issue on the deletion request page of this image, otherwise the image could disappear soon; the usage check indicates that the image is already used in around 150 pages around internation wikis (usage check), it would be a pity for the community to see a FP image disappear.

Thanks and best regards, --Atoma 17:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have closed as keep. --MichaelMaggs 18:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: {{Kept}}

Hmm. I'm not sure how to solve this. I could check for the existence of {{Kept}}, but in case the image is requested for deletion and kept for a second time, it would not insert the template. The other way is to check whether there are backlinks to the deletion request (like Whatlinkshere). This would fail in case there has been a previous discussion on the image talk page that is pointing to the deletion request. The real solution is of course to parse the wikitext, but that is also really hard, and prone to errors. What is your opinion? -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Carlungie-visitor-informati.jpg

Well thanks for letting me know - I've had images deleted without notice or warning because I didn't complete the tags correctly. I'm surprised that public signs - for public information aren't considered 'fair use', but I'll take your word for it - thanks - TheCreator 08:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You might be able to argue fair use on Wikipedia, but I'm afraid that is not allowed here since fair use always depends on the context in which the image is used. See Commons:Licensing#Material under the fair use clause is not allowed on the Commons. --MichaelMaggs 19:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

a quick thank you

The url for that New York Times web page about the Valley of the Shadow of Death photographs was one of the more interesting things I have read lately. -- carol 05:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Me too. --MichaelMaggs 07:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

QI ?

What should I do with this User_talk:Rlevse#Image:Bridge_over_Hanmer_River.jpg? Please advise. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think somebody has answered this now? --MichaelMaggs 17:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

QIC?

If you would consider "slumming" and nominate your handsome classic salmon fly for QI, I would support it quickly (it would be almost 'slumming' for me to give support to a newer entry). I found that collection of images to be very useful on several occasions and it really is in need of something like this very respected object within its galleries. -- carol 23:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, OK then. --MichaelMaggs 06:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Calkins Science Building revert

A quick thank you for getting that image back up on commons. In the future can you tell others to not be so quick on the delete button. It caused to many issues when folks dont ask if another email has been sent and instead decide that x amount of days to just delete without even asking the poster if he sent something. frankly I dont like yelling on the net but I do when people decide things arbituarly and instead of doing a quick discussion first with the poster. Most of the posters are nice and won't get mad at questions. In anycase thanks for getting this image back up for me. --Mihsfbstadium 23:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW is there a reason the image could not be undeleted before hand when I stated that another email from x was in the bin waiting to be checked over. --Mihsfbstadium 23:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes things do take a while - remember we're all volunteers here and often a polite request can get things done faster than repeated angry postings. It's good to stay mellow. --MichaelMaggs 07:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay I understand the volunteer part but I dont understand is why people cant do the same before deleting OTRS Pending images. It gets people mad when they are trying to work in the system and somebody just goes outside the system and then the article the image is linked to gets degraded by that. Yes I understand I should not have yelled but frankly I was working in the system until somebody just decides they dont want to follow the system. Then I fight for over a month it seemed to get things back together. I just like to make a point that when an image is under OTRS pending or other pending methods to ASK before deleting. Its not like I am asking them to bend over backwards but understand a lot of the images here are part of the encylopedia and as such should not be deleted and have the article look bad. The sad thing is even after I responded to the guy who deleted it he did NOTHING or even say sorry or anything. Thats what makes me mad over anything else. --Mihsfbstadium 19:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

German Army Ranks

Hey are you nuts? sorry kidding. ;) you do read for example this. It says: The German Armed Forces rank insignia are a part oft the service regulations ("Zentrale Dienstvorschrift") ZDv 37/10 Anzugordnung für die Soldaten der Bundeswehr. This service regulation is publicly available. Images from these official service regulations and remakes from other are in the public domain So why you have deleted all the images? --GrummelJS 10:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I did see your comment, but in the four months this has been on public notice of deletion neither you nor anyone else has fixed the missing source and licence information. Four months warning of deletion is quite long enough. If you are able to establish your comment with explicit proof from those regulations that all such insignia have no copyright protection, do please feel free to request undeletion. Regards. --MichaelMaggs 15:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Source is and was: ZDv 37/10 Anzugordnung für die Soldaten der Bundeswehr (Soldiers Manual) and Licence is therefore Template:PD-BW. --GrummelJS 21:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture deletion

Hello Michael, you have deleted the picture "Pimentón de la vera.jpg" which shows two tins of Spanish pepper powder. I do not understand exactly when such an object is under copyright and when not. The respective statements on the upload page are not very clear (at least to me). Furthermore, in Wiki Commons, there are a lot of photos of commercial bottles and other products. Would you be so kind to explain this to me? Thanks in advance, --Ardo Beltz 19:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't able to find that image in the log of deletions I've done. Was it some time ago? To answer your general question, though, product packaging with a printed design on the surface is normally copyright-protected in exactly the same way as the same design would be if printed in a book. So if the main subject of the image is the packaging/tin/bottle or whatever it normally has to be deleted. On some Wikis, Fair Use claims are allowed, but such claims are not allowed on Commons. The photo may be OK if the packaging design is extremely simple or if the design is so old as to be out of copyright (that applies to the basic Coca Cola logo). In other cases, images slip though and will be deleted once somebody spots them. Have a look at Commons:licensing and Commons:Image casebook. Regards, --MichaelMaggs 08:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Michael, the deletion log shows 20:40, 5 February 2008 MichaelMaggs (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Pimentón de la vera.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation: Packaging is copyright-protected). It is true that the tins have some drawings, so I understand that this would be the reason for its copyright. However, if your right, a lot of images should be deleted, isn't it? Wikimedia Commons is full of bottles, packages and tins of all kind of products. --Ardo Beltz 15:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, you don't need to look too far to find similar images which should not be here either. They'll be deleted once somebody spots them. Some are OK, though, if they show old, out-of copyright designs, and other may be OK if the copyright design is incidental to the image, and is not the main subject. --MichaelMaggs 21:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Valued Images Candidates shortcut, COM:VIC

Hi Michael, I know you have followed the work with bringing Valued Images to life. I have now created Commons:Valued images candidates (still needs some polishing) and I have indicated in its page that it is associated with the shortcut COM:VIC. How do I bring that shortcut to life? It is probably quite simple. I just can't figure it out? -- Slaunger 20:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You just create a new page COM:VIC as a redirect, and add the new entry to the list on Commons:COM. (I've done it). --MichaelMaggs 20:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, of course, the COM pages are no different than any other pages, it is just a redirect. Thanks for helping me so fast. -- Slaunger 20:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Chateau de Windsor.JPG

I've asked you other there Stef48 18:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:R2-KT fan.jpg

You have deleted the above image without a while thinking... This picture was published under a free licence by "Official Star Wars Blog". Pay attencion to the word "OFFICIAL", please. If it is an OFFICIAL site it means that Lukas Film know about it and accepted what they do. Follow this: if there is no objection of Lukas Film and they published that photo under a free licence it means that have rigts to do this and Lucas Film acceped this licence indirectly. For example a one of parts of this blog is "The 501st Legion" They have such statement:

"The 501st Legion is a worldwide Star Wars costuming organization comprised of and operated by Star Wars fans. While it is not sponsored by Lucasfilm Ltd., it is Lucasfilm's preferred Imperial costuming group. Star Wars, its characters, costumes, and all associated items are the intellectual property of Lucasfilm. ©2006 Lucasfilm Ltd. & ™ All rights reserved. Used under authorization".

So if they published some photos under CC licence and it is "Used under authorization" it means that Lucas Films know about it, it has no objection and they have rights to do this. Think carefully before next stuped deletation... My time is valuable, too. Regards :) Electron 07:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The web site you mention does indeed say: "©2006 Lucasfilm Ltd. & ™ All rights reserved. Used under authorization." That means, in my view, that Lucasfilm authorizes the website and consents to images to be posted there. It does not mean that Lucasfilm or the photographer has released the images under a free licence for general use elsewhere. There is no reference that I can see to any CC licence. In fact, it is inconceivable that Lucasfilm would allow commercial use of these pictures, which is - as you know - a requirement here. I have deleted the image again; if you consider my reasoning is wrong please follow due process and apply for undeletion on the relevant page. Regards, --MichaelMaggs 07:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is only yours private view. Why you don't beleve somebody that claims he has some rights to do sth. If you have an evidence they don't you can go to the court of law...

>It does not mean that Lucasfilm or the photographer has released the images under a free licence for general use elsewhere. - Yes it DOES men (of course only if we taking about this specific picture and others published under this licence). You suppose only you can understend properly what CC licence mean and nobody else?

>if you consider my reasoning is wrong please follow due process and apply for undeletion on the relevant page. Yes I consider... Could you say some words what I should to do, please?

Regards Electron 07:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To request undeletion you need to go to Commons:Undeletion requests, click on the link, and give the name of the image you want undeleted, along with your reasons. I'll explain my reasoning there, too. Another admin will review and, if he/she agrees with your reasoning, will restore the image. If you need any help, please let me know. --MichaelMaggs 16:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Electron 07:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, Electron also uploaded Image:Stormtroopers in big city.jpg, which is from Flickr, not the Official Star Wars Blog. --BrokenSphere 04:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You may like to vote at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Stormtroopers in big city.jpg. --MichaelMaggs 07:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Bionicle gallery

Since all the content was derivative copyvios, wouldn't it make sense to also delete it? --BrokenSphere 05:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done. --MichaelMaggs 07:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

How to use a license

Hi Michael,

I'm lost in the legal jargon on how to use the GNU and the CC licenses. Maybe you can help. I'm preparing a new edition of a book of mine, where I might need to include a couple of images from Commons. The pictures are small as well as the space available for captions. What kind of text should I have to put in each caption (or elsewhere)? Thanks, -- Alvesgaspar 21:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Until Michael has time to reply: I would ask at Commons talk:Licensing. Also your webpage about your book looks interesting, but all I can see is the index page as I do not have the appropriate plugins (java?) and are unlikely to load them on this machine. Good web design would include a version that works without plugins :-). --Tony Wills 10:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joaquim. If the licence is a version of CC-BY, you just need to attribute the image and mention the licence (something like "Photograph by Fred Jones, Wikimedia Commons, cc-by-sa-3.0"). GFDL licences aren't really suitable for your use, as amongst other things you would need to re-print the whole of the licence, in full, in the book. If the image you want to use is GFDL, you could ask the copyright owner if he/she would be prepared to release it under eg cc-by-sa-3.0 instead. There are more details at Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. If anything's not clear, do please ask. --MichaelMaggs 07:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, Tony and Michael, I'll look for free and CC-BY images -- Alvesgaspar 13:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Cicada molting animated.gif

Are the improvements sufficient? This nomination is about to be decided but is falling short of votes, if you change your oppose to a neutral or support I think it will have enough votes. --Tony Wills 10:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, I would have supported, but it's now been closed. I think the improved version might well succeed if re-nominated, and I've done that (it's a pity the second version was not put up as a separate nom, as in fact it didn't have the full 10 days. See Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Cicada molting animated.gif). --MichaelMaggs 07:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I see there is yet another version uploaded on 28th with delays at the end, certainly worth re-nomination. --Tony Wills 23:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How to add information and/or permission to copy the cover & photo of a book

Dear Michael

I have been asked by Wiki folk to clarify the permission I received to put a scanned picture of the cover of a book on a Wiki page I developed.

Here's the site: Robert Cohen (acting theorist)

And here's the cover scan I placed on that page: Image:COHEN THE THEATRE.jpg

Robert Cohen, of the University of California, Irvine, Dept of Theatre, gave me formal written permission in an email I asked - although I'd rather not put his email address on a public page such as this.

What he wrote me was, and I quote:

"Yes, no caption is needed, but the headshot should be credited. "Photo: Laurencine Lot" She has given full permission for this use."

I'm not certain at this point how to add credit line to the "rationale" section that has been added to the photo.

I'd appreciate your help, when you have a moment.

Hope this suffices.

76.235.58.49 15:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear '49, I can't see any image of that name here on Wikimedia Commons, and I think you really meant to ask on the Wikipedia site (sounds similar, but the two sites are different: Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia, which is where the image and the page are actually held; Wikimedia Commons (this site) is an image repository where users can save images and other media for free use not only on Wikipedia but also on other Wikis as well. The image COHEN THE THEATRE.jpg seems to be held under the Wikipedia "fair use" copyright provisions, and I think that to get the copyright release properly added you need to forward the email you have to an OTRS volunteer at permissions-en@wikimedia.org, who will check it for validity and update the image for you. The release will be given an OTRS reference number, confirming the licence has been checked and is ok. The email address of the copyright owner won't appear on the image at all. I hope that helps a bit. Have a look also at W:Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If you need more detailed guidance on Wikipedia's procedures you might ask at the Wikipedia Village pump. regards, --MichaelMaggs 18:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

FPC misunderstanding

Hi Michael, Concerning this edit, I am not so sure your change reflects a consensus. Saying that all images 3% below 2MPx should be rejected sound like a very hard requirement and not a guideline. -- Slaunger 20:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't intended to change the sense at all - just to clarify an ambiguous sentence. In this edit, a voter apparently thought that 1600 x 1200 could not be objected to on the grounds of size, but in fact the sentence is supposed to mean that anything less than 2Mpx, including 1600 x 1200, may face rejection unless mitigating reasons can be supplied. 1600 x 1200 is often rejected as too small, so this is not a new interpretation. But perhaps's it's best not to use the word 'threshold', as that may imply too rigid a bar. --MichaelMaggs 21:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I actually think is does not make much sense distinguishing between 2MPx and 1600x1200. It is for all practical reasons the same. I noticed your softer rephrasing. Personally, I liked the original phrasing better, but nevermind, it is really not that important to me - but maybe for others... -- Slaunger 21:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I remember the original was 1600x1200, someone rounded this up to 2MP as they thought 1.92MP a bit odd. I think it is crazy to object to 1600x1200 as below 2MP. The whole thing is a sort of standards creep. I suggest rewording it back to "* Resolution' - Photographs of lower resolution than 1600 x 1200 (ie approx 2 million pixels) are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'." and stop quibbling about such trivial differrences. An as I have often said, this is a guideline, the key is "typically rejected", to indicate what is expected, it is not a limit, threshold, cutoff, or criteria. In fact I'm going to be bold and reword it ;-) --Tony Wills 11:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Bold, yes, but I don't think your recollection is quite correct. Early last year the rule was "Photographs of less than 2M pixels (eg 2000x1000) are not accepted unless there are mitigating circumstances" [4]. You changed the rule yourself in May [5] to read "Photographs of less than 2 million pixels (eg less than 1600x1250) are unlikely to be accepted unless there are mitigating circumstances". In July, Klaus with K changed [6] the wording to "Photographs of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (e.g. 1600 x 1200 = 1.92 million) are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'.", with the edit comment "changed 1600x1250 to the much more common but inelegible 1600x1200", making it clear he believes 1600x1200 is too small. My recent edit retained that meaning. So, yes, there has been instruction creep from 2Mpx in April last year to your latest version which proposes 1600x1200 (1.92Mpx). That lowers the standard slightly, but to be honest I don't much care either way. Let's leave it. --MichaelMaggs 17:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Set and preview/review sizes

Have a look at COM:VIC and try to enter one of the review pages for an image set. Wjat do you think about it and the thumbnail vs review sizes? -- Slaunger 22:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I like it. In Commons:Valued images candidates/Thespis, shouldn't a review section appear right at the bottom, so the first reviewer knows where to comment?

Hmm.. maybe. A review field appears when the page is edited, but the review field is in itself currently not shown, when it is empty. Perhaps I should try and alter the {{VISC}} template such that it automatically displays a Review it! edit link to the page itself when the review field is empty? (If I can figure out how to do that.) -- Slaunger 19:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever makes it most obvious for a user reviewing for the first time. --MichaelMaggs 19:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Better now? -- Slaunger 19:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --MichaelMaggs 19:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

FPC statistics

I was thinking of updating this image. Did you have an automated way of producing it, or did you just count up the numbers month by month? If the latter, did you keep a copy of the table of results to save me having to count all those number up again? --MichaelMaggs 18:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I did it by hand but, sorry, didn't keep the excel file. I recall that someone has refreshed these data some time later, who was it? - Alvesgaspar 09:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi! Please can you delete Image:shmenonpie.jpg, I have specified reasons now as well as undertaking the necessary procedures with my utmost validity. Thank you, *
*(Terms and conditions apply) 17:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC).

Done by Para before I got there. --MichaelMaggs 21:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Michael,
after closing Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Lots of heads.jpg, shouldn't the deletion tag be removed from Image:Lots of heads.jpg ? I didn't want to do this by myself as I'm no admin. Thanks. --Túrelio 11:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. --MichaelMaggs 13:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A mutual friend!

Care to check User talk:LightningStrike, User talk:LightningMan and User talk:TripleDX. As you (& I) mostly dealt with User:Dman Xdecy I thought it worth running past you. All now blocked & the IP for a while but do let me know if there are any issues. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ! --MichaelMaggs 09:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Dear MichaelMaggs/Archive,
Thank you for supporting my Request for Adminship. I’m honored by your trust and will do my best to help build a better site. Durova 21:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Start small, close obvious deletion discussions. Get bolder with experience. Pretty soon Commons will have ten thousand images! (giggles, flees) ;)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Cicada molting animated-2.gif, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Cicada molting animated-2.gif has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Mywood 12:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Ammonite lamp post at dusk, Lyme Regis.JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Ammonite lamp post at dusk, Lyme Regis.JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Mywood 13:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Craigievar Castle in Autumn.jpg

Your image Craigievar Castle in Autumn.jpg appears here http://www.flickr.com/photos/london_heiress86/477194854/ as the work of Louise Marcus Hamilton © All rights reserved. To complain about this copyright infringement please see http://docs.yahoo.com/info/copyright/copyright.html

I will follow it up. Thanks for letting me know. --MichaelMaggs 21:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Another Featured Picture

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Sausage making-H-5-edited2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Sausage making-H-5-edited2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

You can have this one also -- I nominated it. -- carol 12:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, thanks, but I didn't have anything to do with this one. I didn't even vote on it. --MichaelMaggs 18:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a banana sticker for people who nominate images. It is kind of sad because it could have been a mark that said 'a good photographer' is here or 'a good image editor' is here -- instead it says 'a good nominator' is here. You got the banana sticker for nominating an image that I did a good deal of work on, and congratulations for that! I nominated this one and did not get the banana sticker for the nomination; but this banana sticker has lost its value or worth to me -- so it is not a big deal. In my mind, it is better that all the banana stickers that say 'good person for nominating winning images' be where a good person for nominating images is. It was mine because I nominated the image, even though no one gave it to me; I give it to you because well, I cannot guarantee that I could nominate another winning image. I can fix jumpy animations, I can color correct images, I can clean photographs that were taken by dead or living people. When there is a mark that claims this, I am certain it should be given to me. Until then, you get all of the 'I can nominate images' marks. -- carol 18:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:To pot the red.jpg , that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:To pot the red.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Weeki Wachee spring 10079u.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Weeki Wachee spring 10079u.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

-- Alvesgaspar 17:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong name

Hi Michael. Could you fix this for me, or do I file it as a {{badname}}? cheers. Lycaon 10:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have instructed the Delinker bot to change the name across all projects [7]. --MichaelMaggs 12:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-). Lycaon 13:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Delinker appears to be broken. I have asked Bryan about it [8]. --MichaelMaggs 17:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Help needed against vandalism

We need the help of an admin to take care of Maxima 2390. Please check his attempts to vandalize COM:FPC -- Alvesgaspar 15:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Happened to spot this (:)). I think this account was created solely for disruption (partly based on Checkuser evidence). I have indefinitely blocked the user. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm always amazed with your efficency, thanks ! -- Alvesgaspar 16:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Herby seems to be here 24 hours a day. This afternoon I had to do some real work , and he beat me to it (again). --MichaelMaggs 16:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Mooring bollard at sunset, Lyme Regis.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Mooring bollard at sunset, Lyme Regis.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

-- Alvesgaspar 16:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Delinker

Well, since the images were already deleted, I could not check whether it was actually working. I'll look at it when I see it, and if necessary remove the message :) -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Spongebob_im_moviepark.png

Why have you deleted this picture? This was discussed in a deletion request before and it was concluded that because of german freedom of panorama rights this image is legal. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Spongebob im moviepark.png -- Kju (de) 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice this was in Germany. It's OK under German FOP, but would not be OK if this were in the US. I have undeleted it. --MichaelMaggs 16:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of a picture of yours at Science Daily

Hi. Did you see this? —JerryFriedman 21:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Many thanks for letting me know. --MichaelMaggs 21:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A pleasure. —JerryFriedman 04:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Shinobi.jpg

Hi Mike!

Here, you said "No fair use claim has been made" for this image. I didn't know videogames screenshots or derivatives were allowed on commons (--> [9] or [10]). Can you confirm me if videogames screenshots derivatives are allowed ? Thank you ! - PV250X 07:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I removed the tag as it was incorrectly suggesting that the user had claimed fair use. In fact, the user had claimed it was own work, and without any link to an original I had no way of disputing that. However, now you have provided links to what appears to be the original copyright version, I agree it does look like a copyvio and I have speedily deleted it. Video gameshot derivatives are not allowed. Btw, the best way to get an obvious copyvio quickly deleted is to use {{copyvio|state reasons here}} and to include a link to the original. --MichaelMaggs 18:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I was thinking it was obvious that it was a videogames screenshot so I didn't search for the original version. Next time, I will know for the copyvio template. Thank you ! - PV250X 19:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Bionicle

If I'm not mistaken you deleted batch of older images. New ones were uploaded. I think will be good idea to add notice in category, that all images are derivative works. Please take a look. --EugeneZelenko 15:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done --MichaelMaggs 18:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix

I was about to fix the spelling on my Meet Our Photographers' profile when I noticed you did it for me. Thanks a lot ! Thanks for your word on the talk page too :) Benh 12:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thailand pictures

Mike: Could you do me a favor and tell me if you think any of these are QI or even FP possibilites? See [11] They're all my pics from a recent trip to Thailand. I'm loading some of the better/more interesting ones to commons. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I've reviewed the whole slideshow on Flikr, and my favourites are DSC03144, DSC03152, DSC03160e, DSC03178zyf and DSC03216. Those are all nice, well-focused and interesting images, and ought to be good as the basis for several QI's. Before posting there, though, I'd take the opportunity to straighten them up and do some judicious cropping to exclude any peripheral stuff around the edges that doesn't contribute to the overall composition. Best of luck, and regards. --MichaelMaggs 18:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try that, but I haven't done cropping before, so I may need help from somewhere. I appreciate your kind help. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's my first crop Image:Taksin_Memorial_Spirit_House2.jpg, it has a link to the full version. Is the cropped version big enough? QI/FP says it has to be 2K pixels and depending on how that's calculated, this one may be too small. Here is the other one I cropped Image:Wat Doi Suthep Jade Buddha2.jpg. What do you think? (also links to full version). I have not cropped the others, what do you think?...Image:Rhesus Macaque eating peanut.jpg, Image:TECCdragginglogs.jpg, Image:Tak Night Bazaar at dusk.jpg. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and nom'd them. See candidates list. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I think the first one, especially, needs to be straightened up. You should be able to do that with pretty well any cheap photo editing program. --MichaelMaggs 08:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

At least I'm learning about pics more ;-). I guess you're talking about the spirit house one. I fixed the tilt and resubmitted it. It also got hit for artifacts but I don't know if that is fixable. The monkey got hit because I cut off his lower part and lighting--can't fix the lighting. No input on the other three yet. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bambiraptor_model.JPG

Note: Commons talk:Deletion requests/Image:Bambiraptor model.JPG Rklawton 03:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the image was correctly deleted as it had no permission information, and without that it was speedily deletable as a copyvio. I'm glad to hear that you did have consent by email though. If you could forward that to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org I or someone else will happily restore the picture. --MichaelMaggs 17:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's customary to post a note and contact the uploader. However, I'm just as happy to have the image deleted. Perhaps you should review my other uploads for possible violations. Delete anything you don't like. Rklawton 20:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean...

