Open main menu
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.



Hi Abigor, ik heb een e-mail gestuurd naar permissions voor de foto en ondertussen wordt de foto eraf gehaalt? Hoe lang duurt het voordat de foto goedgekeurd wordt? Het gaat om susannealt.jpg Venustunes (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ten eerste bedankt voor het uploaden van zo'n mooie foto en bedankt voor uw steun aan Wikimedia om het onder een vrije licentie online te zetten.
Het kan even duren voordat je emailtje verwerkt is, er komen daar vele emails per dag binnen en er werken alleen maar vrijwilligers maar normaal gesproken zou het toch wel binnen een week of twee geheel geregeld moeten zijn. Als je over een poosje nog niks gehoord heb kan je gerust even terugkomen, dan vraag ik even aan een paar mensen of ze even achter deze aan kunnen gaan.
Het verwijderen van de afbeelding zou normaal gewoon na zeven dagen gebeuren, ik heb er nu alleen een ander sjabloon opgezet, ik dit geval houdt het in dat de afbeelding de eerste dertig dagen nog niet verwijderd zal worden, indien hij wel verwijderd zou worden is dat met 1 druk op de knop weer terug te draaien.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Huib talk 07:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Bedankt! Venustunes

File:Dutch Firetruck in Action.JPG

I've purged the thumbnails for your image, do a shift-refresh (to purge your cache) and try viewing the QIC page again :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yay! thnks Huib talk 14:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

your deletionist spree

you are deleting material in cases where consensus has not been reached in debates; you are deleting material for spurious reasonsa, or personal opinion. i will be filing a complaint for your actions.

also; your signature is misleading; it does not display your correct username

Lx 121 (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to complain, but I don't need a consensus when there are policies.
My sig isn't misleading, you end up on my page when you press it :)
Best regards,
Huib talk 10:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

เรียน ผู้เกี่ยวข้อง

ลิขสิทธิ์เนื้อหา และ รูปภาพต่างๆ ที่ขึ้นในเว็บไซต์ เป็นลิขสิทธิ์ของสถาบันส่งเสริมอุตสาหกรรมซอฟแวร์แห่งชาติ (องค์การมหาชน) หรือ SIPA ที่ให้จัดเผยแพร่ในเว็บ wikiดังนี้

แต่เนื่องจาก ในช่วง Upload ของwikimediaไม่มีตัวเลือกที่เหมาะสม จึงเลือกว่า I don't know what this license is ทั้งหมด จึงอยากขอคำแนะนำว่า ถ้าจะใส่ที่มาลิขสิทธิ์จะต้องใส่ตรงไหน อย่างไร กรุณาตอบกลับด่วน ที่ email :



User:Bog talk

I will try to find a admin that can speak your native language. But please don't upload stuff if you don't know the license please.
Best regards,
Huib talk 18:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

She wrote that all images that she have uploaded are from Software Industry Promotion Agency (Public Organization) SIPA, She claimed that SIPA allowed distributing images on Wikipedia. but seem she have no idea which one to chose for proper licence. She gave contact email above.


Same comment as Meta :) --Herby talk thyme 17:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  • shame* Thnks, Huib talk 18:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there ! (and apologies, too)

Hello Abigor. Here's a copy of the message I just left on Herby's talk page :

Thanks a lot, both of you. I've seen far worse in the last three years than this misunderstanding, so it's not gonna take me away from here. I need to cool down, your answer was certainly not as "bad" as I felt it was yesterday. I know what you wanted to say and let's be honnest, we all, after several years on a project, accept and do things we wouldn't have done earlier. Even though I try to avoid it as much as possible, we're only humans.
Talking about my application, I think I missed something important before giving it a second try, and that is dealing with different cultures. It's been a while since the last time I talked to people from abroad on a regular basis. I've spent too much time with French people only, lately, and I guess being more active here, and talking to more people, would be a good start. This will help me keep my big mouth shut a bit. Yeah, I'll try to stay politically correct, no kidding. ;) Alchemica (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Its good to see that you will stay, I really had the idea that you took my message the wrong way and believed I was angry at you.
I'm pretty sure if you stay on Commons a little longer and become a little bit more active you can be a administrator, Commons needs administrators to keep it clean. But like you where saying we are working here with a lot of people from different countries, and we do not react the same way on things... I could laugh if you placed that message on my talkpage, but I can also understand if somebody feels attacked, thats also the most difficult part of a online community, you cant see somebody smile so everything you do can be seen in the wrong way.
Did you already have the nice tools for tagging no source, no permission, no license images? When you start doing that you will be a addict pretty soon, and we will have a new admin ;)
Herby and I will always be here to help you out, or even when needed I will have your back, I didn't lose my trust in you.. If my friend Mark trust you, you are okay and I will trust you to.. But sometimes we need to think whats best for the project let the personal view go, thats what made me oppose.
So lets go... and make Commons a better place :D
Best regards,
Huib talk 18:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