...to get in your way with {{Delh}}ing those deletion requests, just saw some loose ends and thought I should tie them up. Regards, Finn Rindahl 17:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. You just got to it quicker than I did. --MichaelMaggs 17:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think ...

about this ? --Richard Bartz 19:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me it more or less replicates Commons:Meet our photographers except that it rewards images that are too small for acceptance as FPs on Commons. I believe the size guideline is a particular bugbear for Fir0001. --MichaelMaggs 20:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Filename-prefix-blacklist

Would you verify this, and perhaps take a look at my attempts to block bad image names via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. As far as I can see the regex is valid, but it didn't stop me from uploading test images... – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 23:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know very much about MediaWiki, sorry. --MichaelMaggs 06:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Down in flames

All five got shot down. I really don't think the Tak Bazaar one was tilted and off focus. I figured at least one of the five Thailand pics would make QI. Ugh. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep trying! Why not post a few to Commons:Photography critiques to get some feedback? --MichaelMaggs 21:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Followup question re. 2008 Olympics mascot costumes

I threw this in at the end, don't think you noticed it: I also got pics of the bags containing the costumes - you can't the see costumes themselves. Those should be good to go, I'd think? BrokenSphere 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends what's printed on the bags. If they are just bags, that's OK. If they have copyright logos on them, that would be a problem. --MichaelMaggs 21:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

They're nondescript. If I didn't see with my own eyes what was in there they could very well contain anything. BrokenSphere 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine then. Regards, --MichaelMaggs 22:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Permission to use photograph: QWERTY keyboard.jpg

Hi I work in an educational publishers and we would like to reproduce your image of the QWERTY keyboard in a schoolbook we are publishing (for teaching Information Communication Technology). Would you be happy with this and if so what attribution would you like us to use? Thanks Rebecca217.169.40.194 13:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's perfectly OK. Please use some wording such as "Photo by Michael Maggs, Wikimedia Commons". Regards, --MichaelMaggs 17:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Your VIC restructuring

I'm watching, and I like what I see very much. Your help with this is most appreciated and COM:VIC was just dying for a restructuring. The WP:FPC folks were complaining that the guidelines was overwhelming and a turn-off. I think it will be much, much easier to grasp now. Thanks! -- Slaunger 20:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a slow process, but what I'm trying to do (without changing the rules too much ..) is to split things down into smaller chunks so that each chunk can be linked to separately, a la Wikipedia. --MichaelMaggs 20:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Stopping for today as my computer keeps crashing. I'm afraid I've left things in not too good a state for the moment, but will try to clear up tomorrow. Do you think it would be useful to have a toolbox template like the Wikipedia FPCQuickLinks template that could go on several of the pages and allow quicklinks to the main subjects? --MichaelMaggs 22:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You've come far today. One small thing I noticed. I guess all the new VI subpages shall have <noinclude>[[Category:Valued images]]</noinclude> added such that when seen alone it is categorized but not when transcluded? I do not have an overview over exactly how many subpages you have created. -- Slaunger 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Checking against my contributions list, it seems I've created these:

• Commons:Valued image scope
• Commons:Valued image value
• Commons:Valued image criteria
• Commons:Valued images candidates/Nomination procedure‎
• Commons:Valued images candidates/Review procedure‎
• Commons:Valued images candidates/Most valued review
• Template:VIlinks

--MichaelMaggs 21:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Still to do:

• Pull out and copy edit voting rules
• Work out where MVR should best go
• Add text on scope changes
• Add Template:VIlinks to more subpages (need help in positioning that)
• Add more to 'jump to' template at the top of candidates page
• Match colours of table on candidates page better to those of official logo.
• Review text in {{VIC}}
• Review text in {{VISC}}
• Review text in {{VIC-add-nomination}}
• Review text in {{VISC-add-nomination}}
• Review text in {{VIC-thumb}}
• Review text in {{VISC-thumb}} - are there any other templates which include instructions/text?

--MichaelMaggs 22:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Can't remember right now. A good entrance point is Category:Valued image templates

• • And...
  • Create {{VI}} and {{VIS}} (did you see my sandbox version User:Slaunger/Sandbox/VI)
  • Create {{VI-former}}
  • Decide what to do with the test nominations (I think resetting the nominations will be a turn-off)
  • Define and describe a process for closing VICs/VISCs
  • Discuss notification mechanisms to relevant stakeholders (nominator, creator, uploader)
  • Lobby at WP:FPC concerning WP:VP
  • Do all the other things we have forgotten right now...
  • Have a grand VI party...

Good night, -- Slaunger 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Valued images evaluation

Dear MichaelMaggs,

This is a standard message to the 18 different users who so far have been involved in testing Valued images candidates as either a nominator, reviewer or project editor. We are interested in hearing what you think about the project and what your positive and negative experiences have been. We would be grateful if you would voice your opinion here. Thank you,

-- Slaunger 19:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi Michael, I noticed this review of your. I would like to suggest that in the beginning we are a little bit forgiving about such issues. Not that I do not agree on the scope change, but instead of opposing it right away it might be more contructive to start out adding it as a comment and a request to be considered by the nominator. Especially because this nomination was added while the scope was still very vaguely defined. -- Slaunger 19:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I agree. --MichaelMaggs 20:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but, oops, you also managed to revert a change by Alves, where he actually did as you suggested... -- Slaunger 21:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, sorry. Too tired. --MichaelMaggs 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Go to bed, you real life condition is more important than Commons ;-) -- Slaunger 21:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

status help message

Hi Michael, I have tried to implement the help message when status is wrong functionality in the templates. Did it work for you? -- Slaunger 09:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Yes it did work, and without the new message I'd never have even seen that typo. --MichaelMaggs 20:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Good, glad to hear that it worked for you. It has been somewhat a struggle to make it work, wikitables in ParserFunctions is a syntactic nightmare ;-( -- Slaunger 20:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you, Michael, for turning Valued images into something much better than a one-man show. Your work on VI is really appreciated. -- Slaunger 20:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks a lot! It's you, not me, that deserves it, though. --MichaelMaggs 20:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no, I've already received two Barnstars on that account. I thought it was time to hand one out and without your help bringing back synergy in the project, I think I would have given up on it. -- Slaunger 20:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Hi. Could you have another look at Commons:Valued images candidates/Britomart Outside Facade.jpg? I gave some comments and did some tweaks. Ingolfson 11:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Done --MichaelMaggs 21:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vasa model.jpg is OK?

Hi. If Image:Model rescued Vasa ship.jpg was deleted because No FOP since not outdoors as required by Swedish law, Image:Vasa model.jpg is OK? --Jacopo Werther 18:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that will have to go as well, and I've nominated it for deletion. --MichaelMaggs 21:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Livros

Why did you deleted livros.jpg?

Your message is dated 27!

Acscosta 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I think you're referrring to Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Livros.JPG. That image was deleted as it shows a copyright book cover: please see Commons:Image casebook#Book covers. Sorry, but we can host only free (not copyright) material, and book covers almost always attract copyright protection. --MichaelMaggs 21:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Cello study.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Cello study.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Very nice picture, Michael! -- Alvesgaspar 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Permission to use Image: Lichen-covered tree, Tresco.jpg and link

The Maryland Virtual Learning Opportunities (MVLO) program of the Maryland State Department of Education is currently working on the development of an online course for 10th Grade Biology to support students in Maryland with passing our High School Assessment examination.

We are seeking permission to copy and incorporate the Lichen-covered tree image and link into the course. The specific request is for the use of: Image: Lichen-covered tree, Tresco.jpg with link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lichen-covered_tree%2C_Tresco.jpg.

The site where the course resides is password protected, is not for profit and student credit will be given for successful completion of the course.

Our preference would be for perpetual permission; second choice would be for five years.

Please let us know as soon as possible how we can obtain permission and the cost to use this material in our online Biology course.

Thank you.

Contact: Joan J. Arnold, jarnold@msde.state.md.us or 410-767-0449 phone; 410-333-2379 fax.

• Yes, that's perfectly OK, you can use it for as long as you wish, and there's no fee. Please attribute as follows: "Photo by Michael Maggs, Wikimedia Commons". By the way, could you please link to the original, which is at the slightly different location of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Lichen-covered_tree%2C_Tresco.jpg ? Regards, --MichaelMaggs 17:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

QI round

Hi. If you'd be so kind, could you check these for QI potential: [12]. A few of them are really good. It's a Boy Scout group on a canoe trip. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have a go at QI with P4190123. Probably the best place for you to get detailed feedback is at Commons:Photography critiques, though. --MichaelMaggs 20:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. On the critque page, I didn't know such a page existed, so I've added it to my useful links. I also highly respect your opinion too. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've submitted that and a few others. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

They all got shot down. I guess I really suck at this. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If you get a few moments...

...your considered opinion would be very much valued here. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, complicated. I'm afraid though that I'm just off for a long weekend (public holiday in the UK). --MichaelMaggs 06:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright on books

Hi, Michael Would you mind to take a look at this issue? For me a closed book is just an object, I fail to see why photographing one might be considered as a copy-vio. Thanks, Alvesgaspar 09:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Sorry Joaquim, but that image is definitely not allowed! The publisher will certainly own the copyright in the layout of the book covers and the copyright in the cover illustrations. Although they would no doubt not mind if you took a photo for your own private use, all images on Commons have to be available to be re-used, even for commercial use, and that the copyright owner is most unlikely to allow. Without formal written permission from the copyright owner, it is indeed a copyright violation to take the image and to upload it. Sometimes it's ok to show a copyright work within a photo, provided the copyright work is de minimis (ie a small, insignificant part of the photo), but that is not the case here. See also Commons:Image casebook#Book covers. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 16:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• You are certainly right and I'm going to propose the image for deletion. But I still fail to see the difference (in legal terms) between a photo of two books and a photo of some lenses. The objects are all mine and the photos were taken by me. If I understand well the spirit of the law (I'm referring to the European law), the main objective is to protect the rights of authors (the intelectual property) and editors. In this particular example the only right which could be offended is the one concerning the images of the cover. However, the images of the covers are not the central subject of the photograph. The whole books are. -- Alvesgaspar 20:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

To take your last point first, if the books were just shown alone (ie with no cover images visible) there would be no problem, but the cover images are far too prominent a part of the overall photo to be allowed even though the subject is intended to be the books. Lenses are different since there is typically no copyright in a 3D lens design. 3D functional articles are normally not copyright-protected. I know it may not make much logical sense, but copyright law isn't very logical. Shall I speedy-delete the image?--MichaelMaggs 21:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Yes, please -- Alvesgaspar 22:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done --MichaelMaggs 06:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of place de arts mural

Then why have this? Please reply on talk page thanks. Chensiyuan 03:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're referring to Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Placedeartsmural.JPG. The picture was deleted since it bore no indication of the country in which it was taken, and without that we cannot tell whether Freedom of Panorama applies. I presume from your response that it was taken in Canada, in which case I am afraid the deletion was correct as the image appears to be of a painting on glass. Under Canadian law, "works of artistic craftsmanship" are OK to photograph in a public place, but this seems not to be a "work of artistic craftsmanship" but rather a painting (as opposed to a stained glass window). "Work of artistic craftsmanship" is a technical copyright term that excludes paintings. Please see Commons:Freedom of panorama#United Kingdom which gives more details of what may be covered. --MichaelMaggs 06:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? The purported differentiation drawn between artistic work and artistic craftsmanship does not comport with the actual words of the statute: see section 4. Chensiyuan 14:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You've misquoted me. A "work of artistic craftsmanship" is a subset of "artistic work". A painting is an artistic work but is not a work of artistic craftsmanship. The concept we loosly refer to here on Commons as "Freedom of Panorama" (not the actual words used in the statute) applies in the UK and I believe in Canada as well to buildings and to works of artistic craftsmanship permanently installed in a public place (but not to paintings, since they are a type of artistic work which falls under neither of those headings). --MichaelMaggs 16:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What I'm really saying is, even though UK may differentiate between work and craftsmanship (ie latter is the subset), I do not see this distinction upheld in Canada. The law is similar, but not the same, especially when the UK distinction is founded on common law. I would suppose the smoking gun lies in a Canadian law that defines "craftsmanship" -- the statute certainly doesn't do that. I'm not trying to sell anything, save that insofar as Canada is concerned, we can only say authoritatively that: (a) photographs of works of craftsmanship are allowed; (b) if those works are permanently situated in a public place (excluding the concomitant inter alias for now). But we may not be able to go further than that. Chensiyuan 23:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but according to Section 32.2 (1)(b) of the Canadian Copyright Act 1985 it is not an infringement of copyright for any person to reproduce, in a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or cinematographic work … "(i) an architectural work (defined as “a building or structure or any model of a building or structure”); or (ii) a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship, that is permanently situated in a public place or building”.

A painting on glass falls into none of those allowable categories. The concept of “work of artistic craftsmanship” is more-or-less common to those Commonwealth countries whose law was originally based on the UK model, and which continue to apply the same common-law principles. I see no reason to suppose that a Canadian court would not follow the same principles as the courts of the UK, New Zealand, Zimbabwe and Australia, already mentioned in the UK part of the FOP page. -MichaelMaggs 16:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

FP template

Hi Michael,

I think you might want to take a look at this discussion Alvesgaspar 22:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

Any feedback here: Commons:Photography_critiques#Coriander_blossoms would be appreciated. Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Magic Johnson

I see you deleted Magic Johnson.jpg. If I have the proper permission release for the image, doesn't it not that it is all right reserved? I really think that image was deleted improperly. Noble Story 01:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You just specified 'permission=yes', which isn't enough, I'm afraid. The Flikr user lists the image as "© all rights reserved", see [13]. In order for Commons to host this you would need formal permission in writing from the copyright owner (usually the photographer). --MichaelMaggs 06:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I did have the permission. However, am I supposed to put it out in writing in the image page? Usually the permission is confirmed by an OTRS ticket (like so). But in this case, it wasn't confirmed immediately. So, I think that the image was deleted improperly. Noble Story 01:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please ask the copyright owner to send the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, and if it's ok someone will undelete the image for you. --MichaelMaggs 06:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and re-uploaded the picture and forwarded the permission to OTRS (again) and pointed them to the image page. Noble Story 09:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Images by User:GM Hornsby

Hi Michael Maggs, I am GM Hornsby who owns the copyrights of the images I uploaded. I took the photos and they are in support of the Nikki Hornsby bio. I hope you will release the inquire or question and allow them to be here to support the true information of my life long career as I too am Nikki Hornsby one in the same and want to make sure ALL the TRUTH about my BIO is visual as well in support. Thank you Michael for being on top of things in regards to protecting my personal image but I release these to public domain as found as well on myspace.com/nikkihornsby under photos. Hope you can help release the other questions regarding as well. They ARE MY OWN CREATIONS and hold all rights to them to be allowed to relesae to public ... hope I did this right:)

Oh MichaelMaggs, Why did you make the statement ...did I do something wrong in the upload or making them public? Please look at ALL the images I uploaded because they are ALL my own. I hold all the rights and hope there is not more question as to them. If so please ask because I wish to understand why there is a question at all. I also purchased all the rights to all my images for the last 30 years of my work. Hope this is ok with Wikimedia so that they may be uploaded in support of the biography. God bless and thank you again for the checkin them out since there is no copyright infrigement as I am the owner giving this webpage rights to share:) Thank you!

• I have replied on your talk page. --MichaelMaggs 05:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: DRBot is still duplicating kept templates on the image page

It should *finally* be fixed on the next run... I kept making mistake after mistake on that particular part of the code. Please let me know if it still does double posts. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs 19:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hi there. Why was Gauloises cigarettes.jpg image deleted? Ijon Tichy 12:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It was deleted as part of larger deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Champán Para Niños.jpg because it appears to be a copyright violation of the artistic image on the packaging. See Commons:Image casebook. Regards --MichaelMaggs 12:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the section on product packaging makes it clear. Still, I find the rule a bit exaggerated as it was the cigarette box as a whole - not the design itself - that was meant to be shown. In other words - don't like it, but must accept it. ;) -- Ijon Tichy 15:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the design was more than incidental. It would be OK to block that out, and just upload an image of the box, but I suspect that you might not bother as the resultant image would not be as useful. That in itself suggests the design is of importance. --MichaelMaggs 15:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete

Hi, would you please do me a favor. Please delete all the images from Category:Istori'a pentru inceputulu romaniloru in Daci'a, all expect number 003. I am the uploader, but there's just too many of them (I think around 400), so I'll upload them as *.pdf. diego_pmc 07:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The best thing would be for you to open a deletion request following the instructions you will find at Commons:Deletion requests. There are other admins who might be able to do this with a bot; all I could do is to delete them all one by one which would take ages! By the way, I'm not sure that theses are within Commons scope anyway: generally copies of texts should be posted to Wikisource. --MichaelMaggs 08:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

VI sprint

Hi Michael, Recently the VI project has lost momentum. Much of it due to me being detoured by the great template fight and just generelly being busy in real life. Now is the time to do as sprint to make the project go live. I suggest that we go for going live by June 1 at 0:00 UTC. This is in two weeks time between Saturday and Sunday, which is convenient because it is a non-working day and at the beginning of a month. We have to do a few things to get there. First of all I think we should close off for new test nominations npw, and close the ones we have now, such that the nomination page can be cleared May 25 0:00 UTC. That is exactly seven days before the grand opening. We have to get an overview of which actions are still needed. I propose we compile a new list on the VI talk page, put priorities on the actions and delegate the assignments. What do you think. On WP a VP proposal has been published, and there it has been suggested that there project should launch June 1. It would be rather embarassing if we were slower. What do you think? -- Slaunger 18:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Let's go for it. --MichaelMaggs 18:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. glad you are with me on this! -- Slaunger 19:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Golden gate pillar VIC geocoded

Hi Michael, you opposed this VIC due to lack of geocoding. The geocoding has now been added in case you have not noticed that. Could you reconsider your vote please? -- Slaunger 21:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Slaunger 10:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Tautology?

Hi Michael, Although I agree with the intention in this, I was wondering if the formulation could be made a tad more concise? It seems to be a tautology. I do not have a better suggestion though. Not teribly important really, just a thought I had... -- Slaunger 10:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right. I did notice, but thought yesterday that making the same point in several ways might help those who don't bother to read rules closely. On the other hand, anyone who can't be bothered to read the rules won't see it anyway. I have fixed it. --MichaelMaggs 16:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look

Hi, Michael, I cropped the image as you suggested here. May I please ask you to take a look and tell me, if it is what you had in mind. Thank you.--Mbz1 14:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Done --MichaelMaggs 16:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  Thank you!--Mbz1 16:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Valued image project

I'll gladly do what I can. Adam Cuerden 02:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

VI tasks

Hello Michael,

I do not know whether I can help you with the open tasks - I am quite busy at the moment (work), and have spent way too much time (compared with real life demands) working on saving some articles on Wikipedia recently.

However, once I am back from the holiday starting next week, I will be happy to do some reviewing after/around 5th of June. Is there something like a step-by-step reviewers guide (I saw the list of what to do on the pages, but maybe that should be separate?) Ingolfson 05:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks. You can find how to review at Commons:Valued images candidates/Review procedure. --MichaelMaggs 05:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Archiving deletion requests

Probably a deletion request above it did not contain a {{Delf}} ? In any case the bot needs an {{Delh}} and {{Delf}} for it to start archiving. I will put a flow chart on DRBot's user page to clarify a bit how it works :) -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --MichaelMaggs 10:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

VI organization and closure

Hi Michael, Have you seen my proposals thought on this on COM:VIC? What do you think? -- Slaunger 12:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Done --MichaelMaggs 16:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

deprecated function in your monobook.js

Dear user, I noticed that you use the includePage function in your monobook.js page.

This function is now obsolete, as the importScript function was introduced with rev:35064 to the MediaWiki Javascript core library wikibits.js. It also keeps track of already imported files.

To allow us to remove includePage from Mediawiki:Common.js I'd kindly ask you to replace its use with importScript (same syntax!). Thanks! --Dschwen 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Done --MichaelMaggs 17:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Fabelfroh 2008

Hi, I was going through this before you got to the rest (thanks!). When going through, I noticed a small number of the images had been initially uploaded in 2006, and as far as I'm aware, the final close didn't include these images in its scope.

Just FYI, giggy _(:O) 08:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank for doing the deletions I was thinking Giggy could do automate, otherwise I would have done them myself. Gnangarra 10:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Shame we had to lose so many good images. --MichaelMaggs 15:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Consistent look-and-feel of VI pages

Hi Michael, You have done some nice work on COM:VIC regarding framing, background colors etc. I was wondering if we (you, really ;-) ) should do this consistently on all VI pages, like COM:VI. That would be a nice consistent project page identifier. I was only wondering if it was worth putting the VI background and border colors in a template such that the colur scheme can be handled centrally? I always forget the RGB and has to copy paste it from somewhere. Cheers, -- Slaunger 06:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Giggy's RfB

G'day

I just wanted to say a huge thanks for your support in my RfB. It just closed, and I'm now a bureaucrat. If you ever want to discuss any of my actions, as a 'crat, admin, or plain old user, please don't hesitate to leave a note on my talk page.