copyright violations

thanks!. sorry, but i do not know many trustworthy users on spanish wikipedia. from my part, i've always had some trouble when it comes to wikipedia and images, so i don't think i could help much. if i find anyone that could give you a hand, i'll let you know. bye!.--Camr (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and take care! :) Huib talk 18:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

2 DR's

Dear Abigor,

Surely these two DRs should be closed as both failed flickrreview: [1] and [2]

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted both the files thank you very much for the notice.
We are working for a fix on that template so the images will end up in the deletion categorie, so the don't stay on Commons more.
Best regards,
Huib talk 05:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I would say the possibly unfree category is acceptable. When I started working on it (contacting flickr owners, etc) in January 2009 with help from other Admins, it was 1830+ images. Today it is less than 550 images--which is a pretty good result. In most cases, the images were uploaded by Mac9 who has 2000+ images on Commons and certainly knew the right license. Regretabbly, the flickr owners changed the flickr license between the time of Mac9's first upload until Flickrreview could get to it. In most cases, I contact people but sometimes I nominate the lower quality or lower resolution photos uploaded by him which failed flickrreview for deletion...if there are better replacement images. Life is not fair sadly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you so much for your hard work. Huib talk 18:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for working on them, they were open quite some time. BTW at

Commons_talk:Geocoding#Geocoding_tools_.28Special:Gadgets.29, there is a second set (Category tool addition: Geocoding to-do). I have to figure out why the first one doesn't quite work as expected. -- User:Docu at 18:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you had to wait a little bit longer than normal, normally I check that category every week orso but was on a wikibreak and there are not a lot of admins checking that category :(
I missed the second one, but that one is done now also, thanks for the notice here.. this works faster that a {{editprotected}}, feel free to come by when you have more protected edits needed :)
Best regards,
Huib talk 18:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks again for your help and I'd like take you up on that offer, it's at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-Geotoolbox.js :) . No urgency though. -- -- User:Docu at 19:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm way to good at my job, it was already done 10 seconds before your message here ;)
Keep up the good work with the tools,
Huib talk 19:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You are quick, thanks. Hmm, I had to revise it once more: MediaWiki talk:Gadget-Geotoolbox.js. Hope this should do it.
BTW, there is also MediaWiki_talk:Searchresulttext#Wikiwix link change. -- User:Docu at 19:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I have done both of them, I want to end with thanking you for your hard work, and I will see more request when needed. :) Huib talk 20:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks once more. Finally I think I figured it out. It's at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-Geotoolbox.js. Please delete User:Docu/monobook.js as well. It should have tried this there to start with .. -- User:Docu at 14:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, I replaced the code again, and Deleted your monobook.js, Is it now working? Huib talk 18:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
It does! Thanks for your help. -- User:Docu at 18:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. Huib talk 18:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Template i18n

Hei! Regarding request made here – it's that without these parameters added it uses PD-user-w's parameter #2, which consists of language name and project name written out in English. Requested parameters make possible the use of {{Projectname}} and {{language}}, which make it possible to translate these as well. Though, at the moment only Estonian and Low German use the possiblity to translate these as well. Not perfect template for localization indeed. So thought the least I could do was at least go through templates using PD-user-w – other than English ca and de were also locked – so if you find it appropriate you may add language and project parameter to these too.

You also helped out with CIA-WF template request here. Though, the problem is that with leaving |[[Image:Wfbcover.jpg|50px|link=|right]]|} in main template, this pic and |} are now next to licence tag in addition to same pic in licence tag for interfaces having this template localized as localization pages have the pic and |} included as well. Not sure how it's better to fix this – either move pic and table ending from main template to en page to make it the same way as other language pages existing so far, or, actually have layout page as well, go through existing language pages and replace it with code from layout page as template i18n page insists it anyways. Thanks! 20:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I get what you mean this time, but this is a heavy used template and I'm not feeling secure enough to just edit it, because of that I asked a other administrator to take a look on your request.
Please keep your eye on this page, I asked him to answer here.
Best regards,
Huib talk 20:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Did the enwp one, will have a look at the rest later. Multichill (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Unclear on deletion

Hi Abigor. I uploaded File:Home winemaking.jpg to use in this article from this page on Flickr. I note that you have deleted it as a copyright violation, yet it is listed as Attribution 2.0 Generic, which is suitable for all uses as long as attribution is given. I felt that I had linked back to the Flickr site and made a comment that it was uploaded onto that site on May 13, 2009 by Crosslers. I don't have admin rights on Commons so I cannot check if I had done this. Would you check that I have done this correctly, and if not make the appropriate corrections and let me know when you done this on my Wikipedia talk page. If there are any reasons why this cannot be done, would you also let me know so that I can look for a different image. Thanks SilkTork (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded it again, and I hope I've done it right. Let me know on my Wikipedia talkpage if there are any problems. Regards SilkTork (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
like requested, responded on his En.Wiki talkpage. Huib talk 18:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Annapurna Devi young.jpg

Hi, I uploaded a picture, File:Annapurna Devi young.jpg, but the upload failed somehow - the picture is described as non-existent and the categories, license etc. don't appear. Also I just found that the picture is not the one I was looking for (wrong person, not on any project). Can you please delete/correct this somehow? Thank you very much. Hekerui (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You are fast, I didn't even had the time to write a responds. You're welcome, and please inform me if it goes wrong again. Huib talk 19:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Gerry Connolly official portrait.JPG

Hi, I uploaded File:Gerry Connolly official portrait.JPG and got this response:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: (SQL query hidden) from within function "LocalFile::recordUpload2". MySQL returned error "1205: Lock wait timeout exceeded; Try restarting transaction (".

Can you help me correct this and if it's not possible, delete the file? I think I'll stop uploading images for a while, Commons is still not working so well. Hekerui (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the image again so you can re upload it, but I think just like you that is best to wait a couple of days and try again Monday orso. The current server problems are affecting the image upload, so the uploads doesn't go well.
Best regards,
Huib talk 04:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This image

Dear Abigor,

If these 2 images are not marked by flickrreview, please please mark them. I wait 7+ hours for the first photo to be marked already:

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I did see your message but Commons was a little bit slowish so I could check it for you.
Huib talk 07:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Need help re cenotaph, English connotation

Thank you so much for offering to help here. We need your help here (pls ignore the section in Swedish which is obsolete now). thx again EmilEikS (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

PS and back here again. Kuiper is worse than ever today. EmilEikS (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read up the topic, and I dont really see what I can do yet, there is still a discussion ongoing with different people with a different view on things. I would suggest to discuss it a little bit longer on the talkpage, and when there is a clear consensus (2 against one isn't that clear) we could be able to protect the page in the state of the consensus.
I will keep watching the pages for now, the are both on my watchlist.
Best regards,
Huib talk 04:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see continuing problems. If you are uncomfortable dealing with your countryman I can understand that, but will you please pass this on then to someone neutral? Please help! We need neutral input here a s a p. Shall I upload our photos of historical places and monuments now, or should I wait for some peace of mind, rather than being hounded by Pieter Kuiper at every turn? There is no way to assume good faith in his actions, no matter how much I would love to. He is never helpful, only insulting and disruptive to my efforts. EmilEikS (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed it but I don't really see what I can do, both of you are walking within the lines so there is not much a administrator can do. The only thing I can say that is starting to look like stalking, but I don't really see a spot where I can say now I can help you.
That he is from the same country isn't a problem for me, but I would suggest you to go to COM:AN, maybe there are more people and opinions. All things I can do will make a big drama, and that is something we don't want.
Best regards,
Huib talk 20:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for replying so promptly! Would it be OK to protect the category at least till I'm finished uploading all these photos? Then we could get help in determining if it should go back to being hidden or not? And whether or not there has been disruptive editing and/or stalking? EmilEikS (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I protected it for a week for you. Huib talk 21:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much again! Quick constructive assistance makes contributing about 1000% more appealing. EmilEikS (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. Huib talk 21:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Infrogmation has opted out of involuntary license "migration"