Cheers, giggy _(:O) 10:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of my photos

Thanks. The discussion about the license was still ongoing but I think I have the answer now. Please delete all photos listed here too!. Fabelfroh 16:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless I've missed something, all of those images are properly licensed under GNFL Version 1.2, and as I am sure you know, that licence cannot be withdrawn. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 17:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, his other ones were properly licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0, but we went with his apparent intent, which is pretty obvious in this case too. Rocket000 02:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. Aren't the earlier ones consistent with being OK on upload, but with an attempt now being made on a variety of grounds to withdraw the licence? --MichaelMaggs 08:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, he never withdraw the free license from the newer ones either, even after being informed commercial use is allowed under cc-by-sa. If you look at the history here, it's clear he never wanted to or couldn't allow commercial use. The DR was decided (correctly, I believe) that we need to that the intent into account, so I'm having a hard time understanding why we're going by some other condition. Anyway, it's also clear the community is ok with keeping the rest so I have no problem either then, but I still would like to understand this situation better. Let's finish up on Commons talk:Deletion requests/Images of Fabelfroh 2008. Cheers, Rocket000 18:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Fishy deletion proposal

Hi Michael,

You might be interested in taking a look at this. Looks fishy, doesn't it? Maybe it is a good idea to remove all those templates from the pictures -- Alvesgaspar 19:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Not very sensible. I have closed it. --MichaelMaggs 21:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

FP template discussion erased

Hi, Michael

Sorry to disturb you again but this is a situation I cannot solve. White Cat seems to have erased the contents of this discussion/poll and I have no idea how to restore it. I suggest the actions of this user to be blocked for some time, his trolling actions are becoming intolerable (I wonder if that is precisely what he/she wants...) -- Alvesgaspar 10:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bumping in here - the discussion/poll hasn't been erased as such, but it was brought back to Cat's previous version of all possible templates under each header and then boldly cut&paste moved to a subsection at Commons:Village pump. The problem with this move is of course that the poll and it's (rather complex) history are now at two separate pages, moving back/reverting might even confuse things more since it's been edited by several after the move. I do hope this could be settled without having to block for disruption, as I'm not up-to-speed on all that has been going on I certainly will not block myself now. Regards, Finn Rindahl 10:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

importScript problem

Read your question on Lupo's page and the problem can be easily spotted by looking at the diff. While you made the importScript change, you accidently added a "/" in a totally unrelated location, which was breaking your entire monobook.js TheDJ 19:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Arrgh, so I did. Thanks very much! --MichaelMaggs 19:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Valued images test review phase has ended

Dear MichaelMaggs my VI-coworker, Thank you for participating in the development of the Valued images project by test nominating one or more candidates. We have used the input from the test reviews to fine-tune the guidelines, process and templates used, hereby hopefully improving the setup. We have now decided that on June 1, 2008 at 0:00 (UTC), the valued image project will be opened for official nominations. To get ready for the grand opening, we will close down the last remaining open test candidates in a few hours, such that the candidates list pages are emptied and ready. Since there has been a certain amount of instruction creep over the course of the test review pahse, we have decided that all promoted and declined candidates from the test review phase will be reset to the so-called "undecided" state prior to the opening. This means that test valued image candidate review pages all end up in Category:Undecided valued images candidates and the test sets end up in Category:Undecided valued image set candidates. The votes from the original test review will be archived in a previous reviews subpage and reset upon renomination. Although all nominations will be reset, you, as a test nominator, will still have the advantage that each candidate can be re-nominated beginning June 1 0:00 UTC. The votes from the original test review will be archived in a previous reviews subpage and reset upon renomination. Click on the links to the aforementioned categories for instruction on how to renominate. In addition, the project has decided to re-nominate all candidates, which were test promoted, unless you tell us not to do so on my talk page. Also, do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or problems relating to valued images. I hope, you will also take part in the project once it goes on the air, either as nominator, maintainer and/or reviewer. Happy editing, -- Slaunger 22:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, such that you can see the message I am putting on the test nominators talkmpeages. I hope you agree with what I write here;-) I was already late with this announcement.... -- Slaunger 22:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Input

Request your input here: Commons:Photography_critiques#Three_orange_lilies. Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

VI

Hi Michael, Have not seen you around on COM:VIC lately? There are some open questions which would be nice to get resolved before June 1 - or at least to get some feedback on. One issue, which we need to fix now (if ever), is to globally rename from "Valued images candidates" to "Valued image candidates". I don't know if that can be done easier with admin tools? If not and you also agree we should do it, I could start doing it in a multistep-process

1. Created the new pages as copies of the old ones
2. Change shortcuts to point to new destinations
3. Replace existing pages with redirects to new ones.
4. Change links in affected templates and change affected category names.
5. Change references in content pages to the new pages

How can the history be kept of, e.g., the COM:VIC talk page if it is moved?

We also need to coordinate the announcements, all translations have been done (Polish is in progress).

Feeling a little stressed up on the situation before we go live... that counter keeps ticking down.

Cheers, -- Slaunger 08:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerning images->image moves, Rocket000 has volunteered to do this. I would still like your feedback on various open actions though, if you can spare the time... -- Slaunger 14:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. Various things in RL have intervened and at the moment I'm only able to drop in for a very short period each day. I probably won't have much time tomorrow, but should be freer on Friday evening and Saturday if I can help with any last minute stuff. I see that Rocket's doing some good work with the renaming; it will be nice to have everything consistent. Regards, --MichaelMaggs 21:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it Michael. Rocket is doing a great job helping too, and I think the major obstacles are close to being eliminated now. I'm not so stressed up about it anymore. -- Slaunger 21:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Announcements on FPC and QIC

Thanks for doing these. You forgot to sign them... -- Slaunger 20:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Your work on VI

		The Special Barnstar
		On behalf of many of us on Commons for the all work you have put into COM:VI - many thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. I don't think I've even seen one of these before, let alone received one. --MichaelMaggs 13:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Vasa image

Any sign of permission from the Vasa Museum concerning photos of the large Vasa model? If not, I can try to send a reminder.

Peter ^Isotalo 05:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything, and a search of the OTRS emails comes up blank. A reminder would be good, thanks. --MichaelMaggs 05:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been in touch with the information director, and she replied that she's been very busy. She will be sending the confirmation within a few days. The delay is partly because my first reminders got bounced by a spam program, and I know that everyone at the Vasa Museum is awfully busy preparing for the upcoming onslaught of summer tourists.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

VI

Hi Michael, looks as if all this time i misunderstood the purpose of VI. Cheers. Lycaon 18:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hans. I have replied by email. --MichaelMaggs 19:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Mwamongu water source.jpg

I have changed the scope on this one and you may want to have a look if you can still support it. -- Slaunger 14:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Also scope change here: Commons:Valued image candidates/Cheating.JPG. -- Slaunger 14:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Shaw's writing hut.jpg

I have altered the entry for Commons:Valued image candidates/Shaw's writing hut.jpg in accordance with your suggestion. Thank you, VanTucky 19:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting...

I'd pressed send on a mail before I saw your edit :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Collision

It seems we are colliding from time to time on Commons:Deletion_requests/2008/01 this evening (morning UTC). Keep up the good work, maybe we'll get rid of this damn back log! --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 07:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A few more done today. We are getting there ... --MichaelMaggs 21:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sassoon photo deletion discussion

Hi, I have presented some history at Commons talk:Deletion requests/Image:14d sassoon photo.jpg. It would be useful to reopen this discussion on this basis, but I doubt that the outcome will differ much unless someone gets in contact with either the uploader or George Sassoon in order to verify that the photo was released under the GFDL license. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree it might be worth following up, and if you can get a proper release sent to OTRS it would be a nice image to have. Unfortunately all I can go on in closing the deletion request is what is readily available. It is hard enough for admins to keep up with the old deletion requests as it is, and there simply isn't time for me to email third parties to find out whether I could persuade anyone to provide the release we would need. The system really has to work on the basis that if no licence is visible and no-one has thought it worth while chasing up, then the image has to go. Hard, I know, but without some hard decisions Commons will sink under the weight of copyvios! --MichaelMaggs 21:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I am not happy, but it isnt your decision that I am unhappy with. We need some way to prevent people from leaving the project unless all of their images have been verified! :-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Evaporation Pan.jpg

Geocoding added. I thought I had added the geocoding but must have forgotten to add it. Bidgee 08:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will change my vote. --MichaelMaggs 08:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Young fox image3 080103.jpg

I forgot all about this nomination. Does the OTRS permission at Image:Beaufort fox2.jpg cover this other image? -Nard 12:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. It covers that one image only. --MichaelMaggs 13:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Ischnura senegalensis October 2007.jpg

 Done --Laitche 15:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

FoggDamNT.jpg

Thanks. :) I've sent a message to both voters (Not telling they have to).

Hi, I've changed the scope to suit what the image displays and just wondering whether you may support it or not.

Sounds ok? Bidgee 20:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Already done. --MichaelMaggs 20:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Windows screenshots

I didn't mean to re-open the request or remove peoples' comments. I've fallen behind on my watchlist, and I must have accidentally edited an old revision, skillfully ignoring all warnings to that effect. I've reverted the discussion to the way it looked after you archived it. I think you've come to a reasonable conclusion, and a page on de minimis is a good initiative. Sorry about my clumsy thumbs. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that would explain a lot. I must say I was a bit confused, and I checked the sig as it really didn't seem your style at all: you're always so thoughtful and polite! Thanks for the explanation. In retrospect, I should have asked you about it on your talk. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 16:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

FP Candidate Iguazu Falls

Good day

I saw your vote on the FP Candidate page about my picture. From you and other users, I recieved opposing vote because my image contains either artifacts or a lack of details. Here is the comment I posted on the voting page in reaction to your votes:

•  Comment Please consider the fact that the image is 4800 x 3500 pixels. You are judging it from it's quality (artifacts, details) when viewed at 100%. Pictures stitched with Hugin have artifacts from the manipulation (rotation, deformation of the original image). Have a look when I downsample this image to 2000x1500 px, (the same size than the previous and following candidates images), and you can clearly see that my image has the required levels of details and no artifacts. From the guidelines: "it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible". If the artifacts and lack of details at 100% is the only reason why it fails FP nomination, if I upload a downsampled version of this image, would you change your vote? If yes, then we need to change the guidelines. -- S23678 18:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If my picture presents problems other than lack of details or artifacts, please state it in your vote. However, if was the only reason for your opposing vote, please reconsider your position basing yourself on my arguments, and either cancel your vote, make it neutral, or support my picture if you now think it's a FP.

I also posted a comment about this on the FP candidates talk page. Feel free to add your comments.

Thank You

S23678 20:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chthalamus stellatus.JPG

I nominated your File:Chthalamus stellatus.JPG for FP. Wonderful image. --Calibas 21:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Usually, voters want some big wow factor, though. We'll see what people think. --MichaelMaggs 21:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Valued image promotion

★ An image you created has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you created was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
A fishing fly.

review

Previous reviews

 Info Renomination of test-promoted VIC. -- Slaunger 00:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Info The scope was "a Durham Ranger salmon fly". I have broadened it to "a fishing fly". --MichaelMaggs 08:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Meets all relevant criteria. An excellent photo that is the best of its class. – flamurai 18:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Foroa 07:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger 19:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratz with your first VI. -- Slaunger 00:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

★ An image you created has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you created was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Aphrodita aculeata (Sea mouse).

review

Previous reviews

•  Info Renomination of test promoted VIC. -- Slaunger 00:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Certainly captures the beastie. Adam Cuerden 12:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger 19:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

..and another one. -- Slaunger 01:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Alexa Havins images

Will you tell me why you decided to delete those images? I take it you read all of their debate conversation. Nothing I stated there was false and the authors gave permission for those images to be used in any way. They do not edit Wikipedia and will not sign up to Wikipedia to learn how to properly upload images to it (yes, a lot of new editors have difficulty uploading pictures correctly). That's why I had to get permission from them to upload them myself. I mean, c'omn, those images should have never been nominated for deletion under the title of "Absurd license claims". There was/is nothing absurd about what I stated. Those pictures are available nowhere else on the internet. I did not steal them; I got permission for them. Permission not just relegated to Wikipedia.

Will you consider undeleting them or am I to upload them on Wikipedia again under my being the copyright holder, since they agreed that if it came down to it, they'd give me ownership of those images (which are only two, by the way)? Flyer22 18:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are referring to Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Alexa Havins.jpg. I am afraid that Commons has to take licensing very seriously, and where an image is said to be licensed under a particular licence such as GFDL, the copyright owner has to be quite explicit about that. In your case, as I said in my closing comments, the discussion amounted to permission to use on Wikipedia only and then when you asked for more the reply was essentially "Isn't what we have already said enough?" To which the answer I must give is is "no it isn't". Nobody is questioning your good faith, but I am afraid that I cannot undelete the image unless you are able to persuade the photographer to send an email to explictly releasing it under FGDL. Please ask the copyright owner to send the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, mentioning by name the image in question. If the permission is ok someone will undelete the image for you. If you would like another admin to review my decison you can appeal at Commons:Undeletion requests. --MichaelMaggs 19:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Their second reply was not solely a question, but also confirming that I had permission to use them. They did not say, "No. We mean that you can only use them on Wikipedia"... I mean, I told them what I would use them for and how you guys wanted complete permission, and they did not object to anything I said. That seemed/seems like permission that they agreed to my using the images in any way. But I can see how since they did not say the exact words, "Yes, use them freely in any way"...you can see it as ambiguous. Once I have owernship of the images, it would be okay for me to upload them on Wikipedia again, right? Or would you rather I not get ownership and just try and get them to send an email to the site you state above? Or do both? Flyer22 18:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The easiest would be to ask them to email the address listed above, mentioning the two images in question by name and saying that they agree to release them under GFDL. If you'd like to let me know when that email has been sent, I can watch out for it and assuming all is OK I will be happy to undelete the images. If there is anything that's unclear do pleae let me know. Regards, --MichaelMaggs 19:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I have not been to the forum they run in a while (Alexa's character, Babe Carey, has been recast and it is not the same), but I will eventually ask them to do what you have stated. And I will inform you when I have done so. That is a promise. Thank you again. Flyer22 20:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued images by scope

Somehow I am not to keen on the organization in this one. One thing is that I am uncertain how to alphabetize in English. Another concern is how to navigate. I have started out without images, as i am concerned about download times when the list becomes very long, but I was wondering if each entry should be template in a menner which makes it less confusing to order (the scope, which is used for sorting comes after the image name making it confusing to edit). Each template could conatin a very small thumbnail image perhaps? Hmm... Just dying for a VICbot btw. Hope Dschwen will have some time soon. Currently I have no time for reviewing (which I would like to) - too busy closing the large heap of closeable VICs. -- Slaunger 21:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion please

I'm not sure what to do, so I would like to hear your opinion on the matter. Do you think we should continue to tag "images" as POTY candidates/winners even if the image has been deleted? Such as done here. To me, it doesn't make much sense, but I thought maybe there's a good reason (e.g. for history's sake, backlinks, etc.). Rocket000 (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't make much sense to me, either. Looks as if that was a White Cat special. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We just love those White Cat specials. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Chthamalus stellatus

Hi Michael. I fixed the nom. Guess my rename request had something to do with it ;-). Lycaon (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Think so! Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Where's the correct image?

Hi Michael. I noticed that you deleted Image:Great Basin Bristlecone Pine 1.jpg, stating in the log "Bad name. User request". I'd like to know what is the correct-named file, so I can fix the link at Pinus aristata. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 21:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't know, sorry. That was the comment made by the original uploader Fcb981 who should be able to help you. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll ask him. Waldir ^talk 22:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

File:IPod Line2.png

Yesterday, you deleted the above image, and I would like to know why. You deleted the above image without any explanation or comment. You deleted it on the request of an anonymous user, without any community input, in a matter of 36 minutes from when the request was made. You did not check with other projects to see how the image was being used, so that they might have time to make a local upload and claim fair use. And you deleted it despite leaving dozens of similar images, in Category:IPod classic and elsewhere (don't get any ideas!), some of which were the basis of the deleted image. So before I figure out what the proper procedure is for protesting a deletion, out of courtesy I'm letting you justify your actions on this unfair deletion, for reasons outlined above.--HereToHelp (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It was deleted under the speedy deletion policy as three of the four ipods shown include screenshots which are obvious copyright violations. The image would be OK if you blanked out the screens and reuploaded. Alternatively, you could upload to one of the projects that allow fair use claims. Fair use is not allowed here as I am sure you know. There are indeed many other copyright violations on Commons that will need to be dealt with eventually, but the argument that "just one more won't matter" is not very persuasive. If you would like another admin to review my action you can make a post at Commons:Undeletion requests. Regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the rant above. I know Commons doesn't allow fair use, but it seemed a little hasty. Since the base images are still available, it should be pretty easy to recreate it and upload it to en-wiki. You acted in line with Commons policy, I just didn't like the outcome. (En-wiki tolerates fair use screenshots but doesn't like Apple's hardware renderings; that was the best image of Apple hardware we've had.) I won't ask for a deletion review unless it is possible to restore the image directly to en-wiki, without recreating it from the individual iPods--HereToHelp (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to thank you for deleting the image and for your understanding. I truly appreciate it. Kma922 (talk) 05:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake

Hi, I have nominated a pic, but obvious in the wrong order [14]. What can I do now? Regards Mutter Erde (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh , I have seen it. Now it's in the correct order. Thank you Mutter Erde (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Guantanamo Bay Prisoners

Hi Michael, I have added geocoding and an information template and a german description to Commons:Valued image candidates/Guantanamo Bay Prisoners. So you might reconsider your vote. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have done, but I think it's too late. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have re-declined the nomination as voting had closed. Can be renominated though as one or more of the issues leading to a deline has been addressed. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Issues relating to the Scrots picture

In view of the discussion there, I am thinking that in future it might be as well for me to upload to Wikipedia rather than here (one would think that copyright principles should be the same in both places, but still). However, obviously I would still like to upload some pictures here where possible. So I want to ask your advice:

• I am hoping to do some work on the Hans Holbein article later this summer. Holbein scholarship and publication is largely focussed in Britain and Germany, with the same photos (one guesses, usually) travelling on from book to book. Is there any better chance of an image survivng here if I scan from German publications, even if I don't know where the photo was taken (in this field, German photographs of works held in England are normal enough, but German publications probably also use stock photos from English collections). The books and catalogues sometimes do give photo credits, but often without saying which photo is credited to whom. So my question is, what photos might be allowed? (I will also look before the cut-off point, because Ganz used some surprisingly good photographs of Holbeins from as early as 1905.)

• I would also like to work on the John Constable article. One would assume here that all the photos would be British-taken; certainly most of the works are in Britain. There are some excellent US-published books, though, with good reproductions; perhaps they took some photographs themselves. But reading Commons rules, I am not sure that makes any difference. If I uploaded a Constable from an American book which didn't say where the photo came from, how would that be received?

• Would you be as likely to put a drawing up for deletion as a painting? It strikes me that the criteria for originality might be less owing to the lack of colour, the (usually) smallness, and the unimportance of judging distance in reproducing a drawing.

Sorry to bother you. Qp10qp (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Qp. I have to say that under our policy almost any scanned picture of an old painting or indeed a drawing held in a UK museum will be problematic. It's a shame, but I would suggest uploading to the English Wikipedia, where you won't have the same problem since they apply US law only and don't care what UK law has to say. Commons is explicitly aimed at providing content for Wikis across the world, so we have to be much tighter on international copyright issues. Or, you could take new photos yourself from the original sources :) Sorry - I would change it if I could! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting of images

Hi, i want to delete the images

Bein_hebel_1.jpg and Ok_frontzahn_zange.jpg

I have replaced them by other images.

Can You help me? Thanks

If you want to use the same filenames for the new versions, just upload the new images over the originals. If you are uploading with new names, add {{badname|Image:new name.jpeg}} (where Image:new name.jpeg is the new name) somewhere on each of the image pages and someone will come along and delete them. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Valued image candidate

I've uploaded a cropped version Acacia-cardiophylla.jpg. Any other issues can you point out what they're? Bidgee (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't replied as I'm guess you haven't seen my message. Are you willing to reconsider with the copped version?. Bidgee (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved it down just incase you can see it in with the stuff above. Bidgee (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Make way for ducklings statue.jpg

Pst, there were two of them, you only deleted one. -Nard 23:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks,  Done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Scope

Great work & thanks - it is something I'll be looking at closely as soon as I have time. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for supporting my RfA. --Túrelio (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Green Highlander salmon fly.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 {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Durham Ranger salmon fly.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 {{{3}}}

(adding date stamp to force archiving --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! QWERTY keyboard.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 {{{3}}}

(adding date stamp to force archiving --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Flowers of Hyacinthoides non-scripta (Common Bluebell).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

• Argh, it's so easy to forget something. Now geocoded! --MichaelMaggs 19:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Looks like the best of the bunch for me, though would have been nice to show some leaves too. Fulfils all criteria. Lycaon 21:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support ---|EPO| ^da: 08:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(adding date stamp to force archiving --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Chthamalus barnacles.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Oppose Because barnacles live and feed under water, the image, which was taken at low tide above the water cannot be the most valued image of the organism IMO. All barnacles are closed and IMO it is impossible to figure out how they really look and feed, when they are covered by water.--Mbz1 01:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

 InfoThese organsisms live only on the upper shore line and spend far the greatest part of their lives uncovered, as shown. The rock on which I found these was above the waterline for, I would estimate, 20 hours out of 24. --MichaelMaggs 09:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

 Info and  Comment As explained in Wikipedia article "Barnacles are exclusively marine, and tend to live in shallow and tidal waters, typically in erosive settings." IMO it reallly does not matter how many hours they spend above or below the water. It matters that the most important things as reproduction and feeding they're doing while they are under the water. That's why I do not think that the nominated image is a good illustration of organism.--Mbz1 13:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

 Comment I tend to agree with Mila. Tomorrow, when I get access to another PC, I think I will upload a still photo taken around the time of this barnackle movie as that shows how the barnacles filter the shallow water and let it compete with this one in an MVR. It does not have the same image quality as I recall but is perhaps more instructive (we'll see). -- Slaunger 01:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, but what I have is another species (Semibalanus balanoides) so it cannot compete within the stated scope. But I do think such a kind of shot of more valuable. Therefore, if you get the chace to photograph this species again I think you should try to catch it while they filter the water. That can be done without getting your camera wet. -- Slaunger 05:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Question I am pretty ignorant on the subject of identification of barnacles. For my image I seem to recall that Lycaon helped me out based on the location and the image. This makes me think: Is there anyway one can make a visual distinction between, e.g., your barnacle species as compared to the Semibalanus balanoides photo I have referred to. It is the scope which worries me; is it too narrow to really warrant a VI for the specific species as a photo? Is it sufficiently visually distinct from other species to make sense? Another thing I thought about is that perhaps the scope should rather reflect the inactive state of the barnacles when they are dry and closed. I do not know what that is called in English? "Hibernating barnacles?". I'll post a message on Lycaons talk page to hear what our marine biologist has to say about this... -- Slaunger 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Chthamalidae are quite distinct from Balanidae in the form and position of their plates (carina and rostrum specifically)[15]. AFAIK this is the only image of a member of the Chthamalidae on commons. Scope is IMO sufficient. A feeding barnacle could have a different scope (e.g. feeding barnacle(s)). I only changed the scope slightly, because the name was wrong (fixed the category too). Lycaon 21:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I found another one (Image:CornishBarnacles.JPG), but that one is a mixed bag of Chthamalus stellatus and Patella vulgata. Lycaon 22:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Question Thank you for pointing the differences betwen Chthamalidae and Balanidae out. I see there is a clear difference. They are also quite dissimilar from a taxonomic point of view. However, I am still wondering about the identifiablity to the species level. I mean if another image were nominated for VIC for another species within the same genus, say Chthamalus X. Would the reviewers have any change to make a visual distinction between Chthamalus X and Chthamalus stellatus? If not I think the scope is too narrow and should be broadened up to the genus of family level. -- Slaunger 10:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• I am not convinced by your reason to support the image. As we could see from this image by Slaunger it is possible to show barnacles in a different stages from completely clossed to completely opened in the same image, which is much more encyclopedic and much more valuable. IMO we do not need a different scope for(e.g. feeding barnacle(s)). --Mbz1 16:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