I have opted out of the forced relicensing project. I am generally happy to extend additional Creative Commons license to my works if and when I am asked. However I have not authorized your bot nor any other third party to change the license of my original works without my express permission. Please have your bot cease the unauthorized changing the licensing of my works, and if possible please have it revert any changes made without copyright holder permission. Thank you much. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The WMF has given users a way to opt-out like that is written here, opting out is a acting that needs to be done by the users and not by the people working hard to make sure the license change will happen correctly.
When you have opt-out you should have placed the {{GFDL|migration=opt-out}} on your images, the bots currently running for the license migration are respecting that tag and will not change it. When you didn't place that tag you are free to revert the bot actions off course, but the current process that is doing 50.000 images a day will relicense the images.
You could always ask a bot operator to add the tag to all your images, normally I would say lets start up a bot for you but because you destroyed my clean block log with a illegal administrator actions its best that you ask a other operator.
Best regards,
Huib talk 04:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
In that case, as I am on record as opting out, if your bot edits any of my images with regard to the Migration project, please have it change to add the "migration=opt-out" rather than the incorrect changes it is making. Thanks much. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Like I told you, it you should have placed the tag before we let the bots run, the bots are started very late in the process so there was plenty of time to add opt-out on your images, or ask a bot owner to do it for you.
At this moment all images without the opt-out will be affected by the license migration, all images with out-out in the template will be respected and not changed. There are no list that are working for the bot to see if somebody opt-out, the bot doesn't read a checkpage, list or other lists its running of the gfdl template.
If you want a bot that places opt-out on your images (we are nearly done) I think is better for you to ask a other operator, like I told since you blocked my bot without a valid reason, I don't feel the need to help you with changing the licensing for you, if you just ask for help instead of blocking all things would be different.
Best regards,
Huib talk 16:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought I did ask. Sorry this whole mess has wound up putting me on your bad side; I have no ill feelings towards you. I fear I may wind up with all of my time on Wikimedia for the next several months be nothing but manually reverting bot edits. If you think I have made a net contribution to Commons doing other things like uploading images, improving categories, and working on deletion requests, I hope you will think that fighting bots to defend my authorship copyright is not the most useful way I can spend all my time in the project. Alternatively, maybe you should propose I be indefinitely blocked and all my uploads deleted. I'm not sure I'd consider that worth arguing against at this point. I'm rather a loss. Commons has been such a wonderful project; what a HORRIBLE situation it is now in. Best wishes to you, and sincere appologies if I have annoyed or offended you, as that was not my intention. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not angry or have bad feelings towards you, I was just very proud on my global block log, so it makes me a little bit sad that its gone now.

I hope that you can understand that I have working for more than 5 months to the license change, and it is still keeping me busy as a member of the LiCom, and we have both different intress in how the situation should go.

When I have time I will run a bot to fix your images, or mark them as opt-out. I'm not sure when this is, it can be during next week, but can also be after the big Commons change. Its not a short term solution but it a way to make sure you don't need to start a war against 2 bot's. Please tell me how you think about this. Huib talk 17:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much. I appreciate your work. Some points 1)With all the effort put into the migration, I have trouble understanding why there wasn't something like a page users could just add their name to to opt out. Seems like it would have saved lots of problems. 2)According to Commons:License_Migration_Task_Force/Migration#The_opt-out_provision, even if I had not already specifically opted out, many of my images appear not to fit in the criteria for migration, as many of my images were first published elsewhere than Wikimedia under licenses other than GFDL. 3)Wrong licenses, like copyright violations, I think are something that generally needs attention as soon as one spots it. I am very uncomfortable with the thought of just leaving wrong licenses to be fixed later down the road and doing nothing while more false licenses are created. Perhaps I should bring this up on the Admin noticeboard? Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I thinks going messy with the opt-out because the LiCom didn't support the opt-out, we worked toward a vote for images and text and that vote passed successfully, later on there where people asking for a opt-out so that system didn't get a lot of attention.
For your second point, that isn't important for now. We are having a current run with 630.000 images all marked with self or a other that that makes is fit the criteria for the relicense, the more difficult images will follow later on and are not effected by this run.
For your third point, I can only say if you did place the opt-out tag on your images the wouldn't be relicensed, you didn't place the tag so the new license isn't "wrong" just "unwanted"
I am afraid the discussion is going to end here, and we are not going to come to a solution here (I did give one, but you seem to not like it). You could start a discussion on COM:AN but I don't really know what a administrator can do it this case.
Best regards,
Huib talk 19:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Your bot continues to retag my images contrary to my express wishes, I think clearly stated. These edits by your bot are wrong, unauthorized, and strongly objected to by the copyright holder. When I see something like that, I can't think of why it should be allowed to stand. You too know it's wrong, unauthorized, and strongly objected to by the copyright holder; I am at a loss as to why you not only seem not to be objecting to it, but allowing more of it to happen. I'm sorry if I sound uncivil, but I'm pretty exasperated by this. I've been communicating with another bot runner; my current suggestion is that a bot add {{License migration opt-out}} to all images with "Infrogmation" in the author field. Do you think that would take care of things in my situation, or will the bots start reverting eachother? Thanks for your communications and work (I just wish you'd keep a tighter handle on what your bot does). Infrogmation (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Double work

Would you please have a look at my recent contribs and history diffs? They like 100s of earlier ones look pretty strange to you don't they? What I do when uploading images to be covered by our Southery Clubs templates is copy all the summary of another SC file, transfer it to Word, adjust all the info to be OK for the file I am going to upload and then I do it, copying the Word text into the "Description" field.

Then I always have to go back and do step two which I call post-upload spruce to take out excess templates that end up in there, I do not understand why.

Anything you can see right off that might give me a pointer to alleviate this double work? EmilEikS (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I was sleeping, so I couldn't respond to fast.
I checked your contributions and have seen that you use {{en}} for the English description, that is great off course but there is also your error. You are using it like:
== uploading cover art ==

Recently, I've been uploading two CD covers, which are free to download from the band's homepage, but I don't know how to tag/license etc. them. (Personally I think uploading files should be easier to understand). So I also didn't really understand why you posted that comment on my page. [[User:Moersleuteltje|Moersleuteltje]] ([[User talk:Moersleuteltje|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Moersleuteltje

:If a band or a singer puts his album art on the internet than the doesn't give the rights away for use, so you can view the cover maybe even safe but you are not allowed to use it for commercial uses, or create a share-alike, but both that things are needed before you can upload it to Commons. 

:Album art is normally saved as fare use, something that isn't allowed on Commons, but I have noticed that you are active on the English Wikipedia also. On the English Wikipedia they do accept fair use there, so you could use [[:en:Special:Upload|this link]] to upload it to the English Wikipedia, because here it will be deleted. 

:If you need more help, please ask. I will do my best to help you. 
:[[User:Abigor|'''<font color="dark red">Huib</font>''']]<small>[[User_talk:Abigor|''<font color="black"> talk</font>'']]</small> 09:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
== Summary ==

|Description={{en|1=== Summary ==
|Description={{en|1=Historic Farneby Estate '''Place:''' Vrena, Nyköping, Sweden}}
|Source={{User:EmilEikS/Template:Southerly Clubs}}
|Author=R. Stig Stefanson for family archives acquired by FamSAC
That code is a kind of buggy because you are doing some parts in the code double, Here below I changed it in the way it should be and without the errors.

=== Summary ==
|Description={{en|1=Historic Farneby Estate '''Place:''' Vrena, Nyköping, Sweden}}
|Source={{User:EmilEikS/Template:Southerly Clubs}}
|Author=R. Stig Stefanson for family archives acquired by FamSAC

I hope that this helps,
Best regards,
Huib talk 08:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! That (version 2) is what I put in when I upload. It then turns into version 1 and has to be corrected by an additional edit. Could the problem be that I put all that in the "Description" field when I upload but I should put it somewhere else? EmilEikS (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did you protect Category:Ristesson History?

Please explain. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Whats there to explain?
The users asked for the protection of his users category and there is not a policy against that so I didn't see a problem because all people that have editted the category are agreeing that it is a user category
Best regards,
Huib talk 08:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
A user category should be a hidden category, but EmilEikS is resisting this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest to assume good faith and let him work with filling the category and see what happens than, just starting a new edit war doesn't work, and I have warned you already more than once for edit warring. So please use AGF and wait what will happen. Huib talk 09:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
You warned me here, but there was no reason for it then, and there is no reason for it now. Anyway, user categories and source categories should be hidden, it does not not have anything to do with good faith or with the contents of the category. Only subject categories should be visible. In this case, the Category:Ristesson History under all those scans does not help commons users in any way. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This is what my intention is with this category, which is supposed to be a source category, not a user category (I don't know what a user category is - Ristesson is not my organization, I just have permission to upload images from the library and photo files). If another user runs across an image that s/he likes and notices it is a Ristesson History image, then it would be very easy to check the category and see if there are more images there that might be of interest to use for something. How would that work if it is hidden? I will continue to add another large amount of new color photos later today, and hope that my intention is not so poorly formulated that it is not clear. Abigor/Huib, please let me know if there is any way this can be made clearer as a source category. Thanks! EmilEikS (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Typos. EmilEikS (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