 Comment Although it is interesting to discuss how you can improve images of barnacles and make them more encyclopedic, I think it is not that relevant for the assessment of this particular candidate. The first question to answer is if the scope is of relevance for WMF projects, and I think the answer is yes (always the case for living organisms - Wikispecies), although it may have to be widened to the genus or family level to make sense (as questioned above, is it visually distinct from other species in the same genus). For lower taxonomic levels a figure like in the link provided by Lycaon pinpointing the specific features of the taxon is really more relevant IMO. Does it illustrates the subject well? Yes, I think so. It is a high quality image where details of the (dry) species can be seen - a state within it is often found by humans. Can it be done better? Yes I think so, but VI is not really about whether it can be done better, but whether it is the best we have (and fulfills the criteria). If you manage to make a better photo of the species/genus/family you can let it compete with it in an MVR. That is why we have invented MVR. I do think a cross-taxon process scope like "Feeding barnackles" can be a relevant scope as well, as I guess there are commonalities in how barnackles feed in irrespective of the exact sub-order/family/genus/species. -- Slaunger (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Though my opinion is that each species could have its own VI, in this case I don't know how to separate the different species of the genus Chthamalus (they occur worldwide). As we don't seem to have confirmed images of other species from the genus than the current C. stellatus, it may be appropriate to—for now—assign it to the scope Chthamalus (without the species epitheton). Concerning the feeding barnacle(s) scope, I think that could be a very valid one as it encompasses several species and genera (even families) and illustrates a behaviour typical of cirripeds, rather than a taxonomical scope. Lycaon (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose Based on the explanation from Lycaon above I think the scope for the image is too narrow. If it was broadened to the genus level Chthamalus, I would be happy to support. I do think a VI within the present scope is possible, but that should probably not be a photo, instead a drawing or schematic illustration showing the characteristics of the particular species within the genus. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Chthalamus stellatus to Chthamalus barnacles {{{3}}}

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

• Scope changed as recommended by Slaunger. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Reconfirming support. Lycaon (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Meets the VI criteria and is a great photo to be a VI. Bidgee (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Changed to suppot with adjusted scope. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(adding date stamp to force archiving --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Object in free fall..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Oppose The scope is too broad for the subject. The photo shows a consequence of gravitation, the kinetics of an object in a uniform gravitational field, but does not illustrate the concept of gravitation itself. With a scope of Falling body, it would clearly qualify. -- Hk kng 11:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree regarding the scope. The image could just as well illustrate constant acceleration from whatever source field. Actually from the image alone it could be the camera which accelerated - the wonders of relativism. Or, if the ball was charged and placed between large capacitor plates (forming a unifrm electric field) in free space you would have the same type of motion. Ready to reconsider with another scope, cuz' the image is good. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Gravity to Object in free fall {{{3}}}

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Comment Who says physicists aren't imaginative? Who else but a physicist could suggest that this might be a picture of a charged ball moving in free space between large capacitor plates? ;) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support He, he. Changed to support. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - With the adjustement of scope. Let not forget my physics background... BTW, did you forget to say that g remains (for practical purposes) constant during the fall? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, like this it fully qualifies. Although I was tempted to mark it for the lack of geocoding :-) --Hk kng (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It was taken on the moon :) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Support Nice.（＾＾）／ -- Laitche (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 4 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(adding date stamp to force archiving --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Andriy Voronin.jpg

I was away on a weekend vacation and failed to see this. I uploaded both of those images. Because they were of such low quality, I did not think they were copyright violations. Do you have any advice on how to better identify copyright violations? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Almost anything you find on the web is likely to be a copyright violation, unless you can be sure that the photographer has uploaded his/her own photo under a free licence. Unfortunately, many Flikr users don't much care about copyright and will copy stuff off the web and then say that they took it. You just need to be a bit cynical: is it likely for example that a Flikr user who mostly uploads out of focus snaps of his friends will be the true author of an obviously-professional shot taken from an angle that only a professional photographer would hae access to? And if a user has several obvious copyright violations in their collection, you really can't trust any of their other images either. Have a look also at Commons:Image casebook which will give you some idea of what is and is not allowed. Regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

See also Commons:How to detect copyright violations. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Kaiseki.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question Clearly meets criteria 2, 3, and 6. There are other good photos of Category:Kaiseki but this image is IMO slightly better at ilustrating the subject (crit. 1) than the competitors (no distracting elements, good crop, sharpness and lightning in review size). The image page could be improved by describing what the Kaiseki actually consists of in this case. What types of food? In principle the image could be geocoded (crit. 5), as it refers to breakfast served at a particular place. However it is somewhat studiolike and non-place related (assuming a quite similar meal could be served elsewhere), so I will not require that. So, I am inclined to support it if more details were added on the image page. However, I would like to ask one question before I cast a vote: Was this taken inside a hotel? If yes are you then allowed to publish it here in the first place? Can it be considered a work of art? I am not too strong on licencing issues, just wondering... -- Slaunger (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have improved the description by adding a link to the enW page. That should be explanation enough, I think: describing what is meant by the term Kaiseki would mean repeating the encylopedic content in the description. As to exactly what each dish consists of, I don't know. Geocoding isn't appropriate, as this could be served anywhere, not just at this particular hotel. The photo was indeed taken in a hotel, but that does not affect the copyright status. Food designed to be eaten is not a work of art in its own right, and I'm confident the licence is OK. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    •  Neutral It was an identification of what was being served I was after if at all possible (to the lowest possible "taxon" if you get what i mean), not a description of Kaiseki. I see you point about the geocode, and I trust you about the license, as you know much more about that then me. We have a japanese regular here, I think I'll ask. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    •  Info Some info for you here. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the info, Laitche, and also Slaunger for asking. I have added the information to the image. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
        •  Support with the much improved image page description. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(adding date stamp to force archiving --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

Deletion

Jesus christ could you at least give me a chance to respond to this? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Lubbocklakelandmark1.jpg

I want a copy of the image you deleted. It may not be fit for commons but I don't have a backup handy so could you undelete it so i can access to my own file for copying? You can re-delete later. Also, can you point out to me where in the rules in commons the deletion is justified? I don't doubt it is, but I can't find anything mentioning sculpture. Pschemp (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've undeleted it for 24 hours. In the US, photos of buildings are allowed under Freedom of Panorama, but not sculptures: seeCommons:Freedom of panorama#United States. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've got it. Pschemp (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Tar Pits Photo

Would it be possible for me to have a copy of your La Brea Tar Pits photo that was deleted? I want to make a painting, using it for a reference. Thank You, Kristin Please respond at abhal001@umn.edu

It's not my picture, but may have been one I deleted. If you could let me know the original picture name I can look up for you the name of the uploader. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Rongorongo

Would you please restore

• Image:Rongorongo A-b Tahua right.jpg
• Image:Rongorongo D-a Échancrée (natural).jpg
• Image:Rongorongo D-b Échancrée (natural).jpg
• Image:Rongorongo R-b Atua-Mata-Riri.jpg

Not only are these PD because of their age (some are from the 19th century), but we got the current copy-right holder of the book to release the entire book to Wikipedia. I marked the images accordingly and sent the permission email to the appropriate people at Commons. Unfortunately, MangoStar didn't consolidate his deletion requests, and my comments are on the consolidation page I set up rather than on the twenty or so of his.

Thanks, Kwamikagami (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Ah-ha, that wasn't evident on any of the images. I have done a search on OTRS and found your email relating to this under ticket number 2008061210011949. It seems we were awaiting somebody to mark up the images, and that hadn't been done by the time I closed the deletion requests. I'll do that now on the images that seem relevant, and will undelete them. At the same time, I'll correct the licence tags - the CC licence does not seem right as the copyright owner has licensed under GFDL only.

Not all of the images come from the 1935 publication, specifically the colour ones. Are you aware of any permission there may be from the photographer that would allow us to keep those was well? In the absence of explicit permission from the respective copyright holders, we cannot keep those. All are copyright-protected even if all they essentially show is a 3D artefact with some old writing on it - sorry.

By the way, can you post a link to the "consolidation page" you set up? regards --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure: here. Actually, the CC tag also works. They just wanted attribution, and didn't word it exactly. (I suggested GFDL would work, not realizing it's dispreferred and a pain in the butt, and they agreed, but the point of their email was simply keeping credit.) Yes, I realize the non-Chauvet images aren't covered. However, 2D vs. 3D is not the issue. The Last Supper, after all, is a 3D image: it's painted on a building, has cracks running through it, and a door cut out of it, yet it was nominated for Featured Picture, and the only objection was that it was too low res. A photo of the surface of a 3D object merely to document the surface is not copyrightable, as there is no originality involved. (Though of course some of those photos were of more than just a surface.) Kwamikagami (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

GFDL is OK, since you specifically mentioned that, and they agreed. CC can't be assumed, though, as they didn't mention that and it was never put to them. You could email again and explicitly ask for CC approval if you like. The rule we work to on 2D/3D is whether shadows can be seen. A surface with low relief such as a coin or incised script is not allowed (unless self-made) as the shadows are an integral part of the image and bring out the detail. The WMF counsel, Mike Goodwin, has explicitly said as much for coins, and incised script must fall under the same rule. Where a surface is 3D, but a photo shows an essentially 2D pattern (such as a painted bowl), a close-up would in my view be allowed in those countries where the PD-Art tag is accepted (Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag). Not everyone agrees with that, though, and I have seen closeups of painted decoration on eg ancient bowls deleted on the grounds that the bowl surface is 3D. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm. A coin is allowed if it's imaged with a photocopier, even though it shows shadows. That's according to Commons rules. The legal principal is originality (lighting, angle, etc.), not shape or shadows. Kwamikagami (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about the photocopier, and also about the underlying legal principles. Shape and shadows have evolved as a way for Commons to try to draw a bright line through a very fuzzy area, particularly as the required level of originality varies so much from country to country. But in any event, in almost all countries a photo showing a clearly 3D shape of an historic object will be copyright-protected by the photographer since the lighting and angle choices will satisfy the originality requirement. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Some of these I can justify for Fair Use on English wiki. How do I view the info (description, source, etc.) of the deleted images? Kwamikagami (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Info

Mail :) Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Am away from home at the moment, and can't pick it up until Wednesday. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Aah - ok. Relates to this one. Do you want me to try someone else? I'm sure you can put two & two together - you will probably be correct! Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think I get your drift, but I am just about to go offline and won't have much of a chance to do much until Wednesday. You might try Lycaon if he's around. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks for that. I have struck all the votes of all of them (there were quite a lot!). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now blocked Ecopetition as well after thought & checking. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Eco's votes struck. Lycaon (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/French architects

We once had a discussion once of work by Buren. You might want to take a look at a major request of French architecture here and give your input Commons:Deletion requests/French architects. Gryffindor (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Plichart

hi you have delated photos on page http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Plichart. Those are photos of my father's work who is dead now so I am the owner. Is there any problem? thank you joseph plichart

Sorry, could you give me some more details, such as the name of one of the deleted images? I suspect they were deleted as there was no clear permission provided, but if they were photographs taken by your father we should be able to get around the problem. Regards --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Gallinago-delicata-002.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Gallinago-delicata-002.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you review this image?

Hi, MichaelMaggs. I uploaded Image:Korean potato pancake-Gamjajeon-01.jpg to here from a personal blog whose owner has a Commons account. But when I uploaded it, automatically flickrreview was attached. Now, it is some pink warning signed generated. Can you review the image and source description? The photographer releases the image under CC-BY, so I think it is okay to have the image. Thanks in advance. --Applebee (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed it for you. If the photo isn't actually at Flickr you can remove the flickrreview by editing the page. Also please note the actual license was cc-by-sa-2.5, which is not the same as cc-by-2.0. You can figure out the license by putting your mouse over the Creative Commons icon on the original page and seeing which license it links to. -Nard 14:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank. I did not know the difference between the tags. --Applebee (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted image which wasn't deleted

• Take a look at this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Diplodocus_carnegii_statue.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:General_view,_Bekonscot.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:General_view,_Bekonscot.JPG. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. -Nard 18:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done I don't know why the copyright tag was missing. Added now, anyway. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

FPC for fireworks photo

Hi MichaelMaggs! You recently opposed my image Reflections of Earth 9.jpg for promotion to Featured Picture status, based upon the amount of noise in the photo. I've since uploaded an edited version with less noise, so I'd appreciate it if you would look at the nomination again and tell me what you think of the quality now. Thanks! --bdesham ★ 22:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/UND Adriyatik (2).jpg

Just heading for some VI closures and saw this one. Is your opinion unchanged? -- Slaunger (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it fails on quality. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Policy Comments

Thanks for inviting me to comment on the page you directed me to (on my talk page) I have since written a few observations. Thanks again WayneRay (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)WayneRay

Objection to the deletion

I have an objection to Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Statue of Astro Boy by gin e in Hakone Toy Museum.jpg. "Hakone Toy museum" [16] openly displays the statue at the entrance of the museum [17], therefore, the statue is one of symbols of the museum. Furthermore, the museum officially sells piggy banks [18] of Astro Boy. I believe that the museum has permission to display/copy from the copyright owner - the successor of the author.

Sculptures are nearly always erected and displayed with the consent of the author, but the question for Commons is did you (the photographer) have consent to release the image under a free licence and to upload it? If not, the image cannot be accepted as it violates the author's copyright. In some countries, the law makes exceptions, but I am afraid that Japanese law does not: see COM:FOP#Japan. Images like this are being deleted all the time, as US law does not allow this either. A simimar photo taken in the UK would be OK, though. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Einat5.JPG

Hi, more then a week passed since I've requested to delete this image. How can I know if an OTRS permission arrive? If it didn't, can you please delete it? Thanks.

I have checked on OTRS and cannot find any email relating to this image. I have deleted it. If an email eventually arrives the image could be undeleted, but for the present it lacks permission. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Sjömansskolan

Hi, it seems that all those images are copyvios. I communicated with you about it on the deletion requests talk page. After I posted the message about copyright, the user blanked his user page on svwp. His name is due to that page Richard Ferm, and none of the images I checked had that name as author, and all the images are marked as pd-self... I think it's fair to assume that they all can be speedied, but I really don't have neither time nor disire to make a mass deletion request consisting on tons of obvious copyvios. Do what you want with the images :) Thanks! /Grillo (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done All contributions speedy deleted and user advised. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, we got an OTRS ticket about this to info-sv. I've moved it to permissions-commons and dealt with it from there. I've left a note summarizing the discussion in English. (Also, I'm new at OTRS, so let me know if I'm getting it all wrong.) —LX (talk, contribs) 17:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi LX, thanks for that. I'd be more than grateful if you could look after it as my knowledge of Swedish is zero. What you have done so far looks good. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Flowers of Fothergilla major (Witch alder).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Image:Fothergilla major6.jpg was a close contender (slightly better image, but no geocoding). However, this one fulfils all requirements. Lycaon (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Attack Cake

The attack cake is NOT a lie. Enjoy. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Um... thanks (I think). Any clues? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to bring joy and confectioneries to everyone! --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 17:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yummy! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Noncommercial.

The template still says "This template may meet the criteria for speedy deletion.". I understand that some commons users don't want to allow NC multi-licensing as allowed at Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing, but the speedy doesn't say the images with that template on them may be speedied, it says the template may. -- Jeandré, 2008-07-22t13:09z

Ah, I misunderstood what you were getting at. Sorry. The template should say that the files may be speedied, not that the template itself should be. I'm reluctant to change this back since it has said that since 2006, and I'm uncertain what the consequence would be of going back to the old (non-templated) text. I'm going to pass this one over to Rocket000 who might be better able to re-do the template if that's what is needed to ensure it makes sense. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it uses {{Speedy delete text}} which was designed to work in any namespace, not just image pages, so the logic makes sense. It should say "template" if it's in the template namespace. All this template is is a shortcut for {{Speedydelete}} with the reason already filled in, "This file is under a license that does not allow unrestricted commercial use. The file will be deleted..." Almost all deletion templates behave the same way, such as {{Nonderivative}} or {{GFDL-invariants}}. I left a note on the page to hopefully avoid future confusion. Rocket000 (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The template could be hidden on the template page itself (includeonly), but generally a preview of the template is preferred. It should continue to use {{speedy delete text}} so these "shortcuts" for basically the same template ({{Speedydelete}}) can all be updated together. Rocket000 (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image request

Dear Mr. Maggs,

I'm editor for science in Slovenian educational publishing house. We are currently working on Physics textbook for lower secondary school and came across to your famous photography "Bouncing ball strobe edit". It's so great and self explanatory that we would like to include it in the textbook, so I'm asking you for permission.

All the best,

Vasja Kožuh urednik / editor Založba Rokus Klett d.o.o. / Rokus Klett Publishing Ltd. / Stegne 9b / SI-1000 Ljubljana / Slovenia t.: +386 1 513 4663 / f.: +386 1 513 4699 www.rokus-klett.si

Yes, that's fine. Please do. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Web 2.0

When I first started communicating with people in real time on the internet, it was with (in my opinion) extremely intelligent hackers. As proof of this for my point of view, they were generating graphics with what had been a theoretical simple counting machine when I had been in college. That might get an ^{IRC 1.0} and I was always sorry that I missed ^{IRC .54}.

I am going to give your writing a ^PG-2.0 rating from now on.

There used to be an announcement of new PG articles where I was. That fanbase and announcement system culminated with this article which was not accepted at slashdot.

To be honest, I don't like Web 2.0, whatever that is. I read only one essay that was able to sum up my feelings for this "Web 2.0" which also might indicate that it will take for some people, actual human intervention and that essay was this:

"There is no back button."

-- carol (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, I hadn't seen that article. Very funny. Though I'm still not sure whether achieving a ^PG-2.0 rating is good or bad. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked to see if LX had commented about the feasties and followed the link you provided there and read that thread/discussion and found a url to "New Paul Graham" there. Interestingly enough, I went from there to working with the taxonomy templates which each have two beginning curly brackets and two ending curly brackets. Which is an essay about Web 2.0 and here is the answer to your worries about the achievement:

The "character" MichaelMaggs would not have had as much content to have problems with on the version of the web that I started on but the character would have still existed; perhaps would have had more fun online. I encountered either Paul Graham or a person hired to be him to sign books in 2004 -- genuine and decent was the person and he signed my Python Pocket Reference! It is the other side of that essay. I read that article and I am glad to see that one of the authors of the new web is also giving content which assists to stop the problems it created. So, in summary, it is a well defined character which could exist in the two versions and the achievement of a PG 2.0 rating on that version should be considered an achievement of good standing. And, a little shedding of tears from me on its creation; for the people that I know very well but never met.

That is two interesting reads from you. Thanks for that. -- carol (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Question. Would a photograph of the book and the autograph be allowed here? -- carol (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, sorry. It may be OK on en.W, though, with a fair use claim. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Too bad for that, I have been community banned there (it happened in about 6 hours of voting). I do not even know what a community ban is -- I would like it to mean that the community decides to leave a relatively good contributor alone to edit for a while. It doesn't seem to mean that though. It has physically meant that administration there does not need to abide by their own time stamps and that administration there can revert changes and then make them their own if they shouldn't have been reverted. Whatever it is supposed to mean -- that is the effect that I am able to see. -- carol (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Civil Ensign and Roundel of Luxembourg

Could you please take a look at this nomination of mine. I think I might have messed up the code somehow as no link to the nominated images appears on Commons:Deletion requests/Civil Ensign and Roundel of Luxembourg and no link to the subpage appears at Commons:Deletion_requests/2008/07/23#Civil Ensign and Roundel of Luxembourg. The images in question are Image:Civil Ensign of Luxembourg.svg and its derivative Image:Roundel of Luxembourg.svg. The notification to the uploaders went through correctly.

This is my first actual deletion request (versus tagging a few blatant copyright violations for speedy delete).--Caranorn (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I may have missed something, but it all looks fine to me. Both links are there, in the right place, and they both work. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I added the image links a few hours after asking about it here after looking at some mass deletions (two images ain't quite a mass deletion, but if 1) gets deleted then 2) has to go as well...). Thanks anyhow for taking a look.--Caranorn (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

reply

I read your document and responded here Commons talk:Deletion requests/National Portrait Gallery images (first set).

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• An extremely interesting article. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Michael, please see my responses to your objections here. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Pdf files discussion

Is there any concensus on the Pdf files issue? I went and looked and didn't see any resolution discussion. I have been mainly working with the Category:Pdf files and all the new ones coming in on the Latest Files pages. I almost need to create a Pdf welcome page similar to the {{ one at the beginning of each new users page saying that they need to be linked, photos should be jpg's etc, no Theses or long articles etc etc. I am starting to re organize the subcategories and put many up for deletion. Please let me know current status of the discussions. Thanks WayneRay (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)WayneRay

I have been away for a while, so haven't been able to take this forward. Before going live I would like to see more comment on the pdf issue, as there are opposing views with no obvious consensus. Since this is probably of most concern to Wikibooks and Wikisource I propose to invite comments from users of those Wikis in particular. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Currency and Iran

Hi! Collard said I ought to ask you about this--there are a few Iranian bills up on Speedy delete such as Image:1000 IRR obverse.jpg with the claim that Iranian money isn't PD, but I can't find an answer. Any suggestions? :) rootology (T) 04:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't either, but the website from which they come does not amount to a good source of free material. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Romeo_and_Juliet.jpg

Hi Michael,

I just noticed Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Romeo and Juliet.jpg now that the bot removed it from the w:Romeo and Juliet article on enwik. Looking at the linked description of the image and the deletion discussion, I must say I'm quite surprised. Is a photograph of a publicly displayed statue really considered a derivative work on Commons? This seems very non-intuitive to me. I tried to find a policy page that explained this, but didn't have much luck. Could you perhaps point me at a relevant policy page that explains this? --Xover (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A photo of a statue that is still in copyright is indeed a derivative work, and permission from the sculpter is usually needed. In some countries, though, there is a legal exception called "freedom of panorama" which allows images to be taken of statues that are permanently located in public places. Unfortunately the law of the US does not include any such exception. See Commons:Image casebook#3D art (sculptures etc): and COM:FOP. --MichaelMaggs ( ) 18:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Louvre picture

I am the author of one of the pics you voted for deletion. After explaining that the composition of Image:Museo de Louvre Paris 04 07 21 8x6.jpg is different from the others, I did request the two previous editors who had already voted for deletion to re-evaluate their vote base on the reasons I provided. I will appreciate if you come back and give a look to my explanation. Thanks. --Mariordo (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have looked but I am afraid my view remains the same. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

BudweiserNA_Arabic.JPG

If you're going to go around speedy deleting images, at least have the common courtesy to notify the uploader. And see Commons talk:Licensing#Beer — if you can justify nuking my image because it's got a copyrighted design on the can, you have your work cut out for you in cleaning up Commons... Jpatokal (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that admins simply do not have the time to notify all uploaders of speedy deletes. There are far too may deletions to be done, as you imply. Not all packaged products are liable to deletion, just those that have copyright designs on the packaging or on a label. It is the printed design that is the problem, not the bottle/can itself. See COM:CB#Product packaging. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you had no right to speedy that in the first place. {{copyvio}} states that This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license, but my photo (file) was published under a free license. As per COM:D, The file/page violates the licensing guidelines in some other way than being a clear copyright violation requires going through the regular deletion process. Jpatokal (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two copyrights involved here. The first is the copyright to the printed design on the beercan, and the second is the copyright in your photograph. Now, it is true that you released the rights in your photograph under a free licence, but that since you do not own the copyright in the printed design you cannot release those parts of your image (the majority of it) which replicate that design. You can only release rights that you actually own. To put it another way, the fact that you have some rights in your particular photograph does not override the copyright in the original printed design: that still remains fully in force and can be enforced by the copyright owner. Your photograph clearly infringes that copyright, and makes it speedy-deletable regaardless of any licensing tag you place on it. If you disagree with my deletion, you can request review by another admin by going to Commons:Undeletion requests. I hope that helps. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand the difference between the two copyrights involved. However, I disagree that the wording or intention of the copyvio guidelines allows you to speedy delete cases where the copyright violation does not involve the file, but the content. → Commons talk:Deletion guidelines#Clarification of scope for copyvio. Jpatokal (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are trying to make a distinction that is not legally possible. The file itself is a digital representation of a photograph of a copyright design. Both the photograph (on film or on your camera's digital card) and the file you have uploaded infringe the copyright in the printed design since both are unauthorised copies of it. However many technical steps are involved, each one still infringes the original copyright. There is no legal distinction between the file and the content: the file is simply a fixed version of the content, and it is the act of fixing as well as the act of uploading that infringes. Neither are allowed without the copyright owner's consent. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Establishing whether a file is a copyvio is clear-cut: if you can find the original and show that it's not freely licensed, the violation is obvious and the file can and should be speedied.