Please answer my, - Why you have deleted this file? - ITS MY WORK ( my drawing) - you marked this work - No Fair Use on Commons ..., what kind off Permission I need to have? Please help me --Vitek (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You did not draw the image yourself, you took the image from the internet (here) and place a filter on it, or draw it from the image.
  • Taken a image from the internet and placing a filter on it doesn't give you any author rights so you cant just upload it.
  • Making a drawing with a picture as example is a COM:DW and doesn't give you the right to place it under a free license.
So eitherway the image is a copyvio,
Best regards,
Huib talk 19:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


I know, but the Spanish Wikipedia not provides the rationale use. This is the reason for my uploads. They are only for the Spanish Wikipedia. If you can resolve my problem, i'm satisfied....Thanks (sorry for my precarious english, but only speak spanish)--Jlechuga86 (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


If the Spanish Wikipedia doesn't provide rationale use it will be impossible for you to use a logo on that Wikipedia, or you should get OTRS permission from the owner of the copyrights.

Commons can't have fair use because of a Wikimedia Foundation Board resolution (In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project community may develop and adopt an EDP. Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.) this means that if you want a non fre image on your article you should start a discussion on the Spanish Wikipedia to start accepting non free material.

All logo's, cover art, posters on Commons will be deleted a.s.a.p, and there isn't a real way to change that, so I don't think I can help you.

Best regards,
Huib talk 08:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


It seems the flickr review bot is down. It has not marked images for 2+ days now and the backlog is more than 100 photos Just to let you and MBisanz know. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I did more than 150 images this morning but I have kind of some other plans today, So I will be looking in the category again tomorow. You could place a note on COM:AN to because all admins are flickr reviewers also.
Best regards,
Huib talk 09:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment I will do that. MBisanz says he will contact Bryan too. Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Image review - File:JozefIsraels.jpg

A contributor to Wikimedia Commons has noted that this image is in need of attention, but would prefer a more experienced contributor aids or undertakes this.

Issue: Needs a quick source check and possible date finding, I don't speak DutchSfan00 IMG (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Done! Nillerdk (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Nillerdk for being faster than me :) Huib talk 16:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi, you deleted my file with the message: No Fair Use on Commons. But I created this file myself, what kind of permission should I select to get it on commons? Regards Enormekever (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted your images because its a logo, and when you recreate a logo yourself you don't get any rights with it. The original maker of the logo and normally the company or organization have the rights about the image.
When you want to use a logo, you should contact the company and ask them for a release letter where in the are saying that the are:
Releasing the image for use by everybody, that the know the logo can be used in Commercional actions, and that people are free to share-alike.
The permission should be send to OTRS and without that we cant keep logo's or other copyrighted material on Commons.
Best regards,

Huib talk 17:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, tnx for your response, I'll contact the company for a formal permission. Enormekever (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


I'm afraid to say that the flickr review bot is still down. It has not marked images for 4 days now and the backlog is still large It is strange that only Bryan can repair it...and no one else. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I try to do a few images everyday so the backlog will not grow to much, I could do them all but that would mean I will be only busy with reviewing and other tasks will be backlogged, but I just added you as a Flickr reviewer so you should be able to help now also :)
I contacted Bryan for the source code for the Bot, so we can make a back-up bot :)
Best regards,
Huib talk 16:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Right to vanish

Please delete my userpage and all subpages. Thanks, Ryan Delaney (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted all the pages like you asked me to, thank you for your work on Commons and Wikimedia.
Best regards,
Huib talk 16:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA which just closed as successful. I really appreciate the trust that the Commons community has placed in me and look forward to expanding my contributions to Commons. Thanks again. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You're completely welcome. Huib talk 16:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted image

Hi Abigor, you recently deleted this image File:Haplogroup E.png indicating that it had no source. I had created the image myself based on the url I had placed in the infobox. I would like some clarification on the matter. I can also be reached on wikipedia at Muntuwandi Muntuwandi (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Muntuwandi. I just took a look at it and to me your images looks like a copy from one of their maps just with other colours. They have copyright to the map. If you found a map from Commons and made the lines there I would say it was ok. --MGA73 (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I asked for the second opinion by MGA btw. Huib talk 19:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, I will try to construct a map using one of Wikipedia's maps. Muntuwandi (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome to come back when you need some more help :) Huib talk 20:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit balk?

Is that some substed template? If so, it should be corrected. What is an "edit balk"? Lupo 07:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

With editbalk I mean the place where the buttons are with delete - watch - edit - move , but I didn't really know a correctname.
Its is a personal template in User:Abigor/fr, if know a better name feel free to edit it.
Best regards,
Huib talk 07:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a dreadful night. I only wanted to upload 2 files that I own

My name is Eduardo xx, I am a filmmaker, xx years old. In your sites I am xx. Tonight you have given me an awful time by deleting repeatedly 2 files that I want to upload.