However, determining whether or not a copyright violation has occurred with respect to the original object is much more complex. (Do you disagree?) Template:Copyvio states that it should only be used for "obvious" cases: now can you, with a straight face, tell me which of the bottles in Category:Beer bottles are "obviously" copyvios and which are not? For example, the Budweiser design predates 1923 and is thus apparently already in the public domain.

And replies → Commons talk:Deletion guidelines#Clarification of scope for copyvio, please. Jpatokal (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

[19]. Is it intentional that FP and QI are in bold whereas VI is in normal formatting? -- Slaunger (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No - missed that. Now fixed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. It could have been intentional due to the smaller volume of media at VI, and I would have been OK with that leading to less emphasis on the main page as compared to FP and QI. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Category name for images used in valued image sets

Hi Michael,

Although it may appear so, the closure process for Valued Image Sets is not yet fully implemented nor described in Commons:Valued image closure. I'd like to hear your opinion about a detail in completing this. Today, the {{VIS}} template, which is intended for tagging on image pages of images used in Valued image sets associate the image page with Category:Valued images. This is wrong as they are not valued images, they are "just" used in Valued image sets. However, it is still handy to have them placed in a VI-related category as such a category is handy, for instance at keeping track of how many images are used in sets in analogy with the counter templates {{VI-count}} (value=47638) and {{VIS-count}} (value=283), I have created, which work by counting the number of images in certain categories. My question to you is: What do you think would be an appropriate name for such a category? I was thinking of Category:Images used in valued image sets. Would that be an adequate name for that category in your opinion? Cheers, -- Slaunger (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Need to think. Will get back shortly. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK, once I'd read your question properly it was easier than I thought it was going to be. Yes, that sounds like a perfectly good name. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I am not good at making myself clear. The curse of not communicating in my native language;-) Thank you for you answer though. I will proceed with that. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you are always very clear. It's just that I was rushing out the door when you saw the question and I didn't read it properly. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahh... thanks. I could do with shorter sentences, more sections, and generally more "get to the point" style of writing though, and use that "Show preview" button.;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

VI questions

Hi,

I've got a question too. Thy didn't you have any objections against this image? Cheers --Sfu (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it's a cathedral, which I assume is of at least national interest. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I understand you reasons. --Sfu (talk) 07:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for updating Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag and sharing your insights regarding copyright in Common law. Within your recent edits you have removed the county-specific cases. This is surely no longer appropriate on this page as this handles the PD-Art tag only. Nevertheless, I think it would be helpful to continue maintainung such a list such that every Commons user gets a first overview if there might be an issue with local laws. This would be particularly important for easily identifiable uploaders who come possibly in conflict with their local law even if this is no longer an issue for Commons. What do you think? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and I was intending to put them back on a sub-page so that we don't lose the information. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done New page created at Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! --AFBorchert (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks also for the notice about the updated policy! ˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Same here - thanks for the update and the very careful wordings. You're doing a great job here. --h-stt !? 06:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Faithful reproduction of 2D art

Dear Mr. Maggs, I saw your interesting comments on Village Pump concerning Common's new policy on 2D art. Is it possible if you could give me 2 examples of images on Commons of a faithful reproduction of a 2D art which falls in this category? I'm just looking for some clarification on what is exactly 2D art and what is a 'faithful reproduction' of a 2D image as I'm a little confused here. It is a vague term.

• As an Aside, is this image a 2D art as the uploader thought: Image:ThutmoseI.jpg? It is used in an important article for an Egyptian pharaoh and the uploader was a good contributor to Egyptology but he has now mostly left Wikipedia. When people place pd-old images on Commons, they often forget to cite the book source unfortunately. Thank You --Leoboudv (talk) 04:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm... this image could have been copied from http://images.suite101.com/390585_com_thutmosei.jpg. Please note that this URL is blocked by our link spam protection list. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As an example of a file which uses PD-Art, see Image:Edward VI Scrots c1550.jpg. Any similar faithful reproduction of a public domain painting can also use this tag, even if the reproduction has been found on the internet --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment User AFBorchert is quite right. This image Image:ThutmoseI.jpg is a clear copy violation from that spam site. Can you delete it as an Administrator? Please don't worry, there are many more legitimate images for pharaoh Thutmose I on Commons and in his Wikipedia article. By the Way, my question concerned an example of an image in 2D art form. Is there one image in 2D art that you could kindly show me for just for illustrative purposes which is now permissible? Thank You, Mr. Maggs. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am very sorry, but I don't think I understand your question. Image:Edward VI Scrots c1550.jpg is an example of a two-dimensional work (a painting) that was probably not previously allowed, as it comes from the UK, but now is allowed. Please ask again if I have misunderstood. On the question of Image:ThutmoseI.jpg, you should nominate it for deletion if you believe it is a copyright violation. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Is this type of image now acceptable on Commons Image:Toetmoses1.jpg under the new amended 2D rules? It is indeed 2D (I believe) but the precise book or image source is not specified (it was copied from a web site) so I cannot tell if it was printed 70 years ago or just 15 or 20 years ago. Or is the 70 year issue a red herring--meaning that as long as art is in 2D form, it is acceptable on Commons no matter what year the image was published in a book? As you can tell I am interested in ancient history and am trying to determine what the new rule change means for images on Commons. I am a newcomer to Commons, unlike Wikipedia; my first images were just placed here around mid-July 2008. So, any help you can give is appreciated. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think that image is acceptable under the new rules (or under the old ones, either), as it is essentially a 3D relief - you can see the shadows. This falls under Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#This does not apply to photographs of 3D works of art, and should I think be deleted. I have nominated it myself. A source is given (a particular internet page) which would be OK if this were a painting, but this is essentially a sculpture and the image ought not to be here without a licence from the photographer.

You asked about the relevance of 70 years. Let's assume we have an old painting: in many countries any copyright in that painting as an original work of art will expire 70 years after the death of the painter, and until then no copy is allowed on Coomons. But once the painting itself is old enough to be out of copyright, the new rule means that any faithful reproduction of it is OK here, even if that reproduction was made recently. So, as long as you are sure that the painting itself is out of copyright you can upload any faithful copy of it that you find on the internet, and you can scan any faithful copy of it that you find in a printed book. It does not matter when the book was printed, provided that the depicted work of art is old enough to be out of copyright itself. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. Mr. Maggs Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I upload such images?

Hi Michael,

I usually have uploaded images of objects, like plants, etc for which there normally are no legal conerns to think about. Now, I would also like to contribute with other types of images, like I have some of marathon runners, that I photographed during a run. For example this. My question is. Can I upload such material to Commons without infringing on any rights, personal rights, etc? The photos are taken in Denmark at Viborg City International Marathon in 2007 and 2008. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kim, I think that images of that type fall within the rules set out at COM:PEOPLE, and there should be no problem as far as Commons is concerned. This was a public gathering and the runners would have had no expectation of privacy. You could label the images with {{Personality rights}}. What I don't know is whether Denmark has strong personality right laws. If so those would - in theory - take precedence. But France does, and no-one has ever seriously complained about this image. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Michael. Thank you for sharing your view on this. It makes sense, and I had the same impression, just wanted a second opinion... -- Slaunger (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Lafayette archives

Perhaps it might be worth a try to boldly ask en:User:VAwebteam (an OTRS-confirmed official representative of the V&A, and a Wikipedian) for an official GFDL release of the Lafayette studio images... what do you think? Lupo 15:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lupo: definitely! If we could get such a release that would be wonderful. But, as you know, UK museums do tend to worry about the possible loss of income once they lose control. Still, it is worth a try. Do you know the user? I don't I'm afraid. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You lucky man! I hope you had great holidays. No, I don't know them either. But they're putting texts and images from the V&A website onto wikipedia, licensing the images as GFDL. See e.g. en:Luck of Edenhall or en:Hereford Screen. And yes, the "loss-of-income" angle occurred to me, too, but for us, a GFDL release of the web images would be sufficient. They could still make money from the prints they sell. For instance, they sell this image as a print here. Releasing the web images as GFDL wouldn't impact their income from print sales, I guess, but if properly attributed, it would make the collection more widely known and might ultimately even increase their print sales. Lupo 22:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sound promising. Will you make contact, or would you like me to? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a try. Lupo 09:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Flickr, cc licensing and the word grandfather as a verb

There was recently a discussion about Flickr cc licenses which were approved here once but whose license had changed at Flickr and (if I remember correctly) about how even if the software at Flickr allows the license to change, legally the license once applied is always "the license".

This is being discussed at my talk page right now User talk:CarolSpears#Note and I am a "weak link" there because I only remember this discussion and am unable to link to it. If you remember anything about this, I would appreciate your input.

Then when there is time, I have more questions about when an image gets a less restrictive license and the verbing of the word grandfather for situations like that. -- carol (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy to do what I can. I don't know much about verbing, but I think the past use of the present tense, second person, of the verb verb might be "thou verbest". --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And I really thank you for looking in on this. In my opinion, you author some of the most boring stuff here (said the girl sifting through taxonomy trees....) but after the authoring, the articulation of the application in the case studies -- great stuff!

"Grandfather" is a word more easily understood by me as a pronoun. -- carol (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Original Barnstar
		I just want to thank you for all your time and hard work you put into rewriting Commons:Project scope. It was very much needed, long-overdue, and not the easiest subject to tackle. It turned out even better than I thought. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. Thanks again! Cheers, Rocket000(talk) 11:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Personnal favour

Hi Michael,

I was invited some time ago to join an important international project, the "History of Cartography"(here) and write an entry of about 4 pages on the "Prime Meridian". This is an honour I just couldn't refuse though I then felt some butterflies in my belly due to my limitations in English. Now that the first draft is almost finished I come for your help. Could you please take a quick look at the manuscript and point out the language mistakes? Regards, Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joaquim. I would be absolutely delighted to help. Do you have the text completed yet? If so, you could email it to me. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, Michael, I' just did that -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you again. No rush needed, I'll be out of town, with no access to the web, during the whole week. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chest CT scan with lung metastatis 3.jpg is still unresolved. Would you care to revisit it? --Una Smith (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Change of scope

Hello, I changed the scope for my VIC from Hallsberg to Hallsberg rail station and I also corrected the tilt in the image so maybe you want to reconsider your vote. /Thanks, Ainali (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Another copyright question

Just a quick question regarding Image:Fire station upernavik 2007-06-01.jpg, which I uploaded yesterday. Since this photo is from Greenland I presume the Danish rules for FOP applies, and here I understand that FOP for architecture applies. Is that correct? If the image is OK here, should I then tag it with {{FOP}}? -- Slaunger (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes and yes. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done and thanks. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Argyreus hyperbius.jpg

Hello Michael Your question to Featured picture candidates list of My Argyreus hyperbius.jpg Yes I have a version that has been less compressed Thank you masaki ikeda

I would be prepared to review my vote if you could upload a less-compressed version, with no obvious jpg artefacts. All you need to do is to re-upload over the existing file, using the same file name. By the way, the convention for posting messages on someone's talk page is to add your comment at the bottom rather than at the top. Also, please add "~~~~" (four tildes, without the quotes) at the end: that will automatically sign your comment with your name and a date stamp. Or, you can use the signature button on the toolbar (third one from the right). Regards. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Question on VI scopes

Hi there, I'm finding this a bit confusing. Could you have a look here? TimVickers (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied there and also commented on your example. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Blanking translated COM:PS

Wouldn't it be preferable to redirect? There are many talk pages linking to those translations. Patrícia ^msg 17:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Happy to if that would be better. Do you mean a redirect to the English page? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a better temp solution than blanking. I'm starting on the pt translation, by the way :) Patrícia ^msg 18:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, doing that now. I'll do a soft redirect, as I can then leave a note on the page saying that a new translation is needed. Look forward to the pt version :) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:StPaulBlitz.jpg

Hi there. Regarding this recently deleted image - and others from the second world war. In 1989, a new copyright act was introduced in the UK parliament extending intellectual property rights to death + 70 years. This act did not apply to intellectual property created before 1957 - where the rights enshrined in the act were year of creation plus 50 years. This image was created before 1957 and is self-evidently out of copyright. There was also an issue of works produced by government employees, where the intellectual rights expire at the end of a 50 year period. The press corp during WWII were conscripted members of the armed forces, and so, the copyright would have expired in any case, sometime in the 1990s. I hope this goes some way to clarifying the quagmire of intellectual property rights in the UK. (en:User:kbthompson). 78.147.153.163 09:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, a further clarification - see - I would believe that Crown Copyright, publ. photos applies - ie 50 years. (I normally run a mile from cr issues!). 78.147.105.211 09:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. I hope to have some time tomorrow evening to get back to you. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have undeleted the image for you. Sorry about that. Since the photo was taken before 1st June 1957, the 1911 Act originally applied, under which photos were protected from 50 calendar years from the date the photo was taken (at that date, the period granted was fixed and did not depend upon the date of the author's death). This term was continued under the 1956 Act and also the 1988 Act, hence the copyright has expired. Under the Duration Regulations 1995, copyright was restored and the period was extended to 70 years pma but only in respect of images that were, on 1 July 1995, protected in another state of the European Economic Area. It is I imagine possible that another EEA member state did indeed protect the image as at 1 July 1995 but that must be pretty unlikely. On balance, then, I agree that the image is OK. I have changed the tag to PD-Old.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help. 78.147.153.177 09:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Flickr images

Recently at least one image which was licensed correctly on Flickr that I uploaded (I think) has been deleted because the license changed. I have a question about this and I am going to try to ask it as simply as possible:

Once an uploaded Flickr image has passed a review by a trusted user, that means they always have that license? -- carol (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an image that has passed trusted review shouldn't be deleted just because the Flickr licence changed after that date. The Commons copy should always retain the original licence even if the Flickr licence changes. Of course the Commons copy may be deleted if it later comes to light that the original licence was not validy granted for some reason, eg if the image was a copyvio. Do you want me to have a look at the particular image? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember if I uploaded this image or not: http://flickr.com/photos/gregouille/966096032; it was here as Image:Senecio keniensis.jpg. Poorly named as the main subject there is a lobelia and Image:Juniperus procera et Senecio keniensis.jpg. I really don't remember if I uploaded these or not; there is a good chance that I did except that I don't recognize that name (unless I took the name from the Flickr page). If they were approved by a trusted user (or uploaded by one as I was a trusted user for a long while without understanding that this meant I could approve my own uploads) perhaps the deleting admins deletions should be reviewed. Thanks for your time with this. -- carol (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Both of those were originally uploaded by User:Abalg. According to the logs, both were tagged as needing Flickr review on 10th August, and failed the review on 11th August. It may be that the Flikr licences were OK prior to that date, but so far as I can see no evidence of that has been kept which means that the images were deleted properly. A shame because both were very good and useful photos. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to take your time with this then and what is worse, I made you look first and then reviewed my own upload log because I wanted to argue this. In my defense, I uploaded as many images of those particular species as I could find and I am still unsure when I would have uploaded them. And more defense, you (or some person who could restore the images) would have had to have looked anyways(?) Those were weird plants that adapted to grow in those conditions on those mountains, I learned a lot about what plants do in extreme environments when I wrote the articles for the subject of those images. I think that words are inadequate to explain their appearance and the photographs are a great loss. So, thanks for the time with this. -- carol (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It was no problem. By the way, how do I go about taking a photograph that is is good enough to get into your select "'graphs I like (a lot) but did not take" gallery? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

;)

Heh, even I don't know how to take that kind of photograph (forget the defiance of the definition which excludes me). It really was occasionally worth the time to manually sort through images that are here and actually look at some of them.

My mind wanders some right now due to the fact that finishing a task is where most of my enthusiasm is (I suffer from natural relationships also). I was thinking about when I was really young and had just learned how to read. My dad fired my mom as our family navigator and installed me. It was to read the maps and calmly give directions to the driver for how to get from where we were to where we wanted to be. My dad was at a point in his life where his frustrations were the easiest of his emotions to express, heh. A few years later (and this is the reason I have been fondly remembering this story from my life) he told me about attempting to visit a city near to where we lived and told me about what a terrible experience it was and even drew it on his map with a permanent marker (I might one day copyright that design so I will not share it here). The city name is the thing here, ToLedo, Ohio. When I accidently drove there (instead of Detroit) when I was first attempting road trips with my own vehicle, I took a wrong turn and ended up there and I had help from my friends who were assisting with the navigation then. The thing was that we had no real reason to go to Detroit so going to Toledo was not really a problem and the city was kind of nice in my opinion.

My dads opinion about some things is very good usually. Not all things though. Thank you for doing your research before taking actions, btw. And also the understanding of the license is the most important thing for what commons does, in my opinion. Not enough acknowledgment of this in these venues perhaps. -- carol (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Another thank you note.

:-) This time I want to thank you for supporting me in my successful RfB. I appreciate it. Cheers, Rocket000(talk) 21:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll have hours of fun working out what to do with the suffrage vote :) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so looking forward to that! ;) Rocket000(talk) 22:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
The Theatre Royal, Bath, UK.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

en:Theatre Royal, Bath, en:List of people from Bath

•  Question Does the original building have this strange geometry? --Eusebius (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The original 18th century theatre entrance was around the corner to the right, and the main facade was at that time the frontage to the first house of Beau Nash in Bath. In 1862, the architect CJ Phipps moved the main entrance to its present position, and added the vestibule and ticket office. The building is grade II listed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I don't like the picture (probably because of the building itself), but it illustrates the subject well enough to me. No better picture found. --Eusebius (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Greylag geese (Anser anser) in flight.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Oppose should be geocoded (no geographical information at all on the image page!). --Eusebius (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Argh. Spent ages getting the geo just right, and remember pasting it in, but must have neglected that save button. Now fixed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Support OK for me now. --Eusebius (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Although there are a few other flying graylag geese pictures this one is by far the best. Meets all other criteria too. -- Ainali (talk) 08:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Opening chess position.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Neutral It is a good picture, but if the scope is the opening position, then every single piece should be visible. There are several pictures of lower quality that show the opening position better. --Eusebius (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it accurately shows the opening position as seen by the black player. It does not purport to show all of the pieces one by one. I have taken a series of separate images to do that. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Support I see the point raised by Eusebius concerning how well each piece is seen, and I wondered, as I reviewed it, if it would have been better at illustrating the scope, if there had been a slight side angle such that especially the black officers did not hide so much of the black pawns. Yes there are other photos, which perhaps does this aspect better, but they have other problems such as unfortunate lightning, distracting elements, ugly backgrounds, etc. What I like about this photo is the very clean composition, the black background, the carefully selected lightning and alignment of each individual piece. It gives for me a very clean illustration of the scope. Thus, it gains my support. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 1 neutral

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Charadrius-melodus-004.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Charadrius-melodus-004.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Benh (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

POTY 2008

Hi Michael, I have responded in my talk page. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree...

... with your deletion of Image:OJ 1945-2008.jpg, particularily not since none of the comments made about it previous to yours found the case as crystal clear as you seem to do. In my opinion the question should have been kept open until opinions from more users had been gathered. /FredrikT (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, deletion requests are closed by admins on the basis of the applicable law, not on the basis of consensus or number of votes. You are correct that some of the commenters suggested the position was not clear, but I am entirely confident that the closure was correct. If you disagree with the deletion you could seek a review on Commons:Undeletion requests, but I think it very unlikely - to be frank - that you will get a different response from any other admin. You might like to have a look at COM:CB#Book covers, which is relevant to your magazine cover image. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Would it, in your opinion, be acceptable to present one or more of the magazines in the delted photo if they are part of an arrangement where more "other" things are featured, for example if they were captured standing in a rack at a store or held by a person reading them? I would very much like the article on the world's oldest existing jazz journal to have an illustration. Or would it be acceptable to present just the top logo of the covers omitting the photos below?/FredrikT (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If you could do a photo of somebody reading a magazine, with the cover seen at an angle and perhaps partly obscured, you might get away with it as a de minimis copy: see Commons:De minimis. You'd have to make sure, though, that the main subject of the image is "person reading", rather than "jazz journal that just happens to be held in someone's hand". A bit vague, I know, but that's copyright law for you. The other option of showing it in a rack could work in theory, but in practice I think you would need to show lots of other covers at the same time to fall within the de minimis rules - ie the subject would have to be "rack of magazines from a distance", which might not be very useful for illustrating an article. The final option would be to upload your original photo to Wikipedia rather than to Commons, and to make a case for fair use. Fair use claims are allowed there, but not I am afraid here. Hope that helps. Please ask if anything is not clear. Regards --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. "Fair use" is not allowed on Swedish Wikipedia (where the photo is of primary use) so I'll have to find an arrangement which is acceptable for upload here at Commons. /FredrikT (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Preparation

We are starting the discussion on POTY 2008. Would you like to join? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

On my watch list. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Australian_Anarchist_Centenary_poster.jpg

Michael, I understand you are the admin who deleted this photo of mine of a poster for deletion on 4 September. Unfortunately I was only notified by email of the deletion request notification on my commons talk page on Sept 13. I do most of my contribs on Wikipedia and seldom visit my commons talk page. I believe the deletion request was made in error without due regard to the listed reasons on the Commons Deletion Guidelines as set out in the Deletion Policy.