1- Rogelio.jpg - an image of Rogelio xx, who is a friend of mine and tonight was awarded a life-achievement award in Mexico. I was amazed there was no picture in his biographical article, so I decided to share one of my photos with the world and upload it. The picture was taken on the set of my movie "xx" in which I paid the whole cast and crew and I'm the sole copyright owner of everything that was produced there.

2- A poster for my film "xx". The actors that appear on the image were on contract with me, the photo was taken in the set and I'm the sole owner of the copyright of everything we did there. As if being a filmmaker and producer was not enough, I created the poster myself.

Therefore, I hereby authorize myself to upload photos and posters related to my films and share those uploads with the world under creative commons licenses.

STOP deleting my files and stop daring accusing me of violating my own copyright.

[Edited personal data to xx for Google avoidance]


Hello Eduardo,
My name is Huib and I am one of the many administrators on this project and our job is to keep Commons clean and safe.
Here on Commons we have some policies, and your uploads aren't uploaded within our policies and therefor deleted. You where uploading a photo and a poster that both can be found on the internet and therefor a copyright violation untill the permission is verified.
Commons is a project open for everybody so there is no way for us to check if you are who you say you are, therefor we ask you to send a letter to our COM:OTRS team, this way we are sure that you really have the rights about a images.
I know that you think this would be stupid but it is for your own safety, by uploading something on Commons everybody is free to use it or even make money with it, so we don't want that somebody just get a image from the internet and place it only when the rightful owner doesn't agree.
So please stay calm, and don't upload the image again but first send permission to our Otrs team, the will restore the images when the permission is okay.
Best regards,
Huib talk 08:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I did follow your policies as I clearly stated that I am the author and I selected a licence to go with it. If something else is needed, you should make it clear in the uploading process. I'm a filmmaker, not a programmer, so there are things that are hard to understand in the way you configure information in your sites. Yes, some of my files can be found in the Internet in my own sites, because I own the files, I own the sites and I own the movies.

I sent the letters now and I hope the file will be reinstated diligently. Also, I wonder if everytime in the future when I want to upload media that I own if I'll need to send a letter for each thing.

Your images will be restored after the permission is arrived and handled, you don't have to worry about the restore because that just one push on the button.
Best regards,
Huib talk 17:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me if I will need to send a new letter the next time I want to upload my media (for another article). And, since the deletion process is so fast, do I need to send those letters preemptively with certain number of hours or days before I try to upload? Thanks.

This answer can go in two directions, when you give a permission letter to our OTRS team saying you give s single image free, you should repeat that for every images. There is also a way you give a permission letter to release all the material from your site, in that case one permission would do.
More easy is to edit your site and place a note that the images are free under de CC-BY-SA license, or a other free license.
Best regards,
Huib talk 17:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Olympic Airlines Logo 11.gif

I seriously doubt this file passes the threshold of originality (and it was tagged as such). Would you please restore it and open a DR if you think it might be eligible for copyright? –Tryphon 21:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Offcourse, no problems by me to make it a DR. I really think it does meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, but when there is a doubt we need to do a DR.
Best regards,
Huib talk 21:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Apparently, you forgot to remove {{copyvio}} from the image page and it got deleted again :) I'll restore it myself and let the DR follow its course. –Tryphon 06:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


The translation in Template:Cc-by-2.5/zh-hans doesn't express the words in English edition corectly, and it use a wrong punctuation "「", it uses in Tradirional Chinese. In Simplified Chinese, we use "”". So I want to edit the template, but it is protected, I need you to unlock it that I can edit it.Thank you!

Xiaomingyan (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed the protection level of the template, you should be able to edit it now :)
Please give me a not when your done.
Best regards,
Huib talk 05:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I finished it. Thank you.

Xiaomingyan (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for fixing the translation. Huib talk 07:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

File:R1A map.jpg

The uploader states that he owns the copyright to this article. However, the uploader has not detailed how this image was compiled. It seems odd. I have also listed a thread on the noticeboard. Muntuwandi (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't had internet for a few days but I see that the people on COM:AN already leaved some answers, so I don't think a answer here is needed :)
Sorry for the late responds,
Huib talk 11:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi (talk · contribs) is a sock

Muntuwandi (talk · contribs) is a sock of Wapondaponda (talk · contribs) evidence 1. They are convicted sock puppets on English Wikipedia 2. They uploaded the exact same map with the same name on commons The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems strange that Sophian/Monte Cristo's could create such an elaborate image but consistently struggle to properly format urls/wikilinks. Muntuwandi (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I see what you mean, I will forward this note to our CheckUsers and maybe they can follow up on this.
Sorry for the late responds, I didn't had internet for a few day's
Huib talk 11:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi Abigor! I need a little help from you. Some days ago, I nominate for deletion this picture:File:WheelofTime.JPG. The system left an automatic message on User:JavierMC talk page. And now he is angry, at me. Please revert that picture for 1 day. Thanks a lot.--Gothika (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have place a answer on your talk page, no need to undelete it ;-)
Best regards,
Huib talk 11:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! --Gothika (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome Huib talk 17:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Flickr license ok but...

... what do you say to these File:Anna Paquin 1 (2009).jpg File:Anna Paquin 2 (2009).jpg File:Anna Paquin 2.jpg File:Stephen Moyer 2.jpg File:Stephen Moyer 1.jpg File:Rutina Wesley 1.jpg? It looks like a image of a projected image or a large screen. I reviewed them to verify the license but would like a second. opinion. If it was a still image of a movie we would delete them. But if it is a image of a simple projection to a large screen that is not a work of art. Or? --MGA73 (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

here you can see the pictures are taken of a screen, I don't really know if its okay to place them under a free license, if it was a live feed I would say yes but if it is editted by a director I would say dw so I am not that sure how the react on this.
Best regards,
Huib talk 21:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I think it is a live feed. I reviewed them so license would not be a problem if license was changed. Well lets se if someone objects. --MGA73 (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it is a derivative work, even in case of a live feed (there is the same amount of creativity whether it is live or not, and copyrights protect that creativity). –Tryphon 21:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Tryphon on this. It's much like getting a screenshot/photographs of a live [including recorded] TV program (News, Game show [though none are live in Australia anymore] ect) and the rights are owned by the producer (Not always the TV station) of the program. Bidgee (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
To bad. :-( --MGA73 (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominated files for deletion here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anna Paquin 1 (2009).jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Black rectangles

Please see File talk:Dc three 1.svg 06:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vatican Altar 2.jpg

i dont understand, was it reuploaded or you didn't deleted it ?--Lilyu (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And what aboute age? If it is from year 16xx do we care aboute FOP or not? --MGA73 (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the images and people requested undeletion and the file got undeleted, I don't mind the images was undeleted. I acted on information I recieved on our IRC channel and I was tired, later on I noticed the information given to me was incorrect and the deletion was wrong.
Sorry for the late responds, I didn't had internet for a few day's
Huib talk 11:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a proper place for deletion discussions, and that place is not IRC. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Where do you hear that it was discussed on IRC ? The uploader came to IRC to say his botmove went wrong and give me detailed info about the fop and why it needed to get deleted. There was not a discussion on IRC only a notice, please dont say things that aren't true. Huib talk 13:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I see no problem with getting info on IRC as long as the same info is added to the DR. But if I look to the history I see no evidence that the file was ever deleted and then undeleted. But should the DR be opened again or at least have an extra note telling why the file was not deleted? --MGA73 (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a record for the deletion and undeletion.

* 21:53, 23 July 2009 Yann (Talk | contribs | block) restored "File:Vatican Altar 2.jpg" ‎ (3 revisions and 1 file restored: no copyright issue) * 22:53, 22 July 2009 Abigor (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Vatican Altar 2.jpg" ‎ (Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Vatican_Altar_2.jpg) (view/restore) * 14:00, 7 March 2009 File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded "File:Vatican Altar 2.jpg" ‎ ( {{BotMoveToCommons|en.wikipedia|year={{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}|month={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}|day={{subst:CURRENTDAY}}}} {{Information |Description={{en|Wide angle View of the altar inside en:St. Peter's Basilica}} |Source=Transferred from [http://en.)

But how no to act? I think if there is still doubt about if its against FOP or not we should make a deletion request and let it open for discussion for enough time. MGA73 so what do you think? Huib talk 15:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
FOP is very clear there: Not ok ==> "Thus, sculptures and other works, including buildings, are not ok until 70 years after the death of the architect or designer." The article en:St. Peter's Basilica says "Construction of the present basilica, over the old Constantinian basilica, began on April 18, 1506 and was completed on November 18, 1626." so the altar could be more than 400 years old. But personally I do not know if the altar is newer. There must be someone out there who knows so I say lets either keep the image or let the DR be open for at least a week so people can comment. --MGA73 (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Abigor/Archives/2009/July".