I would have contested this deletion on the grounds that a similar scan of the poster has been on public display and continual access via the internet at the Internet Public Library site of the Labadie Collection for several years at this site. The image was featured prominently and supported the Australian Anarchist Centenary Celebrations Wikipedia article. If there is some guideline forbidding photos of posters which have or continue to be publicly displayed, and support material in a wikipedia article, can you detail or direct me to it please.

Is there any reason you can provide why I should not appeal the deletion decision? Please reply on my Talk page. Thanks --Tirin (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You can certainly appeal if you believe I deleted this in error. My reason for doing so is that the image is a photograph of a copyright poster of 1986. You licensed the photo under cc-by-sa-2.5, but in order to do that you would need to show that the original poster designer released his/her rights under that licence. In essence, as you did not design the poster yourself, you are not authorised to release copies of it. The fact that the image appears on a website does not mean that you can take that image, since the website owners are probably themselves not the copyright owners. Even if they are, the website specifically says "All rights reserved". Even if the poster is on public display, that still does not make the design free for copying under Australian law since Australian Freedom of panorama does not apply to 2D works of art such as this. If the designer was an anarchist, perhaps he/she may not have approved of copyright law but that does not prevent the copyright from existing, and in the absence of a clear copyright release from the artist this photo cannot I am afraid remain on Commons. Sorry. You might like to have a look at COM:CB#Posters. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou Michael for that information. I intend to chase up the poster designer for permission to publish the photo of the poster. Exactly what requirements are needed? Is an email release or verbal statement giving permission to publish under a particular licence, say a Creative Commons licence, sufficient?--Tirin (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Have replied on your talk page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Organization of VIs in topic galleries

Hi Michael,

Eusebius has drafted a proposal for how to organize our VIs in subpages. It is being discussed on Commons talk:Valued image candidates. It is important to get the subpages right in the first shot, so I would appreciate your input as well to discuss this as thoroughly as possible among as many users as possible. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Licensing question

Can a photo under "attribution" licence be uploaded in Commons. For details, please refer the link at en:Image:DomingoJ1.jpg. If it is allowed, I like to upload it here. The rights have been released to public but it must be credited to the photographer as per written at the bottom of the photo. Please let me know what you think. Thanks - Jay (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, attribution licences are OK on Commons. The only issue I see with that one is that while permission may have been given to Jay, it has not been formally recorded anywhere. On Commons we would need a copy of the permission sent to OTRS, for archiving. If you would like to see if that can be done, I'll happily check the OTRS database for you and tag the image once it has been uploaded here with the OTRS permission number to make sure it's not deleted. Can you let me know once the OTRS permission has been sent? A good photo, by the way. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, btw, I am Jay. I asked the photo from Plácido Domingo's PR/Manager. I will sent e-mail to OTRS later today and will let you know once I have uploaded it. The PR gave me 2 photos, I have downloaded the other one Image:Domingo OtelloJ2.jpg in here yesterday. I will sent e-mail to OTRS for both photos. - Jay (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have just sent e-mail to OTRS for both photos Image:DomingoJ1.jpg and Image:Domingo OtelloJ2.jpg - Jay (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael, I have just received notification "Commons:Deletion requests/Image:DomingoJ1.jpg" from user Sterkebak asking me to e-mail to OTRS or it will be deleted. He messaged me about 2 hours after I e-mail to OTRS and put-up OTRS banner - Jay (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jay, sorry for not recognising that you were the uploader. I have closed the deletion request, and have added the OTRS number to both images, so with luck all should now OK now. Thanks for the uploads. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - Jay (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Watersnoodramp 1953 11.jpg

Hi Michael, thank you for explaining why this deletion request filed by me yesterday was closed that early. I didn't want to speedy delete it but to give the uploader the usual period of at least seven days to get permissions. He was quite upset when he saw this image gone (see his notice at the deletion request and his comments at his talk page) and he said already farewell to the project. In his comment at the DR he told that he actually had a permission to upload the derived work. He failed apparently to note this on the image page and to email this to OTRS which is not very surprising as he is quite new to Commons. Would it be possible for you to reopen this DR by undeleting this image and giving it the usual period of at least seven days? I am not sure whether he will notice it but in case he does it will perhaps encourage him to get this case clarified. Another user, RoswithaC, who joined the discussion on his talk page apparently knows him personally and will contact him as soon as she returns from her current trip. Thanks for your support and best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Many thanks for pointing that out. I have left a message, and I do hope he sees it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and let us hope for the best. Cheers, AFBorchert (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Imade which wasn't deleted

Take a look here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Dessin-chestburster_72dpi.gif FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)--MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:HK Quarry Bay The Standard News Ads Poster.jpg

I'm not sure if you're aware this was kept after a deletion request. Does FOP not apply? -Nard the Bard 12:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, FOP can never apply to a newspaper. It always requires either a building or (sometimes) a work of art which is permanently located in a public place. This one would have been deleted as a copyvio of the text of the newspaper, but is now OK as the text has been blurred. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it depends on the country. Some countries define permanently a little differently. But thank you for the reply. -Nard the Bard 22:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphan works

Might be useful for the postcard stuff: The European Commission on Orphan works. See in particular the "memorandum of understanding" and the "diligence search criteria guidelines". Lupo 18:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Excellent - very useful. Thank you. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Image ANV.jpg deletion

Hello! I saw you erased my photo Image:ANV.jpg because you argue it's a derivative work. As you didn't notice me anything in advance I could not defend the license of this image. I would like to know the reasons for the deletion. -Theklan (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, the large poster behind the speaker is a copyright work in its own right, and in order to keep this on Commons you would need to have a licence from the poster designer. See COM:CB#Posters. You could upload a close crop of the speaker, if you like, cutting out the artistic part of the poster. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Then most politicians images must be deleted, as for example Image:Nino_Torre.jpg or Image:Aberri ibarre1.jpg. On the other hand you must say why the image below is copyrighted, as it has been used many times by different people and it's someway in public domain in the Basque Country. And finally, the legal tender of the copyright would be ANV, that is an illegal organization that can't have money or copyrights. -Theklan (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that none of those arguments convinces me that this image is definitely free of copyright. Please see COM:PRP. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I know it seems like those arguments. But the final one is a legal one. As the organization tender of the copyright of the poster is illegal no one could be asked about the legal status of it. -Theklan (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that follows. The only time an organization automatically gets ownership of an individual's copyright is if the individual is employed by the organization. Here, I assume there is no such contract, so copright will remain with the artist. The question, then, is has the artist granted a free licence of the copyright, or has he/she released the design into the public domain? I have seen no evidence of that, and under COM:PRP unless anyone can find such evidence the image can't be restored. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidently I can't say who is the ultimate author of the work, but evidently also the author must be under the organizations contract, as every political organization makes contracts for it's political posters. In fact, I can't give further arguments for this, so maybe the image must be deleted forever... -Theklan (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Images uploaded by Rotational

Pasted here from Commons:Undeletion_requests
I think that ABF is confused about Commons' normal procedure - see here. If you can work out from his notes why he assumed that I claimed that the images were selfmade and secondly why I was invited to discuss the deletion when the deletion had already taken place, then you are a better man than I am. I truly think that ABF's claim to be "able to contribute with an advanced level of English" needs to be revised - his broken English and poor comprehension make for difficult communication. The really irritating issue is that the current deletion procedure does NOT afford the image uploader the opportunity of contributing to a discussion before deletion takes place. This needs to be revised. ciao Rotational (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC) PS Thanks for the offer of help - I may take you up on that

Replied on Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Upload an image from a foreign WP source

Dear Sir, If I find a freely licensed image that I want to transfer--on say from German WP to Commons--what do I do? I tried typing in the 'movetocommons' tag and it doesn't work in German WP. Do I just use this site: [20] for moving the image? Secondly, in German, image titles are typed as 'Bild:Photo50.jpg. Would I just say here on Commons helper, source: 'de' and then type in Photo50.jpg for the current image title? Is it that easy? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• By the Way, can you please delete this image which I erroneously uploaded: Image:Temple of Kalabsha relief by John Campana.jpg It is not a relief of Kalabsha temple. It is rather that of Beit el-Wali temple in Nubia. Secondly, I had uploaded a (correct) duplicate picture here a few days earlier: Image:Beit el-Wali temple relief in Nubia.jpg Someone just told me of my mistake on my talk page. Thank You. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not used that tool myself, but I think you are right. When entering the new name, you can put in a more desriptive title than "Photo50.jpg". Deletion done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

questions about automated processes

I have been blocked at English wikipedia. I am very much not understanding what happened there to cause that. The only "glue" I have which can perhaps add some kind of logic to what happened is that I clicked on something at wikisource. It was something about wikipedia and copyright.

Right after that, I started to be followed and seriously wikistalked by a person who was reviewing every single thing I wrote for copyright violations. That alone is not enough to have provided the "logic" for me to mention it though. There was another incident where I clicked on something that appeared on wikisource -- it looked like the continuation of a joke I had read a long while ago. Some of the wording, in particular from the blocking admin there "Sarah" -- this is what has become the little bit of glue about that there might be automated blocking and insinuations and mostly wrongness occurring there and I am very much not wanting the same thing to happen here.

That was all with my user name. One of the most stupifying blocks there was about how that admin "Sarah" determined that en:User:Spears, Carol was a sock of en:User:CarolSpears and I am going to suggest that if this process was not automated that this user be decommissioned as an admin simply for being an embarrassment or something like that.

Recently, Foroa became an administrator here. Shortly after that, this user caused a merge of some old categories with some new ones -- the whole time while in communication with me. I do not put everything that I do on my watch list, several things become too obvious to not trust others with. This experience is one of the reasons I am here and suggesting that I do not want this wiki to become a place where people are banned for trying to improve their minds and understanding -- if that is what happened when I clicked on that wikisource article.

A recent deletion of something I was using and that was too mature to just repaste was deleted and the admin off bragging about things being speedily deleted that are not within the scope. This "not within the scope" is an easy thing to type but I am interested to know how many of the admin (and this deletion had not been marked for a speedy delete that I know of -- not within 12 hours) actually know what the scope of the wiki is?

I appreciate that I have been left mostly in a peaceful state to work on the botany stuff -- it should be very nifty when it is done and something that I have not seen similar of anywhere else online. And educational, the history of taxonomy since 1980, at least the more well known points of it. Also, if they escape deletion, a category of images that are needed here.

Is there a way that a break can be taken from the administrative duties here and the current and active administrators perhaps write what they mean when they use their own weasel words like "within the project scope" -- Wouldn't that be a good user page for admins, definitions of what the things they say mean to them!

I don't want to be an admin here. That being said, I also don't want me or anyone else being harrassed and stalked and pestered into emotional and expression problems like I was at English wikipedia. Gah, I really think that is the easy thing that people with no real purpose, no ideas of their own and no motivation other than hanging with others who have similar purpose and motivation problems can do together. I am open to evidence that this is a wrong assessment, however.

I am here, bothering you with this because I think that my problems there started with an interest that I actually have in copyright and copyright problems. I don't think it should have been a punishing point and it was, maybe. I really don't want to see those same people and forces working here and I kind of am seeing this. Sorry to bother you. -- carol (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Carol. I fear that while I can offer sympathy I can't offer much more as I am unaware of the background to this. Illegitimi non carborundum. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Kabuki theatres.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me, satisfies criteria. It looks a bit tilted, no? Can you do something about it (doesn't affect my vote, do it if you can)? --Eusebius (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's as straight as I can make it. Unfortunately full perspective correction can't be done on this image. I may try a new one when I am next there. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, it's ok for VI I guess. --Eusebius (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The EU and historic copyright terms

As I've seen mention of historic short copyright terms in the discussion about postcards above (in particular [21]), I'd like to draw your attention to the following:

• en:Rule of the shorter term#Situation in the European Union
• s:de:Oberlandesgericht Hamburg - U-Boot Foto 1941: this was a case about a German photo of a surfacing submarine, taken in 1941 and published in 1943. The original copyright in Germany on this image had expired at the end of 1968. However, the court decided in 2004 that the photo was still copyrighted in Germany to 70 years p.m.a. because it had been copyrighted in Spain on July 1, 1995, the date the EU directive 93/98/EEC entered in force. The court clarified:
  • Spanish copyright protected photos to 80 years p.m.a., and had a low threshold of originality.
  • Due to the application of the rule of the shorter term, the German photo's copyright in Spain had also expired at the end of 1968.
  • However, due to article 12 of the en:Treaty instituting the European Community (the non-discrimination clause), the application of the rule of the shorter term between EU member states was struck down. (For more on this, see Phil Collins below.)
  • Therefore, the court concluded that the Spanish copyright on the photo was revived; with effect of the date of adherence of both countries to the EU.
  • The court further concluded that therefore, the photo was copyrighted in Spain on July 1, 1995, and that it thus also became copyrighted again in Germany on that date, with a term of 70 years p.m.a.
• On the non-discrimination clause, there was the so-called Phil Collins decision of the European Court of Justice (Full text in English). It essentially struck down the application of the rule of the shorter term between EU members as a violation of that non-discrimination clause, because it would grant domestic works longer copyright terms than foreign works.
• The Puccini or La Bohème decision of the ECJ (full text) clarified that this even applied to works from a time when the EU didn't exist yet, and even for works of authors who had died before the EU existed.
• Finally, the EU directive caused at least Germany to adopt a low threshold of originality concerning photographs. On that, there is Bundesgerichtshof, decision of November 3, 1999, I ZR 55/97, which references (amongst other things) the rationale for changing the German copyright law Drucksache 13/781 of March 13, 1995 from the German Bundestag, in particular section "Begründung-A-III-3-4", entitled "Schutz von Photographien", where they argue that this low threshold was mandated by EU directive 93/98/EEC, article 6 (only criteria for being a work is "own intellectual creation", which is a low criterion as it doesn't require any artistic merit, and which may even be fulfilled by snapshots (see also OLG Hamburg above, saying that the submarine photo was a "work" irrespective of whether the photographer just waited for the right moment or whether he carefully composed or even staged the photo)), and section "Begründung-B-Zu Nummer 5 (§72 Abs. 3)".

In summary: we can forget about historic shorter terms in EU countries. Even if we don't like it, we have to apply the 70-year term across the board to all EU works. Since copyright protection is automatic under the Berne Convention, photos from any of the EU members (in fact, from any other Berne country) were eligible for copyright in Spain, and would thus have their copyright restored to the 70-year term in the other EU countries.

I wonder if there is any UK case law on these issues? Lupo 12:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at some texts when I am in the office next week. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Apart from Phil Collins and Puccini, there are no other UK-specific cases listed in Copinger & Skoane James. I found an old article about the Phil Collins case in EIPR, but that doesn't say much more than you indicated above. Copinger & Skoane James has pages and pages of detailed discussion about the transitional provisions of the various copyright Acts, tracing how the copyright period changed over the years, but so far as I can see in pretty well every case copyright will have been restored by the Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995 (implementing the EU Term Directive). They give Germany as the basis for that, which was 70 years pma at the time. I suppose there might be the odd counterexample, but I think you are right that we can effectively forget about historic shorter terms in EU countries. I think I may have undeleted one or two photographs in error. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Image:StPaulBlitz.jpg comes to mind... Also see its talk page. Though that image is woefully underdocumented. Who took it? When was it published? Does Crown Copyright apply or not? If it was under Crown Copyright, we just might keep it, since we treat expiration of Crown Copyright to apply worldwide based on a statement by the OPSI. Lupo 06:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the St. Paul's photo was published on December 31, 1940 and was made by Herbert Mason (easy enough, should've read the old DR), who was born in 1903 and died in 1964 (not so easy to find, but Google books says so). Now, why should a photo shot by a Daily Mail staff photographer have been covered by Crown Copyright? Do we have any source for that claim made further above on this page? Lupo 16:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Mason's name seldom appears with this image because he was a staff photographer for the Daily Mail. It may be too, that the Mail are the only people who will really know whether this was published in Germany with their permission (it appeared in print without their permission during the war and so didn't count as being formally published on that occasion). If they did allow publication, under what status? Germany did not recognise company ownership of an image's copyright, so if they did, it would likely have been under a Germane reproduction licence. From memory, these I think, were for fifty years and thus the date registered would be important. However, due to its iconic status, the newspaper may have gone to the trouble of extending its copyright for as long as possible by some means that hasn't dawned on me..

Here is a copy of the Eastman print (note: the image is laterally inverse) [22] (I think the Associated Press (AP) would just give their usual and unhelpful stock answers to this one). As it first appeared in the D.M. [23]--P.g.champion (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The image was eligible in both Germany and Spain for copyright. No publication there would've been necessary. All three countries were members of the Berne Convention, and thus British photographs were copyrighted without further ado in Spain under Spanish copyright, to 80 years p.m.a., and thus became (re-)copyrighted EU-wide on July 1, 1995 to 70 years p.m.a.

BTW, current German copyright law doesn't know the concept of legal entities as initial right owners, but it does, of course, allow companies to hold copyrights. The initial rights owner in Germany is always the natural person who created that work, and the copyright term is always calculated based on the life of that person, but that person then can transfer (or grant an exclusive license) on the economic rights on the work to a legal entity. Which isn't unusual at all, in fact, many employment contracts contain clauses that the employee grants the employer such an exclusive license on all inventions and creative works he may produce during his employment (usually limited to works created in the course of the employees duties or on company time, thereby excluding non-work related works created in private time).

Also, you mention "registered" again... I'm still not aware of any German copyright registry, or any requirement to register works to be eligible for copyright in Germany. Such a requirement would also be contradictory to the Berne Convention... Lupo 21:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Commons:Deletion requests/Blitz2. Lupo 13:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Commons talk:Template standardization

Yes you can change alot of things about this template at runtime. ViperSnake151 (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully request your permission to use your squirrel photograph

Good morning Michael,

I respectfully request your permission to use your "Sciurus carolinensis (grey squirrel) in Victoria Park, Bath, UK" photograph in a webcast for the National Park Service in the United States. The webcast will be about 2 minutes in length and will be featured on our park's website (Prince William Forest Park). Therefore I would like to ask your permission to use this photograph as part of our presentation. Thank you.

Jim Clark, Jr. Visitor Use Assistant Prince William Forest Park 18100 Park Headquarters Road Triangle, VA 22172 Visitor Center: 703-221-7181 Fax: 703-221-3258 www.nps.gov/prwi

Yes, that's absolutely fine. Please do. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The 2 pictures outside Metropolitan Museum of Art

Thank you for deleting Image:Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art._Jeff_Koons.jpg. Will you delete Image:Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art._Jeff_Koons_2.jpg as well ? Teofilo (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Old postcards

Hello,

Yes, I agree that a policy about old orphan works is necessary. Starting with postcards might be good idea. The problem is that some admins are dead against any sort of reasonable comprise. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Eugène Gigout 1910.jpg. One even even pretends to be more knowledgeable about copyright than the French National Library has about its own work. Yann (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting - I hadn't noticed that one. Agreeing a policy may not be easy, but it's worth trying I think. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I don't have time to think about this at the moment, but I'll try ot give you my thoughts within the next few hours, Anonymous101 ^talk 17:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel we have to work about the common WikiCommons policy regarding old postcards. It was extremly depressing for me to discuss with "betterknowing" people (Germans call them "Besserwisser") and to feel they don't want to find any solution but to show their power... It is a pity, but my English is too poor to express my opinion precisely enough. I am not a lawyer, it is an additional difficulty for me. But I agree, let's do something with this problem, at long last! Julo (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Konigstein81.jpg led to a lot of interesting discussion, but that was about it. I agree with you that clarification in the form of strong guidelines or a policy would be the most effective thing to do going forward. I am working on a project now for a 150 year old church. The church's archives have a lot of anonymous photos that have been donated to the church archives over the years. Many of them are anonymous. Some of them are known photographers, but are deceased so we cannot ask them if they intended to release the copyright to the church or not. We are trying to determine which are legal to upload and which are not. Going forward, we plan to develop a release form so that anyone who donates a picture will release the photo under a free license so that we can be 100% clear in the future. But that doesn't help with 150 years of ambiguous licensing and donated anonymous photos. --Willscrlt (Talk) 01:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Hi, Yes a policy would be very nice. I think to start with, we need the postcard policy to focus on 'just' UK material. I expect you already know of these sites but I repeat them for anyone else who is interested. This give the basic for old cards (which are photos). Photographs taken before 1 January 1945Copyright applies to…Photographs

I found a good practical approach and an indication of how other people have approach postcard copyright here: Tracing Copyright Holders

As far as I can see:
As long as the cards only has the card company's name upon it, AND it does not have a German Reg numbers on the back then the copyright has expired for all pre 1945's. I have heard some people say (argue) that the new Euro laws have bought all copyright into line with Germany's but they are reading over simplified guidance, aimed at modern every day usage.

Also, It might be worth asking any local main libraries that republish old post cards to see if they have ever heard of anything going to court. Unlike the US, huge damages are not awarded in the UK for violation. Rather, it is based on what the market value is thought to be. If nobody would bother using the old image again if they had to pay for it – that possibility alone, make the cost of legal action unattractive to the copyright heirs. However, I haven't even heard yet of an example of anyone asking fr an out of court settlement. It maybe the all the photo - postcard business are well and truly defunct. Which is a shame in a way because, these postcards (with local delivery the same day) where the e-mails of their time.--P.g.champion (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's very useful, thanks. I wasn't aware of the AHDS page. This proposed policy is not going to be easy to create, and is going to be even harder to get agreed. Stage 1 is to decide what the scope is going to be, and restricting to UK postcards initially may well have some advantages. I need to look into this more. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(Question) May I butt in here and ask P.g.champion what the German Reg numbers look like, and are they related to the serial numbers I see on the front of several Louis Glaser postcards? This for example. -Wikibob (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I also wonder what he means. Germany did not (and does not) require any kind of registration for copyright. On a quite different note: if we start discussing, shouldn't we do that on some other page than Michael's talk page? Maybe at Commons talk:Workshop on old postcards? As to the scope: I would suggest to start with a slightly larger scope, namely "postcards from EU countries". Focussing on UK postcards only is too narrow. Lupo 09:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think, in Lupo pointing out that Germany did not require registration, he is helping to make my case, that if we try and tackle a Europe-wide scope all at once it will get very very confusing, very quickly. It will be quicker and less frustrating at the end of the day, to dot all the i's and cross all the t's if we bit off one manageable mouthful at a time.

Now to attempt to answer your questions:

I do not know anything definitive about this yet and so this is just based on the things I've picked up. I have come across a few old post cards of before WWI (there may be some after this but I personally haven't come across any yet) that have been printed in Germany. This information is given on the back (of the ones I've handled) and there is a number. The actual form is like so: Reg 894-693. The same number appears on the series of several views -(so it looks like they may have registered batches). This to me, makes sense. As Lupo mentions Germans nationals did not have to register copyright, BUT for non-Germans who contracted to have their postcards printed in Germany they would not have automatic German copyright (in those days) to images created outside of Germany.

On the card example provided by Wikibob, it may be a reg number, or it may more likely be a series number, since it looks German an thus doesn't need a registration number. Also, note on the example that it appears to be hand coloured. Some might argue that this is therefore 'art' but I say it is just the work of an unskilled jobbing colourist who got paid on a piece-work basis (which is another point we need to get agreement on). So I think we need to brake it down into types of postcards, and dates for when copyright expires. Also, a statement as to whether to the descriptive text or poem etc., that appears on the front of some postcards has its own copyright. Another potential problem: The format of some old cameras, produced prints of post card sized, and the print stock had a pre-printed postcard formats (line down the middle and a square in the position of were the stamp needs to go). When these turn up they may make the 'exact' copyright status uncertain. Although the artistic quality of these prints tend to be uniformly dreadful and non-encyclopaedic – there are obviously going to be exceptions. One I saw, had been taken in a prisoner of war camp -complete with the Stalag rubber ID stamp on the back. It was of a theatrical production put on by the prisoners - thus giving it some historical interest. Someone, somewhere, may have written the definitive book on postcards which answers all our questions -is anybody here a quick reader?. --P.g.champion (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please point me to the German registry of copyrights of that time? I'm not aware of any such body having existed—but that doesn't mean there wasn't one... Still, both the UK and Germany (and Spain, for good measure) were members of the Berne Convention since December 5, 1887, and under the Berne Convention, copyright is automatic. On the former German practice of granting copyright on photos to foreigners only if the photo was first published in Germany, please see #The EU and historic copyright terms below. Laws violating the non-discrimination clause of the EU treaty were struck down in 1993, and infringement cases before German courts since then, even if they concerned old works published at a time when such rules were still in effect, have held that these rules must not be applied because of that. That section below also explains why I think we should expand the scope to cover the whole EU: I don't think it makes sense to consider only one EU member, because the harmonization measures taken since the 1990s will interfere anyway.

But this now really borders on hijacking Michael's talk page. Would you guys all agree to copying all this to a workshop page as I suggested above? Lupo 21:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I also agree a policy is needed. But in the meantime I fear that borderline images are being deleted without considering alternatives, such as moving to a local language wikipedia, or increasing the time for people to research each case (7 days is far too short for non-urgent cases like these - several users and uploaders do not frequent Commons that often). -Wikibob (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Seven days is long enough, given that uploaders should provide all the necessary information at the time of the upload. The "upload and see if it'll stick" mentality that we see all too often has got to stop. Lupo 09:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Lupo, I would also agree that seven days is enough for a freshly uploaded image, but I am concerned with images that have been uploaded two or three years ago. At that time Commons (as far as I can recall) did not have such a strict requirement for evidence. Uploaders may not be checking every seven days, I know I have had long gaps between Commons visits. The research that appears to be required today to establish anonymous (for PD-old or Anonymous-EU) is beyond my abilities and probably beyond the abilities and energy of most uploaders. Could the policy specify a graduated scale, such as one week for every month an image has remained? And allow more time for images known to be before 1923? -Wikibob (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this, but haven't had much time recently. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Policy regarding the application of the {{PD-ineligible}} tag

Hi Michael, Dschwen suggested to save my summary about German law regarding the copyright ineligibility of signatures somewhere else for reference. I like that idea and I think that Commons:When to use the PD-ineligible tag could be such a page that summarizes like the previous version of its counter part Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag the applicable law of individual countries. What do you think? Thanks for your support, AFBorchert (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree that it would be useful to save the information, but the PD-ineligible tag is so broad and so non-specific that it would be hard to know where to begin. The rules are very different country by country, and signatures of course would be only a very small part of it. What might be better is to draft a new {{PD-signature}} tag which can be used for those countries where signatures can't be copyright-protected. We could then have a page called Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. What do you think? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning, a {{PD-signature}} tag and a corresponding page sound quite good to me. Given that you have more experience in creating well-written templates, guidelines, and policies, may I beg you to start with it? I would contribute a section about German law and seek for additional infos regarding Austria and Switzerland. Thanks and best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll see what I can do next week. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Uno-karten.jpg

Hello Michael,

Perhaps, you have forgotten to delete this picture. Teofilo (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. Now done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice of namespace-rename "Image" -> "File"

Dear user, the MediaWiki developers recently announced that the "Image:" namespace is going to be renamed to "File:". "Image:" will remain an alias. The canonical namespace name wgCanonicalNamespace will change from "Image" to "File".

I noticed that you use wgCanonicalNamespace in either your monobook.js page or a JavaScript file in your userspace (check this list).

Please check and replace all occurrences of

wgCanonicalNamespace == "Image"

with

wgNamespaceNumber == 6

to ensure that your scripts keep working. Thanks! --Dschwen (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Signatures

For the U.S. position, in addition to the notes you already have, in Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 11#Autographs.2Fsignatures, User:BrokenSphere sent an email to the U.S. Copyright Office asking the question directly, and got the reply A signature is not protected by copyright. That seems like a fairly straightforward answer :-) I know I have read an article somewhere that since copyright protection is unavailable for copyrights, U.S. personalities sometimes turn to trademark to protect them. I can't find that article now, but in the above discussion, I linked to references where Thomas Edison and Dale Earnhardt trademarked their signatures.

I must admit I'm still a little surprised that the UK would consider signatures to exhibit either skill, labor, or judgement -- seems like usually you just write your name without thinking about it at all -- but if there is enough indication to that effect, then so be it. I can see how combining it with a shield might apply, and maybe some stylized signatures, but it still seems somewhat counterintuitive at least by the usual meanings of the words "skill, labor, and judgement" anyways.

One other thing I think we should mention (on the future PD-Signature tag as well) is that signatures are still protected by forgery, counterfeiting, and other fraud laws -- any assumed lack of copyright protection is no defense for those type of actions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I also ran across this Canada case, which goes into the question there, including some history, and concludes: For these reasons, I conclude that an “original” work under the Copyright Act is one that originates from an author and is not copied from another work. That alone, however, is not sufficient to find that something is original. In addition, an original work must be the product of an author’s exercise of skill and judgment. The exercise of skill and judgment required to produce the work must not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise. Sounds like there are conflicting rulings though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have expanded the page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the note about the USPTO (Patent and Trademark Office) response; that was regards to trademark (which is clearly allowed for signatures) and not copyright (the Copyright Office is in a separate branch of government). For fun, you can do trademark searches; if you search for Thomas Edison you can see his original 1899 and 1900 trademarks of his signature (which has been re-trademarked by a descendent it looks like). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I misread it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Disneyland June 2008-7.jpg

Hi Michael, I am not sure I still understand FOP fully. Could you have a look at possible licensing issues in this VIC nom? -- Slaunger (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but French laws don't allow this one. Daft, I know, but they don't allow photographs of copyright buildings. Disneyland in the US is OK, as the US does have Freedom of panorama for buildings. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Disneyland Castle Sleeping Beauty at night.jpg

Hello Michael,

I am afraid you have deleted the picture instead of keeping it Teofilo (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Arrgh. Sorry. Will stop now and go and do something else. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"No FOP in France" DRs

Please do a mass DR for this kind of thing. Spreading out discussion is silly, and wastes everyone's time.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Copyright violation

Afterward your banning (see here), can I know the reasons of your actions? --Fiertel91 (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure what you meant by "banning", but if you are referring to my deletion of some of your uploads, as I explained on your talk page copyright violations are not allowed here. I referred you to COM:CB and COM:L; did you have a look at those pages? If anything is unclear on those pages, please ask. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i meant the deletion of my uploads. The are under the by-2.0 license. So, why? Please, answer on my talk page. --Fiertel91 (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not enough just to allege a cc-by licence: we have to be sure that the licence was agreed by the copyright owner. In your case, that means not just by the uploader or photographer, but by the company that owns the copyright in the original design. We would need formal approval of the licence sent to OTRS from an email address owned by the film company or perhaps the person who created the original 3D model design. If you are able to arrange that, please let me know and I will see what I can do to help. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Appeal: Kermit_the_Frog_at_the_2007_Los_Angeles_Auto_Show.jpg

Seeing that I was never given a chance to defend the image, i'm now laying the groundwork in front of you. The image was derived from a Ford Motor Company picture, which was put onto Flickr with a CC-BY 2.0 license. So by default, any images taken or edited from it also automatically gain the CC-BY 2.0 license, granted I properly credit Ford Motor Company for the source of the image.

All Nard the Bard proved is that Apple Computers pulled a video due to Kermit being in a video and that whomever owns Kermit have scouts looking around for copyright infringement. He has not proven that the derived image is illegal in anyway, and that Ford Motor Company, with it's tons of lawyers as well, found nothing wrong in releasing the image with Kermit and the Ford Escape Hybrid, which Kermit was "contracted" to star in by Ford for a few ads touting the Hybrid Technology of the Escape.

I request you reverse the decision on the grounds that Ford Motor Company found no legal ramifications to put the image under the CC-BY license, and had shy of TWO YEARS to double check any legal ramifications of displaying the picture on Flickr, and it was uploaded under a CC-BY license, which is compatible with Wikipedia Standards. And that any works derived from it also automatically gain CC licensing standards. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am finding it quite sad and perplexing that communication on Commons is in short supply.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

For reference, this was Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Kermit the Frog at the 2007 Los Angeles Auto Show.jpg.

You need to have patience: 12 hours is a very short time to wait. I was not able to do much at all yesterday that required a considered response, having been in hospital having x-rays on an injured shoulder.

Turning to your query, it is not conceivable to my mind that the copyright owner - one of Jim Henson's companies, presumably - has authorised this image to be released under a licence which will allow you to crop the car out and re-licence the frog on its own. Remember that cc-by allows commercial use; is it reasonable to think that you are allowed to re-license the frog to one of Jim Henson's competitors? Clearly, the two companies had an agreement whereby Kermit would promote the car at the show, but a property as commercially valuable as Kermit would never be validly released under cc-by, as that would seriously harm the potential for future profitable promotional campaigns.

The "tons of lawyers" argument does not work, as it is a virtual certainty that the lawyers never approved the Flikr posting. My experience is that this will have been done by the marketing department, without legal advice, and that Kermit's lawyers would be horrified. Kermit's copyright protection is not affected by a misposting by Ford, and we cannot legally reply on that mistake to say "haha, got you, the image is now free and there's nothing you can do".

What response would you get from Kermit's legal department, do you think, if you were to ask them whether you could use his image commercially? Please go ahead and try it, if you wish, and if they agree send the results to OTRS. In the meantime we have to delete this image. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

COM:PS

Hello Michael,

I'm trying to finish off translating the new COM:PS to Portuguese, but I stumbled across a sentence I'm not quite sure how to translate. Could you tell me in other words what is meant with "other holdings" in "New and existing files of poor or mediocre quality may or may not be realistically useful for an educational purpose depending on what they illustrate and what other holdings we have of the same subject." under COM:PS#Discussion? Is it "other files" or "other policies"? I am inclined for the first but I want to make sure I understood it. Patrícia ^msg 15:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It means other files. It would be best to change that in the English as well. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. I might trim here and there to make some sentences simpler, you may want to keep an eye to see if I don't mess with any actual meaning. Patrícia ^msg 16:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I bumped into something else... about "Commons-operational program listings" on Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories#Allowable page/gallery/category content, I'm not sure what is meant by this :(. Patrícia ^msg 23:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It means program listings that are to do with the internal operation of Commons, such as Mononook.js etc .--MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:WomenAircraftWorkers.jpg

Hi, could you please see Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Image:WomenAircraftWorkers.jpg and restore the image if you think the comment there resolves the concerns that saw the image deleted. Thanks, Giggy (talk) 07:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Looks good. Thanks for the note. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

2nd opinion/translation

Hello. I seem to be having a problem explaining things at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Athelstanobv2.jpg. I'm not very fluent in commonsspeak, so perhaps there's a simple and clear explanation for why a work published in the UK with a claim of copyright by the publisher for the photographs (insofar as anything vintage 1899 has a clear claim of copyright anywhere) is public domain, and perhaps also what tag to stick on such picture. I wonder if you can wander past and help out. Many thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it. Will get back to you. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have commented on the DR page. The problem is that these images are not currently sourced. How do you know they are from Grueber 1899? That publication seems to be the source of the last two images only. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It is only the struck out ones that I reuploaded from Grueber. The rest are from the EMC or who-knows-where. I found the Eadbald coin on the EMC website, but not the others so far. They say that the source for that was a 1998 number of the British Numismatic Journal. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Raising the bar

Hi Michael,

You might want take a look at this discussion -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Username policy

Good day, MichaelMaggs. I've added a confusing username part, please review/comment on it on the talk page. Best regards, --Kanonkas_(talk) 18:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see this. Best regards, --Kanonkas_(talk) 15:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

RE : Image:KittyMcDKorean.JPG

No objections to expedited deletion - 1.5 years ago it didn't occur to me that a doll is still a toy. It was meant for an event in which I still haven't got around to writing the article proper. It will be on the local project as non-free Fair Use once the article is created. Thanks. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 15:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

:(

You were my hero for about 5 seconds with this[24], until I realized the edit summary didn't actually match the closing :( -Nard the Bard 17:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I had forgotten the js filled in the edit summary automatically. It should say "Closed as duplicate request". My inclination would be to delete, but I think a decision has to be left until the end of the huge discussion elsewhere. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Heheh. Another thing, I clicked your contribs to see if you were still online, to see if you would answer this right away, and I saw another request you closed. I'm thinking that because of [25] and the deletion reason "author asked me to take file offline" maybe this image and its other version should be deleted as no permission. Seems like dodgy licensing. -Nard the Bard 18:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but It's not obvious to me. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Australia_(Movie).jpg

Image:Australia (Movie).jpg is a sign/small billboard not a poster! We may as well delete everything in Category:Billboards then. Bidgee (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make any difference I'm afraid . Australian law does not have FOP for 2D artistic works like that. Some countries do. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

COM:FOP#Australia doesn't state anything for billboards. If we are going to delete that still that means anything with "2D artistic works" in Australia have to be removed which would remove a large amount of images here. It's clear the other users in the deletion process looked at the Copyright in Australia before adding keep and you went against consensus without explaining on what it infact breached other then just "2D artistic works". If you will not undelete the image then delete all my images as I do not want to be part of this ****ing project. Bidgee (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Also you've confused "“work of artistic craftsmanship" which the billboard can be see whats listed here Bidgee (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Also this is a poster the image you deleted isn't. Bidgee (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take the deletion personally: there is no implied criticism of you. Many Common law countries such as Australia and the UK use the expression “Works of artistic craftsmanship”. As the pdf you refer to correctly states, that term covers "works in the nature of handicrafts such as ceramics, embroidery, fibre arts, metal", and does not include 2D printed matter (called "graphic works"), whether poster or billboard. You can find more examples of the type of thing covered by “Works of artistic craftsmanship” at COM:FOP#United Kingdom. The image you referred to, showing posters on a tree, is OK under the De minimis rules. So far as "consensus" is concerned, consensus cannot overrule copyright law: See COM:DR - "The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy." If you would like another admin to review my decison you can appeal at Commons:Undeletion requests. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The image wasn't taken in the UK it was taken in Australia (Law maybe based on the UK law but Australian law isn't totally the same so you can't just base a Country on another countries law!). State where it says in COM:FOP#Australia that billboards are not allowed! Bidgee (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

w:Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 September 25#Image:Jabiru Info SMC.jpg wasn't deleted! (Yes it's Wikipedia but it also uses the same grounds as Commons) Bidgee (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The closing was based on Australian not UK law (did you notice that two of the cited cases on the meaning of “Work of artistic craftsmanship” are Australian?) You are flogging a dead horse on the "billboard" issue, as there is legally no difference whatsoever in Australia between a printed poster, a printed billboard, a drawing or a painting. The English Wikipedia closure was legally incorrect and will not act as any sort of precedent here in any event. If you read carefully the very good article article that you cited yourself you will I think in all fairness have to agree that the type of handicraft work being described is not apt to cover what is shown in your photograph. See also this article which, in the section "Do I need permission to photograph artworks displayed in public places?", says that although it is OK to photograph works of artistic craftsmanship, "You will generally need permission to photograph other public art, such as murals." Your image falls into the same legal category. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't even may up your mind on what it is. It's not public art work it's a bloody billboard/sign! Northern Territory Government are careful to what signs they use since they know it will be well photographed So are we going to delete every billboard/sign in Australia? I see double standards to class posters on the tree as De minimis rules and you can barely see the "graphics" on the billboard/sign. Bidgee (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that rather than writing abusive comments on your user page you follow normal processes and file an appeal? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Abusive? It's fact and why should I waste my time to undelete when I used my free time to take photographs for this project only to have someone stab me in the back. As of now I want all my commons image deleted. Bidgee (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Only compromise I can give you is to blur the "art" except for the text (Text can't be copyrighted) on the billboard but I still don't see that the billboard breaks any of the Australian copyright laws. Bidgee (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Text can be copyrighted (as a "literary work"), but here the text is probably OK as it more than likely falls below the threshold of originality. The printed photo showing a portrait of two actors is not, though. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've made sure that the "art" is not visible. Bidgee (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

<- I was sorry to see this. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You've failed to answer my question. If I edit out the "issue" in question could I re-upload it? Bidgee (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any question, but if you edit out the photograph of the two actors I see no reason why you should not re-upload.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this fine Image:Australia (Movie).jpg? I hate doing that. Bidgee (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that looks OK to me. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted image (Image:CNP_7479.jpg)

Hi Micheal,

I found that one of the images that i uploaded months ago has been deleted, it is : Image:CNP_7479.jpg [26]

Can i please know the reason of this deletion, given the fact that i have a written authorization to use it on all the wikipedia space, from the website administration i got it from.

I can transmit to you the proof of the authorization.

Can you please restore the deleted image ?

Best Regards,

Captainm (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Captainm. I am afraid that authorization to use on wikipedia/Wikimedia is not considered free enough for an image to be hosted on Commons. The image needs to be licensed for all uses, including commercial uses: see COM:L for details. Also, for an image like this, the permission that has been granted by the copyright holder would need to be formally recorded in our OTRS system so that a permanent record of the permission can be kept. Please ask the copyright owner to send the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, mentioning by name the image in question, and also the specific licence/permission that is being granted, for example {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. The email must be sent from a domain which can be identified with the copyright owner (eg if the copyright is owned by a company, from the company's domain). Lists of permissible licences can be found here (Creative Commons licences) and here (GFDL licences). If you would like to let me know when the email has been sent, I will happily check whether the permission sent is OK, and if it is will happily undelete the image for you. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-GallicaPic

Did you really want to delete the del-req??? You should just close it + remove the del req on the template. [[ Forrester ]] 15:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant to delete the template. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Michael Lucas to David Shankbone on the Iraq War.ogg

Maybe we shouldn't close it as long as there is no responss on en:Talk:Michael_Lucas_(director), :en:Wikipedia:Village_pump or :en:Wikipedia:Help_desk
--D-Kuru (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

While the file is in use the closure is I think clear, and is supported by COM:PS#File in use in another Wikimedia project. Anyone can re-nominate if at a later stage the Wikipedia Community decides it is not useful after all, but while they are using it it is right that we continue to host the file. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured Picture template

Hi there. I thought you might find the following templates interesting.

This user took the featured photo [[{{{1}}}]].

With this template, you can show which Featured Pictures you have uploaded to Commons.

Alternatively, you can use this template:

This user has uploaded featured pictures on Commons.

Here you can say exactly how many Featured Images you have uploaded to Commons. You simply add the number of uploaded FPs to the template.

I have also created two other templates for Valued and Quality images, which can be found here and here. What do you think? Could it catch on? Elucidate (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Commons:File upload service

We've removed it from the English welcome page but there are dozens of other welcome pages still pointing to it :/ Guess that's why people are finding the link. -Nard the Bard 12:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have recreated a holding page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. Might I suggest fully protecting it though? -Nard the Bard 15:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Done for 3 months. Can be re-protected if there is still a problem after that.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Solstickan"-image deleted

I was notified that my image of a matchbox has been deleted. I accept that. But you say "If you want a photograph of a box of matches on its own, that is easy to obtain" No, it isn't. Every matchbox in Sweden has the "Solstickan" image. That is what they look like. Solstickan themselfs pride themselfs to be the most reproduced image in Sweden.

Or they are matchboxes from hotels and restaurants which is rarely now since smoking is not allowed and that would be just as bad since they have logos and other copyrighted material on them. /15:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Dnor (talk)

I am afraid that "every matchbox in Sweden has the Solstickan image" is not a valid legal reason that allows us to host an image that remains in copyright. My point - which you seem to accept - was the purpose of the photograph was not simply to show any old matchbox, but rather to show this particular design. If just a matchbox image was wanted, the printed design could be blanked out: that would be OK. But the only way we can host your photograph without blanking out the design would be to get formal permission to do so from the copyright owner. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That was a great idea. I'll blur the image on the matchbox. Thank you. /13:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Dnor (talk)

Gumpert images

Hello Michael, you recently closed Commons:Deletion requests/Gumpert images. However, some of these images already had own DRs when I opened the mass request. Could you please close them as well? These are the links:

• Commons:Deletion requests/Image:2 Apollos (Prototype) with F-4 Phantom.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gumpert Apollo Dubai.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gumpert Apollo Sport.jpg

Thanks and best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks for pointing those out. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Cigarette card

Hi, MichaelMaggs. I have just seen you’ve deleted Image:Chrysiridia Cigarette card.jpg, which is fine. I had completely forgotten about it. I will mail reasonable enquiries (explaining the situation and enquiring whether the author is known) on Monday the 10th to the UK Intellectual Property Office and British American Tobacco. Depending on the answer I might request undeletion. In Canada people usually have to answer within thirty days, do you know if the same applies to the UK? Could you answer on my en.wiki talk page : here? Pro bug catcher (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied on Wikipedia as requested. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem with an image

I've raised in on the Graphics village pump but no answer. :( Bidgee (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I fixed it but could you delete the other images? Image:Beckwith Street bridge 1.jpg Bidgee (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks all OK now, I think. Or did you want me to delete Image:Beckwith Street bridge.jpg? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No that photo is fine as it's taken on the otherside. See the images in the file history of Beckwith Street bridge 1.jpg that need cleaning up. :) Bidgee (talk) 08:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that up! :) Bidgee (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Samak image

Wikinews has an EDP which would likely allow local upload of the image you just deleted. Can you provide a copy on Wikinews and let me know on my talk so I can undo the removal from our article? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Samak Thai PM.jpg? I will undelete the image for 24 hours so that you can copy it across. Regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Stretching language"?

As for your closing Commons:Deletion requests/Image:ThomasSchuette-ModelForHotel2007-20071107.jpg with a delete with the motivation "It stretches the language to breaking point to argue that "permanent" means "for the life of a temporary project"", please consider COM:FOP#Permanent vs temporary. You seem to be unaware of what it says there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of that. However, sculptures on the Trafalgar Square plinth are not akin to ice-sculptures that will self-destruct after a short time. They are permanent works of art that are displayed temporarily there. There is no sense in which the phrase "permanently situated" can cover a work of art which is on display for a period which is limited not by the natural life of the work, but by an arbitrary end-date which has been decided upon in advance. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio

Hello, you delete the template and now we have a lot of images without a license: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio Do you have ideas to solve the problem? Greetings --Kolossos (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they all now need to be looked at one by one to see if a valid licence can be applied or if they need to be deleted. For some, but not all, PD-USGov will work. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Floats

Hi. I've brought back up the question of images of parade floats which you commented on about a year and a half ago. Discussion at Commons_talk:Licensing#Floats. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. We do need to discuss this. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion about licensing incident requested

Hi Michael,

I have a little story from Greenland linked above concerning a use of a photo of mine in a manner which I find dubious. I would like to hear your opinion - if you can spare the time. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been around for a while. Perhaps too late for you now? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Urinal mouth.jpg

Um... you closed the DR with "kept", but then deleted Image:Urinal mouth.jpg.  :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Pitch drop

First of all, what is this terrible hurry with closing deletion requests? What about the rest of category:Pitch drop experiment? Where is consistency? Is anything safe here? The pitch drop images were even cleaned up by an image project. And now one is suddenly deleted. Why all these surprises? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No surprises. A picture was nominated for deletion, and it was deleted as it was not free enough for Commons. As to consistency, I don't know why the others in the category category:Pitch drop experiment were neither nominated nor mentioned in the deletion request, but now you have drawn them to my attention I will nominate all of them. If you or someone would like to seek a wider permission please do so. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

But why the hurry? Let me draw your attention to Commons:Deletion requests/2008/06. I do not have a stake in the pitch drop thing, but you guys on commons should leave messages on talk pages where images are used, and to uploaders on their home wikipedias. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Obvious deletion requests can be and very often are closed quickly. The uploader has already been notified. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You did not notify the uploader at his home account, I now did that at en:User talk:WLU#Pitch drop. I see no reason for closing such a request prematurely (this was no copyright violation, there were no personality rights issues). Please leave time for discussion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Samak Thai PM.jpg

As per the image log, more than twenty-four hours have now passed. Perhaps you missed it. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 22:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Portrait_of_Douwe_Mout_van_der_Meer.jp

Hi Michael, I noticed you kept this image, and asked to rename it. I would, if I could, but it is not known who this person is. I accidently took him for Douwe Mout van der Meer. I uploaded it, and I requested it's deletion. Please, delete it. I wouldn't like to see my mistake being replicated, in case someone should look for an image of Douwe Mout van der Meer. Regards, Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough.  Done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

2008111710006071

Best I can tell this OTRS tick contains no relase of any kind.Geni (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It is in the first attachment. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Chess

Hi, what software did you use to create the inmage of the chess board in the chess article?

It's a photograph with just a little cleaning up in Photoshop to remove the background, that's all. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your attention to some of the images uploaded by sockpuppets of Jvolkblum‎ for which I had requested deletion. --Orlady (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes a reminder is useful to persuade an admin to look at a deletion request and to close it down more quickly than the general run of things. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Shussein2003.png

Hi, I saw you closed this discussion. Did you also saw the discussion at en.wikipedia here? I am not convinced this image is indeed PD. Garion96 (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A different result indeed, but I found the arguments to keep convincing. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be correct. I just find it strange to have an unsourced image on Commons (or Wikipedia for that matter). It all is only assumed. Garion96 (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you very much for your support of my recent RfA. I'm really honored to have gotten unanimous support and I hope I can live up to everyone expectations! Please don't hesitate to let me know if you need anything. --J.smith (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Arcade-20071020.jpg

Greetings. Could you please give me the Flickr URI for the original? It would be an easy matter to replace this file. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Susan, it's www.flickr.com/photos/17671297@N00/1691045394. I actually really like that picture and it would be good to have it back but in a way we can keep. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

How's this? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

A rather silly derivative work of Image:Malevich.black-square.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! -SusanLesch (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Plakat_MŚ_1950.JPG,

Hello,

I wanted to ask you why the graphic Plakat_MŚ_1950.JPG was deleted from Commons. I'm looking forward to your answer.

Best.

83.14.128.50 20:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted as it is still in copyright, and the copyright owner has not granted a licence. The image seems to date from 1950, ie it is 58 years old. But in Brazil, copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the artist (en:List of countries' copyright length). Regardless of when the artist died, the image cannot be free. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Action?

Hi Michael. Does this deserve a block for trolling? Not my call though (COI). Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I see I was too late to revert, but have warned the user. A strangely knowledgeable edit for a new user. Will keep an eye on future edits. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi Michael,
I am aware of the importance of commons and to respect rules.
I would like to make you aware of a problem of the current policy anyway.
People like me who uses images from commons and write articles (up to GA of FA levels), we come and take pictures on commons.
When you delete a picture (for good reasons), if you could instead replace this by an equivalent of make some sort of redirect or ... it would really help us for the maintenance of our work.
This is extremally frustrating...
Thank you for your understanding.
91.177.93.118 09:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do sympathise: images which suddenly disappear must be very difficult to handle. There is a system which warns users on local projects in advance that a Commons file may be deleted. It's called Commons Ticker, but unfortunately (for some technical reasons to do with the project size I think) it's not yet available on the English Wikipedia. There is a page at en:Wikipedia:CommonsTicker, but it has not been updated for a while. You may like to follow up with one of the editors of that page to ask about progress. Regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kalisz Flaga.png

Can tell me why have you kept that file while it's incorrect and against statute law? --JDavid (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because it is in use. Please see COM:PS#File in use in another Wikimedia project and also COM:PS#"Neutral point of view". If you think the image is wrong you might like to fix it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Old or modern covers of books

A partir de quelle durée considérez vous qu'une couverture est ancienne ?

Lorsqu'une couverture n'est plus commercialisée parce qu'elle a été remplacée plusieurs fois par de nouveaux modèles ?

Par exemple vous avez effacé la couverture de la première édition d'un livre édité en 1950 par un éditeur qui n'existe plus depuis au moins quarante ans et qui a été de nombreuse fois réédité avec d'autres présentations.

Quelle différence faites-vous entre :

• reproduire la couverture d'un livre (éditer un livre avec la même couverture, ou en reprenant une partie de la couverture, ce qui constitue évidemment une violation des droits d'auteurs)

et

• montrer un livre en photo (montrer quelle est l'apparence d'un livre sur une photo, ce qui fait partie du droit de citation) ?

La confusion que vous faites entre les deux reviendrait à interdire d'écrire le titre d'un livre (par exemple dans la biographie d'un auteur) sous prétexte que ce titre est protégé (c'est-à-dire qu'il est interdit de l'utiliser pour une autre oeuvre).

Par ailleurs, pour l'architecture, vous faites la même erreur : l'interdiction de reproduire l'oeuvre d'un architecte, c'est une interdiction de reproduire le batiment en en reconstruisant d'autres à l'identique, pas de le reproduire en photo, par exemple dans une histoire de la ville ou une biographie de l'architecte.

Avec une interprétation aussi large, il serait impossible de photographier quelqu'un habillé, parce que tous les vêtement qu'on achète sont des modèles protégés qu'il est interdit de reproduire. On ne pourrait photographier que des gens avec des vêtements anciens, de plus de 100 ans ?

Je note que vous avez pris des photos de plantes domestiques. Or, ces plantes peuvent aussi bénéficier d'une interdiction de reproduction (c'est-à-dire de les semer ou de les bouturer) parce que ce sont des semences protégées.

Avez-vous obtenu une licence pour les reproduire en photo ?

Désolé, je ne parle pas assez bien anglais.

Cordialement. -- Heurtelions (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I have asked User:Jastrow to help. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Michael. I answered Heurtelions on my own. I can translate a message if you wish to add something. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:UPLA-logo.jpg

Hi MichaelMaggs

I need an explanation why User talk:ABF has deleted the image UPLA-logo?, Thanks, Efguerre (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2008

Hi, I have moved your query to the bottom of my page. I think the logo was deleted as it is still copyright protected (I doubt it is old enough for copyright to have expired). The only way to keep this would be to get written permission from the copyright owner, the university, that they will release it under a free licence. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyvios?

Image:Scania logo.jpg and Image:Scania-VabisBadgeCollage.jpg would be copyrighted to the company (Scania AB)? Bidgee (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I have nominated both for deletion. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Reinstating Pandora image

I do not understand the reasoning behind this deletion. In this forum post, it is clearly stated in German that Michael Mrozek releases all of his Pandora renderings into the public domain. For proof that "EvilDragon" is indeed Michael Mrozek, see this article in which the link is made, or this English translation. Basically, I am wondering what is needed to get that image back onto the commons. What kind of proof are you looking for? Esn (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I would need the release to the public domain to be recorded in the OTRS system so that a permanent record can be kept. Can you ask the copyright owner to send confirmation to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, mentioning by name the image in question? Please ask him to make it clear that the image is public domain for all purposes (eg, wording like "OK for use on Wikipedia" is not good as that may imply it is available only for that use). The email should be sent from a domain which can be clearly identified with the copyright owner. If you would like to let me know when the email has been sent, I will check whether the release sent is OK, and if it is will happily undelete the image for you. Regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"del book cover"

Did you mean like this? If so, just force a reload (shift-reload on Firefox, ctrl-reload on IE). Lupo 07:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, great. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

OTRS Request

Hello. I was wondering if you would please take a look at OTRS and see if there is a problem with my 2 recent GFDL releases?

Image:TheSecondAmendments-CongressionalBandin2006.jpg

Sent: 11/30 and 12/5

Image:LynnSwann-McCainRallyWashingtonPA2008.jpg
Image:TomRidgePodium-McCainRallyWashingtonPA2008.jpg
Image:TomRidge-McCainRallyWashingtonPA2008.jpg
Image:Palin-McCainRallyWashingtonPA2008.jpg
Image:JohnMcCain-RallyWashingtonPA2008.jpg
Image:JohnRich-McCainRallyWashingtonPA2008.jpg
Image:JohnMcCain-RMU2008.jpg
Image:SarahPalin-BeaverPARally2008.jpg
Image:TomCorbett-McCainRally2008.jpg
Image:JohnMcCain-PIARallyNov032008.jpg
Image:MelissaHart-McCainRally2008.jpg
Image:MikeTurzai-McCainRally2008.jpg

Sent: 11/29 and 12/5

Thanks!--HoboJones (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Done I found three emails for each, one older one and two from 5th Dec. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--HoboJones (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Uno-cards.jpg

Hi MichaelMaggs, today I closed a couple of aged deletion requests. This Uno card case was among them. I got a follow-up by Teofilo who referenced a decision which wasn't mentioned before. May I ask you to take a look at this? I would like to know your opinion in this case. It may be very well the case that I am somewhat biased from Germany as we have somewhat higher threshold of originality and this seems to be a boundary case. Thanks for your help, AFBorchert (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I saw that myself but didn't close it as I too thought it was borderline. The +4 image would I am pretty sure be copyrightable in the UK, which has a lower threshold than Germany, but I wasn't sure about the US. I'm assuming the image was taken in Gemany, so we would have to be relatively sure under COM:PRP that it is free not only under German law but also under US law. My inclination - especially after reading that decision - would be to delete. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, MichaelMaggs, I agree and I've reverted my decision. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Link between photographers page

Hello.

I have made a topic called "More good photographers" on my user page. You could create a similar topic on your user page and you could include me in it. --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

OTRS for Image:Image-AR TD0.jpg?

Hi, I'm sorry to bother you with this, but I came across this picture, on which I added a {{PD-because}} explaining that the author of the software released any screenshots from his game into the public domain (by a note on his website). And now I'm wondering if an OTRS permission would be needed; after all, his website can disappear, leaving no trace of the PD release. And if you think OTRS is needed, do I have to ask the author to send an email, or can someone from OTRS simply check the webpage? --Tryphon (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a Trusted User systems for checking licences on Flickr, but nothing comparable for this. Probably there should be. It would definitely be worth asking for the release to be confirmed to OTRS (mentioning the image(s) specifically by name), so we can be certain for the future. If you want to leave me a message when the email has been sent I will check and add the OTRS tag. Regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I followed your advice and sent an email to the OTRS; let me know if there is anything else I should do. --Tryphon (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Image updated. No reason to question the release. Slightly unconventional to use OTRS to record the existence of a public domain release mentioned on a web site, but it can do no harm and may help if the site later disappears. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

OK great, thank you very much for your help on this. --Tryphon (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:FPC discussion

Hi Michael, A big discussion is taking place in WP:FPC about the promotion and closing processes (various topics). You may be interested in participating and help improving things there. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joaquim. I would but am not quite sure where the discussion is that you wanted comments on. There are several not-very-active ones at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates. Did you mean one of those? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not Commons, English Wikipedia FPC :)) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I'm not really there enough to feel qualified to comment. Too much drama on en. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

U.S. sculptures

What do you think of Template talk:PD-US-statue/proposal? In brief: Carl has made a more or less reasonable argument for pre-1978 U.S. sculptures having been published when erected in a public place without prohibition on photography. As published works, the usual © notice and renewal requirements would apply. Problem is how to provide evidence that a work has no notice, or its copyright wasn't renewed. For sculptures from 1950-1964, there should be renewals in the LOC catalog. Before, we can't check, and after, renewal wasn't required anymore. There's a proposition on the table to use the Smithsonian catalog for evidence of "no notice" (only if they do have a detailed entry). Also not entirely clear are sculptures erected 1978-March 1, 1989, but it appears there's an agreement that these should be treated as unpublished. Later sculptures would be unpublished by default anyway. Lupo 09:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me a few days? I haven't been following the discussion so far, and may not have time for a day or two. Happy to have a look as soon as I can, though. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course. There's no hurry. Lupo 07:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't followed through the arguments in great detail, but it's looking good to me. We might discuss another time how to ensure that where research is required that the uploader actually does it. Virtually all our anonymous European images, for example, have no releated research whatsoever, or at least none that is recorded. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

principles and sexual content

G'day Michael - and thanks for your comment over at Commons:Sexual content - I thought I'd swing by here to ask for a bit of advice. You mention that you feel the proposals cut across principles at the moment - and I think that's a bad thing too. My note at the top of the talk page was intended to try and encourage a sort of pragmatic discussion on how we evolve practices in this area to work within our principles, and to minimise potential problems now, and down the track - the three proposals I've worked on to date are further intended to be pretty gentle suggestions for pragmatic measures which might help. If you have the interest in chatting a bit more about where the princples are cut across, I'd love to hear your thoughts - this seems a very charged area, but your feedback, however plainly spoken / expressed would be appreciated. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry but I really feel that further comments from me would not be useful. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

no worries, Michael. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You've got

mail. Lycaon (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Mellow

Dear Michael,

I would much rather not to have to deal with that person, but I cannot really just stand by and let him do his thing with impunity.

This is a response he left on a user´s page when he felt the integrity of his word questioned:

"So basically what you are saying here is that all my geolocations are fake and that all these pictures were taken in a zoo? Lycaon (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noodle_snacks"

He put the integrity of my word in doubt, just read his comment on my scorpion picture, which is what detonated this friendly exchange.

He may have contributed a lot, and I recognize the value of his contributions, but his double standard may also be contributing to people getting away from here. That has to be put on the balance also. Is the value of his contributions more important than the value of the contributions of the people he is running out of this effort? Make no mikstake about that. His double standard is evident.

As they say, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If he wants to dish it out, well, he has to be willing to have it dished at him too.

Me getting blocked? Well, if that is the price for speaking one´s mind and pointing out what is truthful for a lot of people, and contributing to this effort so be it. It will say much more about the people who stay and do the blocking than those who leave.

Regards,

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MichaelMaggs"

OTRS

Hello MichaelMaggs . I have uploaded 3 Images Image:Richard Crasta2.jpg‎, Image:Richard Crasta3.jpg‎, and Image:Richard Crasta.jpg‎. I have also sent the mail on the OTRS server. I was wondering if you could check them. Please please check it...I have been waiting for a lot of time..:(

• For Image:Richard Crasta.jpg‎, 2 mails with title http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Richard_Crasta.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Richard_Crasta.jpg (Permission requested on previous mail)
• For Image:Richard Crasta2.jpg‎, Image:Richard Crasta3.jpg, 1 mail with the title http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Richard_Crasta2.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Richard_Crasta3.jpg Kensplanet (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the permissions are not yet enough to allow us to host the images on Commons. I have sent you an email with details of what more needs to be done from the OTRS system. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Please give me 1 or 2 weeks. I am sure he will release it under PD. Please do not delete the images. Kensplanet (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, some time is fine, but could you keep me updated with how it's going? Regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's going on fine. His replies are very quick. I got a reply within an hour. I'm sure this will be over within a week. In between, I didn't receive any mail from you. Are you sure you mailed me or Did you mail the author? Kensplanet (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I sent to what I thought was your kensplanet email address. I will copy and send to you separately via the wiki just to make sure. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's Done. Please check a mail having title Richard Crasta Images on the OTRS server. All the 3 Images are free now. He has also given permission for commercial use. Kensplanet (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The new email to OTRS (2008120710007283) nearly but not quite gives us what we need. I have sent what I hope should be the final follow-up. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have had no reply. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me what more? Even commercial use of the Images is permitted now. Kensplanet (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears you are not receiving the emails I am sending out from OTRS. Could you please email me privately (use "email this user" in the toolbox). I need to understand what is going on here: perhaps there is a problem with OTRS or perhaps you are using a different email address from the one I am expecting. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Tell me here itself what do you want me to do. What E-mail should I send you now? All the Images have been verified by User:Cnyborg Kensplanet (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, do you have two people working on this at the same time? Let me talk to Cnyborg. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Old deletion discussions

I was wondering if you would please take a look at two deletion discussions that have reached consensus. The nominations posed some difficult (for the layman at least) copyright questions, so the discussions are rather long. On Commons:Deletion requests/Images of PAHistorical&MuseumCommissionMarkers there are three images that are derivative works. And at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of TheZachMorrisExperience there is 1 image that is a derivative work. Thanks!--HoboJones (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Sorry to trouble you with 1 more request, but I was wondering if you could take a look at OTRS release for File:Lt. Gov Catherine Baker Knoll September 23, 2006.jpg. I just re-sent it. You have been very helpful! --HoboJones (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Done No trouble. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
• You're the man!--HoboJones (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:UPLA-logo.jpg

Hi MichaelMaggs

I need an explanation why User talk:ABF has deleted the image UPLA-logo?, Thanks, Efguerre (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2008

It was deleted as we have no evidence that it is out of copyright, and there is no release from the copyright owner. (ps please post at the bottom of the page). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion question

Why does it take so very long for images to be deleted, such as the one discussed here that you deleted after four months even though the reason was clear from the onset? For instance this discussion is still around after more than three months. Is there anything I can do to speed up the decision making on these deletion nominations? Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Done. The reason is a lack of active admins. Is is frustrating, I agree. Probably the best way is to prod an admin who happens to be around, as you did here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, cheers. That does not mean you will get lots of requests from me I hope, but have a look at this deletion request when you get a chance. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I did, but Mike Lifeguard beat me to it.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Please delete these Images.......

Hello Michael. Could you delete File:Richard Crasta3.jpg, File:Richard Crasta2.jpg, and File:Richard Crasta (face).jpg. Richard Crasta has mailed me saying that it was a mistake and he didn't read the Mail properly. He has refused to release it under the Public Domain Kensplanet (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

He has told me the same, and I was just about to contact you. A shame. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It was verified and archived. That clearly says the permission was enough. The author had misunderstood and just gave me the permission without reading it. It's not my mistake. Anyway, could you also confirm the permission of File:Richard Crasta.jpg and File:Richard Crasta with his mother Christine.jpg. For File:Richard Crasta with his mother Christine.jpg, I have forwaded a mail having title Permission for File:Richard Crasta with his mother Christine.jpg on the OTRS server. He has told me this time the Images can be used everywhere but I don't know when he'll change his mind. Kensplanet (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Mr Crasta has explained to me via OTRS that this was a mistake on his part and the he thought he was giving permission for Wikipedia only. Unfortunately that is not a wide enough permission for our purposes and I have had to delete the images.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

But why did you delete the above 2 Images. If you want, I can forward you the discussion on your E-mail. Kensplanet (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have read the OTRS discussions, thanks. It is quite clear that Mr Crasta did not intend to release to the public domain and that this was just a mistake on his part which he immediately corrected. Although releases cannot be retracted, there was in fact never any intention to make a free release in Mr Crasta's mind, and we have to respect that. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have forwarded you 1 Mail on you E-mail. Please read the discussion and tell me. Even read my discussion below, Kensplanet (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Michael. Could you delete File:Richard Crasta1.jpg. It's a derivative work of one of the images you deleted. I don't want the Images now. Actually, I just wanted the images because I wanted to expand the Richard Crasta article on Wikipedia. But I have completely lost interest now. I wouldn't like to expand an author's article who is not willing to co-operate and didn't even bother to read the license and just mailed me. I just feel sad that I have been waiting for months for the Images and finally I have nothing. My, your time as well as the authors time has been wasted. Kensplanet (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a pity I agree. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Warum löscht du meine Beiträge du Affe!!

Thanks for the Christmas review!

Hi MichaelMaggs/Archive/2008. I would like to thank you for the interest you have shown in my request for adminship, and for the time you have taken to review my profile. As a Christmas present I've just been given the admin tools, for which I'm thankful as well. I have understood all the remarks that have been made during the review period. I will take them into account and begin using the tools with much care, until I gain more experience and self-confidence. Thanks again, and Merry Christmas! --Eusebius (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elastolin figures.JPG

Hi - A question: The above image was deleted by you as a "Derivate work of a commercial object" - but it was fair use in the "Elastolin" article on Wikipedia. Later, the image was moved to Commons, and now it's deleted... this cannot be right. Can you plese restore the image, at least on the English Wikipedia, maybe with a comment that it should NOT be moved to Commons. Thanks, User:Janke on WP-en.

OK, I have undeleted for 24 hours here. I am not an admin on the English Wikipedia, but perhaps you can move it across and tag it as you suggest? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Will do, thanks! User:Janke on WP-en.

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - December 2008 Issue

Summary: You can now join Wiki UK Ltd, which hopes to become the official UK chapter of Wikimedia in January. The organisation is planning its first Annual General Meeting, where members can vote on who is on the board, and put forward and vote on resolutions. The organisation is already supporting activities such as a bid to hold Wikimania 2010 in Oxford and the exciting Wikipedia Loves Art project at the Victoria and Albert Museum. We also bring you news of the the recent Wikimeet in London.

In this month's newsletter:

1. Chapter formation
2. Membership
3. AGM
4. Wikimania 2010 - Oxford bid
5. Wikipedia Loves Art
6. London Wikimeet

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Newsletter delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)